The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Agenda 02/19/2015 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA FEBRUARY 19, 2015 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2015, 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—January 15,2015 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMANS REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PUDA-PL20120001128: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 92-23,the Wilson Professional Center Planned Unit Development (PUD), as amended, by amending Section IV, Permitted Uses and Standards to add a 150-foot monopine communications tower and related facilities as a permitted use, to increase the maximum height for the communications tower to 150 feet and add setbacks for the communications tower for the PUD property located at the southwest corner of Airport-Pulling Road and Bailey Lane in Section 23, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl, AICP] 1 B. PL20140000193/CPSS-2014-1: 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 Future Land Use Element and Future Land U se Map and Map Series by adding the Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 84 residential units. The subject property is located on the south side of Rattlesnake Hammock Road at the intersection of Hibiscus Drive in Section 19,Township 50 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 7.9 acres; and furthermore, recommendation Transmittal of the Adopted Amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. [Companion PUDZ-PL20140000179] (Coordinator: David Weeks,AICP,GMP Manager) C. PUDZ-PL20140000179: 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 Community Facility zoning district and Golf Course zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD)zoning district for a project known as the Hibiscus RPUD to allow construction of up to 84 residential dwelling units on property located on the south side of Rattlesnake Hammock Road at the intersection of Hibiscus Drive in Section 19, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 7.9± acres; and by providing an effective date. [Companion item to GMPA PL20140000193/CPSS-2014-1] [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 2 AGENDA ITEM 9-A S&9! ty STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 19,2015 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20120001128: WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER PUD PROPERTY OWNER,APPLICANT & AGENT: Owner: Agent: South Fla. Growers Assn.,Inc. Lauralee G. Westine,Esq. 6303 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 200 Law Office of Lauralee G. Westine, P.A. Miami, FL 33126 800 Tarpon Woods Boulevard, Suite E-1 Palm Harbor,FL 34685 Applicant: SBA Towers III,LLC 5900 Broken Sound Parkway NW Boca Raton, FL 33487 REQUESTED ACTION: The Wilson Professional Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) currently permits office and medical office uses. The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC)to consider an application for an amendment to add a 150-foot monopine (monopole support structure, designed to resemble a pine tree) communication tower as a permitted use. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is 8.29± acres in size and is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Bailey Lane. The site is currently developed with offices. PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposed communication tower would have a maximum height of 150 feet and be a monopole structure to support communication antennae with added structures designed to resemble a pine tree. Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA-PL2010001128 Page 1 of 10 February 19,2015 CCPC � � a aZ �t 1 a NO& R aD U fe �► 9 lay ✓ R s=s�ase 4 off. .. 3,, .. : TIM rY •••=1111• n:n nnN,:e,ar,:,:a:;:;:;a:;:;:;.;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;:""":". ....:;;;;;;;;;; . . �� .: i.:,,,:: w ��©©®O 0 V .no:.o-o-; .1.n;. AVM MIKIKVICVS -7: * Bilrr filA 4 � � AL" Ira 1 ,D wvoogo i P z isik,'� � t = m_ Q e 41,� I l O OOP .5KAt©a�©©© N W �0 or � ei � 08 © a a ;v ©DOi�O ',i,. co iititilia 444 !0116. talk. W ©4+ DD �© eevv 'e� p N� EL Q 7101:1 111 / ' j CL It 01..11109 WISVE z VB Y1NYS Z a IN `l ga R II YY s m � F a1a 'i R 1 Rik i!a' 9 Qp a a Lu 51-31Y1S1YJlt/i 5t 31tl15H31N1 _ w EYBLLN CI I Y M : g � — w ii iii ill C-2131 yi K O ,7„.„. r:1 g_ MEM I Ad ire 1— PI''------.-%,. - a 11 1 a i ; 11 a/*Si . 1 0 1 it 1 I Mme` ($' i n readat aYe ua,00w�O ?! di 1 ■ iw a w a • SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Bailey Lane ROW, across which are medical offices zoned C-1 and undeveloped land, zoned A. East: Airport-Pulling Road ROW and canal ROW, across which are a golf course and homes, zoned MPUD (Grey Oaks). South: Homes in the Poinciana Village subdivision, zoned RMF-6 West: A church, zoned A .> ' ,i 1 ` h r t t s t1'i a 3 t ta -eat t l.- q , • t..� �� i;, .�� , ' ' ', , • .„... 4 iliSt. 3 5 '` is . W; 1,,\,\I ,s.,,, 4 . I" ., • . , ,,\ Aerial Photo(GoogleMaps) Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA-PL2010001128 Page 3 of 10 February 19, 2015 CCPC } GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP)CONSISTENCY: 1 The Wilson Professional Center PUD was determined to be consistent with the GMP at the time of the original rezone. It is Staff's opinion that the proposed amendment will not affect that consistency determination; therefore, Staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. . ANALYSIS: The applicant wishes to add the use of communication tower, along with three supporting deviations,to the permitted uses in the PUD. The applicant states that the tower is required to cope with heavy phone and data demand in the area. Staff analyzed the application, including effects on wildlife, distance from residential areas and visual impact. Staff considers visual impact to be the greatest concern. The applicant has requested a "monopine" tower, a monopole structure, designed to collapse on itself, limited to 150 feet in height. The "pine" feature of the "monopine" includes branch-like 5 structures which will hide the antennae and create the illusion of being a tall pine tree. The applicant has provided photos (attached) including"before"photos and"after"photos—with the monopine digitally edited into the photo. Staff believes the monopine structure will ameliorate the visual impact to the greatest extent possible. Deviation Discussion: 1 Please see attached Deviation Justifications provided by the applicant. Deviation 1 —A deviation from LDC Section 3.05.07.H.3 Required Setbacks to Preserves. Justification — The Wilson Professional Center PUD was approved prior to the preserve setback requirement in the LDC. This deviation memorializes that the PUD is not subject to this requirement. Deviation 2 — A Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.09.G.2.a separation distance of a communication tower from residentially zoned property. Justification — Since the LDC Communication Tower language was written, technology has improved so that a monopole tower collapses upon itself. In addition, the tower, as t well as the "branches" are subject to building code wind-load requirements. Staff believes this justifies the deviation from the 2.5 times the tower-height requirement (150ft. x 2.5 = 375ft.). The closest residential property is 232 feet from the proposed tower. Deviation 3—A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02 Buffer Requirements 1 Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA-PL2010001128 Page 4 of 10 February 19,2015 CCPC 3 Justification— The requested deviation would reduce the internal landscape buffer from the required 10-foot Type "A" to 0-feet, utilizing existing vegetation to buffer the tower from the rest of the PUD. Since the buffer is internal, requested by the applicant, Staff does not object to the deviation. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1 This PUD Amendment qualifies as a Substantial Change under LDC Section 10.02.13.E.1.b "a proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development." PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.13.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation,the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" (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 has reviewed the proposed PUD Amendment and believes that the addition of a monopine communication tower will be less visually conspicuous since the site is currently vegetated with pines and will not have a major visual effect on surrounding properties and infrastructure. 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. Unified control was established at the time of rezoning and continues through the present time. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and fi policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has determined that this amendment to add a communication tower does not affect the PUD's consistency with the GMP, therefore, Staff is of the opinion that this petition may 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. The only proposed change is the addition of a communication tower and Staff believes that the approval of this amendment will continue to be compatible with the surrounding area, subject to the existing development standards and project deviations. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Wilson Professional Center PUD,PUDA-PL2010001128 Page 5 of 10 February 19,2015 CCPC 9 t Usable open space is not affected by the proposed amendment. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. It is Staff's opinion that the addition of a communication tower as a permitted use will not affect public or private facilities beyond what was approved in the existing PUD. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The applicant states that a tower is required in this location due to high data usage. Staff understands that with changes in technology, including smart phones, additional towers and antennae will be required in the area. Since the subject PUD has existing pines, this expansion appears to be reasonable. 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 proposed amendment is consistent with PUD regulations, with the three proposed deviations, and seeks to meet a desired purpose of serving the surrounding community with phone and data service. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1 states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations from 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. The addition of a communication tower does not affect the previous determination of consistency. Staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; 9 The existing land use pattern was reviewed and approved at the time of the original rezone. The proposed amendment will not substantially alter that pattern. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; No new districts will be created through this amendment. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. This amendment will not affect existing district boundaries. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning Wilson Professional Center PUD,PUDA-PL2010001128 Page 6 of 10 February 19,2015 CCPC • necessary. The petitioner states, and Staff agrees, that changes in technology make the proposed amendment necessary to provide phone and data service to the area. t 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; There will be visual impact to the neighborhood. Phone and data service is also desired by many in the neighborhood. As a result, Staff believes that the monopine features of the tower wil lessen the visual impact on the neighborhood. 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. A communication tower is typically unmanned, visited routinely for maintenance, and will not affect the level of service on Airport-Pulling Road. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The PUD has existing buildings and an existing water management system. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; Due to the nature of a communication tower, it will not reduce the circulation of light and air. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results,which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by many factors including zoning; however,zoning by itself may or may not affect values,since value determination is driven by market conditions. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; Since the Wilson Professional Center PUD is existing,the proposed amendment 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 GMP 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 1 Wilson Professional Center PUD,PUDA-PL2010001128 Page 7 of 10 February 19,2015 CCPC with existing zoning; The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing land-uses; however, the petitioner believes that the addition of a communication tower to the currently permitted uses will support the surrounding community with expanded phone and data service. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; As noted previously, the subject property is already developed; the PUD rezoning was evaluated at the rezoning stage and was deemed consistent with the GMP. 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. { Communication towers are, by nature, area-specific. In order to provide service to the community, antennae must be located at certain specific intervals. 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. This project will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan approval process and again as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended This petition has been reviewed by County Staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the PUD process and Staff has 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. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC)REVIEW: The CCPC sitting as the EAC is not required to hear this petition because no environmental issues were identified. Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA-PL2010001128 Page 8 of 10 February 19,2015 CCPC NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): Two NIMs were held for this petition. On May 9, 2013, a meeting was held at the Wilson Professional Center. No members of the public were present. Because of a "hold" status requested by the petitioner, and additional staff review, another NIM was held on January 16, 2015 at the Fleischmann Park Community Center. Three members of the public attended. A NIM summary and sign-in sheet are attached. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: This Staff Report was reviewed on February 3, 2015. ry RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDA-PL20120001128 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval. qi Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA-PL2010001128 Page 9 of 10 February 19,2015 CCPC PREPARED BY: FRIH ISCHL, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: Z 3 t5 RAYM'i D V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT MIKE BOSI,AICP,INTERIM DIRECTOR DATE PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY: :-.-Ay\\t,-, 1'IIIIC S N fII5A,ADM T OR DATE GROWT MANAGEMENT DIVISIO Tentatively scheduled for the April 14, 2015 BCC Meeting Wilson Professional Center PUD, PUDA-PL2010001128 Page 10 of 10 February 19, 2015 CCPC ----- — BAILEY LANE !� 10' NATURAL VEGETATION BUFFER , \,. • Tc---\T--\.}(--cr , ,_,- f _Y} I PRESERVE I I PRESERVE I jr 1 ). e,--PRESERVE i^ • NAPLES 1st CHURCH o NAZARENE INC f COWER COUNTY ZONING: I D th INSTITUTIONAL-CHURCHES O i OR 975 PG 656 • BUILDING PARCEL A 73 0 j -0 D z P 5 I 0 TPROPOSED Il I 0 0 .± 150'- 0"SBA MONOPINE 7 (S o PUD -.`?.<.f I Boundary__- O. ` I CZ PRESERVE i V_/ I 1 1 0 p Existing 6' Fence PRESERVE r-`'---y- I with 5' Natural r 1 • Vegetation Buffer 3 N r r s + ?, J �-) ,e,),_),M1 i T ONEILL PARTNERS v. DAVID F. EUGENE & YVETTE SUSAN ADAMS LtC JOSEPH� M TOBY USA "., THOMPSON MARIA HARDY DALETO TRUNCALLE COLLIER COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY COWER COUNTY COWER COUNTY ZONING: MFL10 a ZONING: MFL10 ZONING: MFL10 ZONING: MFL10 ZONING: M(710 W ZONING:MFL10 OR OR 4759 PG 1369 ZONING: MFL10 OR 4892 PG 1321 OR 4508 OR 3484 PG 969 OR 4766 PG 375 ? 1640 PG 457 OR 1366 PG 1286 PG 2025 Li' 3 Si w ▪ ' SITE DATA 1 off TOTAL SITE ARE A; 8.13 AG w PRESERVE REQUIRED(3.4 X.15): 0.51 AC I__, ` PRESERVE PROVIDED: 1.69 AC,, o NOTE: 1.PRESERVES AREA USES ARE GOVERNED BY SECTION 5.6(a). n o J.R.EVANS ENGINEERING,P.A. WILSON PROFESSIONAL PROJECT N: 13414-1 N 23150 FASHION DRIVE,SUITE 242 N ESTERO,FLORIDA 33928 CENTER FILE DATE: 7/2014 Tnii W PHONE:(239)405-9148 DESIGN BY: SCF 0 50' 100' a FAX:(239)288-2537 MASTER CONCEPT PLAN SEC.23,TOWN. 49S,R.25E WWWJREVANSENGINEERING.COM EXHIBIT A SCALE: 1" = 100' FL.COA 6 29226 SCALE: 1"=100' Wilson Professional Center PUD Deviation Justifications Deviationl: Deviation#1 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05.07(H)(3). Justification: The existing PUD was approved and the improvements were developed prior to the above LDC requirement of a setback of 25 feet for principal structures and 10 feet for accessory structures. The existing site plan and any revisions to the existing site plan would be exempt from the preserve setbacks currently within the LDC. Deviation 2: Deviation#2 seeks relief from the LDC Section 5.05.09.G.2.a, which requires a 375' setback for the tower from all residential property, calculated at the height of the tower multiplied by 2.5, to allow a 232.4' setback from residential property to the South. Justification: The goal of this section of the LDC, inter cilia is to "...minimize, where applicable, adverse visual impacts of towers and antennas through careful design, siting,and vegetation screening; to avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure..." However, these sound planning objectives have been met and exceeded by the design of the proposed communication tower. The proposed communication tower is carefully designed to be camouflaged as a tall pine tree, with all antennas contained within the pine tree's "canopy" making them obscured, and all cabling contained within the tree's "trunk." Finally the proposed communication tower is designed not to fall, but instead yield at a predesigned point. If this happens, the top of the communication tower will fold over within a 34' radius, which is completely within the parent parcel and protects neighboring residential properties,the nearest of which are 232.4' away, from any potential damage. Deviation 3: Deviation#3 seeks relief from the LDC Section 4.06.02, which requires a Type A 10' buffer, to allow no landscape buffer between the tower tract and the rest of the PUD. In accordance with the LDC Section 5.05.09.G.21 existing native vegetation will be used to the greatest extent possible to produce a 10' natural buffer without an opacity requirement. Justification: Deviation Justifications rev 1 Page 1 oft The existing PUD was approved and the improvements were developed prior to the LDC requirements of Section 04.06.02. The communication tower has been sited to maximize the use of existing vegetation, landscaping, and buildings to buffer the communication tower from the balance of the PUD. Commercial buildings are located to the Southeast and Northeast of the proposed communication tower. The existing PUD is heavily vegetated and shall remain so after the development of the communication tower. The proposed communication tower has been sited so that it will not alter or expand the vehicular use area, nor will it change the building square footage of the PUD. There are no known discontinuances of use of the PUD lasting for 1 year or more since the PUD was completed. The goal of section 5.05.09 of the LDC, inter alia is to "...minimize,where applicable, adverse visual impacts of towers and antennas through careful design, siting, and vegetation screening; ..." This sound planning objective has been met by the careful siting of the proposed communication tower. F.'. } yy� fi 1 Deviation Justifications rev 1 Page 2 of 2 3 PUDA-PL20120001128 TRANSCRIPT OF NIM HELD ON 1-16-15 AT 6: 00PM REPRESENTATIVES: APPLICANT: LAURALEE G. WESTINE, ESQ. LAND OWNER: RICHARD YOVANOVICH, ESQ. COUNTY: FRED REISCHL MS. WESTINE INTRODUCED HERSELF, STATED THE PURPOSE WAS FOR THE BAILEY LANE COMMUNICATION TOWER, STATED THE DATE AS FRIDAY JANUARY 16, 2015, TIME AS 6:02, AND THAT SHE REPRESENTED THE APPLICANT, SBA COMMUNICATIONS. SHE DESCRIBED THE TOWER AS A 150' MONOPINE TOWER. SHE HANDED OUT EXAMPLES MONOPINE TOWERS IN HILLSBOROUGH AND PINELLAS COUNTIES ALONG WITH PHOTOSIMULATIONS OF THE PROPOSED TOWER. SHE EXPLAINED THE BALLOON FLIGHT PROCESS FOR MAKING PHOTOSIMULATIONS. SHE EXPLAINED THE APPLICATION AS AN AMENDEMNT TO THE WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER PUD. SHE THEN GAVE THE ATTENDEES COPIES OF THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN FOR THE PUD, THE PROPOSED TOWER SITE PLAN, AND A PROPOSED ELEVATION OF THE TOWER. SHE STATED THAT THE ANTENNAS WILL BE HIDDEN BY THE TOWER'S BRANCHES. SHE STATED THAT THE TOWER WILL BE ABLE TO SUPPORT 4 SETS OF ANTENNAS. SHE STATED THAT AT&T WILL BE FIRST TENANT AND THAT THERE IS SOME INTEREST IN THE TOWER FROM OTHER CARRIERS. AN ATTENDEE ASKED WHO SHE REPRESENTED AND SHE RESTATED THAT SHE REPRESENTS THE APPLICANT, SBA TOWERS. SHE EXPLAINED THE TOWER' S COLLOCATION CAPABILITY AS A "VERTICAL APARTMENT." SHE STATED THAT THE Page 1 of 4 1 TOWER AND ITS BRANCHES WILL MEET THE COUNTY'S WIND SPEED REQUIREMENTS. SHE STATED THAT THE TOWER WILL BE PAINTED BROWN AND GREEN BY SBA, THAT SBA WILL MAINETAIN THE TOWER AND LANDSCAPING, AND THAT THE COUNTY HAS THE ABILITY TO REMOVE THE TOWER IF IT WERE TO EVER BECOME NON COMPLIANT. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT THE PUD IS THE "WILSON CENTER" AND THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SOUTH FLORIDA GROWERS ASSOCIATION. SHE THEN DESCRIBED THE USES OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS GENERALLY AND SHOWED THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED TOWER. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT SHE' S OFTEN ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT RF EMISSIONS, GUIDED THE ATTENDEES TO THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY AND THE FAA'S WEBSITE, AND OFFERED TO PRINT THE INFORMATION FOR ATTENDEES WHO COULD NOT ACCESS THE INTERNET. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT, AS A GENERAL RULE, CELL TOWERS EMIT ROUGHLY 1/100TH THE ENERGY ALLOWABLE BY THE FCC. MS. WESTINE WAS ASKED ABOUT THE HOW MUCH OF THE TOWER'S SUPPORT POLE WILL BE COVERED BY BRANCHES. MS WESTINE STATED THAT THE TOWER WILL HAVE A "MEDIUM DENSITY BRANCH" AND DISCUSSED VARIOUS QUALITIES OF BRANCH DESIGNS GENERALLY. . AN ATTENDEE ASKED WHY THE TOWER HAD TO BE LOCATED WHERE IT WAS. MS. WESTINE DESCRIBED THE CELLULAR GRID AS A "HONEYCOMB" WHERE THE TOWERS HAVE TO BE LOCATED CLOSE ENOUGH TO "TALK" TO EACH OTHER. SHE ALSO STATED THAT AS DATA REQUIREMENTS OF CELLULAR USERS INCREAS, THE COVERAGE AREA OF CELL TOWERS GENERALLY DECREASE. AN ATTENDEE ASKED IF THE TOWER WOULD BE LIGHTED AFTER DARK. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED BY THE FAA TO ILLUMINATE THE TOWER AND THAT THEY DO NOT PLAN TO UNLESS REQUIRED BY COLLIER COUNTY. MR. REISCHL STATED THAT SINCE THE TOWER WAS NOT IN AN APIRPORT ZONE, IT WOULD Page 2 of 4 NOT NEED TO BE ILLUMINATED. SHE STATED THAT THE COMPIOUND WILL HAVE SECURITY LIGHTING. ANOTHER ATTENDEE ASKED IF THE PROPOSED TOWER WOULD PROMOTE THE LOCATION OF RED WINGED HAWKS TO THE AREA. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT SHE DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THE TOWER WILL CREATE A DEMAND FOR A PARTICULAR BIRD IN THE AREA BUT SHE STATED THAT THE TOWER WILL COMPLY WITH THE FCC AND THE b FLA. DEPT. OF FISH AND WILDLIFE TOWER RULES FOR BIRD SAFETY ALONG WITH THEIR PROCEDURES FOR MAINTAINING THE TOWER IF BIRDS CHOOSE TO NEST ON THE PROPOSED TOWER. ANOTHER ATTENDEE ASKED IF THE TOWER' S CONSTRUCTION WILL TAKE PLACE DURING BIRD MIGRATION SEASON. MS. WESTINE LAID OUT A ROUGH TIMELINE FOR THE PROCESSES THAT FOLLOW THE MEETING AS 4 TO 6 MONTHS UNTIL CONSTRUCTION CAN BEGIN. SHE STATED THAT FULL CONSTRUCTION TAKES 3 MONTHS BUT TOWER ERECTION TAKES 6 WEEKS. SHE GAVE A PROJECTED "ON AIR" DATE AS FIRST QUARTER OF 2016. ANOTHER ATTENDEE ASKED IF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WAS CONDUCTED FOR THE SITE. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT A "NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT" OR "NEPA" ASSESSMENT WAS CONDUCTED FOR THE SITE AND THAT SHE COULD MAIL A COPY TO HIM IF HE WANTED. THE ATTENDEE REQUESTED A COPY AND MS. WESTINE TOOK DOWN HIS ADDRESS. ANOTHER ATTENDEE STATED THAT SHE WAS IMPRESSED WITH THE PROGRESSIVENESS OF THE DESIGN. SHE THEN PROCEEDED TO DESCRIBE THE REASONS THAT SHE WAS IMPRESSED WITH THE DESIGN. ANOTHER ATTENDEE ASKED IF ANY PART OF THE ANTENNAS WOULD PROJECT OUTSIDE OF THE BRANCHES. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT IT WOULDN' T. THE ATTENDEE THEN STATED THAT HE WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE INDUSTRY AND THAT THE DESIGN WAS BETTER THAN THE MINIMUM. MS. WESTINE STATED THAT SBA ATTEMPTS TO FIT THE DESIGN TO THE AREA AND Page 3 of 4 DESCRIBED THAT THE MONOPINE DESIGN WAS SUPERIOR TO A FLAGPOLE BECAUSE THE FLAG WOULD GIVE THE TOWER A MUCH LARGER PROFILE THAN THE MONOPINE DESIGN. MS. WESTINE THEN OFFERED HER CONTACT INFORMATION TO THE ATTENDEES AGAIN IN CASE THEY HAD ANY FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS AFTER THE MEETING. MS. WESTINE RE-ITERATED THAT SBA WILL BE BOUND TO THE DESIGN THAT IS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY. MS. WESTINE STATED THE TIME AS 6:35 AND ASKED IF SHE COULD CLOSE THE MEETING. HAVING NO OBJECTION, SHE DID SUCH. • Page 4 of 4 • \ \ \ \ CfNe--) c 01 A- ?icifiticab ECIdy 3O1 po 4/v4 iv( 1 5 c- 4 -ii Citj -i, 0\tct.to z/(07 Frtx:Ti2 1 Typt.) HARLAQs t2c-) .) 1 ReischlFred From: Richard Eddy[richardteddy @gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 3:19 PM To: lauralee @westinelaw.com Cc: ReischlFred Subject: Proposed Bailey Lane Tower is Dear Ms. Westine, Lauralee, is Thanks for your open and friendly presentation at Fleischmann Community Center on this proposal. Confirming my request,please send me by surface mail,ASAP,the CD (or DVD)of the Environmental Impact study about the existing wild life and flora in the vicinity of this proposed Cellular Tower. You said it was lengthy and would be best sent by mail for me to see on my computer. I use a macbook. As I mentioned I am not convinced this is the best place to put such an obtrusive tower in this neighborhood. As my family has owned this home for 45 years in beautiful Naples, I am sorry to see such a totally unacceptable tower being put in my back yard adjacent to an area where NOTHING would interfere with the environment. At the meeting I asked about how the building of the tower would affect nesting and migration patterns in the area. My home is on the canal directly behind the church's preserve bordering on the tower site(probably less than one city block!). While you discussed various aspects of how long these things take,I do not recall your answering my question. I would hope that the actual building of the tower, if approved, would be sensitive to these natural factors,but I did nor receive any assurances of that being done. Just that there was a 500-odd page study,that would take several weeks to read. Of course, if and when the Proposed Tower is approved,the actual timing of construction could be done to MINIMIZE any nesting or migration patterns. However,it seemed that the firms wanting to use the tower did not have this on their agenda. How will the builder respect nesting and migration patterns at time of construction? I look forward to hearing more about how this important money-making communications tower can enhance(or at least blend with, and NOT detract from)the natural beauty and wildlife of Naples,Florida where we are so fortunate to live. Richard Eddy 3019 Poinciana Drive Naples,FL 34105 PS I doubt that Mr. Fleischmann who was a strong promoter of Naples (promoting the Zoo,and giving land on which the meeting was held,and selling the neighboring Freedom park area to the community)would have been in agreement with putting such a tower in our midst. } 1 Collier Mosquito Control District n A 600 North Road,Naples,FL 34104-3464 Administration: 239-436-1000/239-436-1005 (fax) Hangar: 239-436-1008/239-436-1007(fax) www.collier-mosquito.org Mr. Reischl, The Collier Mosquito Control District(CMCD) identifies the locations of all towers, within Collier County,to prepare for aerial treatment missions. Recently, we learned of a new tower on Bailey Ln. which will be constructed in the near future. CMCD has no safety concerns with the Bailey Ln, tower at this time. Regards, 8oAa of,,ezzato Director of Operations Collier Mosquito Control District 600 North Road Naples, FL 34104-3464 239-436-1 000 main# 239-436-1005 fax john@cmcd.org Board of Commissioners: Executive Director: Spray Schedule: 239-436-1010 David Farmer, Chair Frank Van Essen, Ph.D. Jackie D. Fresenius, Secretary Immokalee Substation. Bob D. Geroy, Treasurer 195 Airpark Blvd John F. Johnson Immokalee, FL 34142 Linda McDaniels 239-867-3200 ORDINANCE NO. 13- =. AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-23, THE WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTION IV, PERMITTED USES AND STANDARDS TO ADD A 150- FOOT MONOPINE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AND RELATED FACILITIES AS A PERMITTED USE, TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR THE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER TO 150 FEET AND ADD SETBACKS FOR THE COMMUNICATIONS TOWER FOR THE PUD PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND =: BAILEY LANE IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS,on April 28, 1992,the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance Number 92-23,the Wilson Professional Center Planned Unit Development(the"PUD");and WHEREAS, the Wilson Professional Center PUD was amended by Ordinance Numbers 94-2.4 and 98-21; and WHEREAS, Lauralee G. Westine, Esquire representing SBA Towers, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the PUD to allow for a 150-foot monopine communications tower and related facilities and to add additional setbacks. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,that: SECTION ONE: Amendment to Section IV, Permitted Uses and Development Standards of the PUD Document of Ordinance No.92-23,as Amended Section IV, Permitted Uses and Development Standards of Collier County Ordinance No. 92-23,as amended,is hereby amended to read as follows: See Exhibit"A",attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Wilson Professional Center PUD 1 of 2 PUDA-PL20120001128—11/02/12 SECTION TWO: • This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing 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 ,2013. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA By: By: ,Deputy Clerk ,Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: El.17- AFT Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Section IV,Permitted Uses and Development Standards CP112-CPS-0119213 Wilson Professional Center PUD 2 of 2 PUDA-PL20120001128—11/02/12 WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUDA—PL-20120001128 8 Acres Located in Section 23, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida REVISED: PREPARED BY: Lauralee G.Westine, Esq. Mattaniah S.Jahn, Esq. Law Office of Lauralee G.Westine, PA 800 Tarpon Woods Blvd.,Suite E-1 Palm Harbor,FL 34685 Date Reviewed by CCPC Date Approved by BCC Ordinance Number Amendments and Repeal EXHIBIT A �yy TABLE OF CONTENTS €. PAGE SECTION I STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE 3 qiq SECTION II PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION 4 SECTION III STATEMENT OF INTENT AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 5 SECTION IV PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 7 j2 SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 10 SECTION VI EXHIBITS AND ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A Revised Master Plan 1 • • • • Wilson Professional Center—PUDA-PL 20120001128 Page 2 of 12 Words struck thru are deleted;words underlined are added SECTION I STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The purpose of this section is to express the intent of South Florida Growers Association, Inc.; 800 Tarpon Woods Blvd., Suite E-1, Palm Harbor, Florida 34685, hereinafter referred to as applicant or sponsor, to develop property located in part of section 23, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The name of this proposed development shall henceforth be known as Wilson Professional Center. The development of this Planned Unit Development will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The development will be consistent with the growth policies and land development regulations of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan and other applicable documents for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is within the Urban Residential Land Use Designation as identified on the Future Land Use Map as required in Policy 5.3 of the Future Land Use Element. 2. The subject property's location in relation to existing or proposed community facilities and services permits the development's proposed uses as required in Objective 2 of the Element. 3. The project development is compatible and complementary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element. 4. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with applicable land development regulations as set forth in Objective 3 of the Future Land Use Element. 5. The project development will result in an efficient and economical extension of community facilities and services as required in Policies 3.1.h. and 1. of the Future Land Use Element. 6. The project development is planned to incorporate natural systems for water management as far as is practical in accordance with their natural functions and capabilities as may be required by Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element. 7. This, PUD has been deemed "improved"as defined in the Collier County Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance (90-23). Therefore, pursuant to Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP),this PUD is consistent with the GMP. Wilson Professional Center—PUDA-PL 20120001128 Page 3 of 12 Words struck thru are deleted;words underlined are added SECTION II PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION MfF 2.1 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is currently owned by South Florida Growers Association, Inc. 2.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property is described as follows: Parcel 1: NE'/<of SE'/.of SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 less east 100' right of way, less north 30' right of way. Parcel 2: W 1/2 of SE'/,of SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 less north 30' right of way. Parcel 3: SE 1/4 of SE%,of SE%of NE'/ less east 100' right of way. All located in section 23,Township 49 South, Range 25 East,Collier County, Florida. Also see Map of Boundary Survey WMBS&P File No,4G-662. Wilson Professional Center—PUDA-PL 20120001128 Page 4 of 12 Words titek-th-r-a are deleted;words underlined are added SECTION III STATEMEMENT OF INTENT AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 INTRODUCTION It is the sponsor's intention to create a professional office park with associated support facilities. 3.2 COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE ORDINANCES a. Regulation for development of Wilson Professional Center PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document, together with sections of the Collier County Land Development Code and Ordinances in effect at the time of Final SDP application,to the extent applicable ordinances or codes do not conflict with or restrict development rights, development conditions, and development mitigation contained in this document or the Development Order. Where these regulations fail to provide development standards,the provisions of the most similar district in the County Land Development Code shall apply. b. Unless otherwise noted, herein or in the Development Order,the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code in effect at the time of future development order applications. 3.3 LAND USES The arrangement of land use types is shown on the P.U.D. Master Plan. Minor changes and variations in design and acreages shall be permitted at final design to accommodate topography,vegetation,and other site conditions.The specific location and size of individual tracts and the assignment of building area thereto shall be submitted to the Development Services Director for approval, as described in Section 3.3 of this document.The final size of the open space lands will depend on the actual requirement for water management, roadway pattern,and building unit size and configuration.The usable open space requirement of 30%for the project shall be met.Calculation of open space shall not include small strip landscape islands in the parking lots. 3. 4 RESERVATION OF NATURAL VEGETATION AND TREE REMOVAL Clearing,grading,earthwork and site drainage work shall be performed in accordance with applicable Collier County Development Codes, and the standards and commitments of this document. Wilson Professional Center—PUDA-PL 20120001128 Page 5 of 12 Words struck thru are deleted;words underlined are added 3.5 EASEMENTS FOR UTILITIES Easements shall be provided for water management areas, utilities and other purposes as may be needed.Said easements and improvements shall be in compliance with applicable sections of the Collier County Land Development Code. All necessary easements,dedications,or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time approvals are requested. 3.6 EXCEPTIONS TO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The following requirements of Division 3.2 of the Land Development Code shall be subject to review by the County Engineer prior to construction plan preparation and submittal under a submission pursuant to Section 3.2.7.2 of the Land Development Code. 1. Division 3.2.,Section 3.2.8.4.1 of the Land Development Code:Access. (All access shall be in accordance with Ordinance 82-91). 2. Division 3.2,Section 3.2.8.3.11 of the Land Development Code: Monuments and Control Points:Where such monuments occur within street pavement areas,they shall be installed in a typical water valve cover,as prescribed in the current County standards. Installation of all monuments shall be in accordance with State Statutes and as approved by the County Engineer. 3. Division 3.2.,Section 3.2.8.4.16.8 of the Land Development Code:Curb Radii (Reduce requirements from forty(40')foot radius to thirty(30')foot radius at interior street to local road intersections. 4. Division 3.2 Section 3.2.8.3.24 of the Land Development Code: Utility Casings-approved if all underground utilities are installed prior to street construction. 3.7 SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL Site Development Plan approval shall follow the procedure as outlined in Division 3.3,Site Development Plans, of the Collier County Land Development Code. In the case of clustered buildings, required property development regulations may be waived or reduced provided a site plan is approved under this section. Wilson Professional Center—PUDA-PL 20120001128 Page 6 of 12 Words strutu are deleted;words underlined are added fl SECTION IV PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the permitted uses and standards for development within Wilson Professional Center. 4.2 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure,or part thereof,shall be erected,altered,or used,or land or water used, in whole or in part,for other than the following: 1) Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: a) Offices and medical offices with a maximum of 72,000 sq.ft. ' , and subject to the following limitations: 1. Emergency medical clinics are prohibited. 2. Medical office uses are limited to a maximum occupancy of 17,396 sq.ft. 2) Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: a) Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with uses permitted in this district. b) Caretaker's residences in accordance with applicable County regulations. c) Essential services as defined in the Collier County Land Development Code. d) One(1) 150'Monopine Communication Tower and Related Facilities 4.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1) Maximum Number of Parcels:Two building parcels. 2) Minimum Setback Requirements for Principal Structures: a) Internal road easement or front yard—25 feet. b) Side Yard-15 feet. c) Rear Yard—25 feet. d) PUD Property Line-50 feet in which no parking is permitted. e) Preserve— zero feet principal and accessory structures. A deviation from section 3.05.07(H)(3)of the LDC requiring a 25 feet setback for principal structures and 10 feet for accessory structures to allow a zero feet setback for principal and accessory structures is permitted in recognition of the then existing Growth Management Plan requirements for native vegetation retention at the time the original PUD was approved which did not require a preserve setback. Wilson Professional Center—PUDA-PL 20120001128 Page 7 of 12 Words etruck that are deleted;words underlined are added 3) Maximum Height of Structures: Thirty-five(35)feet not to exceed two(2)stories. 4) Minimum Floor Area of Principal Structure: One thousand (1,000)square feet per building on ground floor. 5) Distance Between Principal Structures-Thirty(30)feet. 6) Minimum standards for signs, parking, lighting, and landscaping shall be in conformance with applicable Collier County Regulations in effect at the time pp y g permits are sought unless otherwise specified in this document.The project shall have a common uniform signage plan. Areas shown on the Master Plan as landscaped shall be landscaped. 7) Prior to development-of any building parcel, a development plan shall be approved in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code. 8) Tract Coverage Control Limitations and Architectural Control The maximum horizontal area of each tract that may be covered by the principal building, accessory buildings and future additions to either shall not exceed 25 percent of the total area of the tract. The building area does not include parking areas,driveways, loading areas, or sidewalks. All buildings within the Park shall have a common architectural theme and shall be of permanent type construction with a fire retardant roof. Exterior walls of all buildings shall be of exposed concrete aggregate,stucco, glass,terrazzo, brick,or other similar materials.Concrete, concrete block or wood siding, providing they meet applicable fire regulations,are also acceptable materials for exterior walls, but they shall be finished by painting, staining or other processing. Exterior metal clad buildings shall be prohibited. A common architectural theme shall be established for the project and all structures shall be reviewed for conformity by the project sponsors. 9) Signs Identification signs identifying the name and business of the persons or firms occupying the premises and the name, purpose and description of the overall project shall be permitted. Advertising signs, billboards or other signs except those specifically permitted by the developer are prohibited. All signs shall conform to Collier County Regulations. 