Loading...
CCPC Agenda 04/02/2015 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONMEETING AGENDA APRIL 2, 2015 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 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 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. PL20130001767/CP-2013-10: An Ordinance amending Ordinance 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan of the unincorporated area of Collier County Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series by establishing the Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict in the Urban Mixed Use District to allow a Residential only, Commercial only or Mixed Use project at the following density/intensity: up to 7.3 residential dwelling units per acre for a maximum of 224 residential dwelling units,up to 250,000 square feet of commercial uses,a 150 room hotel at a floor area ratio of 0.6 and an assisted living facility at a floor area ratio of 0.6. The commercial uses allowed by right are all permitted uses and conditional uses in the C-1 General Office through C-3 Commercial General zoning districts in the Collier County Land Development Code, with conversions and limitations if project is developed as mixed use development; and furthermore recommending transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is located at the corner of Southwest Boulevard and U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail East) in Section 32, Township 50 South,Range 26 East,Collier County, Florida 1 consisting of 30.68± acres, (Companion PL20130001726) [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] B. PUDZ-PL20130001726: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 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 Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the Vincentian Village MPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 224 multifamily residential dwelling units, up to 250,000 gross square feet of commercial land uses,and a hotel limited to 150 rooms and a 0.6 Floor Area Ratio(FAR)and an assisted living facility (ALF) at 0.6 FAR. The commercial uses are subject to conversions and limitations if the project is developed as mixed use or if a hotel or ALF is constructed. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Southwest Boulevard and U.S. 41 in Section 32, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 30.68+/- acres; providing for the repeal of Ordinance Number 99-37, the Vincentian PUD; and by providing an effective date. (Companion to PL-20130001767/Petition CP-2013-10) [Coordinator:Nancy Gundlach,AICP,Principal Planner] 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PUDZ-PL20140001179: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes 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 the Estates (E)zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district to be known as the Avalon of Naples RPUD to allow a maximum of 160 multi-family residential dwelling units, or 82 single-family residential dwelling units. The subject property, consisting of 22.83± acres, is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Davis Boulevard(SR 84)and County Barn Road in Section 8,Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Mike Sawyer, Project Manager] B. PL20140000113/CP-2014-2: An Ordinance amending Ordinance 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan of the Unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida specifically amending the Future Land Use Element to increase the maximum allowable residential density that may be achieved in the 196.4 acre undeveloped portion of the San Marino Residential Planned Unit Development from 2.5 units per acre utilizing Transfer of Development Rights("TDRS")to 3.02 units per acre utilizing TDRS,and to allow the transfer of residential density to that portion of the San Marino Residential Planned Unit Development from Sending Lands located more than one (1) mile from the Urban boundary, and furthermore recommending transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject 196.4- acre property is located east of Collier Boulevard, approximately 1-1/2 miles north of Rattlesnake- Hammock Road in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to PUDA-PL20140000100) [Coordinator:Corby Schmidt,AICP,Principal Planner] C. PUDA-PL20140000100: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2000-10, the San Marino Planned Unit Development, by increasing the maximum dwelling units from 352 to 650;by removing the Golf Course Uses;by establishing two Development Parcels as Parcel A and Parcel B; by adding Permitted Uses for Parcel B;by adding Development Standards for Parcel B; by adding Deviations; by revising the Master Plan; by revising Developer Commitments for the PUD located on the east side of CR 951 approximately 1.5 miles south of Davis Boulevard in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida consisting of 235± acres; and by providing an effective date. (Companion to CP-2014-2/PL20140000113) [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 2 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 3 AGENDA ITEM 8-B Co er County MEMORANDUM TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARING DATE: APRIL 2,2015 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20130001726, VINCENTIAN MPUD (Consent Agenda) The Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC)heard PUDA-PL20130001726,Vincentian MPUD land use petition at its March 19, 2015 hearing. The CCPC approved the petition 5-0 subject to the following stipulations: 1. Incorporate Comprehensive Planning's recommended Land Use Conversion Factor regarding portions of an acre into the PUD Exhibits. See Exhibit B, "Development Standards, "section III, "Land Use Conversion Factors, " items A and B. 2. The minimum lake width is 120 feet. See Exhibit F, "List of Developer Commitments, " section V, "Planning, " item F. 3. The minimum preserve width is 65 feet. See Exhibit F, List of Developer Commitments, " section V, "Planning, " item D. 4. Amend footnote number 5, third bullet to state: "the frontage providing vehicle access....." See Exhibit B, "Development Standards, "section I "Residential& Commercial Development Standards, "Footnote number 4, third bullet. 5. Revise the Land Use Conversion Factor note on the Master Plan (to incorporate Comprehensive Planning's new language). See Exhibit C, "Master Plan. " 6. Change the preserve area from 2.78 acres to 2.98 acres. See Exhibit F, "List of Developer Commitments,"section II, "Environmental, " item B. All of the above Conditions have been incorporated into the PUD Exhibits except for item 3 which states: "The minimum preserve width is 65 feet." Page 1 of 2 PUDA-PL20130001726,VINCENTIAN MPUD March 24,2015 Instead,the following language has been incorporated into the PUD which states: D. Tract P. Preserve,where it is dense enough to provide equivalent buffering per the LDC. may count towards minimum buffering requirements. The minimum width of Tract P. or Tract P and the stonnwater manaeement lake (Tract L) in combination. as depicted on the Master Plan. shall be a minimum of 65 feet in width. The agent will be seeking clarification at the Consent hearing. Please refer to the attached documents: Revised "Vincentian Village MPUD" strike thru and underline document and the clean version of the revised PUD. Please note: the CCPC revisions are in the color"blue." END OF MEMORANDUM Page 2 of 2 PUDA-PL20130001726,VINCENTIAN MPUD March 24,2015 AGENDA ITEM 9-A CO er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES SECTION, GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: APRIL 2, 2015 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20140001179;AVALON OF NAPLES PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Applicant/Contract Purchaser: Agent: Neal Communities Patrick Vanasse,AICP 5800 Lakewood Ranch Boulevard RWA,Inc. Sarasota,Fl 34240 6610 Willow Park Dr,#200 Naples,FL 34109 Owners: Collier Davis,LLC do Craig Perry 1000 Sawgrass Corporate Pkwy,#110 Sunrise,FL 33323 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a rezone of the subject site from the Estates (E) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD)zoning district for a project to be known as the Avalon of Naples. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject PUD, consisting of 22.83 acres, is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Davis Boulevard (SR 84) and County Barn Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on following page) PUDZ-PL20140001179 Page 1 of 16 April 2,2015 CCPC Rev: 1/20/15,3/6/15,3/16/15, �� °�� �f i ) tit' � Tr/ ANN UM — —! a Q 4 OQV40 111:11111; i; :mom '��� AA d !� ii€::::: .:3iii€i€iiii iillilllill`•illi ,, a• iiiiiii iiii€€:s: aal7i Ma.�`_ .. i .t:E�aaaa;i:i_i. €iiiii'€i€i1l:i ■.,27.... v �aaaa l<: :;:;:;:: i: ;;,1i;i,iil,.yii Vr � ■ 111111111.1INii i'i!i'I ig liEI':li([li i! = Z !11ililiiiiii'.ill, i;E i i•'l;i:'I''s i€.•_• i,=,;,till„11111: f I U s W _ •.i '1 i+•iii' p! . 1 . e :€:,:.iiiiiiii lgi is i 1 n g fl iiiiii i iIllIl'€iPi ii`iii:. 0 I:a:€,ia,€iii[ a•0 fiilllliliiiiillilililllllliij O lII(11 1liliillai'lilili€iii 1 f� :.. .::n,:a:..3i�iii€ fl Iii i MOS%NW TINA NM wOY W/. ,WI.G , i il II —U. 1 II tz=V tc secs o� W N J a 3 / 7 0 KJ m ION 7 0_ 4t QQQ `' Ili Z N 6 r lip _ 1 11 ll 11 h 1 1 �' UMW c W P a ,1 t „e li $ $ it it >.r NI ii l' 10Th 11 CL I 1 i 1 I. I. �,;;. m 1 . r si, we wwwa i rurw I 1 —I I7.1 IT h h g Z 11 i41 a 1 a I- I 1 111 a _ ....._ aryl 0 ii 1 . , 7 d....rlowEl.!i it■—,. iii wF da il g 1,, „40: 01tltl NJ180NM R U k 1 If 0 IL g 1- i II ,it d 1 L 1.,,,,,,, „ ,._,ha-In �yi p$ —lib • z lig PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: In the petitioner's cover letter of September 5, 2014 the petitioner explains the project as follows: The Avalon of Naples RPUD will be located on 22.83 acres at the intersection of County Barn Road and Davis Boulevard. The property is currently vacant and zoned Estates. The Applicant is requesting a rezoning to Residential Planned Unit Development to allow a maximum of 160 single and/or multi family units, and common ancillary uses. Residential structures will be limited to two stories and 35 feet in height. Avalon of Naples RPUD will provide a recreational area, common open space,preserve, a unified architectural theme, restricted access for its residents and guests, and buffering from adjacent properties. The proposed project will be compatible with surrounding uses and will be consistent with the LDC and compliant with the Growth Management Plan. The project will have one access on Davis Boulevard; no access is proposed from County Barn Road. Seven deviations are being sought from various provisions of the Land Development Code. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Davis Boulevard, then the Terracina Grande, a multi-story Assisted Living Facility that is part of the Glen Eagle development, with a zoning designation of PUD (Bretonne Park PUD) East: Seacrest School, with a zoning designation of CFPUD (Seacrest Upper and Lower School CFPUD) South: Seacrest School, with a zoning designation of CFPUD (Seacrest Upper and Lower School CFPUD)and the Berean Baptist Church,with a zoning designation of Estates West: County Barn Road, then the Napoli Condominiums, with a zoning designation of RMF- 6(4) R Subject Property ,f. c,�,{ I .......7, s. ,� 1 .1 , lE py < ,no 4 7 sf l � 6 , Aerial Photo PUDZ-PL20140001179 Page 3 of 16 April 2,2015 CCPC Rev: 1/20/15,3/6/15, 3/16/15, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is located within the Urban Mixed Use District — Urban Residential Subdistrict, and within a Residential Density Band on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict allows residential uses (variety of unit types), recreation and open space uses, and, essential services. Review of the Density Rating System deems this project eligible for a base density of 4 DU/A, and a density bonus of 3 DU/A since the project is located within one mile of an Activity Center (Activity Center#8), within a Residential Density Band. When added to the base density of four (4) DU/A, the project is eligible for a gross density of seven (7) DU/A. Based on the site's acreage and the permissible density of up to seven (7) DU/A, this rezone could allow up to a maximum of 160 dwelling units(22.83 acres x 7 DU/A= 160.00 DU's). Base Density 4 DU/A Proximity to Activity Center(Residential Density Band) +3 DU/A Eligible Density 7 DU/A In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects,where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold text]. Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects,where applicable. Policy 7.1. The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their • properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [The RPUD Conceptual Master Plan depicts direct access to Davis Boulevard S.R. 84, an arterial roadway.] 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 internal accesses or a loop road are proposed due to the limited site acreage. However, the RPUD Master Plan identifies that the project will have an internal roadway system that 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 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. [The RPUD Master Plan does not depict interconnections with any abutting properties. The northern and western property boundaries are adjacent to public roadways; and, the southern and eastern property boundaries abut a developed church site (south) and a private school (Seacrest Upper and PUDZ-PL20140001179 Page 4 of 16 April 2,2015 CCPC Rev: 1/20/15,3/6/15,3/16/15, Lower School) on both the southern and eastern property lines. No interconnections to adjacent properties are proposed and staff does not believe it is practicable to provide interconnections.] 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 RPUD will be developed with an internal sidewalk system. Additionally, the RPUD is proposed to include various housing types, including single family, townhomes, multi-family dwellings; and recreational facilities.] Economic Element Policy 1.9 Collier County, in response to the current and projected needs of its residents, will encourage a diverse mix of housing types, sizes,prices, and rents. [The subject rezone proposes the development of various housing types, including single family, townhomes, and multi- family dwellings; housing prices and/or rents have not been disclosed.] Based on the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed uses and density for the subject site may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Transportation Element: This project can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site consists of 22.16 acres of native vegetation; a minimum of 5.54 (25%) acres of the existing native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall fording that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff also recommends that the petition be found consistent with the CCME. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals,objective and policies of the overall GMP. ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the PUDZ-PL20140001179 Page 5 of 16 April 2,2015 CCPC Rev: 1/20/15, 3/6/15,3/16/15, is rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading"Zoning Services Analysis."In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. The PUD Master Plan provides 5.54 acres of Preserve, which meets the minimum requirement of 5.54 acres. There were no listed species documented using this site by the applicant's environmental consultant or County environmental staff. This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues as well as roadway capacity, and recommends approval subject to the Developer/owner commitments as provided in the PUD ordinance. Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. As noted earlier in the staff report, the area to the north is developed Terracina Grande, a multi- story Assisted Living Facility that is part of the Glen Eagle development, with a zoning designation of PUD (Bretonne Park PUD). To the east and south is the Seacrest School, with a zoning designation of CFPUD (Seacrest Upper and Lower School CFPUD). Also to the south is the Berean Baptist Church. To the west are the Napoli Condominiums, with a zoning designation of RMF-6(4). The PUD document proposes several residential housing types, such as single-family detached, single-family attached, two-family patio,two-family zero lot line, and townhouse units. The proposed density is seven units per acre. The site is separated from any other residential uses by County Barn Road or Davis Boulevard to the north and west, with buildings setback a considerable distance from those roadways, therefore similar density to tracts on the opposite sides of those roadways is not an overwhelming issue. To the south and east,there is a school and a church,thus similar densities are not an issue on those boundaries either. Zoning staff is of the opinion that this project will be compatible with and complementary to,the surrounding land uses. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking approval of seven deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are listed in PUD Exhibit E. Deviations are a normal derivative of the PUD zoning process following the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC Section 2.03.06 which says in part: PUDZ-PL20140001179 Page 6 of 16 April 2,2015 CCPC Rev: 1/20/15,3/6/15,3/16/15, ti It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs . . . may depart from the strict application of setback, height, and minimum lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the public interest. . . . Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC, Section 6.06.01.N which requires minimum local street right- of-way width of 60 feet, to allow a 50' right-of-way width for the internal streets that include public utilities. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: Minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet is requested for local streets within the Avalon of Naples RPUD. This deviation is justified because of the size and the small-scale neighborhood character of this project. A 50 foot right-of-way for a residential street can successfully facilitate movement of the vehicular, pedestrian and bike traffic while accommodating all utility and drainage needs. The 50 foot right-of-way accomplishes traffic calming to provide a safer transportation system within the neighborhood. This deviation is commonly approved.and has been effectively implemented in numerous residential PUDs throughout the County. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation., fording that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation#2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C,which permits a maximum wall height of 6' in residential zoning districts, to allow a maximum wall height of 8' along the perimeter of the project and where abutting an existing public roadway, and allow a 12' tall wall/berm combination. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The proposed deviation will allow for additional visual screening and noise attenuation from the significant traffic along Davis Boulevard and County Barn Road. Approval of this deviation will serve to promote public health, safety and welfare, as well as enhance the aesthetic appeal of the proposed community and general area. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the PUDZ-PL20140001179 Page 7 of 16 April 2,2015 CCPC Rev: 1/20/15,3/6/15,3/16/15, 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 5.04.06.A.3.e, which allows temporary signs on residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height, to allow a temporary banner sign up to a maximum of 32 square feet in area. The temporary banner sign shall be limited to a maximum of 90 days during season defined as January 1 to March 31 per calendar year. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The proposed deviation will allow for a banner sign located on the proposed wall along Davis Boulevard in order to advertise new homes available within the community. The 4 square foot banner sign permitted by the LDC provides minimal visibility and likely will not be seen by vehicles travelling along Davis Boulevard, a 50mph 4-lane divided roadway. Additionally, the applicant is requesting that the banner be allowed for up to 90 days per calendar year to allow display throughout the peak winter season for home sales. Due to the property's location on a busy arterial road and the high travel speeds along the roadway, the Applicant is seeking an increase to the allowable banner size to ensure visibility of this new community. The requested banner size is in accordance with deviations approved for similar residential projects throughout the County. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, subject to the following stipulations; 28 days only, 3 year limit; only on Davis Boulevard, must provide a 10 foot setback, 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 5.06.02.B.5, which requires on-premise directional signs to be setback a minimum of 10' from edge of roadway, to allow a setback of 5' edge of roadway/drive aisle. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation will provide locational flexibility for directional signage internal to the RPUD. A unified design theme will be utilized for all signage throughout the community, thereby ensuring a cohesive appearance and increased aesthetic appeal. All directional signage will meet the Clear Sight Distance requirements in accordance with LDC Section 60.06.05. Furthermore, this deviation is typical of many of the master planned developments throughout Collier County. PUDZ-PL20140001179 Page 8 of 16 April 2,2015 CCPC Rev: 1/20/15,3/6/15,3/16/15, Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, which permits two (2) ground signs per entrance to the development with a maximum height of 8' and total sign area of 64 s.f. per sign, to allow for two (2) ground signs per project entrance with a maximum height of 10' and sign area up to 80 s. f.per sign. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The subject property will be accessed via Davis Boulevard, an arterial roadway with relatively high travel speeds. Due to the property's location, and high travel speeds along Davis, the Applicant is seeking an increase to allowable entry sign height and area to ensure visibility. This deviation request is similar to numerous other requests approved for master planned communities within Collier County. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.01.A, which requires every building and use to provide off-street parking, to allow limited on-street parking associated with the small scale recreation area, and overflow/guest parking. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation would only apply if this project proceeds with Plans and Plat approval and utilizes a 50' right of way. Due to the compact nature of this community, allowing the amenity center and overflow parking to be located partially within the right of way (see attached exhibit), will provide design flexibility and allow more space to be allocated for landscaping and amenities. These "on-street"parking spaces will not have s a negative effect on vehicular or pedestrian movements, and conversely, will have a traffic calming effect by reducing vehicular speeds in those areas. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the PUDZ-PL20140001179 Page 9 of 16 1 April 2,2015 CCPC Rev: 1/20/15,3/6/15,3/16/15, 3 community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation # 7 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4 which requires a 20-foot-wide Type D buffer along public rights-of-way for projects over 15 acres, to allow a 10-foot-wide Type D buffer along County Barn Road. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: $. A buffer is part vegetation for screening and part open space to provide separation from adjacent uses. Given the separation provided by the 30' DE & Utility easement, this deviation requests the ability to provide the same plantings but within a 10 foot wide strip. The required planting would be located on the outside of the wall/berm combination planned along County Barn Road The separation offered by the 30' easement, the code compliant plantings, and the wall/berm combination would exceed the buffering provided by typical 20'Type "D"buffer. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h,the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." FINDINGS OF FACT: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below. [Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold, non-italicized font]: PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" (Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed uses are compatible with the approved uses and existing development in the area. In addition, the proposed property development regulations provide adequate assurances that the proposed project will be suitable to the type and pattern PUDZ-PL20140001179 Page 10 of 16 April 2,2015 CCPC Rev: 1/20/15, 3/6/15,3/16/15, of development in the area. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to obtain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). • County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. As described in the Analysis Section of this staff report, staff is of the opinion that the proposed uses, development standards and developer commitments will help ensure that this project is compatible with the surrounding area. 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 o f available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project as noted in the GMP FLUE and Transportation Element consistency review, if the mitigation proposed by the petitioner is included in any approval recommendation. In addition, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal systems and PUDZ-PL20140001179 Page 11 of 16 April 2,2015 CCPC Rev: 1/20/15,3/6/15,3/16/15, potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The petitioner is seeking several deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06.A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes the deviations can be supported, some with stipulations, fording that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report for a more extensive examination of the deviations. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, &policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Staff is recommending that this project be found consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with neighborhood development and with all other applicable policies of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed it in the zoning review analysis. Staff believes the proposed rezoning is appropriate given the existing land use pattern, and development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The proposed PUD rezone would not create an isolated zoning district. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. PUDZ-PL20140001179 Page 12 of 16 April 2,2015 CCPC Rev: 1/20/15,3/6/15,3/16/15, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed district boundaries are logically drawn since the zoning boundary mirrors the existing property boundary for the contract purchaser. S. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood,. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change, subject to the proposed list of uses and property development regulations and the proposed Development Commitments detailed in Exhibit F, is consistent with the County's Iand use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element(FLUE) of the GMP. Therefore,the proposed change should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in Exhibit F of the RPUD ordinance. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; 1 The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have other specific regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new developments. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this petition were approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. This project's property development regulations provide adequate setbacks and distances between structures; therefore the project should not significantly reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is PUDZ-PL20140001179 Page 13 of 16 April 2,2015 CCPC Rev: 1/20/15,3/6/15, 3/16/15, 9 driven by market value. There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. 11, Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; Rezoning this property to a PUD district seems appropriate. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan, if the proposed amendment is adopted, which is a public policy statement supporting Zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning designations; however, the petitioner is seeking this amendment in compliance with LDC provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed amendment meets the intent of the PUD district, and further, believes the public interest will be y maintained. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; As noted previously, the proposed rezone boundary follows the existing property ownership boundary. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether 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, staff has evaluated the appropriateness of this particular zoning petition. There are other sites in Collier County that would allow the proposed uses; however the proposed uses are also appropriate at this location as well. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP as discussed in other portions of the staff report. PUDZ-PL20140001179 Page 14 of 16 April 2,2015 CCPC Rev: 1/20/15,3/6/15,3/16/15, 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities,except as it may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments i contained in the PUD document. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (MM): This petitioner held a duly advertised NIM on November 18, 2014. See attached synopsis. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on March 17, 2015. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PUDZ-PL20140001179 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following condition of approval. Approval of Deviation 3 with the stipulations that the sign be allowed for a maximum of 28 days per calendar year for 3 year limit from the first residential unit sale and be located only on Davis Boulevard with a 10 foot setback. PUDZ-PL20140001179 Page 15 of 16 April 2,2015 CCPC Rev: 1/20/15,3/6/15,3/16/15, PREPARED BY: IP; ...al {rA! I.1 • , .11z5 .16 • L SAWYER, ;'ROJECT MANAGER DATE ZONIN t SERVICES 'ECTION REVIEWED BY: AL 4 Arg. 3 ./7./r- RAYM V. BELLOWS,ZONIN 'r• - • DATE ZONING SERVICES SECTION MIKE BOSI,AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: Al d r• I' UIDA,AD 'TRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Attachment: NIM synopsis Tentatively scheduled for the May 12, 2015 Board of County Commissioners Meeting PUDZ-PL20140001179 Page 16 of 16 March 5,2015 CCPC Rev: 1/20/15, 3/6/15,3/16/15, 1.6 COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 2014 CYCLE 1 AMENDMENT (ADOPTION HEARING) Project/Petition: #PL20140000113/CP-2014-2 [companion PUDZ-PL20140000100] RADIO RD. GML-mA 1� -"' ` (C.R. 856) OLDS I-75/COLLER EAST m z W BOULEVARD TOLL TOLL ma i _, TNELVE VESTPORT CENTER CIAL R.V. — PLAZA as s i LAKES COMMERCE CENR ci a h 1 m 2`0� 4 3 min 2 1 W1L.DWOOD L&) , °' FOREST GLEN ESTATES S / CEDAR W ii. OF NAPLES 0 HAMMOCK ov PROJECT raw HOPE laposinEs U /� LOCATION N _ r , PL20140000113 NAPLES I NAPLES HERITAGE COOK H�ar GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY AND –. TAORMINA COUNTRY NAPLES NATIONAL et RESERVE CLUB GOLF CLUB /, HACENDA LAKES m I PROJECT ` (DRI) xn ma 9 LOCATION 10 11 / 12 <� PUDA-PL20140000100 WLLOW RUN Z m N HOMES OF ISLANDIA LASIP CONSERVATION AREA L -, sHADOW- \ESTATES RFORD �—WOOD NAPLES LAKES A COUNTRY CLUB ASSEMBLY HACIENDA LANES ___ 13 16 —I 15 I MIMSTRES t4 (DRI) CCPC: April 02, 2015 BCC: May 12, 2015 Clerk's Office Attn: Patricia Morgan 4th Floor Administration Bldg. (F) TABLE OF CONTENTS CCPC - 2014 Cycle 1 GMP Adoption Amendment PL20140000113/CP-2014-2 SAN MARINO [companion PUDZ-PL201400001001 CCPC April 02, 2015 AGENDA 1) TAB: Adoption Staff Report DOCUMENT: CCPC Adoption Staff Report 2) TAB: Adoption Ordinance DOCUMENT: Adoption Ordinance & Exhibit "A" Text & Maps 3) TAB: Review Comments DOCUMENTS: DEO & State Agency Reviews 4) TAB: Transmittal Executive Summary DOCUMENT: BCC Transmittal Ex. Summary 5) TAB: Transmittal Staff Report DOCUMENT: CCPC Transmittal Staff Report 6) TAB: N.I.M. Affidavit DOCUMENT: Transmittal Neighborhood Information Meeting affidavit 7) TAB: Transmittal Resolution DOCUMENT: Transmittal Resolution w/Exhibit "A" Text & Maps 8) TAB: Legal Advertisement DOCUMENT: CCPC Legal Advertisement 9) TAB: Petition DOCUMENT: San Marino GMP Petition c).)I PY Co e-r Co-ri.-nty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: APRIL 2, 2015 SUBJECT: 2014 CYCLE 1, SINGLE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (ADOPTION HEARING) ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) Transmittal hearings on the amendment were held on November 6, 2014 (CCPC, Collier County Planning Commission) and on December 9, 2014 (BCC). The respective Transmittal recommendations/actions are presented further below, following the petition number and title. Within CCPC materials provided you will find the Transmittal Executive Summary from the BCC hearing and certain attachments referenced therein, and the Transmittal CCPC staff report for the petition, which provide staff's detailed analysis of the petition. