Loading...
CCPC Agenda 03/06/2014 R COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA MARCH 6, 2014 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2014, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER,THIRD FLOOR,3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST,NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— February 6,2014 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PL20130001132/CPSP-2013-7: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Potable Water Subelement of the Public Facilities Element to amend Policy 1.7 to reference the updated Ten Year Water Supply Facilities Work Plan,recommending Transmittal of the Adoption amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; and furthermore providing for severability and providing for an effective date. [Coordinator: Carolina Valera,Principal Planner] Page 1 of 2 B. PUDZ-PL20130001163: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Mobile Home (MH) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD)zoning district to allow up to 44 residential dwelling units for a project to be known as the Dockside Planned Unit Development. The subject property is located east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) on Henderson Creek Drive in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 6.0± acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator Mike Sawyer, Project Manager] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp Page 2 of 2 AGENDA ITEM 9-B Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES—PLANNING& ZONING DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION--PLANNING& REGULATION HEARING DATE: MARCH 6,2014 SUBJECT: RPUD-PL20130001163– DOCKSIDE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(RPUD) PROPERTY OWNER& APPLICANT/AGENT: Property Owner/Applicant: Agent: Real Estate Technology Corporation of Naples D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Carl J and Joanne M. Kuehner Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 900 Broad Avenue South, Suite 2C 3800 Via Del Rey Naples, Fl 34102 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for a rezone from the Mobile Home (MH)Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit Development District (RPUD) Zoning District to allow development of a maximum of 44 dwelling units. For details about the project proposal,refer to "Purpose/Description of Project." GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located on the south side of Henderson Creek Drive and the north side of Henderson Creek, approximately 500 feet east of Collier Boulevard (SR 951), in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. (See location map on the following page). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner is requesting a rezone from the Mobile Home zoning district to the RPUD zoning district to allow development of a maximum of 44 dwelling units comprised of multi-family and townhome units along with customary residential development accessory uses. The Master Plan shows one access point located on Henderson Creek Drive on the north perimeter of the project with a centralized roadway that ends at a turnaround/cul-de-sac at the southern portion of the project. There are PUDZ--PL20130001163-Dockside RPUD Page 1 of 13 February 12,2014(Revised:02/14/14,2/18/14,2/25/14) "7■Aft5/ ' 1— — ,. a......„._,, ......... ,._, mi.-Irintrs _...9._ *YOY : allAt. ® i--� � .• en �► � ° • gee ° US_ m 0����® ` =C 0000000 :�;lik 4...4. 1" E 23m �_< g a aeeemeaooaoo�■incrovripi ,Ewa CI WEIN a. Li \\I 0 ° © ° C pus v o OR 0� 0 ©©9 � `ccC ‘111 WICOr0 MI cv /, �l q d au antic 2 G �� p s st �� . rn g 2; �� i+wa■smra�nu� ° �..J I f 4©vv 6800 C_-__ ►R eve. 11 i- = Z O U o ,�s 1 N ` r (iss VS) Gomm am= U co• co cm Alik co a 7M7.Ol tOM Q o. It III i ig II 1 ma k �ii o i II L__ . I .g. A al a. , I ii / 1 gg 6�y �Q 'W I s L i 6o a i : o 1.g °o as , - Si a a. �n G 1 -4.1N ■--- il r p.,. ., Illi 7 ir I I t N, littn 5-. § 1 i r- ___ILILI Z I own3moe aarnaa y r.%r.% E— 1 r___.),?-1,-- 0 s g 411 / _ I m - (5, op,-A residential tracts on both sides of the central roadway and two potential recreation areas between the residential tracts and the southern tree preservation area adjacent to Henderson Creek. The petitioner is not seeking deviations from Land Development Code (LDC)with this petition. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Henderson Creek Drive access, then a developed mobile home park with a zoning designation of Mobile Home(MH). East: A developed mobile home park with a zoning designation of Mobile Home (MH). South: Henderson Creek, then a mobile home park with a zoning designation of Mobile Home (MH). West: A developed multi-family development with a zoning designation of Residential Multi-family (RMF-6). '. 7 .. r +y, . .. r iM , 4.• kfile• ,..e::'' ift 1 ' 4, .... Pa •°1440, re •7, ,,,,• . r wl , ', I 'Er ,P ,. •IY I,- '` 74 W vow • 1 s vif # ' 4. . . 4:::::::: :': .41 ,.14i 4\''.1. .411:e..‘,4L:::::11,7'' Kl `r * 1"a � • ► tt Lam.PI r Y, Aerial Photo (subject site depiction is approximate) PUDZ--PL20130001163—Dockside RPUD Page 2 of 13 February 12, 2014(Revised•02/14/14,2/18/14, 2/25/14) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, and is within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, this designation allows: residential development (variety of unit types), including associated accessory recreational uses and open space uses — the uses proposed in this PUD. Under the FLUE's Density Rating System, the project is eligible for a maximum density of 3 dwelling units per acre (DU/A), without providing affordable-workforce housing which is not proposed—see below; eligible density is not an entitlement. The applicant proposes 44 DUs,yielding 7.32 DU/A. Base Density 4 DU/A CHHA Density Reduction -1 DU/A Maximum eligible density 3 DU/A x 6.01 acres = 18.03 = 18 DUs However, the existing Mobile Home (MH) zoning on the site pre-dates the 1989 adoption of the GMP and has been deemed "consistent by policy;" the site is identified on Map FLUE-12, Existing Zoning Consistent with FLUE by Policy 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12 ("improved property"). Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) provides that the residential zoning of such "consistent by policy" properties may be changed so long as the new zoning district does not allow a greater number of DUs than the existing zoning, and provided the overall intensity of the proposed zoning district is not of a greater intensity than the existing zoning — as determined by a comparison of public facility impacts. The petitioner submitted a comparative analysis of the uses allowed by the existing and proposed zoning districts, and of the public facility impacts of the existing and proposed use, and asserts that consistency with FLUE Policy 5.1 is achieved. FLUE Policy 5.1 states, in relevant part: Policy 5.1: All rezonings must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. For properties that are zoned inconsistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section but have nonetheless been determined to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element, as provided for in Policies 5.9 through 5.13,the following provisions apply: c. For such residentially-zoned properties, zoning changes will be allowed provided the authorized number of dwelling units in the new zoning district does not exceed that authorized by the existing zoning district,and provided the overall intensity of development allowed by the new zoning district does not exceed that allowed by the existing zoning district. e. Overall intensity of development shall be determined based upon a comparison of public facility impacts as allowed by the existing zoning district and the proposed zoning district. FLUE Policy 5.1 contains a two-part test. Below is staffs analysis and determination of each part. Part I: Does the new zoning district allow the same or a lower number of dwelling units as the existing zoning district? PUDZ--PL20130001163-Dockside RPUD Page 3 of 13 February 12,2014(Revised:02/14/14,2/18/14,2/25/14) This evaluation requires a comparison of existing and proposed density. The existing MH zoning district does not have a specified maximum density but does have a minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet(s.f.); this yields a maximum of 44 DUs (43,560 s.f. per acre x 6.01 acres=261,795.6 s.f./6,000 s.f. per lot = 43.63 DUs - 44 DUs). The proposed Dockside Residences RPUD permits 44 DUs. Conclusion: The new (proposed) zoning district does allow the same or a lower number of dwelling units as the existing zoning district. Part II: Is the overall intensity of residential land use allowed by the existing zoning district not exceeded in the new zoning district(based upon a comparison of public facility impacts as allowed by the existing zoning district and the proposed zoning district)? The applicant provided a comparative analysis of public facility impacts for all category A public facilities (arterial and collector roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, parks and recreation, and drainage), sometimes referencing impact upon level of service (LOS), and concluded that there is no increase in overall intensity. Staff concurs with this conclusion and notes that trip generation decreases and there is no difference for most other facilities. Conclusion: The overall intensity of residential land use allowed by the existing zoning district is not exceeded in the new zoning district. Also, staff notes that the CHHA prohibits new rezoning to allow mobile home development; this petition does the opposite—it removes mobile home zoning. Analysis of relevant FLUE policies is provided below. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following FLUE policies are implemented for new development and redevelopment projects,where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold text]. Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects,where applicable. Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [Due to the property size and configuration, a loop road is not possible. All DUs will access the proposed cul- de-sac.] PUDZ--PL20130001163—Dockside RPUD Page 4 of 13 February 12,2014(Revised:02/14/14,2/18/14,2/25/14) Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [As both adjacent properties are developed, interconnections are not possible. Further, the property size and configuration makes provision of interconnection(s) likely not feasible. Comprehensive Planning leaves review of the Transportation Element to Transportation Planning staff.] Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The property size and configuration limits the ability to provide varying densities, civic facilities, and housing types and prices. Open space is provided for as required by the Land Development Code (LDC). As no deviation is requested,sidewalks must be provided as required by the LDC.] Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5 year planning period. Therefore, the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation&Coastal Management Element(CCME). GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as indicated previously in the GMP discussion. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff also recommends that the petition be found consistent with the CCME. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's PUDZ—PL20130001163—Dockside RPUD Page 5 of 13 February 12,2014(Revised:02/14/14,2/18/14,2/25/14) recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the bases for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading"Zoning Services Analysis."In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council Board (EAC) review as this project does not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Tree retention is required in accordance with LDC Section 3.05.07.A.2. Native Trees; the PUD Master Plan shows the Tree Preservation Area. Also, this requirement is provided in the Developer Commitments (Exhibit E). Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues as well as roadway capacity, and recommends approval subject to the Developer/owner commitments as provided in the PUD ordinance. Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. Zoning staff is of the opinion that this project will be compatible with and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. To support that opinion staff offers the following analysis of this project. As noted on page 2 above, this development is within an area that contains a mix of developed mobile home parks, multi-family development and several undeveloped parcels. To the north, east and south are mobile home parks; to the west is a multi-family development. The proposed development is located on Henderson Creek which at this location is downstream and south of the City of Marco Island water treatment facility. The petitioner is requesting as an accessory use the mooring of 9 vessels along Henderson Creek. Staff notes that the LDC provides an allowance of 1 boat dock/slip per unit for multi-family residential developments. Therefore this development would be allowed up to 44 vessel dock/slips following LDC provisions,however due to the limited shoreline along Henderson Creek it is unlikely this number of docks/slips is possible. The proposed 9 vessel accessory use limit is well within LDC standards. Because the development is proposing two potential recreation facility locations both of which are located adjacent to residential developments staff is of the opinion that specific landscape and screening buffers, principal structure setbacks, and limitations regarding lighting and amplified sound should be required to avoid potential compatibility issues with the existing adjacent residential developments (see staff proposed condition of approval on page 12, Recommendations). At the Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) there were discussions concerning Henderson Creek Drive, a privately owned access road, the type of multi-family units proposed for the development, as PUDZ--PL20130001163—Dockside RPUD Page 6 of 13 February 12,2014(Revised:02/14/14,2/18/14,2/25/14) well as other development issues. The petitioner is proposing in Exhibit B development standards that are substantially consistent with other multi-family developments within Collier County, and with the issues discussed at the NIM (see attachment C). Zoning staff recommends that this petition be found compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, pursuant to the requirement of FLUE Policy 5.4. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is not seeking deviations from the requirements of the LDC for this development. FINDINGS OF FACT: [Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold,non-italicized font]: PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.13.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" (Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): I. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed uses are compatible with the approved uses and existing development in the area. In addition, the proposed property development regulations provide adequate assurances that the proposed project will be suitable to the type and pattern of development in the area. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the undeveloped portions of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion and the report from Comprehensive Planning staff and the zoning analysis of this staff report. Based on those staff analyses, planning zoning staff is of the opinion that this petition may be found consistent with the overall GMP. PUDZ-PL20130001163-Dockside RPUD Page 7 of 13 February 12,2014(Revised:02/14/14,2/18/14,2/25/14) 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. As described in the Analysis Section of this staff report, staff is of the opinion that the proposed uses, development standards, developer commitments, and recommended conditions of approval will help ensure that this project is compatible with the surrounding area. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. The project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. Additionally,the PUD document contains additional developer commitments that should help ensure there are adequate facilities available to serve this project. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as road capacity, wastewater disposal system,and potable water supplies to accommodate this project. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The petitioner is not seeking any deviations from the provisions of the LDC and is in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts(LDC Section 2.03.06.A). Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Staff is of the opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with neighborhood development. Staff recommends that PUDZ--PL20130001163—Dockside RPUD Page 8 of 13 February 12,2014(Revised:02/14/14, 2/18/14,2/25/14) this petition be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. The petition can also be deemed consistent with the CCME and the Transportation Element. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed it at length in the zoning review analysis. Staff believes the proposed rezoning is appropriate given the existing land use pattern, and development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The proposed PUD rezone would not create an isolated zoning district because the proposed PUD abuts an existing multi-family development to the east and a mobile home park to the east. Further, the proposed number of multi-family units is consistent with both of the adjacent developments and as noted on page 4 the project is consistent with Coastal High Hazard Area mobile home prohibition because the proposed PUD removes the MH zoning designation. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed district boundaries are logically drawn since the zoning boundary mirrors the existing property boundary. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes and the project's consistency with the GMP. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change, subject to the proposed list of uses and property development regulations, the proposed Development Commitments detailed in Exhibit F, and recommended conditional of approval, is consistent with the County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Therefore, the proposed change should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway and access infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. Staff believes the petition can be deemed consistent with all elements of the GMP. PUDZ--PL20130001163—Dockside RPUD Page 9 of 13 February 12,2014(Revised:02/14/14,2/18/14,2/25/14) 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems. The developer of the project will be required to adhere to a surface water management permit from the SFWMD in conjunction with any local site development plan approvals and ultimate construction on site. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this petition were approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. This project's property development regulations provide adequate setbacks and distances between structures; therefore the project should not significantly reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market conditions. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; The proposed rezone should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties since all adjacent property is already developed. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan which is a public policy statement supporting Zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact,the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning designations; however, the petitioner is seeking this rezone in compliance with LDC provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed amendment meets the intent of the PUD district,and further, believes the public interest will be maintained. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County, PUDZ--PL20130001163-Dockside RPUD Page 10 of 13 February 12,2014(Revised:02/14/14,2/18/14,2/25/14) As noted previously, the proposed rezone boundary follows the existing property ownership boundary. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a particular zoning petition. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP as discussed in other portions of the staff report. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezone process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): Please see attachment C: NIM transcript. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office (has not yet) reviewed the staff report for this petition on February 25, 2014. PUDZ—PL20130001163—Dockside RPUD Page 11 of 13 February 12,2014(Revised:02/14/14,2/18/14,2/25/14) RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-A-PL20130001163 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following condition of approval. 1. Any recreation facility/amenity located adjacent to external properties shall have a principal structure setback of a minimum 30'-0" from property boundaries and a Type B Landscape Buffer consistent with LDC Section 4.06.00 with a 6' masonry wall/fence to be provided between the amenity and the external property. Additionally, amplified sound is prohibited, and site lighting if provided will have cut-off shielding or have bollard type fixtures. Attachments: A. Application B. PUD Ordinance C.NIM meeting transcript PUDZ--PL20130001163—Dockside RPUD Page 12 of 13 February 12,2014(Revised:02/14/14,2/18/14,2/25/14) PREPARED BY: I A S•WYE'', PROJECT MANAGER DATE DEPAITMENT OF 'LANNING AND ZONING REVIEWED BY: CK z ,( . rq RAYMO V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING MIKE BOSI, AICP,DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING APPROV :Y: .49 ,2 /(f NICK CASALANG i A, = i r STRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the April 22,2014 Board of County Commissioners Meeting RPUD-PL20130001163—Dockside Residences Page 13 of 13 February 7,2014(Revised: ) ORDINANCE NO. 14- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A MOBILE HOME (MH) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW UP TO 44 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE DOCKSIDE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951)ON HENDERSON CREEK DRIVE IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 6.0± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.(PUDZ-PL20130001163) WHEREAS, Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., representing Real Estate Technology Corporation of Naples, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described property. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: Zoning Classification. The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from a Mobile Home (MH) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a 6.0± acre parcel to be known as the Dockside Planned Unit Development in accordance with Exhibits A through E, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. Dockside RPUD/PUDZ-PL20130001163 Page 1 of 2 Rev.2/11/14 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,this day of ,2014. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK,CLERK COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk TOM HENNING,Chairman Approved as to form and legality: N-4x t\ Heidi Ashton-Cicko l� Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A— Permitted Uses Exhibit B—Development Standards Exhibit C—Master Plan Exhibit D—Legal Description Exhibit E—List of Developer Commitments CP\13-CPS-01248\23 Dockside RPUD/PUDZ-PL20130001163 Page 2 of 2 Rev.2/11/14 EXHIBIT A FOR DOCKSIDE RESIDENCES RPUD Regulations for development of the Dockside Residences RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this RPUD Document and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate. Where this RPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. PERMITTED USES: A maximum of 44 dwelling units shall be permitted within the RPUD. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: RESIDENTIAL A. Principal Uses: 1. Dwelling Units- Multiple-family and townhouse. 2. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA"). B. Accessory Uses: 1. Indoor or outdoor community recreation facilities, such as swimming pool, tennis and basketball courts, parks, playgrounds, pedestrian/bikeways, and passive and/or active water features (private intended for use by the residents and their guests only). 2. Model homes and model home centers including sales trailers and offices for project administration,construction,sales and marketing. 3. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, gazebos, boat and canoe docks, fishing piers, picnic areas, fitness trails and shelters. Mooring for a maximum of nine vessels shall be permitted. 4. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the principal uses permitted in this District, including but not limited to garages, carports, swimming pools, spas and screen enclosures. 5. Essential services as described in Section 2.01.03 of the LDC. 6. Any other accessory use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and consistent with the permitted accessory uses of this PUD as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Hearing Examiner. Dockside Residences RPUD Page 1 of 6 rev4 1/31/2014 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Exhibits B sets forth the development standards for land uses within the RPUD Residential Subdistrict. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. Dockside Residences RPUD Page 2 of 6 rev4 1/31/2014 EXHIBIT B FOR DOCKSIDE RESIDENCES RPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARDS TOWNHOUSE MULTI-FAMILY Minimum Lot Area 1,800 SF N/A Minimum Lot Width 18 feet N/A Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet N/A Min.Front Yard Setback 20 feet 20 feet Min.Side Yard Setback 0 or 5 feet 10 feet Min.Rear Yard Setback Principal 15 feet 15 feet Accessory 10 feet 10 feet Maximum Building Height Zoned 30 feet 30 feet Actual 35 feet 35 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures Principal Structures*2 10 feet 1 Story—12' 2 Story—20' Floor Area Min.(S.F.),per unit 750 SF 750 SF Min. PUD Boundary Setback 15 feet 20 feet Min.Preserve Setback 25 feet 25 feet ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Min.Front Yard Setback 20 feet 20 feet Min.Side Yard Setback 5 feet 0 feet*2 Min.PUD Boundary Setback 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures 0/10 feet 0/10 feet Maximum Height Zoned 25 feet 25 feet Actual 30 feet 30 feet Minimum lot areas for any unit type may be exceeded. The unit type,and not the minimum lot area,shall define the development standards to be applied by the Growth Management Division during an application for a building permit. *1—Minimum separation between adjacent buildings,if detached,shall be 10'. *2—Building distance may be reduced at garages to a minimum of 0'where attached garages are provided and a 10'minimum separation is maintained,if detached. Note:nothing in this RPUD Document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in a list of deviations Dockside Residences RPUD Page 3 of 6 rev4 1/31/2014 ZONED.MH USE MOBILE HOME PARK (HOLIDAY MANOR COOPERATIVE) ._ _ - ---- - - — - -- - HENDERSON CREEK DRIVE -g■- ----41..."—emo-- m—_,_4 - L ifiifTE. _ \ . ! t , 7"_____ 1 ' , - .,, WEE l'fc-1 L ---• - 0,1r-,CAFf PLII-1..0 1 I III I I I II 1 I 1 I i I ZONED:RMF-6 USE.MULTI-FAMILY(HENDERSON CREEK - 'I ,I —15' WIPE T'PE E VILLAGE A CONDOMINIUM) 1 RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL , . L-V-I0S(..APE El,:171P 11 1 1 , 1 6'r ZONED:MH _....r."I *, I USE:MOBILE HOME RESIDENCES -.