10) Utilities Wilson Professional Center—PUDA-PL 20120001128 Page 8 of 12 Words,truck thru are deleted;words underlined are added 5S All electrical and telephone service shall be brought underground into the site and to the buildings from the nearest available source. Pad mounted electrical transformers shall be located and screened so as to prevent viewing from any public street or adjacent property. 11) Parking Off-street parking spaces sufficient to accommodate the parking demands generated by the project shall be provided on the site and/or on the adjacent church property,subject to a suitable agreement between the two parties and the Collier County Development Services Director concerning sharing of parking facilities. Parking areas shall be constructed to Collier County Standards. 12) Maintenance ) The owner or lessee of any tract in the Wilson Professional Center must at all times keep the premises, buildings, improvements and appurtenances in a safe,clean,wholesome condition,and comply in all respects with all government, health and policy requirements. All landscaping and exterior portions of structures shall be maintained in order to keep an attractive appearance. 13) Monopine Communication Tower and Related Facilities Development Standards The Monopine Communication Tower shall be setback from the property lines as follows: North 415';South 232'4"; East 501'2"; West 34'7". All related facilities,other than the Monopine Communication Tower, shall be located within a 7' chain link fenced area on the proposed tower tract, show on Exhibit"A". 14) Deviations for Monopine Communication Tower Deviation#1 Seeks relief from the LDC Section 5.05.09.G.2.a,which requires a 375'setback for the tower from all residential property, calculated at the height of the tower multiplied by 2.5,to allow a 232.4' setback from residential property to the South. Deviation#2 seeks relief from the LDC Section 4.06.02,which requires a Type A 10' buffer, to allow no landscape buffer between the tower tract and the rest of the PUD. In accordance with the LDC Section 5.05.09.G.21 existing native vegetation will be used to the greatest extent possible to produce a 10' natural buffer without an opacity requirement. Wilson Professional Center—PUDA-PL 20120001128 Page 9 of 12 Words u are deleted;words underlined are added fs SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to set forth the general commitments for development of the project. 5.2 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS a) Intersection improvements at project entrances shall be provided by the developer. b) The developer shall provide a fair share contribution toward the capital cost of a traffic signal at the intersection of Airport Road and Bailey Lane when deemed warranted by the County Engineer. The signal shall be owned, operated and maintained by Collier County. c) The developer shall provide street lighting at the project entrance.The operating and maintenance costs shall be assumed by Collier County. d) The primary access to the property will be via Bailey Lane and since the increase in traffic from the proposed development will increase turning movements, a northbound left turn lane and a southbound right turn lane may be necessary.An existing median opening with a turn lane serves the above northbound left turn lane requirement. No southbound right turn lane exists; accordingly a commitment to construct a southbound right turn lane is required prior to the approval of building permits for the PUD.The southbound right turn lane shall be a joint project between the County and the development wherein the County shall be responsible to obtain the necessary right-of-way, by condemnation if required,and the developer responsible for construction of the turn lane, relocation of sidewalk and utilities. Future developments along Bailey Lane shall be required to make a fair share contribution toward the right-of-way and construction costs of this turn lane.These contributions shall be used to reimburse the County for right-of-way costs and this petitioner for construction costs. e) The location of the entrance drive off Bailey Lane shall be placed a minimum of 200 feet west of Airport Road for sufficient westbound vehicle storage to eliminate delays and conflicts at the Airport Road/Bailey Lane intersection. f) An internal road exit onto Airport Road may be allowed subject to design approval by the Engineering Department with the condition that the County retains the right to close off the curb opening should traffic accidents and/or unsafe conditions develop on Airport Road as a result of exiting conditions. Mountable curbing shall be provided on each side of the median for a distance of 100 feet in each direction from the exit. Wilson Professional Center—PUDA-PL 20120001128 Page 10 of 12 Words struck thru are deleted;words underlined are added g) The above improvements are considered "site-related" as defined in Ordinance 85-55,and shall not be applied as credits toward any impact fees required by that Ordinance. h) In accordance with Ordinance 85-55, requiring development to contribute its proportionate share of funds to accommodate the impact of proposed development on area roads; the developer of each parcel or their successors or assigns,agrees to pay road impact fees in accordance with the ordinance,at such time as building permits are requested. i) Bailey Lane shall be reconstructed as a boulevard section along the frontage of the project and tapered to meet existing pavement. j) The internal street shall be designed to avoid any conflicting turning movements into the individual parcels by configuring the proposed islands to eliminate any possible conflicts. k) A sidewalk shall be provided along at least one side of the internal road and along Bailey Lane from said road to Airport Road. 5.3 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Arrangements shall be made with the approved solid waste disposal service to provide for solid waste collection service to all areas of the project. 5.4 PUD MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN a. The PUD Master Plan attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit"A" is an illustrative preliminary development plan. b. The design criteria and layout illustrated on the Master Plan shall be understood as flexible so that that final design may satisfy the project and comply with all applicable requirements. Acreages shown on the PUD Master Plan are approximate and subject to changes to accommodate final engineering plan. c. All necessary easements,dedications,or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities. d. Minor design changes shall be permitted subject to the County Development Services Director's administrative approval. e. Landscape buffers shall be provided along the south property line and along the north property line west of the project entrance as identified here: Wilson Professional Center—PUDA-PL 20120001128 Page 11 of 12 Words struck thru are deleted;words underlined are added 1. South property line; 6'woodcrete fence set in 5' natural vegetation buffer. 2. North property line;west of project entrance 10' buffer consisting of natural vegetation. f. Outside storage areas shall be screened from adjacent properties. g. Only three (3) road accesses shall be provided,two from Bailey Lane and one from Airport Road as controlled by the Engineering Department. 5.5 UTILITIES a. A central water supply system shall be made available to the project.The water supply source for the project shall be the city of Naples system. b. The project shall be served by an approved,on-site or off-site wastewater disposal facilities system. c. Any establishment requiring a CCPHU permit must submit plans for review and approval. 5,7 5.6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS a. Dry retention/buffer areas surrounding the parcel will be an average of at least 36 feet in width. Final design of the dry retention/buffer areas should incorporate retention of the maximum amount of native vegetation possible,and final designs will be subject to the review and approval of the County. This condition is conceptually depicted as Preserve Areas on the PUD Master plan and shall satisfy all native vegetation retention requirements. Wilson Professional Center—PUDA-PL 20120001128 Page 12 of 12 Words struck thru are deleted;words underlined are added s 1 € BAILEY LANE .10' NATURAL VEGETATION BUFFER PRESERVE i PRESERVE / - '''' ' i i ,▪r 1 VI ••r' 1 r . I PRESERVE 1 r I i, :-L,-"', f m rc 1•NAPLES 1st CHURCH 1 x. + NAZARENE INC COLLIER COUNTY I g m ZONING: I 5€ rn INSTITUTIONAL-CHURCHES i �XO OR 975 PG 656 BUILDING PARCEL A i 0 1 1 ii r 73 1 4.4^. 0 I PROPOSED 1 �.- i d 150'-0"SBA I MONOPINE 1 );,,:ti f 8 III t 1 z 7}-; j PUD g Boundary' r \yi iI ne PRESERVE I 1 p Existing 6' Fence PRESERVE { i s with 5' Natural Z Vegetation Buffer tip" '� ' • `• 7 ONEILL PARTNERS ,)OSEpii IA TORY USA ° 't DAVID F. EUGENE & YVETTE SUSAN ADAMS LLC THOMPSON MARTA HARDY DAIETO TRUNCALLE COWER COUNTY COWER COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY COWER COUNTY COWER COUNTY COLLIER COUNTY ZONING: MFL10 COLLIER COUNTY ZONING: MR10 ZONING: MFL10 ZONING: MFL10 ZONING: MFL10 d ZONING:MFL1D OR ZONING: MFL10 OR 4892 PC 1321 OR 4508 OR 4766 PG 375 i 1640 PG 457 OR 4759 PG 1369 OR 1366 PG 1286 PG 2025 OR 3484 PC 969 4 3 • ti w w ( SITE DATA O TOTAL SITE AREA: 8.13 AC PRESERVE REQUIRED(3.4 X.15): 0.51 AC 6 `PRESERVE PROVIDED: 1.69 AC 6 NOTE: g 1.PRESERVES AREA USES ARE GOVERNED BY SECTION 5.6(a). o J.R.EVANS ENGINEERING,P.A. PROIECTN: 134141 N 23150 FASHION DRIVE,SURE 242 WILSON PROFESSIONAL FILE DATE: 7/2014 I --i• Aik ESTERO,FLORIDA 33928 CENTER w PHONE:(239)405-9148 DESIGN BY: SCF 0 50' 100' o FAX :(239)288-2537 MASTER CONCEPT PLAN SEC.23,TOWN. 495,R.25E SCALE: 1" = 100' WWWJREVANSENGINEERING.COM EXHIBIT A FL COA P 29226 SCALE: 1"=100' rr1111111111111•w11 ■--rrri rrr�..wr.a . i r . 1111111 .. 3 ; ;:if.. .,?'-''• to • . � .; ORDINANCE 92- 23 ` ".., . . 1!, ,; DC , ; AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER '^ 1 '''' <4!'02131q\ 91-102 THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND s . T1 • , ° 4 • . y�� '''!{, DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE • {e COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE T N r i " ��{ L �,UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIIiq COUNTY, -4 ,.3 r11 I 0 .,t� . FLORIDA AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ' , }r, C.1 ` a 0'1y, �IATLAS MAP NUMBERED 9523U BY CHANGING THE 0n -c• C A ,t'%ZONINC CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN a LC " !, DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM "PUD" TO ,.1 r` '0, "PUD" PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS \."=17.».' WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER, FOR PROPERTY . LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF I i -' AIRPORT-PULLT,NC ROAD AND BAILEY LANE, IN I • I SECTION 23, TOWN H1P 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONTAINING 7.8 ACRES, MORE OR LESS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 87-92, THE . FORMER BAILEY EXECUTIVE PARK PUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. • WHEREAS, Alan D. Reynolds of Wilson, Miller, Barton & I '.41.:':, 7" Peek, Inc., representing Raymond W. Miller, Chairman of I ;,I:i. Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Inc., petitioned the Board of ,"10.:. •:;:! County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of t' r. the herein described real property; WNOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY c . A. '4!' COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; ! SECTIQU SINE; } ! i'4'f. The Zoning Classification of the herein described real 1! 'R ,,S,.1:, property located in Section 23, Township 49 South, Range 25 , Jam..:(` i• East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from "PUD" to "PUD" f 1 • i !,,:x.;•,.'. € 11,.,: '_ Planned Unit Development in accordance with the PUD Document, i t%.:,7. attached hereto as Exhibit "A" which is incorporated herein k and by reference made part hereof. The Official Zoning Atlas ! s. Map Numbered 9523N, as described in Ordinance Number 91-102, "�t the Collier County Land Development Code, is hereby amended I ' I •,-e accordingly. I • C `' SECTION TWO i I . -.ti,,, ' Ordinance Number 87-92, known as the Bailey Executive ■ . I ` . , 4 $r. Park PUD, adopted on November 17, 1987, by the Board of XC.:, •t F' County Commiseionere of Collier County is hereby repealed in • , , its entirety, .N.:.• '=r —1— no 052 Pm 188 'S a. :: . ,'4,,G • . 1111111111111111111111111=111111111111111111111111111111•111111111111111MMI1 ! .,..,„, • !.. t . ! , lc. SECTION THREE:. • i . , This Ordinance shall become effective upon receipt of , 4 . notice from tha:Secretary of state that this Ordinance has ... .. & 4 : —• • • - t , 6 been filed-withrthi'teCietery.of State. MP ' 41' • PASSEWXND' DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County I ! 1, ti'4 Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 28th day of ..: ' •- • I April :)-•;::1.992:. ....., "'' • . I 1 1 1 t ! ir,. ,t,)'., . .• . . • _ , ,, 1 2,c ..•"••' ' .• , IIr, - . .._ ....,.'ATTBST: v ,7,.. .. . BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 4 C. GILES) Clerk COLLIER comrry, FLORIDA , . .t4: 1' : • • 7?;:::. --- . ___ ,''. ".r.-. ..... i 1 cELC,% BY: • 'VA.( I ki,... • ... MICHAEL .7. 1...PE, HAIRMAN AND Lzr.AL.SC/FITCIENCY - ,... ,I 1 I' '' s'' :. . , . ci ...r.,.• 't.:::**--t!..V.'..;.: ' -0.- "—niez...x.,, rn. u 4 ,,,t M.. STUDENTr.- .'''';',:f.• ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY . 1 This ordinance filed with the ■i . • Pl..' PUD-87-14(1) ORDINANCE iii6idaarty ccti I State's OffMc>. nb/7002 . R. and oCOw!4dQafrf.n t that filirece•ve th day ■,... . 1 of 414104 , • Nvwft • :".C' . ' ..■..... • . .\. :ki:..: • . • I litrel;:* . ••, .7.0{.- ' 1 .•,;, ..--',, , , .e.;. :1; ;.• , , '....;.'t. 71:' • . . 1,...\'''..:' r ••,Nti.. il t .'6,':ii• . . ..., . 1 11001C 052,4[188 .s. IV A"'I■ 1 :,/,11. .t• • ( ii". —2— 7,•t.t ‘4,:, ..‘,3+ ..,''..,;,. e • ,044"“i IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMlw.d . _ .. _ ........_ I -I il .1 } = 4 s;i t. i uf c • , r! . .._ , ,„,,. r.I'a-. . •x: _ ., • j : �•.i. ti. 1 '_ ., i y C, ,, ■.-' WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER */ 4,J, A PLANNED 22T DEVSLD31ENT 1 ' $,.hcroa Located in Section 23, 1 St ;' Township 49 South; .Range 25 East, • %'i.-:. Collier County, Florida• T't. • tr•••. _ . • •.REVISED: APRIL 28, 1992 •� PREPARED BY: i" i\• • WILSON, MILLER, BARTON, & 3?EEX, INC. • { 1`: 3200 BAILEY LANE AT AIRPORT ROAD 4 `. NAPLES, FLORIDA 33942 .. t = • ' DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC 4/2/92 • 4 . DATE APPROVED BY BCC 4/28192 . . • � , ORDIHANC3 NUMBER 92-23 , AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL it •1, • ;'' . Wit,: EXHIBIT "A” • . ( L1• '= 1 Y.. :,;, boar 052 14.7.1.00 • l .,., j. I 1 . • i . •i• I .•,,:.;; E . • :,'. •4 .i I ) . ' .'.4'•••••• ! i . 1 • 1 . . ) •.„' *,4'. : , 3 :. . . '..:;11■T''.1; . . ! 4 1 .1 ,‘-A.. 1.1. ,:•■• . 'g '...i. 1....,. . . . i lite‘,'•7 1 . I 1 it t.S•kk.. . TABU OF COIFFENTQ • i ■ & I ,'•.,C.)‘ '''''..- ' _• • " ''.•' I( .447.:44..-';!„•;" .. . .. . • • ....'o.,,...,,-.-... H . f . . ... . • ' ....;iAt'lz1.. ., I 1 • i •.'ai,',; ,.. " ' IJ' • : ' PACE . r• 1E 1:. ..,•••7,*A.fi. . .- i•••'),,.'•' 'Li• SECTION I STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE —1^ .4,i SECTION II PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND LEGAL ::,.:;..;'... DESCRIPTION - ■ '•,,:•.;- SECTION III STATEMENT OF INTENT AND PROJECT .• ••.-1.1,,,. . DESCRIPTION i ,t -1'2;.'• .,• 1 .:,'1:::::••• ' SECTION IV PERMITTED US ES AND DEVELOPMENT • • STANDARDS.23''..7 ''...'.• •. 'c p •i.'•■`•d.,,4•!':.'•,..•.,.,—''' •"' SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COHN ITMENT S SECTION i i VI EXHIBITS MD ATTACHMENTS . ,'7.;.7.',"•:• ' • ' • . . , t.,■ •, 1 . , , .*',:;.„. 1 • • , ! I . .! . : .qf •..S n. i . .,,,.:‘,...?•.:, i. ',i , 1 • ..."1.01.:..,,, . 'i • 4 •.4,s.,..,2■•..: 1 . • : :`;'•••.•-, . 1 ,.• .'•'.11: • I 'if•.. :' bop C52 FL st 191 . ,.' . .i. • , 1 i 1 - -i. i ''' .44; • ! • :i I . ; '). +.:. 1 -‘•■•./1..t- . , 1 . . . , • . . . 1 • • . • i .. • . , • all . . . : , .. . • . _... .. .• '' MI 0 11111 • . i t ..yT cd• 1 I a it itt.j., ■ t-t..'';n,.;1. t I it1 SECTION I I 1 I it STATEMENT OF COMPLINCE ,j r' s ,, The purpose of this section is to express the intent of "4• Wilson, Miller, Barton & Peek, Ina., 3200 Bailey Lane at { ' k l ; `: Airport Road, Naples, Florida 33942, hereinafter 1I • referred to as applicant or sponsor, to develop property • Zr..,. located in part of Section 23, Township 49 South, Range • Zi 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The name of this i f;;" proposed development shall henceforth be known as Wilson I s. Professional Center. The development of this Planned , f!•- ---- Unit Development will be in compliance with the planning 1 goals and objectives of Collier County set forth in the -• Growth Management.-Plan. The development will be 1`. consistent-with the growth policies and land development • ` . - regulations of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth - . Management Plan and other applicable documents for the .. following reasons: ' ' qq:.• 1. The subject property is within the Urban ' ' 'i Residential Land Use Designation as identified on i u`'... the Future Land Use Map as required in Policy 5.3 • - of the' Future Land Use Element. -,'- 2. The subject property's location in relation to existing or proposed community facilities and • . `.' 41:. services permits the development's proposed uses as , • x required in Objective 2 of the Future Land Use t. , Element. ' i 4:.' i ' ` • 3. The project development is - compatible and I • • M;, complementary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the Future V-..' Land Usa Element. 4. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with • ' applicable land development regulations as set t'ti,• . forth in Objective 3 of the Future Land Use . .. Element. zlt}2` ;r. 1-i 1 , yit , .. soot P52,4[1.92 tt ,': . N. 4.'. .•S :i ,, yi Y. 1 _S 11111 1 n 111111 IIIII IIiii i pi t Y '2.4t.. •;: j '. E • ( , , „:,', ' 5. The project development will. rasult in an efficient• ,1 t ,• and economical extension •of community facilities 1 and services as required in Policies 3.1.h. and 1. of the Future Land Use Element. 1 Fc'. 6. The project development is planned to incorporate natural systems for water management as far as is practical in,. accordance siith their natural � : -. functions and capabilities as may be required by' Objective 1.5 of_the Drainage Sub-Element of the f. ~e' Public Facilities Element. '' 7.. This PUD has bee.(:deemed "improved" as defined in ;> " 'the Collier County Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance i (90-23) . Therefore, pursuant to Policy 5.1 of the ?.s,} Future 'Land Use Element of the Collier County • k ;t.. . .. Growth . Management Plan (GMP) , this PUD is .i •' consistent With the CMP. . ,P: . tk. 1 .:.!4;,.-4:..!,. : . , .7$;;.-. a1 1 • .. 1-7 I ';...1 boor O52F,:.193 ke'q:,'..s.. 1 I • 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 ' ) .,1., - - , . , ., .'1•.i i o , :400 ?lire I - • i 1 ''11 en , ,..St,.ti: • il •.1.•'' S. , 1 "VP, I ' :ir."' sECTION XX i ; ' • . , i i , ..1.. . PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION i I I 4 I . I t' .r., 2.1 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP . 4 The subject property is currently awned y Wilson, i E • 1., • ' Miller, Barton i PRek, Inc., 3200 Bailey Lana at Airport i I Roadr%Naples, Florida 33942. I ' ,4*; ... .• 2.2 LESNL DESRIP210 J The subject property is described, as follows: : i 1 Parcel 1: NE 1/4 of SE 1/4 of SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 less east 1 100!_ right-of-way, less north 30' right-of-way ! /''. Parcel- 2: W 1/2 of SE 1/4, of SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 less 1 • north 30' right-of-way , 1 ; Parcel 3: SE 1/4 of SE 1/4, of SE 1/4 of NE 1/4, less • J : . east 100' right-of-way, ' 'ee, • 1 All located in Section 23, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. I Also see Map of Boundary Survey WMBS&P File No. 4G-662. •. . - . i 1 , ..' 7.x.i;■;., 1 . :ir .. 1 • i' 1?' • . ' 1.4 11' ' -... ' 14 Pt4, 1 ..,..t tif4. ■ I . 4' . ,1/4 • . . , :s. • 1.., • 1 • . ,' ' 'rlili, i 1 i 2-1 5' '4'..." I • I "1 '. SW 1352PAct 194 .■*t-.. .4.■. . -• N ,: •,',• ' • , .,. .ta r' .1 ' . . ■ I I I ' 1 111111111111111111111111.111.111111ROMMEMEMINIIMIO ' ,___...,•__,—... ----- t t I = MN S ' '1;1.:. \ a• x,0.1 ,; { 1 101114,., 1 •• 1 . :; \ 1x.1' 1. 1 ;7.`:t, I• SECTION III 1 t... BTjt'SL'IiEN'P OT'tNTENT AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION t ''f tilittlicakclii }',t.,1,.".. 1 I t •+ i' It is the sponsor's intention to creetu a professional office park with associated support facilities. ` I g;: 3.2 c0MPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE ORDIN7 WIla 1 r:. • a. Regulation for development of Wilson Professional II Center PUD shall be in accordance with the contents I I I h:.. of this document, together with sections of the 1 .', -' • •Collier County Land Development Code and Ordinances "• in effect at the time of Final SDP application, to PP , , the extent applicable ordinances or codes do not 1 conflict with or restrict development rights, 1 developnent conditions, and development mitigation 1 contained in this document or the Development Order. Where these regulations fail to provide I 1 'g k`: development standards, the provisions of the most YI'' similar district in the County Land Development I ig:0 1'-'4 Code shall apply. i !-;i:.-:.• h. Unless otherwise noted, herein or in the k• •.'i'34 Development Order, the definitions of all terms 1 shall be the same as the definitions set forth in :'•••• the Collier County Land Development Code in effect I ;!T '' at the time of future development order '>. applications. SSA';..' "`., 3.3 LAND UBEa - . ,e, , 11/4,';',....... ; . The arrangement of land use types is shown on the P.U.D. Master Plan. Minor changes and variations in design and : 2': {' acreages shall be permitted at final design to 7-.'t,- +:, accommodate topography, vegetation, and other situ 1; conditions. The specific location and size of A. . individual tracts and the assignment of building area it thereto shall be submitted to the Development Services Director for approval, as described in section 3.3 of • "•, this document. The final size of the open space lands will depend on the actual requirement for water '1 ' management, roadway pattern, and building unit size and ,, configuration. The usable open space requirement of 30% . i • ,1 51, . : 1. • try ' aoow 1P52 FA:tip I!• II` ,I to 1 `€ 4• il • 1rF 1 J 1'or the project shall be met. Calculation of open apace ,: r •� uhall,�_ponclude.,emall strip.,landscape islands in the 1 'parking"lots. ' 1 c:Ii"z.a' 3.4 ] SER1ATION OF I{B,TVRAIr_VEGETATION F,ND TR£L REMOVAL • •'(.' .'r,' Clearing, grading, earthwork, and site drainage cork `' •�1: shall be performed in accordance with applicable Collier County Dovelopment' Codes, and the standards and y N: r8 ityl,ents ro4,•,thi.t5,-decument,, ,' 3.3 MA$MENTS FOR UTILITIES 1 °' i;*. Easements shall be provided for water management areas, , ''! " utilities and'other purposes as may be needed. Said easements and improvements shall be in compliance with 4 - applicable-- sections of the Collier County Land• '.. Development Code. I . Q',' All necessary easements,. dedications, or other ? • instruments shall be granted to insure the continued . .4j.. operation and maintenance of all service utilities in z compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the • time approvals are requested. ' ' - 3.6 yXCLPTIONS TO TR6 SQHDIVISION REQ2110 IQIiI yr. The following requirements of Division 3.2 of the Land !�� Development Code shall be waived subject to review by • the County Engineer prior to construction plan preparation and submittal under a submission pursuant to ' xd Section 3.2.7.2 of the Land Development Code. • :•L-' 1. Division 3.2., Section 3.2.8.4.1 'of the Land i a� Development Code: Access. (All access shall be in • '...4,, accordance with Ordinance 82-91) . • .R 2. Division 3.2, Section ].2"8.].11 of the Land • ' Development Code: Monument• and Control Points: ,-!-: Where such monuments occur within street pavement t• • +. areas, they shall be installed in a typical water ' valve cover, as prescribed in the current County • u. . - standards. Installation of all monuments shall be in accordance with State Statutes and as approved by the County Engineer. - t, I. Division 3.2., Section 3.2.8.4.16.8 of the Land Development code: Curb Radii (Reduce requirements 3-2 . t 1 1 . I 5 I . r r 11111 , 3 V".1,., �•' ? s from forty ' a � , t � , y (40 ) foot radium to thirty (10 ) foot f . radius at interior street to local road t ! ' F ,` -' intersections. j e i. I M '� aLI .45Div1,eion: .' 3:2. Section • 3.2.8.3.24 of the Land ki �• s ".: Development Codes Utility Casings - approved it i . f • u .. all underground utilities are installed prior to , street construction. . . ,:.;' 3.7 JUTE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APROVAj, 1 Qo. e.:, Development _Plan approval shall follow the pl ., .. procedure as outlined in Division 3.3, Site Development Plans, of the Collier County Land Development Code. In the case of clustered buildings, required property development regulations may be waived or reduced . . provided a site plan is approved under this section. ' r 1 '•1,! • i' ill•I p'. +I ,`✓' I Y 1 i ' I •ti,'1�T. ti ! • • j s, '� .. t j 1 I !4 4 . rya':.. 4001( r r '7 ! 1 { ', `-,-`q Ij i 11,. • . i . , K 1 1 ,. 1 I .,.. ^.MBA`r1• gi 1 ! - SECTION Iv } I 41f� 1 3 I I ..,.. .::/,';`,..., PERMITTED DBES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1 ) 1`r 1 1 4•1 PIIRPO I Thor---pr �rtknp"•'4if --tliis 'Section is to set forth the ; I 4 `.' permitted uses and standards for development within Wilson Professional Center. :sir., •,,i:::, - 4.2 pERMITTED ❑BEB AND STRUCTURES •• ;;';. .. :i H o"buildin g_ o r ' structure or part thereof shall be L {. • erected', altered, or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: L`'. 1) permitted Principal Uses and .S..t_ruct'res: 1 Y •F "'_,?a ) Offices and medical offices with a maximum of•• 65,000 sq. ft., limited to two buildings, and i subject to the following limitations: i ..:' • � ., , 1. Emergency medical clinics are prohibited. ' 2. Medical office usos are limited to & maximum occupancy of 17,396 sq. ft. i 2) permitted accessory Uses and Structures: • 1 -k . a) Accessory uses and structures. customarily• r ;;f4 , associated with uses permitted in this . district. • -' b) Caretaker's residences in accordance with j;. applicable County regulations. 4 a 4.'•• c) Essential services as defined in the Collier � County Land Development Code. ,i:' 4.7 RSOELOPMENT STANDARD$. • 1 'r: i ;A;' x,11 . 1) Maximuta Member of Parcels; One building parcel. • 1.64) 2) Minimum Setback Requirements for Principal i ,.; ,structures: ;!/`■' a) Internal road easement or front f ) yard - 25 -14:='J'0 feet. 1 4-1 ;,' }7' 'i i I ". f -, Borg 052nst.198 j I ,�; i{ . t er.w ewrr 11111111•1111 4, C,, W..', f { • I § ' y1 ., b) Side Yard - 15 feet. •4!,t , i, c) Rear Yard - 25 feet. . • 1 • ,'4. ', d) PUD Property Line •- 50 feet In which no ( •:F,a O.." parking is permitted. E s \,r, 3) 'Tiiiiiiim Haight' of Str a za: Thirty-five (35) t X4Ls.. feet not to exceed two (2) storios. u '," .4)••- Minimum Floor Area of ,p�' ?ci12�_lftrggture; One- ' II ry thousand (1,000) square teat per building on ground ( =floor. 5) Distance Between Principal Structure - Thirty (30) ,t., - ••- lest. .`tLl v rum 1....�• - 1 6) Minimum standards for signs, parking, lighting, and I landscaping shall be in conformance with applicable '0 ' • Collier County Regulations in effect at the time i ) r permits are sought unless otherwise specified in ! f K " this document. The project shall have a common `; ; •.:Y,• -.uniform_ signage. plan. .Areas shown on the Master 1 a Plan as landscaped shall be landscaped. 'c ';;, 7) Prior to development of any building parcel, a 4� ' development plan shall be approved in accordance + e with the Collier County Land Development Code. I 4°"- 8) Tract Coverage Limitations and Archi.ecturil . Control 4.s '•:• ' The maximum horizontal area of each tract that may `• ` .' be covered by the principal building, accessory '` buildings and future additions to either shall no exceed 25 percent of the total area-of the tract. 1 . The building area does not include parking areas, 7'. driveways, loading areas, or sidewalks. r; All buildings within the Park shall have a common architectural theme and shall be of permanent type p' '," .0 construction with a fire retardant roof. . •,, Exterior walls of all buildings shall be of exposed 1 ^ t .;, concrete aggregate, stucco, glass, terrazzo, brick, E or other similar materials. Concrete, concrete I i block or wood siding, providing they meet } ` • x applicable fire regulations, are also acceptable " materials for exterior walls, but they shall be +, finished by painting, staining or other processing. ;.;; Exterior metal clad buildings shall be prohibited. ':'iiv t!tat 4-2 . „ t 199} ` t, 600K � • fl52 Pa Y4..:' • 1. :qe — — ■ 1 .4 MIr = Mil i E OY I .;1 . A common architectural theme shall be established '«';�5 for the project and all structures shall be P + p'• reviewed for conformity by the project sponsors. '' a ,,t' 9) Signs f !��.,�»` . . Identification signs identifying the name and tI." ?w':! business of the persons cr firms occupying the ,a.eee • premises .�and_.the name,. purpoc•e, and description of 1 .,fee the overall project shall be permitted. '' '" Advertising signs, billboarde or other signs except 1 .. ; those specifically permitted by the developer are t � � � prohibited: e ;:All signs shall conform to Collier County Regulations. +?_"' 10) Utilitiele e ...0•T , i.C.•c All electrical -and. telephone service shall be • e; ' brought underground into the site and to the ! ?',:''''e buildings from the nearest available source. Pad • =•' mounted electrical transformers shall be located•' and screened so as to prevent viewing from any e ,i.-, public street or adjacent property. �. 11) parking s Off-street parking spaces sufficient to accommodate. • ;:);',;'- the parking demands generated by the project shall e 4....2 be provided on the site and/or on the adjacent ve church property, subject to a suitable agreement between the two parties and the Collier County Development Services Director concerning sharing of • Ci , parking facilities. i ';•`? ,; Parking areas shall be constructed to Collier .k.. County Standards. . 12) Maintenance :.} et., The owner or lessee of any tract in the Wilson • µ"e Professional Center must at all times keep the ,', premises, buildings, improvements and appurtenances in a safe, clean, wholesome condition, and comply 'ti" "` in all respects with all government, health and • e, policy requirements. .c All landscaping and exterior portions of structures• .. .. shall be maintained in order to keep an attractive appearance. :le: 1 .$ 4-3 n NO' ''aUsA •i boo( 052 PA 200 ._• .■. . . . . MUM! ! * • nil In 1111 ' f , , 1,■ji:1-•'• I . . , ,'•Ntkit.:it-:.. , . . a • 4,..- i' •- . .i •,.}:„7:', _ . 1 ,-1.;:1''• : ' ' 1,1••• .. . I . •, i , • •I.i. 'Y • . a . 1 ,..4 t! 1 .5. . . . SECTION V ;,..1.• ‘ t' GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COHNITMENTS 5-1 EMUS= .1*■,P,r, ' , . I 1.;.r,. ...:, Tha purpose of this Section is to set forth the general commitments for development of the project. 1 ':•:;}.,•., I 5.2 TharrfaiiiiiRciTliEk j a. Intersection improvements at project entrances shall be provided by the developer. I i i',5,''';:'• . , b. The' developer shall provide a fair share i contribution toward the capital cost of a traffic . , signet at the intersection of Airport Road and I • ,c. Bailey Lan When deemed warranted by the County Engineer. The signal shall be owned, operated and • maintained by Collier County. . ,.-- . ' . • ' r,', c. The developer shall provide street lighting at the • project entrance. The operating and maintenance ., costs shall be assumed by Collier County. d. The primary access to the property will be via • t,', Bailey Lane and since the increase in traffic from the proposed development will increase turning movements, a northbound left turn lane and a • 'io. - southbound right turn lane may be necessary. An .,- . existing median opening with a turn lane serves the 7:4 above northbound left turn lane requirement. No , . southbound right turn lane exists; accordingly a commitment to construct a southbound right turn lane is required prior to the approval of building • permits for the PUD. The southbound right turn lane shall be a joint project between the County and the development wherein the County shall be 1 P' responsible to obtain the necessary right-of-way, II . by condemnation if required, and the developer I a V responsible for construction of the turn lane, relocation of sidewalk and utilities. Future I 1 developments along Bailey Lane shall be required to • make a fair share contribution toward the right-of- way and construction costs of this turn lane. , These contributions shall be used to reimburse the . County for right-of-way costs and this petitioner I for construction costs. N....:' : r: 5-1 1 . .1? '..- • , .4,■•, bOalt 052 P"201 i• .-^ ...: .. 1% ....:;j. .. • 1 1 I ‘ . IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIM .1 i u1■ur uuu ' .0 .. - i ?' 1~k •. The location of the entrance drive off Bailey Lane . i •'• 1 .R; r shall be placed a minimum of 200 feet west of 1 t. ; �..... Airport, _. Road . for sufficient westbound vehicle storage to eliminate delays and conflicts at the s, °. Airport Road/Bailey Lane intersection. I 4 f. An internal road exit onto Airport Read may bo allowed subject' to design approval by the Engineering " Department with t:hc condition that the y, i _ -_ _,_coUnty__retains the right to close-off the curb I, 1 - s--opening' should traffic accidents and/or unsafe 1 conditions develop on Airport Road as a result of :' exiting conditions. Mountable curbing shall be r �y provided on each side of the median for a distance g yF of 100 feet in each direction from the exit. ' IX:. . The " above improvements are considered "site- At v related" as defined in Ordinance 85-55, and shall not be applied as credits toward any impact fees h . required by that Ordinance. ! 1 `. h. In accordance with Ordinance 85-55, requiring 1 1 V development to contribute its proportionate share 3 of funds to accommodate the impact of proposed development on area roads; the developer of each parcel or their successors or assigns, agrees to ' ::J;J pay road impact fees in accordance with the s . ordinance, at such time as building permits are It.,- .. requested. 1 i. Bailey Lane shall be reconstructed as a boulevard • W. section along the frontage of the project and i tip'' •. ' tapered to meet existing pavement. 1 w:' j. The internal street shall be designed to avoid any Pi'• conflicting turning movements into the individual 4 f parcels by configuring the proposed islands to ` eliminate any possible conflicts. 11 c:i, 1 `` • k. A sidewalk shall be provided along at least one " side of the internal road and along Bailey Lane from said road to Airport Road. 5.3 QOkID WASTE DI8P08 .L 1 I' � ?"• Arrangements shall be made with the approved solid waste i'.; disposal service to provide for solid waste collection 1, service to all areas of the project. • 4. ,~S- 5-2 ` Boor f152 Past 2L)2 ` I i• ( .•.,•:` ;;* F 1 1� �r �� \ , .... .:r{' i 1 • S ; ' I k .:V•i; 5.l YD MATLR DE LMCNT PtJ1 4 .•Y 3 ;.' a. The PUD Master Plan (Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soil 1, I 1 f+5.. Peek, Inc., Drawing File No. R2-154A) is an a .1.,-.1.,',••:,t. illustrative preliminary development plan. The design criteria and layout illustrated on the l '•• h. Master Plan shall ba understood as flexible so that I I i3:;=' the final design may satisfy the project and comply h with all applicable requirements. Acreages shown on. the P.U.D.: Macter Plan are approximate and ' it,;, subject to change's to accommodate final engineering £ i'• plan. ;t:,.. . i-;::;:. 0. A1l' • Necessary easements, dedications, or other '?f::� . instruments .shall .be granted to. insure the • �• continued operation. and maintenance of all service 1 ' utilities. d. Minor -'design"Ch'anges'shall be permitted subject to `' the ' County Development Services Director's . I • .j administrative approval. . I i y;. ; e. Landscape buffers shall be provided along the south property line and along the north property line .A west of the project entrance as identified hare: i 1. South property line; 6' woodc:rete fence set in • cr;. 5' natural vegetation buffer. 2. North property line; west of project entrance - 10' buffer consisting of natural vegetation. .a f. Outside storage areas shall be screened from r, ' `L:�.,.r adjacent properties. t, g, Only three (3) road accesses shall be provided, two ■ ., from Bailey Lane and one from Airport Road as �'V controlled by the Engineering Department. ! ! .:x•1.1:, I I'M'`' S.S I ILITIES 7., ,. J • ,t;y.. a. A central water supply system shall be made -1j'" available to the project. The water supply source I • for the project shall be the City of Naples system. I ' ,,.. :• b. The project shall be served by an approved, on-site p:r;•''. or off-site wastewater disposal facilities system. j c. Any establishment requiring a CCPUU permit must. submit plans for review and approval. k 5-3 K- boor 052PAn.1203 , .«.'. j ;' .j'" •r' : . if 1l r� } . ':Vie, - , •• a • • , '`•f . 1 - ,. S.6 1fA'XR_-2121{, Q7i EMENT ' v " '14°1-'a . r. I , :f,, '�Hiraar-�kenagement Advisory hoard considered the referenced petition during its regular meeting of I 't4 • July 8, 1987, and had no objection to its approval with ;;;_ `. tix the following stipulations: a. A Master Water Management Flan and detailed sits , drainage—plans- shall be submitted to the County . ^_ ; Engineer for review. No construction permits shall • be issued unlusa and until approval of the proposed •,. construction in accordance with the submitted plane is granted by,•the County Engineer. It there is it problem with- the Staff-Review of the submitted plans, the project is to be brought back before the Environmental Advisory Board. 1 b. Prior • to the initiation of any project I ;�. construction;" Petitioner shall verify that the "Poinciana Village-Gordon River Outfall" has the 1 i`i capacity to accommodate project discharge or make s ' appropriate improvements to the swala system if I.:.,' deemed necessary by the County Engineer. No .. building permits for the project will be granted 1 pS,'_ until Collier County has secured the necessary 1+'.i easement or agreements to permit the above f.. described improvements. The project sponsors shall • ' contribute their pro-rata share of the cost of ±• acquiring a 30' easement for the 660' section of the outfall ditch currently in need of maintenance. 4'''''. ' . • 5.7 ZIWIRONMENTAL CONBIDERATIONg �' a. Site clearing permit review procedures shall be in I' accordance with Section 3.9.6 of the Collier County Land Deelopment Code. j• }K b. The use of native species in landscape plans shall be in accordance with Section 2.4.4.1 of the . Z:,,, , r Collier County Land Development Code. c. Prohibited exotic vegetation removal shall be performed in accordance with Section 3.9.6.6 of the r Collier County Land Development Code. d. Procedures regarding any historical or archaeological sites identified shall be in accordance with Section 2.2.25 of the Collier County Land Development Code. ' S-4 'i .':'' bDDY 052 PrA 204 • S. t• •i II l • . I NW 11.1 ? I I i ,;;t•;v,;, e. As portrayed in the rovised preliminary sits plane k•yy' '' dated July 7, 1987, dry retention/buffer area.; ( - - ', surrounding the parcel will be en -average of at :I 4- least 36 feet in width. Final design of the dry . F�'`' retention/buffer areas should incorporate retention ! • i a,3' of the maximum amount of native vegetation h , possible, and final designs will bo subject to the • *14 review and approval of Project Review Ssrviceo I { Environmental Staff. f. Landscaping and internal/surrounding buffer designs 1 i `, could incorporate the cabal palm-myrsin hammock i s (northeast corner), the oak four-plex and, through design or transplantation, the oak saplings and { .:N! sabal palms. I Ip g. Petitioner should investigate using rock or paver I ,. bricks for roadways and parking lots in lieu of • I iii;;. traditional use of asphalt paving. !).. .l i i ' " WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER PUD/PS/md 1 6 '4 I i\ r a'•yCr�f w: ' ti.: I ..�7.• F 1f Z. I .�. :• 1 • 'f' ,'` ' S-S �•4 500' C52 PAS[20 4 I Ii'l:4A , :.- %' . n 1 a 1 1 a 1 ..r: 1 1 I a :F. a„ k : 1 • i .-. i 1 • • • 1 • - •,, , 1 i I . , -..-=...z..--....z...._7. ,..q.,..ev ....,cerxtil . •.r. -. It.::.. F ..40-#A --er---.7,16-fl 1 — ; rt. 1.' fk • • i 1 . •A. l'. . .. , 17,1 - l.■,LV 1 4.' • •1,,../ I , Cr., MEM ' . ' • \--1-._\=.4 g . ......A 441 ; ;I I •-, I r........ :__.7.:7.7.7 I -f.. ;1. •• • ' , . . .: ......... 4110- •' - I .. IIIIIM .C.■./ '''''''' i 1 i IMII ■11.1 ! ..-.,.."-:7-4-7.--.-:-.7,, 1 i '• : rotw,i..NMA:1 tkpor...••■• # g r, .+••v... lor drliapabarA aftd.Aordle A fl . A ,. . .., • . [ .•... 1 . _.... . . .1:- . .J........_.—.........: , '411.0 i ..._,- k, d; -d ::.:; - :;i;-. -1 ' • it, .,„......_.......„ . flikvt- ':-/-4,64:‘-dtika-c■Lik,-,: --:__,::',:...,, - -, -17. ..... . . : - W • ... ratItit. . • • . . . ...we.Vays \.•.,■■....?err........ • . r.a....ima..... • • .a...a.ior ,i • .i •: , •. 111111.110X1 POIP710141010AIL./WAWA •AAA M.*.Alt.••••••• ' . • • I 1 ...................■......................-•--...... _. . . ,... , . . . , . .. .-2;.7.,;,:;,., .:: .;',,•;..0,44'413',.i"..1..O'r L'i:t4.;‘Irit.'': '..' 't.• " 'n'n 'n I : . .:'-',..,... ..''';'-:,..'=-7-4-;:._.:-.!--'''':mA„4,-'-r-,-,4-:....-.,1:;Iti• c5i.',4,----,--,:::,,,,..",!14,3.' '.'. ::'.1.,-,:r.i',:-=',.:'•ne;;''' . --' ":.9g,..;'',"n •.%- n ' n''''47'.;;;-''i ' 'nn —.' '' I / . • ' 1 _ -.-- • . : .• . . • • - . • __ . --- , .. . - . .... . . , . ,• .. _ . - • . 1 Ai ,.. . . 11 ' 'V..." • 1 i . , I 1. . ,. ..t.')1..'- ' • i I: • :: , f „i.t • •,:a4,.7..,-',, •I L .. - , • 'k ..•... • -1 PROJECT LOCATIGI?t MAP . . 'I,:').i5 I 4 " • 4 ; 4, 'II.V. • 3 • • . . . h . , I ' II.C.,• I ii . - - I - .1 ,-4.;lat- .-4',.-.4•-,. I ..r.I.'4,4 •••••4 • ••as -c 4- • 1 , :i 11 ; Y't it."4.41.. • ..4 •: . 4,.4 4,.t- 4 ! 4 I • I ' •••'.•.'' II ' 4 • 4 . •fl,: . __. . . •.,•'.16 . ii . ' ..;!.),i. 11 • ..1.'.., • I. i 41V:• 4/44,. - : PIK PaDOC ROO I l•••••-• I , I .4 .•. . . , 4.$I • .i cla 14: C • , I . . . ,:.,, ..- •4,• 1 t 1 . i•V"'.. i .,t :• . 1 • ■, . • , • . , 7 ,. • I 4.,4-4,44 V. ,romp, I 4,100 "C I Wil!CCRIMUGL L PFIOJCCT i • . Iwo ..,:.,• "l' .- i LOCATION • \_.• -,( ‘'. ca I.: .■ , !I %ALES LAW 0 • z .I' ' • 71;.;',;':::. II:. — .J•' :‘1''.•'',' .. • . • 1 '•' ! !A:' ZII so4Nossuk sT ., • • &IV. K , 'I* t 11 I 111111 re. ' . •' i I/7 t4 -. ; • 7; •■'1,44' .,5.1:-,4.4 l'CaCIC DC ON•• 0 WYNDEMERE • r- .- • COACH NOOSE LANCI . . •t :.• . , ,.•!-r.,'..- a . . . . , ,,,,,`•-.4■44 'i • 1 I • e• ...,, . mcwy. i 1 •i .. , -.1 .: DOtDOt Can ......"'I- ' •--'4-42 •';41,--,- ..,••••••••• - e.....,..c.-,.-,-,_ •• .• . ‘ ..,J .,-,4•,-. _ >::-,....,.,• . . . • . ilk'4 4,'-I • -i • '-.!te•4','...:':' _ • In It I ...,.' i( .1.... , . ' 1 • ''..k'd/......• EXEIXBIT 11 i • '.-.i,I'•,, - , 1 , • i- r Z.',I ••• •, 100C 052 PAsE 207 . ,,,.,.• ........ ; .-....:-..,trii.... . ! I -,.,• ,.. •1 I s .- ., .1 -! 11111111111111.111111111lMillIl ....,..............__. ....._......________,....____... .......„ .