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS After review of the Transmitted GMP amendment, the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) rendered its Comment Letter indicating "no comment" within the agency's authorized scope of review, as did the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The Florida Department of Education (DOE) rendered comments within their authorized scope of review, indicating The Collier County School District complete the school planning level review per the Collier County Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning and School Concurrency; the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) conducted a planning level analysis and rendered comments within their authorized scope of review. FDOT indicates that the proposed amendment is not anticipated to adversely impact important State transportation resources or facilities, and provided details regarding operating conditions on impacted State roadways. DOE commented specifically, as follows: The Department recommends the changes associated with the proposed amendment CP- 2014-2 be reviewed as required by Section 8 of the Collier County Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning and School Concurrency before adoption consideration. In response to the DOE Comment, staff notes the Transmittal package of materials was provided to School District representatives and subsequently reviewed in accordance with Interlocal Agreement Section 8. Determinations from their Section 8 review are found in a letter dated January 22, 2015, as attached hereto, and summarized below. In accordance with Interlocal Agreement subsection 8.2, Collier County notified the School District of the proposed GMP amendment that may increase school enrollment. In accordance - 1 - STAFF REPORT ON 2014 CYCLE ONE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT(ADOPTION HEARING) with Interlocal Agreement subsection 14.2, the Collier County School District subsequently conducted the school planning level review per the Collier County Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning and School Concurrency and responded. The School District response indicates at this time there is sufficient capacity for the proposed development within the middle and high school concurrency service areas the development is located within and the adjacent currency service area for the elementary level. This finding is for planning and informational purposes only and does not constitute either a reservation of capacity or a finding of concurrency for the proposed project. At the time of site plan or plat the development would be reviewed for concurrency to ensure there is capacity within the concurrency service area the development is located within and adjacent concurrency service areas such that the level of service standards are not exceeded. The Comments Letters received are located within materials provided to the CCPC. The remaining reviewing agencies did not provide a Comment Letter. Within CCPC materials provided is an Ordinance with Exhibit "A" text for the petition; this exhibit reflects the text as approved by BCC for Transmittal. PROPOSED AMENDMENT PETITION CP-2014-2 / PL2014-0000113, requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan, to introduce two site-specific exceptions from existing limitations in the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, affecting the transfer of TDR credits among properties in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) and the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict. The first amends the URF Subdistrict provisions themselves, while the second amends the way density transfers are permitted by Density Bonuses' provisions of the FLUE Density Rating System. The subject property is within the San Marino Planned Unit Development (PUD) and comprises approximately 196 acres of the 235-acre PUD. It is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), approximately 1.5 miles south of Davis Boulevard (CR 84), 1.5 miles north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR 864), north and east of the developed portion of the San Marino PUD, north and west of the Willow Run PUD (now Willow Run Sand & Gravel mining operation) and, south of Forest Glen Golf & Country Club PUD, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. This petition seeks to amend the FLUE text of the Growth Management Plan to increase the maximum allowable density that may be achieved in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict up to 3.02 residential dwelling units per acre in the San Marino PUD and to change the limitations found in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict to allow the transfer of TDR derived residential density from more than one (1) mile from the Urban Boundary. Note: A companion PUD amendment petition is scheduled for this same hearing. TRANSMITTAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Not to Transmit to DEO. (Staff did not support the density increase, but did support allowing TDRs to be derived from beyond one mile of the URF boundary.) CCPC RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DEO (vote: 7/0) with the density reduction modified by the petitioner (from 4 DU/A, dwelling units per acre), for a maximum density of 3.02 DU/A (an increase of 0.52 DU/A, or 102 DUs). BCC ACTION: Transmitted to DEO (vote: 5/0), per CCPC recommendation. -2 - STAFF REPORT ON 2014 CYCLE ONE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (ADOPTION HEARING) ADOPTION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the CCPC forward the single, Cycle petition to the BCC with a recommendation not to adopt or transmit the (CP-2014-2) petition to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and reviewing agencies that provided comments. However, staff does recommend adoption of that portion of the petition that proposes to allow TDRs to be derived from beyond one mile of the URF boundary. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS This Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment is authorized by, and subject to the procedures established in, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, The Community Planning Act, and by Collier County Resolution No. 12-234, as amended. The Board should consider the following criteria in making its decision: (1) consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, including analysis of impact on public infrastructure; (2) consistency with the Land Development Code, including compatibility analysis; and, (3) review of data and analysis to support the proposed amendment. This item is approved as to form and legality. It requires an affirmative vote of four for approval because this is an Adoption hearing of the GMP amendment. [HFAC] PREPARED BY: '/ I a DATE: 12, /V.�(`.1/1 1 CORBY SC MIDT,AICP, PR NCIPAL PLANNER COMPREHE SIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED :Y: DATE: 34P2 -7S`"" DAVID WEEKS, AICP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: DATE: 3- I2-/r MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR, ZONING DIVISION APP -D BY: DATE: 1 A ALA OM•�. ''TME HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 2014 Cycle 1 GMPA-Adoption (petition CP-2014-2/PL2014-0000113). DEO no.15-1 ESR Staff Report for the April 2, 2015, CCPC Meeting. NOTE: This single petition 2014.1 Cycle GMPA has been scheduled for the May 12, 2015, BCC Meeting. G:ICDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\COMP PLANNING GMP DATA\Comp Plan Amendments12014 Cycles & Small Scale Petitions12014 Cycle 1 - February12014.1 Cycle GMPA_Adptn CCPC stff rprt_FNL b.docx - 3 - STAFF REPORT ON 2014 CYCLE ONE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (ADOPTION HEARING) ORDINANCE NO. 15- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY THAT MAY BE ACHIEVED IN THE 196.4 ACRE UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF THE SAN MARINO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FROM 2.5 UNITS PER ACRE UTILIZING TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ("TDRS") TO 3.02 UNITS PER ACRE UTILIZING TDRS, AND TO ALLOW THE TRANSFER OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TO THAT PORTION OF THE SAN MARINO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FROM SENDING LANDS LOCATED MORE THAN ONE (1) MILE FROM THE URBAN BOUNDARY, AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. THE SUBJECT 196.4-ACRE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 1-1/2 MILES NORTH OF RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20140000113/CP-2014-2] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985, 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, Petitioner, Stock Development, initiated this amendment to the Future Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, Collier County transmitted the Growth Management Plan amendments to the Department of Economic Opportunity for preliminary review on December 19, 2014, after public hearings before the Collier County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners; and [14-CMP-00934/11.55697/1] 101 1 of 3 Rev.2/24/15 Words underlined are additions;Words struck*thoagb are deletions *** *** *** ***are a break in text WHEREAS, the Department of Economic Opportunity reviewed the amendments to the Future Land Use Element to the Growth Management Plan and transmitted its comments in writing to Collier County within the time provided by law; and WHEREAS, Collier County has 180 days from receipt of the Comments Report from the Department of Economic Opportunity to adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed amendments to the Growth Management Plan; and WHEREAS, Collier County has gathered and considered additional information, data and analysis supporting adoption of these amendments, including the following: the Collier County staff Report, the documents entitled Collier County Growth Management Plan Amendments and other documents, testimony and information presented and made a part of the record at the public hearings of the Collier County Planning Commission held on April 2, 2015, and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners held on ; and WHEREAS, all applicable substantive ad procedural requirements of the law have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN The amendment to the Future Land Use Element attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby adopted in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, and shall be transmitted to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. 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 commenced 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. [14-CMP-00934/1155697!1] 101 2 of Rev. 2/24/15 Words underlined are additions;Words stye#-throes are deletions *** *** *** ***are a break in text 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 TIM NANCE, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: ._ f Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Text [14-CMP-009341115569711] 101 3 of 3 Rev.2/24/15 Words underlined are additions;Words are deletions *** *** *** ***area break in text PL20140000113 CP-2014-2 EXHIBIT "A" FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT [Page 28] 2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum base density of 1.5 units per gross acre, plus any density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.1., and either"a" or"b" below:: Within the Urban Residential Fringe, rezone requests are not subject to the density rating system, except as specifically provided below for the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus. All rezones are encouraged to be in the form of a planned unit development. Proposed development in the Subdistrict shall be fully responsible for all necessary water management improvements, including the routing of all on-site and appropriate off-site water through the project's water management system, and a fair share cost of necessary improvements to the CR 951 canal/out-fall system made necessary by new development in the Subdistrict. a. Up to 1.0 unit per gross acre via the transfer of up to one (1.0) dwelling unit (transferable development right) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, with the following exceptions: i_ pProperties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which may achieve an additional maximum density of up to 1.3 units per gross acre for all lands designated as Urban Residential Fringe via the transfer of up to 1.3 dwelling units (transferable development rights) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands; or, ii. The Urban Residential Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve Residential Planned Unit Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density; or, iii. Up to 1.52 additional units per acre may be achieved for Urban Residential Fringe lands within the 196.4 acre portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described below, via the transfer of 1.52 dwelling units (transferable development right) per acre. The Property shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs derived from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density. The Property is further described as follows: That portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described in Ordinance No. 2000-10, as amended, excepting the ±39 acres located in the South % of the Southwest % of the Northwest '/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and in the Northwest % of the Southwest % of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. 1 Words underlined are added; words ru st.,n ' *ugh are deleted. Row of asterisks (**** **** ****)denotes break in text. PL20140000113 CP-2014-2 b. In the case of properties specifically identified below, a density bonus of up to 6.0 additional units per gross acre may be requested for projects providing affordable-workforce housing (home ownership only) for low and moderate income residents of Collier County, pursuant to Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, or its successor ordinance, except as provided for below-_ Subdistrict. Properties eligible for the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus (home ownership only) will be specifically identified herein. The actual number of bonus units per gross acre shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the conditions and procedures set forth in Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code. except that, Section 2.06.03 shall not apply, and the number of dwelling units required to be sold to buyers earning 80% or less of Collier County's median income, as calculated annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), shall be at least thirty percent (30%). The following properties are eligible for an Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus (home ownership only) of up to 6.0 additional dwelling units per acre. 1-1. Property located on the East side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately 6 tenths of a mile south of intersection with Rattlesnake Hammock Road (C.R. 864), in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, and further described as follows: THE NORTH '/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST % OF THE NORTHWEST '/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST '/4 AND THE NORTHWEST 1/ OF THE SOUTHEAST 'A OF THE NORTHWEST %4 OF THE SOUTHWEST %, LESS THE NORTH THIRTY FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY PURPOSES ONLY OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LESS THE WEST 100 FEET THEREOF, AND; THE NORTHEAST 'A OF THE SOUTHEAST '/4 OF THE NORTHWEST %4 OF THE SOUTHWEST %, LESS THE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND; THE SOUTH '/ OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST %4 AND THE SOUTH '/2 OF THE WEST %2 OF THE NORTHEAST %4 OF THE SOUTHWEST '/, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT OVER AND ACROSS THE WEST 36 FEET THEREOF,AND; AN EASEMENT 36 FEET IN WIDTH OVER AND ACROSS THE EAST 36 FEET OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/ OF THE NORTHEAST 2 Words underlined are added; words strusk-t rough are deleted. Row of asterisks (**** **** ****)denotes break in text. PL20140000113 CP-2014-2 % OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,AND TOGETHER WITH; A STRIP OF LAND DESIGNATED AS RIGHT OF WAY OVER AND ACROSS THE NORTH 50 FEET OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST % OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA,AND; THE NORTH %2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE WEST '/ OF THE NORTHEAST '/. OF THE SOUTHWEST %4, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,AND; THE SOUTHWEST % OF THE SOUTHWEST % OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST %, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,AND; THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST % OF THE NORTHWEST % OF SOUTHWEST 1/4 LESS THE NORTH 30 FEET FOR RIGHT OF WAY OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,AND; THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST % OF THE SOUTHWEST % OF THE SOUTHWEST '/, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND; THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST % OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, LESS THE NORTH 328.19 FEET OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA, CONTAINING 55 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM: [Page 49] **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** 2. Density Bonuses **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus To encourage preservation/conservation of natural resources, density transfers are permitted as follows: (a) From Urban designated areas into that portion of the Urban designated area subject to this Density Rating System, in accordance with the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) provision contained in Section 2.03.07 of the Land Development Code, adopted by Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended, on June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004. For projects utilizing this TDR process, density may be increased above and beyond the density otherwise allowed by the Density Rating System. (b) From Sending Lands in conjunction with qualified infill development. (c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one unit per gross acre, exeept-for with the following exceptions: i_ saProperties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which may transfer TDRs from Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban 3 Words underlined are added; words ctrusk-through are deleted. Row of asterisks **** **** **** ( ) denotes break in text. PL20140000113 CP-2014-2 Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of 1.3 units per gross acre. ii. The Urban Residential Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve Residential Planned Unit Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density increase. iii. Up to 1.52 additional units per acre may be achieved for Urban Residential Fringe lands within the 196.4 acre portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described below, via the transfer of 1.52 dwelling units (transferable development right) per acre. The Property shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs derived from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density. The Property is further described as follows: That portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described in Ordinance No. 2000-10, as amended, excepting the ±39 acres located in the South '/ of the Southwest %4 of the Northwest % of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and in the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. In no case shall density be transferred into the Coastal High Hazard Area from outside the Coastal High Hazard Area. 4 Words underlined are added; words struck ough are deleted. Row of asterisks(**** **** ****)denotes break in text. ,ovNI E S T i:4 M0J t 9�4 • -1k� . 1926 Victoria Avenue I Fort Myers, FL 7, r '$ P:239.338.2550 F:239.338.2560 r I I 33901 ` www.swfrnc.ora i4 ," 4 cif ' -L 4 VN�"'' SNO Jwfs'REA�so' January 20, 2015 Mr.Nick Casalanguida Administrator Growth Management Division Collier County 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,Florida 34104 Re: Collier County DEO 15-1ESR Dear Mr. Casalanguida: The staff of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council has reviewed the requested amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). The review was performed according to the requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. The Council will review the proposed amendments to the Collier County GMP at its February 19, 2015 meeting. Council staff has recommended that Council find the changes described in DEO 15-1ESR as not regionally significant, and consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan (SRPP). Council staff also recommended that Council find that the requested changes do not generate adverse effects to facilities found in the SRPP and that the proposed changes do not produce extra jurisdictional impacts that are inconsistent with the comprehensive plans of any other local government. A copy of the official staff report explaining the Council staff's recommendation is attached. If Council action differs from the staff recommendation,we will notify you. Sincerely, thwest Florida Regiona Planning Council Margaret uerstle,AICP Executi Director MW/MAD Attachment Cc:Ray Eubanks,Administrator,Division of Community Planning/Plan Review and Processing,Department of Economic Opportunity. LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS COLLIER COUNTY The Council staff has reviewed proposed changes to the Collier County Growth Management Plan DEO 15-IESR. The changes were developed as a result of the 2013 Cycle 3 Growth Management Plan amendments. A synopsis of the requirements of the Act and Council responsibilities is provided as Attachment L Comments are provided in Attachment II. Site location maps can be reviewed in Attachment III. Staff review of the proposed amendments was based on whether they were likely to be of regional concern. This was determined through assessment of the following factors: 1. Location--in or near a regional resource or regional activity center, such that it impacts the regional resource or facility; on or within one mile of a county boundary; generally applied to sites of five acres or more; size alone is not necessarily a determinant of regional significance; 2. Magnitude--equal to or greater than the threshold for a Development of Regional Impact of the same type (a DRI-related amendment is considered regionally significant); and 3. Character--of a unique type or use, a use of regional significance, or a change in the local comprehensive plan that could be applied throughout the local jurisdiction; updates, editorial revisions,etc. are not regionally significant. A summary of the results of the review follows: Proposed Factors of Regional Significance Amendment Location Magnitude Character Consistent DEO 15-1ESR no no no (1)not regionally (CP-2014-2/ significant;and PL20140000113) (2)consistent with SRPP RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve staff comments. Authorize staff to forward comments to the Department of Economic Opportunity and Collier County. 2/19 Attachment I COMMUNITY PLANNING ACT Local Government Comprehensive Plans The Act requires each municipal and county government to prepare a comprehensive plan that must include at least the following nine elements: 1. Future Land Use Element; 2. Traffic Circulation Element; A local government with all or part of its jurisdiction within the urbanized area of a Metropolitan Planning Organization shall prepare and adopt a transportation element to replace the traffic circulation; mass transit; and ports,aviation,and related facilities elements. [9J-5.019(1),FAC] 3. General Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Drainage, and Potable Water and Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element; 4. Conservation Element; 5. Recreation and Open Space Element; 6. Housing Element; 7. Coastal Management Element for coastal jurisdictions; 8. Intergovernmental Coordination Element;and 9. Capital Improvements Element. The local government may add optional elements (e. g., community design, redevelopment, safety,historical and scenic preservation, and economic). All local governments in Southwest Florida have adopted revised plans: Charlotte County, Punta Gorda Collier County,Everglades City,Marco Island,Naples Glades County,Moore Haven Hendry County, Clewiston, LaBelle Lee County,Bonita Springs, Cape Coral,Fort Myers,Fort Myers Beach, Sanibel Sarasota County,Longboat Key,North Port, Sarasota,Venice Page 1 Attachment I Comprehensive Plan Amendments A local government may amend its plan at any time during the calendar year. Six copies of the amendment are sent to the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) for review. A copy is also sent to the Regional Planning Council, the Water Management District, the Florida Department of Transportation, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The proposed amendments will be reviewed by DEO in two situations. In the first, there must be a written request to DEO. The request for review must be received within forty- five days after transmittal of the proposed amendment. Reviews can be requested by one of the following: • the local government that transmits the amendment, • the regional planning council,or • an affected person. In the second situation, DEO can decide to review the proposed amendment without a request. In that case,DEO must give notice within thirty days of transmittal. Within five working days after deciding to conduct a review,DEO may forward copies to various reviewing agencies, including the Regional Planning Council. Regional Planning Council Review The Regional Planning Council must submit its comments in writing within thirty days of receipt of the proposed amendment from DEO. It must specify any objections and may make recommendations for changes. The review of the proposed amendment by the Regional Planning Council must be limited to "effects on regional resources or facilities identified in the Strategic Regional Policy plan and extra jurisdictional impacts which would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan of the affected local government. After receipt of comments from the Regional Planning Council and other reviewing agencies, DEO has thirty days to conduct its own review and determine compliance with state law. Within that thirty-day period,DEO transmits its written comments to the local government. NOTE: THE ABOVE IS A SIMPLIFIED VERSION OF THE LAW. REFER TO THE STATUTE(CH. 163,FS)FOR DETAILS. Page 2 Attachment II SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW FORM 01 LOCAL GOVERMENT: Collier County DATE AMENDMENT RECIEVED: December 22,2014 DATE AMENDMENT MAILED TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND STATE: Pursuant to Section 163.3184,Florida Statutes, Council review of proposed amendments to local government Comprehensive Plans is limited to adverse effects on regional resources and facilities identified in the Strategic Regional Policy Plan and extra jurisdictional impacts that would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan of any affected local government within the region. A written report containing the evaluation of these impacts, pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes,is to be provided to the local government and the State land planning agency within 30 calendar days of receipt of the amendment. December 22,2014 1. AMENDMENT NAME: Application Number: DEO 15-1ESR(CP-2014-2/PL20140000113) 2. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT(S): This petition is a privately-initiated petition submitted by Stock Development and H & LD Venture LLC. The amendment proposes to affect the transfer of TDR credits among properties in an area identified by Collier County's Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map FLUM, as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District(RFMUD) and Urban Residential Fringe(URF) Subdistrict, changing the Future Land Use Element by adding two (2) site-specific exceptions from existing limitations in the Transfer of Development Rights(TDR)program. 1. The first amends the URF Subdistrict provisions themselves, 2. The second amends the way density transfers are permitted by the Density Bonuses' provisions of the FLUE Density Rating System. The specific effect on the density realized by this proposed change to the Collier County GMP follows. Page 1 of 3 Attachment II Growth Management Plan Amendment(CP-2014-2)Future Land Use Element(FLUE) The proposed amendments to the County's Future Land Use Element (FLUE) is specific to the 196.4 acre subject site, located in southern Collier County, approximately 1.5 miles north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road, approximately 1 mile south of Beck Boulevard and immediately east of Collier Boulevard with approximately 1,000 feet of frontage on this arterial roadway. The property is designated in the Urban Fringe Residential (URF) Sub-District, is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) and is found within the 235 acre PUD know as San Marino, (Ordinance 2000-10). Of the 235 total acres, approximately 39 acres of the PUD has been developed with a 350 multi-family dwelling unit apartment complex know as "Aventine at Naples". The balance of the PUD's acreage is the subject of this amendment. Petition DEO 15-1ESR (CP-2014-2/PL20140000113CP-2014-2) seeks to amend the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) text of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) to introduce two site- specific exceptions from existing provisions of the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, affecting the transfer of TDR credits among properties in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District(RFMUD) and the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict. The petition requests an increase of.52 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) from the allowable TDR of 1.0 DU/A to 1.52 DU/A and amends the transfer of TDR credits originating more distant than one(1)mile from the URF boundary 1. The allowed base density for the 196.4 acres is 1.5 DU/A or 295 DUs and the TDR allowed density is 1.0 DU/A or 196 DUs. The petition requests an increase from the allowable TDR of 1.0 DU/A to 1.52 DU/A for use in the undeveloped portion of the San Marino PUD—increasing total density from the present maximum allowed 2.5 DU/A to 3.02 DU/A or 593 DUs. Of the 593 DUs calculated at the requested density, 295 DUs (at base density) are subtracted representing units already built and the two(2) remaining DUs approved and un-built from the San Marino PUD are added; ( 593 - 295 = 298 + 2 = 300 DUs). In summary, the amendment requests an increase in the TDR density for the site specific property within the San Marino PUD so as to permit the construction of 300 DUs on the undeveloped lands. 2. Collier County's TDR Program states TDR credits may be transferred from any RFMUD Sending Lands to any RFMUD Receiving Lands and Urban area receiving lands. But limits the TDR credits from Sending Lands to one (1) mile of the URF boundary. This proposed amendment requests the transfer of TDR credits originating more distant than one (1)mile from the URF boundary for use in the undeveloped portion of the San Marino PUD located in the URF. Page 2 of 3 Attachment II Council staff reviewed the proposed amendment request and found that the request was not regionally significant due to its lack of magnitude, location and character; that the proposed development would not substantially impact any regional resources or facilities; and that the proposed changes would not impact any adjacent jurisdiction. 2. ADVERSE EFFECTS TO SIGNIFICANT REGIONAL RESOURCES AND FACILITIES IDENTIFIED IN THE STRATEGIC REGIONAL POLICY PLAN: Council staff has reviewed the requested amendment. Based on the review, Council staff has found that the requested changes will not produce any significant adverse effects on the regional resources or regional facilities that are identified in the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. 3. EXTRAJURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITHIN THE REGION Council staff has reviewed the requested changes and finds that the requested Comprehensive Plan amendments do not produce any significant extra jurisdictional impacts that would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan of any other local government within the region. Request a copy of the adopted version of the amendment? X Yes_No Page 3 of 3 Attachment III Maps Collier County DEO 15-1ESR CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 Growth Management Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendments S 951 rl N, `�' i t ! 111111111k """" r 9 - - D NOV' -....,„ 1111111111k4 ,,,, _ f 4 is -, . . 9,11.1 43)7 / , , f . , .. . . , ,.. 1 ,, ?„,./.. / 4iiaglie.7.. , lik. 1_ , t'' sw......-----'Regional Sitelocation, I t L __(,... c i r ,. 1 .°).%\l".137,3"...leiimor° ,1..., I 3 lip ILO 11104 ^ECM Nape ; Her[lege L �,t J�ton,�i , c: r-ountr,� r- -,t. t off Club+ A Cblill, * .1 San Marino Apartments s :. i As t V } ,�•untf�! (.IulEi 1117:74: Ir a I - � 1 f. m L ��. r_. o. I - P' -, 4-64 1r 364 U6� i-� T�1 ' ': Property�outline approximate • r r min f.. Collier County Southwest Florida Regional Planning D E O 15- 1 E S R 0 6001,200 2,400 .Feet Council Feet WWW.SWfrpC.Org (Name:DE) 15_1 ESR_od11)Last updated by twatceron 1/612015 Centennial 1915*2015 Florida Department of Transportation RICK SCOTT 10041 Daniels Parkway JIM BOXOLD GOVERNOR Fort Myers,FL 33913 SECRETARY January 16,2015 Mr. David Weeks,AICP Growth Management Plan Manager Collier County Growth Management Division/Planning&Regulation Planning&Zoning Department Comprehensive Planning Section 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples,Florida 34104 RE: Collier County 15-1ESR(CP-2014-2) Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Expedited State Review Process)—FDOT Comments and Recommendations Dear Mr. Weeks: The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), District One, has reviewed the Collier County 15-1ESR (CP-2014-2), Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, transmitted under the Expedited State Review process (received by FDOT on December 22, 2014) in accordance with the requirements of Florida Statutes (F.S.) Chapter 163. The Department offers Collier County the following comments and recommendations for your consideration regarding the proposed amendment. CP-2014-2 (Text and Map Amendment): The San Marino Planned Unit Development(PUD) is a total of 235 acres. The subject site lies within the PUD boundary and comprises approximately 196.4 acres of undeveloped property. The site is located east of CR 951/Collier Boulevard, approximately 1.5 miles south of SR 84/Davis Boulevard and 1.5 miles north of CR 864/Rattlesnake Hammock Road in Collier County, Florida. It is noted that the subject property is designated as Urban Mixed Use District and Urban Residential Fringes(URF) Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposes to: 1. Amend the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) text of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) to increase the maximum allowable residential density that may be achieved in the 196.4 acres (undeveloped portion of the San Marino residential PUD) from 2.50 DU's/Acre,utilizing Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs)to 3.02 DU's/Acre utilizing TDRs, and 2. Allow the transfer of TDR derived residential density from sending lands located more than one(1) mile from the urban boundary to the undeveloped portion of the San Marino residential PUD. www.dot.state.fl.us Mr.David Weeks,AICP Collier County 15-1 ESR—FDOT Comments and Recommendations January 16,2015 Page 2 of 4 According to the existing FLU designation, the maximum development that can occur on the 196.4 acres of URF Subdistrict is 491 multi-family dwelling units (Base Density of 1.5 DU's/Acre + Allowed TDRs Density of 1.0 DU's/Acre = 2.5 DU's/Acre), which would result in 3,099 daily trips or 288 p.m.peak hour trips. According to the proposed FLU designation, the maximum development that can occur on the 196.4 acres of URF is 593 multi-family dwelling units (Base Density of 1.5 DU's/Acre + Allowed TDRs Density of 1.0 DU's/Acre +Proposed TDR's Density Increase of 0.52 DU's/Acre = 3.02 DU's/Acre). This would result in 3,717 daily trips or 344 p.m.peak hour trips. As indicated in the below table, the proposed development could result in a net increase of 618 daily trips or 56 p.m. peak hour trips. TRIP GENERATION AS PROPOSED IN CP-2014-2/RESOLUTION NO. 14-262 Size of Development Maximum ITE Scenario Land Use Allowed Land Use Daily Tripst PM Peak Designation Density i Code Acres Allowed Trips Intensity Development Approved URF-MF-RES 2.5 DUs Acre 220 196.4 491 DU's 3,099 288 Proposed URF-MF-RES 3.02 DUs'Acre 220 196.4 593 DU's 3,717 344 Change in Trips +618 +56 .1. Trip generation based on the rates and equations obtained in the ITE Trip Generation Manual(9th Edition). As seen in the following tables, a planning level analysis was prepared to establish whether state roadways in the vicinity of the project will operate at their adopted level of service (LOS) standards, as identified within the Collier County's comprehensive plan during the existing (2013), short-term (2019), and long term(2035)horizon year conditions. YEAR 2013 EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS 2013 Conditions Roadway From To SIS? LOS Std. No of Service' Lanes Volume AADT LOS Acceptable? SR Santa 84/Davis Barbara Blvd Radio Rd N D 4 41,790 10,500 C Yes Blvd SR SR 951/CR 84"Davis Radio Rd 951 N D 6 62,895 16,300 C Yes Blvd www.dot.state.fl.us Mr.David Weeks,AICP Collier County 15-1 ESR—FDOT Comments and Recommendations January 16,2015 Page 3 of 4 SR SR 84/Davis 951■Collier Blvd E.oft-75 N D 8 84,105 40,000 C Yes Blvd CR 1-75 SR 951 886,Golden Y D 4 74,400 34,500 B Yes Gate Pkwy 1. Service Volume at the Collier County Adopted LOS Standard. YEAR 2019 SHORT-TERM HORIZON ROADWAY CONDITIONS 2019 Conditions Roadway From To No.of Service' 20192 Project' Project Total Lanes LOS Std. volume Background Dist.