The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Agenda 07/17/2014 R COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA JULY 17, 2014 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, JULY 17, 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— June 5,2014,June 19,2014 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS Note: This item has been continued from the June 5, 2014 CCPC meeting, then continued from the June 19`x, 2014 CCPC meeting: A. PUDZ-PL20120001981: 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 Rural Agricultural District (A) and Rural Agricultural District within a Special Treatment Overlay(A-ST)to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development(MPUD) zoning district for the project known as RMC-Enclave MPUD to allow construction of a maximum of 114 single family or multi-family dwelling units or up to 350 group housing units for seniors on property located in Section 13, Township 48 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida,consisting of 28.38±acres;and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator:Kay Deselem,AICP,Principal Planner] Page 1 of 2 Note: This item is continued to the August 7,2014 CCPC hearing. B. PL20110002626/ CPSS-2012-1: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series by establishing the Everglades-Randall Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 20,000 square feet of church/place of worship and related uses, excluding church related day-care use. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Randall Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard in Sections 19, 20,29 and 30, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, consisting of 7.80 acres; and furthermore, recommending transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. (Companion to CU- PL20110002615.)[Coordinator:Michele Mosca,AICP,Principal Planner] Note: This item is continued to the August 7,2014 CCPC hearing. C. CU-PL20110002615: Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, providing for the establishment of a Conditional Use to allow a church within an Estates zoning district pursuant to Section 2.03.01.B.1.c.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code for property located on the northwest corner at the intersection of Everglades Boulevard and Randall Boulevard in Sections 19, 20, 29 and 30, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to PL20110002626/CPSS-2012-1 Small Scale GMPA)[Coordinator:Nancy Gundlach,AICP,Principal Planner] D. PUDZ-PL20130000682: Willow Run RPUD, 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 Rural Agricultural Zoning District (A), a Rural Agricultural Zoning District with an ST Overlay (A-ST), a Rural Agricultural Zoning District with a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands Overlay and Natural Resource Protection Overlay (A-RFMUD-NRPA), and an Agricultural Zoning District with a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands Overlay and Special Treatment Overlay and Natural Resource Protection Area Overlay(A-RFMUD-ST-NRPA)to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD)Zoning District to allow up to 590 dwelling units for a project to be known as the Willow Run RPUD on property located at 9220 Collier Boulevard in Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 559± acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem,AICP,Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp Page 2 of 2 AGENDA ITEM 9-D Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES—PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION--PLANNING&REGULATION HEARING DATE: JULY 17, 2014 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20130000682; WILLOW RUN RPUD PROPERTY OWNER&APPLICANT/AGENT: Applicant/Petitioner Owners: Joseph D. Bonness III,trustee Joseph D. Bonness III,trustee Winchester Lakes Corporation for Willow Run Land Trust for Willow Run Land Trust Joseph D. Bonness III,president 1910 Seward Ave 1910 Seward Ave 1910 Seward Ave. Naples,FL 34109 Naples,FL 34109 Naples FL 34109 Contract Purchaser: Agent: Kitson&Partners Communities Acquisitions,LLC Wayne Arnold,AICP 4500 PGA Blvd., Suite 400 Q. Grady Minor&Associates Palm Beach Gardens,FL 33418 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs,FL 34134 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for a rezone from a Rural Agricultural Zoning District (A), a Rural Agricultural Zoning District with an ST Overlay (A-ST), a Rural Agricultural Zoning District with a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands Overlay and Natural Resource Protection Overlay (A-RFMUD- NRPA), and an Agricultural Zoning District with a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands Overlay and Special Treatment Overlay and Natural Resource Protection Area Overlay (A- RFMUD-ST-NRPA)to a Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD) Zoning District to allow up 590 dwelling units for a project to be known as the Willow Run RPUD. For details about the project proposal,refer to"Purpose/Description of Project." PUDZ-PL20130000682;WILLOW RUN RID Page 1 of 22 July 17,2014 CCPC Revised: 7/7/14 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 559± acres, is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road, at 9220 Collier Boulevard in Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (See location map on the following page.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The applicant's agent provided the following summary of the petition: The PUD rezone proposes to permit a variety of residential dwelling unit types and accessory uses on 560±acres to allow a maximum of 590 dwelling units. A conceptual PUD master plan has been developed which depicts the location of the residential development tracts, lakes, and preserves. The site is currently zoned A, Rural Agricultural and has been operating as an earth mine with an asphaltic batch plant since the mid-1980's via conditional use approvals The Willow Run RPUD master plan identifies preserves, recreational amenity area, lakes and buffers. The Master Plan shows one access point onto Collier Boulevard and no interconnections to the north, east or south due to the location of preserve areas. The applicant is seeking approval of eleven deviations(see deviation discussion for more detail.) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: San Marino PUD, a partially developed project; Forest Glen of Naples PUD, a developed residential golf course community; and A(RFMUO),undeveloped East: undeveloped lands and Swamp Buggy Grounds, with zoning designations of Hacienda Lakes DRI/PUD,A(RFMUO& ST) and NRPA South: undeveloped lands zoned A,Hacienda Lakes DRIPUD,A(RFMUO & ST),NRPA West: undeveloped land and Swamp Buggy Grounds with zoning designations of A and Hacienda Lakes DRI/PUD PUDZ-PL20130000682;WILLOW RUN PUD Page 2 of 22 July 17,2014 CCPC Revised: 7/7/14 1. __ - . I=�I� a =II Xi LI el i{lilk%,......„ •fir rii 1 r : 1111/ PROJECT ��,,ae LOCATION 817E ilr t •• . LOOATION II7'' Pt4 't./ .\) EMI /1 ....' , 7,-..a. W14, . I i i,.. ' _1 a . z neo:.non E= M eneleo .`fir: — — —— ll Imo - -1111 IMW wan cue i ne v `..:•iESRrv":g.•:iiiiiE=::u3?:c:::+?''��'�i�?�:i=�T�':i$ X �?,� pern�in-i5lra.-n.r..: ..^. ■ - !�:'fdr'' Si s nl 4icil• .ter, - - .:.r;_a? :..:...._......._ ]e r1.ems - -}i3d�Y•i_x ;si I.. ten] -- - •'��Ni:+-vi:^.j�'%�:.p:.: �� ::Xsrx:.•ySs. .4.e:•c:$Fin-i:i^:�: ow PI- — A a a ss a m 71 II 0 all swae r. , ' e 1 •■••••■•• 1-- 11111111 M. LOCATION MAP ZONING MAP # PETITION PUDZ-PL-2013-682 • Ullilul ill . .. . . i.... ; . Bli:;;;:iii;;;;iii:;:i:iii4ii. itii;;:ttettiffltMt=,:artttliiiii?jr:ii CL 2 #°.C/ /V ii. i'-''' - -- VIng 5i101.1 ilk 9 kr:7' 0 � `, mz° ft jilelik s P _,_ 0 1e 1 CNI cam.,» m„,,e= tome ZS a Os ni ION N rn p a it z PI oct z .. t a I,-z H u El il A Z Z _ gi 11 52 . 51 v as -IL kiihla J- ' SW htl= s ig "' ap ph a 038- x iiLl*i i il '-' i 1 11'2 1 .WiIBmin TV \ h / I ,.. . 1 1---,1- IA t 8 1-ts 1 is x u W,,, 4C5 la tt-Et ?1, .5§ R r4 V li i 5%. 4 g g: l '-■/i 4 tz, I N $g g 1 r -- .(1.14 t. E g 41 t • s .1 It LI I,i . . 121 A t 3 1 g m : Ur g a E 1 el! i I i g 85 2 t 1g ii II Ltt 5) I 4X 111 !ill liv: i 13 i. i 1 a 4S, gill g I 1 • It i t: 3sea g g: i.k 1 I , , i • t fa --f •-*. s 0 f 3 4 •A •.-..,.....•...,•.•7,.•. 4.:,.1 ..:..... ,4:...:ce.' ; ...; •.',.',•.'.'.`.•.:•.' -i . 1.:.* xa,-..!::: g i .,,,,,.:,,,...,;,.: , .7 4g ..4. •,i ;, .......... .....—...,.......— ..,_—.. ............„41 ........ ,......,......—. ' 1. 1: 1 '','.1.'.•.','...'.'.'.•,•.'.',.. g ./-. •, Ell-t, 0 i . :'.•..'''.':'.':•.',...',..-;.:•: ',.....-5-- • ‘:-.',..].....:::,: \ - ... . . . 2 k 4 r 11 NW ! 4 V i 7..1................. ,, ; 1 ','.'i''.'.'.'.'.',•,'.'."..'.1 ....-.s........,..........J '... ; . 1 ■,1 ...,1 I 1.1 1 ...„,...,...,.. .„.."'. V-Inr. .1 1 k/V* iV '...7".....64.:4•4`.Te . • • ' ' 4::.: . . , nc, —-.! -- .......—. CC 1; Ag 1 i I 1 ' , i 1 ; , . 11 : ,... 1.. i_ I I t 1 . Eig Ice : 3 ,, ;Ii -• , .:',., f ,* • Iii i • ; i; :‘,1.11 I! U . i pc 1, --.7 — -1---t— T"'•—• ••••• ••■•••••,..1t ■li it. eN 1 ige k 31 i fy 11 &ID: 4 t : gi, '' I' i 1 . 1 i g ' A, IV r 4:4 .1 Y L4 a V X aP r,-:-.....4 ,i,... ay V.!,.....„,...- .,.. /I i'. Al ,11.'• tIt 1. 1 ...... „.." :. :MOM noikevraii -.:;... ., . • 1 3 --....--"1: 1 fg1 PI vi - - I 4 ! 1 1 1 Ii I 1 I ZONED: SAN MARINO RPUD 1 I USE: RESIDENTIAL 1 NAPLES NATIONAL—i I --SAN MARINO I GOLF CLUES. I i INGRESS/EGRESS INGRESS/EGRESS 1 I i I I I ,...—... ......— : 11■■•••■■ 1/...••• . 1.11.•••• 1... ....:.,,, 1 I i ' 1 I I ZONED: SAN MARINO I I , r I I RPUD USE RESIDENTIAL I V' I I L_.1 I I LL. 10 0 0 1 . i :0 r . r—POTENTIAL I 4i ffi I I INTERCONNECT I R I LAKE g or I 1 R 1 :64 Itn BUFFER PER IOC 1. • : . , ,4 c3i i I I . R . I ' 1 1 • — — —. —— — — --— R 1M '0 I W rintaltipk ..„..„_.. . ... . 1: f _ i W _ ...t BUFFER PER LOC 1 I. .. . 1 CI) POTENTIAL ji ----.7. R , I 1 u I INTERCONNECT j ti I . — — -------- 1Z ZONED:.AGRICULTURAL I g USE UNDEVELOPED •I 0 . I= I ri I ZONED: AGRICULTURAL I m R R I:it I . USE: RESTAURANT LAKE ■ NAPLES CLUB J i I ._,T - .1 ESTATES 1-^CRAKLIN JACKS 1 ; 1 •-•.- .:: INGRESS/EGRESS. INGRESS/EGRESS R . —......7....1 3.' I ZONED: HACIENDA . . v EASTANEST ROW RESERVATION.'''' I LAKES DiklIMPUI): I USE: RESIPEISITIN. ZONED'. HACIENDA LAKES I : '1 I DRUNIPIJD. I . USE; RESIDENTIAL POTENTIAL--1 I . 4 INTERCONNECT — —0 A 1 i r„.......-- . [ ■ q. -- i i 1 p COUNTY PARK.--' L HACIENDA LAKES PROPOSED ••, INGRESS/EGRESS INGRESS/EGRESS •N -.. ......r •I" • : • - — —It . .•..-...1! :i.::: :11.1 ''.:lif - L (, —3--IFf7g5T.r-f—grrY.TN-Fr7R E 1,510 3£09+0.401. %V. I • 1-1:!3/161.3 PLR Cvalir, Rriq.A.a CooKNIS — .......--- 0 300' 800' ■ 0_317:7;75:-,..liretairTriNrli TV67.10-ift----- , .k.7.97.-- SCALE: 1 =600 Rio, Dato I DncgOt■on fily 1--- KEY MAP. WILLOW RUN RPUD /11 GrildyMillOr 0 00id!1010P!mil 4.001.P.1 Ana 11:11011101 ia111i1SL''.---''‘ P001.1$010011.,P1141det 310■ * ,50--::1. rAvo liarJorwri • ltiutt Nurve}rili: . Ilaturelli . Lhocistitt An EXHIBIT C igioroi c....,.,.0,..1,4.11001■15•1 00.0 VA:1000001 0.001.U110.00fto MASTER PLAN 1 MC/Wit 1: NOM:VOW.239.40 1■14 1.11 1r 4 p.h.lt Al in FY.o.,41# s Utt War 2n 01014;100 nem 2 or -51.. 