„. .. _ ........... .......__.........—..... t MB ' 1111111 MI • i 'Y. 1 yk `: a `` -.' ,. t I g I V: \ :Aid: .1 ..v,. I ' STATE OF FLORIDA ) I I i ,h;y;. •COUW1? OF COLLIER ) 1 :.�,' , I, JAMES C. GILES, Clerk of Courts in and for the ; ` •'` '4• Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do ':!'-'r A,1 hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of: • i .Cif is Ordinance No. 92-23 1 : '1 Yv,. -which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on Vicy..,: I the 28th day of April, 1992, during Regular Session. .3 ki^ � I �''�:•i��.. 4 WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of , ig . t'6,-.''-.,. County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 5th i .. 1'�.1 day of May, 1992. :'h - • JAMES C. GILES % '15 ;.,,. -:1:-.",!:°;a Clerk of Courts and Clerk 1 *, Ex-officio to Board of � �p1. ` County Commissionary C l ;a y: /s/Maureen Ken `., ny yon ' • rti J� 1 i Deputy Clerk �.' .: i 1 is , I t:� i s I Boor f152rA,t208 ■ ~' I +.:• A»' rya I. :r, , i J__ 1111 AGENDA ITEM 9-B COLLIER COUNTY SMALL SCALE ADOPTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT Project: GMPA-PL20140000193 Petition: CPSS-2014-1 [Companion PUDZ-PL20140000179] Id ti__TH LAU. `_ HA VET: 1 s,r.r.r F Re —1 WOOL) V'ER1 E 4 �� I E.TATE' 3aYAL WOC:5 ;§j IVIEgA :.ARC CL.: - C • , _ r _� - ----1 fl ^�LZaY� . � � .l ' T NETE►:°a T1ES PROJECT t '`- � C;ATH:IJC CHURCH 4,ANLALAY �� - LOCATION ) SGli; - — 1L® __ . RATTLCSNAKt HAM OCK ROAD \ LELY 9?r \ LELY , NaLV= 20 (till fp�r \* I L.t:.'NTH v. A� ` I CL J3 I LELY rG7UARE) sJAL LiAr +sv LELY, A 1ME,OHT CLAWLAITY !1 j ;041; CCPC: February 19, 2015 BCC: April 14, 2015 Clerk of Court 4th FL - Building "F" • TABLE OF CONTENTS CCPC - Project: PL20140000193/Petition: CPSS-2014-1 Small Scale Growth Management Plan (GMP) Adoption Amendment (Companion to Zoning Petition PUDZ-PL20140000179) February 19. 2015 Agenda 1) TAB: Adoption Staff Report DOCUMENT: Adoption CCPC Staff Report PL20140000193/CPSS-2014-1 2) TAB: Adoption Ordinance DOCUMENTS: Adoption Ordinance w/Exhibit"A" Text&Map Changes 3) TAB: Legal Advertising DOCUMENT: CCPC Adoption Advertising 4) TAB: Project/Petition DOCUMENT: Petition Application PL20140000193/CPSS-2014-1 Colfe r Cou�.ty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/PLANNING AND REGULATION, PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: February 19, 2015 RE: PETITION CPSS-2014-1/PL20140000193, SMALL SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (Companion to PUDZA- PL20140000179) [ADOPTION HEARING] AGENT/APPLICANT/OWNERS Agents: Wayne Arnold Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Richard Yovanovich, Esq. Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 Applicant/Owner: David Nassif Nassif Golf Ventures, LLC 225 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 240 Naples, FL 34102 I. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:, The subject property, comprising ±7.90 acres, is located on the south side of Rattlesnake Hammock Road, at the intersection of Hibiscus Drive, in Section 19, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, located within the East Naples Planning Community. r ,.- �`' �-i- {tea' RATTSSYAt r1A •JO7�.R7�! �T„ �1.+ ' • E .61k :.1, - 17 ..,a .11,-, __fa _ 1' -':: --.;:r.- ;:----1141-":' 14'7. 1*;4:11...),:;41..:.. 0 ::.:,i t .:',51 # 1 i -.'' '-'.0*: it S r. ...f'. h 1-4. • 41'/". g rt 0 ! ! 34 ',I13 4 ' '''..7". .A;. g V. Dcr-,Co-u«,,A . L ac•I,ar.,2,le.or Wf L - ;'∎31rt., II. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant seeks to amend the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) text, Future Land Use Map and Future Land Use Map Series by: 1. Establishing the Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict on 7.90± acres within the Urban designation (Urban — Mixed Use District) and providing for up to 84 dwelling units at a density of 10.63 DU/A; 2. Amending Policy 1.1 to add the Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict [implied by submittal documents]; and 3. Revising the Future Land Use Map to depict the new Subdistrict and creating a new Subdistrict Map as part of the Future Land Use Map Series [implied by submittal documents]. The proposed amended Subdistrict text is as follows: (Single underline text is added — as proposed by the petitioner, and is in the Ordinance Exhibit A. Staff's recommended modifications to the text can be found at the end of this Staff Report.) I. URBAN DESIGNATION A. URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT 2 17. Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict [new text, page 46] The Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict comprises approximately 7.9 acres located on the South side of Rattlesnake Hammock Road, approximately one-half mile east of U.S. 41. The intent of the Subdistrict is to permit residential infill development up to a maximum of 84 dwelling units. The residential development permitted within this Subdistrict is consistent with the densities and intensities of development of other multi-family residential developments along the Rattlesnake Hammock Road corridor. Rezoning, in the form of a PUD is encouraged, in order to establish development standards appropriate for infill development. Building shall be limited in height to a maximum of 3-stories. 11. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner is requesting to establish the Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict on 7.90+ acres to allow up to 84 dwelling units at a density of 10.63 DU/A. Ill. SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: [ Existing Conditions: The subject 7.90+ acres are encumbered by a drainage easement (containing a canal) along the southern boundary, bisected by Hibiscus Drive, and otherwise undeveloped; zoned CF, Community Facility and GC, Golf Course; and, designated Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, with approximately 3.58 acres of the site located within the Coastal High Hazard Area. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Across Rattlesnake Hammock Road, Charlemagne Plaza (retail center), zoned C-3, General Commercial District, and designated Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict; and, mobile home units, zoned MH and, designated Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. South: Residential single-family units, zoned RSF-3, Residential Single-family (3 units/acre), and designated Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and is within the Coastal High Hazard Area; Golf Course and Club House, zoned GC, Golf Course (same ownership as subject site), and designated Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and the Coastal High Hazard Area; Residential multi-family units, zoned RMF-16, Residential Multi-family (16 units/acre), and designated Urban — Mixed Use District, Residential Subdistrict and the Coastal High Hazard Area; and, residential single-family units, zoned RSF-4, Residential Single- family (4 units/acre), and designated Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and is within the Coastal High Hazard Area. West: Across Doral Circle, residential single-family units; zoned RSF-3, Residential Single- family (3 units/acre); and, designated Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and is within the Coastal High Hazard Area. East: Residential multi-family units; zoned RMF-16, Residential Multi-family (16 units/acre); and, designated Urban —Mixed Use District, Residential Subdistrict, with a portion of the site located within the Coastal High Hazard Area. 3 IV. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: 1) Background: Development within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA): • Generally, Policy 12.2.5 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) defines the Coastal High Hazard Area as the geographical area lying below the elevation of the Category 1 storm surge line as presently defined in the 2011 Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council's Hurricane Evacuation Study. (Refer to the attached Ordinance Exhibit A Future Land Use Map for the general boundary.) • Policy 12.1.2 of the CCME provides that land use plan amendments in the Category 1 hurricane vulnerability zone shall only be considered if such increases in densities provide appropriate mitigation to reduce the impacts of hurricane evacuation times. • Objective 3 and related Policies limit public expenditures in the CHHA for certain public facilities needed to support new development permitted by the Future Land Use Element. Approximately 3.58 acres of the subject site is located within the CHHA. The applicant has agreed to provide the necessary hurricane mitigation to reduce the impacts resulting from the project's proximity to, and location within, the Category 1 hurricane vulnerability zone, as recommended by the Bureau of Emergency Management (companion Hibiscus RPUD, Exhibit F, #5, contains the mitigation commitment). No new expenditures for public facilities within the CHHA are anticipated, as a result of the proposed project. Residential density permitted within the Urban Residential Subdistrict: • Residential density is permitted at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre (DU/A). However, a portion of the property is also within the Coastal High Hazard Area thus is subject to a reduction of 1 DU/A pursuant to the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE); this results in an adjusted base density of 3 DU/A for that portion of the site within the CHHA. Through the Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB), up to an additional 8 DU/A could be achieved and added to the base density. The subject property is zoned CF, Community Facility and GC, Golf Course. The site is eligible for 28 dwelling units under the existing Future Land Use designation (4.32 acres x 4 DU/A = 17.28 DUs +3.58 acres x 3 DU/A= 10.74 DUs). Residential density on the site may be increased through the AHDB provision, yielding an additional 63 dwelling units (7.9 acres x 8 DU/A)for a total of 91 units. 2) Environmental Impacts: A Senior Environmental Specialist with the Collier County Surface Water and Environmental Planning Section reviewed the environmental report and provided the following comments: • According to aerials on the Property Appraiser's website, the subject property was previously cleared and developed (since 1975) as part of the golf course immediately to south of the subject site. Previous structures, driveways and parking areas on the site have been removed. The remaining vegetation on site consists of native and non-native trees and mowed ground cover. Fox squirrels have been previously observed on the golf course to the south. A listed species survey was conducted to determine if fox squirrels are currently using the subject property. No fox squirrels or evidence of fox squirrels were observed during the listed species survey. 4 i s F. t 3 1 g ,, I The subject property is not located within a County well field protection zone. • The proposed GMP amendment will have no effect on the requirements of the CCME, including retention and protection of native vegetation and listed wildlife species. I Historical and Archeological Impacts: • The subject property is not located in an area of historical and archaeological probabability, as shown on the County's Historical/Archaeological Probability maps. A letter received on August 25, 2014 from the Florida Master Site File, indicates no previously recorded cultural resources on the project site. The project will be subject to the requirement for accidental discovery of archaeological or historical sites as required by CCME Policy 11.1.3. The provision is also included in Subsection 2.03.07E of the Land Development Code (LDC). t. 1 3) Public Facilities Impacts: • Water: The subject project is located within the Collier County potable water service area. The anticipated maximum demand (84 multi-family units) for potable water for the l project is 39,627 gallons per day. • Wastewater: The subject project will be served by the Collier County Sewer District. The anticipated maximum demand (84 multi-family units) for wastewater for the project is estimated at 18,564 gallons per day. I • Solid Waste: The service provider is Collier County Solid Waste Management. The i 2013 AU1R identifies that the County has sufficient landfill capacity up to the year 2065 for the required lined cell capacity. The project construction time line is approximately 36 months. 1 • Drainage: Future development is expected [and required] to comply with the SFWMD and/or Collier County rules and regulations that assure controlled accommodation of storm water events by both on-site and off-site improvements. I. • Park and Recreational Facilities: There will be no adverse impacts to park facilities from 1 the proposed development. i • Schools: Presently, there is sufficient capacity for the proposed development within the 1 middle and high school concurrency service areas. However, there is not sufficient capacity within the elementary school concurrency service area. At the time of site plan or plat, the development will be reviewed for concurrency to ensure there is capacity 1 within the concurrency service areas such that the level of service standards are not 1 exceeded. At this time there is capacity in an adjacent concurrency service area. • EMS and Fire: The subject project is located within the East Naples Fire and Rescue I District, [station located] at 11121 Tamiami Trail East, approximately 3-miles from the subject site. The establishment of the Subdistrict with the proposed residential multi- family or single-family units is anticipated to have minimal impacts on these safety services. • Transportation: Staff has reviewed the Hibiscus PUD rezone petition and companion I Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment petition for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element (TE) in the Growth Management Plan. That policy is listed below, followed by staff analysis. "Policy 5.1: The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County 5 transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways." The subject rezone and FLUE amendment petitions do increase residential density and the proposed project does access,a deficient roadway segment per the 2014 AUIR, Annual Update and Inventory Report on public facilities. Transportation Planning staff recognizes a current failure of the existing roadway network (Link 72.0 Rattlesnake- Hammock Road, from Tamiami Trail to Charlemagne Boulevard, which exceeds capacity by 5 trips). This four-lane roadway is constrained by a lack of expandable right- of-way, and is not slated for any capital improvements as a result of the recognized failure, which was identified in the 2014 AUIR process. As a result of the capacity failure on Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, staff cannot find these petitions consistent with TE Policy 5.1, thus cannot recommend approval, unless acceptable mitigation measures are proposed. The applicant has proposed multiple mitigation measures (see PUD Exhibit F, List of Developer Commitments, Section 3.b.-d.), summarized below. 1. Contribution of $25,000 toward the construction of Collier Area Transit (CAT) facilities along Rattlesnake-Hammock Road. 2. Purchase five monthly CAT passes, covering the months of November through May, for five consecutive seasons after the date that the first Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a residential unit. 3. Interconnection to the adjacent golf course and clubhouse/restaurant facilities — via the existing Hibiscus Drive. 4. Provision for on-site bicycle racks. Conclusion: Staff endorses the petitioner's proposed mitigation measures, therefore, can recommend approval of these two petitions. Concurrency Comments: Transportation Planning staff does not review projects for concurrency at time of GMP amendment or rezone. However, since staff is aware of the current failure of the existing roadway network adjacent to the subject site, staff offers some comments and a recommendation not specific to these petitions. 6 If these petitions are approved, then the project would be subject to concurrency at the time of Development Order submittal. Per TE Policy 5.2, a project may be approved if the traffic impacts proposed at that time are "de minimis" (i.e. less than 1% of the directional roadway capacity) — which could potentially restrict development order approval to a density less than the maximum approved (less than the proposed 84 units). Additionally, an alternative that could potentially be beneficial to this project, based upon is TE Policies 5.4 and 5.5, would be to incorporate the property into an approved Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) boundary. One current staff recommendation, outlined in the 2014 AUIR recommendations, is to promote inclusion of ,1 Link 72.0, and surrounding properties, in the nearby TCEA (the boundary presently ends at the Rattlesnake-Hammock Road/Tamiami Trail East intersection). [Note: The staff recommendation in the 2014 AUIR for TCEA expansion was not based upon these two particular petitions, and the proposed expansion would include properties other than just the subject site.] In order for staff to pursue a GMP amendment to expand the existing TCEA boundary, explicit BCC direction must be provided. Such a GMP amendment would need to include a transportation study to support the expansion, which would be included in the submittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)for their review and acceptance. 4) Justification and Compatibility: • Justification: The applicant's justification for the requested density is that the project is infill development, adequate infrastructure is available, the requested density is necessary for the development of the site to be financial feasible, the requested density could be achieved by rezoning a portion of the adjacent golf course site (under same ownership) along with the subject site to entitle additional density on the subject site; and, affordable housing development is not a viable option for the site based on lack of support for this unit type by surrounding communities. The subject project is unique in that it is adjacent to the developed club house and golf course that is under the same ownership as the subject site. In order to achieve the requested density of 10.63 or 84 units on the site, the applicant has two available options — not including the AHDB provision — for increasing residential density on the site: 1) rezone a portion of the adjacent golf course acreage along with subject site to entitle density on the subject site; or, 2) seek approval of a small-scale amendment to allow the increased density. The applicant elected to submit this small-scale amendment for the increased density, citing the amendment avoids any confusion that may be caused by including the golf course acreage as part of a rezoning action. There is common ownership of the subject site and adjacent golf course as well as non- PUD zoning on these properties, both of which staff believes to be unique. Because of this, and the agent's statement at the Neighborhood Information Meeting to the public that the golf course use would be retained (refer to pages 10 and 11 of the attached NIM Transcript), staff is of the opinion that the small-scale amendment process may be the appropriate means to increase residential density on the subject site without unnecessarily causing confusion for area residents about the continuation of the golf 7 course use. However, staff does have concern about the potential for double counting of density should the golf course acreage be redeveloped in the future. Accordingly, staff requested the applicant encumber (by lien or other formal legal mechanism) the portion of the golf course acreage (±18.60 ac.) needed to entitle the additional density on the subject site. However, the applicant declined staff's request. • Compatibility: To the west, across Dora! Circle, are one-story single-family structures, zoned RSF-3. To the east is a three-story multi-family development (Country Club Manor Condominiums), zoned RMF-16. To the south, across the drainage easement, is a golf course, club house and associated parking area; single-family development, zoned RSF- 3 and RSF-4; and, further south is three-story and five-story multi-family development, zoned RMF-16 (Naples Green Condominiums). To the north, across Rattlesnake Hammock Road, is a recreational area for the adjacent mobile home development (Riviera Colony); and a one-story commercial retail plaza, zoned C-3 (Charlemagne Plaza). The proposed Subdistrict provides for a maximum building height of 3 stories; for all surrounding lands, the Future Land Use designation is silent to height limits. Though the proposed Subdistrict allows higher profile structures than are allowed on certain surrounding properties, Comprehensive Planning staff defers to Zoning staff for compatibility analysis as part of the rezoning process when the entire project is evaluated (building heights, setbacks, buffering, building mass, building orientation, etc.). VI. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): Refer to the NIM Transcript immediately following this Staff Report. VII. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS: • There are no adverse environmental impacts as a result of this petition. • The petition allows a project density that could be achieved through the rezoning of the subject site along with a portion of the adjacent golf course acreage. • The proposed project is generally compatible with surrounding land uses and intensities. • Mitigation is being provided (in the companion PUD) to reduce the impacts resulting from the project's proximity to, and location within, the Category 1 hurricane vulnerability zone, as provided for in PUD Exhibit F, #5. A. and B. • There are no infrastructure related concerns. VIII. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office and is legally sufficient. IHFACI IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition CPSS-2014-1 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve for adoption and transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, subject to staff recnmmAnriari St bdistrict text chances Staff recommends the following text revisions for the purpose of clarity and proper format. Words in single underline are added — as proposed by the petitioner; words in double underling are added and words in double are deleted—as proposed by staff. A. Urban Mixed Use District 17. Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict [new text, page 46] 8 The Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict comprises approximately 7.9 acres located on the &south side of Rattlesnake Hammock Road a.•roximatel one-half mile east of U.S. 41. The intent of the Subdistrict is to permit residential infill development up to a maximum of 84 dwelling• units. -- - - - --• __ -- --- - _—____ =_—_ -____ _ • - _ -_-- _ _ - _ - - -, iln order to establish development standards appropriate for infill development, the rezoning of the site shall be encouraae_d in the form of a PUD. _=-_=-= _---- =° = - - Prepared By: Date: 01''ie R. Masc., 41C'�'n ncipal Planner Impact Fee Pd nistration, Capital Project Planning Department Reviewed By: v Date: - David Weeks,AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager Comprehensive Planning Section, Planning and Zoning Department Reviewed By: Date: 2 - 3 - I r Michael Bosi,AICP, Director Planning and Zoning Department Approved Date: Nic Casalanguida; - :mini or Growth Management Division Petition Number: CPSS-2014-1 Staff Report for February 19, 2015 CPCC meeting NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the April 14, 2015 BCC meeting. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: Mark P. Strain, CHAIRMAN 9 3 1 1 • 2 TRANSCRIPT OF THE 3 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING 4 FOR HIBISCUS RPUD 5 September 24, 2014 6 5:35 p.m. 7 8 9 10 Appearances: 11 WAYNE ARNOLD 12 RICHARD YOVANOVICH, ESQ. 13 AL MOSCATO 14 DAVID NASSIF 15 TIM HALL 16 JIM BANKS 17 MICHELE MOSCA - • 18 NANCY GUNDLACH • 19 SHARON UMPENHOUR 20 21 23 24 • 25 • • t • 2 1 MR. ARNOLD: Well, folks, good evening. I'm 2 Wayne Arnold and I'm with Grady Minor & Associates. 3 And the county requires these neighborhood 4 information meetings. 5 We're required to tape them. So Sharon z 6 Umpenhour from our office, who you received a 1 7 letter from, most likely, is going to be making an 8 audiotape of that and then we have to transcribe it 9 for the county records. 10 With us tonight, Rich Yovanovich, who is the 11 land use attorney on the case. We have David 12 Nassif, who is the property owner. Al Moscato, who 13 works with Nassif Golf Ventures. Jim Banks, all 14 the way back here, he's our traffic engineer. And 15 Tim Hall, who's the environmental consultant 16 helping us on the project. 17 Also, two staff members from Collier County 18 government are here, Nancy Gundlach and Michele 19 Mosca. . 20 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Hi. 21 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Hi. 22 MR. ARNOLD: So if you have any questions of 23 staff, you know, they're both involved in the 24 review. 25 We're doing two things. We're doing a • 3 1 comprehensive plan amendment. It's called a 2 small-scale amendment, and we're allowed to do 3 those on properties less than ten acres, and we're 4 also concurrently rezoning the property from golf 5 course and community facility to a planned unit 6 development to allow up to 84 dwelling units. And 7 we've asked for a variety of dwelling unit types, 8 but the maximum would be 84 units on the property. 9 It's just about 7.9 acres. 10 Do most of you all live like in the immediate 11 area so you're familiar with the property? This is 12 kind of a larger size aerial, and we have, the 13 property outlined in yellow, and it's -- those of 14 you who have been around long enough, there used to 1.5 be a golf clubhouse there many, many years ago, but 16 there's been some construction staging and uses 17 like that of late. 1B We have another aerial that's a little tighter 19 just if we need to talk specifically about -- I 20 don't know if any of you are in the immediately 21 adjoining residences, but if you have some specific 77 questions_ we'll try to answer those. 23 These meetings are informational. We're 24 required to hold them before we go to our next 25 step, which will be to get through a sufficiency • 4 4 is 1 review process with the county. And we'll be then 2 attending a Planning Commission hearing for which 3 you all will receive notice and signs will be 4 posted on the property when that date is known, and 5 then we'll also have a Collier County Board of 6 County Commissioner hearing, which they'll take 7 final action on our request. 8 So, we're in the process. Right now, we've 9 had one full sufficiency review by staff and we 10 have resubmitted, and I don't believe we received 11 any formal edits back from them. We have, I don't 12 think too many significant issues from the county's 13 perspective, but our planning and development • 14 document, and I think Sharon has some additional 15 copies here if anybody is interested, but it 16 outlines the permitted uses that we're requesting. 17 It has development standards table which identifies • 18 our maximum heights and setbacks and things of that 19 nature. 20 We're asking for a deviation to not have a 21 landscape buffer between our buildings and the 22 existing golf course, clubhouse improved area, and 23 we are installing a landscape buffer where we would 24 be adjacent to a single family home across the 25 canal. • 5 1 This is a pretty significant buffer that was 2 put in as part of the golf course clubhouse • 3 renovations, and we think that that certainly 4 satisfies the requirement. I don't think staff has 5 weighed in on that so I can't tell you that they 6 are in love with that or not, but that's one of the 7 deviations we've requested from the code. 8 Our conceptual zoning plan, if any of you have 9 looked at any of the documents we've submitted, 10 it's a very conceptualized zoning plan. We've • 11 identified two residential tracts, one on each side 12 of the existing Hibiscus Drive. We're proposing 13 access from Hibiscus as well as a potential access 14 point on Doral Circle. 15 And those of you who are in the area know the 16 site well, but as I said before, right now, it's 17 zoned golf course. And then a couple of years ago, 18 it was approved -- I think, Rich, you were involved 19 in that rezoning -- but it was rezoned for a church 20 that didn't move forward. 21 So I think it was this larger tract, wasn't 22 it. Rich. though. that -- 23 MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. 24 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, that was going to be a 25 church. And so the church is out of the picture i • 6 1 i 1 i 1 and the market has come back and we think this e 2 makes a good infill piece for residential ) 3 development. 4 I saw some of you studying -- we just engaged • • 5 a local architect and we started looking at site . 6 layouts. And this one represents some multi-family 7 buildings and how they could be configured on the 8 site, just so you can start seeing relationships to 5 9 neighboring roads. i 10 And we're not sure yet what's going to be part I 11 of the amenity, but most likely it's going to be 12 centralized to the buildings that we're proposing. i 13 So that is one concept, and then this isn't 14 something that we're married to yet. This is the 15 first iteration by the architect that they've 16 'engaged to look at that. But it starts to see how • 17 • we can lay out and (indiscernible) setbacks that we 18 have proposed will work, so. • 19 Now, I don't know, do I need to -- anything • 20 more? I'm happy to answer questions. We've got 21 such a small group, I'd be happy to just jump right 22 in and answer questions that you all may have., 23 Yes, ma'am? • 24 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Do you have any 25 idea on the timeline when the construction will 7 1 start and when it will probably be completed? 2 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I don't think I know 3 specifically. I mean, David Nassif may have a 4 better idea, but getting through this process, most 5 likely will wrap up right around the first of the 6 year, I'm guessing. I don't know. We don't have 7 specific dates. B Then it will have to go through an 9 environmental permitting process and site plans and 10 plan approval. So, I mean, most likely it's -- the 11 earliest it would be, would be early 2015 or late 12 - 2015 to start, and I don't think they have a 13 definitive time frame because I don't think we 14 exactly know what the product mix is and, you know, 15 they have to do some marketing with that. 16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So they're not 17 really sure how many like single dwelling and how 18 many multi-family? 19 . MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. And we asked for several 20 unit types. I mean, if we provide single family, 21 you know, the number of units that we can fit there 77 i.c GnhGtantially 1PAA than tha R4. That diagram 23 depicts 84 units, and those buildings, the 24 rendering that was prepared and supported those is 25 that, that some of you saw, but it depicts e1I • . is 8 . } X 1 three-story buildings, and that's, y ou know, just 2 one concept of the architectural style that they're 3 looking at. 4 So, you know, the maximum number of units i 5 equates to three-story buildings we're proposing. 6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Are they going to 7 be -- 8 MR. ARNOLD: Ma'am? 1 i 9 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: They're going to 10 be owner occupied, right? I 11 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I -- I don't think I can l • • • 12 say for sure that they're owner occupied, but I i 13 don't know that, but I do know that they're 14 intended to be market rate units. Whether it would 15 be a rental or for sale, it''s not -- that's -- 76 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Well, okay. I 17 understand that, but I mean, they're going to be 18 actually sold as owner, and then the owner will 19 rent or -- 20 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I don't know -- 21 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Or are they 22 apartments? 23 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I don't think we've talked 24 about them necessarily being apartments. I don't 25 think there's anything in our zoning document that 9 • 1 would prohibit it from being -- 2 MR. YOVANOVICH: They're not going to be 3 apartments. They're going to be -- 4 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Condos? 5 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Like condos? 6 MR. YOVANOVICH: Be condos, perfect. 7 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And owner . 8 occupied, mostly, or something or -- _ 9 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Well, at least 10 owner owned. Rather than being rented out by the • 11 company. And it's going to be an over 55 12 community? 13 MR. ARNOLD: No. I don't think we've talked. 14 about age restricting it. 15 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) . 16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. 17 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Everything along 18 there is owner -- are over 55. 19 MR. ARNOLD: Are they, Adrian? 20 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Everything. 21 MR. ARNOLD: I'm not -- I'm not familiar with 77 • hnw some of the other rnnrinminilimo have -- 23 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Everything along 24 there is over 55. 25 MR. ARNOLD: Is that right? 2'. 10 g` 1 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yes, sir. 2 MR. ARNOLD: Which --_do you live in one of 3 the condos on that -- 4 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I live in Country • 5 Club Manor, which butts up to it. 6 MR. ARNOLD: Country Club Manor? 7 Can you note that, Sharon, just so I can check 8 on some of the others, too? 9 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: There's other ones 10 that aren't? 11 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, I don't -- the county 12 typically doesn't get involved with dictating the • 13 age range unless you're specifically asking for 14 senior housing, and they classify that as 55 and . 15 • over, and it's a little different. It's considered 16 a group housing type facility and it can be 17 anything from assisted living, conventional -- 18 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: No kids. 19 MR. ARNOLD: -- unrestricted housing for 20 seniors or, you know, some of those are rentals, 21 some are owner occupied, but, you know, we're not 22 committing that it's a 55 and over community. 23 Yes, ma'am? 24 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I got two 25 questions. One, is the golf course going to stay 11 1 there? 2 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, ma'am. The parcel that's • 3 being rezoned is only the front portion that abuts 4 Rattlesnake Hammock. It's just under eight acres 5 of property. 6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. What about 7 a traffic light? 8 MR. ARNOLD: Well, our traffic engineer is in 9 the room. I don't believe the county has any plans 10 for having a traffic signal between U.S. 41 -- 11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It would be nice 12 if you had one at Charlemagne and Rattlesnake. 13 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yep. 14 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, I mean, I think that, Jim, 15 you may want to weigh in. 16 MR. BANKS: Yeah. 17 MR. ARNOLD: But I don't think that there's an 18 immediate plan for the county to put a traffic 19 signal at Charlemagne. 20 MR. BANKS: The county will simply monitor 21 that intersection. And at the time it's deemed 22 that a signal would be warranted, they would 23 install it, but our project has no influence on the 24 county's decision whether or not that would be 25 warranted, because the traffic movement that would %{N 3Y 12 • rf 1 trigger those warrants is actually the southbound 2 movements at that intersection, and turning left 3 out onto Rattlesnake, and we don't really influence 4 that. 5 But, again, that's for Collier County DOT. 6 They'll monitor it. If that's a concern of yours, 7 I would invite you to contact Collier County DOT . 8 and express your interest in them looking at that 9 intersection. 10 MR. ARNOLD: Sir, did you have your hand up? 11 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah, I had a 12 question about a traffic light, but you already 13 covered it. 14 MR. ARNOLD: Oh, okay. Yes, ma'am? 15 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: You probably don't 16 have an idea on price ranges on that? 17 MR. ARNOLD: I don't. And so, I mean -- 18 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I know that's 19 farfetched kind of. 20 MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. 21 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But you probably 22 have an idea kind of what kind of price range 23 you're looking at. You're not looking at 24 multi-million dollar here. You're looking at what, 25 starting at a couple hundred thousand, maybe, or 13 1 MR. ARNOLD: I think that's fair. That's all 2 going to depend on the market, it's going to depend 3 on where the market is a year from now. 4 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And it would 5 cost -- you know, of course, when you get into it, 6 you're going to run into a lot of things that are 7 going to be very costly to you, and until that 8 happens, you won't really know the exact., but I was 9 wondering on price range, because that will affect 10 values of properties around you, too. And, of 11 course, everybody wants their property values to go 12 up. They don't want anything negative to affect 13 them. 14 So that's why I kind of -- 15 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir? 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I do have a 17 question. On the traffic study that you did, did 18 it take in consideration the development on 41, The 19 Isles, and the development on the other end of 20 Rattlesnake? Did it take in -- 21 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, you're talking about The 22 TGles -- 23 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: The anticipated 24 traffic that might be going up and down 25 Rattlesnake? 1 k 1 r j 14 I ti t {{ . 1 . MR. ARNOLD: -- of Collier Reserve. 2 .. .MR. BANKS: Yeah. • • . 3 MR. ARNOLD: The other project is Hacienda 4 Lakes at the end of Rattlesnake. a 5 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah, because we 1 6 have trouble getting out now. ' 7 MR. BANKS: Yeah, what the county does, just • ® so you're aware, actually, I've worked on some of 1 9 those projects, is when you submit an application i 10 like this, and you project what the traffic demands t 11 will be, generate from your project, the county 1 12 literally takes those projections -- they have an 3 13 accounting system, and they -- although it's not on 14 that road link today, if you go out there and look, 1 15 they've already accounted for that traffic, and 16 they run a running tally so they can keep up with 17. . implementing improvements and start forecasting 1 18 future demands. 1 19 So the answer to your question is yes, it is 20 accounted -- those traffic numbers are accounted i 21 for. 22 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. Thank you. 23 MR. ARNOLD: Anything else? 24 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: How -- I'm sorry. • 25 MR. ARNOLD: Go right ahead, no_ • • 15 1 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: How close, like • 2 the west building there? 3 MR. ARNOLD: This one? 4 UNIDENTIFIED 'FEMALE VOICE: The west. 5 MR. ARNOLD: That's - 6 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: That's west. 7 MR. ARNOLD: That is west. 8 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Oh (indiscernible) 9 okay. • 10 MR. ARNOLD: East (indiscernible) ? • 11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. • 12 MR. ARNOLD: I don't know. I don't see a 13 scale•on that building, but we're depicting a 10 or . 14 15-foot wide landscape buffer. I'm guessing that 15 that building is probably in. the range of 20 to 16 twenty -- 17 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I'm sorry._ Would 18 you repeat that? • 19 MR. ARNOLD: The plan that he's depicted, a 10 20 to 15-foot wide landscape buffer, so the building 21 is probably 20 to 25 feet as he's depicted it 22 there. 23 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So there's a small 24 landscape buffer now. It would be more than that? • 25 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. I'm sure the county i 16 i f s 3 . 1 (indiscernible) building next door has its own e 2 buffer and then we're required to establish a i 3 buffer as well. ( 4 Nancy had a comment. - ' 5 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Oh, I wanted a 6 clarification, because you said that they could be 7 a rental. Rich said they won't be a rental. Which 1 i 1 8 is it? i 9 MR. YOVANOVICH: I said it will not be an i 10 apartment complex. i 11 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. 12 MR. YOVANOVICH: It will be a condominium. 13 MR. ARNOLD: It will be either condominium or 14 • fee simple, depending on what product type they end 15 up with, right. ' 16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: What is fee • 17 simple? 18 MR. ARNOLD: It would mean you own the dirt 19 below it. In a condominium, you own a condominium 20 interest in the overall project. For instance, if • 21 you build a townhome, which we don't have a lot of 22 townhomes in Collier County, but we've made 23 provisions for there to be, a townhome, you 24 actually own the physical fee simple land below the • 25 building and then you own the vertical elements of 17 1 the building. So it's, you know, kind of a zero 2 lot line, but you actually do own it. So they have . 3 to do a plat for that to sell it to you as a land 4 transaction. 5 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Is any of this 6 going to be low income housing? 7 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I mean, only if-it 8 qualifies, because that's the market price. I 9 mean, but we're not marketing this as a low income 10 project. And we have no provisions -- I mean, 11 there are -- we probably could have gotten very 12 close to the density we're asking for, and the 13 reason we're asking for the plan amendment is so we 14 can increase the density on this. 15 Right now, the county restricts us to a low 16. number of -- I think it's three units per acre in 17 this area. We can only get to the units we're 18 asking for by asking for an affordable housing 19 density bonus, which we don't believe that's what 20 the neighborhood would be desiring. So we've asked 21 for a plan amendment just to establish that number 22 of units that we're asking for at 84. 23 It makes sense, we think, on an infill. When 24 you look at the pattern of development, we're right 25 in line with some of the other density that has i } i 18 x t. i S 1 previously been approved for the condominium 1 1 • ' 2 projects. The county redid their planning efforts 3 many years ago, and they reduced densities s 4 throughout the urban area pretty significantly. 