% Traffic Traffic LOS Acceptable? Traffic SR 84'Davis Santa Radio Rd 4 D 41,790 11,800 27% 167 11,967 C Yes Blvd Barbara Blvd SR 84/Davis SR 951/CR Blvd Radio Rd 951 6 D 62,895 18,300 37% 229 18,529 C Yes SR SR 84'Davis 951/Collier Blvd E.of 1-75 8 D 84,105 44,900 25% 155 45,055 C Yes Blvd CR 1-75 SR 951 886/Golden 6 D 111,800 39,200 15% 93 39,293 B Yes Gate Pkwy 1. Service Volume at the Collier County Adopted LOS Standard. 2. The short-term planning horizon year 2019 background volumes were obtained using historical growth rates. 3. The project traffic distribution percentages were obtained based on the information provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis(Exhibit M),dated February 26,2014. YEAR 2035 LONG-TERM HORIZON ROADWAY CONDITIONS 2035 Conditions Roadway From To No.of Service' LOS ervice' 20352 Projects Project Total Acceptable Lanes LOS Std. Volume Background Dist.% Traffic Traffic ? Traffic SR 84/Davis Santa Radio Rd 4 D 41,790 23,254 27% 167 23,421 C Yes Blvd Barbara Blvd SR 84/Davis Radio Rd SR 951/CR 6 D 62,895 31,871 37% 229 32,100 C Yes Blvd 951 SR SR 84/Davis 951/Collier Blvd E.of 1-75 8 D 84,105 78,899 25% 155 79,054 C Yes Blvd CR 1-75 SR 951 886/Golden 6 D 111,800 81,685 15% 93 81,778 C Yes Gate Pkwy 1. Service Volume at the Collier County Adopted LOS Standard. 2. The long-term planning horizon year 2035 background volumes were obtained using model volumes. 3. The project traffic distribution percentages were obtained based on the information provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis(Exhibit M),dated February 26,2014. www.dot.state.fl.us Mr.David Weeks,AICP Collier County 15-I ESR—FDOT Comments and Recommendations January 16,2015 Page 4 of 4 FDOT Comment# 1: Based on the planning level analysis, the segment of SR 84/Davis Boulevard from Santa Barbara Boulevard to SR 951/CR 951, the segment of SR 951/Collier Boulevard from SR 84/Davis Boulevard to east of 1-75, and the segment of I-75 from SR 951 to CR 886/Golden Gate Parkway, located in the vicinity of the subject property operate under acceptable conditions during the existing conditions. In addition, the same roadway segments are anticipated to operate under acceptable conditions with the proposed amendment during the year 2019 short- term and the 2035 long-term conditions. The Department has determined that the changes associated with the proposed amendment, CP-2014-2, are not anticipated to adversely impact important state transportation resources or facilities. Thank you for providing FDOT with the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed amendment. If you have any questions please free to contact me at(239)225-1981 or sarah.catala@dot.state.fl.us. Sincerely, Sarah Catala SIS/Growth Management Coordinator FDOT District One CC: Mr. Ray Eubanks, Florida Department of Economic Opportunity www.dot.state.fl.us S z SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ��OS,°j msa•`y7�Y January 13, 2015 Nick Casalanguida, Administrator Collier County, Growth Management Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Collier County, DEO #15-1ESR Comments on Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Package Dear Mr. Casalanguida: The South Florida Water Management District (District) has completed its review of the proposed amendment package from Collier County (County). The amendment updates the Future Land Use Element to include two site specific exceptions in the Transfer of Development Rights Program for a 196-acre site within the San Marino Planned Unit Development. There appear to be no regionally significant water resource issues; therefore, the District forwards no comments on the proposed amendment package. The District offers its technical assistance to the County and the Department of Economic Opportunity in developing sound, sustainable solutions to meet the County's future water supply needs and to protect the region's water resources. Please forward a copy of adopted amendments to the District. For assistance or additional information, please contact Deborah Oblaczynski, Policy and Planning Analyst, at (561) 682-2544 or doblaczy @sfwmd.gov. Sincerely, t,e,,,, Dean Powell Water Supply Bureau Chief DP/do c: Ray Eubanks, DEO Deborah Oblaczynski, SFWMD David Weeks, AICP, Collier County Brenda Winningham, DEO Margaret Wuerstle, SWFRPC 3301 Gun Club Road,West Palm Beach,Florida 33406 • (561)686-8800 • FL WATS 1-800-432-2045 Mailing Address: P.O.Box 24680,West Palm Beach,FL 33416-4680 • www.sfwmd.gov • Rick Scott } Jesse Panuccio GOVERNOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FLORIDA DEPARTMENT ef ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY RECEIVED JACK 2 1 2 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT January 16, 2015 The Honorable Tom Henning, Chairman Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 303 Naples, Florida 34112-5746 Dear Chairman Henning: The Department of Economic Opportunity has completed its review of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for Collier County (Amendment No. 15-1ESR), which was received on December 22, 2014. We have reviewed the proposed amendment pursuant to Sections 163.3184(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (F.S.), and identified no comments related to important state resources and facilities within the Department's authorized scope of review that will be adversely impacted by the amendment if adopted. • The County is reminded that pursuant to Section 163.3184(3)(b), F.S., other reviewing agencies have the authority to provide comments directly to the County. If other reviewing agencies provide comments, we recommend the County consider appropriate changes to the amendment based on those comments. If unresolved, such reviewing agency comments could form the basis for a challenge to the amendment after adoption. The County should act by choosing to adopt, adopt with changes, or not adopt the proposed amendment. Also, please note that Section 163.3184(3)(c)1, F.S., provides that if the second public hearing is not held within 180 days of your receipt of agency comments,the amendment shall be deemed withdrawn unless extended by agreement with notice to the Department and any affected party that provided comment on the amendment. For your assistance, we have enclosed the procedures for adoption and transmittal of the comprehensive plan amendment. • • Florida Department of Economic Opportunity j Caldwell Building I 107 E.Madison Street I Tallahassee,FL 32399 866.FLA.2345 j 850.245.7105 j 850.921.3223 Fax www.floridajobs.org j www.twitter.com/FLDEO j www.facebook.com/FLDEO The Honorable Tom Henning, Chairman January 16, 2015 Page 2 of 2 If you have any questions concerning this review, please contact Scott Rogers, Planning Analyst, at (850) 717-8510, or by email at scott.rogers@deo.myflorida.com. Sincerely, Ana Richmond, Chief Bureau of Community Planning AR/sr Enclosure: Procedures for Adoption cc: Michael Bosi, Director, Collier County Planning &Zoning Department Margaret Wuerst le, Executive Director, Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council SUBMITTAL OF ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR EXPEDITED STATE REVIEW Section 163.3184(3), Florida Statutes NUMBER OF COPIES TO BE SUBMITTED: Please submit three complete copies of all comprehensive plan materials, of which one complete paper copy and two complete electronic copies on CD ROM in Portable Document Format (PDF) to the Department of Economic Opportunity and one copy to each entity below that provided timely comments to the local government:the appropriate Regional Planning Council; Water Management District; Department of Transportation; Department of Environmental Protection; Department of State; the appropriate county (municipal amendments only); the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (county plan amendments only); and the Department of Education (amendments relating to public schools); and for certain local' governments, the appropriate military installation and any other local government or governmental agency that has filed a written request. SUBMITTAL LETTER: Please include the following information in the cover letter transmitting the adopted amendment: Department of Economic Opportunity identification number for adopted amendment package; Summary description of the adoption package, including any amendments proposed but not adopted; Identify if concurrency has been rescinded and indicate for which public facilities. (Transportation, schools, recreation and open space). Ordinance number and adoption date; Certification that the adopted amendment(s) has been submitted to all parties that provided timely comments to the local government; Name, title, address, telephone, FAX number and e-mail address of local government contact; Letter signed by the chief elected official or the person designated by the local government. 1 Effective:June 2, 2011 (Updated March 11, 2013) ADOPTION AMENDMENT PACKAGE: Please include the following information in the amendment package: In the case of text amendments, changes should be shown in strike- through/underline format. In the case of future land use map amendments, an adopted future land use map, in color format, clearly depicting the parcel, its future land use designation, and its adopted designation. A copy of any data and analyses the local government deems appropriate. Note: If the local government is relying on previously submitted data and analysis, no additional data and analysis is required; Copy of the executed ordinance adopting the comprehensive plan amendment(s); Suggested effective date language for the adoption ordinance for expedited review: The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be 31 days after the Department of Economic Opportunity notifies the local government that the plan amendment package is complete. If timely challenged, this amendment shall become effective on the date the Department of Economic Opportunity 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 Department of Economic Opportunity. List of additional changes made in the adopted amendment that the Department of Economic Opportunity did not previously review; List of findings of the local governing body, if any, that were not included in the ordinance and which provided the basis of the adoption or determination not to adopt the proposed amendment; Statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes not previously reviewed by the Department of Economic Opportunity in response to the comment letter from the Department of Economic Opportunity. 2 Effective:June 2, 2011 (Updated March 11, 2013) Rick Scott Jesse Panuccio GOVERNOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FLORIDA DEPARTMENT'1 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY December 10, 2014 • The Honorable Tom Henning, Chairman Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 303 Naples, Florida 34112-5746 Dear Chairman Henning: The Department of Economic Opportunity has completed its review of the proposed comprehensive plain amendment for Collier County (Amendment No. 14-5ESR), which was received on November 12, 2014. We have reviewed the proposed amendment pursuant to Sections 163.3184(2)and (3), Florida Statutes (F.S.), and identified no comments related to important state resources and facilities within the Department's authorized scope of review that will be adversely impacted by the amendment if adopted. The County is reminded that pursuant to Section 163.3184(3)(b), F.S., other reviewing agencies have the authority to provide comments directly to the County. If other reviewing agencies provide comments, we recommend the County consider appropriate changes to the amendment based on those comments. If unresolved, such reviewing agency comments could form the basis for a challenge to the amendment after adoption. The County should act by choosing to adopt, adopt with changes,or not adopt the proposed amendment. Also, please note that Section 163.3184(3)(c)1, F.S., provides that if the second public hearing is not held within 180 days of your receipt of agency comments,the amendment shall be deemed withdrawn unless extended by agreement with notice to the Department and any affected party that provided comment on the amendment. For your assistance,we have enclosed the procedures for adoption and transmittal of the comprehensive plan amendment. Florida Department of Economic Opportunity j Caldwell Building i 107 F.Madison Street ! Tallahassee,FL 32399 866.FLA.2345 ! 850.245.7105 1 850.9213223 Fax www.florid aio b s. www.twittcr.com/FLD1X) 1 www.facebook.com/1'LDEO OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER ��F,Y C v 5, THE CAPITOL (850)6I7-77oa ' .t. 400 SOUTH MONROE STREET '''',-,.•••7'4' .:lii- TALLAHASSEE,FLORIDA 32399-08o° s na= FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES COMMISSIONER ADAM H. PUTNAM January 8,2015 VIA US EMAIL(davidweeks @colliergov.net) Collier County Growth Management Division Attn: David Weeks 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Re: DACS Docket#—20141223-498 Collier County Single Proposed 2014 Cycle I Submission dated December 19,2014 Dear Mr. Weeks: The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services(the"Department") received the above- referenced proposed comprehensive plan amendment on December 23,2014 and has reviewed it pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes to address any potential adverse impacts to important state resources or facilities related to agricultural,aquacultural,or forestry resources in Florida if the proposed amendment(s)are adopted. Based on our review of your county's submission, the Department has no comment on the proposal. If we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 850-410-2289. Sincerely, if . f / d. Stormie Knig t Sr. Management Analyst I Office of Policy and Budget cc: Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (SLPA#: Collier County 15-1 ESR) Frei 1-800-HELP FLA Florida www.Fresh FromFl orida.com EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to deny the single petition within the 2014 Cycle 1 of Growth Management Plan Amendments for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for review and Comments response, for an amendment specific to the San Marino project,Transmittal Hearing. OBJECTIVE: For the Board to deny the one petition in the 2014 Cycle 1 of amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity(San Marino project). CONSIDERATIONS: • Chapter 163, F.S., provides for an amendment process for a local government's adopted Growth Management Plan. • Resolution 12-234 provides for a public petition process to amend the Collier County GMP. • The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), sitting as the"local planning agency" under Chapter 163.3174, F.S., held their Transmittal hearing for the 2014 Cycle 1 petition on November 6, 2014(one petition only,PL20140000113/CP-2014-2). • This Transmittal hearing for the 2014 Cycle 1 considers an amendment to the Future Land Use Element. Note: Because the support materials (petition only) are voluminous, and some exhibits are oversized, the Agenda Central system contains as noted, "confidential" the related document pertaining to this GMP amendment. A link has been provided to the `I' drive on page 4 of this document in order to view the document. The entire Executive Summary package, including all support materials, is available for review in the Comprehensive Planning Section of the Zoning Department office, located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, as well as in the Clerk of Courts/Minutes and Records office at 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 401. Or, the entire Executive Summary package may be viewed on the Comprehensive Planning Section GMP Amendments web page, via http://www.colliergov.net/index.aspx?page=2460. Petition PL20140000113/CP-2014-2 seeks to amend the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) text of the GMP to introduce two site-specific exceptions from existing limitations in the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, affecting the transfer of TDR credits among properties in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) and the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict. Adoption of these amendments will grant new rights exclusive to [the undeveloped portion of] the San Marino Planned Unit Development (PUD) property - to utilize 52% more TDRs than other development in the URF, and allow those TDRs from distant RFMUD Sending Lands. Presently, properties located within the URF may only receive TDR density transfers from the RFMUD Sending Lands located within one (1) mile of the URF boundary. Stated differently, TDR credits may be transferred from any RFMUD Sending Lands to any RFMUD Receiving Lands and Urban area receiving lands except that TDR credits from Sending Lands beyond one (1) mile of the URF boundary cannot be transferred into the URF. Part of this proposed amendment will allow the transfer of TDR credits originating more distant than one (1) mile from the URF boundary for use in [the undeveloped portion of] the San Marino PUD, which is located in the URF. Also, at present, properties located within the URF may receive the above-described TDR transfers at up to 1.0 dwelling unit per acre (DU/A) via the transfer of one TDR per acre - in addition to the base density of 1.5 DU/A. Stated differently, the maximum residential URF density may be increased from 1.5 DU/A to 2.5 DU/A utilizing TDRs through the Density Rating System. Part of this proposed amendment will increase the allowed transfer of TDR credits into the URF from 1.0 DU/A to 1.52 DU/A via TDRs for use in [the undeveloped portion of] the San Marino PUD—increasing total density from the present maximum allowed 2.5 DU/A to 3.02 DU/A via use of TDRs — a 0.52 DU/A increase or an increase of 102 DUs). [Note: The application identifies the request is to allow 4.0 DU/A for an increase of 1.5 DU/A or 295 DUs. At the Planning Commission hearing, the petitioner reduced the request to 3.02 DU/A for an increase of 0.52 DU/A or 102 DUs. This irregular density figure (0.52 DU/A) is so as to allow development of the site with a total of 300 DUs; the density calculation is described further below.] The site of this GMP amendment request comprises only a portion of the San Marino PUD (196.4 acres of the total 235 acres); the PUD is already approved for the maximum base density of 1.5 DU/A, for a total of 352 DUs; approximately 39 acres of the PUD are developed with an apartment complex consisting of 350 DUs—most of that density being derived from the subject 196.4-acre portion of the total 235 acres in the PUD; and, the subject site will utilize the two (2) remaining DUs approved in the PUD but un-built. All of this may lead to some confusion in attempting to understand the density calculations resulting from this amendment request; the below table may help. Subject site= 196.4 acres Base density(presently allowed) 1.5 DU/A 295 DUs TDR density(presently allowed) 1.0 DU/A 196 DUs TDR density increase—this petition 0.52 DU/A 102 DUs SUM 3.02 DU/A 593 DUs From the above table: Of the 593 DUs total proposed, subtract 295 DUs that have already been approved in the San Marino PUD and already built on the 39-acre portion of the PUD to yield 298 DUs (196 + 102);then, add the 2 DUs approved in the PUD but un-built to yield 300 DUs to be developed on this 196.4-acre site. Again from the above table: All 298 DUs (196 + 102) will be derived from TDR credits; this amendment would allow the increase of 102 DUs, and would allow all 298 TDR credits to be derived from any RFMUD Sending Lands(within or beyond 1 mile from the URF boundary). There are three existing exceptions to the 2.5 DU/A cap in the URF;two of these projects include provision of affordable/workforce housing, a priority at the time (First Assembly Ministries PUD —approved in 2008, no DUs built, and Rockedge PUD—approved in 2006, no DUs built [a pre- application meeting was held in November 2014 at which the applicant indicated plans to pursue development at a maximum of 2.5 DU/A with no provision of affordable-workforce housing]), and the third is Hacienda Lakes — approved in 2011. Two developments in (or partially in) the URF are approved for density of 2.5 DU/A with use of TDRs —Lord's Way 30 Acre PUD and Naples Reserve PUD, and another is pending—Lido Isles PUD. All other developments in the URF are approved at no greater than 1.5 DU/A(Forest Glen of Naples PUD, Willow Run PUD, Winding Cypress PUD, and the existing San Marino PUD. Staff's evaluation and analysis of this petition included/considered: history of the Rural Fringe GMP amendments; the stated intent that the URF provide a transitional density; that the 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report did not identify a need for changes to the URF regarding transitional density or restriction on TDR derivation; the applicant's justifications; the supply and demand of TDR credits and how they are proposed to be transferred into the San Marino property; environmental impacts; and, traffic capacity/traffic circulation impact analysis and other public facilities impacts.This review resulted in the following findings and conclusions: • Correlating amendments to the San Marino PUD are needed and may be submitted subsequent to, or concurrent with,the Adoption phase of this GMP amendment petition. • Public Utilities' staff does not have preliminary issues with respect to the proposed amendment. • The part of the GMP amendment allowing the transfer of TDR-derived residential density from more than one (1) mile from the Urban Boundary to the undeveloped portion of the San Marino PUD would satisfy a portion of the potential unmet need in the Urban Residential Fringe for TDR credits. • The proposed GMP amendment will have no affect on the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) and will support the intent of the TDR program by directing development away from environmentally sensitive RFMUD Sending Lands. • The majority of the site is forested with native vegetation, twenty five percent of which is required to be retained in accordance with the CCME. Native vegetation preservation may not change from this amendment, while Goals of the RFMUD may be met without any need for change. • This amendment will result in increased demand for TDRs in one area [Sending Lands beyond 1 mile from URF] but decreased demand for them in another [Sending Lands within 1 mile of URF] D while no net benefits are gained for the TDR program. • Impact upon the TDR program could be noteworthy in that a number of TDR credits originally intended for use in areas of RFMUD designated Receiving Lands will be redirected to the Urban Residential Fringe—a reallocation of TDR credits. • The number of TDRs available from "qualified" Sending Lands is sufficient at this time. • This GMP amendment increases the potential devaluation of TDR credits generated from Sending Lands within one mile of the URF. • The Urban Residential Fringe is intended for, and developed with, lower "transitional" residential densities; a more compatible and consistent development pattern would be maintained without approval of the proposed higher density. • Continued approval of exceptions to the URF density cap lessens the intended transition and encourages further requests for such exceptions — and suggests that the density cap may no longer be appropriate for the Subdistrict as a whole. Staff found the data and analysis for the subject GMP amendment does not support the proposed changes to the FLUE. Additional staff analysis of this petition is included in the CCPC Staff Report. FISCAL IMPACT: There are no fiscal impacts to Collier County as a result of this amendment, as this is for the Transmittal of this proposed amendment. Petition fees account for staff review time and materials, and for the cost of associated legal advertising/public notice. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item is approved as to form and legality. A majority vote of the Board is needed for adoption of the Resolution. [HFACJ GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Approval of the proposed amendment by the Board for Transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity will commence the Department's thirty (30) day review process and ultimately return the amendment to the CCPC and the Board for Adoption hearings to be held early to late Spring in 2015. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The majority of the petition site is forested with native vegetation, twenty five percent of which is required to be retained in accordance with the requirements of the CCME. Approximately 71 percent of the site (139.50 acres) contains State and Federal jurisdictional wetlands. No listed wildlife species were observed during the survey conducted in February, 2014. However, two listed plant species were identified on the property; they are subject to the Land Development Code requirements for possible relocation. As part of the process of obtaining subsequent development orders (e.g. site development plan), the site will be subject to all applicable local, state and federal environmental protection regulations, including applicable portions of the CCME, and the Land Development Code. HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: No archaeological sites or cultural resources are recorded for or likely to be present within the San Marino site, and it is unlikely that any such sites or resources will be affected. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: That the CCPC forward Petition CP-2014-2, as proposed, to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation not to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. Staff did, however, recommend approval of a different version of FLUE text: allowing for the transfer of TDR credits from Sending Lands property more than one (1) mile from the Urban boundary; removing the density increase; and, incorporating non-substantive changes for proper code language, format, clarity,brevity, etc. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC forwarded petition PL20140000113/CP-2014-2, as modified by the petitioner to reduce the density increase request to 0.52 DU/A (3.02 DU/A total), to the Board with a recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (vote: 7/0), subject to the staff-recommended non-substantive changes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: Same as to the CCPC — not to transmit petition PL20140000113/CP-2014-2, as submitted or as revised at the CCPC meeting,to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. Staff does, however, recommend approval of a different version of FLUE text: allowing for the transfer of TDR credits from Sending Lands property more than one (1) mile from the Urban boundary; removing the density increase; and, incorporating non-substantive changes for proper code language, format, clarity, brevity, etc. Prepared by: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, and David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Department, Growth Management Division Attachments: 1)PL20140000113/CP-2014-2 CCPC Staff Report; 2)PL20140000113/CP-2014-2 Resolution with Exhibit"A"text; 3)NIM Mtg. Affidavit of Compliance 4) CP-2014-2 Application Backup Information(petition only); due to the size of the entire document, the complete back-up is accessible at: http://www.colliergov.net/ftp/AgendaDec0914/GrowthMgmt/PL20140000113 CP-2014- 2 SanMarino Petition.pdf Agenda Item 9.A. Co e-r Co-r�-ri.ty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/PLANNING AND REGULATION, PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: November 6, 2014 SUBJECT: PETITION CP-2014-2/ PL-2014-0000113, Growth Management Plan Amendment (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) APPLICANTS/OWNERS/AGENTS: Stock Development H & LD Venture, LLC do Keith Gelder do Joe Boff 2647 Professional Circle, Suite 1201 11145 Tamiami Trail East Naples, Florida 34110 Naples, Florida 34113 HCN Foundation Habitat for Humanity of Collier Co., Inc. Landstrasse 11 11145 Tamiami Trail East Triesen, Liechtenstein Naples, Florida 34113 Alexis V. Crespo,AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Waldrop Engineering, PA. Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Suite 305 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Naples, Florida 34103 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject site is within the San Marino Planned Unit Development (PUD) and comprises approximately 196 acres of the 235-acre PUD. It is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), approximately 1.5 miles south of Davis Boulevard (CR 84), 1.5 miles north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR 864), north and east of the developed portion of the San Marino PUD, north and west of the proposed Willow Run PUD (now Willow Run Sand & Gravel) and, south of Forest Glen Golf & Country Club PUD, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East (Royal Fakapalm Planning Community). REQUESTED ACTIONS: This petition seeks to amend the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) text of the Growth Management Plan to introduce two site-specific exceptions from existing limitations in the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, affecting the transfer of TDR credits among properties in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) and the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict. The first amends the URF Subdistrict provisions themselves, while the second amends the way density transfers are permitted by Density Bonuses' provisions of the FLUE Density Sating System. - 1 - CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development:allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. Properties located within the URF may only receive TDR density transfers from the RFMUD Sending Lands located within one (1) mile of the URF boundary. Stated differently, TDR credits may be transferred from any RFMUD Sending Lands to any RFMUD Receiving Lands and Urban area receiving lands except that TDR credits from Sending Lands beyond 1 mile of the URF boundary cannot be transferred into the URF. Part of this proposed amendment will allow the transfer of TDR credits originating more distant than one (1) mile from the URF boundary for use in [the undeveloped portion of] the San Marino PUD, which is located in the URF. Presently, properties located within the URF may receive the above-described TDR transfers at up to 1.0 dwelling unit per acre (DU/A) via the transfer of one TDR per acre. Stated differently, the maximum residential URF density may be increased from 1.5 DU/A to 2.5 DU/A utilizing TDRs through the Density Rating System. Part of this proposed amendment will allow the transfer of TDR credits at up to 2.5 DU/A for use in [the undeveloped portion of] the San Marino PUD (increasing density from 1.5 DU/A to 4 DU/A). Adoption of these amendments will grant new rights exclusive to the San Marino property to utilize two and one-half times more TDRs from distant RFMUD Sending Lands than other development in the URF. (CP-2014-2 Resolution Exhibit A reflects the petition's proposed text changes;staff text alternatives are located under Staff Recommendation at end of this Report.) SURROUNDING LAND USE,ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Subject Site: The 196.4-acre subject site is zoned San Marino PUD; that total (235 acres) PUD is approved for 352 multi-family units, golf course, and 103 acres of preserves. Of the 352 approved DUs, 350 DUs are built on 39 acres. The undeveloped 196.4-acre subject site is designated in the PUD as golf course and preserve. The PUD's gross density is 1.5 DU/A(352 DUs/235 acres) and net density is 8.98 DU/A(350 built DUs/39 acres). The subject site is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict(URF) on the Future Land Use Map. This site does not abut the RFMUD to the east. The transitional Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) allows a maximum gross density of 1.5 DU/A, or 2.5 DU/A through use of TDR Credits (1.5 DU/A base density + 1.0 DU/A TDR Credits = 2.5 DU/A maximum). The maximum gross density (1.5 DU/A) approved in San Marino PUD has been used except for 2 DUs (350/352 DUs built). San Marino PUD site (235 acres)- Eligible Density Existing Conditions No. of Acres Density Total No.of DUs 235 Base 1.5 DU/A 353 235 TDRs 1.0 DU/A 235 Total Eligible 2.5 DU/A 588(approved for 352 DUs) Proposed No. of Acres Density Total No. of DUs 235 Base 1.5 DU/A 353 39(developed apartment site) TDRs 1.0 DU/A 39 196.4(undeveloped subject site) TDRs 2.5 DU/A 491 Total Eligible 39 acs. @ 2.5 DU/A11 883* 196.4 acs. @ 4.0 DU/A * Likely maximum of 844 DUs, as the 39-acre site is built-out with a 350-unit apartment complex. -2 - CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development:allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. Surrounding Lands: North: A large portion of bounding lands to the north of the subject site is zoned PUD (Forest Glen of Naples PUD, approved for a variety of commercial uses (100,000 sq. ft. on 10 acres), residential uses (799 residential units), golf course (70 acres), essential services (including fire station site), and 385 acres of preserve and open space. Of the 799 approved DUs, 769 DUs have been built; the golf course and fire station are also built. The PUD's gross density is 1.28 DU/A(799 DUs/625 noncommercial acres) and the net density is 4.52 DU/A(769 built DUs/170 acres. The portion generally west of an FPL ROW is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, which allows agricultural uses, single-family residential at a maximum density of 1 DU per 5 acres [0.2 units per acre], and a variety of institutional and recreational uses subject to the conditional use process; these A-zoned lands are undeveloped. All of these lands are designated Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) on the Future Land Use Map. West: Land to the west of the subject site [across CR 951] is zoned PUD (Naples National Golf Club), approved for residential uses (24 DUs/guest suites), a golf course and 184 acres of preserve/conservation. Of the 24 approved units, 12 have been built, as well as the golf course. The PUD's gross density is 0.075 DU/A(24 DUs/320 acres). The Future Land Use designation is Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. South: A portion of bounding lands to the south of the subject site is zoned San Marino PUD and developed with Aventine at Naples apartments (350 units built out of 352 total approved in the PUD). The portion generally east of an FPL ROW is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, with a Conditional Use for an earth materials extraction operation, and developed as the Willow Run Quarry. The Willow Run property is pending PUD approval for 590 dwelling units (1.06 units per acre), associated recreational uses, and preserves. These lands are designated Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) on the Future Land Use Map. East: Land to the east of the subject site is also zoned A, Rural Agricultural, with a Conditional Use for an earth materials extraction operation, and developed as the Willow Run Quarry. The Willow Run property is pending PUD approval for 590 dwelling units (1.06 units per acre), associated recreational uses, and preserves; it is partly located in the URF and partly in RFMUD Sending Lands. These Sending Lands do not abut the subject site to the west. The Future Land Use designation is also Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict(URF). In summary, the existing land uses in the area immediately surrounding or directly opposite the subject PUD are predominately rural non-residential in nature to the east, and residential to the west, north and [pending] south. STAFF ANALYSIS: Background and Considerations- History of the Rural Fringe GMP Amendments: The Governor and Cabinet issued a Final Order on June 22, 1999, pertaining to GMP amendments adopted in 1997 pursuant to the 1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). The Final Order required the County to conduct a Rural and Agricultural Assessment for the Rural and Conservation Designated lands within the County, and then adopt measures to protect natural resources such as wetlands, wildlife and their habitats, and prevent the premature conversion of unique agricultural lands to other uses. This was to be accomplished while directing incompatible land uses away from these sensitive lands by employing creative land planning techniques. -3 - CP-2014-2/P120140000113 2014-2, Stock Development:allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. The Final Order allowed the County to conduct this Assessment in phases. Accordingly, the County divided the Assessment into two geographical areas, the Rural Fringe Area and the Eastern Rural Lands Area. Relevant to this petition, the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) was established. The RFMUD represents a transitional area between Golden Gate Estates and the County's urban area, and between the urban area and vast agricultural lands and agricultural operations farther to the east. The RFMUD consists of approximately 73,222 acres and is divided into three distinct designations: Sending Lands (+41,535 acres originally; ± 41,414 acres now), Receiving Lands (± 22,020 acres originally; ± 22,373 acres now), and Neutral Lands (4- 9,667 acres originally; ± 9,427 acres now). Allowable uses, density, and preservation standards vary by designation. Sending Lands are those lands that have the highest degree of environmental value and sensitivity and generally include significant wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species. The preservation standard for non-NRPA Sending Lands is eighty percent (80%) of the native vegetation on site while the standard for NRPA Sending Lands is ninety percent(90%). Density is limited to 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres or 1 dwelling unit per legal non-conforming lot/parcel of record (created on or before June 22, 1999). Transfer of development rights from Sending Lands may occur at a rate of 1 dwelling unit per five acres (0.2 du/ac.) [later increased to account for each of three types of TDR bonus credits thereby allowing a maximum transfer of 0.8 TDR credits per 5 acres] or 1 dwelling unit per legal non-conforming lot / parcel of record. Permitted non-residential uses are limited to: agricultural uses, consistent with the Florida Right to Farm Act; habitat preservation and conservation uses; passive parks and other passive recreational uses; sporting and recreational camps; limited essential services; and oil extraction and related processing. Receiving Lands are those lands identified as being the most appropriate for development and to which residential units may be received from areas designated as Sending Lands. The preservation standard for Receiving Lands, except for the North Belle Meade Overlay, is forty percent (40%) of the native vegetation present, not to exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the total site area to be preserved. The base residential density (non-Rural Village development) is 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres (0.2 du/ac.) or 1 dwelling unit per legal non-conforming lot/parcel of record. The maximum density achievable for non-Rural Village development is 1 dwelling unit per acre, through the Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs). The minimum and maximum density for Rural Village development within Receiving Lands is 2 and 3 dwelling units per acre, respectively, except that the minimum density for Rural Village development on Receiving Lands within the North Belle Meade Overlay is 1.5 dwelling units per acre. Permitted non-residential uses are primarily the same as those uses permitted in the agricultural zoning district prior to the Final Order(e.g. full range of agricultural uses, community facilities, recreational uses, etc.). Neutral Lands are those lands suitable for semi-rural residential development. Generally, Neutral lands have a higher ratio of native vegetation than lands designated as Receiving Lands, but do not have values approaching those in the Sending Lands. The preservation standard for Neutral Lands is sixty percent(60%) of the native vegetation present, not to exceed forty-five percent (45%) of the total site area to be preserved. The maximum residential density is limited to 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres (0.2 du/ac.) or legal non-conforming lot/parcel of record. These lands are "neutral" to the TDR program and do not generate or receive residential density. Permitted non-residential uses are primarily the same as the uses permitted in the agricultural zoning district prior to the Final Order(e.g. full range of agricultural uses, community facilities, recreational uses, etc.). The consultant who assisted in development of the RFMUD TDR program found a correlation between the proximity of properties lying east of CR 951 and their land values. The higher transitional/residential densities allowed in the Urban Residential Fringe affected these nearer lands with higher property values while more-distant Sending Lands - which are less dense, -4- CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development: allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. further removed from urban services, less acceptable, and so forth - revealed notably lower values. This geographical relationship was recognized and specific limitations established to bolster TDR values for the more proximate lands, and provided special arrangements for the transfer, redemption and use of TDRs. The consultant also directly addressed the TDR program, and predicted the haste which requests to change the program to benefit only a few, or single, landowners would appear. The County was cautioned to keep the TDR program intact [for a substantial period of time]. Changes weaken the program, diminish TDR values and discourage the viability of long-term continuing participation. Applicant's Justifications: (Refer to application "Exhibit P", Amendment Justification Narrative) The justifications asserted in the application for the proposed amendments [with staff assessments]are: 1) The proposed amendment furthers the RFMUD goal to preserve Sending Lands by providing additional opportunities for TDRs to be utilized by Receiving Lands; [Staff Assessment: Not acknowledged » Creating additional demand for TDRs may only accelerate the timing of TDR severances, thus the timing of Sending Lands' protection- but the goal to protect Sending Lands may be met without any need for change. With respect to utilization of TDRs by Receiving Lands, this GMPA will not result in TDRs being used in RFMUD Receiving Lands but does create opportunity for more TDRs to be used in URF receiving lands.] 2) Will further the objectives of the TDR program by increasing demand for TDRs; [Staff Assessment:Acknowledged; However, no net benefits are gained for the TDR program - this amendment will result in increased demand for TDRs in one area (Sending Lands beyond 1 mile from URF)], while simultaneously resulting in decreased demand for them in another (Sending Lands within 1 mile of URF); creating additional demand for TDRs may accelerate the redemption of TDR credits from Sending Lands beyond 1 mile from the URF while decelerating the redemption of TDR credits from Sending Lands within 1 mile of the URF.] 3) Will allow for a compact and contiguous development pattern along a major arterial thoroughfare with available public services and infrastructure; [Staff Assessment: Acknowledged; However, the Urban Residential Fringe is intended for and developed with lower, "transitional" residential densities; A more compatible and consistent development pattern would be maintained without approval of the higher,proposed density] 4) Will be compatible with adjacent developments, both existing and proposed; and, [Staff Assessment: Cannot Be Ascertained 3) Compatibility issues are more specifically addressed in the consideration of rezone requests; However, potential compatibility issues accompany the higher residential density in an area intended for lower, transitional density] 5) Will recognize that sufficient "qualified" Sending Lands are not available to support the development potential in the URF. [Staff Assessment: Acknowledged » Potential development in the URF would ultimately demand approximately twice the number of TDRs available from "qualified" - 5 - CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2,Stock Development: allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. Sending Lands; However, the number of TDRs available from "qualified" Sending Lands is sufficient at this time.] Generally, only some of these justifications support the petition, while others are arguably too generalized, characterize attributes that would be applicable to other properties, or cannot be ascertained. TDR Credits-Supply/Demand and How Proposed to Transfer into San Marino: Of all Sending Lands, only those located within one mile of the Urban designated area qualify to transfer TDR credits into the transitional Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict(URF). 1,804 estimated total TDR credits in [qualified]Sending Lands within one mile of the Urban Area - 721 number of TDR credits from [qualified]Sending Lands within one mile of Urban Area already committed to URF use = 1,083 number of potential TDR credits in[qualified]Sending Lands within one mile of Urban Area remaining for URF use Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict (URF) lands can make use of the TDR credits available from [qualified]Sending Lands, as follows: 2,177 potential demand for TDR credits in URF - 1,083 estimated potential, available TDR credits in Sending Lands within 1 mile of URF = 1,034 approximate unmet need of TDR credits for URF use The figures above are provided as part of the applicant's petition, and are derived from Collier County resources [inc. TDR Program Activity Mapping and Severance Reports], with calculations of acreage and provisions of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District and the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. Comparable figures were utilized previously in the Hacienda Lakes of Naples and Naples Reserve applications. Potentially, residential development in the URF needing approximately 1,034 TDR credits may be underdeveloped due to the existing prohibition on transferring TDR credits from Sending Lands beyond one mile of the URF boundary; that is, the potential demand for 1,034 TDR credits created by URF lands may go unmet as there is a potential shortage of 1,034 TDR credits generated from Sending Lands within 1 mile of the URF boundary. The subject GMP amendment would satisfy a portion of that potential unmet need for TDRs. If approved as submitted, all Sending Lands would become eligible to transfer TDRs to the San Marino PUD, not just those within one mile of the URF boundary. This would have two effects: artificially amplifying demand for[unqualified] TDRs generated from Sending Lands greater than 1 mile from the URF, while simultaneously suppressing demand for [qualified] TDRs generated from Sending Lands within 1 mile from the URF. Also, this part of the amendment further increases the (potential) devaluation of TDRs generated from Sending Lands within one mile of the URF by increasing the supply of eligible TDRs - introduced with previously-approved transfers of unqualified TDRs into the URF [Hacienda Lakes, and Naples Reserve]. These two development locations are distinctly different from one another, and both are uniquely different from the San Marino site. They are properties lying in more than one Future Land Use designation. The San Marino site does not straddle two different Land Use Designations and lies entirely within the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict. This project does not abut the RFMUD to the east. There are three provisions in the FLUE for achieving additional density in the URF beyond the base 1.5 DU/A, and only one applicable to - 6- CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development:allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. San Marino- 1 DU/A through use of TDRs for a maximum of 2.5 DU/A. The second provision is a unique instance of this cap being "lifted" above 2.5 DU/A for the Hacienda Lakes of Naples PUD. This 2,262-acre project site covers three Future Land Use designations (URF Subdistrict, qualified Sending Lands and unqualified Sending Lands - under unified control - and achieves a 2.8 DU/A maximum density with TDR transfers from both qualified Sending Lands and unqualified Sending Lands within the protect. That unique "lift" was determined to have no measurable impact on the URF's "transitional" nature, nor would it affect its surrounding lands. The third provision is specific to the Rockedge PUD for provision of affordable housing. No other development is approved to exceed the maximum 2.5 DU/A density. With the 196.4-acre portion of San Marino PUD, the maximum allowable density would be increased by 2.5 DU/A through use of TDRs to 4.0 DU/A. The existing San Marino PUD was approved in 2000 for 352 dwelling units - based on the entire (parent) 235.3 acres - yielding 1.5 DU/ac. As described in the PUD document, 350 units of this residential development were clustered on 39 acres - and now known as "Aventine at Naples", or San Marino Apartments. This part of the San Marino PUD is where its 1.5 DU/A are clustered. All but two units of this approved density have been developed, and only these units derived from base density are still to be utilized from the parent acreage. With the transfer of TDRs to the entire San Marino property, it would have been possible to achieve up to another 235 buildable dwelling units -for a total of 588 DUs. But the developed 39 acre portion of San Marino has changed hands and this number of units cannot be achieved. The remaining 196.4 acres of the property have already generated 1.5 DU/A as part of the entire PUD; therefore, utilizing the existing FLUE provision to increase density by 1 DU/A using TDRs, the subject 196.4 acres can be developed with 196 DUs. The requested density retains this connection to each acre of the 196.4 acres to be developed at up to 4.0 units per acre (1.5 DU/A approved and developed as part of entire PUD x 196.4 acres = 295 DUs; requested 2.5 DU/A to be derived by TDR credits x 196.4 acres = 491 DUs). All future development (491 DUs)will be derived from TDRs severed elsewhere and transferred here. The present request for an additional 491 dwelling units is based exclusively on the undeveloped 196.4-acre portion of the property. The request to receive TDRs is already allowed by the FLUE, but at a rate of 1 DU/A, not 2.5 DU/A. Direct relationships, or nexus, can be established for considering the additional density stipulated upon where this density is originated -from qualified Sending Lands or unqualified Sending Lands. The direct relationship exists between the already allowed 1 DU/A and qualified Sending Lands; the other relationship is between the additional 1.5 DUTA and unqualified Sending Lands. Provided below are summaries of residential (or mixed use) developments along the Collier Blvd. corridor from Davis Blvd. south to Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, as well as the PUDs partially in the transitional URF approved to utilize TDR credits. The first table identifies PUDs located in the one-mile corridor on the west side of CR 951 / Collier Boulevard. These developments lie in the Urban Residential Subdistrict, where a base density of 4 DU/A is allowed and potentially up to 16 DU/A with density bonuses. West Side of Collier Blvd. • Cedar Hammock 799 DU 1.91 DU/A gross density • Naples Heritage Golf&CC 799 DU 1.43 DU/A gross density • Naples National Golf Club 26 DU 0.08 DU/A gross density • Homes of Islandia 28 DU 0.18 DU/A gross density • Naples Lakes CC 731 DU 1.56 DU/A gross density - 7 - CP-2014-2/P1_20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development: allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. The table above reflects densities in developments on the west side of CR 951 I Collier Boulevard ranging from less than 1 DU/A to 1.91 DU/A. The second table (below) identifies PUDs located in the one-mile corridor on the east side of CR 951 / Collier Boulevard. These developments lie in the Urban Residential Fringe designated area, where lower, transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area allow up to 1.5 DU/A without/ 2.5 DU/A with utilizing TDRs. Also included in this table is the Naples Reserve PUD that is located partially in the URF and approved to use TDRs. East Side of Collier Blvd. • Forest Glen of Naples 799 DU 1.28 DU/A gross density • Willow Run [pending] 590 DU 1.06 DU/A gross density • San Marino PUD 352 DU 1.5 DU/A gross density • Hacienda Lakes of Naples (DRI) 1,760 DU 0.82 DU/A gross density* • Naples Reserve 1,154 DU 1.68 DU/A gross density* *= Portion of PUD is within RFMUD; Hacienda Lakes is allowed density in URF at 2.8 DU/A via use of TDRs. The table above reflects densities in developments on the east side of CR 951 I Collier Boulevard ranging from approximately 1 DU/A to 1.68 DU/A. All densities on the west side of CR 951 are less than or equal 1.91 DU/A, and all densities on the east side of CR 951 are less than or equal 1.68 DU/A. One purpose of the URF Subdistrict is to provide an area where transitional densities are intended to demarcate the Urban Designated Area from the Agricultural/Rural Area. The URF Subdistrict has existed since the 1989 GMP adoption - while the RFMUD TDR program was adopted in 2002. It is important to note that the URF's purposes and intents as a transition existed before there was a TDR allowance here. Originally, the URF was devised as a transition from 4 DU/A[in Urban area] to 1 DU/5A[in the Agricultural/Rural designation]. But in 2002, the nature of this transition changed. The URF now provides an even greater transition from 4 DU/A [in Urban area] to 1 DU/40A in RFMUD designated Sending Lands. It is even more important to note that the use of TDRs in the URF is only related to transitional density in that the allowed 2.5 DU/A is still less dense than the base density of 4 DU/A on west side of CR 951; and to be reminded that the San Marino site is not located at the URF/RFMUD Sending Lands boundary. In contrast with the purposes and intents of the URF Subdistrict, the San Marino request imposes higher densities found only in the Urban designated area - and unintended for the URF. This density increase has a measurable impact on the URF's "transitional" nature, and would affect its surrounding lands. If approved, the Urban-density San Marino project begins to fragment the URF's "transitional" nature. Environmental Impacts, including Historical and Archaeological Impacts: Collier County Department of Natural Resources personnel reviewed this petition and provided the following analysis: The majority of the site is forested with native vegetation, twenty five percent of which is required to be retained in accordance with the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME). Approximately 71 percent of the site (139.50 acres) contains State and Federal jurisdiction wetlands. - 8 - CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development:allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. A listed species survey was conducted by the environmental consultant in February, 2014. No listed wildlife species were observed during the survey. Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) scratch and bite trees were observed on the property during the listed species survey. Although recently delisted by the State of Florida, the Florida black bear is still protected under the Florida Black Bear Management Plan. In addition to listed wildlife species, the project site was also surveyed for plants listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Two listed plant species were identified on the property, butterfly orchid (Encyciia tampensis) and hand fern (Ophioglossum palmatum). In accordance with the requirements of the LDC, up to ten individuals of these species may be required to be relocated, into proposed preserves if the preserves do not contain these species and are able to support the species of plants. Correspondence received from the Florida Master Site File lists no archeological sites and cultural resources within Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. The proposed GMP amendment to allow TDRs to be transferred to the San Marino Residential PUD from any lands designated Sending in the RFMUD will have no affect on the requirements of the CCME and will support the intent of the TDR program by directing development away from environmentally sensitive Sending Lands. [Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist Surface Water& Environmental Planning Section] Traffic Capacity/Traffic Circulation Impact Analysis, Including Transportation Element Consistency Determination: The net new trips, while significant on CR 951, do not indicate that they would cause adverse impacts. The project is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element, and as such, no mitigation would be required within the project's area of significant impacts to accommodate the identified impacts on network capacity. The project's significant impacts are found only on the first link of CR 951. These significant impacts are expected from 183 Southbound trips (6.10% impact), and 104 Northbound Trips (3.47% impact). In this case, only the 104 northbound trips are of interest in reviewing the project for consistency with the Transportation Element, as this is the peak direction of the network. No other subsequent impacts are expected to exceed the 2% (or consequent 3%)threshold(s). [John Podczerwinsky, Project Manager Transportation Planning Section] Public Facilities Impact: The San Marino PUD is within the Collier County Water and Sewer District. Public Utilities staff does not have any preliminary issues with respect to the proposed amendment. Commitments will be reviewed and requested as part of any PUD [or PUD amendment] applications. [Kris Van Lengen, Principal Project Manager Public Utilities Planning&Project Management Dept.] NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS: A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) required by LDC Section 10.03.05 F was [duly advertised, noticed and] held on Tuesday, October 21, 2014, 5:30 p.m. at the Collier County South Regional Library, Meeting Rm. "A", located at 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway, Naples. Approximately 15 people other than the application team and County staff attended -and heard the following information: - 9 - CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development:allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPIJD Agenda(tern 9.A. The applicant's agent provided a description of the proposed GMP amendments to the group, including how the transfer of TDRs will be allowed to the undeveloped golf course portion of the San Marino PUD located in the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) from Rural Fringe Mixed Used District Sending Lands. The agent explained how the proposed density is not allowed by the FLUE, nor is the use of TDRs transferred from Sending Lands more than 1 mile from the Urban area. An overview of the PUD application and development plans were also provided. Some of the details given of the planned development include the introduction of a new access point onto CR 951 for its main entry. The conceptual master plan showed how on-site preserve areas buffer the closest residences located in the Forest Glen community; and how the future San Marino residential areas are buffered by adjacent Forest Glen preserve areas. The applicant's agent explained the hearing process for the Transmittal phase of the request and reviewed an anticipated hearing schedule for the Adoption phase of the request along with the companion PUD amendment. Questions were taken from those in attendance [and addressed], covering topics such as if and how signalization would be required and introduced at a new CR 951 intersection with the main entrance [when warranted, along with specific directional traffic controls]; configuration of new lakes and water management facilities, along with the permits required and construction timing [3 large lakes permitted through SFWMD]; types of residences to be offered, price points, floor areas and construction phasing [mix of market rate units phased to meet demand]; whether any commercial development is proposed [it is not]; and, the configuration of walls at project boundaries and along CR 951 [with requested deviations explained]. No one in attendance expressed opposition to the changes. The meeting was completed by 6:05 p.m. [Synopsis prepared by C. Schmidt, A1CP, Principal Planner] FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The following findings and conclusions result from the reviews and analyses of this request: • Correlating amendments to the San Marino PUD may be submitted subsequent to, or concurrent with the Adoption phase of this GMPA application. • Staff does not have preliminary Public Utilities issues with respect to the proposed amendment. • The part of the GMP amendment allowing the transfer of TDR derived residential density from more than one (1) mile from the Urban Boundary to the undeveloped portion of the San Marino PUD would satisfy a portion of the potential unmet need in the Urban Residential Fringe for TDR credits. • The proposed GMP amendment will have no affect on the requirements of the CCME and will support the intent of the TDR program by directing development away from environmentally sensitive Sending Lands. • The majority of the site is forested with native vegetation, twenty five percent of which is required to be retained in accordance with the CCME. Native vegetation preservation may not change from this amendment, while Goals of the RFMUD may be met without any need for change. • This amendment will result in increased demand for TDRs in one area [Sending Lands beyond 1 mile from URF] but decreased demand for them in another [Sending Lands within 1 mile of URF]-while no net benefits are gained for the TDR program. - 10 - CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development:allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. • Impact upon the TDR program could be noteworthy. A number of TDR credits originally intended for use in areas of RFMUD designated Receiving Lands will be redirected to the Urban Residential Fringe-a reallocation of TDR credits. • The number of TDRs available from "qualified" Sending Lands is sufficient at this time. • This GMP amendment increases the potential devaluation of TDR credits generated from Sending Lands within one mile of the URF. • The Urban Residential Fringe is intended for, and developed with, lower "transitional" residential densities, and a more compatible and consistent development pattern would be maintained without approval of the proposed higher density. • Potential compatibility issues accompany the higher residential density in an area intended for lower, transitional density. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: A copy of this Staff Report was provided to the Office of the County Attorney and has been approved as to form and legality. The County Attorney also recommended that provisions of the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict be restructured to provide the proper connections and document flow from the main Subdistrict paragraph to its subordinate provisions. This restructuring is reflected in the Staff Recommendation below. [S.Stone] STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition CP-2014-2, as submitted, to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation not to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. Staff does, however recommend approval of a different version of FLUE text provisions allowing for the transfer of TDR credits from Sending Lands property more than one (1) mile from the Urban boundary, modified to incorporate non-substantive changes for proper code language, format, clarity, etc.; resolving formatting problems introduced by the UPPER CASE underlined legal description proposed by petitioner through the complete replacement with the more suitable version below; and, removing the increase to the maximum allowable residential density that may be achieved. Note: Words underlined are added -as proposed by petitioner; words double underlined are added, words are deleted-as proposed by staff. [Page 28] 2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum base density of 1.5 units per gross acre, plus any density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.1., and either"a" or"b"or "c" below:_ [Relocation Only Difference for Next Paragraph Below] Within the Urban Residential Fringe, rezone requests are not subject to the density rating system, except as specifically provided below for the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus. All rezones are encouraged to be in the form of a planned unit development. Proposed development in the Subdistrict shall be fully responsible for all necessary water management improvements, including the routing of all on-site and appropriate off-site water through the - 11 - CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development:allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda hem 9.A. project's water management system, and a fair share cost of necessary improvements to the CR 951 canal/out-fall system made necessary by new development in the Subdistrict. a. Up to 1.0 unit per gross acre via the transfer of up to one (1.0) dwelling unit(transferable development right) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, except in the case of i. Properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which may achieve an additional maximum density of up to 1.3 units per gross acre for all lands designated as Urban Residential Fringe via the transfer of up to 1.3 dwelling units (transferable development rights) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands. i� The Urban Residential Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve Residential Planned Unit Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density; or, - ---_--•_-__----=__-_-_-= ---_--____---_-__-_-_-_-_-----= _- �- =- =-- %41441414-tiihe undeveloped portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development located in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East vi^ t"^ {mft^fer of 2 5 _ =_- _-_ < _- =__-__-:--_--==- -:=-__ =. =' =_=- shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth in subsection "a" above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density. The Property is further described as follows: That portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described in Ordinance No. 2000-10 excepting the ±39 acres located in the South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11. Township 50 South. Range 26 East, and in the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11. Township 50 South, Re ge 26 East. b. In the case of properties specifically identified below, a density bonus of up to 6.0 additional units per gross acre may be requested for projects providing affordable-workforce housing (home ownership only) for low and moderate income residents of Collier County, pursuant to Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, or its successor ordinance, except as provided for below.: [Indenting Only Difference Below] Properties eligible for the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus (home ownership only) will be specifically identified herein. The actual number of bonus units per gross acre shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the conditions and procedures set forth in Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, except that, Section 2.06.03 shall not apply, and the number of dwelling units required to be sold to buyers earning 80% or less of Collier County's median income, as calculated annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), shall be at least thirty percent(30%). The following properties are eligible for an Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus (home ownership only)of up to 6.0 additional dwelling units per acre. 4 i. Property located on the East side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately 6 tenths of a mile south of intersection with Rattlesnake Hammock Road (C.R. - 12 - CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2,Stock Development: allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. 