1 I imisses..................... .... _ ._ _ . 411MMIIININIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.1111 • I - , URBAN i RURAL-FRINGE I. RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE DISTRICT FRINGE I BELLE MEADE NRPA .. \: • ' ZONED: FOREST GLENN OF : 1 NAPLES RPUD . USE:: RESIDENTIAL , I ' C - 307 100. SCALE 1"*600' •... ....• . -.. • - - - -: ,... ,. . . • w , . w . .w . ,:k .. , • ... . • • .i. ' . . ZONED: A(RFMUO)NRPA SENDING 1. I U.. 4 % * V • . V' • • L., E.. RESIDENTIAL ZONED: SAN . e- I MARINO , . :. . .. . - .• - . ' i!--- ; RPUD: - • - - - . . *I , . • U-I I USE: - . . . . . . . . RESIDENTIAL r ! . (i) I (PRESERVE) . ..,-.4-......,..-p,.....1 Lii ! .... . ..• • w •.• • , . , ,.- : . • • „: , • ... u.1 , .„ • , . • • , ... • ...• 4. 4 4 4 4 . 4 4 4 0 t ,- • , ... t v • . r v• •1 4 •<4. 4 ... No <,. 4 •■• , C • I ■W I <4 • 4 4. , 4 .4 4 . 4. . Z.' 4. • , • . ..r... < 4.-j 1 44 . , ,,, .4 • .4 . r f r , 4 ,. .4i .r 4 • r• 4 • .4* • 4. .4. 4 .4 4 <I., j. • f 41, <A 4 . v w ZONED:.A(RFMUO) .-- i - - PRESERVE . .I. v NRPA SENDING 0 4 , F- I , . • , . . w • .... 1,.. . . _10+/-ACRES 4 . i A 4 USE RESIDENTIAL ■ v • 11 'V II• Yl• , v •, .• 4 ..! .. Nk • • !.. , 1 s i i■ • ,{ ■i 4 4 , 4 , re• 4 . 1 , . 4 i i •• f• 4 , , •• 4 .. •4 • r 4.. v. • •ir I, 4 I 1 \ - L • 1 .i.R rr .. •••••• • .-. r•• se re . • :t•. tv: I' ...... .4.4,44. i mom.. • ...I 1' I `*,r,- - !'...',-s , • , . ..,. ., z. 0.. ,,, ... R i -1- . I - I . --- ! R : . . - - 4 . ........." , -- .: . •- ' . ' ZONED: MAC HACIENDA LAKES * 1 .< bRifillIF4j1,11(RPMUO,NRPA - • ..- . . - , . , SENDING) 5: I. -, USE: RESIDENTIAL ,• . .. .. :.- . <4. 4.< 4. 1, ••• 4 :: • / ' v S.I 4, .. . v •:r a v v . 4.• 4 4. 14. •W• 4 4 V.. 'ir '• 4 , • 7------...' i . . • ,..4 . . . .. . . . .. , i q , 1.''''-'77.-'•.::1 ; • ..., .. R . , . :II . . . [. 4. . . . . ,.. . .. .I.-.....-"." i 4 y ,i • y • • 4 .4 4 ili 4r 1.*:i'.','.• -..4 i ••••••l' -----r r..-.-.-:,.-!.-.7-..!.7-:,777.7'..1-.---1•••.7"t7.7.-• .Mgt Ciit' gEEttFitifiti ... . . .. . . L..4_. 1.ii . . .,?11.77Y-IiViir412._..1-*.i-rllii!I76:N*"...."*.''-'- '''------'-"-r'I'•C'"• I. II 1j.. 4.•-i....44 i 1: I 11:44 I S .'-*...,..47‘4,1:5‘.. i...,:=-R,E.,?.te:Ti.--qtY..,2,...ekr*q.ii.Ts..,.....:.„.„,._.,:_„: ..!,?.., L-..,..._____.....__=,- -.=:.„.,...it ___1: 10:1,.411,..,::Pet;fr f..):i I, KviN"4"clikylA,'N' :"1L. --- - 1. KEY MAP g A.,,•,,,::., .,:we'I Ligt.:,4-,t r.,. C;. • . WILLOW RUN RP(ID r.1..t4irdIr S...liarrairl',..4144...•1 ..4-;.4".6=.0 . / 1/ GraclyMInor ' • 3.,.......,!.-:iw, •yr... ........4 ..,...,•,,,:„..3w,..3.r,I EXA1011. C. ...,...v...i_........./ ail i:pgilaTps i. han0 Sun.Alas 4 11;wiiiTs • I 4c:1414,00. *171U-Iiiiii: MASTER PLAN 'i .1 ,ri 4......4".11r,1 i,91....111.41)I1411 * ad.i.f.Akrandb. itellail tii•lligi•?ill..41 I I I i 1 II 1.Fl lir.4”4:117.1-or onp lir 9.trli 1.36{.:.■■■,CAW, •' NHI:17 3 OF S .5 ! 1111•1111•11111111■ . . . , . : . : . , . „ . : • . . ., , I R '. R j -, ...• ., I- - .• • -• - •.. - 1 — MATCH LINE-SEE SHEET 3 OF 4-- .•.•-..,—•.--.— R• :. .• ... :•„, - ,•.• ,„:„ , .... .. - Ye . ' 'a . :, ;,I' , • . v • • t + • o. .. I . .. . ." ''' :::..„ _,.. „...,. ,\ ., .... ...' .. I' ..... ',. . ,.. '' , •, . , . . ' . . 11 •• •• • • •• • •'. .. i , • • ••• 4 s. s. .: N. R , •, i •!,, . , „ ,i ,. „ --.... 1 .-‘. . . .... , , R * .-----irm,-----,---4 . . LAKE 1 LAKE. \. . .., .i. . o kl a 1. • • . I 'SCALE::l'=6Oo• :• • , 1 1 I,. - _ ._. ......• ts ,. .1.. ,,, ,, ... ..• : \..• .. ., : • • --, - ; . „, • • • ...... ..•.-12.1x WIDE FUTURE .• . . . • . / /' BENFIELD•ROAD . • . 1 • , , .... 1 .-, - •- ----1 ..,.. . CORRIDOR(SUBJECT - • , IDA RECORDED CONSERVATION U-I R • EASEMENT). . . PRESERVE' •-•• ,. -' N-1 . . I :, ... I •• i - 210+P.ACRES '-' .." • .. Li .. .... . • . LAKE / • V. 1.i V' .41. .4. si . * f). , 1: , WI ."....... ....".". I . . 4 ..• t . .. ., • .w ../+.7,..,.. , . . = ZONED:..HACIENPA CO i !• I.. . i • • - _ - „ • / . 4 , . •:„. •2,,,, „. . , : LAKES•DRI/MPUD 113; I... V V 1 1, V . ■ ■ V '4 V •••R. .. . IRFMUO.NRPA $ENotRO) WI .: ... .... ; . „. , .../ ,...•." .. .. -.. :. • • USE; RESIDENTIAL / . • I . •, .. •.• ..., . - •,.- r 4 v • • Z71, ri f---! , <I • . i• 21 .ZONED: HACIENDA I i• / ZONED:HACIENDA LAKES 4,.• „ . I LAKES DRONIPUD I- DRIIMPUD r... 1 USE: RESIDENTIAL . / '*".\, USE: RESIDENTIAL •a 1 • I . / ,• , St. •i . . \ '';„,.. 1 \--120.'VIDE FUTURE BENFIELD ROAD CORRIDOR THROUGH .:., /:• • ? , ,. , .. HACIENDA LAKES()RI 'ff 1 - / ,-- . - // 1 1 1 1.• ..,. 1 URBAN I ! . . . RURAL FRINGE • a .•• . I I i , RESIDENTIAL. ' MIXED USE DISTRICT ! 71-7 • I. FRINGE BELLE MEADE NRPA. I _ „. .....4 II .....':•:, .-. .i _ •. . ,..: ., -- ....,,..4. • i -Ilo• ,.•-..;1 • 1 ,pl.r• • :.::••••••4 ....• ...1:. I • U ":..i vi.,.:;r:, ..*.'•. if: ,. , • ••Ev,-.41 „„, :g.: •-- ' 1 • "-• ..--4----- • .. ....t.r.:%.•••••: ■ . ---1- gii,7,--,tp'',4L.F.r.1±.at..;„*.3i.gt:iltib.:re.f.4.4.31:0!,- __if, .4 L . --r""rXeri:' 4_FU3.';*,?..Nrx ai,NA- C-7-gfief".1.--17-.C7,„„',„„,:„.,„.,,,___„..':6,:e... 3.....:: , ' v.:Dj?.a!„! op,1 tiitiAlr Etr:vevr I CCP:A.10f f:i I:Y,U,. • • • • - fi4,-..s.:an:i'' 1)9”. :41........:•.!'fillt . ' . 1 0,.. KEY MAP ,. ,.,...• . WILLOW RUN' IIPLTD . ' eitdyMiOcir.• A,4.-.1,No.,*stwwtairi P•N ,rir,4*.,4**p...riodd.t.:14 CO „ 'iore g• . F.:Xi-Ili:ill C ...„,‘,..- cha Viiollivii: .• 140 SOrr.^,..ii: 4 tbliiiten■ t f■Ait‘i.dPC:If diliiii4 0 L4AVER P LAI 3 illii414, 5 .....,1 4 V.*irl hair,"1 . V•rft...1...■1.1.61 t..........44....Kfizili 11 ,NI INN.ipal j..i.r1.0 -•rs..ih,krkyelici.yr* 1,41,Uri, :3!..C14;MR !mEt 4.* - - . .•• . ......— 1 � �� s f - .',. b' "..':or.,),,,,,,, '1 kl....t " [;jmo . II is 4 - •*,,,� j ---- — It_ W .,,,_._ ' 1.11 4 ��' , ,-• ---, \s„ I A - 1 j.' •` +l - ` .- �. ... 3" . ,�', . • S u bj e c ti ; Property . CIUb CSId 4 CJf II i I'..., 3_ . ..,.2.--- --- -.3,:-.0, ,...,,,, i ;5. ,., .;. 1 p. ,.•,, ' y� A.1.-• .., . . fi 1 .. `p. > [ lir :1 '4 as i .:•—f+ .,IOr,daisporis:4. -""—. Google earth Aerial Photo (subject site depiction is approximate) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): A portion of the subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District,Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, and a portion is designated Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands and within the Belle Meade Natural Resources Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay, 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). The Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict allows uses that include: residential development (variety of unit types), including associated accessory recreational uses, and, recreation and open PUDZ-PL20130000682;WILLOW RUN PUD Page 3 of 22 July 17,2014 CCPC Revised: 7/7/14 space uses— the uses proposed in this PUD; and, allows residential density at a maximum of 1.5 dwelling units per acre (DU/A),unless Transfer of Development Rights(TDR)Credits are utilized (from RFMUD Sending Lands within one mile of the Urban boundary), in which case the maximum density allowed is 2.5 DU/A. There is also a provision to allow Density Blending — shifting of density into the RFMUD Sending Lands. The Urban Residential Fringe portion of the site is eligible for 593 DUs without use of TDR Credits(395 acres X 1.5 DU/A=592.5 4 593 DUs). The applicant indicates TDR credits will not be used. As discussed further below, the RFMUD Sending Lands portion of the site retains 3 DU rights. This PUD proposes a maximum of 590 DUs. The Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict also states: "All rezones are encouraged to be in the form of a planned unit development. Proposed development in the Subdistrict shall be fully responsible for all necessary water management improvements, including the routing of all on-site and appropriate of site water through the project's water management system, and a fair share cost of necessary improvements to the CR 951 canal/out-fall system made necessary by new development in the Subdistrict." This project is submitted as a PUD; Comprehensive Planning staff defers to Engineering Plans Review staff for water management review. The RFMUD Sending Lands designation allows a restricted list of uses, including habitat preservation and conservation uses, and 1 DU/40 acres (0.025 DU/A); allows TDR Credits to be severed and transferred at a ratio of 1 DU/5 acres (for the base TDR Credit, and each of three bonus TDR Credits, yielding a maximum severance of 4 TDR Credits/5 acres); allows partial residential development rights to be retained(e.g. for a 40-acre parcel, 7 base TDR Credits could be severed and 1 DU right retained such that 1 DU could still be built on that 40-acre parcel); further restricts land uses once TDR Credits have been severed; requires an appropriate legal instrument to be recorded in public records once TDR Credits have been severed, to include stating the remaining allowable uses on the property; and,prohibits provision of central water and sewer. These same provisions are included in the RFMU Sending Lands zoning overlay in LDC Sec. 2.03.08A.4.; that LDC Section also provides for a minimum lot area of 40 acres and minimum lot width of 300 feet. The PUD Master Plan identifies the RFMUD Sending Lands portion of the site mostly as Preserve; two areas are [existing] Lakes; and, one small area is R, Residential Development that includes a road segment and development area. Three tax parcels comprise the RFMUD Sending Lands portion of the site. TDR Credits have been severed from all three parcels (per County records); the northerly parcel - Preserve on the PUD Master Plan - retained 0 DU rights, the middle parcel — Residential, Lake and Preserve on the PUD Master Plan - retained 2 DU rights (2 DUs may be built on the site, but not clustered), and the southerly parcel—Lake and Preserve on the PUD Master Plan-retained 1 DU right(1 DU may be built). A limitation of development rights agreement has been recorded on the property to limit development to that under LDC Sec.2.03.08.A.4.b.,Uses Allowed Where TDR Credits Have Been Severed; also, a conservation easement has been recorded over these Sending Lands. However,the applicable Density Blending provision may still be utilized. For properties that straddle the URF and RFMUD designations, the FLUE includes a density blending provision; the applicant indicates the project "may, but is not required to, utilize" this PUDZ-PL20130000682;WILLOW RUN PUD Page 4 of 22 July 17,2014 CCPC Revised: 7/7/14 provision. However, it is only via use of density blending that density may be "transferred" from Urban Residential Fringe lands to RFMUD Sending Lands, and clustered. Otherwise, Sending Lands are limited to 1 DU/40 acres and cannot be clustered. As the proposed PUD does not include Sending Lands development standards for the Sending Lands portion of the PUD, which includes a residential area, and as the agent and owner in prior meeting with staff indicated the desire to be able to place density in that residential area, the PUD must use density blending. The PUD Exhibit "A" needs to be revised to reflect this. The density blending provision is as follows (FLUE text is followed by staff analysis/comment in [bold text]): 5. Density Blending: This provision is intended to encourage unified plans of development and to preserve wetlands, wildlife habitat, and other natural features that exist within properties that straddle the Urban Mixed Use and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districts or that straddle Receiving and Neutral Lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. In the case of such properties, which were in existence and under unified control (owned, or under contract to purchase, by the applicant(s)) as of June 19, 2002, the allowable gross density for such properties in aggregate may be distributed throughout the project, regardless of whether or not the density allowable for a portion of the project exceeds that which is otherwise permitted, when the following conditions are met: 2. Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban Residential Fringe Sub-District and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending lands: (a) The project must straddle the Urban Residential Fringe Sub-District and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands; [The subject property does straddles this boundary.] (b) The project in aggregate must be a minimum of 400 acres; [The total site is +559 acres.] (c) At least 25% of the project must be located within the Urban Residential Fringe Sub-District; [Approximately 71% of the project is within the URF (395 acres in URF/559 acres total).] (d) The project must extend central water and wastewater treatment facilities (from the urban designated portion of the project) to serve the entire project, unless alternative interim water and wastewater treatment provisions are authorized by Collier County; [County water and wastewater serves this site.] (e) The Project is currently zoned or will be zoned PUD; [This project is submitted as a PUD.] (f) The density to be shifted to the Sending Lands from the Urban Residential Fringe is to be located on impacted or disturbed lands, or it is demonstrated that the development on the site is to be located so as to preserve and protect the highest quality native vegetation and/or habitat on-site and to maximize the connectivity of such native vegetation and/or wildlife habitat with adjacent preservation and/or habitat areas; [Review of the aerial of the site appears to indicate development proposed for the RFMUD Sending Lands portion of the site is disturbed (cleared); however, Comprehensive Planning staff defers determination of consistency with this criterion to Environmental Planning staff.] PUDZ-PL20130000682;WILLOW RUN PUD Page 5 of 22 July 17,2014 CCPC Revised: 7/7/14 (g) Native vegetation shall be preserved as follows: [Comprehensive Planning staff defers determination of consistency with this criterion to Environmental Planning staff.] (1) The Urban portion of the project shall comply with the native vegetation requirements identified in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (for Urban designated lands), or in the case of projects where the native vegetation requirement for the Sending Lands portion of the project is the maximum required 60 percent of the total Sending Land area, in order to promote greater preservation of the highest quality wetlands and listed species habitat, the required native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may be shifted by providing native vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion of the project exceeding the 60% maximum preservation requirement as set forth in subsection (2) below. The ratio for such native vegetation preservation shall be two acres of Sending Lands (exceeding the 60% maximum preservation requirement)for each acre below the required amount of native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project. In no instance shall less than 10 percent of the required amount of native vegetation be retained in the Urban portion of the project. Significant Archeological Sites identified by the State of Florida Division of Historic Resources shall be preserved and cannot be mitigated for. (2) For those lands within the project designated as Sending, the native vegetation preservation requirement shall be 90% of the native vegetation, not to exceed 60% of the total project area designated as Sending, unless the provisions found in subsection(1)above are met. (3) Wetland areas that are impacted through the development process, but which result in enhanced wetland function, including habitat and/or flowways, shall be considered as part of the native vegetation requirement set forth in this provision and shall not be considered as impacted areas. These wetland areas and/or flowways may be used for water storage provided that the water discharged in these areas is pre-treated. (h) Permitted uses for density blending under this provision include residential development and associated amenities, including golf courses meeting the criteria for golf courses within the Neutral area. This provision is not intended to eliminate any uses permitted within the applicable underlying land use designation. [The proposed PUD allows residential uses, associated recreational uses, and open space — all allowed under the FLUM designations.] In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be 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, 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 7.1:The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without PUDZ-PL20130000682;WILLOW RUN PUD Page 6 of 22 July 17,2014 CCPC Revised: 7/7/14 violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [Exhibit C, PUD Master Plan, depicts direct access to Collier Boulevard (CR 951), classified as an arterial road in the Transportation Element.] 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. [Exhibit C,PUD Master Plan, depicts one loop road, and internal access for all development areas.] 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. [Cursory review suggests interconnections could be provided to the north (San Marino PUD) and south (Hacienda Lakes PUD and A-zoned lands). Exhibit C,PUD Master Plan, identifies a "potential interconnect" to the north and to the south,and these are also listed in Exhibit F,List of Developer Commitments,#2.C.] 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 PUD allows for a variety of dwelling unit types,and allows typical community uses such as a clubhouse which are sometimes used for civic purposes, e.g. polling place. Though the amount of open space required and provided is not indicated, Exhibits C, PUD Master Plan, and F, List of Developer Commitments, identify the required preserve is 149 acres whereas 210 acres (over 1/3 of the site) are provided; large lakes are shown on Exhibit C; the PUD allows typical accessory recreation uses, e.g. community clubhouse, tennis courts, swimming pool, etc.; and, yards will be provided around buildings and structures. Exhibit E, List of Requested Deviations, #1, provides that sidewalks will be provided on both sides of local streets except "on one side of the street only for streets with homes on one side of the street"); this is a common deviation request and one which Comprehensive Planning staff does not object.] 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 amendment 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). Please note that the Density blending provision in section B.5.2. of the Future Land Use Element is being used. This requires, "For those lands within the project designated as Sending, the native vegetation preservation requirement shall be 90% of the native vegetation, not to exceed 60% of the total project area designated as Sending"(FLUE,pg. 52). PUDZ-PL20130000682;WILLOW RUN PUD Page 7 of 22 July 17,2014 CCPC Revised: 7/7/14 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 fording 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. 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 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. The PUD Master Plan provides 210 acres of Preserve,which exceeds the minimum requirement of 149.19 acres. This project does require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project meets the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Specifically,the project contains RFMU District Sending Lands. Please refer to the Environmental Impact Statement for further details regarding the environmental review. 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. The access location for this development may allow for a traffic signal, for which the developer will be required to contribute a proportionate share toward the installation if warrants are met. Additional stipulation not addressed by the [modified] Developer Commitments: As a stipulation of approval, Staff is requesting that the developer commit to provide reimbursement to the County to maintain the"convenience"signal benefitting this private development. In addition to that stipulation, staff requests that the CCPC include the following stipulations in any recommendation for approval: PUDZ-PL20130000682;WILLOW RUN PUD Page 8 of 22 July 17,2014 CCPC Revised: 7/7/14 1. The developer or his successors shall reserve 120 feet of land for right-of-way within the easterly 400 feet, north to south across the subject site; 2. The developer or his successors shall provide disclosure to residents that a four-lane roadway could be located in proximity to the homes within this project; and 3. The developer or his successor shall at no cost to Collier County, accept stormwater from the Benfield Road (or whatever name this road has at the time) into this project's stormwater management system. Utilities Review: Utilities staff has asked that the following stipulation be included in any approval: Prior to its last phase of development, the Developer shall identify and provide an interconnection stub-out to either Hacienda Lakes or San Marino PUD for water distribution;plans shall be reviewed and approved by CCWSD at time of SDP or plat. This commitment can be terminated by CCWSD if its staff determines that interconnection at either property line is not possible. The applicant is in agreement with the stipulation. 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. As noted earlier in the staff report, the area to the north is partially developed with two residential projects and an undeveloped agriculturally zoned tract. To the east, south and west, there are undeveloped portions of the Hacienda Lakes DRI/PUD zoned project, that allowed a mixture of residential, attraction (Swamp Buggy grounds), and commercial uses. Zoning staff is of the opinion that this project will be compatible with and complementary to,the surrounding land uses. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking approval of ten deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are listed in PUD Exhibit E. Deviations are a normal derivative of the PUD zoning process following the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC Section 2.03.06 which says in part: It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs . . . . may depart from the strict application of setback, height, and minimum lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum PUDZ-PL20130000682;WILLOW RUN PUD Page 9 of 22 July 17,2014 CCPC Revised: 7/7/14 standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the public interest. . . . Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements, which requires sidewalks to be constructed on both sides of local streets, to allow sidewalks on one side of the street only for streets with homes on one side of the street. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: Providing a sidewalk on both sides of a private street where homes are provided on a single side of the street is unnecessary in order to provide safe pedestrian access within the community. This is consistent with the direction Transportation Planning Staff has been discussing with regard to future LDC revisions. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff can support this deviation, subject to the stipulation that the developer provide 1 canopy tree(or canopy tree equivalent)per 30 linear feet of sidewalk. Canopy trees located within 10 feet of the sidewalk may count towards a sidewalk canopy tree. This stipulation shall serve to assist in the implementation of LDC Section 4.06.01.A. f and g and B.2.h and i of the landscape and buffering requirements that states: Improve environmental quality by reducing and reversing air, noise, heat and chemical pollution through the preservation of canopy trees and the creation of shade and microclimate; and Reduce heat gain in or on buildings or paved areas through the filtering capacity of trees and vegetation. The trees shall be those identified in 4.06.05.1) 1 & 2. These additional trees should provide a needed enhancement for the sidewalk on one side of the road and make using it a more pleasing experience. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the stipulation noted above, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N, Street System Requirements and Appendix B, Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way Design Standards, which establishes a 60 foot wide local road to allow a minimum 40' wide local road. See Exhibit E-1,Private Road Cross Section. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The proposed 40'wide private road ROW is sufficiently wide to accommodate the required roadway improvements. Utilities and sidewalks can be placed within easements outside the private ROW. The site has some areas where physical constraints will limit the ability PUDZ-PL20130000682;WILLOW RUN PUD Page 10 of 22 July 17,2014 CCPC Revised: 7/7/14 to provide a standard 60'ROW for a local road. The internal project roads will be private and the standard public ROW is not necessary for internal traffic volumes. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is`justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation#3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J,Street System Requirements,which limits cul- de-sacs to a maximum length of 1,000 feet to permit cul-de-sacs to be a maximum of 3,500 feet in length with placement of no through traffic signage. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The proposed residential development tracts due to their separation by existing lake areas and other geographic factors, require access via cul-de-sacs. The 1,000'length will need to be exceeded in order to gain adequate vehicular access to all development areas within the PUD. The cul-de-sacs can be identified with appropriate signage indicating that the roads are not through streets. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved but staff believes it would be appropriate to place a turn-around at a least one strategic location since the proposed cul-de-sac length far exceeds the allowable 1,000 feet. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the stipulation that the developer place a turn-around at 1,500 feet that can accommodate emergency and waste management sized vehicles, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is `justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02, Buffer Requirements, which requires a fifteen foot type `B" landscape buffer between single family and multi-family residential uses to allow no landscape buffer. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation from the standard landscape buffer requirements is justified due to the presence of recorded preservation areas located adjacent to proposed residential development tracts within the PUD along a portion of the north and west property line. To the west, the residential tract is separated from the adjacent San Marino PUD residential development area by a 170' wide FPL easement and their recorded native vegetation PUDZ-PL20130000682;WILLOW RUN PUD Page 11 of 22 July 17,2014 CCPC Revised: 7/7/14 preserve area. Providing the required buffer in these described conditions is not necessary to insure proper separation of land uses or for compatibility. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation for those only those areas described above, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation#5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C,Fences and Walls,which permits a maximum wall height of 6' in residential zoning districts. The requested deviation is to allow a maximum wall height of 8' throughout the development, and a 12' tall wall, berm, or combination wall/berm along Collier Blvd. frontage. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The proposed deviation will allow for additional visual screening and mitigation of noise pollution resulting from traffic along CR 951, a 6-lane divided arterial roadway. Additionally, the project ground elevation will be altered to accommodate a new bridge structure making it necessary to obtain additional height for the wall along Collier Boulevard. The wall will be landscaped on the Collier Boulevard facing side. Approval of this deviation will serve to promote public health, safety and welfare, as well as enhance the aesthetic appeal of the proposed community and the Collier Boulevard corridor. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation for those only those areas described above, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.04.13.5, Model Homes and Model Sales Centers, which permits a maximum of five(5)model homes,or a number corresponding to ten(10)percent of the total number of platted lots,whichever is less,per platted approved development prior to final plat approval. The requested deviation is to allow for a maximum of four (4) model homes per development tract,not to exceed 20 model homes within the overall RPUD. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The RP UD proposes a variety of product types to accommodate various demographics and income levels. Due to the size of the project, the phased nature of the development, and the variety of dwelling types proposed, the Applicant is seeking an additional model home allowance to ensure the community is properly marketed to prospective buyers. The PUDZ-PL20130000682;WILLOW RUN PUD Page 12 of 22 July 17,2014 CCPC Revised: 7/7/14 proposed deviation provides the County with the necessary safeguards to ensure an excess of model homes are not constructed Therefore,public health, safety and welfare will not be negatively impacted upon approval of this deviation. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Due to the size of the project, staff agrees that some allowance can be made to allow additional model units. Hacienda Lakes PUD, which was approved for over 1,700 residential units received deviation approval to allow up to 60 model homes. Bent Creek Preserve PUD received approval to allow 15 model homes for 450 dwelling units. With this project's proposed number of units (590), allowing a maximum of 20 models seems appropriate therefore; staff concurs with the applicant's assessment of the situation for this particular project. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated. However, the developer should provide documentation at each building permit requested for a model home stating how many models are in operation to ensure the total of 20 is not exceeded. This stipulation is included in staff's recommendation. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h,the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is"justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #7 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e, Temporary Signs, which allows temporary signs on residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height. The requested deviation is to allow a temporary sign or banner up to a maximum of 32 square feet in area and a maximum of 8 feet in height. The temporary sign or banner shall be limited to 28 days per calendar year. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: Due to the property's substantial setback from Collier Boulevard, as well as the high travel speeds along the roadway, the Applicant is seeking an increase to the allowable banner size to ensure visibility of this new community. The requested banner size is in accordance with deviations approved for similar residential projects throughout the County. This same deviation was approved for Naples View PUD, which is an 11-acre, 66-unit residential project on Airport Pulling Road. That project, like this one, has approximately 400 feet of frontage on the roadway providing access to the project. Both roadways are busy arterial roadways, thus staff sees the need to temporarily bring attention to this new project. The temporary sign would need to conform to all other requirements for temporary uses and signage. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," PUDZ-PL20130000682;WILLOW RUN PUD Page 13 of 22 July 17,2014 CCPC Revised: 7/7/14 and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h,the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is`justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #8 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.2, Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, which permits one (1) real estate sign per street frontage that is setback a minimum of 10' from any property line. The requested deviation is to allow for a maximum of one (1) real estate sign on the Collier Blvd. frontage, to be setback a minimum of 5' from the property line. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The property line is set back approximately 100 feet from Collier Blvd. a six (6) lane arterial roadway. Due to the setback and the high travel speeds along the road, the Applicant is seeking a reduction to the setback in order to ensure visibility of this new community. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is `justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #9 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5, Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, which requires on-premise directional signs to be setback a minimum of 10' from internal property lines. The requested deviation is to allow for on-premise direction signage to be setback a minimum of 5' from internal property lines. This deviation does not apply to property adjacent to Collier Blvd. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation will allow for the development of appropriate directional signage internal to the RPUD. A unified design theme will be utilized for all signage throughout the community, thereby ensuring a cohesive appearance and increased aesthetic appeal. Furthermore, this deviation is typical of many of the large-scale master planned developments throughout Collier County. The proposed community will be master planned with a unified, cohesive signage theme. The reduced setback will allow for flexibility of signage placement, while ensuring public health, safety and welfare is protected. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," PUDZ-PL20130000682;WILLOW RUN PUD Page 14 of 22 July 17,2014 CCPC Revised: 7/7/14 and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h,the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation#10 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, which permits two (2) ground signs per entrance to the development with a maximum height of 8' and total sign area of 64 s.f. per sign. The requested deviation is to allow for two(2)ground signs per project entrance with a maximum height of 10' and total sign area of 80 s.f. per sign face. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The subject property is accessed via an arterial roadway with high travel speeds. Additionally, the property has a significant street setback due to the location of the canal along the property's frontage. Due to the setback from southbound travel lanes and the property's location along an arterial road, the Applicant is seeking an increase to allowable entry signage height and area to ensure visibility of the community. This deviation request is similar to previous requests approved for large master planned communities within Collier County. The required setback from rights-of-way for entry signs will meet LDC standards, thereby ensuring public, health, safety and welfare is protected. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved, with the stipulations that these signs shall be limited to only the Willow Run entrance on Collier Boulevard, and that the "per sign"language is removed as shown below: Deviation #10 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, which permits two (2)ground signs per entrance to the development with a maximum height of 8'and total sign area of 64 s.f.per-sign. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is`justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." FINDINGS OF FACT: 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." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below. [Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold, non-italicized font]: PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the PUDZ-PL20130000682;WILLOW RUN PUD Page 15 of 22 July 17,2014 CCPC Revised: 7/7/14 CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. 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 property. Additionally, the development will be required to obtain 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). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP. 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 and developer commitments will help ensure that this project is compatible with the surrounding area. S. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this project 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 as noted in PUDZ-PL20130000682;WILLOW RUN PUD Page 16 of 22 July 17,2014 CCPC Revised: 717114 the GMP FLUE and Transportation Element consistency review, if the mitigation proposed by the petitioner is included in any approval recommendation. In addition, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal systems and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 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 seeking several deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06.A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes the deviations can be supported, some with stipulations, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report for a more extensive examination of the deviations. 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 recommending that this project be found consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with neighborhood development and with all other applicable policies of the GMP if the companion GMPA is adopted. 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 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. PUDZ-PL20130000682;WILLOW RUN PUD Page 17 of 22 July 17,2014 CCPC Revised: 7/7/14 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. 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 for the contract purchaser. 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 proposed rezoning is being requested in concert with a request to amend 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 and the proposed Development Commitments detailed in Exhibit F, 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 infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in Exhibit F of the RPUD ordinance. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have other specific regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new developments. 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; PUDZ-PL20130000682;WILLOW RUN PUD Page 18 of 22 July 17,2014 CCPC Revised: 7/7/14 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 value.There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; Properties to the north of this property are zoned PUD but remain undeveloped with the uses that would be allowed by that zoning. Rezoning this property to a PUD district seems appropriate and allows for the interconnection shown on the PUD Master Plan. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 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, if the proposed amendment is adopted, 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 amendment 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; 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, PUDZ-PL20130000682;WILLOW RUN PUD Page 19 of 22 July 17,2014 CCPC Revised: 7/7/14 staff has evaluated the appropriateness of this particular zoning petition. There are other sites in Collier County that would allow the proposed uses; however the proposed uses are also appropriate at this location as well. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC. 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 The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as it may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD document. 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): The agents conducted a duly noticed NIM on December 12, 2013. Please see attached copy of notes. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on June 25,2014. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-PL20130000682 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval subject to the following stipulations: PUDZ-PL20130000682;WILLOW RUN PUD Page 20 of 22 July 17,2014 CCPC Revised: 7/7/14 1. Deviation #1 is recommended for approval subject to the stipulation that the developer provide 1 canopy tree (or canopy tree equivalent) per 30 linear feet of sidewalk. Canopy trees located within 10 feet of the sidewalk may count towards a sidewalk canopy tree; 2. Deviation #3 is recommended for approval subject to the stipulation that the developer place a turn-around at 1,500 feet that can accommodate emergency and waste management sized vehicles;and 3. Deviation #6 is recommended for approval subject to the stipulation that the PUD document be revised to include the following requirement: As part of the application material for every building permit for a model home, the developer shall provide documentation stating how many model homes are in existence so that the maximum of twenty (20) model homes is not exceeded. 4.Deviation#10 is approved subject to the following stipulations: a) These signs shall be limited to only the Willow Run entrance on Collier Boulevard, and b) The"per sign"language is removed. 5. The developer shall revise the PUD commitments to provide for reimbursement to the County to maintain the"convenience"signal benefitting this private development. 6. Prior to its last phase of development, the Developer shall identify and provide an interconnection stub-out to either Hacienda Lakes or San Marino PUD for water distribution; plans shall be reviewed and approved by CCWSD at time of SDP or plat. This commitment can be terminated by CCWSD if its staff determines that interconnection at either property line is not possible. 7. The owner or his successors shall reserve 120 feet of land for road right-of-way within the easterly 4000 feet,north to south across the PUD. 8. The developer or his successors shall provide disclosure to residents that a four-lane public roadway is planned within the easterly 400 feet of this PUD and it could be located in proximity to the homes within this PUD. 9. The owner of his successor shall, at no cost to Collier County, accept stormwater from the proposed Benfield Road Corridor into the PUD's stormwater management system. PUDZ-PL20130000682;WILLOW RUN PUD Page 21 of 22 July 17,2014 CCPC Revised: 7/7/14 PREPARED BY:bsia.,y, iplAtilt(t KAY DEELEM,AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEWED BY:613e1L------ .47V(-74 RAYM 7271 D V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 6 -2— ,y MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVED BY: 0 � o Z7 - 1N JriiIri N CI( AS ; 1G 4 _:A,AD ''ISTRATOR DATE GROWTH MANA EMENT DIVISION Attachment: NIM transcript This petition will has been tentatively scheduled for a September 23, 2014 BCC hearing PUDZ-PL20130000682;WILLOW RUN PUD Page 22 of 22 July 19,2014 CCPC Revised: 6/20/14 Willow Run RPUD Petition PL2013-0682 Neighborhood Information Meeting December 12,2013, 5:30 p.m. Wayne Arnold,representing Winchester Lakes Corporation and Willow Run Land Trust, opened the meeting at 5:35 p.m. and introduced himself and Sharon Umpenhour with Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., Kay Deselem representing Collier County Growth Management, Jim Banks from JMB Transportation Engineering, Joe Bonness and Maureen Bonness as the property owners. Nine members from the public were in attendance. A sign-in sheet was provided. Mr. Arnold began the information meeting by explaining the current zoning and land use and explained that