5 Anything else? I'm happy to keep going. I'm i • 6 happy to stop. I mean, these are informal, and, 7 you know, unfortunately, a lot of times, we're not 8 in a position to tell you a lot of the details like 9 price points and exactly what the units will be, i 10 because they're just not quite there yet. It's a 11 process, you know, it takes some time for us to get I 12 through. It's -- I don't know how long we've been 13 in the process, but I think we're moving pretty 14 fast and it's been several months, so. 15 Yes, sir? It looks like you have another 1 i • 16 question. • 17 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Your letter that you 18 sent out said it was going to be a combination of 19 single family, multi-family and multi-dwelling. 1 20 MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. • 21 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Your sketch is 22 showing just three stories condos. Is that what 23 it's going to be? • 29 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think it -- 25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: All multi-family or 1. 19 1 what? 2 MR. ARNOLD: Well, that would be considered 3 multi-family. The county considers anything. I 4 that's -- 5 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Single family. I'm 6 sorry. 7 MR. ARNOLD: Single family, we've looked at 8 it, and we've done a very preliminary sketch for 9 single family. I think, clearly, the direction is 10 moving toward multi-family for the site. But if we 11 chose to do a very lesser number of single family, 12 I have to ask for it in this zoning process., so 13 we've asked for this range of product types, but 14 that's the only way I'd get to the 84 units, is to 15 have multi-family buildings that, you know, are at 16 least three-story buildings. Anything else, I get 17 less. 18 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So you're also 19 most likely not sure how many bedrooms per unit 20 that you want to have or anything like that? 21 MR. ARNOLD: No. I don't think we're quite 22 there on floorplanning yet. I think they're going 23 to -- they're going to obviously have to make a 24 decision that, you know, this kind of configuration 25 will work and then from there -- 20 1 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) 2 the price. • 3 MR. ARNOLD: Right. All those things. And 4 that will be part of their -- . 5 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) 6 us. P 7 MR. ARNOLD: That will be part of their future 8 marketing. 9 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah, so do it. 10 MR. ARNOLD: But I just, you know, while • 11 there's a lull on your questions, just let me tell 12 you again, you're going to receive notice again if 13 you received notice of this meeting, and the next ' 14 notice you'll receive will be from the county 15 telling you that we've got a Planning Commission 16 public hearing date scheduled and it will have a 17 tentative Board of County Commissioner date and 18 you'll be invited to either attend that Planning • 19 Commission meeting or you can send an e-mail if you • 20 choose to or any number of things_ • 21 Nancy and Michele are both very accessible, so 22 if you have questions as we're going through the • 23 process, feel free to call them. I know that they 24 . usually have cards here if anybody wants them. 25 Sharon, I think, has cards in the back, too. 21 1 So anybody, if you like things electronic, that's 2 easy for us. If you want us to send you changes as 3 they evolve through this process, we can e-mail the 4 document to you. I think Sharon has a handful of 5 copies of the document that the county has and its 6 not the entirety of our application, but it's the 7 guts of it that describes the number of units, the 6 types of uses, the building setbacks and things of 9 that nature, with a copy of not this plan, but the 10 conceptualized master plan. That looks like that. 11 So if anybody would like that electronically 12 or a hard copy, just let us know and we'll make 13 sure we get it to you. 14 Nancy or Michele, do you guys want to add 15 anything at all? 16 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: No, thank you. 17 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Anything else? Rich? 18 MR. YOVANOVICH: Nope. 19 MR. ARNOLD: Anybody else have questions? 20 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: How likely is this 21 type of conceptual plan? 22 MR. ARNOLD: Well, you know, I don't know. 23 This is -- this is the first iteration I've seen 24 that the architects actually tried to put building 25 footprints on the plan in a manner that would • r 22 1 depict how they could be built. I don't know that, 2 you know, Mr. Nassif has actually even endorsed 3 this yet because I think we all just got the 4 document earlier today in advance of this meeting. 5 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Well, I like it. 6 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I'd say it's likely 7 that it will be something similar. 8 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Something similar 9 to that. The more units you can get on there, the 10 better, in other words? 11 MR. ARNOLD: Well, not necessarily, but if we 12• were going to do 84 units, this is the scenario you 13 would see. 14 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: How many units in 15 each building? • 16 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: 12. 17 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: 12? 18 MR. ARNOLD: 12 units per building. That's 19 what this plan depicts. We're not limited in our 20 zoning document to only 12, but that's what that 21 depicts. So I just want to clarify that. 22 UNIDENTIFIED.FEMALE VOICE: It's three floors 23 (indiscernible)? 24 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. We haven't asked for it in 25 terms of floors. I think our -- for our -- we've 23 1 asked for the multi-family buildings to be 45 feet 2 as a zoned height and 50 feet as an actual height, 3 and if the county makes us distinguish between a 4 • zoned height and an actual building height, the 5 zoned height is measured, typically, as kind of a 6 midpoint of a roof and the 50 feet, Rich coined the 7 phrase, it's the tippy-top, and it's kind of the 8 point of highest that you can build on a site. 9 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Is there a limit 10 on the height there? 11 MR. ARNOLD: Well, not today, per se. I mean, • 12 I'm not sure what golf course zoning allows, but 13 . all zoning districts have a height maximum. I 14 don't know what golf courses are, but we have some 15 pretty big clubhouses that have been built out 16 there for height, but what we're asking for, we 17 believe, is the requirement for the three-story 18 buildings that we're proposing. 19 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: If you buy there, 20 do you get the golf with it? 21 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: There's a good 22 question. 23 MR. ARNOLD: I don't know. I think that's. 24 going to be probably one of the decisions that Mr. 25 Nassif is going to have to make a decision on. • R 24 1 UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: To be determined. 2 - UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: For a fee, huh? 3 • UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: To be determined. 4 We'll see. 5 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: For a price. 6 MR. ARNOLD: But they do have a really nice 7 restaurant that's available. 8 So, anyway, if nobody has any other questions, 9 we can close the meeting, and if anybody wants a 10 copy, see Sharon. And if you want an electronic 11 copy, if you would make sure we have your e-mail 12 address, we'll e-mail that to you as well. 13 We're done? Okay. Thank you. 14 (Proceedings concluded.) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 1 STATE OF FLORIDA 2 COUNTY OF COLLIER 3 4 I, Joyce B. Howell, do hereby certify that: 5 1. The foregoing pages numbered 1 through 24 6 contain a full, true and correct transcript of 7 proceedings in the above-entitled matter, transcribed 8 by me to the best of my knowledge and ability from a 9 digital audio recording. 10 2. I am not counsel for, related to, or 11 employed by any of the parties in the above-entitled 12 cause. 13 3. I am not financially or otherwise 14 interested in the outcome of this case. 15 16 SIGNED AND CERTIFIED: 17 18 Date: October 6, 2014 Joyce B. Howell 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 rn 113 ORDINANCE NO. 15- 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 FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES BY ADDING THE HIBISCUS RESIDENTIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF 84 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF HIBISCUS DRIVE IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 7.9 ACRES; AND FURTHERMORE, RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20140000193 / CPSS-2014-11 WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS,Nassif Golf Ventures LLC requested an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series to create the Hibiscus Residential Infill District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 163.3 I 87(1), Florida Statutes, this amendment is considered a Small Scale Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Subdistrict property is not located in an area of critical state concern or an area of critical economic concern; and Page 1 of 3 P1.,20 1 40000 1 93ICPSS-2014-1 —Hibiscus Residential lnfill Subdistrict Small Scale Adoption Amendment—rev. 1/7/15 Words underlined are added; words streek-threugh have been deleted; Dr, 12A WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) on February 19, 2015 considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan and recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County did take action in the manner prescribed by law and held public hearings concerning the proposed adoption of the amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan on April 14, 2015; and WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of law have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,that: SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts this small scale amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. The text amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION TWO: SEVERABILITY. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be 31 days after the state land planning agency notifies the local government that the plan amendment package is complete. If timely challenged, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the state land planning agency. Page 2 of 3 PL20 I 40000193/CPSS-2014-1 —Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict Small Scale Adoption Amendment—rev. 117/15 Words underlined are added; words struck through have been deleted; � PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida this day of , 2015. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk , Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Proposed Text Amendment&Map Amendment CP\14-CMP-00933\43 Page 3 of 3 PL20140000 I 93/CPSS-2014-1 —Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict Small Scale Adoption Amendment—rev. 1/7/15 Words underlined are added; words sifttek tit have been deleted; CPSS-2014-1 EXHIBIT A FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT Policy 1.1: The Urban Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use District and Subdistricts for: A. URBAN — MIXED USE DISTRICT *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17. Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict I. URBAN DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** A. Urban Mixed Use District *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 17. Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict [Page 46] The Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict is located on the south side of Rattlesnake Hammock Road, at the intersection of Hibiscus Drive; consists of approximately 7.9 acres; and, comprises Lots 1 and 2, and Tract "R" of the Hibiscus Golf Course Subdivision. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to allow development of up to 84 residential units on this infill property. Buildings shall be limited in height to a maximum of three stories and the rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict t Words underlined are added;words struck-through are deleted. Row of asterisks(*** *** ***)denotes break in text. Page_j,_of3 EXHIBIT A PETITION CPSS-2014-1 �►at HIBISCUS RESIDENTIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT 0 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 1116/%140, :� 1 AIIIIII Maw ■v- AMU . Ea II r ,_______t I :11 Fellwili*NPV \\---------"\_1 ri Wtt***:4"4 : elio. CO i„,, 1 if 4111 ---( ' Rftritip.. 44;VI , C. . unto \-L— --‘'\ral 9` ; .14.***,;$_,..„&"10.1 1 I 'al. tilrkl \ ----1 ' is - VA " Iluill --- - -----1 I .7 ‘‘'',101 it.1 1 h-4 131; - ,------) ,10,„ imuu o • 1 1 I RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD \ [- i 1 f / /M■ \X � 1.N , MH 1� / 1‘. MI rl ' + I 16, k (Kr '\\ i 48 � i • I ( I . \\, OA .� '' \ / `> ‘1481.1 11 ` 0 oil '4.' Virie.■_ ' ' Vilk , Iti s1 1 4. `` 11 ` '` I� LEGEND t \\ HIBISCUS 11AL SCALE I I SUBDISTRICT PREPARED 8Y: G1S/CAD MAPPING SECIION 0 500 FT. 10001!=7:.. COWER CDUNiY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION DATE: 7/2014 PILE: CP-2O13-10A.DWG Page..2 .of • I T46S 1 T41S ' T 48 8 I T408 T50S 1 T51S 1 T62 S I T63S I a S }E R .x A S 4s F RF • kc f_ [`�[,IT .' 67"/ a- ' ' : o i - - , . . • .L .t .2 .t ,1 .9 t ,t ,t t 'L ! C-) " s : S ; SA1 i11di aB R EtEEEE IEEE apEEx @i l9Ei Z f, t !, ' g _ 6 1 1 ._ i tx yy 4: ! 3 1 t �I7 7 7 3 . . i .i. i i 3 till is H W� °u -� - '1 6 i� 15 G c i .._..._.._. . ❑©( I ice;❑ : ©� ® S 'd Y A ,.°4. . 9 i .<II s a ; / , - 3 3- . h 2 01e an W a t 4 `' i i !!- i 4 py 5 A d pB ig S4 3l3g D s py$$ ■i l d 110 f yt g .� i m dil '1 y} ; ■ .467 s r30.Or li:-1 I DOE i,g ill;1 'd�a9 u■ ■ W iqEq gYg vet•I; A•p!: 1 3 i• d ° T C 6 gi ; I ' In �! ill It g ighii� i A 1 I IP 4 iiiii 1 lin Iiie°it DIt�¢4l' 16 i • 4ill 1640 ?8gC cai14 811 1 x x I .__. ___. _._�_ ..w... / W FL 1 I z ^ ,, • s zi . 24 co l • 2 ° ,%c I ,w- 3 --- E� � • L.d,Og el N N I ",, . :- s m i t g L---1 PIT et. - u g t . g N 1 in , , ,... & Ki h — ..Y'WW1 e , /• 4..,,.z ,..-,1,. .-0. .,„, . 0- .N:i N C jj Fa /t�. E w.v. •I (1/j`( •_J,�'//�. r^/\ 4,-L,y y N Wc_i � �y3 � 9s - %�//y `1 w I-- R ae eee N L y m�� ° J li cn s 1 dmr aU cc I S 9t I S L1 1 S Bt 1 S 60 1 9 0S 1 S l5 1 S ZS 1 S C9 .1. 7 Page a_of... PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCES Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 9:00 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners Chamber, Third Floor, County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL. The purpose of the hearing is to consider: 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 FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES BY ADDING THE HIBISCUS RESIDENTIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF 84 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF HIBISCUS DRIVE IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 7.9 ACRES; AND FURTHERMORE, RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20140000193/CPSS-2014-1] AND 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 COMMUNITY FACILITY ZONING DISTRICT AND GOLF COURSE ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE HIBISCUS RPUD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 84 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF HIBISCUS DRIVE IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 7.9± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PETITION PUDZ- PL20140000179] ' f I SHADOW- YQUEN aa LAGO HAVEN a 3 WATERFORD VERDE a ESTATES 0>0 ROYAL WOODS ., (S) _ RIVIERA 1- Gh'C CLUB -18 COLONY j 17 GQLF o 16 ST.PETER'S ESTATES PROJECT CATHOLIC CHURCH I LOCATION MANDALAY mull NIND SONG- 11 - .1 :am HAMMOCK RO D (C.R.864) LELY )^F LELY PALMS COUNTRY CLUB N, 19 20 (DRI) 21 LELY rG lit.SQUARE SABAL BAY S N. LELY, A RESORT COMMUNITY (DRI) All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed Ordinance(s)will be made available for inspection at the Planning & Zoning Department, Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M.and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Furthermore the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office, Fourth Floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 401 Naples, one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the Planning&Zoning Department, Comprehensive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to Thursday,February 19,2015,will be read and considered at the public hearing. If a person decides.to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of that proceeding, and for such purpose he 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. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239)252-8380,at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Mark P.Strain,Chairman Collier County Planning Commission No.231123930 January 30.2015 COPY HIBISC REST ENTIAL SUBDISTRICT CT APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 20 TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH RANGE 26 EAST PREPARED FOR: Nassif Golf Ventures LLC 225 Banyan Blvd, Suite 240 Naples, FL 34102 BY: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 And Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 August 2014 /"'• Explanation/Justification for Proposed Amendment CP-PL20140000193/CPSS-2014-1 Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict This amendment proposes to amend the Future Land Use Element to redesignate approximately 7.9± acres from the Urban Designation — Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict to the Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict. The change is necessary in order to develop residential land uses on the identified property to allow a maximum of 84 market rate dwelling units. The application and data supporting the need for the change have been included in the submittal materials. The subject property is under the same ownership as the adjacent Hibiscus Golf Club. In total, both properties comprise approximately 171 acres. The property owner could have chosen to include all of the commonly owned properties in a rezoning application in which he would have been eligible to request a minimum of 513 residential dwelling units. Because the intent is not to develop the existing golf course property, but rather /"1 the vacant former 7.9 +/- clubhouse site, the owner chose to submit a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment in order to achieve the proposed 84 units for the site. The primary reason why the developer chose to pursue a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment instead of a PUD for the entire golf course property was to avoid any confusion that might be caused by including the entire golf course property. The property owner was concerned that residents adjacent to the golf course would believe the golf course use was somehow being modified by the inclusion of the property in the PUD. The owner would have also been eligible to seek a density bonus to achieve a maximum of 11 dwelling units per acre without the need for a small-scale amendment through the use of the affordable housing density bonus provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. The property owner does not wish to construct affordable housing units on the property and is of the opinion that the surrounding community would not support affordable housing on the property. The 84 units reflect a density that is consistent with many other developed properties along the Rattlesnake Hammock corridor. The companion PUD rezoning includes development standards, which will insure that the resulting residential community will be compatible with the surrounding properties. APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION NUMBER DATE RECEIVED PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE DATE SUFFICIENT This application,with all required supplemental data and information, must be completed and accompanied by the appropriate fee, and returned to the Comprehensive Planning Department,Suite 400,2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104.239-252- 2400(Fax 239-252-2946). The application must be reviewed by staff for sufficiency within 30 calendar days following the filing deadline before it will be processed and advertised for public hearing. The applicant will be notified in writing, of the sufficiency determination. If insufficient, the applicant will have 30 days to remedy the deficiencies. For additional information on the processing of the application, see Resolution 97-431 as amended by Resolution 98-18(both attached). If you have any questions, please contact the Comprehensive Planning Section at 239-252-2400. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Name of Applicant David Nassif Company Nassif Golf Ventures, LLC Mailing Address 225 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 240 City Naples State FL Zip Code 34102 Phone Number 239.235.5941 Fax Number 239.234.5943 B. Name of Agent* D. Wayne Arnold • THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company/Firm Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. Mailing Address 3800 Via Del Rey City Bonita Springs State Zip Code 34134 Phone Number 239.947.1144 Fax Number 239.947.0375 Email Address warnold(u�gradyminor.com Company/Firm Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq, Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. Mailing Address 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 City Naples State Zip Code 34103 Phone Number 239.435.3535 Fax Number 239.435.1218 Email Address ryovanovich(c�cyklawfirm.com C. Name of Owner(s) of Record David Nassif Company Nassif Golf Ventures, LLC Mailing Address 225 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 240 City Naples State FL Zip Code 34102 Phone Number 239.235.5941 Fax Number 239.234.5943 D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. (Please see Exhibit I.D. attached) Page 1 of 5 HPUDZ II. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST INFORMATION: A. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each, and provide one copy of the Articles of Incorporation, or other documentation, to verify the signer of this petition has the authority to do so. Name and Address, and Office Percentage of Stock David W. Nassif 100% 225 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 240 Naples, Florida 34102 C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest D. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership E. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contact purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners, and provide one copy of the executed contract. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership F. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership or trust. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Page 2 of 5 HPUDZ G. Date subject property acquired (June 2010 ) leased ( ): _Terms of lease yrs/mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: and date option terminates: , or anticipated closing: H. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 1, LOT 2, AND TRACT "R", HIBISCUS GOLF COURSE, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 49 PAGES 3 &4 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; B. GENERAL LOCATION Subject property is located on the south side of Rattlesnake Hammock Road, at the intersection of Hibiscus Road. C. PLANNING COMMUNITY East Naples D. TAZ 302 E. SIZE IN ACRES 7.9± F. ZONING CF, COMMUNITY FACILITY AND GC, GOLF COURSE G. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN Urban Designation Mixed Use Subdistrict, Urban Residential Subdistrict ZONING: MH, C-3, RSF-3, GC and RMF-16 — H. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION (S) Urban Designation Mixed Use Subdistrict, Urban Residential Subdistrict IV. TYPE OF REQUEST A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT(S) OR SUB-ELEMENT(S) TO BE AMENDED: Housing Element Recreation/Open Space Traffic Circulation Sub-Element Mass Transit Sub-Element Aviation Sub-Element Potable Water Sub-Element Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element NGWAR Sub-Element Solid Waste Sub-Element Drainage Sub-Element Capital Improvement Element CCME Element ✓ Future Land Use Element Golden Gate Master Plan Immokalee Master Plan B. AMEND PAGE(S) OF THE Future Land Use Element AS FOLLOWS: (Use Strike th-rough to identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM Urban Designation Mixed Use Subdistrict, Urban Residential Subdistrict TO Hibiscus Infill Subdistrict D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S)AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name& Page#) E. DESCRIBE ADDITIONAL CHANGES REQUESTED: Create Hibiscus Infill Subdistrict Map Page 3 of 5 HPUDZ V. REQUIRED INFORMATION NOTE: ALL AERIALS MUST BE AT A SCALE OF NO SMALLER THAN 1" = 400'. At least one copy reduced to 8%x 11 shall be provided of all aerials and/or maps. A. LAND USE Exhibit V.A. Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, DRI'S, existing zoning)with subject property outlined. Exhibit V.A. Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries, source, and date. Exhibit V.A. Provide a map and summary table of existing land use and zoning within a radius of 300 feet from boundaries of subject property. B. FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION Exhibits V.B Provide map of existing Future Land Use Designation(s) of subject property and adjacent lands, with acreage totals for each land use designation on the subject property. C. ENVIRONMENTAL Exhibit V.C. Provide most recent aerial and summary table of acreage of native habitats and soils occurring on site. HABITAT IDENTIFICATION MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FDOT-FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCCS CODE). NOTE: THIS MAY BE INDICATED ON SAME AERIAL AS THE LAND USE AERIAL IN "A"ABOVE. Exhibit V.C. Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish &Wildlife Service) and State (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission) listed plant and animal species known to occur on the site and/or known to inhabit biological communities similar to the site (e.g. panther or black bear range, avian rookery, bird migratory route, etc.) Identify historic and/or archaeological sites on the subject property. D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reference 9J-1t006, F.A.C. and Collier County's Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.1.2 (Copies attached). 1. INSERT"Y" FOR YES OR"N" FOR NO IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING: N Is the proposed amendment located in an Area of Critical State Concern? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)(5),F.A.C.) If so, identify area located in ACSC. N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380 F.S. ? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)7.a, F.A.C.) N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1)(c), F.S. ? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)7.b, F.A.C.) Does the proposed amendment create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential increase in County-wide population by more than 5% of population projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). If yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. Y, Exh. VD Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and/or intensity to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district identified (commercial, industrial, etc.) or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or district? Page 4 of 5 HPUDZ (Reference Rule 9J-5.006(5) F.A.C.). If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use, and of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and natural resources. (Reference Rule 9J-11.007, F.A.C.) E. PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. Provide the existing adopted Level of Service Standard (LOS, and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: Exhibit V.E Potable Water Exhibit V.E Sanitary Sewer Exhibit V.E.1.c Arterial &Collector Roads: Name of specific road and LOS Rattlesnake Hammock Road Exhibit V.E Drainage Exhibit V.E Solid Waste Exhibit V.E Parks: Community and Regional If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density, or an increase in intensity for commercial and/or industrial development that would cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. (Reference Capital Improvement Element Objective 1 and Policies) 2. Exhibit V.E Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public facilities that will serve the subject property(i.e. water, sewer, fire protection, police protection, schools, and emergency medical services.) 3. Exhibit V.E Document proposed services and public facilities, identify provider, and describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools, fire protection and emergency medical services. F. OTHER Identify the following areas relating to the subject property: Zone AH &AE Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data(FIRM). N/A Location of wellfields and cones of influence, if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). N/A Traffic Congestion Boundary, if applicable. N/A Coastal Management Boundary, if applicable. N/A High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport, if applicable(Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION $16,700.00 non-refundable filing fee, made payable to the Board of County Commissioners, due at time of submittal. Provided $9,000.00 non-refundable filing fee for a Small Scale Amendment, made payable to the Board of County Commissioners, due at time of submittal. To be provided Plus Legal Advertisement Costs (Your portion determined by number of petitions and divided accordingly. Exhibit V.G. Proof of ownership (Copy of deed). Exhibit V.G. Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner(see attached form). Provided 1 Original and 5 complete, signed applications with all attachments, including maps, at time of submittal. After sufficiency is completed, 25 copies of the complete application will be required. * Maps shall include: North arrow, name and location of principal roadways and shall be at a scale of 1"=400' or at a scale as determined during the pre-application meeting. Page 5 of 5 HPUDZ COPY EXHIBIT I . D . PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS Hibiscus Infill Subdistrict Exhibit I.D. Professional Consultants Planning/Project Management: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239.947.1144 239.947.0375 fax warnold @gradyminor.com Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 239.435.3535 239.435.1218 fax ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com Transportation: James M. Banks, P.E., President JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc. 761 21st Street NW Naples, FL 34120 239.919.2767 jmbswte @msn.com Environmental: Timothy Hall and Marielle Kitchener Turrell, Hall &Associates, Inc. Marine & Environmental Consulting 3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL. 34104-3732 239.643.0166 239.643.6632 tim @turrell-associates.com Market Analysis: Michael J. Timmerman, CRE, FRICS, SRA CEO & President MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc. 1415 Panther Lane, Ste 428 Naples, FL 34109 239.269.0769 mtimmerman @mjtrea.com Exhibit I.D. Page 1 of 8 D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Principal, Director of Planning GradyMinor -- Education Mr. Arnold is a Principal and co-owner of the firm and serves as the • Master of Urban Planning, Secretary/Treasurer and Director of Planning. As Director of Planning, Mr. University of Kansas, Arnold is responsible for and oversees services related to plan amendments, Lawrence property rezonings, expert witness testimony, ROW Acquisition, public • Bachelor of Science,Urban participation facilitation, and project management. Mr. Arnold previously and Regional served as the Planning Services Director at Collier County, where he oversaw Planning/Geography, the County's zoning, comprehensive planning, engineering, platting and Missouri State University Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) functions. Mr. Arnold also has Professional Registrations/ prior Florida planning experience with Palm Beach County Government and Affiliations the South Florida Water Management District. • American Institute of Mr.Arnold has been accepted as an expert in land planning matters in local and Certified Planners(AICP) • American Planning state proceedings. Association(APA) • Urban Land Institute,S.W. Florida Chapter,Board of Relevant Projects Directors 1996 • Collier County Rural Fringe • Collier County Growth Management Plan Committee,Chairman, 1999 • Marco Island Master Plan • Collier County Streetscape • Immokalee Area Master Plan Ad hoc Committee, 1999 • Leadership Collier,Class of • Collier County Land Development Code 2000 • Logan Boulevard Right-of-Way Acquisition Planning Analysis • Bonita Springs Chamber of • U.S. 41 Right-of-Way Expansion Planning Analysis Commerce Government • Copeland Zoning Overlay Affairs Committee • Collier County Government Center Development of Regional Impact(DRI) • Collier Building Industry • Winding Cypress DRI Association,Board of • Pine Ridge/Goodlette Road Commercial Infill District Directors • Lely Lakes PUD Rezoning • Collier County Jr.Deputy • Henderson Creek Planned Development/Growth Management Plan League,Inc.,Board of Directors Amendment • Orangetree(Settlement Area) Growth Management Plan Amendment • Mercato Mixed Use Planned Development • North Point DRI/MPD • Vornado RPUD a +tea • Orange Blossom Ranch MPD • Palermo Cove RPD Q. Grady Minor &Associates, P.A. Civil Engineers • Surveyors•Land Planners •Landscape Architects Exhibit I . Page 2 of 8 Richard D. Yovanovich Rich Yovanovich is one of the firm's shareholders. He moved to Naples in 1990 and was an Assistant County Attorney for Collier County from 1990-1994. As an Assistant County Attorney he focused on land development and construction matters. Since entering private practice in 1994,Mr.Yovanovich has represented property owners through the entitlement process before local and state agencies. His representation includes project ranging from small residential and commercial projects to large developments of regional impact. Professional Activities/Associations The Florida Bar Collier County Bar Association Civic/Charitable Activities/Associations Member,Furman University Trustees Council,2007- Chairman,Leadership Collier Foundation Alumni Assoc. Member,Board of Directors,Holocaust Museum 2007— Member,Leadership Collier,Class of 2000 Member,Board of Directors,CBIA(Director 2004-2008, Vice President 2006-2007) Member,Board of Director,Immokalee Friendship House Member,Board of Director,Avow Hospice 2011- Member,Florida Trend Legal Elite Elder,Vanderbilt Presbyterian Church Bar &Court Admission Florida, 1988 U.S District Court,Middle District of Florida U.S.Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit Education University of South Carolina J.D., 1987 J.Ed., 1986 Furman University B.A.,cum laude, 1983 --- --- ,------ II II. Exhibit I.D. Page 3 of 8 JAMES M. BANKS, P.E., PRESIDENT Certifications&Positions Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering - University of Kentucky, 1986 Professional Engineer- State of Florida—Reg. No.43860, 1991 to Present JMB Transportation Engineering,Inc., President/Owner—2007 to Present Q&E Overview Mr. Banks has been actively involved in the fields of traffic/transportation engineering and planning since 1987. During the past 25 years, he has developed a comprehensive knowledge within these disciplines and is regarded as an expert within his profession. Mr. Banks has represented a wide range of clientele in both the public and private sectors. Public sector clients include airport authorities & FAA, local and state municipalities, county commissions, public school boards, city councils, planning boards, and city/county attorneys. Private sector clients have been land planners, land use attorneys, right-of-way acquisition attorneys, engineers, surveyors, architects and developers. Corridor Planning Mr. Banks has conducted a significant number of roadway corridor studies for both the public and private sectors. His work efforts included developing a comprehensive and strategic corridor improvement plan to meet the long term transportation objectives for the area. By forecasting area- wide long range traffic demands, Mr. Banks developed transportation needs plans in order to ensure adequate roadway capacity. Example projects are Alico Road Six-Laning, Lee Boulevard Improvements, Southwest International Airport's Transportation Needs Plan, Bonita Beach Road Access Management Plan, and Fort Myers Beach -Time Square Traffic Circulation Study. Transportation Design Mr. Banks has been engineer of record on numerous transportation design projects; such as, complex intersection design, signalization, street lighting, maintenance of traffic plans, signing and pavement marking plans,vehicular accident analysis, major roadway improvement design,traffic calming plans, railroad crossing design, and access management plans. Projects include Colonial Boulevard Improvements,Immokalee Road Widening Project, Lee Boulevard Six-Laning, Bonita Beach Road and Alico Road Widening. Expert Witness Mr. Banks has provided expert witness testimony at numerous court proceedings and public hearings regarding traffic/transportation related matters. He has testified in various forums;such as, county commission meetings, hearing examiner reviews, courts of law, public workshops, port authority meetings, and peer review functions.Types of issues that Mr. Banks provided testimony for were right-of-way acquisition cases;zoning and land use amendments, land development projects, corridor studies, roadway improvement projects,transportation improvement projects, and airport construction projects. Exhibit I.D. Page 4 of 8 TIMOTHY HALL TURRELL,HALL&ASSOCIATES,INC. 3584 Exchange Avenue Naples,Florida 34104 (239)643-0166 thall@turrell-associates.com Tim Hall is a Principal at Turrell,Hall &Associates, Inc., and is also the Senior Ecologist for the firm. Tim works closely with federal, state, and local agencies to obtain approvals for a number of marina and residential development projects. His field skills include plant and animal species identification, habitat assessments, wetland delineations, wildlife surveys, and wetland restoration. EDUCATION Baccalaureate Studies: Wildlife Ecology University of Florida, 1986-1989 Masters Studies: Wildlife Ecology&Wetland Ecosystems University of Florida, 1990-1991 Certified Rescue Diver Authorized Gopher Tortoise Agent Continuing Education • 2014 Presented Paper at National Conference on Beach Preservation to Florida Shore & Beach Preservation Association(FSBPA), "Clam Bay; A Mangrove Restoration Success Story." • 2008 University of Florida-FDEP SOP Sampling Training for Groundwater, Surface Water and Wastewater • 2006 Florida Green Industries Best Management Practices Course • 2005 Florida Chamber's-Florida Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method Class • 2005 The Florida Chamber's- Growth Management and Environmental Permitting Short Course • 2003 Completed the Department of Environmental Protection Wetland Delineation Training Program. Fort Myers,Florida. • 2002 Completed the FAEP Plant Identification Class with Dr. David Hall ORGANIZATIONS • Naples Botanical Garden(former Director 1998-2000) • The Wildlife Society(former Florida Chapter At-Large Board Member 2010) • Florida Association of Environmental Professionals • Society of Wetland Scientists • Florida Native Plant Society Exhibit LD. Page 5 of 8 ECOLOGICAL/TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGY EXPERIENCE Floral and Faunal studies established and conducted in Alaska, Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Angola, and Zaire as well as throughout Florida. Studies conducted include species specific population surveys, vegetation density and diversity surveys, vegetation composition surveys, vegetation/ecological restoration projects. Work in Florida has been varied and ongoing for the last seventeen years. Some of the specific projects completed and/or underway include; • (1998-Present) Overseeing the restoration efforts on a 500+ acre mangrove preserve (Clam Bay). Approximately 50 acres died in 1995 and we designed and implemented a restoration plan geared towards the recovery of the die-off area. To date, the work has been successful in that the area is recovering, wildlife utilization has vastly expanded, and the new mangroves have now survived two hurricanes. • (2010-Present) Environmental Manager for the Picayune Strand Restoration Project,part of the Everglades Restoration (CERP) Project. Services include weekly conference calls with engineers, consultants and governmental agencies; monthly wildlife education presentations for all new onsite employees; construction oversight; coordination of new nests and any wildlife sightings that are within construction limits or buffer zones; and environmental reporting requirements. • (2000-Present) Provided all biological services and expert testimony in the permitting of a 1,500+ acre development which was designated as protected species habitat in entirety. Current services also include environmental management of the construction phase. • (2003) Created a mangrove and grass marsh mitigation peninsula in conjunction with a marina project. The marsh successfully maintained planted species coverage and v-1 naturally recruited additional native vegetation and estuarine wildlife. • Conducting wetland delineation surveys to both State of Florida and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers specifications. Delineated lines have been accepted by agency personnel and have withstood administrative challenges from outside groups. • Providing expert witness testimony regarding wildlife and wetland issues on various projects. • (2000)Designed and permitted a Collier County Park (North Naples Regional Park) that allowed visitor access to an approximately 80-acre preserve area with minimal impacts to the preserve. • Conducting species-specific wildlife surveys and analyses in order to determine utilization and/or potential utilization of properties by target species. Species surveyed for include Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), Red-Cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), Crested caracara (Caracara cheriway audubonii), Florida Scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), Eastern Indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), Gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), Florida mouse (Podomys floridanus), Wood stork (Mycteria americana), Southern Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Florida burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia floridana), American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), West Indian Manatee(Trichechus manatus),as well as several others. • Designing educational interpretational signage related to local plants and animals. Vegetative descriptions and potential wildlife sightings are site specific and tailored to the individual project. These signs are then located in appropriate areas to educate facility users regarding local ecosystems and wildlife. • Overseeing environmental compliance on permitted projects, including construction n oversight, pre-construction wildlife surveys, mitigation coordination, turbidity testing, and water quality sampling. Exhibit I . Page 6 of 8 I MARIELLE KITCHENER TURRELL,HALL&ASSOCIATES,INC. 3584 Exchange Avenue, Naples, Florida 34104•Cell: (239)253-1860,Work:(239)643-0166•marielle @turrell-associates.com Marielle has been Operations Manager of Turrell, Hall & Associates and a Biologist with the firm for over 16 years, providing environmental monitoring, permit compliance oversight, and project management in South Florida and the Bahamas. BIOLOGICAL AND COMPLIANCE SERVICES: • Performs water quality and sediment sampling, analysis, and reporting. • Performs turbidity testing and reporting for both inland and coastal marine projects. • Monitors preserves and mitigation lands for plant health and species appropriateness, wildlife utilization, and hydrological analyses that contend with water use permitting and wetland health reporting. • Creates habitat management and restoration/ planting plans for beach dune, upland, wetland, marsh, and mangrove habitats. Also bids out and oversees the planting activities. • Provides Sovereign Submerged Lands Lease management for marine clientele and oversees compliance with those leases. Also resolves lease violations for new clients. • Creates for marinas: Hurricane Preparedness Plans, Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans (SPCCPs), and Fire Prevention and Contingency Plans. • Creates Environmental Management Plans (EMPs)for Bahamian projects. • Specializes in post-permit compliance helping to guide clients through the time-sensitive special conditions which must be met after permit issuance and the drafting of various plans required for those conditions. • Performs wetland assessments on single-family and large-scale development projects. • Conducts wildlife surveys on single-family and large-scale development projects. • Performs submerged resource surveys and studies in the Bahamas. • Performs water quality sampling for Multi-Sector Generic Permits and prepares Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans(SWPPPs). EDUCATION &TRAINING: • 1997- B.S., Environmental Science,Alabama A& M University- Normal, Alabama. • 1998- Completed the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Certification Training Program. Tampa, Florida. • 2002- FAEP Plant Identification Class with Dr. David Hall. • 2003- Department of Environmental Protection Wetland Delineation Training Program. Fort Myers, Florida. • 2007- Certified by Ostego Bay Foundation as an Oil Spill First Responder Hazardous Materials Technician. • 2000- PADI Certified Open Water Diver ASSOCIATIONS • Big Cypress Basin Board Member (July 2013- present) • Florida Association of Environmental Professionals Exhibit I.D. Page 7 of 8 Michael J.Timmerman,CRE, FRICS,SRA As President & CEO of MJT Realty Capital Advisors, Michael Timmerman provides expert consultation and advisory services to clients throughout the .. Southeast United States and in particular Florida. In October of 2013 Mr. Timmerman was awarded a Fellowship to the Royal Institute of Chartered ■ '..7*,' 1 i Surveyors, with a professional specialty of Management Consultancy. This specialty provides independent impartial advice in all areas of business and real `'a: estate lifecycles. In 2007 he was awarded the CRE (Counselor of Real Estate) designation by the Counselors of Real Estate, an international group of high profile real estate practitioners who provide expert advisory services to clients on complex real property and land related matters. Mr. Timmerman has over 30 years of experience in the real estate industry including consulting, valuation and geo-spatial analysis of a broad spectrum of residential and commercial properties. He has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News, New York Times, USA Today, Fortune Magazine, Worth Magazine, Builder Magazine and many other state and local newspapers and magazines. He is also frequent speaker for the Urban Land Institute (ULI), The Appraisal Institute, Florida Bar Association, National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), Florida Bankers Association and International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC). Prior to his founding MJT Realty Capital Advisors, he was a Senior Associate at Fishkind & Associates, Florida's premier economic consulting firm. His position as Senior Managing Director of Hanley Wood Market Intelligence was a continuation of his management after the purchase of his firm, Feasinomics, Inc., by Hanley Wood, LLC in March of 2005. Feasinomics was a full service market research firm offering real estate research, consulting and geo-spatial analysis throughout the State of Florida. EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS • FRICS, Fellow- Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors • CRE Designation,Counselors of Real Estate • SRA Designation,Appraisal Institute • Advanced coursework in financial and economic analysis, highest and best use analysis, and case studies required for the MAI designation through the Appraisal Institute. • Northland College, B.S. Business Administration and Economics • Licensed Florida Real Estate Broker • State Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY • Executive Committee Member, Urban Land Institute(ULI) • Board Member, United Cerebral Palsy(UCP)of Southwest Florida • Board Member, Naples Pelican Bay Rotary Club • Past Board Member,Collier County Economic Development Council • Performed Pro bono work for Collier EDC, Naples Chamber of Commerce, Collier Building Industry Association, Lee Building Industry Association, International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), Collier County School Board and many others. --- Exhibit I.D. Page 8 of 8 COPY EXHIBIT IV. B . PROPOSED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN TEXT Exhibit IV.B Amended Language Add Text on Page 46 of the FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** (XV)I. URBAN DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** A. Urban Mixed Use District *** *** *** *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** 17. Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict The Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict comprises approximately 7.9 acres located on the South side of Rattlesnake Hammock Road, approximately one-half mile east of U.S.41. The intent of the Subdistrict is to permit residential infill development up to a maximum of 84 dwelling units. The residential development permitted within this Subdistrict is consistent with the densities and intensities of development of other residential developments along the Rattlesnake Hammock Road corridor. Rezoning, in the form of a PUD is encouraged, in order to establish development standards appropriate for infill development. Buildings shall be limited in height to a maximum of 3-stories. Exhibit IV.B Page 1 of 1 DOPY EXHIBIT V.A. LAND USE • i {A' • 1 a 31•i} ` - L T A -IHX3\SCN MVyO d SNJ5191H- Vld OfOQ\CNINNVId\ j l 0\\ F 7C'1 70f1d�\'JNINN 0311\ltl C'YY *8 _ tai , .... r,r_o‘ Y Ilki. ‘. " i . z 0 i .0- 1-. . •... UQ OZw c .z h . ` . . d„7, 0.,..3 i• N ' dT V r P. �U�F Q=OU 4 :' CI) N L w Z °w z w . .k� ';R ii 'r �l U 4. - 1 �� U j is .-•N 7 ". f f- j�sh ,___4-, j re*fit a v a I ..� .ti• t> s« 7j§ s ".7'.• [? ~ 3 �U yz,.. ` 1 Z 11 [_:� F r'N 1Z LL, + - Y.'•`: 3s1*7a r 'S Lit Q } 2. y Q F g , p a0 1 7 W 0 _ It r Ate'�'. 3' FELT U ,.. UCe O-0O- 4 s r• " #440--• ' '''' J4 ,4-7.-•••0 * O 1t ¢ m P I N 1 ce S (nom 3 o } w n S- _ •11 ' ` - ' N ty '� j�JQ�" ` j o X�/ M •`'� J ORAL CIRCLE • o „1"..,,„ .kit-'p/ Mi'�1 1 • i ` _ AV..- Iii ❑in .�"T.*�y. .� �` • n a r ) s -, c' - _. t N "� 7 �_' r o w •s yr a ` -�' l• r p J L_ E T 4 o ) w �1 rs 1 _I w o■ 1 '4'. •r _ 1.-f �, ∎ N< z Q S• t re W co • La re 0 gilot• E ..,_. __ ,j 111 7p m N 10 k La F U K z O co 41) • zU K U 7 !l a• m o ' ;..4; i U O W J / x Z J • ~ ti LL u) U Z Lil 1 Z Z R f . L _.; Z 0 G LIJ WI-W m O O O r j ; y ~y� x w m , �� I- W ¢ W z ?NI re 1 {: (� OZ�� Z m m Ii.KS3Z c;O UILL' U 5 r Z Q J J 1,,..."- r r.. '... -8) K Z lil W Q W'2 LL f7 4. <L f7 +�i It, ec• .y�l' •y•A .r. -• w y y N 0 x z S Z Z Z Y &� I� o- t m X X W < re QN CLI DON_ (AON_ u)0lA lli I-E Ili r•, 1 ..Ei13 _. }iii i�'.. N.. Q Z N O O Cil N W N 3 N DOPY EXHIBIT V. B. FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION I I I I I I I I I i R11111 111 „ 1I14p ' 1 1 miiiiiiilill� I�I�I I�I�I�I�rI� I ill' iil li _ 1 .uNno3awo �' Iiiii0INII .uNnoa o�raxoae / — H D.., . : 2 — 1 ! 1 3 il co Igo 1: w Et I li lied i i # 1 I ' be 4t a g 10 11 1 111 111 1 1 1 /R 1Q mo❑ ■❑ ■❑ ❑ • I ❑ e RI — ti II a s I— F 111 gg R o tlp p 1 g m cn G e B 3 a G $ 9P 6; tli- ' 2 m l'51 "'l 0 ia 1 g o !hiqi 8 co Z • Lu 0 0111,11W10.1 I • M Ids Z • _ Ill I .f _ LEV 1 _ m ; e¢ wf 1r w g i ,-., `-yifri-',,, � , 060 Q Co 1 I Er .1 Ev. r in Q 3 F- o ..} .■ - �,. v u co W Q E.. won ,8N ,,fix J �' Z 3 boa r -i` s g m 0 1 41 - ::: 3 $ — z T. L.L.= W u- !=,t:1'i / iiii IS • Orlf t ''''' •Ct +11:jai Aql,i*W ill ip,,4, ,'' V:04°..4 b. -6...0."- ''.g‘ ! 1 0 LU I LOEH garmaamt _ v 1 i• • RANO,-tig.---a- 11 ! ill 65 ' L.4.' o ' �1 1 '."" I ul f °G f m mZoQ I I = w co CC I I I I I I 2;4N- J U cE LL c7:,Z_ S COPY EXHIBIT V. C . ENVIRONMENTAL BIG CYPRESS Fox SQUIRREL MANAGEMENT PLAN HIBISCUS PUD PROPERTY SEC 20,TWP 50S,RNG 26E COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA JUNE 2014 PREPARED BY: >"1011/1 TURRELL HALL&ASSOCIATES,INC 3584 EXCHANGE AVENUE NAPLES,FL 34104 Fox Squirrel Management Plan Hibiscus PUD Section 20, Township 50S, Range 26E, Collier County. June 2014 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report provides project management guidelines to minimize the potential for adverse impacts to Big Cypress Fox Squirrels (Sciurus niger avicennia) on the proposed Hibiscus PUD project. This document includes information on fox squirrels' ecological and biological characteristics as well as habitat requirements. A description of how planning and site development has been guided in consideration of fox squirrels is given as well as the management plan. The plan briefly describes habitat that will be available, maintenance of the areas to a condition suitable to support fox squirrels and other relevant information. 2.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The proposed project will consist of a multi-family residential project with no on-site area dedicated as preserve. The property encompasses a total of approximately 7.9 acres immediately south of Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. (CR864) and north of the Hibiscus Country Club clubhouse and parking lot. Access to the site will be provided from Hibiscus Drive which bisects the property. The historic use of the property has resulted in a mowed and maintained site with little native vegetation on the property except for a few trees. Native vegetation, wildlife forage value, and actual wildlife utilization have all suffered reductions due to the r^ existing conditions of the site. To characterize surrounding land use, a major roadway lies to the north, residential development lies to the east and west, and to the south is the drainage canal and golf course parking lot and club house. Fox squirrels have been observed on this golf course and it is assumed that they could periodically travel across the bridge over the drainage canal to forage within the subject property. No dedicated preserve is proposed with the current plan though trees suitable for foraging will be incorporated into the landscape plan. Fox squirrels could still range out from the golf course into the proposed project. 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS: HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS The subject site consists of about 6.8 acres of uplands and 1.1 acres of drainage canal. No natural wetlands are present. The uplands are disturbed fill areas that have been maintained through mowing. Currently, some construction staging is going on in a small portion of the site. Remnant trees are still present on the site including bald cypress (x8), cabbage palm (x15), black olive (x6), pond apple (xl), silver buttonwood (x3), and slash pine (x2). These trees are scattered across the site, mostly in 4 small clusters of 4 to 8 trees each. rTh 1 Fox Squirrel Management Plan Hibiscus PUD Section 20, Township 50S, Range 26E, Collier County. June 2014 4.0 FOX SQUIRREL A threatened and endangered species survey has been conducted on the property with special attention given to the potential for gopher tortoise and fox squirrel utilization. All survey efforts were conducted according to guidelines of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). Prior to any work commencing on the property, another survey will be conducted to verify there are no active fox squirrel nests or day-beds within the construction footprint. 4.1 Occurrence on Site Big Cypress Fox Squirrels currently utilize, or in the past have utilized, the open golf course areas to the south of the project site. No nests or day-beds have been observed on the subject site. No evidence of foraging activities (chewed cones, etc.)have been observed on the site. 4.2 Biology Listed as a Threatened species by Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission in 1990, the Big Cypress fox squirrel is most commonly rusty orange or buff in color with a darker back. The head usually has a black crown and cheeks with a white muzzle and white ear tips. The total length of the animal from tip of nose to tip of tail is approximately 21 to 22 inches. Big Cypress fox squirrels have two distinct breeding seasons. The first runs from May through August and the second from November through January. Although there are two seasons, the females produce only one litter per year. Litters can contain from 1 to 8 young. The young start leaving the nests in September and March. Big Cypress fox squirrels usually occur in slash pine flatwoods or mixed pine and cypress communities. They are not as closely associated with oaks as some other squirrel species. They construct platform nests in trees that are composed of leaves, grass, Spanish moss, stripped pieces of bark, and other suitable materials. The nests of gray squirrels are very similar in appearance and are usually indistinguishable from fox squirrel nests. The preferred food for these squirrels seems to be slash pine seeds. They will also eat cypress seeds, cabbage and queen palm fruits, bromeliad buds, acorns, fungi, and many other fruits. The main threat to population stability is through habitat loss. Large scale commercial and residential projects have reduced the subspecies' range. The latest topic of concern is the isolation of fox squirrel golf course populations. /'1 2 Fox Squirrel Management Plan Hibiscus PUD Section 20, Township 50S, Range 26E, Collier County. •'■ June 2014 Open lands which were serving as corridors between golf course populations have now been developed thus completely isolating the small populations. 4.3 Site Development Considerations and Species Management Protocol Trees maintained within the development footprint could offer some support to fox squirrels. The proposed development construction will not adversely affect any known active nests. Prior to clearing or construction the following activities will take place; Immediately prior to the construction on any phase of development, the areas would be surveyed for the presence of Big Cypress Fox Squirrel nests. If no active nests are found, the lands can be cleared. If active nests.are found, buffers will be maintained around the nest trees until the nests are deemed inactive. The buffers are anticipated to be a minimum of 200 feet in width but may be increased if necessary to provide suitable foraging area. Construction personnel will be briefed on fox squirrels and given appropriate directives and contact information should any squirrels be observed during the construction activities. n Management activities relative to fox squirrels will focus mostly on resident education. Prior to commencement of work on the site, fencing and containment surrounding the proposed impact areas will be installed to insure that machinery is kept within the proposed development footprint area. Currently there are no fox squirrel nests that would be impacted by the proposed construction. Pet control and awareness information will be used to prevent adverse interactions with any fox squirrels that may wander onto the property. 3 • a 1 "$t V - O o w Na g — i iii Ic s-- °c o . t ' tom. Q 1 r a LB 4. t ito„. 0X '> N ' r �1- o X00000 ° j W PI) ? 1111113 . v _ ' Q W Q Q n IS®®s® °+F � A . ' s k � Q : O H H• -._ s , �+. d m w O E g, 4 _ J! i t .,® r >. p La 1'...,:.: ---''''.,' T _ *. 1 ''- 1 1 * '.S M �; stitibt OM . - 4 1::(A.- ',.,,f, .,,' ., , LCj(<7 1111111111 ,, ,,,.„. ... .,,,. ..., . " ',fs ilk 1arx .7,. a •,p g 0 .E .'�k a4 € 1 �';..,:.. 4",..� C... .. rte : t . >f r r _ U °o } t.r U LL 4 rt �. -� ' `ir • E ZOZ T 2 z va : 'k u J Q 0 Z J w {4' N XO Q Q nw „ � ,6 , to 4 „ w Q b. ' ' � -' .t ,,, rt �i L , 0 X r4 - — 0:1 ' �` 4 u. I r . ,e; ET b=•Y M s _ \ •a _ If x h y t '� o �a1+ t: 6 114�wq. ,�St .- \r'';, f�{f j�{ H.Ly p� ¢ O�r. i 4' r i T :( ry 7 ,.:�� J �J�,` Ay.: .�+�tib ---� = a, G' yI L bD . ,,,,, ,. , .. .,. : �� ` r, , ,, A, '$--,, 4 Ii•-, 4,-.. - ' N-.• .-/,- - 4•1:?....,'7'-'••-•..--. - --,.- ' \ a ` s , r- ,, , 4'%'7.1 -la * o P:\1408-Hibiscus PUD\CAD\SHEET\PERMIT-STATE\1408--STATE.dwq FLUCCS 6/12/2014 1 a CO - ' .4 ( - 441' A 4 N w , ,.: -57.4! ru f ► t� : z v) 2 , W W o > {�!,•-3XF fir l I { jA 3F a } cp Q a a 4 _$ } j; a p, o z m g az"M, • X11 w Q m J o Z U'. j . . . -# iI :r CO u } w 2 �� o N 0 In HP: s ¢ r 1' w #k Q m U 0 LL 0 o U o o 8 (A !. &. - 'R { st as a N N 5 W z W Lii -�i 'r {� $ 4. 0 <'' q t i 4-ii a r t. 1- ;.0 "i'.' !.:. .r-� '- t `Y "' 4r'''''lie' it • - (1)17�; it } 4 .. ....,..„.'" fie , �!., , may , . n t atal, ,,44!„.sno,"",,,_ 0 Lu i , ,. itr , 4 . Pteftrim- i r r,, y 1 rt 1 .. 9_ , O It.. { o a ' ,.T � •, . I I � " , IIk • , lir ,. At w It. 7 11.E F ♦ N' ',�+ v�r. r"--- t, +e 4„� � y s t1NSU t , s t tf .y` ° i A f ! CJ .a C'a„?j i '"`A i'y -tai, O a=> c,v.'c. t 4111 ,e any Y'' t Ae :_,# .:� h+ • O cq .`. a. k �� ?i . a v ., ,,:„_.,..r. �i. w,, o�'{ °'' ” ; ?,r, ;, --7r.....,4 d Ilk li'r r i. r 1 i \. x"11 ` _ 3 roil el P.\1408-Hibiscus PUD\CAD\SHEET\PERMIT-STATE\140&-STATE.dwq TREE SURVEY 6/12/2014 COPY EXHIBIT V. 0 . 3 ARCH / HISTORICAL • This record search is for informational purposes only and does NOT constitute a STOPproject review. This search only identifies resources recorded at the Florida Master Site File and does NOT provide project approval from the Division of Historical Resources. Contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at 850-245-6333 for project review information. August 25, 2014 =_- Florida -°Master Marielle Kitchener, Operations Manager @ Site Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. File Marine and Environmental Consulting 3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: (239) 643-0166/Fax: (239) 643-6632 E-mail: Marielle @turrell-associates.com In response to your inquiry of August 25, 2014, the Florida Master Site File lists no archeological sites and no other cultural resources found in the following parcel of Collier County: Township 50S Range 26E Section 20 based on the project area submitted with search request. When interpreting the results of this search, please consider the following information: • This search area may contain unrecorded archaeological sites, historical structures or other resources even if previously surveyed for cultural resources. • Federal, state and local laws require formal environmental review for most projects. This search DOES NOT constitute such a review. If your project falls under these laws,you should contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at 850-245-6333. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding the results of this search. Sincerely, Eman M. Vovsi Historical Data Analyst Florida Master Site File EMVovsi(2i DOS.MyFlorida.com 500 South Bronough Street• Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 • www.flheritage.com/preservation/sitefile 850.245.6440 ph I 850.245.6439 fax I SiteFile @dos.state.fl.us Sharon Umpenhour From: Marielle Kitchener <Marielle @turrell-associates.com> Sent: Monday,August 25, 2014 10:08 AM To: Sharon Umpenhour Cc: Tim Hall Subject: FW: Request for archaeological information on Hibiscus Golf Course Attachments: Marielle Letter.pdf Hi Sharon, Per the attached, there are no recorded historical resources in the section, township and range of our project. Sincerely, Marielle Kitchener Operations Manager Turrell, Hall &Associates, Inc. Marine and Environmental Consulting Naples-Nassau 3584 Exchange Ave., Naples, FL 34104 (239)643-0166/Fax: (239)643-6632 From: Vovsi, Eman M. [mailto:Eman.Vovsi@DOS.MvFlorida.com] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 9:56 AM To: Marielle Kitchener Subject: RE: Request for archaeological information on Hibiscus Golf Course Dear Marielle,the response letter is attached Please let me know if you have questions or require further assistance Kind regards, r man M.Vovsi Historical Data Analyst I Bureau of Historic Preservation I Division of Historical Resources I Florida Department of State I 500 South Bronough Street I Tallahassee,Florida 32399 850.245.6377 I 1.800.847.7278 I Fax:850.245.6437 I emvovsi @DOS.MyFlorida.Com www.flheritage.com FLORID,A DEPNRThgENT OF STATE trditig From: Marielle Kitchener[mailto:Marielle @turrell-associates.com] Sent: Monday,August 25, 2014 9:19 AM To: FMSFILE Subject: Request for archaeological information on Hibiscus Golf Course To Whom It May Concern: I would like to request any information you might have on historical or archaeological resources found in Section 20,Township 50S, Range 26E, Collier County. Thanks! Sincerely, Marielle Kitchener Operations Manager Turrell, Hall &Associates, Inc. Marine and Environmental Consulting Naples-Nassau 3584 Exchange Ave., Naples, FL 34104 (239) 643-0166/Fax: (239) 643-6632 @ItsWorkingFL The Department of State is committed to excellence. Please take our Customer Satisfaction Survey. 2 COPY EXHIBIT V. D . GROWTH MANAGEMENT REALTY ECONOMIC iviJ ADVISORS INC. Hibiscus Land Naples, Collier County, FL Michael Timmerman Effective Date: April 28, 2014 6 rill MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 1 /41 REALTY dill M ECONOMIC C j MJT r ADVISORS INC. June 4, 2014 Mr. David Nassif NM Development, Inc. 225 Banyon Blvd, Suite 240 Naples, FL 34102 Dear Mr. Nassif, Per your request,we have completed the analysis of Economic Feasibility for the two parcels of land in front of the Hibiscus Golf Club. Our analysis included a review of the sites attributes including its access,visibility, physical and functional characteristics.The sites zoning and future land use were examined to determine the legally allowable uses. Based on the sites attributes,we examined the surrounding development trends as well as researched the building trends of more recently developed projects.The site is planned for development of 84 units on 7.g gross acres of land which is consistent with the development surrounding the site and the recently developed projects. In order to determine the economic feasibility of the proposed project,we examines the past 4 years real estate sale trends for low rise and mid rise communities priced between sioo,000 and$500,000. This analysis included reviewing the relationship between sales price per sqft and the average Days on Market to sell a property,the relationship between the Average days on market and the list price to sales price ratio and the relationship between the month's supply and price per square foot. The findings of this analysis revealed an undersupply of product priced below$5oo,000 that is of low or mid rise product design,therefore it is my opinion the proposed condominium product is economically feasible. dill MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 2/41 Please review the report and let me know if you have any questions or clarifications. It was a pleasure to work with you on this project. Sincerely, Michael J.Timmerman, CRE, FRICS, SRA President& CEO MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc.All Rights Reserved. 3/41 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 CONDITIONS OF THE REPORT 5 1.1 INTENDED USE OF THIS REPORT 5 1.2 INTENDED USER OF THIS REPORT 5 2.0 SCOPE OF WORK 5 2.1 TASK PLAN 5 3.o EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 6 4.o DEMOGRAPHIC AND MARKET PROFILE 12 4.1 OVERVIEW OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA 12 4.2 HOUSING MARKET 14 5.o SITE ASSESSMENT 15 5.1 SUBJECT SITE ATTRIBUTES AND SURROUNDS 15 6.o SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT TRENDS 18 6.1 CONCLUSIONS 23 7.o COMPARABLE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS 24 8.o ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY 26 UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 31 RESTRICTION UPON DISCLOSURE AND USE 33 COPYRIGHT,TRADEMARK AND LEGAL DISCLAIMER 34 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE 35 BOUNDRY SURVEY 37 PHOTOS 38 IriU MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 4/41 Introduction As we understand it, HIBISCUS LAND OF NAPLES, LLC. ("Client") would like MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.("Consultant")to prepare an analysis to study the Economic Feasibility of developing 84 units on the subject site which consist of 7.9+/-gross acres of land.The site is located on the south side of Rattlesnake Hammock Road,approximately 3,80o feet east of the intersection with Tamiami Trail in Collier County, FL. The site is bifurcated by an access road that leads to the clubhouse and Hibiscus Golf Club,a public 18 hole course owned by the client. 1.o Conditions of the Report The Client is responsible for representations about its development plans, marketing expectations and for disclosure of any significant information that might affect the ultimate realization of the projected results. There will usually be differences between projected and actual results because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and the differences may be material. 1.1 Intended Use of This Report The intended use of the study is to provide HIBISCUS LAND OF NAPLES, LLC. ("Client")with market supported conclusions of Economic feasibility to support a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment for the site. 1.2 Intended User of This Report The intended user of this analysis is HIBISCUS LAND OF NAPLES, LLC. ("Client")for the sole purpose of changing the comprehensive plan. No other users are authorized to use the report for any other purpose. 2.0 Scope of Work Located below is a scope of work we will be undertaking to develop a study of the economic feasibility of the proposed development on this site. 2.1 Task Plan We will perform the following scope of professional services in order to meet the objectives of this assignment: 1. Provide an economic and demographic profile of Collier County and relate those general trends to the immediate area of the site as it relates to residential development. Based on the sites location, access, size and functional utility, we will estimate the most market supported density.This determination is based on a review of all condominium products developed in the immediate area, with a focus on the density and designs of the most recently developed communities. MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc.All Rights Reserved. 5/41 2. Research and profile newly developing comparable neighborhoods that are offer the most market acceptable designs for small scale developments.The profile will include a review of the product mix and its relationship with surrounding properties to insure comparability. 3. Research and profile existing comparable neighborhoods built within the past 10 years that are offer the market acceptable designs for small scale developments. 4. Based on the findings from the above research, provide conclusions and recommendations on the economic feasibility of developing 84 units on the subject site. 3.o EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In order to determine a sites economic feasibility,we first analyze the site to determine its legal allowable uses, its physical and functional attributes and the compatibility with the surrounding uses. The review of the subject attributes along with recent development trends of similar sites and their surrounding development trends are used to make a determination of the sites economic feasibility. The subject parcel is vacant and located on the south side Rattlesnake Hammock Road,east of the intersection with Tamiami Trail East in Collier County.The site is bifurcated by Hibiscus Dr. which runs south from Rattlesnake Hammock Road to the entrance of Hibiscus Golf Club, an 18 hole public Golf course established in 1969. The site consist of 7.9+/- gross acres of land which includes the Hibiscus Drive roadway easement and the drainage canal which runs along the length of the southern boundary of the site. The development that occurred surrounding the subject site was established in the 1970's and 198o's and represents land planning and product design techniques of the era.The majority of the condominium development in this area at that time consisted of smaller units with higher density offering views of the Lely Golf Estates golf course. Located below is a summary of the surrounding condominium density, its size in units and the year it was built. Gross Year Gross Map ID Condo Name Units Acres Built Density 1 COUNTRY CLUB MANOR 144 7.70 1963 18.7 2 VALLEY STREAM COURT INC 48 2.75 1973 17.4 3 BROOK PINES, A CONDOMINIUM 42 2.60 1990 16.1 4 VALLEY STREAM TOWNHOUSE GP 3&4 20 1.31 1974 15.2 5 BUCKEYE PALMS A CONDOMINIUM 19 1.31 1990 14.5 6 FOUNTAINS UNIT#3, THE* 44 3.05 1980 14.4 7 MARWOOD A CONDOMINIUM 28 2.03 1986 13.8 8 TIERRA DEL SOL UNIT 1 22 1.66 1975 13.3 ilth MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 6/41 9 REGENCY WOODS CONDOMINIUM 56 4.41 1988 12.7 10 GOLF VIEW MANOR II 75 6.53 1980 11.5 11 GOLF VIEW MANOR A CONDOMINIUM 39 3.42 1979 11.4 12 EL CAPISTRANO A CONDOMINIUM 15 1.38 1982 10.9 13 PEPPERWOOD A CONDOMINIUM 64 5.90 1985 10.8 14 HAMMOCKS, THE A CONDOMINIUM 18 1.71 1982 10.5 15 VISTA RIO A CONDOMINIUM 18 1.75 1979 10.3 16 VALLEY STREAM TOWNHOUSE GP 1&2 14 1.38 1972 10.2 17 AUGUSTA COURT A CONDOMINIUM** 81 8.01 1985 10.1 18 AUGUSTA WOODS CONDOMINIUM** 64 7.86 1983 8.1 Grand Total 45.06 5.17 1979 8.7 * adjusted minus 2 acres for included lake **Within the Lely Golf Estates Community and include common area As we can see from the summary,the majority of the communities are less than 5o units, and have a median density of approximately 13 units per acre.Located below is a chart showing the relationship of density by age. Gross Density by year built 20.0 • • • 15.0 • t' • • • 10.0 • Z ' • 5.0 -- 0.0 ' — 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 •Gross Density From this graph we can see the density was higher earlier in the development pattern got lower in the i98o's and has increased in the i99o's to average approximately 15 units per gross acre. The next step was to review the market for more recently built condominium projects in the marketplace. The recession of the late z000's had affected the market significantly, limiting the development of new condominium projects. We selected 15 comparable projects MJT l ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 7/41 developed in the market from 2005 to 2014 for density comparison. The subject site is considered an infill parcel as it is surrounded by older existing development. The majority of the new condominium development that occurred over the past ao years is located within larger master planned communities where multifamily design is dictated more by the community's amenities, appeal and product mix vs the site specific design of an infill parcel to complement the surrounding development and neighborhood. Located below are a chart and graph showing the development trends of the more recently developed condominium communities selected for this project. Gross Year Gross Units per Map ID Condo Name Units Acres Built Density Building Garage Stories Buildings, 21 Alden Woods at Lely Resort 160 15.54 2008 10.30 4 2 2 40'_ 20 Botanical Place 218 19.91 2005 10.95 24 1 4 9 19 Di Napoli in Treviso Bay 12 1.3 2005 9.23 4 2 2 3 23 Landings at Lely 28 2.99 2006 9.36 4 1 2 7 30 Legacy at Lely Resort 88 12.1 2007 7.27 4 2 2 22, 25 Lemuria 72 23.71 2008 3.04 4 2 2 18'`" 22 Magnolia Falls 144 14.08 2006 10.23 4 to 16 1 2 12 24 Mariposa at Whipperwil 180 29.47 2007 6.11 8 to 12 1 2 28 '; 26 Meadows at Quail Creek Village 60 6.2 2008 9.68 4 2 2 15 32 Ole' 625 71.65 2010 8.72 1 to 6 1 and 2 2 Numerous;i 31 Players Club at Lely Resort 96 18.73 2010 5.13 6 1 and 2 2 16''i1` 29 Quartz Cove 80 8.56 2008 9.35 4 2 2 20} 27 Remington Reserve 48 10.98 2007 4.37 4 2 2 12 28 Silverstone 56 5.37 2006 10.43 4 2 2 14 t,: 33 Terrace at Treviso 180 13.8 2014 13.04 30 1 4 64 „"' "" The relationship between product living area sqft and density is evident in these projects.The highlighted projects are considered infill in nature and are all single design projects, meaning they have only one product design for the entire community. The two infill projects that were developed with the highest density per acre are Botanical Place with 10.95 units per acre and Magnolia Falls with 10.23 units per acre. These two communities are larger in overall size and have more units per building than all the other infill projects.Only Terraces at Treviso Bay had more units per building at 30. Based on the sites attributes, the development trends of the surrounding condominium projects and the review of the most recent infill and master planned community developments that have condominium product,it is my opinion the subject site is best suited for development of higher density condominium product with smaller sized units. Now that the sites density has been found consistent with the market, the next task is to determine the economic feasibility of the proposed project. Based on the sites size and proposed design we determined the market segment that should be isolated for analysis was low and midrise designs that have a price range between sioo,000 and$500,000.This segment ilk MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 8/41 of the condominium market is the largest in terms of overall supply and annual sales volume in the county. The best indicator of market feasibility is to examine the supply demand trends in relation to pricing. This is done by analyzing the historical months' supply of product in relation to the overall pricing trend. Located below are two graphs that reflect the historical supply and demand trends and the relationship to pricing. The first graph shows the inventory and sales data and the related months'supply indicator. Month Supply 3000 12.00 2500 10.00 2000 8,00 > E ti 1500 6.00 > i v� G N 1000 II 4.00 c c 500 2.00 1q 2q 3q 4q lq 2q 3q 4q lq 2q 3q 4q 1q 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 Axis Title mom Listings imim Sales Month of Inventory From this graph we can see the inventory of available product for sale or supply(Listings) has steadily decreased from the beginning of 2011,where it was at 1,678 units.The annualized sales or demand has steadily increased since the beginning of 2011. The units of measure is the months'supply which is reflective of the number of months it will take to exhaust the current supply of condominiums in this segment based on the annualized sales pace. The months' supply indicator is reflective of the supply demand balance in a market. The next graph shows the relationship between the months' supply and the corresponding pricing.This relationship helps support the market demand for product of this nature. rtu MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc.All Rights Reserved. 9/41 Months Supply and Price per SOFT $150.00 12.00 $145.00 10.00 1-- 8.00 T d $140.00 v� Q. 6.00 tt v *' $1 35.00 ° 4.00 $130.00 2.00 $125.00 lq 2q 3q 4q 1q 2q 3q 4q lq 2q 3q 4q lq 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 Axis Title Month of Inventory —4—Prc sqft p :a xa m3, ; kq. The lower the months'supply,the higher the demand for property in this category.This is done by analyzing the historical months'supply of product in relation to the overall pricing trend. As we can see from the graph above, the months' supply has steadily decreased and the normalized pricing has increased to account for the shortage. Considering this market segment accounts for the largest share of all condominium volume in Collier County, an "in balance" market is typically six months of supply. The fact this product tier is below the norm, suggest a under supplied market,therefore new supply would help the market function in a more efficient manner. The development of a lower density 3 to 4 unit per acre product was also evaluated. Based on the sites size and functional utility, the lower density design does not provide an adequate economic return when compared to the proposed 84 units. The cost per unit of infrastructure in addition to that of the land would require finished product pricing levels to be significantly higher than the market will accept.The development of lower density product design on this site would be at a significant market disadvantage when compared to others in the immediate area that offer recreational amenities and open space. The development of the proposed 84 units reduced the infrastructure cost per unit and the land cost per unit to a more market acceptable level.The finished product price for a smaller unit in dill MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 10/41 a higher density community is most consistent with market price of surrounding units and offers a diverse product design for the area. Based on the development cost, the finished product pricing being most consistent with the market for this area, it is my opinion the development of the proposed 84 units on the subject site is the most economically feasible. MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 11 /41 4.0 DEMOGRAPHIC AND MARKET PROFILE Florida is currently the nation's fourth most populous state, home to an estimated 19.3 million people.The U.S. Census Bureau projections indicate that the top three fastest- growing states between 2010 and 2030 will be Florida(300,000 persons/year),Texas(400,000 persons/year),and California(400,000 persons/year). Florida is expected to have the largest net growth as well as the third highest percent increase(approximately 600 new residents are expected to move to Florida each day starting in 2014). By the year 2030, Florida's population is projected to total 28.7 million people and will edge past New York into third place in total population(California and Texas would continue to rank first and second respectively). Florida's population growth is depicted in the map below.This shows the latest projections of growth by county for the year 2030.As you can see,the most heavily populated counties in Florida are Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties in Southeast Florida; Hillsborough and Pinellas counties in the Tampa metro market; Orange County in Central Florida,and Duval County in the Jacksonville metro area. Table 5.1.1 2030 Population Projections by County ler rip IL IP' in AA iv mg Florida Counties Population Projections 2030 112 1 00,000 or less ▪ 150,001-500,000 ▪ 250,001-500,000 -500,001-1,000,000 _1,000,001+ eo moss Source:University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research 4.1 Overview of Southwest Florida Southwest Florida is defined by the three-county region that consists of Lee, Collier and Charlotte counties.The chart below shows the 2012 population estimate by county along with the 2015 Population estimate. Charlotte County is the smallest of the three counties Aft MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 12/41 with 14%of the region's population while Lee County is the most populated with 57%of the total. Table 5.2.1 Southwest Florida Region Annual 2012 2015 Growth County Population Pct of Region Population Pct of Region Rate Charlotte 162,449 14.2% 169,681 13.9% 1,446 645,293 56.6% 695,952 57.1% 10,132 Collier 332,427 29.2% 353,896 29.0% 4,294 Total 1,140,169 1,219,529 Source:Bureau of Economic&Business Research, 2012 Population Estimates Currently,there are an estimated 1.14 million people living year-round in Southwest Florida. Since the 2000 Census,the area's population has increased by 38%,the equivalent of 310,000 new residents. Looking ahead, Southwest Florida will continue to gain new residents at a faster rate on a percentage basis than the rest of the State of Florida. By the year 2015,the population of Southwest Florida is projected to total 1.21 million residents.This is an annual growth rate of 1.06%from 2012 to 2015 compared to Florida's annual growth rate of 0.82% during the same time period. Strong population growth in the Southwest Florida market is due to both the in-migration of young professionals looking for a better quality of life as well as the ongoing arrival of baby boomer retirees.The number of baby boomers reaching retirement age is expected to peak in 2020, however the delay in this group's move to other markets has been pushed ahead, therefore the demand is expected to increase.The appeal of the Southwest Florida market indicates a steady demand for housing over the long term. In addition to the growth in permanent residents,the number of visitors to the area is on a continuous rise. Southwest Florida International Airport, located in Lee County, has undergone a $438 million expansion with future capacity to handle ten million passengers annually. In 2012,the annual traffic was 7.3 million passengers which is up from prior years. The expansion of the 1-75 and a dedicated interchange(currently under construction)for RSW has significantly improved the capacity of vehicular transportation infrastructure.The annual economic impact of the Southwest Florida International Airport is estimated at$3.8 Billion annually. M) ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 13/41 Overall,the infrastructure investments made in Southwest Florida over the past 5 years have significantly improved the future capacity for growth.This capacity will allow more residents to enjoy the quality of life currently afforded to the market. It will also positively impact the area's ability to attract new business,which would help to diversify the local economy,further enhancing the region's future growth potential. 