• 'NIPE '''-r- - - - I I Z . till I ,:11-r I-, I•1-•- 1 SITE DATA I iz 1 TOTAL SITE AREA: 6*AC i cc I 1141, MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS: 44 1 I 1; I I I ; t I I I 1 I -- NOTES POTENTIAL I 1 POTENTIAL I RECREATION I , I I RECARREATION v AREA ..i I I 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN EA NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO I I , MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO s'---------k-k. ■ I AGENCY PERMUTING I ..„...,.....,..„,....".. ) REQUIREMENTS. TREE ( D , , PRESERVATION 2. ALL ACREAGES ARE AREA : ' " 1 ---LIA:llFE-Iplu_- ,,,, APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT I 1 TO MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL IN I - .- -------,XII ACCORDANCE WITH THE LDC. - -- 3. NO NATIVE VEGETATIVE ( ...-`,...'•- ------:40or----------- -- - N COMMUNITY EXISTS ON-SITE. I (•-„,-' - . --0.- -----e-S - - - --- - -■--- -* -------c.oNCA'k --- 25% OF THE 77 NATIVE TREES --- „...i■----E,P.-- - - -Oil ----Net° -- WILL BE RETAINED AND j_... -- . „ - , IDENTIFIED AT THE TIME OF — -- .„- SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL AND ,... - iii !!!%■------i LOCATED SOUTH OF THE - -"- ZONED:MH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT USE:MOBILE HOME PARK AREA. (HOLIDAY MANOR COOPERATIVE) ,.---_A_E. 1- - Mil DOCKSIDE RESIDENCES RPL D .,c,...%I......1‘........-p, •09 0000. MGradyMinor .101111 Vta Do IN, - 14.0.1fpg.up 41004..311:11 let •01•07,3 0011) C1111 111411111•1•40 • t111.1tionoor• • Plannri, • Immlwair Ut 411111.1, nu Nun tell ea 400 1.8•004111 Caro a PM 111111101411• ,000•M•nal• 4411017 1114 a.0 GtadoStirow,IA A I'll Ms., ID WO tie* SHEET 1 or 1 01.004100G`14.1•1. - 01•117C0:011 4144C•••00•0044\1/01•11•r. 1.1/611-F 01,04 flOrV20001 17 I 70•4'5 00 EXHIBIT D FOR DOCKSIDE RESIDENCES RPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1: LOT 4, HENDERSON CREEK ESTATES, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF STATE ROAD 5-951 WITH A LINE LYING 501.493 FEET SOUTH OF THE ESTABLISHED NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 'A OF SECTION 3,TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RUN SOUTH 89 DEGREES 23'55" EAST 498.02 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE SAID ESTABLISHED NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH Y2 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 23' 55" EAST 150.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 38' 35" WEST 915 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACCORDING TO AN INSTRUMENT IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 76, PAGE 127, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 159 FEET MORE OR LESS, ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO A LINE BEARING SOUTH 00 DEGREES 36' 05" WEST AND PASSING THROUGH THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 36' 05" EAST 957 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AND PARCEL 2: FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF STATE ROAD S-951 WITH A LINE LYING 501.493 FEET SOUTH OF THE ESTABLISHED NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH Y2 OF THE SOUTH 'A OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RUN SOUTH 89 DEGREES 23' 55" EAST 649.02 FEET, PARALLEL WITH THE SAID NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 'A TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 23' 55" EAST 150.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 38' 05" WEST 864 FEET MORE OR LESS, TO THE CENTER LINE OF A COUNTY DRAINAGE EASEMENT, ACCORDING TO AN INSTRUMENT RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 67, PAGE 351 AND OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 76, PAGE 127, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 159 FEET MORE OR LESS ALONG SAID CENTER LINE TO A LINE BEARING SOUTH OODEGREES 36' 05" WEST PASSING THROUGH THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 36' 05" EAST 915 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO A ROAD RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT OVER AND ACROSS THE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF AND 15 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT ABUTTING AND LYING SOUTH OF THE AFOREMENTIONED RIGHT OF WAY. CONTAINING 6.01 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Dockside Residences RPUD Page 5 of 6 rev4 1/31/2014 EXHIBIT E FOR DOCKSIDE RESIDENCES RPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 1. PLANNING Building massing: No building shall contain more than 12 units,or have a wall length greater than 200 feet. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL Seventy-seven (77) native trees exist on-site. Twenty (20) of those native trees (25%) will be retained within the tree preserve area shown on Exhibit C, Master Plan, or elsewhere on site,to be determined at time of SDP. 3. PUD MONITORING One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is Real Estate Technology Corporation of Naples, 900 Broad Avenue South#2C, Naples, Florida 34102. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity,then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. Dockside Residences RPUD Page 6 of 6 rev4 1/31/2014 1 1 2 TRANSCRIPT OF THE 3 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING 4 FOR DOCKSIDE PUD 5 6 November 6, 2013 7 8 9 10 Appearances: 11 WAYNE ARNOLD 12 MIKE DELATE 13 MIKE SAWYER 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Transcribed by: 22 Joyce B. Howell Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc. 23 2650 Airport Road South Suite A 24 Naples, FL 34112 239.774.4414 25 2 1 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. All right. Good. I'll 2 try to speak up. 3 My name is Wayne Arnold, and I'm with Q. 4 GradyMinor & Associates. It's a local engineering, 5 survey and planning firm, and we're representing 6 Carl Keuhner, who is over here. He's the proud 7 owner of the property on Henderson Creek Drive that 8 we're discussing tonight. 9 With me also is Mike Delate. He's a 10 professional civil engineer in our office. 11 Sharon Umpenhour is going to be taping the 12 meeting. That's a county requirement, that we make 13 an audio recording of our meeting, so we can, you 14 know, pass along to the Planning Commission members 15 and staff questions that may have arisen, and so we 16 have a record of that so we can go back and address 17 those things as well. 18 And in the back of the room is a gentleman 19 named Mike Sawyer. He's with Collier County 20 government, and he is our project managing planner 21 at the county on this project, so he's here to 22 observe. It's really, technically, our meeting. 23 Mike's here if you have some specific questions 24 about the process or timing and things like that, 25 that you want some verification that I'm telling 3 1 you the correct information, and he'll be your 2 point of contact if you have questions for staff. 3 I'm sure Mike's got his card or his phone 4 number or something to that effect, whatever you 5 best want. 6 I know we've got people all over, so I'm going 7 to take the display boards I have and try to, you 8 know, show them so everybody can see them, or we'll 9 keep it casual if people want to come up after and 10 take a look at any of the exhibits, feel free. 11 So with that, I'll get started. And just to 12 tell you a little bit about the process, we're in 13 the process of rezoning a six-acre parcel, and it's 14 currently zoned for mobile homes, and we're 15 proposing to rezone it to a residential planned 16 unit development, which will allow us to develop, 17 not the 44 mobile homes that it's currently zoned 18 for, but up to 44 multi-family or townhome 19 residences on the property. 20 In the larger context of where we are, Super 21 Walmart, Henderson Creek mobile home area, 22 Henderson Creek Drive, and then this six-acre 23 parcel that has Henderson Creek itself as our 24 southern boundary, and, of course, Henderson Creek 25 Drive to the north, and we have the condos adjacent 4 1 to us. 2 It's a little bigger and better image so you 3 can see the site condition today, outlining the 4 property for you all. 5 And that property, as I said, it's zoned for 6 44 mobile home units, and we're proposing to rezone 7 it so that we can have up to 44 multi-family or 8 townhome-type units. 9 The master plan that we're working from, it's 10 one of the parts of having a planned unit 11 development zoning, is that we create a master 12 plan, a depiction of how the development is going 13 to occur. And we're envisioning a fairly simple 14 development on six acres. We've got two 15 residential tracts separated by a cul-de-sac that 16 terminates closer to the creek. And it's designed 17 for fire apparatus to be able to get to the 18 turnaround and make that turn safely. 19 We are required to preserve native vegetation 20 on the site that exists, and we prepared a tree 21 survey for Collier County, and there are about 77 22 trees on site, and we have to preserve 25 percent 23 of those, so our tree preservation area is going to 24 largely be the area that's already got vegetation 25 down by the creek. 5 1 We are making provisions for boat docks. We 2 don't have a boat dock plan, per se. That's going 3 to be a separate permitting process through other 4 agencies besides Collier County, but we are making 5 that allowance for there to be an accessory use for 6 boat docks on this project. 