this is a request to rezone the property from the earth mine to a residential PUD for up to 684 dwelling units on 560±acres. Wayne proceeded to explain the hearing process and the noticing requirements for the hearings. At this time no nearing dates have been set: however, the Planning Commission likely will be in February. An aerial was displayed showing the location of the subject property and also a color rendering of the conceptual Master Plan. Wayne described the different land uses and showed the proposed and potential access points, preserve, residential and lake areas on the conceptual Master Plan. Wayne also talked about the conservation easement that was already in existence on the property and explained that the project was required to preserve 25% of the native vegetation on site. The conceptual Master Plan shows approximately 210+/-acres of preserve area. Wayne also discussed the Benfield Road corridor shown on the conceptual Master Plan and long range plans for the road that will parallel Collier Boulevard. Wayne turned the meeting over to the members of the public for questions. The following questions were asked. Will the green area shown remain preserve forever? The green area on the conceptual Master Plan is within a conservation easement and will remain as preserve. Do you see an impact or change to the waterflow or hydrology of the site or surrounding areas? The existing flow and hydrology will not change as a result of the proposed development. Any idea if the development of this project and Hacienda Lakes will have an impact on the ability of 951 to handle the additional traffic? There is available capacity, but as more parcels are developed the capacity will diminish. The County is planning the Benfield Road extension for this reason, Benfield Road will run parallel to Collier Boulevard and relieve traffic on Collier Boulevard as more of the land is developed. Are there any plans for sewer plant expansion or additional plants in this area? No,at this time the County has no plans to expand in this area. How does this development differentiate from other developments? At this time there is not a specific developer,but the size of the preserve and lakes will make it a unique community. Will there be a marina or boat docks on the lakes? There will be provisions for small boats on the lakes. What about commercial,is there any proposed? No, this is proposed for residential uses and does not propose any general commercial uses. How many total units are proposed? A maximum of 684 dwelling units are proposed. Mr. Arnold asked if there were any additional questions, there being none he closed the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:50 p.m. 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 RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT (A), A RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH AN ST OVERLAY (A-ST), A RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH A RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE SENDING LANDS OVERLAY AND NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY (A-RFMUD-NRI'A), AND AN AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH A RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE SENDING LANDS OVERLAY AND SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY AND NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AREA OVERLAY (A-RFMUD-ST-NRPA) TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW UP TO 590 DWELLING UNITS FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE WILLOW RUN RPUD ON PROPERTY LOCATEI) AT 9220 COLLIER BOULEVARD IN SECTIONS 11, 12, 13 ANI) 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 559± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.(PUDZ-PL20130000682) WHEREAS, D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., representing Joseph D. Bonness, ITT, as Trustee for the Willow Run Land Trust, 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 Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from a Rural Agricultural Zoning District (A), a Rural Agricultural Zoning District with an ST Overlay (A- ST), a Rural Agricultural Zoning District with a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands Overlay and Natural Resource Protection Overlay (A-RFMUD-NRPA), and an Agricultural Zoning District with a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands Overlay and Special Treatment Overlay and Natural Resource Protection Area Overlay (A-RFMUD-ST-NRPA) to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a 559± acre parcel to be known as the Willow WILLOW RUN RPUD- PUDZ-PL20130000682 Page I of 2 R .6/24114 Run RPUD in accordance with Exhibits A through F 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 tiling with the Department of State. 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: I leidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A— Permitted Uses Exhibit B —Development Standards Exhibit C—Master Plan(5 pages) Exhibit D— Legal Description Exhibit E—List of Requested Deviations Exhibit E-1 —Private Road Cross Section Single and Double Loaded Development Tract Exhibit I'—List of Developer Commitments CP\13-cPs-0 I 25527 WILLOW RUN RPUD-PUDZ-PL20130000682 Page 2 of 2 Rev.6/24/14 EXHIBIT A FOR WILLOW RUN RPUD Regulations for development of the Willow Run 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 590 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. Commercial excavation, asphalt and concrete batch plants (these uses shall cease upon issuance of first certificate of occupancy). There shall be no blasting for the commercial excavation after the first building permit is issued; however, blasting required for residential development shall be permitted. 2. Dwelling Units - Multiple-family, single family attached, single family detached, townhouse, two-family, duplex, variable lot line (single family) and zero lot line (single family). (A variable lot line dwelling unit is a single family dwelling where the side yards may vary between 0 and 10 feet as long as a 10-foot minimum separation between principal structures is maintained.) 3. 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") or Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the land Development Code (LDC). B. Accessory Uses: 1. Restaurants, cafes, snack bars and similar uses intended to serve residents and guests. 2. Clubhouses, primarily to serve residents and their guests. 3. Community administrative facilities and similar uses intended to serve residents and guests. Willow Run RPUD PL20130000682 Page 1 of 18 Last Revised 6/24/2014 4. Community maintenance areas, maintenance buildings, irrigation water and effluent storage tanks and ponds, utility pumping facilities and pump buildings, utility and maintenance staff offices. 5. Guardhouses,gatehouses,and access control structures. 6. Model homes and model home centers including offices for project administration, construction,sales and marketing. 7. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, bikeways, community gardens, gazebos, boat and canoe docks, fishing piers, picnic areas,fitness trails and shelters to serve residents and their guests. 8. Outdoor recreation facilities, such as a community 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). 9. Retail establishments (pro shop) accessory to the permitted uses in the District such as, but not limited to,tennis,and other recreational related sales. 10.Tennis clubs, health spas, fitness facilities and other indoor recreational uses (private,intended for use by the residents and their guests only). 11. Tennis courts, swimming pools and all other types of accessory facilities intended for outdoor recreation (private intended for use by the residents and their guests only). 12. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the principal uses permitted in this District, including but not limited to swimming pools, spas and screen enclosures, and recreational facilities all designed to serve the residents and their guests. 13. Essential services as described in Section 2.01.03 of the LDC. 14. 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 Hearing Examiner. PRESERVE A. Principal Uses: 1. Native preserves. B. Accessory Uses: Willow Run RPUD PL20130000682 Page 2 of 18 Last Revised 6/24/2014 1. Water management. 2. Mitigation areas. 3. Hiking trails, boardwalks, shelters without walls, or other such facilities constructed for the purposes of passage through or enjoyment of the site's natural attributes,subject to approval by permitting agencies. 4. Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or Hearing Examiner determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Exhibit 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. 1. Community structures such as guardhouses, gatehouses, fences, walls, columns, decorative architectural features, streetscape, passive parks and access control structures shall have no required setback, except as listed below, and are permitted throughout the "R" designated areas of the PUD; however such structures shall be located such that they do not cause vehicular stacking into the road right-of-way or create site distance issues for motorists and pedestrians. Maximum Height Zoned: 25' Actual: 30' Setbacks PUD Boundary: 10', except fences or walls shall have no setback, except that which is adequate to provide landscaping on the exterior side of the wall, if required. 