4.2 Housing Market The housing market grew at an unsustainable pace from 2002 to 2006 creating an excess supply of housing units in relation to households formed in several areas of Collier County.The areas which saw the majority of this growth were generally more affordable areas of Naples Park, Golden Gate City and Golden Gate Estates. The abundance of easy money moved the market incentive for homes from one of personal preference to one of speculation. This speculative market inflated pricing beyond the historical property appreciation trends providing the market with false expectations of future home value stability. Home pricing began to fall in late 2006 and did not begin to stabilize until the third quarter of 2009. Since the beginning of 2011, home prices have risen and have reached a growth rate of more than 159/0 per year over the past 2 years. This growth rate is not sustainable and is anticipated to level off as the inventory increases. There is currently pent up demand for new homes, however many existing homeowners who move up or down will explore new construction if the cost is commensurate with purchasing an existing home of similar utility. The new supply of housing will help alleviate the current shortage of product and provide a balance in the supply demand ratio. This limited supply of housing was also noted in the rental apartment market as no new projects were added due to the high cost of land. ilk MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 14/41 5.o Site Assessment 5.1 Subject Site Attributes and Surrounds The subject site is vacant and located on the south side Rattlesnake Hammock Road, east of the intersection with Tamiami Trail East.The site is bifurcated by Hibuscus Dr.which runs south from Rattlesnake Hammock Road to the Hibiscus Golf Club, an 28 hole public Golf course established in 2969.The site as a whole consists of 7.9 gross acres of land including the roadway easement and the canal.A copy of the survey is included in the addendum of this report. Access to the site in from Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Hibiscus Dr. Rattlesnake Hammock Road is a two lane divided arterial roadway with a median that runs from Tamiami Trail at the western terminus to Collier Blvd, its eastern terminus, a distance of approximately 4.3 miles. The subject site is approximately 4,000 feet east of the intersection with Tamiami Trail and has a deceleration lane for eastbound traffic and a left turn only median cut for westbound traffic. The site is bounded by Noah Circle and single family homes on the west, Country Club Manor condominium on the east, a drainage canal and Hibiscus Golf Club on the south and Rivera Colony Mobile Home community and Charlemange Plaza a 30,000 +/- sqft local tenant retail center across Rattlesnake Hammock Road to the north. Located below are maps showing the location of the Hibiscus Site and an aerial showing the surroundings. MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 15/41 i Davis Blvd Davis ElbRi 8 4 Subject Site Location A... i.. .,..2 ,31ad4s el.il X .9 0, 1 t 0101ell al e ,,,If Ar4d t, T.t ,r,..untty ub .,..,„„ t., d 2 I, fe. o 00 ,ts" 17 T401,4 ILO ; : O2 1.' Slade:. ,tr •-■ g 2 .." Countrf a . .1... 9. . a a ,00 Ct . ViorAl Golf ki, r Country Club ,.. a sumo, RIVIeT3 V R0,trartal Gaff Club 1,tr,, ii, Gott& (.4, Cou Club ntiy(Au thomossoo a, s,. Rattlesnake Rasa Rd E.tut Nape: .0 cr Commurut, Par .c. ,0 Royal Palm 0,... Country i 6 noft$,13 4,,,,. ,,,.t4 arra Club rrolf Club l'• 4 ........ ;4 I rv, , ,^4,,, ,7` ,,, a ., ‘•P .d.„1,,,,I, C.4k dq., c.;„..i .k 'ct • 44 5'. -, ri 44 ' t. „... . 0, ..... , ,s, , ,.. .: Eagle LAket 0, i Si„:"., Communty g . .7 d • Par* 7, , ?A 1, ,..1..- 0• ;8 Trdyi,.. 4. . boo or no 0 dk nrs . , Sauces:Esri.HERE.00U:stns.,USC-S,Intermars,irassment P Ccrp..NECAN. Esti Japan,I IE11 E s ri China ti-tong Kong),Esri(Theilarpd),TorraTerp,Nrmylndirs, .L. 0 OporStreetAlap contributors,and She GIS User Community W.' `,.-- ...•■••■ Milli MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 16/41 ��,,,,�� "'R''i{ , "•�,.1 s ::•-: ;4i a i i ".^1 �va1 .5„m n < ,i a. �-�j. Subject Site Location i .`',. -,�,� . i q�, ,,t•� t L. rd4414 . ' of`�« ,l �r�i4 3��e , t l ' ” IC 4 i • •ii" - `. `z ++''' a, Aria !!URlsi iYtl a I t �''I 'II t••tfIRL♦ tr1!!s 4P 1tR r t s -.:,,,,,...*.S.. Rt1`t7f4 a j r•aav r . .t a4 s W. ",...w t ii Ali ali+ .:;4 al . ,t ,,ft ,r,:...- s:` :=..`tun, a • .. .y_ a f„.7„, • + •s�.' �ittott-c / • «.sR,..- ;Et• s'. _" a�.Z. .. — $T > ,! F. .: •tttYiMt/1 �, v -�� w Y ., ',r•NRt•+ � r -- _ _ - Hots,/*1st ♦, .... '- \. as'R.r°i4 - r� + • -4 „..1e170 - " `4 .644,...4,)*s =.,, it6/t![• I1 ,v,-`.�a,Y > q.., da •tnt/ . w�ttttt/t u ' + t y w e > thltinIttt. . uttnR gf;�ty''.��,•!`' '+ice e t •.R ■ n ' .*� t f` » ""'••.4a r; .r'.i:.7,411•••"111,li ith it Att f, , ,y1 T w. ., , Y"#�Ir litR tti 4,,,,P—",4".'",.." t F • r s = >farms �: \'Issue?• it Y}.. t' I'd i. :ice ' •� �� xE-# aarnitar. de di gt Pa •y+x rr • r~ +'sRt•R/i/ 4 7.01,07,"Rti° 1 lte . , y t ^�...'a- 'II-- t i ;! .. tf tt 1ti 1 . �, :` " 4 w RRt..I F ; V /4' t- .• ,'qr It„ vm w a u '�t ` � ') .•. �,re it-w* c � . „,, „ 4,7f.f . , , , - 1,, , ,.,_,..:,. ,.. .... ., i 4z, , , .zir ; '' ” cf,s,?4*s&i 9' � �. p• � K v r ...0- r • � ' 4r., "�. a s x�r. �+I ��r „ � _ 1 s 4 , , , s. i IV -.. ►t € _m o "' t Tai .a, o 1 I'll, 1_1=,..?,", -.X ,, ' > ;9sreVt- .tom r3o7o. -;+ '°H�i yo e 'II *.1.IT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 17/41 6.o SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT TRENDS The majority of uses surrounding the site consist of single family homes, condominiums, mobile homes and commercial retail built from the late sg6o's to mid-ig8o's. They are generally well maintained and have good access to the greater area of the City of Naples and Collier County.West of Tamiami Trail is the newly developing Isles at Collier Preserve, a 2,40o acre community planned for i,600 new homes and condominiums. Located below are maps showing the current zoning for the areas surrounding the subject sites along with a map that shows the"as built"gross density of the condominiums surrounding the subject site. This is a followed by a general profile of the type and age of properties with each zoning category. dth MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 18/41 •,.•----c....-0.••- • •- --- --•%,,,,,,,,,,• ,...,. I — 5 P C ti. ; ..: 0 .. . 4 . 2 P. D ft q 0 e e 4 .7.3 ct • — 8 ,:,,,,,,.,,,,,,, , 0) , . „ li' 4t Z ' .( at PAM emq.sv1.1•luv$ cAtO coom, 4*, c ..p. a. . - 1, . , 0.r .4. 4' 8 i , . „:„A, INA D 70,11 -'..,.!:•' 2 ....., ..A,;,../- aie . „ i t -6 5 ., 0 .,., . ,.i.,...,, ..J ,., 3 , To' _I o ....• ,, . C pH umil,f4unct3 0 Pi Weil AILIMO Sn 4. b- ,t•• .' • N 4 D' M D ., 0 , -.■-• 0 sd 6, .6,1,.. '1' Elio, d C 7,z'' ; ,1,.., 6" ii, ,.•-•'' ie ,t L. .. c a 3 - . — , i.... •,,' 1, - , ' - 4•14' 4''.'4 ,a „,..„, ..st• 0 0 = --'it• ,..., e < g .. 41 1•"' - • .... E ....•-,.: , , „,(.4',* 0 .__ LL eir.':.-11' .-L'E''''--i•:''''''f"' ' .•,_. '-'.....,i,..:2;.''''';r•-;L - - 44,111(4 tiro, g 42) To ,,„ . - •'-- ! A**.k*".4 c 1'' (1.) ::: :so ,.,chaVid CC '.4tWiNi4 7.• H - .•4.1040- .:-, ,... ,....- . --(„,.., - -•", A c , ..— it 470 4' g 1 . (0 -,1 e 0.,,,„.....na lQ wran'AMO ..,S, es .A)u6413 c7913. - A.PMC1 % 04 (c) 0 c4i T '7 - `5' ■•; . , OP % .0, •T-, :B- c, , LL , , 0, . ,., _ 5 (= c . _ = u 6 .7.-.( 0. ce ce ce ce '''■!:^.S. g a° -- = 2 -.,.Mr. am u' 'w : : . t - _.1 ,,.,...., N ,,, r:-. 0 r. ',.. i! Li ..e ,,... . ,,! . .2 4 z a o a Ptlfl tiegati3 ei in 4l3 Pla' t 0 Pala P°°• h• i tie w 44 P ® w z _ � y 2) N 0 cd t ..7 .4" ci it: lk '7.0 G o 'A ` E U c.-. - (5 �" ui . C ;7 ^� 0 t5 "0 c v C)i O 4s » O 0 o o V •€1 E N Jc� 4 C9 Q C pti ujvg hlunoo = 2a €g: a) N N Q p� a CI ° tb a0 C V c t� 1. 6j v = ° 1a F°� r .tt x E 0, ao 01/41=,..r,-� �� :� a r o 0 0 * O CO�n• 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N C CO r-00or *00Ns.=000000ce CO m > a r '� , O8 E m g d 0 0 rt1 w o o N rll N NVi Q CI 0 k w " A r O M in O O p v o 0 2 p h ti 2 o m T(t 0 . ryN - tRN- q' c,of .-h-< < ed F: ri CD 0 al d; .., Y Y r g Of °<N fV M M1% n 7 W W V ;-o .°L o V 2 \ m u _ M' t+i 2 M }}�� tt O S.5 R 2 5 2 2 (1 t fi l alas o 202 j z -522 tit U p=pO 5 O 92[�20- 56° • . �f U Z Y O W" 6 Q 6 0 0 6 c0 6 . ` ,-1 n .e - p t, z2z z prt9s,kv y Y, Oni[�° FOLz ''.< up 3Q 1 n9. UU F_ Q W= 7cfrxKK (',‘° <0204 uy e,0 0 (;t az .N- W i<2Oz4 ° tOiwO ' m el t � taa u, Oo> �u i Qco da 'a bm ID al Rt10�° �� a g� �Z0�suuwosspe_ woa >- NN $ If, Cr � 0>m>mO,F Wa' C'1Q w3- r5 > v 0 El NNe�+�y in E Jo We4+i+'f l�.d .`(\ ® .- N n v 10 N A m co O N n a b w N m i{ 2 . Below we have profiled each of the uses based on the zoning category on the above map.Each profile will include the general type of use, the average age of the improvements and its "as built"gross density.This will be followed by a conclusion of consultant's opinion as to the best use for the subject site considering its access, physical size, legal allowable use and compatibility with the surrounding uses. C-3 Zoning — Commercial Intermediate District. The purpose and intent of the commercial intermediate district(C-3) is to provide for a wider variety of goods and services intended for areas expected to receive a higher degree of automobile traffic.The type and variety of goods and services are those that provide an opportunity for comparison shopping, have a trade area consisting of several neighborhoods, and are preferably located at the intersection of two- arterial level streets.This site is the Charlemagne Plaza site,a 30,320+/-sqft local tenant retail center across the street from the site. The center was built in 1975, is well maintained and services the convenient needs of the surrounding residents. CF Zoning—The subject site is currently zoned CF or Community Facility District. Its purpose and intent is to allow non-residential land uses as generally identified by the urban designation of the future land use element.The current zoning would allow for the continuation of public uses. MH Zoning- Mobile Home District(MH).The purpose and intent of the mobile home district (MH) is to provide land for mobile homes and modular built homes, as defined in this Land Development Code, that are consistent and compatible with surrounding land uses. The MH District corresponds to and implements the urban mixed-use land use designation on the future land-use map of the Collier County GMP. Riveria Colony is the mobile home community within this zoning category. The homes were built in the late 1960's to mid-197o's and have an average gross density of 8 units per acre. There are no newly developed mobile home communities in Collier County, primarily for hurricane code reasons. PUD Zoning -The purpose and intent of establishing the planned unit development district (PUD) is to provide procedures and standards to encourage mixed use planned developments that may be situated at appropriate locations, or planned developments that may or may not be mixed use in the urban fringe areas, all in accordance with the planning and development objectives of the county under the LDC and the GMP. Lely Golf Estates was developed in the 1970's and was one of the first planned unit developments in Collier County. The Lely Golf Estates community includes high density condominium uses along Rattlesnake Hammock Road and US 41 and lower density single family homes in the interior surrounding the Hibiscus golf course. This development plan MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 21 /41 situated the higher value properties with the superior view and location away from major roadways and other noise producing external amenities. RMF-1.2 Zoning-The purpose and intent of the residential multi-family 12 district(RMF-12) is to provide lands for multiple-family residences having a mid-rise profile,generally surrounded by lower structures and open space, located in close proximity to public and commercial services,with direct or convenient access to collector and arterial roads on the county major road network. There are two existing condominium projects located with the RMF 12 zoning category that are within close proximity to the subject site, Pepperwood and Regency Woods. These two condominium communities were built in the mid to late 1980's and have an average gross density per acre of io.8 and 12.7 units per acre, respectively. RMF-i6 Zoning-The purpose and intent of the residential multi-family-16 district(RMF-16)is to provide lands for medium to high density multiple-family residences, generally surrounded by open space, located in close proximity to public and commercial services, with direct or convenient access to arterial and collector roads on the county major road network. The majority of the condominium uses developed surrounding the subject site are zoned with the highest density, RMF-16 to account for the noise on Rattlesnake Hammock Road and as a buffer from the development north of the site. RMF-6 Zoning -The purpose and intent of the residential multi-family-6 district(RMF-6) is to provide for single-family, two-family and multi-family residences having a low profile silhouette,surrounded by open space, being so situated that it is located in close proximity to public and commercial services and has direct or convenient access to collector and arterial roads on the county major road network. The Fountains is a larger condominium community developed in the early 1980's and includes several buildings overlooking lakes. The gross density is consistent with the earlier development south of Rattlesnake Hammock Road. RSF-3 Zoning - The purpose and intent of the residential single-family districts (RSF) is to provide lands primarily for single-family residences.These districts are intended to be single- family residential areas of low density. The nature of the use of property is the same in all of these districts. Variation among the RSF-1, RSF-2, RSF-3, RSF-4, RSF-5 and RSF-6 districts is in requirements for density, lot area, lot width, yards, height, floor area, lot coverage, parking, landscaping and signs. Willow Creek Lane is west of Noah Circle and consist of 10 single family lots averaging 1/3 of an acre.The homes on the site range in age from 15 to 45 years old.This street has the three oldest homes in the Lely Golf Estates community, is located with easy access from Rattlesnake Hammock Road and from the property appraiser's 1975 aerial photograph appears to have a paved parking lot on the corner of Noah Circle and Willow Creek Lane.Based on these findings, alb MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 22/41 it would appear this street was developed specifically for marketing of the single family homes in the neighborhood and was not developed consistent with the other higher density sites on Rattlesnake Hammock Road east of Hibiscus Drive. Located below is a list of the communities showing their total units,Average acres, Year Built and gross density. Avg Year Gross Map ID Condo Name Units Acres Built Density 1 COUNTRY CLUB MANOR 144 7.70 1963 18.7 10 GOLF VIEW MANOR II 75 6.53 1980 11.5 11 GOLF VIEW MANOR A CONDOMINIUM 39 3.42 1979 11.4 16 VALLEY STREAM COURT INC 48 2.75 1973 17.41 3 BROOK PINES, A CONDOMINIUM 42 2.60 1990 16.1 7 MARWOOD A CONDOMINIUM 28 2.03 1986 13.8 15 VISTA RIO A CONDOMINIUM 18 1.75 1979 10.3 ,F 14 HAMMOCKS, THE A CONDOMINIUM 18 1.71 1982 10.5 8 TIERRA DEL SOL UNIT 1 22 1.66 1975 13.3 12 EL CAPISTRANO A CONDOMINIUM 15 1.38 1982 10.9 5 BUCKEYE PALMS A CONDOMINIUM 19 1.31 1990 14.5 16 VALLEY STREAM TOWNHOUSE GP 1&2 14 1.38 1972 10.2 4 VALLEY STREAM TOWNHOUSE GP 3&4 20 1.31 1974 15.2 Grand Total 502 35.54 1975 14.1 . Future Land Use The subject and the surrounding areas are all located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. This Subdistrict comprises approximately 93,000 acres and 8o%of the Urban Mixed Use District. Maximum eligible residential density shall be determined through the Density Rating System but shall not exceed 26 dwelling units per acre except in accordance with the Transfer of Development Rights Section of the Land Development Code. 6.2 Conclusions The majority of the development that has occurred surrounding the subject site has been higher density due to its zoning at the time,and access fronting a major east west arterial road in Collier County. The lone single family street, Willow Creek Lane, appears to have been developed for the purposes of marketing the Single Family homes in Lely Golf Estates. The PUD zoning of Lely Golf Estates set's the general development pattern in the area with higher density product on the major roadways and lower density product in the interior. This rllu MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 23/41 development pattern uses the higher density condominium product to buffer the lower density single family product by reducing noise and traffic.The resulting market price of higher density perimeter condominiums is generally lower than that of lower density single family development.The benefit of a mix of higher and lower density is to provide the market with a broader range of product offerings with varying sizes and prices. The subject sites location is convenient to the employment centers and support facilities of the surrounding Collier County area. Its access and visibility are good and the site has adequate physical and functional utility to develop higher density product consistent with the surrounding condominium products. 7.0 COMPARABLE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS The development of new infill condominiums in Collier County over the past 5 years has been very limited due to the abundance of vacant single family lots available for development of single family homes. The majority of the condominium development has been within larger master planned communities that offer extensive amenities and a mix of product. I reviewed the market for condominium developments built within the past 3.0 years to show the density of more recently built product. The projects profiled below were built from 2005 to 203.4 and are located on both infill sites and in large master planned communities.The gross density per acre ranges from a low of 5.3.3 units for a 6 unit building to 13.o4 units for a 3o unit four story building. Below we have prepared a summary of the communities followed by a map of their locations. Gross Year Gross Units per Map ID Condo Name Units Acres Built Densit Buildin. Gara.e Stories Buildin.s 21 Alden Woods at Lely Resort 160 15.54 2008 10.30 4 2 2 40 20 Botanical Place 218 19.91 2005 10.95 24 1 4 9 19 Di Napoli in Treviso Bay 12 1.3 2005 9.23 4 2 2 3 23 Landings at Lely 28 2.99 2006 9.36 4 1 2 7 30 Legacy at Lely Resort 88 12.1 2007 7.27 4 2 2 22 ' 25 Lemuria 72 23.71 2008 3.04 4 2 2 18. 22 Magnolia Falls 144 14.08 2006 10.23 4 to 16 1 2 12 24 Mariposa at Whipperwil 180 29.47 2007 6.11 8 to 12 1 2 28;:,1 26 Meadows at Quail Creek Village 60 6.2 2008 9.68 4 2 2 15'=' 32 Ole' 625 71.65 2010 8.72 1 to 6 1 and 2 2 Numerous;: 31 Players Club at Lely Resort 96 18.73 2010 5.13 6 1 and 2 2 16:;,; 29 Quartz Cove 80 8.56 2008 9.35 4 2 2 20 ^ 27 Remington Reserve 48 10.98 2007 4.37 4 2 2 12 28 Silverstone 56 5.37 2006 10.43 4 2 2 14 3' 33 Terrace at Treviso 180 13.8 2014 13.04 30 1 4 6, /III MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 24/41 Development Trend Density 1 eann lz Nays , 1 Bay Ea 11Club. t C_ r•, 6n$t CIA, r,, . ilk Twae..m ;, 28 26 ; 4s 27 ..,;/::-.7 kT'2;,a, Im ae F. g. igg.can QtarrIt 7 @s,txzt, x ... ,` -st,N' cut. ,,,,it ';isr q. -i rnUr Floe.3a ,; 25 Yandarbltt Be....Rd C a L[ U 9 The i arlY.3n1„ t.nlrfert GMO Blvd 19 ,d a. i Nis Pg.a ct„ttit”g 3 z al n c m a _ a Gm" olden Gn V C _. Har(04k II x 7,$vnicSp:l Rad,a Rd.::. a "3 ,„"-._„'. »:� ,'^.... y:. aitrr}rt.. '� Naplaa D.rvia 111,91 64 �i g, { iapiec a far', bay Z 120 i Fel ttecnake 23 nth Rd It'ki h v, tz >,. 19 30 ®® ,: I-11:• ...; 32 rs.; } s P r; 3,, Gross Year Grass Units per 4, Ma,ID Condo Nance Units Aces Bait Dens Fluid • Ga •- Stories Bold •s 2!. A7',en Wads at LetyRssan 110 15.54 2058 10.30 4 2 2 40 .t, 7J Flotano,cal Paso 228 99.99 233! 40.95 24 9 4 9 5 D Napo&as Trewo Bay t2 1.3 2735 9.23 4 2 2 3 23 Lardros at Ley 28 2.98 2005 9.36 4 1 2 7 _. 33 Lepac}at tell,Resort 8S 127 22737 7.27 4 2 2 22 4t-' 3 Lemma 72 2371 2008 3.04 4 2 2 1B `� s. 22 Vapnda Falls 144 14.06 2006 10.23 4to18 1 12 ,•.1 44 �, 21 Mariposa at Whipperwii 780 2847 2757 5.11 8 to 72 1 2 28 cart-Iut Ai 4 23 I+fea2r*s atOwi Creek villape 63 5.2 2438 9.58 4 2 2 15 a r,An)nr..P;rani. 32 Ok 525 71.95 2010 9.72 1 to 5 1 and 2 2 N.trerous t . 33 Piny'Clan at Ley Resort 96 18.73 2010 513 4 1 and 2 2 15 a 3! Quart Cosa 80 8.55 2706 835 4 2 2 2534316.Inter map,increment P Gap., Z7 Rernepbr.Poser. 48 1098 2007 4.37 4 2 2 12i„Z(ko.Q�rt6i.Esri;Thaiar,c.TanTom, 21 SiNerstar s 55 5.37 2'.05 10.43 4 2 2 14 ° rtributars,and the GIS User .Communiy 33 Terrace at Treuso 183 731 2014 7104 30 —,t_ 4 9 /"'"\ Milli MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 25/41 The projects selected are all representative of the types of product being developed in the marketplace today. The majority have garage parking and their living area square footage is generally commensurate with their gross density,meaning the lower the density,generally the larger the living area square footage.Terraces at Treviso Bay,the highest density project has living area square footage ranging from 1,107 to 1,284 for 2 bedroom, 2 bath units.The Legacy at Lely Resort has the lowest gross density for the projects and has living area square footage ranging from 2,160 to 2,686 sgftfor 2 bedroom and 3 bedroom units respectively. 8.o ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY The site consist of 7.9 gross acres of land and is proposed for the development of 84 condominium units representing a gross density of 10.83 units per acre.This proposed density is consistent with the surrounding older development and with more recently developed infill communities around the county. The demand for new condominium development of similar density has increased over the past several years due to several factors. These factors include, a limited supply of new condominium development in the marketplace,a shrinking inventory of existing condominium product for sale and the rapid price appreciation of single family home alternatives. These factors have combined to increase the demand for condominium product in the county. Based on the market parameters for the communities profiled above,we focused our analysis on low and mid-rise condominium designs with a sales price range between $100,000 and $500,000 that have sold since January 2010.We also looked at the supply and demand trends for that same period using the same paramters. Below we will show several trend reports that will provide market evidence of the increasing demand for condominiums that meet the subject's general parameters. MST' ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 26/41 Proje_.. ... Average of Prclsgft Average of DOM Condo Trends Less than $500,000 $240.00 . $220.00 ••• • • • $200.00 ••; \s/V4J- *Ai 0.1,1\ $180.00 • • •„•• • • • • $160.00 • t'• `l• - i• 140.00 '-��•= - •�-5 . r'=..-•1t'-•;:a- . ._-•_•-�/�-z; .,t--- : •- k�! $120.00 • $100.00 Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May I(` 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 a jgd Values �•�Average of Prc/soft —.—Average of DOM Linear(Average of Pm/soft) Linear(Average of DOM) The graph above shows the relationship between the normalized sales price per square foot and the average Days on Market(DOM)to sell the property. The solid orange line represents the average days on market for each month of the given year and the dotted orange line represents the linear trend over time for DOM.The solid blue line represents the average sales price per square foot and the dotted blue line represents the linear trend for price.The time to market a property before it sells is a reflection of the demand for that product type.As we can see,this property segment has a diminishing marketing time and an increase in relative price, indicating demand for comparable condominiums is increasing. Another indicator of demand is the relationship between the average DOM to the list price/ sales price ratio. The inverse relationship between these two variables provides market evidence that the comparable property segment has strong market demand as marketing time is shorter and the discount from the list price is less. Located below is a chart showing the relationship between these two variables. /III MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 27/41 Proje_. Average of LstSlePrct Average of DOM Comparable Condo Trends less than $500,000 240 96.0% 220 95.0% 200 _ - 94.0• o x 180 i 93.0% 160 - _ 92.0% o 140 91-0°.o k, 120 900% 100 89.0% t; <1/1/201 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 0 Axis Title IfiftS Average of DOM Average of LstSlePrct '3! Linear(Average of DOM) linear(Average of LstSlePrct) The solid orange line represents the average days on market for each month of the given year and the dotted orange line represents the linear trend over time for DOM. The solid blue line represents the list price to sales price ratio, or the percentage discount from list price. The inverse relationship between these two variables suggest the market demand for this comparable set is increasing.The smaller discount from the list price and the faster selling time shows that the demand is increasing. The historical month's supply for the comparable condominiums also provides market support of increasing demand.This analysis shows the relationship between the inventories of listings as of the beginning of the period in relation to the rolling 12 months of sales activity.The lower the months'supply of product,the higher the overall demand. Located below is a reflection of the months'supply trends for our selected product segment. MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 28/41 Month Supply 3000 12.00 &ry, 2500 1000 2000 8.00 >. 1500 6.00 w c w o 1000 4.00 � cn - -o c 500 2.00 zg' 0 lq 2q 3q 4q 1q 2q 3q 4q 1q 2q 3q 4q lq 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 Axis Title NEM Listings IMINSales -Month of Inventory As we can see from this chart,the month supply has fallen steadily from the beginning of 2011 and currently is near a 5 month supply. For this product segment and price tier,the typical "in Balance"supply should be closer to 6 months.The fact we are below that level suggest a under supplied market for this comparable set of condominiums. The final graph in this analysis shows the relationship between the month's supply and the average price per square foot. This graph shows that as the months' supply of inventory is diminishing,pricing is increasing.This relationship provides market evidence that the demand for product in this segment has increased to a point that the available supply is not sufficient to satisfy the demand,therefore pricing is affected. Will MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 29/41 Months Supply and Price per SQFT $150.00 12.00 $145.00 10.00 8.00 T a. $140.00 00. . v 6-00 to ❑.. .0 $135.00 0 ' 4.00 $130.00 2.00 $125.00 1q 2q 3q 4q lq 2q 3q 4q lq 2g 3q 4g lq 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2013 2013 2013 2013 2014 Axis Title mum Month of Inventory --i—Prc soft The conclusions of the trend data above provide market evidence that the supply of low and mid-rise condominiums priced between $100,000 and $500,000 is below market equilibrium levels.As a result,the market pricing has steadily increased to compensate for this diminishing supply. In order for the market to function in an efficient manner, an increase in supply is warranted and the 84 units proposed are consistent with the product segment analyzed and is considered to be economically feasible. MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 30/41 UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS In conducting this market analysis,the Consultant has assumed,where applicable,that: 1. Title to the land is good and marketable. 2. The information supplied by others is correct,and the revenue stamps placed on the deeds used to indicate the sale prices are in correct relation to the actual dollar amounts of the individual transactions. 3. There are no hidden or undisclosed sub-soil conditions. No consideration has been given to oil or mineral rights, if outstanding. 4. All general codes,ordinances,regulations or statutes affecting the property have been and will be enforced and the property is not subject to flood plane or utility restrictions or moratoriums except as reported to your consultant and contained in this report. 5. The party for whom this report is prepared has reported to the consultant no original existing conditions or development plans that would subject this property to the regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission or similar agencies on the state or local level. 6. No responsibility is assumed by the consultant for legal matters, nor is any opinion on title rendered herewith. 7. The consultant herein, by reason of this report, is not to be required to give testimony in court with reference to the property analyzed, unless arrangements have been previously made. 8. The consultant has made no survey of the property and assumes no responsibility in connection with such matters. Any sketch or identified survey of the property included in this report is only for the purpose of assisting the reader to visualize the property. 9. No environmental impact studies were either requested or made in conjunction with this study, and the consultant hereby reserves the right to alter, amend, revise, or rescind any of the opinions based upon any subsequent environmental impact studies, research or investigation. ao. Unless stated otherwise, no percolation tests have been performed on this property. In making the study, it has been assumed that the property is capable of passing such tests so as to be developable to its economic feasibility,as discussed in this report. 11. Certain data used in compiling this report was furnished by the client, his counsel, employees, and/or agent,or from other sources believed reliable. Data has been checked for accuracy as possible, but no liability or responsibility may be assumed for complete accuracy. 12. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in nature,nor is any opinion rendered herein as to title,which is assumed to be good and merchantable. The property is assumed to be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, unless specifically enumerated herein, and under responsible ownership and management as of the date of this study. 13. The forecasts or projections included in this report are used to assist in the process and are based on current market conditions, anticipated short-term supply and demand factors, and a stable economy. These forecasts are therefore subject to changes in future conditions. alb MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 31 /41 14. The consultant has relied upon the demographic data provided by the Collier County Community Development Department in order to project population trends, housing trends,gross sales trends,and economic trends for the subject area.The information relied upon is referenced within the applicable section of this report. The consultant does not warrant its accuracy. 15. The consultant has obtained data regarding building permits for single family and multi family products from the Collier County Planning Department. It is the consultant's understanding that multi family permits are those for condominiums and for rental apartment complexes.The rental apartment complexes which are known to the consultant have been omitted from this analysis. This, therefore, would reflect condominium unit development as reflected and would correlate with condominium sales based upon the Property Appraiser's office. 16. The consultant has obtained data regarding building sales for single family and multi family products from the Collier County Property Appraiser.This data includes Developer sales to end users and does not include on your lot sales or construction end loan sales. The consultant cannot warrant the accuracy of the data from this source. The consultant has segmented and amended the data based on market knowledge of the general market; however, no individual sales have been verified.The sales used from these sources reflect statistical trends, with larger samples of data providing a heavier weighting and smaller sample size results in less weighted percentage of the total market. 17. The consultant has obtained data from each of the projects outlined in this report. A physical inspection of each community was made, along with data for each community obtained from a representative of the owner. The data obtained for each project is assumed to be true and correct; however, the accuracy cannot be warranted or guaranteed. /III MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 32/41 RESTRICTION UPON DISCLOSURE AND USE The by-laws and Regulations of the Appraisal Institute govern disclosure of the contents of this report. Michael J. Timmerman, SRA is a Member of the Appraisal Institute. The by-laws and Regulations of the Institute require each Member and Candidate to control the use and distribution of each report signed by such Member. This market study report and the contents and data contained herein are confidential and are proprietary property of MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc. No reproductions of any sort or release of any proprietary information contained within may be released without prior written consent of MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc. Furthermore, neither all nor any part of this report shall be disseminated to the general public by use of advertising media, public relations media, news media,sales media,or other media for public communication without prior written consent of the signatories of this report. This report is for internal use of HIBISCUS LAND OF NAPLES LLC. exclusively. The undersigned agrees to the confidentiality agreement. This is copy number of MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 33/41 COPYRIGHT,TRADEMARK AND LEGAL DISCLAIMER Copyright This report published by MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc. hereby referred to as""THE REPORT"", including,but not limited to,text,graphics, photographs,graphs, illustrations, data, images, are protected by copyright law. Copyright © 2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc. All rights reserved. All materials provided by MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc. shall be used by the subscriber (the "User") only for the User's own authorized purposes, and may not be modified, published, reproduced in any manner, sold, distributed or in any way transferred to any person, corporation, organization, subsidiary or branch, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc. Possession of these materials does not carry with it the right of publication thereof or to use the name of in any manner without first obtaining the prior written consent of MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc. No abstracting, excerpting, or summarization of these materials may be made without first obtaining the prior written consent of MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc. These materials are not to be used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities or other similar purpose where they may be relied upon to any degree by any person without first obtaining the prior written consent of MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc. These materials may not be used for purposes other than that for which they are prepared or for which prior written consent first has been obtained from MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc. Disclaimer THE INFORMATION IN"THE REPORT"IS PROVIDED ON AN"AS IS"BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. The materials and information provided in"THE REPORT" by MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc.constitute raw data,factual materials and the opinions of MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc. Neither MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc. nor any of its affiliates,employees or agents will have any liability of any kind to the user,subscriber or any employee,agent,or contractor of the subscriber or to any other person using the information and materials herein or for any error or omissions herein or for any opinions or conclusions expressed. Other than as set forth expressly herein,MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.makes no warranties,expressed or implied concerning the accuracy of the materials or information provided herein. AN MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 34/41 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE Your use of THE REPORT constitutes your agreement to be bound by these terms and conditions. THE REPORT is a service made available by MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc. (the "COMPANY")and all content,information and definitions provided in and through the Housing Demand Report ("Information") may be used solely by you (the "User") under the following terms and conditions("Terms of Use"): z..) Subscription. As an authorized user of THE REPORT, User is granted a nonexclusive, nontransferable, revocable, limited license to access and use THE REPORT and Information in accordance with these Terms of Use. Company may terminate this subscription at any time for any reason. 2.) Limitations on Use. The Information in THE REPORT is for authorized use only and not for commercial exploitation. User may not decompile,disassemble, rent,lease,loan,sell, sublicense, copy or create derivative works from THE REPORT or the Information. User may not copy, modify, reproduce, republish, distribute, display, or transmit for commercial,nonprofit or public purposes all or any portion of THE REPORT,except to the extent authorized by the Company. Any unauthorized use of THE REPORT or its Information is prohibited. 3.) No Solicitation. In no event may any person or entity solicit any Users with data retrieved from this THE REPORT. 4.) Intellectual Property Rights. Except as expressly provided in these Terms of Use, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right, by implication, estoppel or otherwise, under copyright or other intellectual property rights. User agrees that the Information and THE REPORT are protected by copyrights, trademarks, service marks, patents or other proprietary rights and laws. For additional information see Copyright. 5.) Unlawful Activity. Company reserves the right to investigate complaints or reported violations of the Terms of Use and to take any action deemed appropriate including, but not limited to, reporting any suspected unlawful activity to law enforcement officials, regulators,or other third parties and disclosing any information necessary or appropriate to such persons or entities relating to user profiles, e-mail address, usage history, posted materials, IP addresses and traffic information. 6.) Remedies for Violations. Company reserves the right to seek all remedies available at law and in equity for violations of these Terms of Use including, but not limited to,the right to cancel THE REPORT. 7.) Modifications to Terms of Use. Company reserves the right to change these Terms of Use at any time. Updated versions of the Terms of Use will appear in THE REPORT and are AID MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 35/41 effective immediately. User is responsible for regularly reviewing the Terms of Use. Continued use of THE REPORT after any such changes constitutes User's consent to such changes. MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 36/41 BOUNDRY SURVEY :.....:,-.::-3 ,,,-„ ,,,ttzw:14.1;1 . ::::.:71 :;;, i 1 : II (.1,1",tt.14.14 1 T- —- '-'1',. -,--,, v 0 4ie, I ,r....:-t ,--I-a- --IT.,„7":t. ,:.......„,,,,.... -; T.M.,-/I.".•:\ ;“..— t;IA;gr: '1 $ilgti$4411..ttl rini —.— # itUtlItt4“4 . - , • Will ---.' i i . :E...., 14r.II.,•.= Mt I tiii7044 ..........._ . ..... ..„,...... ., ...... ___. . 1411,,p r 9,. tio — ' 14' , „i 4 , . • I 4.' 1 ' I 1 , lg,iiif .„. . . , - ,...i , , . ‘ 41 .. I 1 ■ i, —I; , g:s . I. i 1 03 .7.A ' I * 574 i' • li I 1-• ct ' I . ' " . . • 4. ' -s e. I 11 '' I , , •,,i I 1 :• t. ,, #,, 1 , _ —...... 1'• i ' °, # t - ' k4; -.`" ---- _,.,-• ••''''- --v-F41,114 , -1-7.----,---,,' 7-:.- i t i 1 .:t., 4.,,,,, .....„7.1. .... ...vt!'„.1 ......,_ ' - --.- , -,, , - 1 1 1 1 • ,••---•; - ". # tr,,,i ' - , '''°- °°°1 it ,#:,. •- • '--':- e''' M• , A ' - • ifSilll 1 1,.. .„ , .. .... ill ......" •.• J I — . : g I I.,' li i i i i )3,■. , 04 li 1 11 I I I A . ;iilitt!ililigiiiiii!;!!9! " tia a,'W./CS 944-5•1,1 -#19; •14- 11 ;V:40% .' '...9 Ps AS.f rf 42 1 1 S' e; E .'1.-n.:!1 Iir""44)11 if 1 1 1 i ialOil, iNtligti 1-,, I 1• X .113 t W E Ai, • ° g ..,,, i! 4:ii 1,;!p I V: PO 0 fg r N. t few: amea' s 9 i piCh 1: ,1 3 l •1,14!S iii;.RIO!!a$ 4ek ;e 4 -iq S!il 1 hin:1:gil; "! ...- --;*;---er- n . .3. ' ---. ahl MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 37/41 PHOTOS _ � te. �.. 5. k • *, ., 4 w �•. Hibiscus Dr. looking south !,T i F r , (fir �, _ - _ ._ _ ;4 ,. �,,.-•,•^�`...",' _-_ „r".Y. '1 1,g r,,, , V,,,�,,,, qtr-`ax ;, ^fi �°,% '� , ' s` Hibiscus Dr. looking north 38/41 ��b ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. R` -` +• r ■ � », ..'..t.-4,... n ,e j .� „ ,,- . h ° ,,o-1 .mss 9 aw"ue,„ � , ��^t .a yE'Y ' n. .s��a S biaa „- Y 3 : ��; am 3 1 ; �"� : 4q1'. +Ly+ �.KC ¢3� S vs: .s"' �2. ,: a * a ?.� ,., Y . y j w „-y ` Sri ?T � 3i1� " � a:rin a S "T s r�_.� '� °y 3 � ..'":"=`.."7. y y "Y..' ;1"'.. .14,',:,"i;4:' . h F .r °-n .' ':., �Z 1 "3s ,tfi n.7 t-000.,' : .> � ; . s- i ,. p^•:•Site to the east of Hibiscus Dr. � _ y >4� - ''' 1$. mot_ f .6tR aA dews" : y ,,, sc .,--,,. ,,,,,i7„,..;"*-- ^:""�. "* r -,-" . sy' °:°n ' -i�.c,.f t ,.-.. - H4 �sz,-,,, aa., �* rte . '�'�`�c,:` Li--�,..s, ..%� �f te ��4 *5:- ` w Y'� ,..--4;,-,- �M . LTTro�y— -wC • •-C"S"" .X 12 . . 1e* y. rA .AAA Site to the west of Hibiscus Dr. MID MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 39/41 • . .'t !I i a A�l�'. t • • Rattlesnake Hammock Road facing east from Hibiscus Dr. • 4 Vaal = Fq *11 Rattlesnake Hammock Road facing west from Hibiscus Dr. _MJT ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 40/41 I -.r ,H , . sk 104. i . .,'"•a-.., .i°al` , ,P .. i .