7 Single access point to Henderson Creek Drive, 8 we've talked to Collier County about -- they've 9 mentioned the idea of having a sidewalk connection 10 that would, I guess, go across the frontage of our 11 property. I'm not certain yet if we're far enough 12 along to know if it's going to be a payment in lieu 13 of for that sidewalk or they're going to physically 14 ask us to build a sidewalk, but they would apply 15 that across our property. There's, obviously, no 16 sidewalk in Henderson Creek Drive to connect to, 17 but the county would at least start that process. 18 Mike, did you have something you wanted to 19 share on that? 20 MR. DELATE: No. 21 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. All right. So, that's 22 kind of a depiction of what we're doing. And we're 23 not far enough along to have a rendering of the 24 buildings, et cetera, but we're looking to 25 establish maximum heights in our PUD with setbacks, 6 1 two story maximum, and we don't know if we're going 2 to have two-story units yet or not, but we're going 3 to make an allowance for a maximum of two-story 4 type units. 5 We've established landscape buffer 6 requirements that we have. We're required to do 7 some water management that's going to be done on a 8 series of swales and what we call dry detention 9 areas. There's not going to be a retention pond on 10 the site, something like that. 11 So like I said, it's a pretty simple plan. 12 It's six acres. The county has only certain 13 circumstances you can do a planned development on 14 less than ten acres, and because this is considered 15 an in-fill type project, they know that you need 16 some nuances and some variations from the code, so 17 they allow us to go through that PUD rezone 18 process. 19 Just to let you know where we are in the 20 process, it's kind of a multi-step process. We 21 submitted to the county a few months ago. We 22 received some comments back from staff. We've 23 responded to the staff's fairly minimal comments 24 back to them, and then we're required to hold this 25 type of neighborhood informational meeting before 7 1 we can proceed to public hearings before the 2 Planning Commission, and then, ultimately, the 3 Board of County Commissioners. 4 We don't have firm hearing dates set yet. 5 Most likely they're going to be -- with the 6 Planning Commission will be our next step, and that 7 would probably be sometime after the first of the 8 year, just, you know, like -- Mike's nodding. 9 Again, we haven't set the dates, but we probably 10 will not be receiving another round of sufficiency 11 comments from staff. I think -- we think we're 12 going to be in pretty good shape to start getting 13 scheduled for a hearing. 14 What will happen after this, and we get a 15 hearing date scheduled, anyone who received notice 16 of this meeting tonight by mail will also get a 17 mail notice from the county indicating that a 18 Planning Commission hearing has been scheduled for 19 the property, and then we'll also be required to 20 post a four-by-eight sign. I'm sure you've seen 21 them on other projects around town. Hard to read, 22 but it's the requirement of the code, so there will 23 be a sign that gets noticed. 24 Anybody who lives on the street, obviously, 25 you walk and ride your bikes on the street, so 8 1 you'll have easy access to read that. 2 And then there will be a legal ad noticing the 3 Planning Commission hearing as well that will 4 appear in the Naples Daily News. 5 And then approximately six weeks after our 6 Planning Commission hearing, we would have our 7 Board of County Commissioner hearing. So the 8 Planning Commission will make a recommendation to 9 the board, and then the Board of County 10 Commissioners will act on it and either approve, 11 deny or approve with certain conditions, the 12 project. 13 We hope it's fairly benign, and we're on the 14 right track to come in and get community support 15 from folks like you who are here. 16 And, you know, if there are questions that we 17 can answer, we're here to answer those. 18 I'm going to stop and turn it over, some 19 questions for the audience, if you want. And the 20 sign-in sheet -- anybody didn't get the sign-in 21 sheet that needs it? 22 A VOICE: We need to get on this side of the 23 room. 24 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. 25 A VOICE: Let me pass it to you, ma'am. Thank 9 1 you. 2 MR. ARNOLD: So I can open up the floor for 3 any comments or questions anybody has. 4 Yes, sir? 5 A VOICE: How far east of Collier Boulevard 6 are you? 7 MR. ARNOLD: Mike, how far are we? That's got 8 the scale on here. It's one inch equals a hundred, 9 so five -- five, 600 feet, approximately, east of 10 Collier Boulevard. 11 A VOICE: And how many boat docks or slips are 12 you thinking of doing? 13 MR. ARNOLD: Well, we don't have a -- I don't 14 have a number. We're working with a coastal 15 consultant on that, and there's -- I think we're 16 subject to a manatee protection ordinance, which 17 because of our shoreline length, determines how 18 many docks we can actually qualify for. 19 Mike, I don't know. Do you know? 20 MR. DELATE: Probably less than 15. 21 MR. ARNOLD: Less than 15? Okay. And, of 22 course, those are going to be small-draft boats, 23 for the most part, similar to what else is on the 24 canal. 25 A VOICE: How are you going to get on and off 10 1 this property? 2 MR. ARNOLD: Our access to the property is on 3 Henderson Creek Drive, and we're proposing an 4 access point right in the middle of our project 5 right here. 6 A VOICE: Who owns Henderson Creek Drive, sir? 7 MR. ARNOLD: What's that? 8 A VOICE: Who owns it? 9 MR. ARNOLD: I believe it's a privately-owned 10 road. Mike, you know. You have some research on 11 it. 12 A VOICE: Who owns Henderson Creek? 13 MR. ARNOLD: Who owns the creek itself? 14 A VOICE: Yeah. 15 A VOICE: The bottom lands are owned by the 16 parcels adjacent to it, but there's a drainage 17 easement over the canal and the water itself is U.S 18 federal waters. 19 A VOICE: No, no, no. I'm talking about 20 Henderson Creek Drive. 21 A VOICE: Henderson Creek Drive is owned by 22 the adjoining property owners. 23 A VOICE: It's owned by who? 24 A VOICE: The adjoining property owners. The 25 property lines go to the center of the street. 11 1 A VOICE: Well, we tried to give it to the 2 county. 3 A VOICE: Right. 4 A VOICE: A few years back. And we have 5 paperwork showing where we gave it to them, but 6 they didn't have paperwork where they accepted it. 7 So they won't dig out our trenches or anything 8 anymore. 9 A VOICE: Right. 10 A VOICE: Which floods us out. And now you're 11 going to build onto that? 12 A VOICE: Yeah. Well, the discharge -- 13 A VOICE: I mean, can we set up a toll booth 14 at the end of that street? We own it. 15 A VOICE: Yeah, I'll have to (indiscernible) 16 on it, but the stormwater system will discharge 17 onto the street without the canals, so there won't 18 be any additional discharge into Henderson Creek 19 Drive. 20 A VOICE: But I still say unless the county 21 owns that road, you cannot egress. 22 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think we disagree. I 23 mean, we have ingress and egress rights over it, 24 and, obviously, there are other people that have 25 been, you know, allowed to develop on the same 12 1 road, including neighbors on either side of us. 2 A VOICE: Why did the county say they don't 3 own it? 4 MR. ARNOLD: Well, the county doesn't own a 5 lot of roads. There are a lot of roads in Collier 6 County that are privately owned and maintained, and 7 the county has certain standards for accepting 8 roads in the county, and they went through a period 9 where they were willing to, and then they've gone 10 through periods of time where they don't. 11 And they maintain a lot of roads they don't 12 own. You know, historically, they just have 13 maintained roads and they never really had the 14 authority to do so. 15 So, you know, there's a different group of 16 folks. I don't know how recent you approached the 17 county, but there's a new group of folks that are 18 there, and I think they're pretty user friendly. I 19 wouldn't hesitate to reapproach them. 20 And to the extent we can help out in that 21 regard, I'm sure we will. I think it's in all of 22 our interests. 23 Yes, sir. 24 A VOICE: For the best interest of Holiday 25 Manor Park, could we -- we want to talk to our 13 1 lawyer about this situation. I was in court today 2 and this was brought up, that the Holiday Manor 3 Park wants to talk to the lawyer (indiscernible) 4 anything about sharing the road or owning the road 5 because there's past practices where the county 6 actually makes people move units from that road, 7 stating that they owned it. 8 So if we could, could we just stifle the road 9 situation right now until we talk to our lawyers? 10 MR. ARNOLD: I'm not sure I follow exactly 11 what the issue may be with regard to the road and 12 the legal issue, but -- 13 A VOICE: (Indiscernible) . 14 A VOICE: We just feel more comfortable if we 15 -- we didn't talk to our lawyer yet about this 16 situation, okay? Because there's up and down 17 movement about who owns the road, who doesn't, 18 okay, and we just don't like to get any farther 19 involved with this road situation. 