864), in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, and further described as follows: THE NORTH '/z OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST '% OF THE SOUTHWEST 'A AND THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST %4 OF THE SOUTHWEST %, LESS THE NORTH THIRTY FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY PURPOSES ONLY OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LESS THE WEST 100 FEET THEREOF,AND; THE NORTHEAST %4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 'A, LESS THE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,AND; THE SOUTH '/ OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE WEST % OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 AND THE SOUTH '/ OF THE WEST 'r OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT OVER AND ACROSS THE WEST 36 FEET THEREOF,AND; AN EASEMENT 36 FEET IN WIDTH OVER AND ACROSS THE EAST 36 FEET OF THE NORTH %OF THE NORTH '/z OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST IA SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,AND TOGETHER WITH; A STRIP OF LAND DESIGNATED AS RIGHT OF WAY OVER AND ACROSS THE NORTH 50 FEET OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST IA, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA,AND; THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH %z OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST OF THE SOUTHWEST '/4, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,AND; THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST%, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,AND; THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SOUTHWEST 1/4 LESS THE NORTH 30 FEET FOR RIGHT OF WAY OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,AND; THE NORTH h OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND; THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST % OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, LESS THE NORTH 328.19 FEET OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA, CONTAINING 55 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM: [Page 49] **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** 2. Density Bonuses **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** - 13 - CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development: allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. (c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one unit per gross acre, except for properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which may transfer TDRs from Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of 1.3 units per gross acre. The Urban Residential Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve Residential Planned Unit Development loca:ed in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, and the undeveloped portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development located in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, as further described in the Future Land Use Designation Description Section, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density increase. IF the Planning Commission chooses to recommend transmittal of the petition so as to allow use of TDRs from unqualified Sending Lands and to allow increased density, staff recommends the following revisions to the applicant's proposed text(for proper code language, format, clarity, etc., including a replacement property description,AND to require partial use of qualified TDRs: Note: Words underlined are added-as proposed by petitioner; words double underlined are added, words are deleted -as proposed by staff. [Page 28] 2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum base density of 1.5 units per gross acre, plus any density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.1., and either"a" or"b" er'e" below=. [Relocation Only Difference for Next Paragraph Below] Within the Urban Residential Fringe, rezone requests are not subject to the density rating system, except as specifically provided below for the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus. All rezones are encouraged to be in the form of a planned unit development. Proposed development in the Subdistrict shall be fully responsible for all necessary water management improvements, including the routing of all on-site and appropriate off-site water through the project's water management system, and a fair share cost of necessary improvements to the CR 951 canal/out-fall system made necessary by new development in the Subdistrict. a. Up to 1.0 unit per gross acre via the transfer of up to one (1.0) dwelling unit (transferable development right) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, except in the case of i_ pProperties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which may achieve an additional maximum density of up to 1.3 units per gross acre for all lands designated as Urban Residential Fringe via the transfer of up to 1.3 dwelling units (transferable - 14 - CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development:allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. development rights) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands. ii. The Urban Residential Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve Residential Planned Unit Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density; or, iii. Up to 2.5 units per acre may be achieved for Urban Residential Fringe lands within the undeveloped portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development located in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East via the transfer of 2.5 dwelling units (transferable development right)per acre. The Property shall be subject to the one mile limitation set forth in subsection "a" above for the first forty percent (40%) of TDRs used (1 DU/A but shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above ^^d uti izo for • o Sixt_percent (60°0 of TDRs (1.5 DU/A) used, which may be derived from ariv more-distant lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density. The Property is further described as follows: That portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described in Ordinance No. 2000-10 excepting the ±39 acres located in the South '/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South. Range 26 East, and in the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. b. In the case of properties specifically identified below, a density bonus of up to 6.0 additional units per gross acre may be requested for projects providing affordable-workforce housing (home ownership only) for low and moderate income residents of Collier County, pursuant to Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, or its successor ordinance, except as provided for below [Indenting Only Difference Below] Properties eligible for the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus (home ownership only) will be specifically identified herein. The actual number of bonus units per gross acre shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the conditions and procedures set forth in Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, except that, Section 2.06.03 shall not apply, and the number of dwelling units required to be sold to buyers earning 80% or less of Collier County's median income, as calculated annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), shall be at least thirty percent(30%). The following properties are eligible for an Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus (home ownership only) of up to 6.0 additional dwelling units per acre. j. Property located on the East side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately 6 tenths of a mile south of intersection with Rattlesnake Hammock Road (C.R. 864), in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, and further described as follows: THE NORTH '/z OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 AND THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST % OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, LESS THE NORTH THIRTY FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY PURPOSES ONLY OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LESS THE WEST 100 FEET THEREOF,AND; - 15 — CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development: allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST '/a OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, LESS THE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND; THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST '/4 AND THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT OVER AND ACROSS THE WEST 36 FEET THEREOF,AND; AN EASEMENT 36 FEET IN WIDTH OVER AND ACROSS THE EAST 36 FEET OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50_SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,AND TOGETHER WITH; A STRIP OF LAND DESIGNATED AS RIGHT OF WAY OVER AND ACROSS THE NORTH 50 FEET OF THE SOUTH '/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA,AND; THE NORTH '/ OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,AND; THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,AND; THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SOUTHWEST 1/4 LESS THE NORTH 30 FEET FOR RIGHT OF WAY OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND; THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND; THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST '/ OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, LESS THE NORTH 328.19 FEET OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA, CONTAINING 55 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM: [Page 491 **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** 2. Density Bonuses ***x **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** (c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one unit per gross acre, except for properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which may transfer TDRs from Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of 1.3 units per gross acre. The Urban Residential Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve Residential Planned Unit Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East shall not be subject to - 16 - CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development: allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, and the undeveloped portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development located in Section 11 Township 50 South, Range 26 East shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and ma utilize u. to sixt_.ercent 600o of TDRs from =- more-distant lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density increase. [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] - 17 - CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2, Stock Development: allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD Agenda Item 9.A. PREPARED BY: ( iM c.S�YVm 1 DATE: 2J) O} 14 CORBY SCHIDT,AICP, PRI CIPAL PLANNER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT VIEWED Y! (�+/..✓ DATE: � - 29 -/y DAVID WEEKS,AICP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: DATE: , -- MIKE BOSI,AICP, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT APPROVED 'S,': DATE: NICK CASALANGUIDA,ADMINISTRATOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION PETITION No.: CP-2014-2/PL-20140000113 Staff Report for the November 6, 2014, CCPC Meeting. NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the December 9, 2014, BCC Meeting. CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 2014-2,Stock Development:allowing TDR transfers into San Marino RPUD AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a rezoning,PUD amendment,or conditional use,at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the county to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached letters, property owner's list, and copy of newspaper advertisement which are P P�3' � PY sP Pte' hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance (Signature of Applicant) State of Florida County of Collier The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this 9- day of 111 a, a'. ,2014 by .A e(I S C(e S\ C) ,who - personall •r own to m-. : who has produced as identification. (Signature of N Pubic) (Notary Seal) Printed Name of Notary COWAN,per,In NOTARY PUBLIC �F! STATE OF FLORIDA {` =' Conical EE0991911 Ezp res 611121016 oArnm Procedures/Affidavit Of Compliance-NIM oct2010Doc j F i i. NEIt #13 ►R,. INFORM I `Lrt The public is invited to attend a ne bOa d i` y Rich and Yovanovlch of Coleman;Yovanvoich&.ltoO. _ PAJ and[ 4 Alf , NAPLES DAILY NEWS Waldrop Engineering,PA on behalf of the ,.{;P,_i�oHoW Published Daily location: - P °,......!....5,,,-,...?,..,.,z` .. ' -�-. . Naples,F.,34110 ,-: rt r ,- Tuesday,October21 2014 et ` Y...t.,,,,,;., Collier County South Reglenat Library Merin ,;' � ,5,. Affidavit of Publical 8065 Lely Cultural Naple$,�.FL 341' , State Of Florida - The subject property-totals 235A� Ocated p.� the.ea t• ��r, Blvd.,approximately 1 Y2 miles north Rath. also Hammoc �Jn'Saq 41:r Counties of Collier and Lee : i,Township 50 South, Range 26 East; ax is�. . diately north of the Aventine at Naples trtrtfent td�`"f .1.bp 'l made two(2)concurrent applications lier County.Th ap ,ltirde Before the undersigned they serve a the following: ., ,i< Y'f a i� "c• 4: appeared Daniel McDermott,who o: ` '' 1• ksrf : (1)A Growth Management.Plan erg(91104,W41lovv t ,t l f�' 0t4e.f, Inside Sales Manager of the Naples I able Development Rights(TDRs) Sending E iilslOcateel ttitsrai tl 1e.„ .: . newspaper published at Naples,in C from the Urban Boundary,and utlRze ��rt distributed in Collier and Lee counti, per acre per the Urban ResiderrtiarF ' trrs�dAa r ry" attached copy of the advertising,beiv (2)A Planned Unit Development rr nt(PUA ..11, z M '.4 Planned Unit Development app . ,per. lnanee'203Gkii - maximum number of dwell) units '8 to rem , z- '1, PUBLIC NOTICE uses,to revise the Master-Plan,to alin m ed )se e'� •!' , , Standards and Deviatio x . in the matter of PUBLIC NOTICE L . -.��� 6,,;; �` was published in said newspaper 1 t' "°"'" i" a a, "utI I� , on September 29,2014. ---' � - ``` 1 Affiant further says that the said N. 1' :,`r f ! �" r "� ` ligdg published at Naples,in said Collier • _II f " i . �- ,,; newspaper has heretofore been con. - - ti i Z,V2 r, County,Florida;distributed in Coili- ` ' - " :. ^ r- '=� • each day and has been entered as secs, ,-- ',yam'.0r. 4 4'a-4ga office in Naples,in said Collier Co • "� "� ,-;-.0,,1a�`'aJ,� n t year next preceding the first publica 1 . ' xn' "�; x'C �, ; advertisement;and affiant further sa ' : '`„� ' i '.7w-4.4';'a.01' .— 1 v promised any person,firm or cprpo - commission or refund for the . ' ..;. w ?_� t2�` �' ",'r' ' a Est & publication in_the said newspaper. $ /`_p �.� Business and property owners and residents are w00071,;WI e Y and discuss the project whh the owned-ret acid Collier F: if ' (Signature of affiant} � r you are unable to attendthls meet{ri0l; ire cr n rr�d•`t \directed to: Waldrop Engineering B.yk dicrr/ileottu'[irlthepe4 Sw to and s b 'bed before me 28100 Bonita Grande Dr.,Suhe 305,BonitaSprin�gs FL 3413 ` 239 405-7777,ext.207 OR aI ibO ` Thi 3rd day of b ,2014 ( > `� 1 ` � J6rA o 5 a ,,.. .,,Please note that Collier County Public jryd � V W ',A.A..' ,..ri> ? :;. f(Signature of notary public) liarsgak $f. :_ ••.?,=_ MY COi�MLSSl0N t EE 851758 .y,, WIRES;hbvernber 29,2014 Bort14ThNHdr,dMr naArpny W • WALDROP ENGINEERING .r.:} - : n. • tin BYBNBERIN6 8 tM DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS 4 f.%izr""F'k. EE%f'• rs•-.zS.� ..-' +.- :. 3ieh Z...:_yk..o-.+t.:.: Z� + September 26,2014 RE: San Marino GMPA-PL20140000 1 1 3 PUDA-PL20140000100 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that Alexis Crespo, AICP of Waldrop Engineering, P.A. and Richard Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. on behalf of the property owner has made two (2) concurrent applications to Collier County. These applications include: (1) a Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) to allow the use of Transferable Development Rights(TDRs)from Sending Lands located more than 1 mile from the Urban Boundary, and utilize these TDR to achieve a density of 4.0 units per acre per the Urban Residential Fringe District; AND (2) to amend the San Marino Planned Unit Development approved per Ordinance 2000-10,to increase the maximum number of dwelling units from 352 to 843,to remove the golf course uses, to revise the Master Plan,to add certain Permitted Uses, Development Standards and Deviations, and to revise Developer Commitments. The subject property totals 235+/-acres and is located in Section 11,Township 50 South,Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida,east of Collier Blvd. (CR 951)and approximately 1.5 miles north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road.The property is immediately north of the Aventine at Naples apartment complex. In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements,a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you an opportunity to hear a presentation about this applications and ask questions. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Tuesday,October 21,2014 at 5:30 p.m. at the South Regional Library,Meeting Room"A",8065 Lely Cultural Parkway,Naples,FL 34113. Should you have questions prior to the meeting,please contact me directly at(239)405-7777 ext.207,or gl exisc(a.,waldrope:neineerine.cotn. Sincerely, WALDROP ENGINEERING,P.A. Alexis V.Crespo,AICP Principal Planner *Please note that Collier County Public Library does not sponsor or endorse this program. 0115.-:iv GATE 1° II ii,y,...7P, k 7-::‘, PI A v: V., 1 ,! 4 , 4 _..... nn kit.pv,, kili ....A... _. _._ __. _ .... _ _ _. ..... ,,z, .,, Et„,„11=4, j.._. / 817E u _ !Nu 7- 1 ,7-- if.i ,..,,__ , "nik. LOCATION L PROJECT �il�i�l���fl� � ____ re� E s - rim 1111 ■ _ _ .,-.,.,--,-,,.,4',,,= ..r Fiji I ��� 4 a ujitstE e ...-'_ ..., pow 7,iri I m...n a rmnommal �a I _� -,MI LOCATION MAP ZONING MAP PETITION Y PUDA-PL-2019-100 1 • • y / .M111115-111 r v?�17 1i.111 w.+w ®� s.a eau Lio.‘ - - - .. ��Ir ..l...:..ii...':1111!1+It•� ..._ �! �4<i- =:i".';+ pt.l'>°r 111F��G,�� 1�1IYIIII'I 11lIIrf `�1�.1,•nY'�•.?L .Q.y'1Std' r _� VII its=– ♦` ulur n'� i � � ,l`J:K 710 '1- 1� „ 1 s'S�� all i f 4 �gx�j —III -R41 1.1.tr . Ili L� i • ! +` '" .: ., ,R Newman OR 1111411-14Z1 1 :LE WAY I' IJW ' L 111111 �k *it <3 '�e'1 k a 1 Ic E;�r fy .� , --J " j si,��� � Y � 1,�. ._ ,. • ■1._...Zi'_1S f:,1r_ Y"s _e`1'.u'}r,<!.f.' 1111111_ ItIPIPPLI NN N + E RESOLUTION NO. 14- 262 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY THAT MAY BE ACHIEVED IN THE 196.4 ACRE UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF THE SAN MARINO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FROM 2.5 UNITS PER ACRE UTILIZING TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ("TDRS") TO 3.02 UNITS PER ACRE UTILIZING TDRS, AND TO ALLOW THE TRANSFER OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TO THAT PORTION OF THE SAN MARINO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FROM SENDING LANDS LOCATED MORE THAN ONE (1) MILE FROM THE URBAN BOUNDARY, AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. THE SUBJECT 196.4-ACRE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 1-1/2 MILES NORTH OF RATTLESNAKE- HAMMOCK ROAD IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20140000113/CP-2014-2] • WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985, 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, Petitioner, Stock Development, initiated this amendment to the Future Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, on November 6,2014,the Collier County Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to the authority granted to it by Section 163.3174, F.S.,and has recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and [14-CMP-00934/1131666/1)-86 1 of 2 Rev. 11/12/14 Words underlined are additions; Words struck tl3rough are deletions *** *** *** *** are a break in text WHEREAS, on December 9, 2014, the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing approved the transmittal of the proposed amendment to the state land planning agency in accordance with Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of Collier County's proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, various State agencies and the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) have thirty (30)days to review the proposed amendment and DEO must transmit, in writing,to Collier County its comments within said thirty(30)days pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, Collier County, upon receipt of the written comments from DEO must adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment within one hundred and eighty(180)days of such receipt pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.;and WHEREAS, the DEO, within five (5) days of receipt of Collier County's adopted Growth Management Plan Amendment, must notify the County of any deficiencies of the Plan Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), F.S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein, for the purpose of transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity and other reviewing agencies thereby initiating the required State evaluation of the Growth Management Plan Amendment prior to final adoption. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote this c t4\.t day of �`Uerurj c . ,2014. T..".,.,,,^ ATTEST BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWt 4 .�..E. B :CLERK COLLIER COUNT] LORIDA . . ,,.. r n f /. . tiri I ?7Dpputy Terl ` 111111° TOM HENNING, `• airman Attest a to Chi 3 signature only. , pproved to form and legality: �rar Nc!1: qt../Ott eidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit"A" [14-0,4P-0093-1/1131666'11-86 2 of 2 Rev. 1112/'14 Words underlined are additions; Words struek-threutgh are deletions *** *** *** *** are a break in text CA PL20140000113 CP-2014-2 EXHIBIT "A" FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT [Page 28) 2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban • Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum base density of 1.5 units per gross acre, plus any density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.1., and either°a"or"b" below-_ Within the Urban Residential Fringe, rezone requests are not subiect to the density rating system, except as specifically provided below for the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus. All rezones are encouraged to be in the form of a planned unit development. Proposed development in the Subdistrict shall be fully responsible for all necessary water management improvements, including the routing of all on-site and appropriate off-site water through the project's water management system, and a fair share cost of necessary improvements to the CR 951 canal/out-fall system made necessary by new development in the Subdistrict. a. Up to 1.0 unit per gross acre via the transfer of up to one (1.0) dwelling unit (transferable development right) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, with the following exceptions: i_ pProperties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which may achieve an additional maximum density of up to 1.3 units per gross acre for all lands designated as Urban Residential Fringe via the transfer of up to 1.3 dwelling units (transferable development rights) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands; or, ii. The Urban Residential Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve Residential Planned Unit Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density; or, iii. Up to 1.52 additional units per acre may be achieved for Urban Residential Fringe lands within the 196.4 acre portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described below, via the transfer of 1.52 dwelling units (transferable development right) per acre. The Property shall not be subiect to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs derived from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density. The Property is further described as follows: That portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described in Ordinance No. 2000-10, as amended, excepting the ±39 acres located in the South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest ' of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and in the Northwest ' of the Southwest '/4 of Section 11 Township 50 South, Range 26 East. (14-CMP-00934/1130955/1) 1 Words underlined are added; words stcusk-thrte are deleted. Row of asterisks(**** **** ****)denotes break in text. CA PL20140000113 CP-2014-2 b. In the case of properties specifically identified below, a density bonus of up to 6.0 additional units per gross acre may be requested for projects providing affordable-workforce housing (home ownership only) for low and moderate income residents of Collier County, pursuant to Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, or its successor ordinance, except as provided for below-_ de - - -, - - ..- .. - - - i - Subdi triot- Properties eligible for the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus (home ownership only) will be specifically identified herein. The actual number of bonus units per gross acre shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the conditions and procedures set forth in Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, except that, Section 2.06.03 shall not apply, and the number of dwelling units required to be sold to buyers earning 80% or less of Collier County's median income, as calculated annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), shall be at least thirty percent (30%). The following properties are eligible for an Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus (home ownership only) of up to 6.0 additional dwelling units per acre. 4-i. Property located on the East side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately 6 tenths of a mile south of intersection with Rattlesnake Hammock Road (C.R. 864), in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, and further described as follows: THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST % OF THE SOUTHWEST /4 AND THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 'A OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, LESS THE NORTH THIRTY FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY PURPOSES ONLY OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LESS THE WEST 100 FEET THEREOF,AND; THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 'A, LESS THE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,AND; THE SOUTH 12 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE WEST Yz OF THE NORTHEAST 14 OF THE SOUTHWEST 'A AND THE SOUTH 'A OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST '/4, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SUBJECT TO AN EASEMENT OVER AND ACROSS THE WEST 36 FEET THEREOF,AND; AN EASEMENT 36 FEET IN WIDTH OVER AND ACROSS THE EAST 36 FEET OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 'A OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST (14-CMP-00934/1130955/1) 2 Words underlined are added; words struck-thfough are deleted. Row of asterisks(**** **** ****)denotes break in text. P1_20140000113 CP-2014-2 % OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,AND TOGETHER WITH; A STRIP OF LAND DESIGNATED AS RIGHT OF WAY OVER AND ACROSS THE NORTH 50 FEET OF THE SOUTH ' OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST %4, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA,AND; THE NORTH '/2 OF THE NORTH ' OF THE WEST % OF THE NORTHEAST % OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,AND; THE SOUTHWEST % OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST %, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,AND; THE EAST % OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST % OF SOUTHWEST % LESS THE NORTH 30 FEET FOR RIGHT OF WAY OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,AND; THE NORTH ' OF THE NORTHWEST % OF THE SOUTHWEST % OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND; THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST %, LESS THE NORTH 328.19 FEET OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA, CONTAINING 55 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM: [Page 49] **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** 2. Density Bonuses **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus To encourage preservation/conservation of natural resources, density transfers are permitted as follows: (a) From Urban designated areas into that portion of the Urban designated area subject to this Density Rating System, in accordance with the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) provision contained in Section 2.03.07 of the Land Development Code, adopted by Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended, on June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004. For projects utilizing this TDR process, density may be increased above and beyond the density otherwise allowed by the Density Rating System. (b) From Sending Lands in conjunction with qualified infill development. (c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one unit per gross acre, except:-fer with the following exceptions: i_ pProperties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, whish may transfer TDRs from Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban [1 4-C M P-00934/11309 55/11 3 Words underlined are added; words stfusk-through are deleted. Row of asterisks (**** **** ****)denotes break in text. cf. PL20140000113 CP-2014-2 Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of 1.3 units per gross acre. ii. The Urban Residential Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve Residential Planned Unit Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density increase. iii. Up to 1.52 additional units per acre may be achieved for Urban Residential Fringe lands within the 196.4 acre portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described below, via the transfer of 1.52 dwelling units (transferable development right) per acre. The Property shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs derived from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density. The Property is further described as follows: That portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described in Ordinance No. 2000-10, as amended, excepting the ±39 acres located in the South 'h of the Southwest '/4 of the Northwest % of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and in the Northwest % of the Southwest '/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. In no case shall density be transferred into the Coastal High Hazard Area from outside the Coastal High Hazard Area. [14-CM P-00934/1130955/1] 4 Words underlined are added; words stsek-thug#are deleted. Row of asterisks(**** **** ****)denotes break in text. (,.a( PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF MEETING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCES Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on April 02, 2015,at 9:00 a.m.,in the Board of County Commissioners Chamber,Third Floor,County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail,Naples, FL 34112. The purpose of the hearing is to consider: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY THAT MAY BE ACHIEVED IN THE 196.4 ACRE UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF THE SAN MARINO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FROM 2.5 UNITS PER ACRE UTILIZING TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ("TDRS") TO 3.02 UNITS PER ACRE UTILIZING TDRS,AND TO ALLOW THE TRANSFER OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TO THAT PORTION OF THE SAN MARINO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FROM SENDING LANDS LOCATED MORE THAN ONE (1) MILE FROM THE URBAN BOUNDARY, AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY.THE SUBJECT 196.4-ACRE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD APPROXIMATELY 1-1/2 MILES NORTH OF RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. [PL20140000113/CP-2014-2] & AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2000-10, THE SAN MARINO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS FROM 352 TO 650;BY REMOVING THE GOLF COURSE USES;BY ESTABLISHING TWO DEVELOPMENT PARCELS AS PARCEL A AND PARCEL B;BY ADDING PERMITTED USES FOR PARCEL B; BY ADDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PARCEL B; BY ADDING DEVIATIONS;BY REVISING THE MASTER PLAN;BY REVISING DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS FOR THE PUD LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF CR 951 APPROXIMATELY 1.5 MILES SOUTH OF DAVIS BOULEVARD IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 235±ACRES;AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.(PETITION PUDA- PL20140000100) RADIO RD. fr(C.R656) I-75/COLOER TOLL EAST I BOULEVARD PLASA TOLL CENTER PEA TNELVE (ENTER RV. LACES 0�� Q 1 ■a 4 �� 3 mn 2 0 � FOREST(AEN '' CEDAR u K OF NAPLES l o� HAMMOCK g— '' PROJECT � LOCATION pi/ PL20140000113 NAPLES.1 NAPLES HERITAGE HERITAGE GQF ANO COIMTRY CWB GOLF AND COUNTRY NAPLES NATIONAL < CLUB GOLF CLIIB'I„� •/ HACRND;LAKES PROJECT m> B LOCATION 10 112 Fj PUOA-PL20140000100 m HONES OF ISUNOIA IABOW-� LA�CO115ERVATIOH AREA U.■e WATERFORD SH� NAPLES LANES ESTATES C JNIRY QIIB FRST 16 � 15 MN, s 14 HA (D 1) S 13 1 All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed ORDINANCES will be made available for inspection at the Zoning Division, 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 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 401 Naples, one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to on April 02, 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 Division,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.231123976 March 13.2015 SAN MARINO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT G M PA-P L20140000113/C P-2014-2 Table of Contents Application to Amend Growth Management Plan Executed Letter of Authorization & Deed EXHIBITS: Exhibit A Additional Professionals Exhibit B Legal Description Exhibit C Proposed FLUE Text Amendments Exhibit D Surrounding Development Map Exhibit E Aerial Location Map Exhibit F Zoning Map Exhibit G Future Land Use Map Exhibit H Archaeological Probability Exhibit I Environmental Report & FLUCCS Map Exhibit 1 Public Conservation Lands Map Exhibit K Public Facilities Map Exhibit L Utility Availability Letter Exhibit M Traffic Impact Statement Exhibit N Waste Generation Rates Exhibit 0 Boundary Survey Exhibit P Justification Narrative San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2nd Submittal GMP AMENDMENT APPLICATION APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATIONN 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 INFOMRATION A. Name of Applicant Stock Development c/o Keith Gelder Company Stock Development Address 2647 Professional Circle, Suite 1201 City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34110 Phone Number(239)592-7344 Fax Number(239) 592-7541 B. Name of Agent * Richard Yovanovich, Esg • THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Address 4001 Tamiami Trail N., Suite 300 City Naples State Florida Zip Code 341103 Phone Number (239)435-3535 Fax Number C. Name of Agent * Alexis V. Crespo, AICP • THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company Waldrop Engineering, P.A. Address 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Suite 305 City Bonita Springs State Florida Zip Code 34135 Phone Number (239) 405-7777 Fax Number (239) 405-7899 D. Name of Owner (s) of Record H & LD Venture, LLC c/o Joe Boff �-. Address 11145 Tamiami Trail East City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34113 E. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. Please refer to Exhibit "A" attached. 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. Name and Address Percentage of Stock HCN Foundation 700 Landstrasse 11 Triesen, Liechtenstein Dr. Markus Kolzoff, Member of the Board Dr. Peter Sprenger, Member of the Board Mr.Tom van der Meer, Member of the Board Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc. 30% (A Florida Non Profit Corporation) 1 1 145 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34113 Samuel Durso, JM.D., President Michael Mueller, Secretary Stanard Swihart MD, Vice President John W. Cunningham, Treasurer Rev. Lisa Lefkow, E. Vice President Nick Kouoheras, E. Vice President 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 2 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 contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership N/A Date of Contract: N/A 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 N/A G. Date subject property acquired (X) leased ( ): 4/12/2011 Term of lease yrs./mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: N/A 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 Please refer to Exhibit "B" enclosed B. GENERAL LOCATION East of CR 951 & 1.5 miles north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road PLANNING COMMUNITY: Royal Fakapalm D. TAZ 358 E. SIZE IN ACRES 196.4+/-acres F. ZONING Planned Unit Development G. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN Multi-and Single-Family Residential; Golf Course-See also Justification Narrative attached as Exhibit "P" H. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S) Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict IV. TYPE OF REQUEST: A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT (S) TO BE AMENDED: Housing Element Recreation/Open Space Traffic Circulation Sub-Element Mass Transit Sub-Element 3 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 X Future Land Use Element Golden Gate Master Plan Immokalee Master Plan B. AMEND PAGE (S) 29 & 49 OF THE_FUTURE LAND USE _ELEMENT AS FOLLOWS: (Use Strike through to identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: Please refer to Exhibit "C" C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM N/A TO D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S) AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name & Page #) N/A E. DESCRIBE ADDITIONAL CHANGES REQUESTED: N/A REQUIRED INFORMATION: NOTE: ALL AERIALS MUST BE AT A SCALE OF NO SMALLER THAN 1"=400'. At least one copy reduced to 8-1/2 x 11 shall be provided of all aerials and/or maps. A. LAND USE See Exhibit "D" Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, DRI's, existing zoning) with subject property outlined. See Exhibit "E" Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries, source, and date. See Exhibit "F" 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 AND DESIGNATION See Exhibit "G" 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 See Exhibit "I" 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. See Exhibit "I" Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish & Wildlife Service) and State (Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission) listed plant and animal species known to occur on the site and/or known to inhabit biological 4 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-11.006, 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-1 1.006(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-1 1.006(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. Yes, Please refer to Exhibit P-Justification Narrative 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? (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-1 1.007, F.A.C.) E. PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: See Exhibit "L" Potable Water See Exhibit "1" Sanitary Sewer See Exhibit "M" Arterial & Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS N/A Drainage Collier County does not enforce a Level of Service Standards beyond complying with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) standards for water quality and off-site discharge of stormwater. The project will designed in accordance with SFWMD standards in effect at the time of Environmental Resource Permit review and approval. See Exhibit "N" Solid Waste See Exhibit "K" 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 5 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. See Exhibit "K" 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. See Exhibits "K" & "P" 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: Flood Zone "X" 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 X $16,700.00 non-refundable filing fee made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs) N/A $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. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs) X Proof of ownership (copy of deed) X Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (See attached form) X 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. 6 San Marino G M PA-PL2014-0000113 2nd Submittal EXECUTED LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION & DEED LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I hereby authorize Richard Yovanovich, ESQ. and Alexis Crespo, AICP (Name of Agent) to serve as my Agent in a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property identified in this Application. Signed: Joseph Boff, Managing Member of H & LD Venture, LLC Date: =car ` 1 (Name of Owner(s) of Record) I hereby certify that I have the authority to make the fare .ing ap•licatio• nd that the application is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge Ard Sign• - e,,0fi •pl'cant NO/Me-Typed or Printed STATE OF ( 1 vii . COUNTY OF ( Lem Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of Fdort-660'1-3 ; wo-oli' ^ by k � MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: •Not•ry Public CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: e who is personally known to me, who has produced as identification and ,, JACQUELYN LAROCOUE did take an Oath =r; �;' Notary public-State 01 Florida ;.:e My Comm.Expires Oct 12.2016 did not take and Oath - Qpc Commission#EE 831330 [ FIIIII I 1 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," 7 ; P.■ LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN hereby authorize Keith Gelder, Stock Development (Name of Agent) to serve as my Agent in a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property identified in this Application. Signed: Joseph 8ot8Amnog|no Member myH & LD Venture. LdC Date: -) '4-C-/ 'i (Name of Owner(s) of Record) hereby certify that I have the oufhorify to make the foregoing opp|icotion. and th the application is|me. correct and complete lnthe best ofmyknowledge. , ��`.` ~~ . . ' '1 Ggnoyre o/AppUcon_ �m� | \k �\ ~�o Name 4yped or Printed STATE OF ( P L-04P-.)AA-) COUNTY OF ( ��cLI R..., ) Sworn to and subscribed b�fon*methis .1 C- day of +���+ , ��- �'�(t/ ~ by _ - ' _/_ _ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: Notary Publi a ~ . ~ 40, � � ~~ =- � 4 CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING `� who is personally known to me, '',,,...“" Bonded Through National Notary&on, I _ who has produced as iden and ~� _____ didkzkeonOoth 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." 7 INSTR 4551887 OR 4674 PG 321 RECORDED 4/21/2011 9:45 AM PAGES 7 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC @.70 $8,750.00 REC $61.00 INDX $1.00 CONS $1,250,000.00 This instrument prepared by: and after recording return to: James D.Barnett,Esquire GrayRobinson,P.A. 401 East Las Olas Boulevard,Suite 1850 Fort Lauderdale,Florida 33301 Parcel I.D.Nos.: 00411440000 00411640004 00410640005 00410840009 (Reserved for Clerk of Court) 00410880001 00410960002 00411200004 00411240006 _ 00411320007 -„, /7,,,-"---- ,--' 7 _ _n tf S 1AL WA,' R NT ,� IIf f THIS SPECIAL Wk T LEER, is; de nct entered into as of the day of Aril 2011 by SAN MA �J'Q `T'V 4 l ri4, neral partnership, Grantor, whose office address is 1441'Da la Street, Naples, 34120/0-1 & LD VENTURE, LLC, a Florida limited liability comp be tee, and whos . ialing34flress is 11145 Tamiami Trail East,Naples, FL 34113. Whered herein,the terms r"Qr r"and"Grantee"shall include, as to each party to this instrument; its-1.ega1 repres 'nt'tiy s and assigns. .rf$ t9 ''e ,., r; ', WI^TNE- SETH: GRANTOR, for and in consideration of Ten and No/100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained and sold, and by these presents does hereby grant, bargain and sell to Grantee, the following described land situated and being in Collier County, Florida (the "Property"): SEE EXHIBIT A ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF TOGETHER WITH all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or appertaining thereto. THIS CONVEYANCE is subject to: taxes and assessments for the 2009 calendar year and all subsequent years; zoning ordinances, restrictions, prohibitions and other requirements imposed by governmental authority; conditions, restrictions, reservations, limitations and easements of record,if any,but this reference shall not operate to re-impose same. # 966173 vl OR 4674 PG 322 GRANTOR hereby warrants the title to the Property and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by, through or under Grantor. Grantee, by acceptance and recordation of this Special Warranty Deed, (a)except as otherwise expressly set forth herein, Grantee acknowledges that Grantor has made no representations or warranties regarding the Property, (b)Grantee agrees to accept the Property in its AS-IS condition, and (c) Grantee agrees to cause this Special Warranty Deed to be recorded in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida and to pay all recording fees and documentary stamp taxes due in connection therewith. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set its hand and seal as of the day and year first above written. Witnesses: SAN MARINO JOINT VENTURE a Florida general partnership -' ‘03. ( tl)y ;`WATERWAYS JOINT VENTURE VI, $.a Florida general partnership,as ;, general partner ;' \ By. Goodland San Marino,LLC, 7-72-71-\ � a Florida limited liability t� i 1 1 company,as general partne Name `eu��„ Ml�G. i. A" ,,� ` C' Title: � .ailie/ f r fitt. "a . Goodland Golden Gate,LLC, Y a Florida limited liability company, as general partn- �a J By: • Name: /AIN- �( f tram Title: By: HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY, INC., a Florida corporation not for profit,as general partner By: Name: Title: # 966173 v1 2 OR 4674 PG 323 STATE OF FLORIDA ) ):SS COUNTY OF LiALG/ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ,DTI/ day of April 2011, by Richard Davenport,as Manager of Goodland San Marino,LLC, as general partner of Waterways Joint Venture VI,as general partner of SAN MARINO JONIT VENTURE. He/She is personally known to me or produced drivers license as identificati• . Ziff �� 4 . °%'' Prin rorj.. rri4�f -, goo.0., Notary Public State of Ftor`da '«' Notary, r�� ' -'pf Florida at Large W Jeffrey Cecil / / ' �, nm1S10n No.'' r+ < M Commission EE03 33 t` ?or,�orQ Expires 09/29/2014 ,; ,._y Omm sion pir s: /-1 1. �\ i'' \ ) �r 7� 1 j 4 , I— 4 ,„,/)\ 1 , j 1 = ,t STATE OF FLORIDA ') '� , \ t.0/ COUNTY OF 001-4/9-4 ) , \.; _ \ f The foregoing instrument was`aclplec e fo e me this /OM-day of April 2011, by Richard Davenport, as Manager of Goodlancf--Golden Gate, LLC, as general partner of Waterways Joint Venture VI, as general partner of SAN MARINO JONIT VENTURE. He/She is personally known to me or produced drivers lice se •entification. 0.1141� , Print or�` , a . 4,0 ore Notary Public State or Florida Notary,b %+' . e of Florida at Large • ." W Jeffrey Cecil COmmissi. o. : < My Commission EE030933 : ;n`oCe Expires 09/29120/4 My Commission Expires: # 966173 vi 3 OR 4674 PG 324 GRANTOR hereby warrants the title to the Property and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by, through or under Grantor. Grantee, by acceptance and recordation of this Special Warranty Deed, (a)except as otherwise expressly set forth herein, Grantee acknowledges that Grantor has made no representations or warranties regarding the Property, (b) Grantee agrees to accept the Property in its AS-IS condition,and(c) Grantee agrees to cause this Special Warranty Deed to be recorded in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida and to pay all recording fees and documentary stamp taxes due in connection therewith. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set its hand and seal as of the day and year first above written. Witnesses: SAN MARINO JOINT VENTURE a Florida general partnership By: WATERWAYS JOINT VENTURE VI, a Florida general partnership,as _-- general partner ;'. -----49,./Skoodland San Marino,LLC, aorida limited liability s -- ompany,as general partner F Name: 1• . ;' , , . 'itle: By oodland Golden Gate,LLC, _ � % 'Florida limited liability N; . -__ v__/; /company,as general partner By: Name: Title: By: HABITAT FOR HUMMANITY OF COLLIER COUNTY,INC., a Florida corporation not for profit,as general partner Lisa La-rte.-ivy/ 0 Name: • Mue I T. 'Dcreso Title: Presiden+ fVZ. — lt)ic K W01410 heY4-C ""•\ # 966173 vl OR 4674 PG 325 • STATE OF FLORIDA ) tQ I� ):SS COUNTY O l� The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this Ira_ day of April 2011,by Sam Durso, as President of Habitat for Humanity of Collier County, Inc., as general partner of SAN MARINO JONIT VENTURE. He/ is personally known to me or produced drivers license as identification. Print or Stamp Name: REBECCA PARATORE Notary Public, State of Florida at i,arge ",jyr"f"•. REBECCA PARATORE 97 : b� � 1��,��.;- MYCOMM{SS10NikDD897498 Commission No. T--1 i IBonded P a u�„de My Commission Expires: 1 l� ,R CC .. ±` cwt h" 1S F 1� e_'1", /r / 4 966173 v1 OR 4674 PG 326 . Exhibit A Legal Description The Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida;and The Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida;and The Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida; and The Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida; and T The North 1/2 of the North 1/2:of u wesT' thie Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 E >Collier County, Flo&cam`lss the West 100 feet for road right-of-way;and i -- r, I _ ° The South 1/2 of the North 1/2(of" , e}tt# Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 126 ast, Uteri Cbttln t,. l i , less the West 100 feet for road �1 right-of-way;and `� '^--r` `mo `1� j' \ ry 71, 1 The North 1/2 of the South 4/2‘of the Southwest 4 of)h6A"'l4orthwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26st,,Collier County,' laridalss the West 100 feet for road right-of-way. r \ � - `p Being more particularly described as follows, Commencing at the West 1/4 corner of Section 11,Township 50 South,Range 26 East of Collier County, Florida; thence along the West line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 11, N 00 degrees 50'48" E,a distance of 344.19 feet,to the Southwest corner of the North 1/2 of the South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 11; thence leaving the said West line and along the South line of the North 1/2 of the South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 11,N 87 degrees 55'08" E, a distance of 100.13 feet, to the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described;thence N 00 degrees 50'48"E,a distance of 1032.30 feet,being 100.00 feet Easterly and parallel to the said West line; thence along the North line of the North 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 11,N 88 degrees 04'51" E, a distance of 1234.18 feet to the Southwest corner of Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 11; thence along the West line of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 11; N 00 degrees 49'48" E, a distance of 1371.72 feet, to the Northwest corner of Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 11; thence along the North line of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 11;N 88 degrees 17'49" E,a distance of 1333.66 feet, to the North 1/4 corner of said Section 11; thence along the North line of Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 11, N 88 degrees 17'56" E, a distance of # 966173 vl *** OR 4674 PG 327 *** 1333.62 feet, to the Northeast corner of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 11; thence along the East line of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 11, S 00 degrees 47'44" W, a distance of 2723.17 feet to the Southeast corner of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 11; thence along the East to West 1/4 line of said Section 11, S 87 degrees 51'54" W, a distance of 2669.89 feet to the Southwest corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11;thence along the west line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, N 00 degree 49'48" E, a distance of 342.93 feet to the Southeast corner of the North 1/2 of the South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11;thence along the South line of the North 1/2 of the South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 11, S 87 degrees 55'08" W, a distance of 1234.66 feet to the Point of Beginning of the parcel described herein. v -' rte. L-7 f �+ _,\\ w✓ p L�. - _ ? i Pti ,t F, I0i # 966173 vl San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2nd Submittal EXHIBIT A PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS - WALDROP ENGINEERING CIVIL ENGINEERING&LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS 28100 OMR MAME IHE 3o5 RONETA SP uNGs n. 3413t" 04 4, ,,...x4„;% 239.4O 7777 23 W.,{b�':,,, x ,«"a3—: " ; .,.� � �. fd��?«. . { u... ..,hi:. .„ CA'\RT x� W`+..J./ EXHIBIT"A" LIST OF PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Name of Land Use Attorney Richard Yovanovich, Esq. Company Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Address 4001 Tamiami Trail N., Suite 300, Naples, FL 34103 Phone Number(239) 435-3535 Email ryovanovich @cyklawfirm.com Qualifications: Richard Yovanovich is a shareholder at Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. and attended University of South Carolina School of Law earning a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree in 1987. He was an Assistant County Attorney for Collier County from 1990-1994. As an Assistant County Attorney he focused on land development and construction matters. Mr. Yovanovich represents clients in complex matters before courts, arbitration panels and local and state agencies. Mr. Yovanovich has an extraordinary amount of experience in real estate zoning, construction and land-use, including projects ranging from residential and commercial projects to large developments of regional impact. Name of Planning Consultant Alexis Crespo, AICP Company Waldrop Engineering, P.A. Address 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Suite 305, Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Phone Number(239) 405-7777 Email alexisc @waldropengineering.com Qualifications: Alexis Crespo has over nine years of professional planning experience in Southwest Florida, and is certified with the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). Alexis has prepared numerous privately initiated rezoning petitions, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, and Notice of Proposed Changes to Developments of Regional Impact across Southwest Florida and provided expert testimony to support the petitions. Alexis also represents several local governments for the development of Land Development Code amendments, including City of Bonita Springs and Glades County. Alexis is also a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Accredited Professional (LEED AP), with emphasis on sustainable land use practices. Name of Environmental Consultant Shane Johnson Company Passarella and Associates, Inc. Address 13620 Metropolis Ave., Suite 200, Fort Myers, FL 33912 Phone Number (239) 274-0067 Email shanej @passarella.net San Marino GMPA Exhibit A—List of Professional Qualifications Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT A Qualifications: Ecologist Shane Johnson joined Passarella & Associates in 2004. As a team leader, he supervises project teams and oversees business development, client relations and document preparation, as well as conducting jurisdictional determinations, environmental construction inspections, environmental-impact and ecological assessments, listed species surveys and wetland monitoring. Shane holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Zoology from Southern Illinois University Carbondale. Before joining Passarella & Associates, he worked as a shorebird technician with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation where he documented the nesting behavior of the area's bald eagles. Shane holds memberships in the Florida Association of Environmental Professionals, Calusa Herpetological Society and the Society of Wetland Scientists. Name of Transportation Consultant Jim Banks, P.E. Company JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc. Address 761 21st Street NW, Naples, FL 34120 Phone Number (239) 919-2767 Email jmbswte @msn.com Qualifications: Jim Banks holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Kentucky, and has been a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Florida since 1991. Jim 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. San Marino GMPA Exhibit A—List of Professional Qualifications Page 2 of 2 San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2nd Submittal EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT"B" LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE NORTHEAST 114 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT- OF-WAY. AND THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT- OF-WAY. AND THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT- OF-WAY. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.00°50'48"E., A DISTANCE OF 344.19 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE LEAVING THE SAID WEST LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.87°55'08"E., A DISTANCE OF 100.13 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE N.00°50'48"E., A DISTANCE OF 1032.30 FEET, BEING 1 of 2 EXHIBIT B 2/28/14 100.00 FEET EASTERLY AND PARALLEL TO THE SAID WEST LINE;THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.88°04'51'E., A DISTANCE OF 1234.18 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11;THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.00°49'48"E., A DISTANCE OF 1371.72 FEET, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.88°17'49"E.,A DISTANCE OF 1333.66 FEET,TO THE NORTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.88°17'56"E., A DISTANCE OF 1333.62 FEET, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11,S.00°47'44"W.,A DISTANCE OF 2723.17 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE EAST TO WEST 1/4 LINE OF SAID SECTION 11, S.87°51 '54"W., A DISTANCE OF 2669.89 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, N.00049'48"E., A DISTANCE OF 342.93 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, 5.87°55'08"W., A DISTANCE 1234.66 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN. 2 of 2 San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2nd Submittal EXHIBIT C PROPOSED FLUE TEXT AMENDMENTS GM PA-PL2014-000113 EXHIBIT "C" FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT AMENDMENTS [Page 29] 2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict: The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide transitional densities between the Urban Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area and comprises approximately 5,500 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed Use District. Residential land uses may be allowed at a maximum base density of 1.5 units per gross acre, plus any density bonus that may be achieved via CCME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.1., and either "a"ac-"b" or"c" below: a. Up to 1.0 unit per gross acre via the transfer of up to one (1.0) dwelling unit (transferable development right) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, except in the case of properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which may achieve an additional maximum density of up to 1.3 units per gross acre for all lands designated as Urban Residential Fringe via the transfer of up to 1.3 dwelling units (transferable development rights) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands. The Urban Residential Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve Residential Planned Unit Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density; or, b. In the case of properties specifically identified below, a density bonus of up to 6.0 additional units per gross acre may be requested for projects providing affordable- workforce housing (home ownership only) for low and moderate income residents of Collier County, pursuant to Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, or its successor ordinance, except as provided for below-, or c. Up to 2.5 units per gross acre may be achieved for Urban Residential Fringe lands within the undeveloped portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development located in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East via the transfer of 2.5 dwelling units (transferable development right) per acre. The Property shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density. The Property is further described as follows: THE NORTHEAST 114 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 1 of 4 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted; italicized words are pending approval. Row of asterisks ("""" """" """") denotes break in text. EXHIBIT C 7/28/14 GM PA-PL2014-000113 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF- WAY. AND THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF- WAY. AND THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF- WAY. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.00°50'48"E., A DISTANCE OF 344.19 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE LEAVING THE SAID WEST LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.87°55'08"E., A DISTANCE OF 100.13 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE N.00°50'48"E., A DISTANCE OF 1032.30 FEET, BEING 100.00 FEET EASTERLY AND PARALLEL TO THE SAID WEST LINE; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.88°04'51'E., A DISTANCE OF 1234.18 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.00°49'48"E., A DISTANCE OF 1371.72 FEET, TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.88°17'49"E., A DISTANCE OF 1333.66 FEET, TO THE NORTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, N.88°17'56"E., A DISTANCE OF 1333.62 FEET, TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, S.00°47'44"W., A DISTANCE OF 2723.17 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE EAST TO WEST 1/4 LINE OF SAID SECTION 11, S.87°51 '54"W., A DISTANCE OF 2669.89 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST Y4 OF SECTION 11, N.00049'48"E., A DISTANCE OF 342.93 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE 2 of 4 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted; italicized words are pending approval. Row of asterisks (**** ''*** `"*") denotes break in text. G M PA-PL2014-000113 NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 11, S.87°55'08"W., A DISTANCE 1234.66 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN. **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** [Page 49] B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM: This Density Rating System is only applicable to areas designated on the Future Land Use Map as: Urban, Urban Mixed Use District; and, on a very limited basis, Agricultural/Rural. It is not applicable to the Urban areas encompassed by the Immokalee Area Master Plan, and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan; these two Elements have their own density provisions. The Density Rating System is applicable to that portion of the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict to the extent that the residential density cap of 4 dwelling units per acre is not exceeded, except for the density bonus provisions for Affordable Housing and Transfer of Development Rights, and except as provided for in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. The final determination of permitted density via implementation of this Density Rating System is made by the Board of County Commissioners through an advertised public hearing process (rezone or Stewardship Receiving Area designation). **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** 2. Density Bonuses Consistency with the following characteristics may add to the base density. Density bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each bonus provision and compatibility with surrounding properties, as well as the rezone criteria in the Land Development Code. **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus To encourage preservation/conservation of natural resources, density transfers are permitted as follows: (a) From Urban designated areas into that portion of the Urban designated area subject to this Density Rating System, in accordance with the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) provision contained in Section 2.03.07 of the Land Development Code, adopted by Ordinance No. #04-41, as amended, on June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004. For projects utilizing this TDR process, density may be increased above and beyond the density otherwise allowed by the Density Rating System. (b) From Sending Lands in conjunction with qualified infill development. 3 of 4 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted; italicized words are pending approval. Row of asterisks **** "*** ***' ( ) denotes break in text. GMPA-PL2014-000113 (c) From Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of one unit per gross acre, except for properties that straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of the Density Rating System, which may transfer TDRs from Sending Lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximum density increase of 1.3 units per gross acre. The Urban Residential Fringe portion of the Naples Reserve Residential Planned Unit Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East and the undeveloped portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, as further described in the Future Land Use Designation Description Section, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density increase. In no case shall density be transferred into the Coastal High Hazard Area from outside the Coastal High Hazard Area. 4 of 4 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted; italicized words are pending approval. Row of asterisks (**** **** ****)denotes break in text. San Marino G M PA-P L2014-0000113 2nd Submittal EXHIBIT D SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT MAP ,r �I M • ti ;', YY - ..a t.. s ti■ fI 3 t / �'1"yh 4 N���,v. ? ,- Cedar Hammock Golf ' 1 y Forest Glen Golf ii..1 &Country Club r"' I - I} &Country Club 'JZ --s�'" r.'. 4' `s ! 1 A y! i, -- s- SAN MARINO r- ... .... ., , . . ,.... : . ......., . ..: ii - F r' Na Pierit . illi �.:- +�►erirage js♦ . 3R Naples National - Goff 8 Country Club ` Li. 1 I w . a - ` 4 y Naples National If ' `-,--',.•� ,• `•r Golf Club a - ' `'ii ...n w A tr r 1 San Marino , ' j;partments / �.: I 417. . r• j :• Hacienda "°` • _`."` r Lakes r` ra 1 - s ,f. A' " Willow Run ti - Naples Club"° Y.� . b' { Estates y I f. -' C a•• y v - k�- 4 6 '' - United ‘11,'. __ �!. i ' '-f‘'7; _ .r, - �MethodistChurchl t ,s , _ x . '+AS �dl a 1r- : ;Dr "erods Way r � 1 p � v .,.. '7%4r i �fl:Yer,e`95 . 't1, 9.' t.,'"-ak Naples Lakes ,.. ,w L I Country Club ' 1 - Hacienda .I , '2 .1:• • Lakes a. b Rattlesnak,,e Ham m'o k Rid lat,- , ...., . f',j .Ii,„„, ....a.,m , W.._ , .. EXHIBIT D .mod e - '{-- 'r 2/25/14 n !II. 1 SAN MARINO SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT MAP Nal l�l .95 solutions �I V MN Prepared For: H & LD Venture, LLC ` "`=`—� San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2"d Submittal EXHIBIT E AERIAL LOCATION MAP y paorestar' , - --- 4 eta _.--'"-- f r< .s r• r, lima' :r " Forest Glen Gomel hr ?`,. i A4L +' # 116Country Club, ,,^ `fw", r Cedar Hammock Go/ ! r 7 " 4 +,a t� r ±K, 8,Country [$�ws't.xr`' r_ ji3 ._ Tv`_""^b�,fti f,r+• - 1,. X 3----'-. s . .:` / . may! +'"CIF•e ' ` It- v ,$,?` ,.,":, I :+ / (0.1.'to _ .cat, � . +" ..•♦ k 1 t . Of ••- ,.» ..3 f -,t4 r •- *fir , jai t .•°g ; ` . •SAN MARINO .. \ • . m 1 , ,1 •-i I pp r' > ` i dp-esrjye M► f :, - - �,. k' Naples Heritage Gol &Country Club # d I 4 -----4—.. —.7 - i \ y �, s- T . , 7 -4•5 Varlet j �`� Y Q .- « i. t • • Y San Marino s- Apartments d • n-r ' r , — Willow Run _I i z ' ' + I; EXHIBIT E � i _ 2/25/201 cssa,SAN MAP ,..Prepe For: LLC San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2nd Submittal EXHIBIT F ZONING MAP MPUD Zoning.. - r €. • ••�5 v. f... .y � PUD Zoning I 'd r . N . Forest'GIen Blv j"'s$'" ' . aw � s a. 9 < PUD Zoning 'S _ _ 1 Cedar Hammock Golf r' y .'4 .A Zoning B Country Club "-i.c.� _ . ' f* 1� } � s„ �-. • ,+ ; Forest Glen Golf 7„.71,;,',- "1 . J. r..,44.--. Fl a'rrl� ': 8 Country Club +># ; .r i• , ' i L { f` -SAN MARINO } a� Nair g�t -- l I s.."' , p/es�ir 300'Buff t '. F�; .:-. �, PUD Zoning' 4t+ 9-eArb A Zoning Naples National j� ._. ...-.. Golf&Country Club - _ �- . PUD Zoning I{ i w 'd I .�_ ,. „,„ ,,,,,, • ., , .d , ri:,fin _ '; PUD Zoning ,. a ' ;•I , _ . •-. S.. ''-‘,"t Naples National • ?' -' - 1\ Golf Club - San Marino I Apartments f _ MPUD Zoning ff_ ttl . `.� a �+9b �.. __ .. AZoning , Hacienda 3 "F ...a"- -I - _ Lakes :Y : .. or: .RPUD Zoning. ss►'. r I 4 " Naples Club - " f Ya s Estates # - 4 ,,N.....1 MPUD Zoning CFPUD Zoning �mN 1 -• •.r.,,..nr=*^r... .-ort r, A Zoning I -. 35,1, . /; l` • . _ AR.,MPUD Zoning a United tt ` I l , ,S, V - - LMethodist Church ; - G.„ ' i a.t ■ PUD Zoning r ,' ,,.' yr s— I prpr• The Lords Way 1. c G�J * { 1. l ,, �v s . 4 1n.4eerney =� a `"I ,p - T i 1 '` •1 4 ' °k . ° Naples Lakes ' � C-3 Zoning I: MPUD Zoning ' Country Club s "•' ,�f"�y.• e. C-S Zoning Hacienda 1. ` 'X" 4.l tii �•V ' i;.. 1 . Lakes li •1 ' 1 MPUD Zoning aka dRvl t t^ MPUD Zoning It 4 CPUD Zoning _------ - {. la C.., 3L ' --• H. Rattles'" Inak f-41.........a .dk Rd • '. i@ "o I._- , _.