>,'i4. . �2 i t -" '''•''''l'''"1". . � � � ,q 44•y -o �izot` t' a --,-: 4';,.'".2;x px x_. E. 6 4a- z a L. `' m "� r Xs ` t " s. -t r :—.a a ash,3-,. . > ... •View North from Hibiscus Dr of Riveria Colony Mobile Home Community T 4 , ppliC X View of canal behind the site looking west. Milli ©2014 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 41 /41 MJ DOPY EXHIBIT V. E . PUBLIC FACILITIES ■"� EXHIBIT V.E. PUBLIC FACILITIES LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS Provide the existing Level of Service Standard(LOS)and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: The subject Growth Management Plan Amendment proposes to permit a maximum of 84 multi- family or 30 single-family dwelling units on the 7.9±acre property. It is expected that this project will commence development in 2016 with anticipated buildout in 2018. We have compared the permitted 28 units to the proposed 84 multi-family and 30 single-family units for public facility impact. Potable Water The property is located within the Collier County potable water service area. Collier County has existing plant capacity of approximately 52 mgd. Treated water capacity in 2014 was 35.5 mgd and by 2019 the treatment capacity is projected to be 41.2 mgd. The proposed 84 unit multi-family project will not create any LOS issues in the 5-year planning horizon. This Project will have no impact on the potable water system and capacity is available in Collier County. Existing Water Demand: Multi-family: 28 units x 185 gpd/unit x 1.7 persons/unit=8,806 gpd 28 units x 185 gpd/unit x 1.7 persons/unit x 1.5 max. month= 13,209 gpd Proposed Water Demand: Multi-family: 84 units x 185 gpd/unit x 1.7 persons/unit=26,418 gpd 84 units x 185 gpd/unit x 1.7 persons/unit x 1.5 max. month= 39,627 gpd Single family: 30 units x 185 gpd/unit x 2.0 persons/unit= 11,100 gpd 30 units x 185 gpd/unit x 2.0 persons/unit x 1.5 max.month= 16,650 gpd Collier County Water/Sewer District: 185 gpcd Data Source: Collier County GMPA,2013 Collier County AUIR Page 1 of 4 Sanitary Sewer The subject project is located within the urban boundary with standards for Sanitary Sewer established in the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The property is located in the Collier County Sewer District South service area. The south County facilities have a current plant capacity of 5.3 mgd greater than the facility demand. No projected LOS issues are anticipated through 2034. This Project will have no impact on the Collier County Regional Sewer System. Existing Sewer Demand: Multi-family: 28 units x 100 gpd/unit x 1.7 persons/unit=4,760 gpd 28 units x 100 gpd/unit x 1.7 persons/unit x 1.3 max. month= 6,188 gpd Proposed Sewer Demand: Multi-family: 84 units x 100 gpd/unit x 1.7 persons/unit= 14,280 gpd 84 units x 100 gpd/unit x 1.7 persons/unit x 1.3 max. month= 18,564 gpd Single family: 30 units x 100 gpd/unit x 2.0 persons/unit=6,000 gpd 30 units x 100 gpd/unit x 2.0 persons/unit x 1.3 max. month= 7,800 gpd South Area LOS: 100 gpcd Required Capacity: 10.5 mgd Available Capacity: 16 mgd Data Source: Collier County AUIR and Collier County Comprehensive Plan Arterial and Collector Roads Please refer to the Traffic Impact Statement for discussions of the project's impact on level of service for arterial and collector roadways within the project's radius of development influence. Drainage The County has adopted a LOS standard for private developments which requires development to occur consistent with water quantity and quality standards established in Ordinances 74-50, 90-10, 2001-27, and LDC Ordinance 2004-41, as may be amended. The property within the proposed subdistrict has been issued a surface water management permit by the South Florida Water Management District which has established criteria for the volume of water stored on site Page 2 of 4 as well as the quality of the water which may be discharged from the site. The development within the subdistrict is consistent with the County LOS standards. Solid Waste The adopted LOS for solid waste is two years of lined cell capacity at the previous 3 year average tons per year disposal rate. There are no current capacity issues and none are anticipated through the year 2065. The proposed 84 unit multi-family residential project is anticipated to have an average residency of 2.4 persons per household, which would result in a total population of 201.6 residents within the community. At the County's adopted disposal standard of .52 tons per capita, the project will generate 104.8 tons of solid waste per year. Capacity is available to meet this generation standard. The calculation for the solid waste generation is: Existing-28 units x 2.4 persons per unit= 67.2 population x .52 tons/capita=34.9 tons/year. Proposed— Multi-family 84 units x 2.4 persons per unit = 201.6 population x .52 tons/capita = 104.8 tons/year. Single-family 30 units x 2.4 persons per unit = 72 population x .52 tons/capita = 37.4 tons/year. LOS Standard: 10 years of lined cell capacity at previous 3 year average tons per year capita disposal rate. Available Inventory as of July 2013: 2,348,250 tons Required Inventory as of July 2014: 421,713 tons Available Inventory as of July 2014: 18,147,894 tons Surplus Capacity as of July 2014: 15,799,644 tons Surplus Capacity as of July 2019: 14,473,213 tons Source: Collier County 2013 AUIR Parks: Community and Regional The site would qualify for 28 multi-family residential units and is proposed to increase the number of units by 56 units in the subdistrict for a total of 84 dwelling units. The 56 new units will generate very little new demand for Community and Regional Park. The 2013 AUIR identifies that the County is meeting the established LOS standard of 1.2 acres of community parks per 1,000 residents and 2.7 acres of regional parks per 1,000 residents and has a land surplus in each category. No deficits in park acreage are projected in the 5-year growth projections in the AUIR, and payment of impact fees for parks is collected by Collier County to Page 3 of 4 increase available park acreage. The 56 additional units will have a projected total resident population of 134 people,based on occupancy of 2.4 persons per household. The calculation for park demands: Existing—28 units Community Parks: 1.2 acres x .03 (28/1000)= .04 acres Regional Parks: 2.7 acres x .03 (28/1000)_ .08 acres Proposed Multi-family 84 Units Community Parks: 1.2 acres x .08 (84/1000) = .10 acres Regional Parks: 2.7 acres x .08 (84/1000)= .22 acres Single family 30 Units Community Parks: 1.2 acres x .03 (30/1000)= .036 acres Regional Parks: 2.7 acres x .03 (30/1000)= .081 acres No adverse impacts to Community or Regional Parks result from the creation of the subdistrict. The AUIR projects a 5-year surplus of Regional Park land of 32.51 acres and a surplus of Community Parks of 66.95 acres. Fire Control and EMS The proposed project lies within the East Naples Fire District. The East Naples Fire and Rescue District Station 21 is located at 11121 Tamiami Trail East, approximately 3 miles from the project entrance. The site will currently support 28 multi-family dwelling units. The increase by 60 units will create no significant impacts to Fire Control level of service due to the proposed project. Estimated impact fees for EMS are $7,928 based on 84 total dwelling units and fire would be determined at time of SDP based on the square footage per building (values based on 2012 Collier County Impact Fee Schedule). Schools The proposed project lies within the following School Attendance Zones: Lely Elementary Manatee Middle Lely High r Page 4 of 4 la cca 1.02/cl/9 MO flc.1.1 PanW\axcaq\Zane vu59x-Panel\aoxna-muV aanAsnu\w.m \\ ` I `o £U y 82. •rs E,213 F f. 1117IMIN L4 w 41AX t a N N - W W F . .T \. m�-,4 ~U a [ti =li X W U a A m 3 G a rL 1 n a E $ El 1U c'lit'l g DI dir ,,, eJ Lb A BLVD ..� °'�ir E .,T s m / i.,-! `4" 2 sill - ,II F _ 5 5. < Ir I■■ a a, tur, ' m a U Y ag _ _ I Z 5 IV jr. *0 - en wW j' .. Pao Ul CL AIL C-D fa 5 o! ' 1 4111 Q ®U f m 471 °®2 i - a ,O Rig . . o T • F 1° 1 I o - Ltii . .imi , .... � � sue Iii .'•- •". E B'. i� 111 Irl/11 I. p I -1m C_ cEiLli )1°1 E E o .4W s" m - o s 1 "I N Z p w O Z = I= N Q H W C7 Z 2 W H Z O , =O U Z rn a g el pK W w I =0 J Z N a �N J 4 m w, pp /1, Z O _, O I– N p Z O W U_O N Q z� Cw7 Li m I- W S MO L¢i IC pOJ QN J 'r1 J N f F- Z W ~ Zj 0U2 fz� Q — O O Z 0Z Q W ix VI W ( C> N N U W O w w� w V) No N o N 06 I F Cr OF z� 3 I� ; ° fiWW > Wm WWm� N1- ° (Z l O < < c 0 =D m < DO X< O ag • _ o V) a ,g, I� W 0 V)V) - 3 0-2 W 3 V) 3 Cl- J • °`%I W * D O I d 0 # i EXHIBIT V.E. Page 5 of 5 DOPY EXHIBIT V. E . lc TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING SERVICES TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT For Hibiscus RPUD (Rattlesnake Hammock Road, Collier County, Florida) May 20, 2014 Prepared by: JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. 761 21ST STREET NW NAPLES, FLORIDA 341 20 (239) 919-2767 CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION No. 27830 (PROJECT No. 14021 2) I' s• 20 -20,4 JAME= ANKS, P.E. DATE FLORI• • 'EG. No. 43860 TABLE OF CONTENTS Conclusions 2 Methodology 2 Scope of Project 2 Table A- Proposed Land Use 2 Hibiscus RPUD Master Concept Plan 2.1 Project Generated Traffic 3 Table B New Site-Generated Trips 3 Table 1 -Trip Generation Computations 3.1 Existing+ Committed Road Network 4 Project Traffic Distribution 4 Area of Significant Impact 4 Table 2A-Area of Impact/Road Classification 4.1 2013 thru 2018 Project Build-out Traffic Conditions 5 Table 2B-2013& 2018 Link Volumes 5.1 Table 2C-2018 Link Volumes/Capacity Analysis 5.2 Appendix 6 1 Conclusions Based upon the findings of this report, it was determined that the proposed Hibiscus RPUD will not significantly impact the surrounding road network. It was verified that the project's net new trips generated will be less than 2%of the adjacent roadway's LOS E capacity. Therefore,the development of the proposed 84 multi-family dwelling units will not have a significant impact on the adjacent roads as defined by Collier County Government. Regardless of the Hibiscus RPUD,the 2018 traffic demands are expected to slightly exceed LOS E capacity for Rattlesnake Hammock Road. The project's twelve(12)peak hour peak direction trips that will be added to the traffic stream will not have a notable affect on Rattlesnake Hammock Road's operation. It is for this reason that the payment of road impact fees is deemed sufficient mitigation for any off-site impacts. Methodology Because the proposed use was determined to be a low traffic generator and its offsite impacts will be insignificant, Collier County staff determined that a methodology meeting was not necessary and also waived the methodology meeting fee. However,"MB did meet with Mr. Reed Jarvi and Mr. John Podczerwinsky in order to discuss the specific capacity issues of Rattlesnake Hammock Road. While no conclusive decisions were made during the meeting, it was suggested that the project would be issued development permits once reasonable off-site transportation mitigation was established,or if it was determined that no mitigation was necessary. Scope of Project Hibiscus RPUD is a proposed residential development that will consist of 84 multi-family units at completion. The site is contiguous to the south of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and to the east of Tamiami Trail. Access to the site will be provide by an existing right- in/out left-in median opening on Rattlesnake Hammock road. For additional site details, refer to the master concept plan prepared by Grady Minor. Table A Proposed Land Use Proposed Land Use Number of Units Multi-Family — 84 Dwelling Units 2 w F .. 2 €� . 1 O 01 i LU ' ' ' 0 w W c 5I i b� n 0 F 9 t —� ~ W a. 4 g a Q ° 0 z - 0 t 0 Z 0 LL 0 O 0 U 0 O0 4 W I--W a_ 04 J V� �a L,_,L5- LLz Al U) W= m,. 2m MW I w CO D� CO 6 wccl_ �W i Cl) zuj �W C�4 W / I O= W Z DU �'I 00 l---t 0-1 0 di ' cr W 440 0 NU) m O Y Z 5 O I ' w 0 2 0 x V O 1 ==1 NM ' Ot_Una Q � 22 W Jr-- -- — — — -- —I I 00 N 0 CL Q - 2 a w� wO 'JO 11 `7w � o v pi 1N3�Y3Sb3' D 2.2 a a , ` . , w Q I 'z 30VN1721a c) w U)4 Nce { o1D - zU 6a > g • W ' 'Wm ( gZ c cn I ai I 3_ d 4 0 g 0 I 1 tX - v) F" F- 4 v) •' W @ Z E E... 5� , 4 I i 0, _5g Z 1 Q '� m�CI) `� li Z i t l ' 0 cn LL �i ; Z WOJ ®•?5s Z 1 � ' ot_VOOU 5 3 e `!8 C it ' r ' � 1 "_` oW !' I it 6 js z w I a' , Il< 1N3WJSb�3 t— p o! w 30VNiVrJ 0 151 W ,00 1. z � `�� W w LL Z Cr W g Ia as � ' Iro 4 3 i • i_ f_.,. Lr W 0 I '; ' � ii)z ' zce i F b 1 DORAL CIRCLE: o0' -J to w , of 0 0(7 W W zIx O w•N y 2. I Project Generated Traffic Traffic that can be expected to be generated by Hibiscus RPUD was estimated based upon the guidelines established by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. That is, historical traffic data collected at similar land uses was relied upon in estimating the project's traffic. It was concluded that land use code "Condominium/Townhouse" (LUC 230)was most appropriate in estimating the new trips. As determined, the total development traffic will be 45 vph& 52 vph trips during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Table 1 depicts the computations performed in determining the new trips. Table B provides a summary of the trip generation computation results that are shown in Table 1. • Table B New Site-Generated Trips (Summation of Table I) Daily Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trips Generated Trips Generated Trips Generated (ADT) (vph) (vph) 553 45 52 3 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION COMPUTATIONS HIBISCUS RPUD Land Use Code Land Use Description Build Schedule 230 Residential Condo/Townhouse 84 Units Land Use Trip Generation Equation Code Trip Period (Based upon S.F.) Total Trips Trips Enter/Exit LUC 230 Daily Traffic(ADT)= Ln(T)=0.87Ln(X)+2.46= 553 ADT AM Peak Hour(vph)= Ln(T)=0.80Ln(X)+0.26= 45 vph 8 / 37 vph 17%Enter/83%Exit= PM Peak Hour(vph)= Ln(T)=0.82Ln(X)+0.32= 52 vph 35 / 17 vph 67%Enter/33%Exit= 3. 1 Existing+Committed Road Network Table 2A provides a detail of the surrounding E+C road network. Table 2A depicts the minimum level of service performance standards and capacity for the roads within the project's are of influence. Rattlesnake Hammock Road is classified as a four-lane divided arterial. The road functions as a primary east/west corridor that extends between Collier Boulevard and Tamiami Trail. Within proximity of the site,the posted speed limit of Rattlesnake Hammock Road is 45 MPH. Project Traffic Distribution The project's traffic was distributed to the surrounding roadway network based upon logical means of ingress/egress; current and future traffic patterns in the area; location of surrounding businesses and commercial centers. Table 2A provides a detail of the traffic distributions based on a percentage basis and by volume. Area of Significant Impact The area of significant impact was determined based upon Collier County's 2%,2%and 3%criteria(i.e., if the project's traffic is 2%or more of a roadway's adopted level of service capacity,then the project has a significant impact upon that link). Table 2A describes the project traffic distributions and the level of impact on the surrounding roadways. Roads and intersections that were identified as being within the projects area impact are shown in Table 2A. 4 as R 0 0 0 0 0 Z R‘7,`" Z E I Z Z Z Z Z rn _ N O O O O O N (fl (.O 'z! d �- d o d o U �p O o O O N N N N C() L; Y o of a. Z U �• p a> S: Y z 'o .v: a. a , (O (0 V N aa. 0 Z (.. Z `i' Y W W W W W a. n- a. f— u U al a: Q CO O Q a Y N 2 LL c U 0 ai, 0 0 CI. F- o CV C)i C 11J Q d ci E v0000000000 .. F U 0 W 0. 0. a n Ci Cr'(0 CCDOCI C X W M r E CC CO u m rn 0. $2 O c • o g c o m • o E o E- 0E G! Y m 0 N C E 0) co 0 C • a 1- to U 0 (n C a z° U U A R ar 0 a a` 4' 1 2013 thru 2018 Project Build-out Traffic Conditions In order to establish 2013 thru 2018 project build-out traffic conditions,two forecasting methods were used. The first traffic forecasting method was the County's traffic count data was adjusted for peak season conditions, peak hour conditions,peak direction,and an annual growth rate was then applied. The peak season/peak hour/peak direction factor as shown on Table 2B was derived from the 2013 Collier County AUIR Reports. The annual growth rate was extracted from the growth trend determined via the 2007 thru 2013 AUIR Reports. Using the annual growth rate,the 2018 background traffic conditions were determined,which are depicted in Table 2B. The second traffic forecasting method was to add the vested trips(trip bank)identified in the 2013 AUIR report to the adjusted peak season,peak hour and peak direction traffic counts. The 2018 vested trips "+"background traffic volumes are depicted in Table 2B. The greater of the two values produced by the two forecasting procedures was then considered to reflect the 2018 background traffic. The net new project generated traffic was then added to the background traffic. Table 2C provides a summary of the 2013 thru 2018 traffic conditions and the roadways' level of service and remaining available capacity. As determined,Hibiscus RPUD's net new trips generated will be less than 2%of Rattlesnake Hammock Road's LOS E capacity. Therefore,the development of the proposed 84 multi-family dwelling units will not have a significant impact on the adjacent roads as defined by Collier County Government. Regardless of the Hibiscus RPUD,the 2018 traffic demands are expected to slightly exceed LOS E capacity for Rattlesnake Hammock Road. The project's twelve(12)peak hour peak direction trips that will be added to the traffic stream will not have a notable affect on Rattlesnake Hammock Road's operation. It is for this reason that the payment of road impact fees is deemed sufficient mitigation for any off-site impacts 5 0 •O 0 C 'Fp = 6j O dj O O •N CI D Y l : o co ro > m 3- a 4 Q C O O M H n L O CO CO > 0 O 0 C 0 re cc g co 0 hi R 0 Y > W co a m N d w Q. _ d 0 0 0 o ,) o o 0 N N 0 i -5 U -5 � o o r Z U 0 v v ui Q i N. n O Q0_ CE co ® N Q L S (D "t N > a M Q E N N N c ~ ' co C N O (l) c U E ~ r g E U E o ai E m `m m = s 1- (D U es CC 3• 4••• d N A � C > > O • o E; O1 LL LL U N ' O -i m d a i C tj 0 .9 o co = U P v c c ® � Z o o v N .? W •` • 4 CO d Y > 0. o = 0 O O O a Y C co co co N a ; W Q• = N to O Y L co co N •• 6, 0 > CO Q, V/ Y Cl) 0. o �,� 'S >" Z J = _ Z 2 Y a > �� o . � 0- o cn 0 z >" V 0.a w o) a a = o M Q • ac Y N V a CL a > C 7 C c 0 7 N tl - 6 Ol LL LL Co N d . J W O a aa. m z N m a o� C o• , c i > d Y R a m y, ,�++ NQ�y O W W CO {i CO C 0 O M g O O N ° Y t `° (.0 N CO > a 0 m C c d o U) cc O o E TT1 o at .0 tC6 E U E o E Co m fa CO �o 2 Co C C H 0) 5. cc APPENDIX Support Documents 6 , . I J i :V ii <-' '. sa ijr II I id i Aiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillailliiiiiii041111Piniiiiiii li 113'-: IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN I 5:3 ISSOOMENCEMMEZENCEMINIMMEIROMMINEMONI I IlinN . - , 1 I NNE 1 1111111011111111 ' = ':L' i - - - 1- ' - " j - 11111111111111 111111111 -- 111 I:Ai liiiiiiiiiiilit 11 I__ __ _ : 1;;;;;;"-:°;;;;m3;;; ;I:::;;:!.nli-Eil;::::::L;'?==.”,”2,”.°-v-v°;: DOPY EXHIBIT V. G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I hereby authorize Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and Coleman,Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. (Name of Agent(s)) to serve as my Agents in a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property identifi-d in this Application. Signed: A 11 V"• ► Date: 512-7 / 1g Name: V CAA)I ICJ NAM as Platlajt d"of Nassif Golf Ventures, LLC I hereby certify that I have the authority to make the foregoing application, and that the application is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge. AT�A�' /Y"...6" Sign ure f pplicant DC(.fd ,)Ass-IF , as fan. Mtr"') . of Nassif Golf Ventures, LLC. Name-Typed or Printed STATE OF ( ) COUNTY OF ( ) y Sworn to d subscribed before me this 8/Ill of , 2014 by MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: otary Public — :•' : ; JACKIE FUCCI MY COMMISSION#FF 107362 14 ,- EXPIRES:March7de CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: 2;,' ThNNO� "?Uide1M " who is personally known to me, who has produced as identification and did take an Oath did not take and Oath NOTICE-BE AWARE THAT: Florida Statute Section 837.06 - False Official Law states that: "Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided by a fine to a maximum of %500.00 and/or maximum of a sixty day jail term." ti L 46 3419347 OR: 3585 PG: 1982 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 06/11/2004 at 02:35PK DWIGBT B. BROCI, CLERK CONS 3800000,00 This instrument prepared by: RBC FEB 44.00 . Marjie C.Nealon,Esq. DOC-.70 26600.00 Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price&Axelrod LLP Retn: 200 South Biscayne Boulevard KLEIN SUKBBRG BT AL Suite 2500 200 S BISCAYNE BLVD #2500 Miami,FL 33131 KIAKI FL 33131 5340 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED THIS INDENTURE,made as of the tbs"'- day of June,2004 between WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO WELLS FARGO BANK MINNESOTA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE UNDER THAT CERTAIN POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT, DATED AS OF NOVEMBER 11, 1998, BY AM) AMONG CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP. ("DEPOSITOR")AND NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AMONG OTHERS (FOR DEPOSITOR'S COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE PASS- 1' : CERTIFICATES, SERIES 1998-FL2) ("Grantor"), whose address is do - itg~ 601 Washington Avenue, Suite 700, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, ', NASS . 1. i VENTURES, L.L.C., a Florida limited liability company("G tie' , whose address is 9 d's: feria Court, Suite 316,Naples, Florida 34109 and whose taxp-yer d- ttfica • • . .-r is Grantor, for : ,• - ysr• 3.,,. '• rt the :. • n and No/100 U.S. Dollars ($10.00), lawful money of - 'ted States of • 'ca, to •. hand paid by Grantee, at or before the unsealing and deliv.Ws these presents, I w =ip y hich is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold, : e1 1 • remised, released, - . S ed and confirmed and by these presents does grant,bargain,sell, = t :• ise,releas- • and confirm unto Grantee and its successors and assigns forever, the cue r -, lying and being in the County of Collier, State of Florida, and more p. . : • =scribed on the attached Exhibit A (the "Property") Subject however,to the following: (a) Real property taxes and assessments for the year 2004 and thereafter; (b) Zoning and other regulatory laws and ordinances affecting the Property; (c) Matters which would be disclosed by an accurate survey; (d) Any plat affecting the Property;and (e) Easements, rights of way, limitations, conditions, covenants, restrictions, and other matters of record. \72496118817\#679476 v 1 6/2/04 1:43 PM 011: 3585 PG: 1983 TOGETHER With all and singular the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in any way appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same in fee simple forever. AND Grantor hereby specially warrants the title to the Property and will defend the same against the lawful claims of any persons claiming by,through or under Grantor,but against none other. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has caused these presents to be executed the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the in the presence of: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO WELLS FARGO BANK • ' L TA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ! it I OWN AS NORWEST BANK Q MINNE A;' ATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUST.. I ER THAT CERTAIN ' AN S RVICING AGREEMENT, ' ED A. OF I MBER 11, 1998,BY AND UISSE FIRST BOSTON It)° ' ' r S CUR-TILES CORP. SIT+ '..) D NORWEST BANK MINNE',s T• it IONAL ASSOCIATION, '1;6, AMON --^ s 1 . (FOR DEPOSITOR'S COMMER MORTGAGE PASS- 04, THROU 'TIFICATES, SERIES 1998- T • Ay C By: Lennar Partners, Inc., a Florida corporation, its attorney-in-fact Signa :� _ .� 4• rte- By: (SEAL) Print N: ' � _-f--=�- �=�----a►� � Name: Steven D. Ferreira Title:Vice President Signa Print N e: o,, `1) 172496\188171#679476 v 1 6/2/04 1:43 PM -2- ., OR; 3585 PG; 1984 STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 1 day of June, 2004 by Steven D.Ferreira as Vice President of Lennar Partners, Inc.,a Florida corporation,as attorney- in-fact for WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO WELLS FARGO BANK MINNESOTA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE UNDER THAT CERTAIN POOLING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT, DATED AS OF NOVEMBER 11, 1998, BY AND AMONG CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP. ("DEPOSITOR") AND NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AMONG OTHERS (FOR DEPOSITOR'S COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE PASS- THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 1998-H2),on behalf of the trust. He impersonally known to me or 0 has produced a driver's license as identification. Notary Public" ( k1 11, My Commission Expires: j 'r'v' • �y CARLLEi .tory PuOLJ.ABEbic-State of FRA bldo ► l Coma sbn Expiressep la 2006 Commission/DD150949 o n„,• Bonded By National Notary Assn. 41E1 C C Tax Folio Numbers: 55150040004; 55150120005; 5414848904; and 5515028000 55tjo4%o004 L 172496\188171#679476 v 1 6/2/04 1:43 PM -3- . ' OR: 3585 PG: 1985 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION A parcel of land lying in Sections 19 and 20,Township 50 South, Range 26 East,Collier County, Florida,and more particularly described as follows: All of Tract "A" and Tract "AN' as shown on LELY GOLF ESTATES Tract Map, as recorded in Plat Book 8,page 20 of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida; and An area of land located at the Northwest tip of Tract "E" as shown as a lake exception on PINEHURST ESTATES Plat as recorded in Plat Book 12, Page 1 of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida,hereinafter designated as Tract"AB"; LESS AND EXCEPTING from the above •=-• '•.: .•d the following described parcels: �1�R COO Less: An area of land previously •...v.,•• ed as The - -.s 'x: ility of Lely Estates lying to the North of the FOREST HILLS . •N of the Lely Gol 17sta -s as recorded in Plat Book 10, Page 84 of the public record of r o er o. • • • ,•a, he -in. 'er designated as Tract "AC" and more particularly,descried . fo ow From a Point of Beginning t the .rth V:10 4, of said FOREST HILLS g g eo l ' SECTION as described a.. a :4t1 h' •jP :ltck 2• -s ' for 29.07 feet; thence run North 43 degrees 33'59" W. •r 128.61 feet; the {•- • N• .• 62 degrees 59'42" West for 51.57 feet;thence run North , ai-_•ees 08'16" West r .5 .1- , thence run North 43 degrees 33'59" West for 237.39 feet;the, • North 32 degrees r• " ■ est for 205.38 feet;thence run North 77 degrees 23'56" East for +Of - -t•thence • 1'T • 0 degrees 44'51"East for 351.14 feet; thence run South 62 degrees s'jt�f�8 . feet; thence run South 45 degrees 1 P28" West for 300.00 feet to the Point o :- and Less: An area of land located at the Northwest corner of Tract "K" as recorded in LELY GOLF ESTATES, Plat Book 8, page 20 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and hereinafter designated as Parcel II,and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Tract "K" as described above, run North 39 degrees 06'20" West along the Northeasterly right of way line of U.S. 41 and the Southwesterly line of Tract A for 266.50 feet; thence run North 50 degrees 53'40" East for 35.00 feet; thence South 78 degrees 00'02" East for 342.41 feet;thence run South 50 degrees 53'40" West for 250.00 feet to the Point of Beginning; and • *** OR: 3585 PG: 1986 *** 1 Less: An area of land located at the Northwest corner of Tract "K" as previously described above,hereinafter designated as Parcel III and more particularly described as follows: Starting at the Northwest corner of Tract"K", as described,run North 50 degrees 53'40"East for 150.00 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence run North 50 degrees 53'40" East along same line for 100.00 feet; thence run South 57 degrees 42'10" East for 362.41 feet; thence run North 71 degrees 13'07" West for 405.53 feet to the Point of Beginning; and Less: An area of land located on Forest Hills Boulevard, and hereinafter described as Parcel IV and more particularly described as follows: Begin at the Northernmost corner of Lot 18, Block 19 of LELY GOLF ESTATES, ST. ANDREWS EAST ADDITION, as recorded in Plat Book 10, page 98, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and run South 33 degrees 27'04" West for 143.73 feet; thence North 11 degreesl4'57" West for 57.93 feet; thence ► -.- ` •e a ees 47'38" West for 73.75 feet; thence North 30 degrees 04'33" East for 58. "-ns�e` � . degrees 32'56" East for 103.28 feet to the Point of Beginning; ��- � and Less: That certain three foot stri U . e• : 14 F� o `: ' : le to the rear(South)property line of Lot 37, Block 12,P. -h sta -s 'co Q ' I_ • i- + at e -of in Plat Book 12,Page 1, of the Public Records of Col it �, •*', O TTE C RCS 2 COPY PRE APPLICATION MEETING NOTES Pre-app for GMPA, Monday 2/18/14 @ 1:30 pm Topic: GMP amendment to Urban Residential Subdistrict for subject site to allow 84 DUs Attendees: see companion Zoning pre-app notes (included David Weeks, Michele Mosca, Rich Yovanovich, Wayne Arnold) Proposal: Site is located at SE & SW corners of Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR 864) & Hibiscus Drive, and Hibiscus Drive itself, also SE corner of CR 864 and Doral Circle, in 19-50-26; contains+7.25 acres. Zoning: CF, Community Facility, and GC, Golf Course. Propose 84 MFDUs for density of 11.59 DU/A. Will use existing access. Expect to submit a companion PUD. Staff Comments: (1) East-developed RMF-16; West- across Doral Circle, developed RSF-3, then canal, then developed RMF-16; North—across CR 864, developed MH and C-3; South— developed clubhouse and golf course GC (same owner as subject site). (2) Site is designated Urban Residential Subdistrict, and portion is within Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). Eligible density is difficult to determine given portion of site is within/portion outside of CHHA. Does the CHHA density reduction apply to all of site or only a portion? Most density bonuses are not applicable to CHHA; are they applicable or not for this site? (3)What is rationale for proposed change? Need data and analysis to support the density increase—is there a need for higher density at this location/is there an unmet need? Potentially, compatibility could be part of justification (given the adjacent and nearby development and frontage along a 4-lane divided road). Potentially, financial feasibility- provide financial feasibility analysis. (4) No apparent environmental issues. (PAO GIS 1975 aerial shows site cleared and portion containing parking lot and building; personal knowledge: parking lot and golf cart storage/ maintenance building existed as early as late 1980s.) FLUCCS map not needed —submit aerial documentation to show the site was previously cleared. (5) Address compatibility (FLUE policy 5.4). Perhaps, provide transition of building height from east to west, locate recreational uses and/or parking area on west side closest to Doral Circle and RSF-3 development. (6) Need public facilities impact analysis, including school impact analysis. (7) Would qualify as a Small Scale GMPA. (8)An option to avoid necessity of GMPA—include some or all of the clubhouse and golf course lands in the rezone petition; since requesting a fixed#of DUs, the larger the land area, the lower the density. $250.00 pre-app fee paid not paid. Update: fee paid on March 18, 2014. Prepared/compiled by David Weeks,AICP, GMP Manager pre-app notes 2-18-14 G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\COMP PLANNING GMP DATA\Comp Plan Amendments\2014 Cycles&Small Scale Petitions\pre-app meetings in 2014\Lely Hibiscus on CR864 dw/3-18-14 AGENDA ITEM 9-C Co er County STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION, PLANNING AND REGULATION HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2015 SUBJECT: PETITION PUDZ-PL20140000179, HIBISCUS RPUD (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT). (COMPANION ITEM TO HIBISCUS RESIDENTIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT, PL20140000193/CPSS-2014-1) APPLICANT/OWNER: Nassif Golf Ventures, LLC 225Banyan Boulevard, Suite 240 Naples, FL 34102 AGENTS: Mr. D. Wayne Arnold Mr. Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Q. Grady Minor&Associates Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Community Facility zoning district and Golf Course zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project known as the Hibiscus RPUD to allow construction of up to 84 residential dwelling units on the subject property. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The 7.9+ acre subject property is located on the south side of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road at the intersection of Hibiscus Drive in Section 19, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the Location Map on the following page.) HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 1 of 21 Pi 1,74■Int Ify1111 TA M Q:s o e v e� 4 eee ili far �Oa °1‘© � �o � ea ?0e001 4 i;iii _ ie. NI', 5,.."44,..lik i 00400 a. cc hi fil gl lb G A T 1 L.4 1,1 00*** 2 Mooaaota©io©iiiii oaiiintao Et ;I *0 °�eeee�oeeeeeee�� a © `° Plil ©� �a: i �a�o c� DI - . ..sce rn- k� Ex, um LL 1 ''''7,:"'l - e L moor Mil= c) 5 �O f� ��ANWP Oen 1113 0e• I �: i ©d a o�ooaoa�oao© ocoocgv• ono ©v ili0000Bpp ##�#4 Z Isa aarn3aroa mew a „000©. © P `�i,�1111'!I� �'0 0 4� eO i lc : p "��° ye'a l m1 e©�� itiov � � �h#4.':'eed�,00 a f',) r LL rt b tr � � — lid J a N 71x3$0110N a 4t 11 1111' PP il 11 gi o 3Mr1�reri m f ry ^' a aourlary • �E 1./E owreroe J V ZI Fir g $ „ohm corm,runs , W O G. i / r n _ .! ¢8g r. ? Eli 6<k15 � r4 iN_ a° I, gig$ _ 1 ik k r s 6 w P. n 416 gi g �, dg $ a i �" • Nave n1Nro3 I I'gi 4111 g --� sr.NU,iaa i .a � J earn.EU! .. i iggi V W 00 o m 0, A 5 I aa$ ^r''' a � . I ry ri,.IA i in N ALI . 11,1 _1 as nNmna Canaan� 11 ilev':a 11111111P RIO r y' ti I 1 _ - 3..;...' .. ' I rv' ■ ry c c s �r 1'11A:we 14, r 3a[El lat.L. Ilhl[....;LII4Pairliga.:ran 111.1. '4 --. 1170 ,,.. 1 Ji " xv w....x x n,.0tw011..•-a a fla.MtaaoVw mom-xamMor000d-l \llw.nuA.Alcor.aoo\\ E - o`- z Ili G lli 3 ' o z U > o• Q ¢ O o: m 0 cc H • o U Li o d U U 0� 2 I w 2`r¢ A 5 01 °a Q� LLz N b m� nay ON / ZU▪ 0) a,, Ww 0 aF 0U y v a Z� / O W Z Z Z Z" i ,001-1 0 2 w a¢ N 02 17),_g O= , I OJU j�_LLI QO / o U'2 D U W�� ZW xQ xxxxxx� , xx W2 I I =WO 1 0 0 Q Q W re.Z I 2 0_- Q> S^ 41 9 Z I - {jj W W O Or c)v 1 iQj� ce 1N3113S z M Q a . `d i o d ° 30VNIVaO . v w .. Z¢ 11 C0¢ 1 > z f Q u. w m tow< 5. 1 N Im wQ Z O a.a W 0 5W ��U0.O a 0 d C) r E .o — J a• — a I 4 i O U X06►$ ,�-�" w Z G ¢ O •a �' ' CO s r / 2(0 4 d re--61 fl O € O w ) I��(w r 0 ,. . ^ 5hB �G 11.1 ii I w°d y Z 2a a ti I 3a �a t t $ i m 6 a 9 3 w I 0 gai4k Z LL v w $ill ¢ N L n c4 30Vd 0L6 I m CD z o N008 'dO - co VgRi 1u4 5 1N3113SV3 1 ("fa 3OVNIVdO ! r g { t M aw So w .001 f Z i; m F-m O_LC Z I 1- Z W WJ n�."'`L`Ca tA.I o 'WI o¢ � ` ft 0 C. it 3N `0n L .� .! w 0 Lii 0 et In 0 • I ! I I N= /- o - L — ' I C I �DORAL CIRCLE -031 ! t Q Z cc Q 5 Z 1 0 0•j N N 0 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject 7.9± acre site consists of a property located on the south side of Rattlesnake Hammock Road that is bisected by Hibiscus Drive, a public right-of—way. On the west side of Hibiscus Drive the subject property is zoned Community Facility (CF) and on the east side the subject property is zoned Golf Course (GC). The CF portion of the property was previously rezoned from GC to CF and approved for a Church by Ordinance number 04-02. (See Attachment B.) This petition seeks to rezone 7.9± acres of vacant, undeveloped land from CF and GC to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). A companion small scale Growth Management Plan Amendment has also been filed which proposes to establish the Hibiscus Infill Residential Sub-district to authorize a maximum of 84 dwelling units within the sub-district. The PUD proposes the development of no more than 84 multi-family, single-family detached, townhouse and single-family zero lot line residential dwelling units with a density of 10.63 dwelling units per acre. The companion small scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) will allow 10.63 dwelling units per acre or 84 dwelling units. The buildings will have a zoned height of 30-45 feet and an actual height of 35-50 feet. According to information provided by the petitioner, ingress/egress will be provided primarily from Hibiscus Drive and secondarily from Doral Circle. - The Master Plan provided on the previous page of this Staff Report depicts the area of proposed residential development. As previously stated, the subject site is bisected by Hibiscus Drive and is bound by Rattlesnake Hammock Drive to the north, a residential multi-family development to the east,a 100-foot wide canal easement to the south, and Doral Circle to the west. Landscape buffering requirements are met by a 15-foot wide Type D right-of-way Landscape Buffer adjacent to Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Doral Circle and a 10-foot wide Type D Landscape Buffer along Hibiscus Drive. Along the drainage easement/canal, a 15-foot wide Type B Landscape Buffer has been provided for a short distance where the subject property directly abuts the existing RSF-3 residences. Where the proposed development abuts the existing golf course, no landscape buffer has been provided, as the Landscape Code does not require a buffer along a golf course. Along the canal a deviation is requested from the landscape buffer that mitigates the impact of the proposed residences from the existing residences and golf maintenance facility across the canal. The minimum landscape code requires a 15-foot wide Type B Landscape Buffer with trees 25 feet on center; the deviation request is to allow for no landscaping. (For more information, please refer to the Deviations section of this Staff Report.) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Rattlesnake Hammock Road, a 4-lane divided minor arterial road; then Riviera Colony Mobile Home Park with a zoning designation of MH (Mobile Home); and a strip shopping center with a zoning designation of C-3 (Commercial Intermediate) East: Country Club Manor Condominiums, multi-family residences with a zoning designation of RMF-16, at 16 dwelling units per acre HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 4 of 21 South: single-family residences with a zoning designation of RSF-3; then a golf course; then a golf maintenance facility; and then a golf clubhouse parking lot with a zoning designation of GC (Golf Course) West: Doral Circle, a entrance roadway that has MSTU landscape improvements; and then Doral single-family residences with a zoning designation of RSF-3 (Residential Single-family), at 3 dwelling units per acre I . .;? ' olio. id*1;1% Ill ii A r !'IrA4:IMMV69., f;i ; t +l ► r ' kOill§Fit Z l . 6 , � ' C Subject Site ' �t .. 4 �° h/:• : iv=iAiyJ_ % A.. I. 1 ' ' • IV ' ° ' 4 4` 1W1PrarlailW I '' ' i R41 ; I eefteglit ,.-T- n ' „R rJgATIS^.VAac,I, u,x<v..,,.—......ti ...4,„,./...4.,! N . , ,*COI •=e' , -— - , Or --r—r----`" ,, At, 404‘ A Apo 141 S I V ON:7"1 i 01 %111 X 'It'*Vallmi ,. ' 'A" f • " ..".':.w , `1 --+ram-an. -„w _ .s. rkf' . , ,,,,,,, A 41,, ..1 3 fr ° r f . .. ,,; . , Jr- ..0. . '' err ' °�' ., . - . .t, '"14 .M.I A':d t� '. WMWC.tI 7 Akin * - b fv- • •P 0 ' tv 4 , ., . v�f l ' 4 AN AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The subject±7.90 acre site is designated Urban(Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), and a portion of the site (+3.58 acres) is located within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). Relevant to the subject petition, the Urban designation allows residential and associated accessory uses at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre (DU/A). HIBISCUS RPUD, PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 5 of 21 Review of the Density Rating System deems this project eligible for a base density of 4 DU/A, and a density reduction of 1 DU/A for that portion of the site located within the Coastal High Hazard Area. Base Density 4 =31.60 units Density Reduction for acreage(3.58 ac.)within the CHHA -1 = 3.58 units Total Eligible Units=28.02=28 Because the proposed density request of 10.63 DU/A or 84 dwelling units does not comply with the density provisions of the FLUE, the property owner submitted a Growth Management Plan amendment (GMPA) application (Petition PL20140000193/CPSS-2014-1, Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict) that, if approved,will allow the proposed density on the site. The Coastal High Hazard Area is identified on the Future Land Use Map. This line is based on the storm Category 1 SLOSH area (potential for salt water flooding from 1 storm in 12 years) and evacuation planning areas. Within the Coastal High Hazard Area maximum permissible residential density is limited in recognition of the level of risk, the existing deficiency of evacuation shelter space and existing patterns of density. To address the increased residential density proposed by the subject application, the Bureau of Emergency Services has requested that the applicant prepare a hurricane awareness program and evacuation plan as well as contribute 55 cots for use at emergency shelters. Comprehensive Planning staff supports these requests and they are listed in PUD document Exhibit F, item 5.A and B. The requested rezoning for the proposed residential density may only be found consistent with the FLUE contingent upon the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20140000193/CPSS-2014-1, being approved by the Board of County Commissioners and subsequently becoming in effect. Changes to the GMP amendment as it proceeds through the hearing process may necessitate changes to the subject PUD petition. The Adoption hearings for the Growth Management Plan amendment to the FLUE and public hearings for the PUD rezone will be scheduled concurrently. Future Land Use Element(FLUE)Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. Please refer to the appropriate Staff Report sections for this information. 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. HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 6 of 21 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 violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [Exhibit C, RPUD Master Plan, depicts access onto Rattlesnake-Hammock Road — a collector roadway as identified 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. [No loop road is proposed due to the limited site acreage and project type. The subject project is bifurcated by Hibiscus Drive, which is likely to serve as the project's primary access onto Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Additional project access onto Rattlesnake Hammock Road is provided from the site through the adjacent local road, Doral Circle, on the western portion of the site. The project's internal road and westerly access onto the adjacent local road will permit vehicles to safely move throughout the site.] { Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or their 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. [Exhibit C, RPUD Master Plan, depicts an interconnection with the golf course acreage and clubhouse to the south (via the existing Hibiscus Drive); and a connection to the adjacent local road to the west. The northern property boundary is adjacent to a public roadway; and, the eastern property boundary abuts a multi-family residential development and a portion of that development's buffer (Country Club Manor). No interconnection to the easterly property is proposed and staff does not believe it is practicable to provide an interconnection.] 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 multi-family, single-family, townhouse, and single-family zero lot line; provides for open space and preservation area, consistent with the Land Development Code (LDC); allows a clubhouse, which is sometimes used for civic uses, e.g. polling place; and, sidewalks will be provided as required by the LDC since no deviation was sought.] Based on the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed PUDZ application for the residential density of 10.63 DU/A or 84 dwelling units not consistent with the Future Land Use Element. However, contingent upon Board approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20140000193/CPSS-2014-1, to establish the Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict,the petition could be found consistent with the FLUE. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the Hibiscus PUD rezone petition and companion Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict Growth Management Plan (GMP) HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 7 of 21 amendment petition for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element (TE) in the Growth Management Plan. That policy is listed below,followed by staff analysis. Policy 5.1: The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, - conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; A i b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume;and t. c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3%of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways. The subject rezone and FLUE amendment petitions do increase residential density and the proposed project does access a deficient roadway segment per the 2014 AUIR, Annual Update and Inventory Report on public facilities. Transportation Planning staff recognizes a current failure of E the existing roadway network (Link 72.0 Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, from Tamiami Trail to Charlemagne Blvd.,which exceeds capacity by 5 trips). This four-lane roadway is constrained by a lack of expandable right-of-way, and is not slated for any capital improvements as a result of the recognized failure, which was identified in the 2014 AUIR process. As a result of the capacity failure on Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, staff cannot find these petitions consistent with TE Policy 5.1,thus cannot recommend approval,unless acceptable mitigation measures are proposed. The applicant has proposed multiple mitigation measures (see PUD Exhibit F, List of Developer Commitments, Section 3.a.