20 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Well, we're continuing to 21 move through the process, and I know that the 22 county attorney has been involved in our review and 23 the county surveyor, and also, I think we're -- I 24 mean, obviously, we're going to continue to move 25 through the process and, hopefully, you know -- 14 1 A VOICE: Well, that's fine. You know, I 2 mean, hopefully, you're just proceeding with what 3 you think you're going to do. 4 MR. ARNOLD: Right. 5 A VOICE: But it's not concrete, correct, yet? 6 MR. ARNOLD: No, we're not approved to do this 7 yet, no. 8 A VOICE: So then maybe your lawyer or whoever 9 will contact Holiday Manor and maybe they will come 10 up with some sort of situation or some sort of 11 agreement or something, because like I said, past 12 practices has said the county has come in, stepped 13 in and had some of our people in our area move 14 sheds and whatnot (indiscernible) . 15 MR. ARNOLD: Oh, I remember this issue, yes, 16 years ago, yes. I do remember that now. 17 A VOICE: Okay. So now, you know, if you put, 18 you know, we would like you to contact Lynn Rickert 19 (phonetic) , he's the president of Holiday Manor 20 Co-Op. 21 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. 22 A VOICE: Contact him and he will see -- 23 contact the lawyer and we'll go from there. 24 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. We can do that. Okay. 25 Yes, sir. 15 1 A VOICE: I approached the county 2 commissioners about seven years ago about Henderson 3 Creek Drive, because we were informed, at that 4 time, that it was not accepted by the county. 5 MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. 6 A VOICE: There are no records as to whoever 7 paved the road. We spoke to the person that 8 Holiday Manor was purchased from. He claimed he 9 did not pave the road, so it's a big mystery. 10 MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. 11 A VOICE: Joe Schmidt was in charge of the 12 county then, and his comment to us at the meeting 13 was the road would have to be at today standards to 14 be accepted, and we could set up a special taxing 15 district, and I said, no, that wasn't our 16 (indiscernible) . But as far as we've been able to 17 determine, there was an easement granted to the 18 county for the road, but the big mystery is who 19 paved it. Never been accepted. 20 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. 21 A VOICE: They did come out the following day 22 and do some road samples, but we've never heard any 23 more from it. 24 MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. Okay. Thank you for 25 that. 16 1 Yes, ma'am. 2 A VOICE: Who's going to live in these houses? 3 Is it going to be low income or professionals or 4 what? 5 A VOICE: Well, I don't think we know the end 6 occupant. I mean, we're not asking for anything 7 that's an affordable housing density bonus. I 8 think the idea -- 9 A VOICE: These are market rates houses. 10 MR. ARNOLD: Right. 11 A VOICE: This is not in the sense of 12 affordable housing that I think you're referring 13 to. This would be market rate housing as the 14 condominium next door is market rate housing. 15 A VOICE: Is it HUD? 16 A VOICE: Sorry? 17 A VOICE: (Indiscernible) . 18 A VOICE: No, I did not say that. 19 A VOICE: No, is it (indiscernible)? 20 A VOICE: I (indiscernible) . 21 A VOICE: Is it HUD housing? 22 A VOICE: Excuse me? 23 A VOICE: Is HUD financing it? 24 A VOICE: No. It will be market rate financed 25 by (indiscernible) . 17 1 A VOICE: By (indiscernible) . 2 A VOICE: Sir, you were saying -- you're 3 saying it's 44 multi-family housing. 4 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. 5 A VOICE: Is that your way of saying like 88 6 families or more will be there? 7 MR. ARNOLD: No. No. 8 A VOICE: 44 housing units? 9 MR. ARNOLD: It's 44 housing units, that's 10 correct. 11 A VOICE: (Indiscernible) . 12 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. Today, they're permitted 13 to have 44 mobile homes on the site. We're asking 14 for that to become 44 -- 15 A VOICE: Even though they're two stories, 16 it's not going to be -- 17 MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. Only 44 -- 18 A VOICE: -- a multiple (indiscernible) 88 or 19 more? 20 MR. ARNOLD: No. 44. 21 A VOICE: 44 housing units? 22 MR. ARNOLD: 44 housing units, yes, sir. 23 A VOICE: And what price range are you 24 figuring (indiscernible) ? 25 MR. ARNOLD: I don't think we know, Carl. I 18 1 mean -- 2 MR. KEUHNER: Until we have an approval, we 3 can't do all of the cost projections, et cetera. 4 If I had to speculate today, my speculation would 5 be in the mid hundreds. 6 A VOICE: (Indiscernible) . 7 A VOICE: You mean you bought -- you bought 8 this land and you have no idea what the homes are 9 going to cost? 10 MR. KEUHNER: No, no. Sir, the point is not 11 that. The point is I don't know, by the time we 12 get through this process, what costs will be. The 13 costs that were three years ago are not today's 14 costs. The market has come back. The construction 15 market has come back very strong. 16 A VOICE: Three years ago, what was the cost 17 for the homes? 18 A VOICE: Three years ago, the homes were very 19 depressed. 20 A VOICE: Okay. But what (indiscernible) ? 21 MR. ARNOLD: I don't think we know. I think a 22 fair -- I think a fair comparison would be whatever 23 the condominium units next door to us are selling 24 for. I mean, we're going to be a newer product. 25 A VOICE: It has to be in excess of that price 19 1 because those units were built in the mid '80s, and 2 you can't afford to replace those today at the same 3 cost. It's just, I mean, incentives. It's 4 economics of the actual final approval. 5 A VOICE: What is today's cost 6 (indiscernible) ? 7 A VOICE: Well, I don't have an approval for 8 anything that I can price. 9 A VOICE: You're saying you're estimating 10 (indiscernible) will be more, so you know if 11 they're selling for 80, you're going to make it 12 81,000, right? 13 A VOICE: Well, I think the point is that we 14 know that today's costs far exceed what they did in 15 the '80s, okay? We also know that the county's 16 fees, for instance, far exceed what they did in the 17 '80s. The cost per unit just to the county is 18 $17,000 for nothing -- not for nothing, but -- 19 MR. ARNOLD: Impact fees, utility fees. 20 A VOICE: You get no construction value out of 21 that $17, 000 per unit fee. 22 MR. ARNOLD: I think it's, you know, it's 23 pretty comparable to what we deal with. You know, 24 we really don't know. I was in a meeting last 25 night for another client, and they're a luxury home 20 1 custom builder. They still don't know what their 2 end price points are going to be because they don't 3 know exactly when those units will come on the 4 market. They don't know what the economy is going 5 to be when they come on the market. They know what 6 the comparables are today. They can't predict that 7 when, 18 months, they roll out their first unit. 8 And they think today they're going to market it for 9 $400,000, but, whoops, the market's changed, we may 10 have to sit on it if the market's only $300, 000, 11 we'll hold it for another year, or if it's 12 $500, 000, great, let's get it going. 13 So, I mean, that's kind of the thought process 14 that a builder/developer has to go through. 15 A VOICE: Do you have other units built that 16 are similar to this? Have you built them before? 17 Is there anything we could actually see and say 18 this is what's going to -- 19 A VOICE: Not in Collier County. 20 A VOICE: Well (indiscernible) county? 21 A VOICE: What other county? 22 A VOICE: ,(Indiscernible) county? 23 A VOICE: New York State. 24 A VOICE: Where? 25 A VOICE: (Indiscernible) building 21 1 (indiscernible) . 2 A VOICE: (Indiscernible) . 3 A VOICE: Dutchess County. It's 75 miles 4 north of New York City. 5 A VOICE: (Indiscernible) . 6 MR. ARNOLD: Sir, you had your hand up. I 7 want to try to get everybody who hasn't asked, and, 8 sir, I'll come back to you. 9 Yes, sir? 10 A VOICE: That's low-income housing over there 11 (indiscernible) by the Hudson, over by the bridge? 12 A VOICE: No, ma'am. This is -- this is 13 market rate luxury -- I don't want to use the word 14 luxury when you're talking Toll Brothers here, but 15 this is -- this is housing for above the work -- I 16 mean, work force and above, I should say. It is 17 not -- it is not -- let me say it differently. 18 It is not subsidized in many manner. All 19 affordable housing today has to receive some form 20 of subsidy, tax abatements, you know, grants from 21 the state or something. This is not any of that. 22 A VOICE: So it's not going to look like that 23 building that's on Manatee (phonetic) by the -- 24 A VOICE: No. 25 MR. ARNOLD: Yes sir. 22 1 A VOICE: What's the square footage per unit? 2 A VOICE: It's probably in the 11, 1,200 3 range, but it's going to, again, depend upon the -- 4 what's the -- what one ultimately builds is what 5 all the constraints that are imposed on the site by 6 the county agencies, what' s left, so to speak, is 7 what you can build. 8 And so my guess today would be in the 11, 9 1,200 square foot (indiscernible) . 10 A VOICE: Thanks. 11 MR. ARNOLD: In the back, I saw a hand up, I 12 thought. 13 A VOICE: Yeah, I just got a question to ask 14 this gentleman. You purchased the property? 15 A VOICE: I purchased property? Yes, sir. 16 A VOICE: You purchased the property. 