2. Amenity Centers, clubhouses, tennis courts, and other similar structures shall maintain minimum setback of 25 feet from the external boundaries of the PUD within which a type B landscape buffer shall be provided. However, any clubhouse structure greater than 10,000 enclosed square feet shall maintain a minimum setback of 100 feet from the external boundaries of the PUD. In any case, no setback is required adjacent to the FPL easement areas or adjacent to the preserve area. All pole lighting shall be limited to flat panel fixtures. Where a setback is required,any lighting fixture placed within: (a) 50 feet of the external boundary shall be limited to 15 feet in height; (b) 30 feet of the external boundary shall utilize full cut-off shields. Willow Run RPUD P120130000682 Page 3 of 18 Last Revised 6/24/2014 Clubhouse(s) Maximum Height Zoned: 70' Actual: 75' GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN: This PUD qualifies for the Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for properties straddling the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands in Section B.5.2 of the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element. Willow Run RPUD PL20130000682 Page 4 of 18 Last Revised 6/24/2014 1 EXHIBIT B FOR WILLOW RUN RPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARDS SINGLE TOWNHOUSE TWO FAMILY ZERO LOT LINE MULTI-FAMILY VARIABLE LOT FAMILY AND DUPLEX FOR SINGLE LINE FOR DETACHED FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY Minimum Lot Area 3,000 SF 1,350 SF 2,625 SF 3,000 SF N/A 3,000 SF Minimum Lot Width*3 40 feet 18 feet 35 feet 40 feet N/A 40 feet Minimum Lot Depth 75 feet 75 feet 75 feet 75 feet N/A 75 feet Min.Front Yard Setback 20 feet*1,*2 20 feet*1,*2 20 feet*1,*2 20 feet*1,*2 20 feet*1,*2 20 feet*1.,*2 Min.Side Yard Setback S feet 0 or 5 feet 0 or 5 feet 0 feet*4 10 feet 0.10 feet*4 Min.Rear Yard Setback Principal*1 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 15 feet 10 feet Accessory•1 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet — 5 feet 10 feet 5 feet Maximum Building Height Zoned 30 feet 45 feet 30 feet 30 feet 75 feet *7 30 feet Actual 35 feet _ 50 feet 35 feet 35 feet 85 feet *7 _ 35 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures 10 feet 0/10 feet 0/10 feet 10 feet 20'for 10 feet Principal Structures*5 buildings 2 stories or less in height OR Y:sum of the building height for buildings 3 stories or greater in height . -- Floor Area Min,(S.F.) 1500 SF 1000 SF 1000 SF 1000 SF 750 SF 1000 SF Min.PUD Boundary 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 20 feet 15 feet Setback Min.Preserve Setback 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet ACCESSORY STRUCTURES r' Min.Front Yard Setback 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet _ Min,Side Yard Setback 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet*5 5 feet*5 0 feet*5 0 feet Min.PUD Boundary T 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Setback Min.Preserve Setback 10 feet _ 10 feet 10 feet 30 feet 10 feet 10 feet Minimum Distance lO feet 0/10 feet 0/10 feet 0/10 feet T 0/10 feet 0/10 feet Between Structures Maximum Height Zoned SPS SPS SPS SPS 35 feet SPS Actual SPS SPS SPS SPS 40 feet SPS SPS-Same as Principal 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-Front yards shall be measured as follows: A. if the parcel is served by a public road right-of-way,setback is measured from the adjacent right-of-way line. B. If the parcel is served by a private road,setback is measured from the back of curb(if curbed)or edge of pavement Of not curbed). C. If the parcel has road frontage on two sides,setback is measured from the side with the shortest frontage with the other frontage designated as a side yard. Willow Run RPUD PL20130000682 Page 5 of 18 Lost Revised 6/24/2014 '2—Front entry garages must be a minimum of 20',and a minimum of 23'from a sidewalk. The minimum 20'setback for a residence may be reduced to 15'for a side-loaded or rear entry garage,subject to a minimum setback of 23'from a sidewalk, Porches,entry features and roofed courtyards may be reduced to 15'. '3—Minimum lot width may be reduced by 20%for cul-de-sac lots and 50%for flag lots provided the minimum lot area requirement is maintained. '4--Minimum separation between adjacent dwelling units,if detached,shall be 10'. —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. `7—The building height shall be limited to a maximum zoned height of 50 feet and an actual height of 55 feet west of the FP&L Easement. Note:Nothing In this RPUD Document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LOC unless it Is expressly stated in Exhibit F, Deviations. Willow Run RPUD PL2O130000682 Page 6 of 18 Lost Revised 6/24/2014 1 1:• -4-, - . c P 3 6 F s; .IY �,•1 a5 t' V 14 Vt IT sip -H .i 4` k 3t g " w .F. .4 wow r P • ga i4 '211 t r, #Ij 1 ,t �� X.� '3 45 W C a. t •i 3°¢ 4 u 3W '''.%4 f 065 R U W 3 ^ Vin Z.w C -2 '!..h� 1FS f- Sf u1 * x� y` W 1? 6 it )Z 11=f yQ$,ry0R m CI Na e( a IX Y�- �'W �., _g M a'a" F 4.M1 4 '1: W Z -A.S i� 17 -1 K O `.Ij a Yt t ii 9 P.34. :: x'8. ;a ¢ti 9 L T. w,� iw,r 12 ..,i - a 1 I1 OC 1 8. •• l aw f Y S! a,, , ` , ii. i: 1 l 1 lr* . �.. -. w i• +1, t. o Ii��i'I"!!6 • _.. . .. I 3 t7$V'dOF.FVL.EASEMENI' .. i Y K;NIX Tit r Y: ,� g F $'k 7 'r S i i 3' IA ,I Ip li 1:11 31 : iS „ 7 1 ,}�. . __.- _._._.... -ih' s J i V, '' l:01.41ER O61)LP.YAR43 I ?�E v 1 -, •-.!-: ° j , C i 1 I I I I ZONED: SAN MARINO RPUD I USE: RESIDENTIAL NAPLES NATIONAL I r SAN MARINO GOLF CLUB ■ I I INGRESS/EGRESS t I INGRESS/EGRESS t 1 I i ! __._ —. — — I.. I , ___ r I R ZONED: SAN MARINO ; i. 4444.- _.. 4444 ... _ _... 4444.. —. RPUD USE: RESIDENTIAL I Icy, 4a to POTENTIAL 'M R LAKE I� a INTERCONNECT z 11 I I R I N it ICD , •.• _ r- l __BUFFER PER LDC LU 444_4 --- -- - �_- I R IW 1, `'_ I``W BUFFER PER LDC ( t� POTENTIAL— �I i' R i INTERCONNECT 1 Z v . a :3 ZONED: AGRICULTURAL USE: UNDEVELOPED a I I 0 -oI iQ ZONED: AGRICULTURAL ! I ar USE: RESTAURANT I y I R R 1 LAKE 2 i L,.....,: j m I i 1 NAPLES CLUB..,I I II -I I ESTATES INGRESSIEGRESS I " CRAKLIN'JACKS ? R I INGRESS/EGRESS _44.44 _4444• .� ^� --.. �� I 1 y... .. 4.444 __ .�_. _... _4.444 _. I ZONED: HACIENDA r EAST/WEST ROW RESERVATION i I. I LAKES DRI/MPUD I USE: RESIDENTIAL ZONED: HACIENDA LAKES I ' DRI/MPUD I , USE: RESIDENTIAL I 1 POTENTIAL INTERCONNECT 1 — — _4.44_4.. _.._.-- . COUNTY PARK ' ' HACIENDA LAKES PROPOSED II ' " I INGRESS/EGRESS INGRESS/EGRESS N ; f _.I ir:.� -1!1"_44 444_1 -0 _14 1_•_d:'+4__r:. I;11U11n (E ti• C1n.I!!! �1 t I 02A/:03 ,..14 w11ktt s y:::e1 1 COIAl.opir U, %01 3 ai t COUTAY aEvEw I CCulERi S CALE: a=60 0' r 4 I;1„4. t.:r•::r:It!;On I;, KEY MAP WILLOW RUN RPUD �`� /11 1 r.h\114111::ul./% is __..} C ra d y M I n(►r 1:t.1•.1 Ai[Jl:!: 'IM;p\Ir Ik l YI+' I:uxA.l.41.1u:P.Hull•'a.!ill 1 Nyitt ^�"- CIOVul}p.r4x: • L ool tilp1.'I'NI'F . I1,Wur� w�lox• • I.:IIp1N'iliY•.�fl'IIIIIY'Ip EXHIBIT C i;:. „µC...___..__ -n:4lny,lnl.,. 11 1,144411.111.W11J B::sI„.-11:2wwav, MASTER PLAN 1 '' •p.npa SO I I••234 it If I If I ..rt.:4;:.44.111,1.,..... I'ml%n. 13,..611,1 131a1 :MEV 2 Or , , 1 I • i I ; i I . I I • I URBAN r . RURAL FRINGE r . RESIDENTIAL , MIXED USE DISTRICT FRINGE BELLE MEADE NRPA , : \ ZONED: FOREST GLENN OF NAPLES RPUD USE: RESIDENTIAL i i ! ../..pa-.......,,m-r-c--...reirrk.,--.rmr,.......e.re.....,: 6Iielriiii■i■i■i 0 300 600 • .. . : . SCALE: 1"=600' , . .. .. 1 . I ZONED: A(RFMUO)NRPA .. . .. .. .. ,. , . ,. . SENDING USE: RESIDENTIAL LL , 0 : ZONED. SAN v- 1 MARINO I-- ; RPUD LU I USE: u j . RESIDENTIAL (PRESERVE) U.I : -....m...-0-.....-••••.--,--m-c-,.......p......-.1 tiJ1 • . . . ... . . . , ... .. . .. :• .. , . 0 1 i . W i Z : - . „ .. . .1 . . , . . ; . . :3 I ZONED: A(RFMUO) •2 • (.....) ' PRESERVE NRPA SENDING I-- I • :. : ., USE: RESIDENTIAL < : 1 . 1 ; , • , , . . .: , .. .. .. . ... 3 l ! \ I .■• I•••■■• ..." ' ..‘"J : s4,-,...................-......-.......-.1 , , , , .,. i : 1 Ir •• .. . . . . . )... ZONED: HACIENDA LAKES .i.. 1 .. .-- DRI/MPUD(RFMUO,NRPA . _ ...... .• ! I --'...-s .• SENDING) I .' 1 ••. •-• • USE RESIDENTIAL • • • . •:!'" r I I . _ • R r 1 i 1 I i __. ----r-----------------111—Ateli INE-- SE-t- i-fEET 4-OF 4- - *--...:.•-• .- . -- R .1 i : ! .: .. it. .:.: .,, •i r : 1 \ ' ' ' " - " " ' " ' ,-! . j !, ?!..- ''•:•1-41V••- i • i 1. h 1 •-'1/2,.! ,. . , ,.!: . . . , I ■- =7.7—:"7:::::. ••'!. - .,..; 1 KEY MAP .;.: ,,,,,,,.: :,,,.:- .k.,,,••:,t:,.. 1 ,,, WILLOW RUN RPUD ' 11 (-..;rft RI yi111 nor ,..,:,,:.,,.„at,t.......$1r.,■ ,,,14x■,I,on,litt '1.4r::: ••• — EXHIHIF C colt CtIon.••■•• • 1.anii Surt 1.}..IN • 1.14nOvIS . tinlitAllin.,V111414.11, MASIE:R PI r1N 2 11.A0n.t I54 ;I...,,.;,I t i 115W 6:-.4.,1/..CON in thPo• :!PI CIO I.. ..._..... ..•.:' SIR.17 '!. MINIMMIEW A RR e . .. . • . . . ... .. . . .. - MATCH LINE - SEE SEE SHEET 3 OF 4 „• .,.. - •...,.- . . • . R t. . . . •-." -- , ''..--\ , . , . : ...- , - - ; R • . R , iiiiii_.1._n■ • LAKE LAKE \ ' o 3oo. GOO' . . .: .. . • SCALE: 1".600' ... ..• ..... ...... . .. . . , .. • .. . .... .• . -.. .• ..". --• ' . • s . 120'WIDE FUTURE .. _ . .... .,•• . - BENFIELD ROAD ...• • •,-..,,..;:j7,..-....:,...._, — I , , •..., i e ' CORRIDOR(SUBJECT 10 A RECORDED . ../ //, CONSERVATION U_I R • . . EASEMENT) 0 ' - / - / . ...... -- PRESERVE • - • /•' ,--i 210+/-ACRES ' i LU; LAKE LLI ---1 '---- I I: ZONED: HACIENDA (/): ; I LAKES DRI/MPUD LI.1 • • i I (RFMUO,NRPA L11. SENDING) (/)I USE RESIDENTIAL 1 , LUI Z! —. —. IL..........4.0.1• ....2.0.,;_,..„,,.....,:........1.2,.,- —I! ii • Ii <; I / / 2 i ZONED: HACIENDA / i ZONED: HACIENDA LAKES I LAKES DRIIMPUD I DRUMPUD f. USE: RESIDENTIAL / 8 USE RESIDENTIAL . 5,. 1 i / „ „ It I ' 120'WIDE FUTURE BENFIELD / / ROAD CORRIDOR THROUGH 7- 1 / ■/ HACIENDA LAKES DRI ;- ,-• i I . . .. , / . • , 7 . . 4 ' ...-.,,.. ' '? 1 / URBAN RURAL FRINGE I ';,.-:• . . •,,, RESIDENTIAL , MIXED USE DISTRICT - ! 1 . . , •-,., - I:..i,. . I , ik-• • ii;.i li.: ■ FRINGE BELLE MEADE NRPA I •• . , :Ii -•-r• •• • , _, . . ... ... . , I II....- 1.„,.2 T. I • I 1 I ,- ...;.,,, E ......I..._ 1 i ••V.! :.'i.,I.:Ni, !,:tvt'.4,.• p4s.4.4.!07. - , ....•:;.,,,,t':■5! :,:-Q ,.1,,:t4ly 14.,1,11: ...1.:'...q.!1.:. , ,,u, i El, KEY MAP .: or mum RUN RPun .,... MC ratlyklinor i1.1111#IN,kr4 aitf EXHIBli C.:: VOIg0.1.112, • 1,0111S111111,11S • 11•41110, • I a1116,111,,inik111.1.6 MA eiegiall--- • .....': SIT:R PLAN 04411,N.., 2;1917 1111 4444•:.••.a.•WO.”•1•10 i-.II My.,::11111.0 1.01 9IIRCI 4 or -4 SITE DATA TOTAL SITE AREA: 559±AC MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS: 590 PRESERVES: REQUIRED 149.19±AC URBAN RESIDENTIAL FRINGE 114.83±AC NATIVE VEGETATION X 25%=28.71±AC RFMU SENDING 133,87±AC NATIVE VEGETATION X 90%= 120.48±AC PROVIDED 210±AC URBAN RESIDENTIAL FRINGE = 76.13±AC RFMU SENDING = 133.87±AC NOTES 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. 2. ALL ACREAGES, EXCEPT PRESERVE AREAS, ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LDC. 3. THE LOCATION OF THE FUTURE BENFIELD ROAD CORRIDOR IS CONCEPTUAL AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION WITHIN THE RFMU PORTION OF THE PROPERTY DUE TO THE BCC FINAL ROUTE SELECTION AND DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. • DEVIATIONS SEE EXHIBIT E, LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS 121:;;.,:. 1.4,)i)I I!K Its 7 • i 1 ,' )r V III ..— S I_ WILLOW RUN RPUD """ n ,:,lr:lre•.., :p'cf::.ui tla(I}x 11101 aIxl VI,04 EXHIBIT C Chit I',1149url•1. • Laud}mN?ulx I'I;nvxr. L:nularayv irrlln rrlr ..._............._...._._...., <,a,.n Ix l..,,l:a .,.x l„u uronr,) ru:u...l,:?r.