-d.),summarized below: • Contribution of $25,000 toward the construction of Collier Area Transit (CAT) facilities along Rattlesnake-Hammock Road. • Purchase 5 monthly CAT passes, covering the months of November through May, for 5 consecutive seasons after the date that the first Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a residential unit. HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, 1 February 9,2015 Page 8 of 21 1 I i i • Interconnection to the adjacent golf course and clubhouse/restaurant facilities — via the { existing Hibiscus Drive. i • Provision of on-site bicycle racks. 3 i Conclusion: 1 Staff endorses the petitioner's proposed mitigation measures. Concurrency Comments: Transportation Planning staff does not review projects for transportation concurrency at time of GMP amendment or rezone. However, since staff is aware of the current failure of the existing E roadway network adjacent to the subject site, staff offers some comments and a recommendation � not specific to these petitions. k it If the GMPA and PUD petitions are approved,then the project would be subject to concurrency at the time of Site Development Plan or Plat submittal. Per TE Policy 5.2, a project may be approved if the traffic impacts proposed at that time are "de minimis" (i.e. less than 1% of the directional roadway capacity) — which could potentially restrict development order approval to a density less than the maximum approved(less than the proposed 84 units). T i Additionally, an alternative that could potentially be beneficial to this project, based upon TE Policies 5.4 and 5.5, would be to incorporate the property into an approved Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) boundary. One current staff recommendation, outlined in the 2014 AUIR recommendations, is to promote inclusion of Link 72.0, and surrounding properties, in the nearby TCEA (the boundary presently ends at the Rattlesnake-Hammock Road/Tamiami Trail East intersection). [Note: The staff recommendation in the 2014 AUIR for a TCEA expansion was not based upon these two particular petitions, and the proposed expansion would include properties other than just the subject site.] In order for staff to pursue a GMP 1 amendment to expand the existing TCEA boundary, explicit BCC direction must be provided. Such a GMP amendment would need to include a transportation study to support the expansion, which would be included in the submittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO)and Florida Department of Transportation(FDOT)for their review and acceptance. 1 i Aside from this PUD rezone petition and companion GMP amendment petition, f Transportation Planning staff is requesting the BCC authorize and direct staff to: initiate the GMP amendment process to expand the TCEA, and to allow that amendment to be processed outside of the established three annual GMP amendment cycles. i Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element t (CCME). Based on the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed PUDZ application for the residential density of 10.63 DU/A or 84 dwelling units not consistent with the Future Land Use Element. However, contingent upon Board approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20140000193/CPSS-2014-1, to establish the Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict,the petition could be found consistent with the FLUE. HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 9 of 21 ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 10.02.13 B.S., 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 basis for their recommendation to the BCC,who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. Aerials available on the Internet from the Property Appraiser show that some form of golf course maintenance, storage or operation activities occurred in a portion of the proposed development area. An adequate assessment of the soils in this area that may include additional soil sampling for organochlorine pesticides and the 8 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act metals is warranted. Soil and/or ground water sampling in accordance with the requirements of LDC section 3.08.00 will occur at time of Site Development Plan (SDP) or Plat/construction plans (PPL) review. The requirement for sampling is included in the List of Developer Commitments in Exhibit F of the PUD document. The project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, since it does not . meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews identified in Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Transportation Review: Please refer to the Transportation Element review on the previous pages. Utility Review: The Utilities Department staff has reviewed the petition and the RPUD is located within the Collier County Water Sewer District. The District has adequate capacity to serve the 1, project at this time. Emergency Management Review: The Emergency Management staff has reviewed the petition and as previously stated has requested that the applicant prepare a hurricane awareness program and evacuation plan as well as contribute 55 cots for use at emergency shelters. These requests are listed in PUD document Exhibit F,item 5.A and B. Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) District Review: CCPS staff has reviewed the petition and has stated that there is sufficient capacity for the proposed development within the middle and high school concurrency service areas. There is not sufficient capacity within the elementary school concurrency service area. This finding is for planning and informational purposes only and does not constitute either a determination of capacity or concurrency for the proposed project. At the time of site development plan or plat, the development will be reviewed for concurrency. This is to ensure that there is capacity either within the concurrency service area that the development is located in or HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 10 of 21 within adjacent concurrency service areas such that the level of service standards are not exceeded. s. At this time,there is capacity in an adjacent concurrency service area at the elementary level. Zoning and Land Development Review: As depicted on the PUD Master Plan, aerial photograph, and the surrounding zoning discussion, the subject site will be separated from the existing single- family residences,a golf course, and golf maintenance facility to the south by an approximately 100- foot wide canal. To the north, the subject site is separated from a mobile home park and a strip shopping center by Rattlesnake Hammock Road, a 6-lane divided roadway. To the east of the subject site is a multi-family residential building. To the west of the site is Doral Circle, an entry road into a single-family development which has received landscape, bridge and decorative pavement beautification through a MSTU(Master Special Taxing Unit). As previously stated, 84 multi-family, single-family detached, townhouse and single-family zero lot line residential dwelling units along with accessory uses such as a clubhouse are proposed on the subject property. The PUD Development Standards (Exhibit B) proposes minimum external setbacks for principal structures from the PUD boundary of 20 feet, except for the Drainage Easement which is 0 feet. The minimum external setbacks for accessory structures from the PUD boundary is 15 feet. The proposed minimum principal structure front yard setbacks are 25 feet along Rattlesnake Hammock Road and 20 to 50 feet along Dora! Circle. The proposed minimum front yard setback internal to the PUD is 20 feet, with an allowance of 23 feet for driveway parking and 15 feet for porches, entry features and courtyards. The proposed minimum side yard setbacks are 0 to 10 feet, with a building separation distance of 0 to 10 feet. The proposed minimum rear yard setback is 10 to 15 feet. The proposed maximum zoned height is 30 to 45 feet and the actual height is 35 to 50 feet. The PUD Development Standards (Exhibit B) also propose a 15-foot front yard accessory setback that is less than the 20-foot principal setback to allow for carports and gazebos. Accessory uses such as community administrative facilities maintenance buildings and garages, carports and swimming pools propose a 15-foot front yard setback , a 0 to 10-foot side yard setback and a 5 to 10 foot rear yard setback. The proposed maximum zoned height is 20 feet and the actual height is 25 feet. In addition, there are specific accessory standards for community wide recreational facilities that are located on a parcel exceeding 30 feet from the PUD boundary. The front yard setback is 30 feet and the side and rear yard setbacks are 15 feet. The maximum building height is 25 feet. Since the site was previously occupied by a golf course use, the site may have been impacted by chemicals. Soil and/or ground water testing will be required at a subsequent development order, this r, requirement has been made a commitment in Exhibit F, Developer Commitments. The petitioner is seeking 4 Deviations related to landscape buffers, environmental data requirements signage and cluster residential design requirements. For further discussion of the Deviations, see the Deviation section of the Staff Report. HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 11 of 21 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." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the IS Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below: Rezone findings are designated as RZ and PUD findings are designated 1 as PUD. (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in non-bold font): 3 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and 3 future land use map and the elements of the GMP. The Comprehensive Planning Section has indicated that the proposed PUD rezone is not consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). However, if the companion GMP amendment, Petition PL20140000193/CPSS-2014-1, establishing the Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict is approved,then the petition could be found consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed in the y zoning review analysis, the neighborhood's existing land use pattern can be characterized as r. residential, mobile home, commercial and golf course lands. There is residential zoning to the east, south and west. The land uses proposed in this PUD petition should not create incompatibility issues. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The subject parcel is of sufficient size that it will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The district boundaries are logically drawn as discussed in Items 2 and 3 above. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The growth and development trends, changing market conditions, specifically the development of the site with residences, and the development of the surrounding area, support the proposed PUD. This site is located within an area of development with a mixture of residential and other uses. The proposed PUD rezoning is appropriate, as limited in the PUD document and the PUD Master Plan based on its compatibility with adjacent land uses. HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 12 021 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. „ Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change will have an impact on traffic conditions on Rattlesnake Hammock Road and will have an impact on the residents along the canal. However, if the Staff recommendation listed below is followed, combined with the applicant's mitigation measures contained in PUD Exhibit F, number 3, the influence on living conditions could be minimized: 1 1. A continuous 15-wide Type B Landscape Buffer shall be provided along the canal. 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. As previously stated, the proposed change will create additional traffic on a failing and constrained roadway segment. However,the petitioner has provided adequate commitments in PUD Exhibit F to mitigate for traffic congestion impacts. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed development will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore,the project is subject to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed change will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Staff is of the opinion this PUD amendment will not adversely impact property values. However, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The property surrounding the subject site is already developed. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the Land Development Code is that their sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. 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 contrasted with the public welfare. HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 13 of 21 The proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. However, the petitioner has provided adequate commitments in PUD Exhibit F to mitigate for traffic congestion impacts. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be developed within existing zoning. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The change suggested is slightly out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. However, as previously stated,the petitioner has provided adequate commitments in PUD Exhibit F to mitigate for traffic congestion impacts. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 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 site alteration and these residential sites will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during 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 GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance. The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and that staff has concluded that the developer has provided appropriate commitments so that the impacts of the Level of Service will be minimized. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health,safety and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 14 of 21 PUD FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the Planning Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria:" 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. The nearby area is developed or is approved for development of a similar nature. The petitioner will be required to comply with all county regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities. In addition, the commitments included in PUD Exhibit F adequately address the impacts from the proposed development. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, 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 gain platting and/or site development plan approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, 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 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 not be found consistent with the overall GMP. However,if the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20140000193/CPSS-2014-1, establishing the Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict is approved, then the petition could be found consistent with the 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. The proposed development landscape buffering is adequate along the north, east and west sides of the development. However, staff is of the opinion that the deviation to allow no landscape buffer along the south side of the proposed development is inadequate for the following reasons: HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 15 of 21 - The new homeowners have no control over what happens to the landscaping on an adjacent property (i.e. the landscaping along the golf maintenance facility and parking lot that directly abuts the south side of the canal). - The proposed multi-family development will produce lighting and glare along the canal that will adversely affect the existing single-family residents along the canal and within view of the proposed multi-family development. However, if a Type B Landscape Buffer is proposed where there is currently no buffer proposed,the lighting and glare along the canal could be minimized and compatibility maximized. 5. 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 proposed development must seek concurrency at the time of next Development Order (Site Development Plan and/or Plat)submittal. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. If "ability" implies supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal system, potable water supplies, characteristics of the property relative to hazards, and capacity of roads, then the subject property does have the ability to support expansion. 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 4 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 that the 3 of the 4 deviations proposed can be supported, 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 deviations are "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 below for a more extensive examination of the deviations. HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 16 of 21 Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking 4 deviations from general LDC requirements and has provided justification in support of the deviations. Staff has analyzed the deviation requests and provides the analysis and recommendations below: Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C, "Landscaping, Buffering, and Vegetation Retention," which requires a multi-family residential development to provide a 15-foot wide type `B' landscape buffer between the residential use and a golf course clubhouse tract to provide no landscape buffer on the southern project boundary adjacent to the clubhouse tract. Justification: Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states that the justification for this deviation is due to the presence of an existing landscape buffer located south of the subject site on the golf course clubhouse tract. The applicant owns the golf course and subject property. The clubhouse does have a buffer and the owner is of the opinion it is sufficient and a second buffer is unnecessary. Further,the applicant wishes to provide views of the canal and golf course to residents of the PUD. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review has evaluated this request and has found that the existing landscape buffer and golf course is located over 100 feet away on the south side of the canal on the opposite side of the proposed development. According to information provided at the NIM, the future owners of the proposed residential development units will be individual home owners (as opposed to the current golf course owner across the canal). Furthermore, the lack of provision of a landscape buffer along the south side of the canal where the proposed development is fails to meet the purpose and intent of the landscape code to: a. Promote the health, safety, and welfare of residents of Collier County by establishing minimum uniform standards for the installation and maintenance of landscaping; b. Improve the aesthetic appearance of residential developments through the requirement of minimum landscaping in ways that harmonize the natural and built environment; c. Promote planting of native plants and plant communities; d. Provide physical and psychological benefits to persons through landscaping by reducing noise and glare; e. Screen and buffer the harsher visual aspects of urban development; f. Improve environmental quality by reducing and reversing air,noise, and heat, and pollution through the preservation of canopy trees and the creation of shade and microclimate; g. Reduce heat gain in or on buildings or paved areas through the filtering capacity of trees and vegetation; and h. Reduce the potential incompatibility of adjacent land uses; i. Conserve and maintain open space; j. Protect established residential neighborhoods, and enhance community identity; k. Improve the aesthetic appearance of residential developments through the requirement of minimum landscaping in ways that harmonize the natural and built environment; HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 17 of 21 1. In order to minimize negative effects between adjacent land uses,this section promotes the use of landscape buffers and screens to eliminate or minimize potential nuisances such as unsightly buildings and structures,and off-street parking and loading areas. Staff recommends denial finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3.,the petitioner has not 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." Furthermore, as previously stated, the light and glare produced by a multi-family development will have an adverse impact on the existing single-family neighbors. Staff recommends that the LDC prescribed lake front Type B landscape buffer provisions be applied along the proposed development side of the canal. In addition, the provision of the landscape buffer will benefit the new home owners by providing shade and beauty along the canal. 1 Deviation # 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.08.A.4.d.ii, "Environmental Data Requirements," which requires properties that are occupied by a golf course to provide soil and/or groundwater sampling at the time of first Development Order to permit the soil and/or water quality test to be provided at the time of Site Development Plan or Plat review. >' • Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states that the justification for this deviation is that the subject property has had recent Phase One Environmental audits completed, which have indicated no need for further analysis on the site. The owner will complete the required soil and water testing in conjunction with Site Development Plan or Plat review. A condition to this effect has been included in Exhibit F of the PUD document. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval 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 5.06.04.G, Off-premises directional signs, which prohibits off-premises signs in residential districts, to permit two existing signs to remain in the current location at the project entrance on each side of Hibiscus Drive and to permit an increase in their square footage of approximately 42.5 square feet to 64 square feet for each sign to allow for inclusion of signage for the residential dwellings. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states that the justification for this deviation is that the exist- ing Hibiscus Country Club and restaurant sign needs to remain in the current location in order to provide patrons of the country club appropriate signage. The rezoning of a portion of the project from golf course to a residential PUD technically creates an off-site sign for the golf club/restaurant. HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 18 of 21 Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval 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 4.02.04.D, Standards for Cluster Residential Design, which requires the zero lot line portion of the dwelling unit to be void of doors or windows where such wall is contiguous to an adjoining lot line, to allow windows along portions of the principal building that is on the zero setback line. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states that the justification for this deviation is that all or portions of the principal building may be located at the zero setback with the PUD requiring a minimum 10-foot building separation. The developer desires to have flexibility to allow for window openings on the principal building on the zero setback line provided a 10-foot principal building separation is maintained. This type of development scenario is visually and functionally equivalent to a conventional single-family detached residence. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval 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." NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on September 24, 2014. For further information,please see Attachment C: "Neighborhood Information Meeting Notes." COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for Petition PUDZ-PL20140000179, revised on February 4,2015. RECOMMENDATION: 3. Planning and Zoning Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-PL20140000179 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the approval of the companion small scale GMPA, and the following condition: 1. A continuous 15-wide Type B Landscape Buffer shall be provided along the canal. HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 19 of 21 Attachments: Attachment A: Proposed PUD Ordinance Attachment B: Ordinance number 04-02 Attachment C: Transcript of the Neighborhood Information Meeting Attachment D: Hibiscus Density Map Attachment E: Letter of Objection 1 Pi y2 HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 20 of 21 PREPARED BY: �+ OWA' 21 20(5 NANCY G LA AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE GROWTH AG ENT DIVISION REVIEWED BY: _ . ... / /' Z7 /s- RAYMO► II V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER- DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION -)-'�`�' ' .-2 -; 1 MICHAEL BOSI, AICP,DIRECTOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION APPROVED_BY: r , - 5 f- /)",/74 , `� L NICK A, .i TRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION HIBISCUS RPUD, PUDZ-PL20140000179, January 27,2015 Page 21 of 21 li ORDINANCE NO 15- i - 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 COMMUNITY FACILITY ZONING DISTRICT AND GOLF COURSE ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE HIBISCUS RPUD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 84 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF HIBISCUS DRIVE IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 7.9± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PETITION PUDZ-PL20140000179] WHEREAS, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. representing Nassif Golf Ventures, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described property. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: Zoning Classification. The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 19, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from a Community Facility zoning district and Golf Course zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the Hibiscus RPUD to allow construction of up to 84 residential dwelling units in accordance with Exhibits "A" through "F" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 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. [14-CPS-01349/1 148488/1]72 Hibiscus RPUD 1PUDZ-PL20140000179 Rev. 1/27/15 1 of 2 F Attachment A SECTION TWO: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing 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 ,2015. ATTEST BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA i I By: By: Deputy Clerk TIM NANCE,Chairman R i Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko^Y� !1 a Managing Assistant County attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Permitted Uses Exhibit B—Development Standards Exhibit C—Master Plan Exhibit D—Legal Description Exhibit E—List of Deviations Exhibit F—Developer Commitments [14-CPS-01349/1148488/1]72 Hibiscus RPUD\PUDZ-PL20140000179 Rev. 1/27/15 2 of 2 p(f 33 1 3 EXHIBIT A FOR HIBISCUS RPUD Regulations for development of the Hibiscus 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 LOC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. PERMITTED USES: A maximum of 84 residential dwelling units shall be permitted within the RPUD. No building or structure,or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part,for other than the following: RESIDENTIAL A. Principal Uses: 1. Dwelling Units — Multiple family, single family detached, townhouse and single family zero lot line. 2. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") or the Hearing Examiner. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Clubhouses, Community administrative facilities,Community maintenance areas, maintenance buildings, essential services, irrigation water and effluent storage tanks and ponds, utility pumping facilities and pump buildings, utility and maintenance staff offices. Community wide recreational facilities shall be required to have a 15-foot wide landscape buffer and wall and to have a minimum building setback of 30 feet from the external PUD boundary where not adjacent to golf course zoned property. a. For parcels exceeding the 30' PUD boundary setback or adjacent to golf course zoned property, no wall shall be required and the following setbacks shall apply: Front: 30 feet Side: 15 feet Rear: 15 feet b. Maximum building heights for community recreational buildings shall be 25'. Hibiscus RPUD PL20 1 40000 1 7 9 Page 1 of 8 Revised 01/23/2015 2. Model homes and model home centers including sales trailers and offices for project administration,construction, sales and marketing. 3. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails,gazebos and picnic areas. 4. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the principal uses permitted in this RPUD, including but not limited to garages, carports, swimming pools,spas and screen enclosures. S. Any other accessory use,which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and consistent with the permitted accessory uses of this PUD as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Hearing Examiner. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Exhibit B sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Hibiscus RPUD 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. Hibiscus RPUD PL20 1 400001 7 9 Page 2 of 8 Revised 01/23/2015 i ■ EXHIBIT B FOR HIBISCUS RPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOUSE SINGLE FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY DETACHED ZERO LOT LINE Minimum Lot Area 3,000 SF 1,400 SF 2,250 SF N/A Minimum Lot Width 40 feet 18 feet 30 feet N/A = Minimum Lot Depth 75 feet 80 feet 75 feet N/A Minimum Front Yard Setback*1,*3 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet - Rattlesnake Hammock 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Doral Circle 20 feet 50 feet 20 feet 50 feet 0 feet internal Y Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 feet 10 feet external 0 feet*2 10 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 feet 15 feet 10 feet 15 feet Minimum Drainage Easement Setback 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 5. Maximum Building Height Zoned 30 feet 45 feet 30 feet 45 feet £: Actual 35 feet 50 feet 35 feet 50 feet - Minimum Distance Between Buildings 10 feet 20 feet 10 feet 20 feet - Floor Area Min.(S.F.),per unit 1,500 SF 750 SF 1,500 SF 750 SF Minimum PUD Boundary Setback 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Minimum Preserve Setback N/A N/A N/A N/A ' ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Minimum Front Yard Setback 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 feet 0 feet internal 0 feet 10 feet 10 feet external Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Minimum Drainage Easement Setback 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet Minimum PUD Boundary Setback 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Distance Between Buildings 10 feet 0/10 feet 0/10 feet 0/10 feet Maximum Height Zoned 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Actual 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Minimum lot areas for any unit type may be exceeded. The unit type,and not the minimum lot area,shall define the development standards to be applied by the Growth Management Division during an application for a building permit. *1—Front entry garages must be a minimum of 23'from back of sidewalk. Porches,entry features and roofed courtyards may be reduced to 15'.All parking areas must remain clear of sidewalks. *2—Minimum separation between adjacent dwelling units,if detached,shall be 10'. *3—Front yards shall be measured from back of curb for private streets or drives,and from ROW line for any public roadway. 4—The Landscape Buffer Easements shall be located within open space tracts and Lake Maintenance Easements shall be located within lake tracts and not be located within a platted residential lot. Where a home site is adjacent to a Landscape Buffer Easement or Lake Maintenance Easement within open space tracts or lake tracts,the accessory structure setback on the platted residential lot may be reduced to zero(0)feet where it abuts the easement. Note:nothing in this RPUD Document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the WC unless it is expressly stated in a list of deviations. s Hibiscus RPUD PL20140000179 Page 3 of 8 Revised 01/23/2015 3 i' g 1 I g 6 i 1 N r I?, r ZONED:MH ZONED:C-3 II USE:MOBILE HOME CLUBHOUSE,PARKING AND OPEN SPACE USE:RETAIL CENTER RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD N o E 1 A&- -PE-'LANDSCAPE BUFFER — --- - I I ©SWPE�YLANDSTLAP ' + 1 3 BUFFER 11,17 544E:I' loo 10'HYDE TYPE'D' LANDSCAPE BUrfERN. Ir�1MDSCAP SUFFER I 10' - 15 WIDE I \ +\ -.-.1-r. IANDSCARE D UFFER ! ZONED:RSF-3 LANDSCAPE BUFFER R \)\ 1 R USE:RESIDENTIAL I I ZONED:RMF-16 ]_ I 15' WIDE TYPE ANDSCAPL I I s USE RESIDENTIAL BUTTER PER LAC 1 p L NO BUFFER REQUIRED , 1 1 t J__ --III R `n °Zma °z `N 80' ZONED:RSF-3 ZONED.GC ZONED:GC r USE:RESIDENTIAL USE:HIBISCUS CLUBHOUSE USE:HIBISCUS CLUBHOUSE 1 1 PARKING AND GOLF COURSE k 1 I F NOTES F SITE DATA 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE i TOTAL SITE AREA 7.0±AC TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. 2. ALL ACREAGES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS:84 SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LDC. !!! Revised 01/2.y 2015 t Earobil in HIBISCUS RPUD 5 GradyMInor N DEVIATION .,�. .n.m .. °" " EXHIBIT c ws uewemm c�d...uim w.....e• wA MASTER PUN ' t -. "3 M.M..331.11.1a0 ..3..r,4310.n..rv. P.M iuw.f• MOM 1 s I ZIr ■ I,1 1. i Y, EXHIBIT D FOR HIBISCUS RPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 1, LOT 2, AND TRACT "R", HIBISCUS GOLF COURSE, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 49 PAGES 3 & 4 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 7.9 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. • Hibiscus RPUD PL20140000179 Page 5 of 8 Revised 01/23/2015 EXHIBIT E FOR HIBISCUS RPUD LIST OF DEVIATIONS 1. From LDC Section 4.06.02.C, Landscaping, Buffering, and Vegetation Retention, which requires a multi-family residential development to provide a 15' wide type 'B' buffer between the residential use and a golf course clubhouse tract to provide no buffer on the southern project boundary adjacent to the clubhouse tract. 2. From LDC Section 3.08.00.A.4.d.ii, Environmental Data Requirements,which requires properties that are occupied by a golf course to provide soil and/or groundwater sampling at the time of first Development Order to permit the soil and/or water quality test to be provided at the time of Site Development Plan or Plat review. 3. From LDC Section 5.06.04.G, Off-premises directional signs, which prohibits off-premises signs in residential districts, to permit two existing signs to remain in the current location at the project entrance on each side of Hibiscus Drive and to permit an increase in their square footage of approximately 42.5 square feet to 64 square feet for each sign to allow inclusion of signage for the residential dwellings. 4. From LDC Section 4.02.04.D, Standards for Cluster Residential Design, which requires the zero lot line portion of the dwelling unit to be void of doors or windows where such wall is contiguous to an adjoining lot line, to allow windows along portions of the principal building that is on the zero setback line. } Hibiscus RPUD P120140000179 Page 6 of 8 Revised 01/23/2015 EXHIBIT F FOR HIBISCUS RPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 1. PLANNING Building massing: No building shall contain more than 12 units, or have a wall length greater than a 200 feet. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL i Soil and/or ground water sampling consistent with the requirements of LDC Section 3.08.A.4.d.ii shall be provided at the time of Site Development Plan or Plat review. The Phase One Environmental Site Assessment submitted did not address the properties requirement to comply with LDC section 3.08.00 A.4.d.ii which addresses soil sampling for organochlorine pesticides and the 8 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act metals. It has been identified that some form of golf course maintenance, storage or operation activities occurred in a portion of the proposed development area and an adequate assessment of the soils in this area that may include additional soil sampling for organochlorine pesticides and the 8 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act metals is warranted. In addition to the background and random sampling points across the property, soil samples should be collected in areas of the property where suspected golf course maintenance, storage or operation activities that may have contained £ drums,chemicals, petroleum products,fuel tanks and chemical mixing areas. 3. TRANSPORTATION a. The maximum trip generation allowed by the proposed uses (both primary and ancillary) may i not exceed 52 PM Peak Hour,two-way trips. • b. The owner shall make a payment of$25,000 to the County within 30 days of PUD approval to be used for a CAT station/facilities along Rattlesnake Hammock Road. c. Also, the owner shall purchase five monthly CAT passes for five consecutive peak seasons (November—May)from the date of the first residential certificate of occupancy for a residential dwelling unit. The monthly passes shall be provided to Collier County for dissemination to local businesses located along the Rattlesnake Hammock corridor for use by their employees. ) d. The owner will provide on-site bicycle racks for resident use to encourage alternatives to motorized vehicular travel. a 4. 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 Nassif Golf Ventures, LLC, 225 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 240, Naples, Florida 34102. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a Hibiscus RPUD PL201 400001 7 9 Page 7 of 8 Revised 01/23/2015 ':- 3 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. 5. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT A. The property owner, prior to the issuance of the first residential certificate of occupancy, must develop a continuing hurricane awareness program and hurricane evacuation plan. The hurricane evacuation plan shall address and include at a minimum the following items: 1. Operational procedures for the dissemination of warning and notification of all residents and visitors during the hurricane watch and warning periods. 2. A public awareness program to address vulnerability, hurricane evacuation, hurricane shelter alternatives including hotels, staying with friends and the location of hurricane shelters and other protective actions which may be specific to the development. 3. Identification of who is responsible for implementing the plan. B. The property owner, prior to the issuance of the first residential certificate of occupancy, shall provide Collier County Emergency Management with funds required to provide 55 evacuation shelter cots,inclusive of 2 cots required for persons with special needs. Hibiscus RPUD PL20140000179 Page 8 of 8 Revised 01/23/2015 a°��2.94 ORDINANCE NO.04 2 141' `I' `>\ CO ORDINANCE IIONERS, OF THE COLLIER BORAD OF FLORID I' RCOMM AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102, THE COLLIE �G COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH 9es[tiiElzt ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBERED 0619N BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE„. .. HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE r- SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RATTLESNAKE- HAMMOCK `- ROAD CR-864 AND DORAL CIRCLE IN SECTION 19, r� TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER w COUNTY, FLORIDA, FROM "GC" GOLF COURSE TO "CF" `: _:, :"ft COMMUNITY FACILITY FOR A CHURCH;PROVIDING FOR r,. s , STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION STIPULA"PIONS; ,: AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. dR, :n A. WHEREAS, Jeremy Sterk of Hoover Planning, representing Lennar Partners, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the real property as more particularly described by Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein,and located in Section 19,Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from"GC" Golf Course to "CF" Community Facility and the Official Zoning Atlas Map numbered 0619N, as described in Ordinance 91-102,the Collier County Land Development Code,is hereby amended accordingly. The herein described real property is the same for which the rezone is hereby approved subject to i the conditions on Exhibit"B": SECTION TWO:This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. i i 1 AR-2003-RZ-4080 l Attachment B PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,this 1344' day of t turn rti,2004. BOARD OF C LINTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER C TY, •RIDA BY: I to1111114111■-■. CHAIRM; ATTEST: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, DWIGHT E.,fj R.OG r.4IK :Sit*st as to Chainuan's This ordinance filed wlth the APPROVEEkA abl": 1: `i••retary of State's Office th AND LE6,42.,:i,UFk VAN,�+�[c n .019_cloy of 3 ar:r.'. acknow.ed;ement of that '"'% d3L�._ �L day fi i�.�-received this Marjon Student r,w Assistant County Attorney n'"'ty Ckrk RZ-2003-AR-4080/RM/sp tl 7i AR-2003-RZ-4080 2 { LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST D�PR�BOOK TRACT"A"GE�p OF THE ESTATES TRACT MAP AS RECD PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA ALSO BEE POINT ON THE THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF S.R. S "A"THENCE S89°32'32"E ALONG DISTANCE OF 590.31 FEET THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE S00°20'32"W A DISTANCE OF 299.50 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT THENCE ALON oN THE EASEMENT N89°34'57"W A DISTANCE OF 590.70 FEET TO A POINT SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF DORAL CIRCLE THENCE E 0024 58 E BEGINNING OF SAID OF WAY A DISTANCE OF 299.84 FEET TO TH HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL CONTAINING 4.06 ACRES MORE OR LESS. } ii AR-2003-RZ-4080 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (RZ-03-AR-4080) a) The permitted uses on the subject property are limited to church and associated accessory uses. b) Pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the Land Development Code, if,during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity an historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. c) Access to the site shall not be allowed from Doral Circle. d) A Type D buffer will be placed along the eastern boundary of the site to protect the single-family neighborhood to the east. e) No daycare operation is permitted on this site. EXHIBIT"B" • AR-2003-RZ-4080 STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of: ORDINANCE 2004-02 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 13th day of January, 2004, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 14th day of January, 2004. DWIGHT E. BROCK Clerk of Courts ap,4 , 7erk Ex-officio to B'i.O!d":lPf.•,.; County Comm148.],.Oj2�'r S'• •;�; ,`'- 4t4a ' 4 : • Y 1• By: Linda 4yi1.Tgiif~zg ,`,'� Deputy rrrrr rnur