17 A VOICE: I did. 18 A VOICE: How many -- how many properties have 19 you purchased in the past in different states? 20 A VOICE: In the past? 21 A VOICE: Yeah, in different states. 22 A VOICE: Oh, a number. 23 A VOICE: Okay. So you buy land and you build 24 units on it and then you sell it, correct? 25 A VOICE: Or we rent. 23 1 A VOICE: Or you rent. 2 A VOICE: Not every project that we build do 3 we sell. 4 A VOICE: Now, the county has not approved 5 anything yet for you to build anything on that, 6 correct? 7 A VOICE: That's correct. 8 A VOICE: Okay. So now you're trying to get 9 permission to build 44 units on that. So it's not 10 a done deal yet? 11 A VOICE: It's not -- I think, as Wayne was 12 saying, it's not a done deal. What would be a done 13 deal is come in and put 44 mobile homes on the 14 site. It's (indiscernible) . You come in, you meet 15 the setback requirements and it's a done deal. 16 A VOICE: All right. 17 A VOICE: What we're trying to do, we think, 18 is upgrade that approach. 19 A VOICE: Okay. All right. So it's not a 20 done deal yet. So, in other words, we're having 21 this meeting now so we could either accept it, what 22 you're proposing, or protest it, correct? 23 A VOICE: As Wayne was saying, you'll have two 24 more opportunities. 25 A VOICE: Okay. 24 1 A VOICE: At least, right? At the Planning 2 Commission hearing, you'll have a notice of that in 3 advance. You can come and speak there. At the 4 Board of County Commissioners hearing, you can come 5 and speak there. 6 So, until all that process is complete, one 7 can't make an application for a building. 8 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. And we hope you like the 9 approach that we're trying to do. The county -- 10 the county discourages more mobile homes to be 11 built. We're in an area of south of 41, which is 12 known as the coastal high-hazard area. The 13 comprehensive plan says you shall have no more 14 mobile home parks in the coastal high-hazard area. 15 Now, we would be grandfathered in because the 16 zoning's entitled Carl to build those same 44 17 mobile home units. Carl happens to think the 18 market is better served by having 44 multi-family 19 units. So we're going through that process to try 20 to get those approved. 21 But this isn't an opportunity to vote 22 something up and down tonight. We hope you like 23 it, but it's an opportunity for us to share with 24 you and let you know what's going on in your 25 community so you can decide whether or not you all 25 1 want to weigh in, in some form or fashion, write a 2 letter of support, write a letter saying you don't 3 support it, but, I mean, that's going to be up to 4 you to walk out of here with, hopefully, some 5 information about what we're trying to do. 6 Yes, sir. 7 A VOICE: Are you involved with the 8 (indiscernible) that's on the other side of 9 Walmart? 10 MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. The habitat project 11 that's there? 12 A VOICE: Yes. 13 MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. 14 A VOICE: Okay. 15 A VOICE: Nor am I. 16 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. 17 A VOICE: The sewer line, is that adequate to 18 handle the 44? 19 A VOICE: The sewer was designed for this 20 property and the adjoining properties. 21 A VOICE: Okay. And how about the water 22 pressure going in Henderson Creek? 23 MR. DELATE: So far, it appears to be 24 adequate. If we have to upsize the line, we'll 25 make provisions for that. 26 1 MR. ARNOLD: Anybody who hasn't asked a 2 question that wants to? 3 A VOICE: What will it do to our property 4 values? 5 MR. ARNOLD: I don't think I'm a fair person 6 to tell you that. Hopefully -- 7 A VOICE: I can't hear. 8 MR. ARNOLD: The question was, what will this 9 do to our property values. I mean, I don't think 10 we can guarantee you that it will automatically 11 improve your property values, because the market 12 has been so all over the place the last few years, 13 as all of us who are homeowners know, but, you 14 know, putting in -- 15 A VOICE: Sorry. But I disagree. I think 16 this plan, where you're leaving the space along the 17 creek and you're proposing to build multi-family 18 homes in that area, which is shown as shaded, will 19 do good things for property values in the area. I 20 can't tell you that it's going to increase your 21 property value. I don't know your property value. 22 I think it will increase it. How much, I have 23 no idea. 24 A VOICE: You keep saying multi-family. 25 You're not building (indiscernible) or anything 27 1 like that? 2 MR. ARNOLD: No. Multi-family and townhomes 3 are all attached product. The condo immediately 4 next-door to us is a multi-family. It's three or 5 more units attached in Collier County, is 6 considered a multi-family structure. 7 So we are proposing a series of multi-family 8 buildings that will equal 44 units. 9 A VOICE: In other words, they're putting in 10 22 buildings, but (indiscernible) to make 44 homes? 11 MR. ARNOLD: No. We're going to have 44 front 12 doors, maximum. 13 A VOICE: We would have four and six-unit 14 buildings, not two units (indiscernible) . 15 A VOICE: (Indiscernible) true houses 16 (indiscernible) ? 17 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. These are not -- no, 18 multi-family has to be three or more attached. 19 A VOICE: You mentioned villa prior. 20 MR. ARNOLD: I called the project next door to 21 us a villa. I think that's the market that I'm -- 22 A VOICE: I think it's a multi-family 23 (indiscernible) . 24 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, I think it's a 25 multi-family, at least in the nomenclature of 28 1 Collier County. 2 A VOICE: Do you think that road will take all 3 of the 44 extra (indiscernible) cars per unit? 4 A VOICE: (Indiscernible) . 5 A VOICE: Do you think that road will take it 6 with the traffic and everything? 7 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, I don't -- in our meetings 8 with the county staff, they've identified no 9 issues. I mean, the only issue that's come up 10 related to the roadway is really (indiscernible) . 11 A VOICE: Well, we got (indiscernible) 12 Henderson Creek and 951 as it is. 13 MR. ARNOLD: No, I understand. Yeah, I 14 understand that situation. Yeah, we all live with 15 that (indiscernible) . 16 A VOICE: Well, you know, it would have been 17 nice if you had some answers for us about the road 18 and whatnot. 19 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think that -- but the 20 answer, sir, is the same traffic -- we've modeled 21 it so that it's the same traffic you would have -- 22 if Carl said, Wayne, scrap this rezoning process, 23 go get me 44 mobile homes there, we could file an 24 administrative process through Collier County, no 25 public hearings, design a mobile home park of 44 29 1 units. 2 So we believe everything there is adequate. 3 We've demonstrated to the county we have no 4 additional impacts on any public facilities to 5 Collier County government. 6 A VOICE: Yeah, but perhaps that's why that 7 land was for sale for such a lengthy time, because 8 they knew the traffic jam would be tremendous 9 there. 10 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think that's the question 11 that Carl's got as a future buyer comes along. 12 They're going to have to weigh that decision. They 13 may say, you know what, I don't like this traffic 14 condition, I'm going to go find something else on 15 the other side of the road or where I've got a 16 traffic signal. I mean, that's just the nature of 17 the real estate business. 18 I mean, we all deal with these meeting 19 (indiscernible) all over town. You know, the 20 county will tell you, and it will probably be in 21 our document, we're never guaranteed anything more 22 than our right in, right out access to our site. 23 A VOICE: So you know there' s a school bus 24 that comes down there, right? 25 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. Yeah, witnessed the 30 1 school bus the other day when I was down making my 2 site visit. 3 A VOICE: Okay. But you have 44 doors, you 4 have probably, say, three or four children in each 5 unit. How many more buses is that coming down 6 Henderson Creek? 7 A VOICE: Those statistics just don't work in 8 Collier County unless it is affordable housing. 9 You don't have three and four children per unit. I 10 mean, in the size units that we're talking about, 11 in the max case, you're probably talking about two 12 school-aged children. 13 MR. ARNOLD: Collier County keeps a lot of 14 statistics in relation to that and they break it 15 down by traffic zones. And this has one of the 16 lowest per capita residencies in Collier County. 17 It's literally just one point something people per 18 household, is the average in this part of the 19 world, because it's not driven by having a lot of 20 children in this area. 21 But, again, the same situation, ma'am, you 22 know, just to -- trying to reiterate, I mean, if we 23 were the mobile home park that we could be, I mean, 24 those questions, you know, get answered through the 25 payment of impact fees and all those other things 31 1 that we have to do. 2 Yes, sir. 3 A VOICE: How about a traffic light? Has 4 anybody thought about putting a traffic light there 5 (indiscernible) ? 