•re,n MASTER PLAN 3 I:.,Ixf.. Iniirr,. '.!:1'!Vli tl lI nlr„r..rilr-lrlu.,r•.y.la f',[r N1+r. IIR:k"S i or. EXHIBIT D FOR WILLOW RUN RPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION A TRACT OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 11, 12, 13, AND 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°45'13" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 1,356.42 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER Of SECTION 12; THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE, NORTH 87°47'32" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1,318.80 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12; THENCE RUN ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12, SOUTH 00°40'50" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,353.60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°42'14" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2,707,26 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE IN AND THROUGH SAID SECTION 13, SOUTH 00°39'11" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,345.38 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13;THENCE LEAVING SAID CORNER, SOUTH 87°30'27"WEST,A DISTANCE OF 1,328,58 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 14,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE IN AND THROUGH SAID SECTION 14, SOUTH 87°28'53" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,336.40 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°47'15" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 671.38 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87°27'18" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 668.30 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°47'46" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 671,09 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, SOUTH 87°25'49" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2,004.66 FEET, (PASSING OVER THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 11 AT A DISTANCE OF 668.22 FEET)TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 11, NORTH 00°50'07" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1,371.71 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87°38'49" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,235.72 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (COUNTY ROAD 951); THENCE RUN ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE, NORTH 00°50'49" EAST,A DISTANCE OF 344.10 FEET;THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, NORTH 87°42'04" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1,235.58 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°50'07" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1,028.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87°51'50" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 2,670.28 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°46'52" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 2,723.04 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SECTION 11, NORTH 88°17'54" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1,333.91 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 559.05 ACRES,MORE OR LESS. Willow Run RPUD PL20130000682 Poge 12 of 18 Last Revised 6/24/2014 • EXHIBIT E FOR WILLOW RUN RPUD LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS 1. From LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements, which requires sidewalks which are internal to the development to be constructed on both sides of local streets, to allow sidewalks on one side of the street only for streets with homes on one side of the street. 2. From LDC Section 6.06.01.N, Street System Requirements and Appendix B, Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way Design Standards,which establishes a 60 foot wide local road,to allow a minimum 40'wide local road(see Exhibit E-1). 3. From LDC Section 6.06.01.J, Street System Requirements, which limits cul-de-sacs to a maximum length of 1,000 feet, to permit cul-de-sacs to exceed 3,500 feet in length with placement of no through traffic signage. 4. From. LDC Section 4.06.02, Buffer Requirements, which requires a fifteen foot type "B" landscape buffer between single family and multi-family residential uses, to allow no landscape buffer. 5. From LDC Section 5.03.02.C, Fences and Walls, Excluding Sound Walls, which permits a maximum wall height of 6' in residential zoning districts, to allow a maximum wall height of 8' throughout the development, and a 12' tall wall, berm, or combination wall/berm along Collier Blvd frontage. 6. From LDC Section 5.04.04.B.5, Model Homes and Model Sales Centers, which permits a maximum of five (5) model homes, or a number corresponding to ten (10) percent of the total number of platted lots, whichever is less, per platted approved development prior to final plat approval. The requested deviation is to allow for a maximum of four (4) model homes per development tract, not to exceed 20 model homes within the overall RPUD. 7. From LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e, Temporary Signs, which allows temporary signs on residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height, to allow a temporary sign or banner up to a maximum of 32 square feet in area and a maximum of 8 feet in height.The temporary sign or banner shall be limited to 28 days per calendar year. 8. From LDC Section 5.06.02.B.2, Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, which permits one (1) real estate sign per street frontage that is setback a minimum of 10' from any property line, to allow for a maximum of one(1) real estate sign per street frontage setback a minimum of 5' from the property line along CR 951 only. 9. From LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5, Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, which requires on-premise directional signs to be setback a minimum of 10' Willow Run RPUD PL20I30000682 Page 13 of 18 Lost Revised 6/24/2014 from internal property lines, to allow for on-premise direction signage to be setback a minimum of 5' from internal property lines. This deviation does not apply to property adjacent to Collier Blvd. 10. From tDC Section 5.06.02.8.6, Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, which permits two (2) ground signs per entrance to the development with a maximum height of 8' and total sign area of 64 s.f. per sign. The requested deviation is to allow for two (2) ground signs per project entrance with a maximum height of 10' and total sign area of 80 s.f. per sign face. Willow Run RPUD PL20130000682 Page 14 of 18 Last Revised 6/24/20I4 = AIMIMMIMIIIIIMIIIIIOIIIIMIMIMIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIMIMI = hy O p p0ed,i/c!),0 leo,gx. fcn,lcoo,\SD/4..0\ultivnr)Nnti mn i I.,. Zondto\r,tirtiVri (1414,00..O.V1.1\.;1 , i Cy ,... 1 1 11 , •-•• ..,„ X. • i i I 1. I tn r- (.) ,‘I :7 cr I I- ■-- i - I -- 71 1., •.." a z :e W :,7 12,- i5 Q (...) 0 - 0: y ici. Z:J L...: ...., L., -.7:. k 0 > d..1A(Y.) lin „nc. 1-41 :.3:!. . . ... n ,.), a iai 1-■ '.4 I I CI, - ''. C3 cl -- -' ...- I 0 8 •ft x < _., 1 I - I .° !1 4.-- ..-,.3 rj -•`• !...,1 _ i) 1 - 0 ,- it IJJ la.1 03 '-' 4 '- I „ ...: .,, ,......, < 0 > 0 . J. ! z 1 --' c!Li, I _, i :•:" • ,-.4 4,... .,...- FA ....t -..---". _.: ....-- -.,- F-E.1 • 1 ,,,,..I 11 s„ I ,..., ..-ii I ..7_,- ..._..,.... Z '-'••• ir :I' • I ,.... .,... ........„ ,--, 3 1 g Z 13: I 1 --, I i I , ? . t .,..-4 ,F1. 1 cr (J., t'-,"-7 --- ..._ . _......, ....: r.e r c). -r, I-NIP-, _.3 ii"::•_,; s,r1 i j 0 N, 1; :...,.,.... ,,, . .. ..--:, T,".i ,' I..,. .;,. -','-, 1 .- 4' (;) ,-, i;:, .- ,- ........._. _...... :.......,...,.■ ,-- ,...-2, C3 C.:.. 1.." f....1 C..- .,,, 1-• 7-. , 1.11 ._., =.1 w - - i EXHIBIT F FOR WILLOW RUN RPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 1. UTILITIES A. Prior to its last phase of development, the owner shall identify and provide an interconnection stub-out to either Hacienda Lakes or San Marino PUD for water distribution; plans shall be reviewed and approved by CCWSD at time of SOP or plat. This commitment can be terminated by CCWSD if its staff determines that interconnection at either property line is not possible. B. During the Plat approval process, CCWSD shall review and approve the utility design associated with any cul de sac serving in excess of 149 units. 2. TRANSPORTATION A. If warranted by the project's traffic counts the Developer shall be responsible for the proportional share of the cost of a traffic signal, or other traffic control device, sign, or pavement markings at the Collier Boulevard Intersection Upon the completion of the installation, inspection, burn-in period, and final approval/acceptance of said traffic signal it shall be turned over (for ownership) to Collier County, and will then be operated and maintained by the Collier County Transportation Department. B. Upon the County's adoption of Benfield Road extension corridor alignment, and within 90 days of the County's request or upon plat dedication, whichever occurs first, the Owner, its successors or assigns shall dedicate to County fee simple right-of-way subject only to easements of record and any mineral rights reservation. Upon recordation of the deed or other conveyance instrument in the public records of Collier County for the dedication of the right-of-way, the developer shall become eligible for transportation Impact fee credits based upon the agreed upon appraised value per acre in accordance with the consolidated impact fee Ordinance in effect at the time of recordation of the deed. If the project is built out or has prepaid transportation impact fees to be assessed for the project, then the developer or its successors or assigns shall be eligible to request cash reimbursement. The developer shall not be responsible to obtain or modify any permits or conservation easements on behalf of the County related to the platting, dedication, or extension of Benfield Road. C. Potential vehicular interconnections have been shown on the conceptual PUD master plan in locations which may be appropriate for shared access to the intersecting driveway with CR 951. If a mutual agreement is reached with the owners of adjacent properties for coordinated design, and responsibility for permitting, construction and Willow Run RPUD PL20130000682 Page 16 of 18 Last Revised 6/24/2014 maintenance costs and other applicable access considerations including any bridge and turn lane improvements, the developer shall allow for shared access with the other party(ies)to the agreement. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL Vegetation shall be retained in accordance with the criteria established in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP and Section 3.05 of the LDC. Total Preserve Required 149.19±AC Urban Residential Fringe 114.83±AC Native Vegetation X 25%=28.71±AC RFMU Sending 133.87±AC Native Vegetation X 90%= 120.48±AC Total Preserve Provided 210±AC Urban Residential Fringe = 76.13±AC RFMU Sending = 133.87±AC 4. PLANNING A. A maximum of 590 dwelling units shall be permitted in the PUD. B. No buffer shall be required if the right-of-way reservation as shown on the Master Plan as an east/west road is constructed as an east/west road along the southern PUD boundary as shown on the Master Plan. The developer is not obligated to construct the east/west road along the southern PUD boundary. 5. WATER MANAGEMENT The water management system shall be designed to route existing off-site surface water flows through or around the project. These conveyance facilities shall be sized such that post construction water levels are lower than or equal to existing water levels on the surrounding lands. These improvements shall be made prior to the issuance of the first residential certificate of occupancy. Willow Run RPUD P120130000682 Page 17 of 18 Last Revised 6/24/2014 1 6. 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 The Willow Run Land Trust, C/O Joseph D. Bonness, III as Trustee, 1910 Seward Avenue, Naples, FL 34109. 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. Willow Run RPUD PL20130000682 Page 18 of 18 Last Revised 6/24/2014