6 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I mean, it's not really up 7 to Carl, as the developer, to do that. Collier 8 County has a lot of warrants -- I mean, you all 9 lived through the Walmart issue, and I recognize 10 some of the faces, because I worked on that project 11 for its original zoning, and that's an issue for 12 Walmart, you know, can we get a signal, because 13 that' s important to them. They move such volumes 14 of traffic, that the county looks at Collier 15 Boulevard as a really -- it's meant to carry a lot 16 of cars at a higher speed. They don't want a lot 17 of road cuts on it. They don't want a lot of 18 traffic signals because it slows down the capacity 19 of the road. The county's -- 20 A VOICE: (Indiscernible) people die 21 (indiscernible) before they put a light in? 22 MR. ARNOLD: Well, unfortunately, that is one 23 of their criteria. They look at accidents and 24 death data. And you' ll see -- well, you all 25 experience it, probably, you know, on a very 32 1 regular basis, but at the Whistler's Cove project, 2 it took them a long time to get a traffic signal, 3 and that, in part, was because Lennar came forward 4 and decided to start building at Treviso Bay again, 5 generating a lot of one units, also generating 6 enough trips to help warrant the signal, and then 7 there had been a couple of accidents, I understand, 8 at Whistler' s Cove, including a fatality, that 9 weighed on FDOT allowing that. 10 And that's the other factor. The road out 11 here is a state road. It's not just subject to 12 Collier County. 13 Ma'am, you had your hand up in the pink shirt. 14 A VOICE: My understanding is there's going to 15 be four buildings, six apartments up or down and 16 they're going to be -- 17 MR. ARNOLD: Not necessarily. 18 A VOICE: And is it going to be rental 19 apartments? 20 MR. ARNOLD: These are -- these are -- I don't 21 think Carl knows whether or not (indiscernible) 22 rent something out because -- 23 A VOICE: The unit -- the number of units in 24 the building I was mentioning was four or six as 25 opposed to two, which I thought had been brought 33 1 up. That was fine. That was what I was responding 2 to. 3 A VOICE: (Indiscernible) is two floors, 4 right, six on each floor, is 12 times -- 5 A VOICE: I don't know that, ma'am, today. I 6 mean, ideally, it would be one floor, ideally. But 7 I have to figure out what area do we have to work 8 with, and then I can better answer that question. 9 We want to retain the area along the creek in 10 its natural state. Don't want to use that for 11 housing, so -- 12 MR. ARNOLD: Anybody else? Yes, sir. 13 A VOICE: The gentleman said that the average 14 unit is going to be between 1, 100 and 1,200 square 15 feet. Now, can you stand there and tell me that 16 you don't know if these things are going to be able 17 to be purchased or rented. So you don't know the 18 average square foot of each unit. 19 A VOICE: Sir, if I had an approval, I could 20 tell you what the average would be, because I would 21 have a design that would tell me that. 22 A VOICE: Well, you must have a idea of how 23 much money you're willing to spend. 24 A VOICE: Well, I just told you, I believe 25 they will be in the 11 to 1,200 square foot range. 34 1 A VOICE: What is the average price? 2 MR. ARNOLD: I don't think we know that. I 3 tried to explain that. We don't know yet. 4 A VOICE: Whatever the market rate is going to 5 bear. 6 A VOICE: The man invested millions of dollars 7 and he doesn't have any idea what (indiscernible) 8 what the value (indiscernible) . 9 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think he told you -- 10 A VOICE: That's what a developer is. A 11 developer is someone who's willing to do what you 12 just described. 13 A VOICE: (Indiscernible) . 14 A VOICE: But you have a house, right? We can 15 go measure your house and then we can figure out 16 what we're adding to it. Right now, I have a piece 17 of land that doesn't have any improvements. 18 MR. ARNOLD: Anybody else? 19 A VOICE: Is there going to be a clubhouse or 20 a community center involved with this project? 21 MR. ARNOLD: We haven't proposed one. We've 22 made -- we've made provisions in the list of uses 23 for them. We don't know where it would be. I 24 mean, honestly, we'll probably have some small 25 amenity, recreational amenity closer to the creek. 35 1 We're going to have some docks, you know, maybe 2 there will be picnic tables. I don't -- I don't 3 think Carl -- 4 A VOICE: We don't see a clubhouse -- I don't 5 see a clubhouse in this design. 6 MR. ARNOLD: Anybody else? Yes, sir. 7 A VOICE: I just got one quick question, not 8 to keep beating up this road issue. 9 How much road frontage do you have? 10 MR. ARNOLD: Mike, what do we have? 11 A VOICE: 300 feet, sir. 12 A VOICE: You have 300 feet. And I think I 13 heard someone say that the (indiscernible) road 14 separated down the center of the road. So, in 15 other words, what you're saying, correct me if I'm 16 wrong, you're responsible for 300 feet of that. 17 We're responsible for 2,500 feet. We have about 18 four times the acreage you have. 19 We're only -- we're unfortunate that ours runs 20 parallel to the road and yours perpendicular to the 21 road. The density is what I'm trying to say. So 22 we have not a whole lot more acreage, but, yet, 23 we're looking to pick up 50 percent of the whole 24 street. Something don't work here. 25 We have no -- we have no school buses. We 36 1 have our own garbage truck. You have 300 feet of 2 road frontage because you go deep. We're probably 3 300 feet deep, but we happen to go long the other 4 way, so we have to pick up 50 percent of the whole 5 street. 6 Something wrong with this picture? 7 MR. ARNOLD: Well -- 8 A VOICE: I think it hasn't changed, sir. It 9 was that way when you bought it, I assume. 10 A VOICE: I just -- I just want to make that 11 clear. 12 A VOICE: How many units are in that -- 13 MR. ARNOLD: Holiday Manor. 14 A VOICE: -- Holiday Manor? 15 A VOICE: Three hundred (indiscernible) . 16 A VOICE: 300? 17 A VOICE: 312. 18 A VOICE: What we did was overlaid our six 19 acres on that property and it turns out it's 45 to 20 50 trailers within that six acres. So it's very 21 comparable -- I mean, I didn't design this to be 22 deep rather than wide. But density-wise, it's the 23 same. 24 A VOICE: But the school buses that will be 25 coming in there, we don't have any. The garbage 37 1 trucks will be coming in there. We have one Waste 2 Management truck once a week. 3 A VOICE: And no one further down has any? 4 A VOICE: Yeah, on the other side of the 5 street. 6 MR. ARNOLD: Right. 7 A VOICE: But, I mean, they've got to come 8 down the street, right side, left side, whatever 9 side. 10 A VOICE: I'm just trying to make a point 11 about it. It just doesn't seem quite right that we 12 (indiscernible) pay for half the street and the 13 other side of the road pays for just a small 14 (indiscernible) . 15 A VOICE: Well, but every other property owner 16 running down the other side of the street has the 17 same obligation. 18 A VOICE: But they don't pave just half of the 19 street. 20 A VOICE: No, I understand that. But I'm 21 saying to you is if you say I have a thousand feet 22 or 1,500 feet, so that this side -- on the south 23 side, maybe that represents four or five 24 properties. So, on a linear foot basis, it's not 25 different. 38 1 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, I think there's a -- 2 there's a pretty easy methodology to come up with 3 so that there's a proportional cost share, if 4 that's what we're getting at, and it's pretty 5 consistent. The county staff can help do that. 6 It's done quite frequently. It was done for the 7 major intersection improvements that are taking 8 place at Collier Boulevard, so. 9 Sir, you've got a question? 10 A VOICE: What's the actual dimensions of the 11 six acres? Was it 300 by -- 12 A VOICE: It varies along the creek. 13 MR. ARNOLD: It varies (indiscernible) 14 diagonal (indiscernible) . Its about 900 feet. 15 A VOICE: 300 by 900? 16 MR. ARNOLD: Roughly. 17 Anybody else? Going once, twice. Shall we 18 adjourn? Mike, do you have anything you want to 19 add? 20 A VOICE: Please eat the cookies and take the 21 water so I don't have to take them home. 22 MR. ARNOLD: Mike, do you have anything you'd 23 like to add before we close the meeting? 24 A VOICE: No. I've got cards if anybody wants 25 to contact me. 39 1 MR. ARNOLD: And for anybody who wants Sharon 2 Umpenhour, who's recording the meeting, feel free 3 to take one of her cards. Any questions, you want 4 any information we have given you tonight, we' ll be 5 happy to provide it to you. Just let us know. 6 Thanks for coming out. 7 (Proceedings concluded. ) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 1 STATE OF FLORIDA 2 COUNTY OF COLLIER 3 4 I, Joyce B. Howell, do hereby certify that: 5 1. The foregoing pages numbered 1 through 39 6 contain a full, true and correct transcript of 7 proceedings in the above-entitled matter, transcribed 8 by me to the best of my knowledge and ability from a 9 digital audio recording. 10 2 . I am not counsel for, related to, or 11 employed by any of the parties in the above-entitled 12 cause. 13 3 . I am not financially or otherwise 14 interested in the outcome of this case. 15 16 SIGNED AND CERTIFIED: 17 18 Date: November 25, 2013 Joyce B. Howell 19 20 21 22 23 24 25