° . • • undary 4Y y - - { PUD Zoning ' W ..: ._e, EXHIBIT F e t 1- ;•MPUD Zoning I 02/26/2014 EA) M — SAN MARINO ZONING MAP Nall■t,, it Gcs solutions elbrida - e Prepared For: H & LD Venture, LLC °'""'°"G""`°`"" San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2"d Submittal EXHIBIT G FUTURE LAND USE MAP Urban Subdistrict Residential 4 Urban Residential :♦�♦:♦:.�.:.:♦:♦1.��♦�.:, Subdistrict ..,a Fringe Subdistrict Industrial l `--`" = -I:, Agricultural/Rural�.��♦, ,.�.� Designation '�♦�.�♦� .\ District V id Forest Vie n Blvd ►� .���. /RF-Sending \.♦ Cedar Hammock Doll -A a ,- ; Forest Glen Goff '��+� .�.♦....♦....♦� &Country Club "it .�, . &Country Club ..�♦�� ♦��♦��♦���♦, '5 " �, ■ �ii edar Hanu'loc ► SAN MARINO , ,.,�.�..�.�.�.�.�►�.�.�.�.�� • Residential Density • Band Nap%es°R" f ��� ����-li Naples National ak`^, ! i' 1� . ♦�� Golf Country Club , Pik . . �......II Naples - . Go i: •i i �ii:�:, N Club : Club • San Marano �y.�.�...♦.♦.♦.A.. ...♦.., Urban Residential i -- •�.•.•�•.••.•.•�•�•�•44 Hacienda. Subdistrict 4�- ( 4_ .:. saF.r.i-7._ -:" •`; ...�♦..A. Lakes ? 1 _Wii11oN,Run ,{ ,►. . ... ....il 10.Naples Club Urban Residential •�♦46 Agricultural/Rural r^►♦ill Estates -'. Fringe Subdistrict �♦�� Designation b':.♦., t• � 9 /RF-Sending Ile ���i.����i�i�i�i�.�i�i Conservation Residential Density Designation ►���� Band _- -> Collier Blvd Community♦♦♦.���+�.�.�♦�.�♦�� J Facility Subdistrict ► +♦.♦ ♦♦.�.♦∎ .ate : ,. 0.�� . �� ������ -_ t, t tai ; - { ►�i.. .��.� - 1 United �..�������♦ �♦� ,' A. ,., 1 Methodist Church 0 • *������ t 's, p r The Lords_way_ ;__ ; �..�♦♦♦5...♦..♦�■ ::.;.:.-1,11;C:ew.pl-rng2,,,' ►............1 0. alle f Naples Lakes .- - ......•••�••• Country Club ► Hacienda ♦♦ •♦♦♦♦♦•♦♦, ♦..�.........♦ ► Lakes ............, �........................� ., Mixed Subdistrict ict .,♦:.:♦:.:♦:♦:.:♦:.:♦�:♦� Center rr�. K !4i ..�0i�i�i�i Rattlesnake Hammock Rd `5 ��. Atte■ ., 4104 �♦�.�.�♦�4 Agricultural/Rural.i Urban Residential Urban Residential ]���� Designation Subdistrict Fringe Subdistrict ���♦�♦4 /RF-Sending or 41M0141. W s .. ;:::::::::::: MI - SAN MARINO FUTURE LAND USE MAP ^ Naim„r•, lst,tioas I ' w �c rr.�ndsoi:. .., 111/41,, - mm Prepared For: H & LD Venture, LLC --=_ San Marino G M PA-PL2014-0000113 2"d Submittal EXHIBIT H ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROBABILITY /'^ \ 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. February 25, 2014 > Florida. Master Alexis V. Crespo,AICP, LEED AP Site ""`' Principal Planner File WALP . ENGINEERING Direct:E:alexisc(&waldropengineering.com E C:(239)850-8525 Office: P:(239)405-7777 I F:(239)405-7899 www.waldronenzineerinE.com In response to your inquiry of February 25, 2014, the Florida Master Site File lists no archeological sites and no other cultural resources found in the following parcel: Township 50S Range 26E Section 11 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, .. ... , „,/,' ... Allimm.„ Eman M. Vovsi Historical Data Analyst Florida Master Site File "--` EMVovsi(&,DOS.MyFlorida.com 500 South Bronough Street• Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 • www.flheritage.com/preservation/sitefile 850.245.6440 ph 1 850.245.6439 fax ( SiteFile @dos.state.fl.us EXHIBIT H San Marino G M PA-PL2014-0000113 2nd Submittal EXHIBIT I ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT, FLUCCS & SUPPORTIVE EXHIBITS P"■ SAN MARINO ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT February 2014 Prepared For: Stock Development,LLC 2647 Professional Circle, Suite 1201 Naples, Florida 34119 (239) 449-5227 Prepared By: Passarella and Associates,Inc. 13620 Metropolis Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 (239) 274-0067 EXHIBIT I 02/27/2014 Project No.99DCB454 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction I Vegetation Associations and Land Uses 1 Soils 3 Listed Species 5 References 6 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Project Location Map 2 Figure 2. Soils Map 4 ii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Existing Land Use and Cover Summary 1 Table 2. Soils Listed By the NRCS 3 Table 3. Listed Plant Species Observed Within the Project 5 iii '-' LIST OF EXHIBITS Page Exhibit A. Aerial with FLUCFCS and Wetlands Map A-1 Exhibit B. Soil Descriptions B-1 Exhibit C. Listed Species Survey Report C-1 iv INTRODUCTION The following information regarding site conditions and environmental considerations has been prepared for the Growth Management Plan Amendment Application for the San Marino (Project). The 196.43±acre San Marino property is located in Section 11,Township 50 South,Range 26 East, Collier County(Figure 1). The latitude and longitude coordinates for San Marino are 26°08'08"and 81°40'45", respectively. More specifically the property is found on the east side of Collier Boulevard(County Road 951),approximately 1.5 miles south of the intersection of Davis Boulevard and Collier Boulevard. The existing land use of the site is undeveloped, forested lands. The adjacent land uses or cover types consist of undeveloped, forested land to the east; State Road 951 to the west; Willow Run Quarry to the south; and Forest Glen, a golf and residential development,to the north. VEGETATION ASSOCIATIONS AND LAND USES Vegetation mapping for the property was originally accomplished using 1996 Collier County unrectified aerial photographs(Scale: 1"=200')and groundtruthing conducted in December 1996, January 1997, and November 1997. Field visits were conducted in March 2013 to update the vegetation mapping using 2012 Collier County unrectified aerial photographs (Scale: 1" = 200'). The vegetation associations and land uses were mapped utilizing the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System(FLUCFCS)Levels III and IV(Florida Department of Transportation 1999). Level IV was used to denote exotic infestations,disturbances,and hydrological conditions. To identify levels of exotic infestation (i.e., melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) and Brazilian pepper(Schinus terebinthifolius)),"E"codes were used. AutoCAD Map 3D 2013 software was then used to determine the acreage of each mapping area, produce summaries, and generate the FLUCFCS map for the Project site(Exhibit A). Table 1 summarizes the acreages of each FLUCFCS classification. Table 1. Existing Land Use and Cover Summary FLUCFCS Percent Code Description Acreage of Total 4119 El Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed(0-24%Exotics) 0.28 0.1 4119 E2 Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed(25-49%Exotics) 17.45 8.9 4119 E3 Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed(50-75%Exotics) 1.39 0.7 4159 El Pine, Disturbed(0-24%Exotics) 1.50 0.8 4159 E2 Pine, Disturbed (25-49%Exotics) 1.81 0.9 4159 E3 Pine, Disturbed (50-75%Exotics) 22.91 11.7 4159 E4 Pine, Disturbed(76-100%Exotics) 5.90 3.0 4269 El Tropical Hardwoods, Disturbed(0-24%Exotics) 0.46 0.2 1 '' D.NIELS TVVY I CORKSCREW RD' I "-cou � � LE ♦�. '.� ` I HEED Y FAN MI'- � � "'LG` r-J ACN 111 ttl BON. +.BEACH RD OIL WELL RD i c • p GOLDEN GATE BLVD COLLIER aimc J m 75 0 ®� ��� °1 IF. , o t, F� i a J Gulf NM eA- .•EADALE Mexico s+zry� X 17,,...z...".-t,. REVS/EST +I i ry )� A 3 x, .I Lw �I PAINT,ED LEAF LN -Yt�YI .S , r ,•` - c rn i l 4 K .-'''' 3t,,,'„,"2„...i.- 7 ..-.5 V1� 2 , y'0, 29TH AVE•SW "7 .. - Pi:.�7. ,�P 1. i� �'If` Syt'y'a• S EXIT ` s N x GOLD N GATE:PK N w,.S t �: ,i • -1 N K w }z. - •�* D i S t a- 8i 44:.:,..7. m 105 y� �.', + -...--73- 'r0 -ii,' rn�" r! �- jm 1" .�f i2o'. IVISAAVE , _- }�.,,,� 31ST AVE SW p ..1'.-.. e 'lz w u'''y, I 1 Tao- -,.-�. 1wse $ ,r .MARKLEY AVE-. 're f ` dl '-r -h 32ND AVESW�tr�••-;:F. Y �.. e,.. ''h L _ {,...,_ -i I rGATE BLVDN• �' { r � D D B€l,Vi _ L " �j �''MA�I y -�- I �Oi^fl I .,�., EVERLY AVE .'S z ' ' '. � �• '•w,d[- -; EXIT i� Lr C: ',� v itri, p LQ ° ` "p`�,�;��.� i\`P.. i�\ _101 ar!-��_ _'. - .L...E , N m • wm A gMBTO ,L p' , r ; _-y NLN 9 5•j t•, t�.r' c 1""0.1-t-.4ry`` 1{ ih ��� HITE.Lq KE BL D- ��F ,`.3 ;�s@ °'� a �t- e -RAp,O LN` BECK ,LVD � BL`AC•KBURN RD 1 r:y i '� I Z...+-. �RADIOARD§ rL F AY _ _ _ _ __ 3EC is' t ._ t ]' v' g'IE CIR o: ..1.-; 0:04 ' Sr P. q � ;' 4-fit, '_ 2 ! t. {• a'2 4,p t' w.. w' _'}+ .� --*wA,,ej � us yPCF �� 4,04 j.•. ='mow.1 1• *'i r dZl i3 r . O . O 7' 4. ORE T G_L N>, m i `s _ t. v m t 1 y •C}' w w 4 ��� �.(Il''�'� ,n'r- K r 3 .-aw�y �OCK r I m'�{ flF a+ � i v. !p BLVD 4..*.'-,:.+ �x Z^ 1 " L °t�0 _z { I V yggfzf a'. t '�j f>c 1 .F```i' N�E�pWp'MA ,..-,- i ?�4�' < {" t.' i A'e..'AV SABL-VD . �: ,rs .,t s INr•iES�HE -TlG-77-,... I ,-. - t,, �r r y �.; L,r I Z \,..t, , A-3=` , 4. / :, .1 . ,fir r'+Y a s .rt; _ � rat `� � , .ice '`, __ii s 7;r4,.IT r. m. r._COPFI'N r.' s r.. - ', g .y .a �y '1: . r-E' : ,i1-.4-_,,,-.., '....' . . . : -e I SLiSLi .r - .l,a `��r'-� i` i y d,>r S RD'- a =, ?. .*T ,, PROJECT LOCATION N � A I-. �cREw N �a<-. SEC 11,TWP 50 S,RNG 26 E i ,, .:3 ° , ++cc `<CH '' WHITAK ER-RD�-- - i a J w.'b• .-1,7.4G.. ,1, (� _ +�� �0, of }� _ c r V W yT P� ,33 D El r�R�V� a� ��'i 1 t n•s' °9R D�RVd�O, �5 a � , ,,-„,r-4:1.,,. . �1 .�, >a ate`- ±c !i+• : - LL � al-.„� -'fix}I R A f °r•w .,-v�'i t r i. 3 r�+•S+Z ,_�..a 'p' } f ..•TTCESNA iAM o C. D- ' •'--'.7- - - Ftrg, z y' } �`M1$- 7, �.}. r •r t P�-'PKWY J• S.RD 1�� — p1� a,.,,.,.i 1ie R45'? �, �' t`o S. ir° �` n..;' .';7.1:-.,°'".'..k• Y. ;. ' t I�'. .p ''.` > •--.,-SABAL,P.ALM-RD.,:..Q �y,IED,f�" ' 7,„. -IS ]z� ' RON,AWA IL.F�C�R ATE �,1�j[i 3 i '. „ti. . vi OS'_t;'KSH{I.I. ... f.:5.: ,.r a .idt � :s3�i`^ 'li'- t DRAWN BY DATE TS enDY 2/27/14 FIGURE 1.PROJECT LOCATION MAP PASSARELLA SAN MARINO S.J. 2/27/14 `F,°°�';;,"� `L REVISED DATE _ - S l l SOC:IATES 2 Table 1. (Continued) FLUCFCS Percent Code Description Acreage of Total 4269 E3 Tropical Hardwoods, Disturbed (50-75%Exotics) 0.57 0.3 6219 E2 Cypress, Disturbed (25-49%Exotics) 3.15 1.6 6219 E3 Cypress, Disturbed(50-75%Exotics) 1.92 1.0 6219 E4 Cypress, Disturbed(76-100%Exotics) 0.81 0.4 Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm, Disturbed 6249 E 1 10.90 5.5 (0-24%Exotics) 6249 E2 Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm, Disturbed 38.34 19.5 (25-49%Exotics) 6249 E3 Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm, Disturbed 57.24 29.1 (50-75%Exotics) 6249 E4 Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm, Disturbed 10.70 5.4 (76-100%Exotics) 6259 E4 Pine, Hydric, Disturbed(76-100%Exotics) 16.35 8.3 740 Disturbed Land 0.68 0.3 7401 Disturbed Land, Hydric 0.09 0.0 832 Electrical Power Transmission Lines 2.12 1.1 8334 Well Field 1.77 0.9 8335 Pumping Station 0.09 0.0 Total 196.43 100.0 SOILS The soils for the property,per the Natural Resource Conservation Service(NRCS)(formerly the Soil Conservation Service),are listed in Table 2 and are shown on Figure 2. A brief description for each soil type is attached as Exhibit B. Table 2. Soils Listed by the NRCS Mapping Unit Description 4 Chobee, Limestone Substratum and Dania Mucks,Depressional 11 Hallandale Fine Sand 14 Pineda Fine Sand, Limestone Substratum 21 Boca Fine Sand 3 a ' t '''' -'47: [ . " .. .„0,,' '` ,.- T-. .'tiig.Yp,(,'�' •. �.�'.F1.c..,- Y.,IJ�'}y''y�K�+rY ' i -.'f *' �Jy TM i 7� +rx '° 7 .".-, ,, r'• f p y t ' R. a 4.F . u•:•w.f4 .' • i' `.r a '' s 4 E a � + Q iL,7c ', • pY u F3RS� s £43 °jqi,i;' rf ` 73� 1 AL 4 -1, , i A h -4 it---7,410, r a ,1 J "#3 1c g,y • + r X Y � 1+' 5 r N 3, . ....r.,.._. .....,;,...„ 4,_;.r.,,tv.,...,..,„„.... 4 , � ,....}1 s _ i- .f ,` x a ` . e ALA.' � r� �� � : >{},; 1„ ' �rt 4 t`, r. -' -4 I r- ' E F`..z. ;1; A. � .f'7°-y ,aa zt,,:;;c7-. .;yr ,,. . i, '-' �Yyr"�. .':2; e xk �i -..•1 x, tv�!, !'r+. .- ,,:,t>yry,- i,� • '.Y ,' 41,74 t;,r/F� yfy�..' �x ,'�' r rrhd . ! 5 •@ yKa1 .fxk+ .4" T'otp- , �'a t y 4 rr y :,?;,%•-,. d.'7 ,g'4. e _ 1 s. t,. y \t f .•+ri - d ,Sp. c x ',...re. - ` ..' i PROJECT a. `..: '' ,.;- r • , �-: `�' ; - . $r} kepi,_. • ;4, r 1 �'-'.. . LOCATION ,t,mac i4�i ",:-O. :.R- y � '" r 'E_i, .fP'' I`t- r [y, • aA ie. .-,-.,ey.5 rl-a. '�t t'<i;'' ,t. s At`c.. -tom rye./..,4: - ,.., ♦ �• r w+•rt tP '• ,y+�(rt' ^,I .PPWC r,1 -gr_�. 1'x�a: ti i'YA-1''" .-:NK y] �,+ r , i e ‘a StaiC3,l Y.A a"C 5 `T^- ' /t".--� q. ».. .. 1�.:� F! ti , I :0'Q,..,1%4 :"" ,- 3 ,4..ty ! . .t4_;- -. ,�{�S ;�i 3r '..vCr' _,y yr p..�,"'ttrr r�4 C ,,.r ,};d'1,i V . M.. ++ '"� i d" t I',,..e,"71�".}r �i �' r .•vz� 1 1.'r J $.i4.'4' ?,}"a' r�r? .F 9y . 9 a" ,a , ' C.=;'M 3 Tra}. ' . `, 1;,' ∎-. 4tf,„7.0;C,,st:;y '. I. lr 3 j1Y'1'`�w b + a ._+ x ' X �- y*F �4 Wi .r X-'4 - s. .. i,"'' _-.r f?,'' a 4: e s *1...-Ct'x, 's. Z.Z v* S f ;XT+6 Y,,,,,ir.4- #tt r C --4r,;"''' I .✓.� ,at P;r�a='.� v.1 a��. '>t`af A 4- i,- ,,�>�• 'J.i v �y. ,3 .v.- :. 11' r . --- r ,N, its ° `' ;N ,, r� � ."..i.t4+ 1..-4.,..)::,,...kr� ,,. d i4".' , A s`..,t. ;' 9 : �.}•�'i« raka 4%4 , 14"* 5.,,,,,.,'Tf} .c.y. . *,..,. ..e,._,..,_...1.... ,,....; •ter, + ,: .:,,, :`'F ` 'ay 1'' .ts. 5$` 4a e . * .eiVS� i>41.'- G .- " �' q ...1.-,.;„ 'tom r r +r,,.� 'i:S�' ;r ,- ...cA t.x^' �✓ nr t,:;4 i' `j4 14,, em- . 'S 'S' '^� �J, y tt"'YY a �Y,v,� l� t.� 'Ap, `Y'r$ i 4,pa `� '"` ♦ �4a 4�9, sqt�- hr ya f�.' ss 4 >T it ;ea%ty3 ,, .� ` +f�'�,- , t-? a '� . d!' t G!' ! N f..Y-.f^r , F ,..f••? s y a<.w y ar�r4•; '.t f .-a w'"i�,AY��:�" ,. 3C ti+. •�y� +x°�'�I� .,� 4f ��yt1' -�°'� 1 t �', .,,ry f ' ,10" ,- ,tt sx-,r,.4•, 4 n ,` . � i4+, r __,x`wry; "`,tr ,; r et,`..' ti f,.!ryy`'�' 'a'' +.4'• f c< i 4 i iN ,R Y•W«. cn R''} r 'll. ! r '� ,I r '!e� 3 ,s ..,,:'.;004:-;,..,,, � - y w �+ refi- 77��. � dr#++J}�`y�te yy 3s'�r?d,► y^ �"' �,�'" �''�'� � 10 oi Fi ?:;:;s71‘ .:444-2114: '�4 �.+`r[. 4, Yw� "y C N'.Y"i1 '�• 3r r 37Ilr 14•Z y +�0" _; ff p„•,x . x.r:� r* ? l �o.s�. 'i+c'! a KaSJ e'.i . A s�1.. <"sue, ` 's` `{ 9,�'�F 4�,vl.5 It 4 �,c-it 4, Cif• t t- ,,t,'. r 'Y1x,•4'a� yr; 47 f ''''!‘',4,..'' .t1- " •R..t .i ,.•n�.};n -socoxf...44':, 1.t ,1 1F .",r"-",,-;*..'Y y:� 4 �i y., Y c4 .?F'1�++��; r ."-.;.1:47-7.-.'",'-'''2W,,-,><1 • > .r f 1,,,,,.t..,..f.--,.7A i,,n, * 1 .� f r , ii ♦; J ,,.. f.. --'St �.. .y, ,> , 1 e:i. R 's � T l`}' •'!?. � ..�,,.' i�.s.>pr�!'r ".,y... � .x e� •g,� tlf -- � l',,,,t 'rte _ , A- < r'E.4 z ,.. 111 P, ,.. e K �Yp, iar •:;y „,. ytr:rL ,t,1: N"KC�s r. h=% try+ d..-s $ ` d ''' ' 0. ,'Ad,- 'plk •' • " • As, -..-, ,. 1•;.:ktf:...4;i:;::. E NOTES Soil Unit Description 4 CHOBEE•LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM,AND DANIA MUCKS,DEPRESSIONAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED 11 HALLANDALE FINE SAND THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY LEGEND ' 14 PINEDA FINE SAND,LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE 21 BOCA FINE SAND OF DECEMBER 2012. SAN MARINO ROADWAY NETWORKS WERE ACQUIRED FROM THE FLORIDA GEOGRAPHIC DATA LIBRARY WEBSITE. a SOILS MAPPING WAS ACQUIRED FROM THE FLORIDA GEOGRAPHIC DATA LIBRARY () 400 WEBSITE OCTOBER 2007 AND CREATED BY W Peet THE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE 1990. c DRAWN BY DATE FIGURE 2. SOILS MAP T.S. 2/26/14 REVIEWED BY DATE ti PASSARELLA SAN MARINO S.J. 2/26/14 ('..ns,.,.nP REVISED DATE F,i,wrt t`& SSC)C IATES 4 V� LLL 111 " P1 LISTED SPECIES A listed species survey was conducted on the Project by Passarella&Associates, Inc. in February 2014. The survey methodology and results are provided as Exhibit C. No listed wildlife species were observed during the survey; however, two listed plant species were identified within the Project site. Table 3 provides a summary of the listed plant species identified within the Project. The approximate location of the listed plant species are provided in Exhibit C. Table 3. Listed Plant Species Observed Within the Project Status Common Name Scientific Name FDACS USDA Plants Butterfly orchid Encyclia lampensis Hand fern Ophioglossum palmatum E -- FDACS—Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services USDA—U.S.Department of Agriculture CE—Commercially Exploited E—Endangered �1 5 REFERENCES Florida Association of Environmental Soil Scientists. 1995. Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook, Second Edition. Victor W. Carlisle, Ed. Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Procedure No. 550-010-001-a. Third Edition. 6 EXHIBIT A AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAP J\1999\99OCA454\2014 C , P A ENT\E A AEEAL FLUCFCS AND WETL4N98 MAP EWE Tae:56%24-C TB FE9 27 201. 2 21 P TEO 9 T NES 4. 'Fall t :• be . -----\_,\1� tip\ -1 . . ,, c • g E,m co i 1.r ' { 7 - t � s 2 v � t: w4 }�'ax�i �F A.� �t iI�`.. `1� _ � k' ` `y •Cl; t L w i . , � "'° —_.. ,,._.. �— .�� t nMy ® 'r-,--- - r 1 .. iJ '�, N tt A tv D mq \ ) L k I � ' , cn I } t { - , ..� h•.'♦ • ,,, • h \ X54 l ' t,s. ?y to -trt' °T ' Y d`f. • -.` r'. a tl It- `r •E . : ,.E/, -1e2.1 tt{S,'s�' y. _.`'h s'‘,...i 1 't .A i r i. •T- ...z r,!:t Q jkl�d'd-..1::A. '^..4^',, a 4in* "�i "`.it1.c y ..Al `' :".'t r :,..1. ...,,I, t•. "G 'a 6t °l-i. i-,`�' y r •.1F M S �'.. r i . .P41416....: , i 'i ,, r II:.0 t {A f'l*C* 5 ```s \:4;:''': zf }v ti k >k � : . x � , . .. C ill§s"ra::ammm1e����moa8 rr J,1(ii {iiic1sss93SSS zzzzzzz �n mmmmmmm Q €im gE5n'EHP,gGg3,?1��� � na�m�m CJ ''6gooa`ysls000x gSSF,§§§ - ^ y sfizzzz�yrna aaaa rn"� -� om mog Nn a°+H : .. -t1 miTTioiionoioo!,1"$yoo 0 p =i yp h yoo ab� pRi�Ri Ai�I�F'oo# aai ° p F is oy� o HoRR an�yyor3m N9 og iJ ys io l§ °J 'IO 0 zp Ej0000 Y Q Q2 m o mA i n $z mz y. o� ,° t. go lID �s Az °i a SaroaaoQ4b)avrvaaENt3�:.-� 8 Sn . L8 :+88$?J:Y8416w9R8§48fdRei P ME1aaaaaa7+Ittgrrtaaaaaaa ... S N N H H N N....H N H N 11 W N H H N H..N H N m EXHIBIT B SOIL DESCRIPTIONS 4-Chobee, limestone substratum, and Dania These soils are moderately suited to range. The mucks,depressional dominant forage is maidencane.Since the depth of the water table fluctuates throughout the year, a These level, very poorly drained soils are in natural deferment from cattle grazing occurs. cypress swamps and marshes.Individual areas are Although this rest period increases forage elongated and irregular in shape, and they range production,the periods of high water may reduce from 10 to 100 acres in size. The slope is 0 to 1 the grazing value of the site. The Chobee and percent. Dania soils are in the Freshwater Marshes and Ponds range site. Typically,the surface layer of the Chobee soil is black fine sandy loam to a depth of about 6 inches. These soils have severe limitations for all urban The subsurface layer is black fine sandy loam to a and recreational uses because of ponding and the depth of about 13 inches. The subsoil is mottled depth to bedrock. They also have severe sandy clay loam to a depth of about 45 inches.The limitations for septic tank absorption fields upper part of the subsoil 17 is dark gray, and the because of ponding, the depth to bedrock, slow lower part is gray.Limestone bedrock is at a depth percolation, and poor filtration. An effective of about 45 inches. drainage system that keeps the water table at a given depth is expensive and difficult to establish Typically, the surface layer of the Dania soil is and maintain.Also,these soils act as a collecting black muck about 10 inches thick.The substratum basin for the area; therefore, a suitable outlet to is light gray loamy fine sand to a depth of about remove the water is not available.They require an 12 inches. Limestone bedrock is at a depth of adequate amount of fill material to maintain house about 12 inches. foundations and road beds above the high water table. Even when a good drainage system is Mapped areas can consist entirely of the Chobee installed and the proper amount of fill material is soil,entirely of the Dania soil,or any combination added,keeping the area dry is a continual problem of the two soils.The two soils were not separated because of seepage water from the slightly higher in mapping because of similar management needs adjacent sloughs or flatwoods. resulting from the ponding. The Chobee and Dania soils are in capability The dissimilar soils in this map unit are small subclass Vllw. areas of Gator and Hallandale soils in similar landscape positions. These soils make up about 5 to 15 percent of the unit. 11-Hallandale fine sand The permeability in the Chobee soil is moderate, This nearly level, poorly drained soil is on and the available water capacity is moderate.The flatwoods. Individual areas are elongated and permeability in the Dania soil is rapid, and the irregular in shape,and they range from 20 to 1,000 available water capacity is very low.Under natural acres in size.The slope is 0 to 2 percent. conditions,these soils are ponded for 6 months or Typically,the surface layer is very dark gray fine more during most years.During the other months, sand about 3 inches thick.The subsurface layer is the water table is within a depth of 12 inches,and grayish brown fine sand to a depth of about 9 it recedes to a depth of 12 to 40 inches during inches. The subsoil is yellowish brown fine sand extended dry periods. to a depth of about 12 inches.Limestone bedrock is at a depth of about 12 inches. These soils are not suited to cultivated crops or citrus because of ponding and wetness. They are In 95 percent of the areas mapped as Hallandale used for natural wetlands. The natural vegetation fine sand,Hallandale and similar soils make up 83 consists of cypress,red maple,ferns,maidencane, to 98 percent of the map unit. In the remaining t"'■ and other wetland plants. areas,the Hallandale soil makes up either a higher B-I or lower percentage of the mapped areas. The bahiagrass,and clover.Excellent pastures of grass (*". characteristics of Boca and Jupiter soils are similar or a grass-clover mixture can be grown with good to those of the Hallandale soil. management.Regular applications of fertilizer and controlled grazing are needed for the highest The dissimilar soils in this map unit are small possible yields. areas of Pineda and Riviera,limestone substratum, soils in sloughs. These soils make up about 17 This soil is moderately suited to range. The percent or less of the unit. dominant forage consists of creeping bluestem, lopsided indian grass, pineland threeawn, and The permeability of this soil is rapid. The chalky bluestem. Management practices should available water capacity is very low.Under natural include deferred grazing and brush control. This conditions, the seasonal high water table is Hallandale soil is in the South Florida Flatwoods between a depth of 6 to 18 inches for 1 to 6 range site. months during most years. During the other months, the water table is below a depth of 18 This soil has severe limitations for most urban inches, and it recedes to a depth of more than 40 uses because of the shallow depth to bedrock and inches during extended dry periods. the wetness. It has severe limitations for septic tank absorption fields because of the depth to The natural vegetation consists of South Florida bedrock,wetness,and poor filtration.If this soil is slash pine, saw palmetto, creeping bluestem, used as a septic tank absorption field,it should be chalky bluestem,and pineland threeawn. mounded to maintain the system well above the seasonal high water table. For recreational uses, This soil is poorly suited to cultivated crops this soil has severe limitations because of wetness, because of the wetness and droughtiness. The the sandy texture, and the shallow depth to number of adapted crops is limited unless very bedrock;however,with proper drainage to remove intensive management practices are used. With excess surface water during wet periods, some of good water-control and soil improving measures, these limitations can be overcome. this soil is suitable for many fruit and vegetable crops.A water-control system is needed to remove This Hallandale soil is in capability subclass IVw. excess water during wet seasons and to provide water through subsurface irrigation during dry seasons. Row crops should be rotated with cover 14-Pineda fine sand,limestone substratum crops. Seedbed preparation should include bedding of the rows.Applications of fertilizer and This nearly level,poorly drained soil is in sloughs lime should be based on the needs of the crops. and poorly defined drainage ways. Individual areas are elongated and irregular in shape, and With proper water-control measures, the soil is they range from 20 to 300 acres in size.The slope well suited to citrus. A water-control system that is 0 to 2 percent. maintains good drainage to an effective depth is needed. Planting on raised beds provides good Typically,the surface layer is dark grayish brown surface and internal drainage and elevates the trees fine sand about 4 inches thick. The subsurface above the seasonal high water table. Planting a layer is light brownish gray fine sand to a depth of good grass cover crop between the trees helps to about 12 inches.The subsoil extends to a depth of protect the soil from blowing when the trees are about 55 inches. The upper part of the subsoil is younger. brownish yellow and very pale brown fine sand, the next part is grayish brown sandy clay loam, With good water-control management,this soil is and the lower part is light brownish gray and dark well suited to pasture. A water-control system is grayish brown fine sandy loam. Limestone needed to remove excess water during the wet bedrock is at a depth of about 55 inches. season. This soil is well suited to pangolagrass, t"1 B-2 In 95 percent of the areas mapped as Pineda fine With good water-control management,this soil is sand, limestone substratum, Pineda and similar well suited to pasture. A water-control system is soils make up 79 to 98 percent of the map unit. In needed to remove excess water during the wet the remaining areas, the Pineda soil makes up season. This soil is well suited to pangolagrass, either a higher or lower percentage of the mapped bahiagrass,and clover.Excellent pastures of grass areas.The characteristics of Holopaw and Riviera, or a grass-clover mixture can be grown with good limestone substratum,soils are similar to those of management.Regular applications of fertilizer and the Pineda soil. controlled grazing are needed for the highest possible yields. The dissimilar soils in this map unit are small areas of Boca, Hallandale, and Malabar soils in This soil is well suited to range. The dominant landscape positions similar to those of the Pineda forage consists of blue maidencane, chalky soil.These soils make up about 11 percent of less bluestem, and bluejoint panicum. Management of the unit. practices should include deferred grazing. This soil is in the Slough range site. The permeability of this soil is slow.The available water capacity is low. Under natural conditions, This soil has severe limitations for most urban the seasonal high water table is within a depth of uses because of the high water table.It has severe 12 inches for 3 to 6 months during most years. limitations for septic tank absorption fields During the other months,the water table is below because of the wetness,slow percolation,and poor a depth of 12 inches, and it recedes to a depth of filtration.Building sites and septic tank absorption more than 40 inches during extended dry periods. fields should be mounded to overcome these During periods of high rainfall,the soil is covered limitations. This soil also has severe limitations by shallow,slowly moving water for about 7 days. for recreational development because of wetness t"—■ and the sandy texture. The problems associated The natural vegetation consists of South Florida with wetness can be corrected by providing slash pine, wax myrtle, chalky bluestem, blue adequate drainage and drainage outlets to control maidencane,and gulf muhly. the high water table. The sandy texture can be overcome by adding suitable topsoil or by This soil is poorly suited to cultivated crops resurfacing the area. because of the wetness and droughtiness. With good water-control and soil-improving measures, This Pineda soil is in capability subclass Illw. this soil is suitable for many fruit and vegetable crops.A water-control system is needed to remove excess water during wet seasons and to provide 21-Boca fine sand water through subsurface irrigation during dry seasons. Row crops should be rotated with cover This nearly level, poorly drained soil is on crops. Seedbed preparation should include flatwoods. Individual areas are elongated and bedding of the rows.Applications of fertilizer and irregular in shape,and they range from 20 to 350 lime should be based on the needs of the crops. acres in size. The slope is 0 to 2 percent. With proper water-control measures, the soil is Typically,the surface layer is very dark gray fine moderately suited to citrus. A water-control sand about 4 inches thick.The subsurface layer is system that maintains good drainage to an fine sand to a depth of about 26 inches.The upper effective depth is needed. Planting on raised beds part of the subsurface layer is light gray, and the provides good surface and internal drainage and lower part is brown. The subsoil is dark grayish elevates the trees above the seasonal high water brown fine sandy loam to a depth of about 30 table. Planting a good grass cover crop between inches. Limestone bedrock is at a depth of about the trees helps to protect the soil from blowing 30 inches. / .■ when the trees are younger. B-3 In 95 percent of the areas mapped as Boca fine above the seasonal high water table. Planting a t"*\ sand, Boca and similar soils make up 79 to 93 good grass cover crop between the trees helps to percent of the map unit.In the remaining areas,the protect the soil from blowing when the trees are Boca soil makes up either a higher or lower younger. percentage of the mapped areas. The characteristics of Hallandale soils are similar to With proper water management, this soil is well those of the Boca soil. suited to pasture. A water-control system is The dissimilar soils in this map unit are small needed to remove excess water during the wet areas of Pineda and Riviera,limestone substratum, season. This soil is well suited to pangolagrass, soils in sloughs.These soils make up about 7 to 21 bahiagrass,and clover.Excellent pastures of grass percent of the unit. or a grass-clover mixture can be grown with good management.Regular applications of fertilizer and The permeability of this soil is moderate. The controlled grazing are needed for the highest available water capacity is very low.Under natural possible yields. conditions, the seasonal high water table is at a depth of 6 to 18 inches for 1 to 6 months during This soil is moderately suited to range. The most years. During the other months, the water dominant forage consists of creeping bluestem, table is below a depth of 18 inches,and it recedes lopsided indian grass, pineland threeawn, and to a depth of more than 40 inches during extended chalky .bluestem. Management practices should dry periods. include deferred grazing and brush control. This Boca soil is in the South Florida Flatwood range The natural vegetation consists mostly of South site. Florida slash pine, cabbage palm, saw palmetto, wax myrtle, chalky bluestem, and pineland This soil has severe limitations for most urban threeawn. uses because of the depth to bedrock and wetness. It has severe limitations for septic tank absorption This soil is poorly suited to cultivated crops fields because of the shallow depth to bedrock, because of the wetness and droughtiness. The wetness,and poor filtration.If this soil is used as a number of adapted crops is limited unless very septic tank absorption field,it should be mounded intensive management practices are used. With to maintain the system well above the seasonal good water-control and soil improving measures, high water table. For recreational uses, this soil this soil is suitable for many fruit and vegetable also has severe limitations because of wetness and crops.A water-control system is needed to remove the sandy texture;however,with proper drainage excess water during wet seasons and to provide to remove excess surface water during wet water through subsurface irrigation during dry periods, many of the effects of these limitations seasons. Row crops should be rotated with cover can be overcome. crops. Seedbed preparation should include bedding of the rows.Applications of fertilizer and This Boca soil is in capability subclass 111w. lime should be based on the needs of the crops. With proper water-control measures, the soil is well suited to citrus. A water-control system that maintains good drainage to an effective depth is needed. Planting on raised beds provides good surface and internal drainage and elevates the trees B-4 t"■ EXHIBIT C LISTED SPECIES SURVEY REPORT SAN MARINO LISTED SPECIES SURVEY REPORT February 2014 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY This report documents the results of a literature review to identify potential listed species that could utilize the San Marino project (Project) and summarizes the results of the listed species survey conducted on the Project site by Passarella&Associates, Inc. (PAI) in February 2014. As part of the literature review, the Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies was referenced for the location of breeding colonies for both listed and non-listed wading birds including; but not limited to,the snowy egret(Egretta thula),tri-colored heron (Egretta tricolor), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), wood stork (Mycteria americana), and white ibis (Eudocimus albus) (Runde et al. 1991). There was no reference in the atlas to any breeding colonies located on or adjacent to the Project site. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) database for bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nests was checked to determine if any eagle nests have been documented on or near the Project site. According to FWCC records, the nearest bald eagle nest /'"\ (CO-015) is located approximately 2.0 miles northeast of the Project (Appendix A). No bald eagle nests were identified within the Project limits. The bald eagle nest database is current through August 2013. The FWCC database for red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides borealis) colonies shows the closest historic nesting colony to be approximately 0.5 mile east of the property (Appendix A). No RCW colonies were located within the Project limits. The FWCC database for the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) shows several historic panther telemetry locations within the Project(Appendix A). A listed species survey was conducted on the Project by PAI in February 2014 for wildlife listed by the FWCC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as an endangered, threatened, or species of special concern (FWCC 2013). These species include; but are not limited to, the Florida panther, Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia), RCW, gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), and the Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi). The Project site was also surveyed by PAI for plant species listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the USFWS as endangered,threatened, or commercially exploited (FDACS 2004). The weather during the February 2014 survey period was seasonal, with temperatures in the low to mid-80s, partly cloudy, skies and five to ten mile per hour winds. Three qualified ecologists walked parallel transects at intervals close enough to ensure that sufficient visual coverage was obtained. Direct sightings of listed species, as well as evidence and signs of listed wildlife (i.e., C-1 burrows, nests, tracks, scrapes, droppings, etc.) were recorded and Global Positioning System (GPS) located. SURVEY RESULTS No listed wildlife species were observed during the listed species survey conducted by PAI. Two listed plant species were identified during the survey. The Project contains suitable habitat for listed wading bird species, including the wood stork. However,no listed wading bird species,wading bird nests, or wading bird nesting activities were observed within the Project site during the listed species survey. The FWCC database for bald eagle nests shows no documented bald eagle nests on or adjacent to the property. According to FWCC records, the nearest bald eagle nest (CO-015) is located approximately 2.0 miles northeast of the Project. No bald eagles, eagle nests, or nesting activity was observed on the Project site during the listed species survey. The Project contains suitable habitat that could be potentially utilized by the RCW; however, no RCWs or RCW cavity trees were observed within the Project during the listed species survey. The Project contains suitable habitat that could be utilized by the Florida panther. In addition, the FWCC database for Florida panthers shows several historic panther telemetry locations /Th within the Project site. However, no Florida panthers or sign of Florida panther (i.e., tracks, scrapes, scat, etc.) were observed within the Project during the listed species survey. Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) scratch trees and a black bear bite tree were observed within the Project site during the listed species survey. The approximate locations of the black bear scratch trees and bite tree are depicted on Appendix B. The Florida black bear has been delisted by the state but is still protected by the FWCC Management Plan. The listed plant species identified during the listed species survey include butterfly orchids (Encyclia tampensis) and hand fern (Ophioglossum palmatum). The butterfly orchid is listed as a commercially exploited species by the USDA. The hand fern is listed as endangered by the FDACS. The approximate location of the butterfly orchids and hand fern are depicted on Appendix B. C-2 REFERENCES Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 2004. Florida's Federally Listed Plant Species. Chapter 5B-40, F.A.C. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2013. Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species. Runde, D.E., J.A. Gore, J.A. Hovis, M.S. Robson, and P.D. Southall. 1991. Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies, Update 1986 - 1989. Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 10. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. C-3 /'■ APPENDIX A DOCUMENTED OCCURRENCES OF LISTED SPECIES J'.\1999\990CC 454/GIS\2014\COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT\FIGURES\APPENOIC A SPECIES LOCATION MAP,000-2/27/2014 0 2.44'.55 PM \ • - • • ... • 3 PALM DR p cn • Tn O • • • Z 0 UVINGSTON RD rri Z • o • • OATS OOOM3NV1 h1 xo • N —CO Z p .• o 5 'g E COUNTY BARN RD ®/ zz • N SANTA BARBARA BLV■ F m (c • TF m RI o • • • •• •rte. .• ►►► •,N . • ' 9ir . .� t • • (t N • N • • •• • • of MI • • • • . •• � • 07 �► Z•�• S' ►• ••• • • • •• • li • ▪ ••• _ . :U i• tof • • •• • • •♦ t •• • • r!1 ti• • ► • •11. •• • •• ••• •�• • I. n •• ►A •..•.�qs + .• • Or •• • •f• • • • ■1 • ► Cii i• I • •` •• • • . ••. op... • •_ • cn •• I I r• E► M• 1• •• • • • •• • . . .0 • • •.... ••• • s • •• • • I • • f •. • 4• • •• • • •• •t• ••i ••• • • • I •j S. •• ��• •.• • • ■ •1 to • t • • ' ••• • • • • •• • •• • � . ► • • • • y mi. • • ••• ® Z• • I � • • • • •• • •• • • .• r i • • • ti1 . •. •• • • ►' • •• • •• ► . .• : • • • •_ • •• • '. • i•• • • I • • • d • j •• •► • • • • • =••■ •• • • m . • •• • • • • • • 3 • i • • • • • ••I •: . • •• •: ° i • • • • • i • • •••d A • •• • . • • r •• • • ... • _• • La •• •• • •. • • •• • • •• • I ••••• • ` • • .:•i • • • •� • • • • .. • i • • .• • • • • • • •.•• .• ••• • • • • •t • • .. • a ° o •• _ • ▪• •• • • : • • •• • • s, m _ m F. ^ • • •••• •: • • • • • • • • : • • • •• • •• ••• • • •• _ • • • • . •6. • •• : • • ► • 2• w• • : • • Z► • • ••• • •• t • • •• ••is FA'°,,11 N D D n T m A D O FA'° C-N Cz- 3m m n o mom z'H Z N �1 T r D CO m `L p Z �c mp �m m C) C1 A 13 VJ m a f� roA r Ar .Z7 CO D y A r f ° o /^ o o n r cT RI ✓• Up vo `Z0 0 as 3 V. `� n n m o nl.r P� s°° mcoii no Si' ID j �� Z r ? Z Rl o^/ ITV Vi E�n 6 � • $ pW cn Z r"1 O l / v n f A °D _ u m D ro y Tm D p r 1.c,' Z C o O N D m Cn r ;N o ° N - o , N s APPENDIX B AERIAL WITH LISTED SPECIES LOCATION n n J\1999\999[t45L\615\2014\C9nrnE nEnSNE PLAN ANFMDMEM\PRUNES\AFPENDU B%.: r ---- -s S�A`'F'M>v rno-2/27/2014 II 2:47 04 PM_ ,a• _ ' ' - `�.t . `, . y --+F- • — x it. Da*It.'ir`"• a V' �'' ♦ :+'• DIY rr rye t 1� A` yw,!..,..:::. 1...,,,...4.454.-...,,,,,.,,--.:t„.:.:;ii.,,,v.,,..,...1...,„-:;,,i4,4,,‘\"4.:,:..,..:"..„..,::::,:;7,-,,,,,,,,_,;., , .. y '� 3$ �a 3•�'�:.bC i �+"a' 44.. 4 6 1z�rkL y q, ,-...1.�r ;11,,..1" ..4.1.t-41-Z' '�.. 'ti.I 1 r l f i ?,�.y�F ttW.i'Y. e tY t 4.-44.1P%: " f'iA S y i 1 �d'y •-4 .s;4,,. '0. „Vi.t w !� '3 'Wit V:I ��� t,-;�L 7n�' zf+ ,'� :;`.e 41-'' r'"w w 4 +t;.+ Ate a#y, •� NL\\ w.,� t � .. 'I.1, ,',.,�a .A., �"; _4� %.. 4,(Y'r i f' --rt - Jr y, v �x..ry i °- ,,4t*`1w f'4,r• i d4 i, ti^i;�fr'ta 7.i, It ...• . � _ #ar.'� '� _�# •h,�� 'f;'f'��� �y w Y `fl• .u' "'„"'° `T.? K '���;.� O� ( ? :'tl -I'`'sr►' , . t ), '`�r;?7 y C r..JC4' y^s4S' ) Vi _a„y,.�A` `L Xr9 1 -51 I E e+a°-�:y,r��.a t•, t.`'�ly '-x r ' i♦1',JQ I <• L. w f h f `A . s « w ,t ,\ 1. `'. .,'4''.. °; 4,W1aw 1 f i ..cL r} ,_,'47,"1.1.. � . .. '..1.. ' qj x Q�br 444 . , s @S ' Fr � 44 �j *y* e • `a t,, .1 !8 � i i,t it, •�'4, , }x. � � . C k `• v � f Z.�. ' t� rr � k�� ��. 4 ; „.t M`- k[Tt M .A' *, t era 1 V t Sr. ,y. t - t,..d` " , .. r z. ,+- ,Mi ..,; 5 i r 1'A . L , x . � , , r 1 f a!'S- rT • V. " . o e §i#t t- i ' ,i^ .a i• 7ei ? .4 1 40, .Y --R7 o Y ° d 3,..,.07-,• p - + = , rR° Y_- i ♦ ..: f? 'L' ", r ,t ?'s � Sie ` • m `.' ." c q �S^ a '`; L L �. 4y 0,. � d " .. • .,a t - .. _c 'g g ( .i'+sr t 02 W2 2 - 3t 4,1 ` ',V,4 - �F,h . 54,E -N r R � ,,z, o,„ ''Y4 w ti "f+ , ,,., • �* r " tp Y fr: A. : .D - o' P < \ "� a vt' "•x ' eo4 � ^= ���YM 3� y h ' � i' 41.4-:,:, • h w . 'T w yt a y ih fi . � : W . i r• Kv s < s' t'O J o a a{• r\ t . e. • � rt" r ' . ! � 4 *�•. A` y �' m aws:. S� ,N .<7 , - k ..�it ,E1 '1 t W f"r4. .4 "� . , 't 'T{ ,-t` n d 4 � .„4„ 1`rg .ot � z ' 7 a -+.VFFa i V r . 4- ' 4 a- k� :,t 454 ,� s lest . . �t„t4. i :�� r''wt , b'. v- ;f , w . Nf °3/44,„,,,,,,.4.-{t t,4.P.. ' ‘ft:�fFs.. "�, , -4 * --Af�r . t a ft L. .• !Fi� 4 ` �` F t�q i , „.4.” . r. a w F � 1 S�.f r9 f ? r! „ b C o y.. � - r 4-�'�m.x.qqt a e> y . ” r t `' .- Ptc t 4eSt `f ` . r k 4' }� K i 3� s s. s"1 9' >yF „ a w r2 rL '3144' � 4'.`":6!-A 7 i 4 1 Fz F4 4 � �y � . � ��. a.,�ag L i- ,u0,-,...g.,--t- 4AV" O r . ? f s:'''''?.,./4e.'" 4r�' $.:. .r.^ ti rt � j Np'Y i�" in . y d,) � i.� Y• A1. i a, tS� t" * *• 'i 4'•"" ~l i � d`4- fi•cn �° F ),. e I ti 4. - _\ r !i-4t F a-'16,i " .e f t i, - 3 • S4 '� s t+ *x `2rG , }. &�"t r+fn : ° ' •b `. * "r Y. yY a t :r,r y 4? rty " y + a ' fi � b kr.� t it , ''.4' .' i'rk,...14:;,,1_7' trf 4^? C.• kw , � a � *:0 'C'.. S 1 � � t t ..4 ,i''gi ,.C!) .< s ' v `" t'i a� r ti is-:.�9� &� i ' :#,,,,,-,0,,gor-e-eit `k w a ►P •a w ri - , ; c., 4 t A w _ ' cir .D #` `. tiry�' 'C':. 1 t r ' t 'n k + t-i . w`3 '{ • ' : S.?: °"4'¢tTf • ty. � 4 t • M tra -r�.Y a; . ]} ,i t '�"� 4 C 0 # 4 ' *\lR 1 3+ a r R' i fi� • ,� r,4 4 w a � w !41 ya .5 }a :,- ? •=,. ` ` « {9 `7'r.t ? . a V °A " 4 l ft e',.•'., {. `t,( F 4' .: �' \ � p.4*. . - +loti w t 'Rt . .� .„", .a °,g ik - 4 r '4 " ' .' '; ' -t rnh f, • - ' r ..i a y, !+}. �. -hi' 0-f° ;5t � F K a4i fir:, y. ; v 4� , ,. t + e t i yf , rlW,, ' � n . � 1,�E ',' o '� (' t' 'l. `-' _a' e . 4 ,.�,, t ,,,,, + s,4 t,, ` .Y � b., -9`,,,.. ,S.• - ti , F.t� « w.. .1, . / `i3O,y s:'0* It.—`"A14..104 ii i..* 1. ',. '1 .3 � � °Y, t� � A iki . ,'Sf4,r pir ,, . 1tV . - 41 ..,: °- �4. P ' 1,1;44.7'8: .. y44 . )a A V� F '• t . ; 1t q y i^�' b-.: u.tr . (�"t w- 44,4111:;:,:,.., " +I `' � 4� , S s. 'x r - ► , „. w .,e"\ : ! { 4..� r„ y ; ”-;;: • a t �q._ . + „..pr. Y' ` 'FYk ' _*A� r { +�*f t _� « 0' 4 ` • i � t•7d %4 `WY 4L� _"I-J r 0 m tri • • •2 • 4 m O T O W co Z y-r 3 r s W ,O o ' , A -na m DD O r D a 0 p o W m a p i?s N O O z F, F, m O mzmi api o " Z 7 $.143 m$ti "r+-z p m m O A A o^ $A<i' a o i m . 1n A mn ?II' 3Do Z T A '-':;1!<' m Tti m Zr 2 '£p O 0 D A to c£ O O San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2"d Submittal EXHIBIT J CONSERVATION LANDS MAP yr '*4- •i�. .. .f J n ` :.*#r-*" q as w+ it i- J r r �_' ti ,, #'�:. ,`.r . Inters `i --, _ I — Interstate 75 , _ r a V/ .�"� o� `� �� � � , ,+�.4' -SAN MARINO !p 1y 21 SX. -sv (.1„,', . _ - M�:,i., ...r 4 n � t+ •°w. f pp } T r , o iaillielMilli ' i I Vr• +0,-JA .,,. ft-- •-J ' Rattlesnake-Hammock-Rd 7 1 + p'• Ili• 'T '-''J.i. "4. i . '.'"..... ; ,,, . - ..'4 , :.....,140.,_.,.° ils ,, / _ . _:„.::: ._ ,.._„( , 1 . a �.: ____ _ . .. ...., .. t.,,_!. . . !,.. . _,t,. , ',;::!:.. _ ',..- it ',.1-M. ' ''' ',..-2.-l''. I' ' • ------li:!:::17-11---,.,,,,'Ll. -' --- lina'--- - . ,i_0.0..•., • „:,•..,...., . At ,, ,,, „•., • 1 , ..,, , .:, , :.... .. , .. -.N, „... . . . , ›,,... ..._k, „. , , , -_._, ,4 ' / tl 0? . a �a 'I . . r y1J. iYi .. '"� f :.d i• .: „. " r' • ''', - • :•.- ..',/,;I ....:f., y ;-.. - . .,,.... . k a ?`'� ' j� V. fie,/ - - Fiiiii`i.'4, ,„,. '''.77--_, .1‘)II' :.*:I" ,-,;.,,,' ' ( I - „ Conservatlon LenOb PUCIi�LaM ,,,4,pc. F s �% 'how.'V 1 1`' :r ,;:m `*�� k t IT J SAN MARINO CONSERVATION& PUBLIC LAND MAP N IIH�, A , G/S Solutions = ■ Prepared For: H & LD Venture, LLC `—` San Marino G M PA-P L2014-0000113 2nd Submittal EXHIBIT K PUBLIC FACILITIES MAP w• 17?: r., C',q'svo-rs'fi i 1, :.°_•.:::. k• ♦`: r f Yt. ' (-�- y J} y'j : • _ .t / ■ F 'I p • ' * I i,L Golden Gate Community Park r '.' •'_ a Ise'' 3300 Santa Barbara Blvd t . ��� • /F 14 a! 1;, ice( „`, / - -,: * 1 eh `�E•. � f��t ,� •`{ .�'�. I, 4 I , Golden Gate Fire Stadon#72 6�_,.-`• 1...- V• ,.- #,Z.66--...1......'',:,.., " „! ) ,'" 44;av ,... 6 3820 Beck Blvd . ii J .a t r.. r it1 i _ •1. 1 t"/ • _ I� �' , _• ../.`;',,,:c/ ,;_); , �. � �_ Interstate 75• i I_ '^�7..:v, qua` X •1 %-:`` •1` a I 1 a ,' t SAN MARINO i ,• t ■ Calusa Park Elementary ,;1 t •Xt •-� I. 4600 Santa Barbara Blvd, a • i t- 1 • , .°f ( — a o't / •.. ! S. 1 I j,;.�•ltar'a 1 I I T► I �, ' I (, I 11 k.►wse.fi1 i .. I t ,. •0- / e �� • on i / / ■ 4 y1 — ♦` :.4 I / 1T 1 ill "�•rr `` 1 `»`t - `'�� �4 �.��� � '''/ / 4'4• °4 G ` _ •.. t` =�t ter— / ' 2rly S 0 :t ,,,t, G1 1N5 r # r X12 �,- , s: ■ ' ..0 "` U '. / k ` I // CiiiOL�:tirc°3I � m ■ • II - R ates snake-H.a`mock Rd r,`* ' / .� ,�_� �1%, i r 1:�; Imo/ f w. Ph icians Regional Medical Center _ s ` � i� 8300 Collier Blvd 't / +I y� * ` t *• �'', '•' Lely Elementary "1% - / �� ■•. 1 - 1 LNY High school Blvd _ - L. / _.— • ♦ 1` ,1i �S ` calrcounty snedn l r 8075 La ulturalPkwy I. y? ,, ..t. i ec, l • g Lay High School • ,. cP 8125 Lay Cultural Pkwy _ 3 j I` EXHIBIT K b , _,,,,.m .».W2_ � r_ , , : ,z 02/25/2014 -mss»a». +1%. :•. . I I flSAN MARINO SERVICES & FACILITY MAP ,,,in«.,�, cIssoiuuo,ls s,�Mi IMIN Prepared For: H & LD Venture, LLC San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2nd Submittal EXHIBIT L UTILITY AVAILABILITY LETTER Co ler County Public Utilities Division February 25, 2014 Planning & Project Management Alexis Crespo, AICP, LEED AP VIA: E-MAIL Waldrop Engineering 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, #305 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Subject: San Marino PUD Parcel #: 00411440000 and related Water and Wastewater Availability Dear Ms. Crespo: Both water and wastewater service are available for the above referenced project from a 36" water main and a 12" force main, both located in the Collier Blvd. (CR 951) right-of-way. Connection points for the system tie-ins to water and wastewater lines may be made after submission and approval of the hydraulic calculations by the Planning and Project Management Department, validating that the up/downstream systems are adequate to handle the increase in flow. Interconnection with adjacent development must be evaluated. This letter implies no guarantee that other developments throughout the District will not have an impact on the quantity of potable water and sewage treatment and disposal capacity available to this property until the project has received a commitment for service. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (239) 252-5366. Sincerely, Kris Van Lengen, Principal Planner Planning and Project Management Department cc: Aaron Cromer, Principal Project Manager Matt McLean, Engineering Review EXHIBIT L c, `' 02/25/2014 Planning&Project Management Department 3339 Tarniami Trai'East.Spite 303 .Naples,Florida 34112-5361 •239-252-4285.FAX 239-252-5378 -A- WALDROP ENGINEERING CIVIL ENGINEERING&LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS � r A iig, ,,,,,,,- ' ' ,4-, 28100 BOOM n I #305 ` 'Y 4? "2d EXHIBIT L UTILITY DEMAND CALCUATION SHEET The proposed increase in demand for potable water upon approval of this GMPA is 252.4 GPM. The proposed increase in demand for sanitary sewer upon approval of this GMPA is 196.8 GMP CALCULATION OF EXISTING DEMAND PER GMP Potable Consumption Demands Estimate per Collier County Public Utilities Division Population =396(1.0 du/acre X 196.4 acres+2 du per existing PUD X 2 persons per unit) Peak Factor=4.0 Number Persons Per Capita Consumption Rates Peak Consumption of Units Per Unit Consumption Rates (GPD) GPD GPM GPD GPM 198 2 154 60,984 42.4 243,936 169.4 Sanitary Sewer Demands Estimate per Collier County Public Utilities Division Population =396(1.0 du/acre X 196.4 acres+2 du per existing PUD X 2 persons per unit) Peak Factor=4.0 Number Persons Per Capita Consumption Rates Peak Consumption of Units Per Unit Consumption Rates (GPD) GPD GPM GPD GPM 198 2 120 47,520 33 190,080 132 SUMMARY OF EXISTING DEMAND: Estimated Peak Potable Water Demand= 169.4 GPM Estimated Peak Sanitary Sewer Demand= 132 GPM CALCULATION OF PROPOSED DEMAND PER GMPA Potable Consumption Demands Estimate per Collier County Public Utilities Division Population = 986 (2.5 du/acre X 196.4 acres+ 2 du per existing PUD X 2 persons per unit) Peak Factor=4.0 San Marino GMPA Utility Demand Calculation Page 1 of 2 Number Persons Per Capita Consumption Rates Peak Consumption of Units Per Unit Consumption Rates (GPD) GPD GPM GPD GPM 493 2 154 151,844 105.4 607,376 421.8 Sanitary Sewer Demands Estimate per Collier County Public Utilities Division Population =986 (2.5 du/acre X 196.4 acres+ 2 du per existing PUD X 2 persons per unit) Peak Factor=4.0 Number Persons Per Capita Consumption Rates Peak Consumption of Units Per Unit Consumption Rates (GPD) GPD GPM GPD GPM 493 2 120 118,320 82.2 476,280 328.8 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED DEMAND Estimated Peak Potable Water Demand =421.8 GPM Estimated Peak Sanitary Sewer Demand = 328.8 GPM San Marino GMPA Utility Demand Calculation Page 2 of 2 San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2"d Submittal EXHIBIT M TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY ill II D JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. I1', TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING SERVICES tr'.1'. r d la 4P 1 s' II TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT li For I II San Marino RPUD il (Collier Boulevard, Collier County, Florida) ; 1 ail February 26,2914 €,p t I 1 i /I Ill 1' Prepared by: MB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. 761 21ST STREET NW NAPLES, FLORIDA 341 20 I (239) 919-2767 I CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NO. 27830 s 11 (PROJECT No. 140214) EXHIBIT M 2- 26 -Z014 JA a M. BANKS, P.E. DATE I Fi-IDA PEG. NO. 43E360 . , TABLE OF CONTENTS Conclusions 2 Methodology 2 Scope of Project 2 Table A- Proposed Land Use 2 Figure 1 -Project Location & E+C Road Classification 2.1 Project Generated Traffic 3 Table 13-Total Development-Generated Trips 3 Table C -New Site-Generated Trips 3 Table 1 -Trip Generation Computations 3.1 Existing+ Committed Road Network 4 Table 2A-Area of Impact/Road Classification 4.1 Project Traffic Distribution 5 Area of Significant Impact 5 Figure 2A- Project Traffic Distribution 5.1 Table 2A -Area of Impact/Road Classification 5.2 201.3 thru 2020 Project Build-out Traffic Conditions 6 Table 2B-2013 & 2020 Link Volumes 6.1 Table 2C -2020 Link Volumes/Capacity Analysis 6.2 Appendix 7 1 Conclusions Based upon the findings of this report, it was determined that the proposed development of San Marino RPUD will not have a negative impact upon the surrounding road network. It was verified that all roadways & intersections, within the project's area of influence, currently have a surplus of capacity and can accommodate the traffic associated with the proposed 491 dwelling units. As determined,the road network will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service for 2020 project build-out conditions and will not create any off-site transportation deficiencies that need to be mitigated. Methodology On February 24, 2014, a methodology meeting was held with Mr. John Podczerwinsky and Mr. Reed Jarvi of Collier County's Transportation Planning Department. The results of that meeting are provided in the attached Methodology Report Traffic Impact Statement for San Marino RPUD, dated February 24,2014. As discussed,the project is proposing to construct a directional left-in median opening on C.R. 951. The directional left-in median opening(if approve)will be located between the existing Naples Heritage Access (to the north)and the existing San Marino Apartments access(to the south). At this time,the County will not make a final determination as to whether or not a directional left-in will be approved. If not approved,the site's access will be restricted to right-in/out. A final determination will be made by the County prior to the issuance of zoning and SDP approval. Scope of Project San Marino RPUD is a proposed residential community that will consist of 368 single- family units and 123 multi-family units at completion. Previously, a portion of the property was developed by others as an apartment complex that has 350 dwelling units. The site is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951)and approximately one and one-half miles north of the Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Access to San Marino will be provided by one entrance road that intersects C.R. 951. For additional site details, refer to the development plans prepared by Waldrop Engineering. Table A Proposed Land Use Proposed Land Use Number of Units Single-Family 368 Dwelling Units Multi-Family 123 Dwelling Units Total Build-out 491 Dwelling Units 2 I i I I I I I I 001•4 ON PM I I fI If lir I \ NORTH N.T.S. Now <1 ev.swo lI.Y.II.. Ir.MEI Dur,.....1..'N..... .w.„` ter» .................................... iI II I I ..... f I I ♦ Ibilmento L —4 X \ F--- ,y1V \\\\\) lij \ \\t,• \ f / \ I ■ ♦ / \\ . // \/ r\ LEGEND \\ 6—LANE OWED ARTERIAL \ 4—L M 44—LANE DDED ARTERIAL \ 2—LANE ARTERIAL �.�— \ 2—LANE COLLECTOR/LOCAL \ \ JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. \ 1 San Marino Project Location & FIGURE 1 i Feb 24, 2014 Roadway Classification 2. 1 Project Generated Traffic Traffic that can be expected to be generated by San Marino 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 codes "Single-Family Detached Housing"(LUC 210) and "Condominium/Townhouse" (LUC 230)were most appropriate in estimating the new trips associated with the proposed project. In addition,trips associated with the previously constructed San Marino Apartments were estimated using ITE's land use code "Apartments" (LUC 220). As determined,the total development traffic will be 504 vph&621 vph(existing+new) trips during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Table 1 depicts the computations performed in determining the total existing+ new trips. Table B provides a summary of the trip generation computation results that are shown in Table 1. Table B Total Development-Generated Trips (Summation of Table 1) Daily Weekday I AM Peak Hour PM Peak I lour Trips Generated Trips Generated Trips Generated (ADT) (vph) (vph) 6,580 504 621 As determined, San Marino RPUD will generate 328 vph&411 vph new trips during the AM and PM peak hours,respectively. Table 1 depicts the computations performed in determining the project's new trips. Table C provides a summary of the trip generation computation results that are shown in Table 1. Table C New Site-Generated Trips (Summation of Table 1) Daily Weekday AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trips Generated Trips Generated Trips Generated (ADT) (vph) (vph) 4,252 328 411 3 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION COMPUTATIONS San Marino RPUD Land Use Code Land Use Description Build Schedule 210 Single-Family Housing (Proposed Land Use) 368 Units 230 Condo/Townhouse (Proposed Land Use) 123 Units 220 Apartment (Existing Land Use) 350 Units Land Use Trip Generation Equation Code Trip Period (Based upon Units) Total Trips Trips Enter/Exit LUC 210 Daily Traffic(ADT) = Ln(T) =0.92Ln(X)+2.72 = 3482 ADT AM Peak Hour(vph)= T=0.70(X)+9.74= 267 vph 67 / 201 vph 25% Enter/75%Exit= PM Peak Hour(vph)= Ln(T) =0.90Ln(X)+0.51 = 339 vph 214 / 126 vph 63% Enter/37% Exit= ********************************************************************************* LUC 220 Daily Traffic (ADT)= T=6.65(X)= 2,328 ADT AM Peak Hour(vph) = T=0.49(X)+3.73= 175 vph 35 / 140 vph 20%Enter/80% Exit= PM Peak Hour(vph) = T=0.55(X)+17.65 = 210 vph 137 / 74 vp 65% Enter/35% Exit = LUC 230 Daily Traffic(ADT) = Ln(T) =0.87Ln(X)+2.46= 770 ADT AM Peak Hour(vph)= Ln(T) =0.80Ln(X)+0.26= 61 vph 10 / 51 vph 17%Enter/83% Exit= PM Peak Hour(vph) = Ln(T) =0.82Ln(X)+0.32 = 71 vph 48 / 24 vph 67% Enter/ 33% Exit= Total Trips (Existing+Proposed) Daily Traffic (ADT) = 6,580 ADT AM Peak Hour(vph) = 504 vph 112 / 391 vph PM Peak Hour(vph) = 621 vph 398 / 223 vph ********************************************************************************* Total Net New Trips Daily Traffic(ADT) = 4,252 ADT AM Peak Hour (vph) = 328 vph 77 / 251 vph PM Peak Hour(vph) = 411 vph 262 / 149 vph 3, I Existing+ Committed Road Network Figure 1 and Table 2A provide 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. Collier Boulevard is classified as a six-lane divided arterial. The road functions as a primary north/south corridor that extends between Immokalee Road and Marco Island. Within proximity of the site, the posted speed limit of C.R. 951 is 45 MPH. 4 15 m 4, 0 e F al0 0 0 2 2 0 o3 0 00 w EEzzz > > z z >. 2 zz 05 15 15 g.:: ,1",g g: ;ii-9, 'I?. ''.P. •-•':' --9., 8;::: -9, z51:: c(13 M -zr co cv v- tiv i Zr a, lD 'N't 71 Q3 (0 NT 03 XT 01 IA/ w E __ 61 --' 0 c,i ci cNi c,5 ,- c\i El. .r- , ,, 12 0 (1) 11 13 8g 8g 8g 8g 8g 8g 'g 8g 0 0 'g 0 C') co 01 CV 01 01 .•,) c.i co C')) ckI E ,,9 (I) Izzzzo) u) 0- z t5 CO CO r- g CO r4 CD 111 113 10 to 2 _lc , > T- r- 03 Nr. N-- Nt to x- c4 CNI o z 4, 0 1.4 14. 6 u) u) u) u) z z ILI L1J W WW a. I-- 0 t.; .- - 1 0 x 3 ,,.., cr, a) Q3 ,.... CD r- N- r- (0 QI (0 04 r- < (0 - ('v r-- 0) cv .u. .t a. a. 11 > .., u. 4, 4E -, 0- ) 0-- 8- -4.r■ gg 8g 8g 8g 8g .— 8 0 I; m cl CD CD CO CD CD N- r- CD r- r- 1... 1. . 1-- T-- 01 r- 01 01 03 c- 1- ,- /...■ < Ul C4 W o c O 0 W < "E '..3 ' 13 o E CD C> CD CD CD CD C7 CD CD CD CD ..../ u) , 00 CD 00 D C 0) 0) OD 0) 0) 03 — 0.1 ('1 ,.: t 0 .- > v) cl OIWWWWWW WO a WW Ce C -J CD CI) 73 0 E 0) m 4f1 CD CD CD CD CD CD o D CD CD C) il-2, .E ,2 a) is. .4- co OD a) QD CO NT QD NI- ..u. c x (44 (4, ('4C) u) Mt CO rg v.... C 3 = 2 -0 2 pa -2 0 0 `r) •E o m N,- o _ 03 i:) II G) O7 CO CO m 0 i7 Cl c-i-3 > •— •:•4 1— 2 CC 0 0 0 0- -?.. CL 2 a) V) ,.% 0 2 (5 El o - 2 M _C CD 0 .th ° C5 C Cd a c co 5 ... a) (a 0 C t > 0 0 — > . 0 a„ cc . (CD . CD CC >, o c 0 CO CC CO OD (CO M 0 CD C 0 C 8 z) ° r2_ w> :1) w (0 CO M 0 co I' 13 0 6 ..!.. o u) tY co cc co 00) 6 4) pr C)) C O o o. z ) 1? E C) as 0 0 M M E' -0 > M C)) il a) PS C5 o t o .x it it a: 0 0 m al w c 0 O 0 C 0 '0 0 ,.... m 5 5 B 4.1 eL eL 0 o ce w 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. Figure 2A and Table 2A provide a detail of the traffic distributions based on a percentage basis and by volume. The project traffic assignments were agreed to during the February 24, 2014 methodology meeting as shown in the attached summary report. 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. n 5 \ 1 I I I \ ° l , _ -I_ _. -----, 1 I R 1-�5 Radio Road 1 1�%► + 3 ♦ N ' ^- ..� �.���� Beck Boulevard �dava Boulevard / I• Shopping Center "1 ty4° 8% Trip Absorption 1 I 1 I Davis Boulevard 1 .% _.•• I NORTH r. N.T.S. I Ep b A ill g e al J 1 E S b� M 3 Shopping Center S% Trip Absorption 17% • .i_ —4 • i \ \ co \ . \ I, \ s 3 *i> \ \ i LEGEND \ \ / 65% PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION�Y PERCENT 11--110 i `♦ JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. ■ San Marino PROJECT—GENERATED FIGURE 2A Feb 24, 2014 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION 5, 1 7E' ett :I0000 02 0 00 c Ezzz >_ >.. z Z >. z zZ 0) -. .- 0) ----, ..V t' * .?,-9. -9. z,=', '8•"! g,7! gi gZ 89. ',..:' '47: 0 N.. OD r- OD aD Nr 07 Nr (') Cl) 4' E -. ci - ai c\i d (.1 (.6 r r r ••■.. 12 c co co EN CV CV CV cC*) CNI CO CO CV E (.0 0 CL .6C —IZZZ Z (00) (3. Z 1- .).. ES g 4E X li -=• n n LC) LC) N. e•-,Nr. LO eN C.) LC) 10 10 (0 v x -- - N— I— C.1 ...... Nr r- •q- 10 r C\I CV 0. 0 2 4-I ....„ CI w w w w W l""' (....) tj L. 4.3 13 4) = 01 ,- N., a) 10 (0 0 -'• CV CV CO ''''' N- CV N- 0) CV CL. L. ga O. E LL t o •' ....-- 0 .,., 4: 0 co CICI C) 10 CD CD co r... N- CD N- N. < a-. ft Z g r- r- C4 N. CO cV r) 1-- r- r- Csi W 0 C 0 0 iii < Z t.). E 7' CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD C) CD CD CO e C C C D D/ r CO CO a) C) CD 0) 0) (0 0) a) 0 y C') cO cO CO CV CV r- •,— cv ,..... r- '4. I— Lia 1 a 1 . n 0 3 > 1 UJ LU UJ UJ Ili U.1 UJ 0 a LL1 UJ m E• en (IS tn a 0 a a 0 a 0 D a 0 0 8 V S i i) 5 '4. (0 (0 10(0 'Cr (0 'Cr v• a, c x Ili W ('4 0) CO st TO r4 r- c Cu Cu 0 m b ea in o er) CO c7) 0 L.... m i5 '5 m fi it 2 >. 2. E W in CD , c) If _ D (1.) 0 co a> 2 o U) 0 mt ?' w a. - 0_ c co 0) 5 0 T .0 Cu Cu E m _2 2 42 .o > ,0 0 .c. cu cit to co CO co r., (00 „ cc c c71 -(22 co m c m c o o u' A ..., (1) 4.. 0 0 0 0 >, (13 0 1.. in • - ,..., - c C = 75 0 Lt) ., 2 m = 13 CC) Cu C CI 0 CO 0 -V (D b r;' 0 ii) cr u) tx (I) 0 (0 a Ab „........., _v .7 co c or 0 ,., Ct. Z rn 12 c co co u u Cu X 4 4 0 Cu > -3 0 '0 0 2 m 0 Cu .e 1-- it cr 0 o m 5 IS .Z. m re c 0 5 ''''. c---) T T z O › r5 -5 to E to EL O. 0 CD CC Ct 2013 thru 2020 Project Build-out Traffic Conditions In order to establish 2013 thru 2020 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 2020 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 2020 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 2020 background traffic. The net new project generated traffic was then added to the background traffic. Table 2C provides a summary of the 2013 thru 2020 traffic conditions and the roadways' level of service and remaining available capacity. As shown, all project impacted roadways will continue to operate at the County's adopted minimum level of service thresholds at project build-out. 6 Z ( c f = w a o = 2 k - _ N w a 4 § . 2 § 3 = & N. 2 CV . c ,e § > N l a I I a. \ _ c N. r 1- 2 N. r & > N. / % = 0 c 2 § § 4:5 § a « N m § CO o = R { \ I ) > a) ° LLI ƒ ., \ \ / / a\ \U- > \} \ \ \ \. z © o y % 4 flNP.. < % 0 2 /\ z z 4 Ce 0 ® « z S a � k 2 § { J / *a ce v- 5 ° f 0 N. , \ \ § # > i ƒ j a \ \ / \ \ \ ± \ CS m tY \ ] "5 re J GO @ \ j , O C) < O C N o Z O ,'p c O < a w (0 a c.n 73 cr) 0 a m < O. O N. _. m < . Q. cu o 0 to • x 0 CD CD 13 X 13 0. 2 N O- A A m- o N -• O O 0 G W 0 w 0 N _ - 0 Q) O O IN O D V N N • {Q x 0 W D V V d c A O= p = C e O. ° r * zZIPvxo ZD m -0 W d x � Om ( c C) o O r N 0 0 0 to C = O O m / c. = - m • x � � C) wQV = fp• D 13 D m zcnl_v, � � n x. z o 1 v D� of `" 7 x o Z v ' ° D r Z -< o 13 Cn * z l° v x- Cn < m c co CO W W x _ o 0 rn - $ 0 z o a _, O p o c co < v m IV((0 Co) 0 7 x ? 00 O O O 0 2 < 0 13 < X. '0 W 0 0 0 ° v ai 5 n.) w � too a a R. .. O S p 0 O O cc,. 3 13 CD• E. r N C) 0 0 (O x a o N 2 c a o o c APPENDIX Support Documents 7 JMB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. 11 TRAFFIC/TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING & PLANNING SERVICES II ,/ I TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT 1 li METHODOLOGY REPORT . San Marino RPUD lit 1 ,11 (Collier Boulevard, Collier County, Florida) iil it., February 24, 2014 ,- lit iii li 11 Iii ii ti h. it tt, if IF Al 11 d Ili l# Prepared by: iti MB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. 761 21'"' STREET NW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34120 (239) 919-2767 I CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NO. 27630 (PROJECT NO. 140214) II ill IF / Z.^‘ 2 Y-1 y III ItiotFL,OORID ji. ' EG. NO./4'3880 li It APPENDIX A INITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply. Date:02-24-2014 Time: 9:30 AM Location: Collier County Government Offices (North Horseshoe Drive) People Attending: Name, Organization,and Telephone Numbers 1) James M. Banks, JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc., 239-919-2767 2)Reed Jarvi,Collier County Government, 3)John Podczerwinsky, Collier County Government, 4) Study Preparers Preparer's Name and Title:James M,Banks, P.E.,President Organization: JMB Transportation Engineering,Inc. Address & Telephone Number 761 21st Street NW Naples. Florida 34120 (239)-919- 2767 Reviewer(s): Reviewer's Name &Title: Reed Jarvi,Planning Manager Collier County Transportation Planning Department Reviewer's Name&Title: John Podczerwinsky,Project Manager Organization&Telephone Number: Collier County Transportation Planning Department Applicant: Applicant's Name: Address: Telephone Number: Proposed Development: Name: San Marino RPUD Location: East side of C.R. 951 and North of Rattlesnake Hammock Road Land Use Type: Single-Family&Multi-Family ITE Code#: LUC 210 & LUC 230 Proposed number of development units: 368 S-F and 123 M-F dwelling units Other: Description: Zoning: Existing: Vacant Comprehensive plan recommendation: Requested: AA- 1 Findings of the Preliminary Study: See the attached Study Type: Major Study TIS Study Area: Boundaries: Based upon the County's 2%, 2%& 3%impact rule. See attached Additional intersections to be analyzed: To be determined Horizon Year(s):2020 Analysis Time Period(s):AM and PM Peak Future Off-Site Developments:None Source of Trip Generation Rates:ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition(See Table 1) Reductions in Trip generation Rates: Pass-by trips:None .Internal trips (PUD): Transmit use: Other: Horizon Year Roadway Network Improvements: 2020 per Collier County's 5-year CIE. Methodology& Assumptions: Non-site traffic estimates: See Attached Site-trip generation: See Table 1 Trip distribution method: Based upon manual assignment(See Table 2A& Figure 2A) Traffic assignment method: Based upon manual assignment(See Table 2A &Figure 2A) Traffic growth rate: Per Collier County Historical & Current AUIR Reports, but not less than 2%or background plus vested trips method, whichever is greater. M- Special Features: (from preliminary study or prior experience) Accidents locations: Sight distance: Queuing: Access location & configuration: �\ T") tS A-cC F'1''3 Traffic control: r'K k)(:) Net-3 ST) —s ' tik. Signal system location&progression needs: On-site parking needs: ., I t Y _ Ge A) c T 1 t2" ra Data Sources: E--,<‘S-1-r A-%6 '-' 11"5-.- '- U.-.- Base maps: i— jr 6I.r $\/ Co "fiy Prior study reports: / / Access policy and jurisdiction: Z.oN Review process: G i--'t 4t-16A/3> M E-V�JT W L L "� Ln Requirements: 1-1-4-C - M 4 i . S , Miscellaneous: I i • Small Scale Study—No Fee Minor Study- $750.00 Major Study- $1500.00 X ii. 16D Includes 2 intersections OP Additional Intersections- $500.00 each To be determined All fees will be agreed to during the Methodology meeting and must be paid to Transportation prior to our sign-off on the application. SIC • / A St• 'ep rer i r eviewers Applicant Al 3 ■ I I ` � � — - -I- -- � ,Sg ° I I I I I I Radio Rood f ■ _ 437%1-N ' �■ 1=75- `.. r'7 Beck Boulevard ��aris Baulewrd / 1 • i • Shopping Center ^I , elo , Tflp ADaorpban I v Davis Boulevard s�1 1 - I NORTH • I N.T.S. 111 P I P 0 2 0 V 53 I . ; 1 M J X 3 Shopping Center 5% Trip Absorption \ 1f—� L -4 b \ j `` G 3 U x, I LEGEND \ / 65% PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENT `∎ J MB TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING, INC. ■ San Marino PROJECT-GENERATED FIGURE 2A Feb 24, 2014 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION COMPUTATIONS San Marino Land Use Code Land Use Description Build Schedule 210 Single-Family Detached Housing 368 Units 230 Residential Condo/Townhouse 123 Units Land Use Trip Generation Equation Code Trip Period (Based upon S.F.) Total Trips Trips Enter/Exit LUC 210 Daily Traffic(ADT)= Ln(T)=0.92Ln(X)+2.72= 3482 ADT AM Peak Hour(vph)= T=0.70(X)+9.74= 267 vph 67 / 201 vph 25%Enter/75%Exit= PM Peak Hour(vph)= Ln(T)=0.90Ln(X)+0.51= 339 vph 214 / 126 vph 63% Enter/37% Exit= LUC 230 Daily Traffic (ADT)= Ln(T) =0.87Ln(X)+2.46= 770 ADT AM Peak Hour(vph) = Ln(T)=0.80Ln(X)+0.26= 61 vph 10 / 51 vph 17% Enter/83%Exit PM Peak Hour(vph) = Ln(T)=0.82Ln(X)+0.32 = 71 vph 48 / 24 vr' ", 67%Enter/33%Exit= ********************************************************************************* Total New Daily Traffic (ADT)= 4,252 ADT AM Peak Hour(vph) = 328 vph 77 / 251 vph PM Peak Hour(vph)= 411 vph 262 / 149 vph L CL;1876 ov1" DJET rue,-) - M-c 5 4 mt . 000 (" 0 of3 0 00 ww E , zZZ >_ >.. z z ›.. z zz In itjt,C4MCVN-.- Na) (.:1- al ,1-1- t8 ,-- r-f- ao , c0c0 ' c') Nr mu? (T. 2= r" c5 .,.-' co c.4 0 04 or) ,- e4 4-- ., 12 .2. -o8Q8Q 8Q 84E! e e e -se. e g■ s4.i! CMMNCNNCV M &J M M & EM (1) U " 0 "r re Ci *5' ..1ZZZZIWW 11. Z .... 8.1- . ... ....., 1 N.6x0. 0 .-0 ,4 v2 ..0 (T, R, ,... m .z, a. 0 z 15 0X5 eWWWWIZZ WW W WW C.) 6 fw x al. (0 co (0 c") 0) T- T.*. N. CD M M < 6" .. CNCNMC° 1-- C4 F" M CN sTNIt L. n CL. C1- -- 0. > u. 0 Ca -6:-„- 6 m CD CD M CD CD co N. N. CD F- N. ..---■ " " o r- r— N N. Op N (*) v- < (1. )... < al CNA re a, c 0 0 LU < 15 E 73 CD CD C) CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD cuE , 00Doocs oc, c, C) C) 40 „. MMOCDCDN MM Co MOD a) - 1— W ,, MMM 40 - 0 tNMM C4 o r- CN > < 0 i'"" W 0 .6 > W • WWWWWW WO 0 WW W -J 0- 0. W to ol 1, mi .cm m0000000 OD 0 00 (..) L.: c m — c"-.5. 'tWWMODcri '4- CD Nt 71- (0 •'" EL V 'R. Illut him MRT 7,3 Cd o- coc e. o .,, iS 11 •0 '- 0 ,g .5 .9CC(..) 11 12 a E— 2' 2 10 CD it) CIS Cn RS 2 0 9 c m 0 m 0. ,.... 26 ..._ 0 3 ,co 2 0 c , co c m — .2 = m -c o -'' .-, 0 j1)-- o rnz ce CD 0 "C1 (11 CO al 0 c , .. ,fr, 0:1 CC CO >, co c (1) o ■-• CD .41.s u) Si 0 .92 m z as E.; 6 — 0 .-) › 0 C) - m .1 m o o = co c c 0 co c5 o u) ct co ct co o o i. fa El ° x ur 0 0 iLZ l'; P■ M M .9 .9 M e -0 LI T 0 — = to f— F- C4 0 0 li ii 4.. Ca CC 2 0 c .0 0 0 . 5 ..7., 0 .1 1,-; Ari... , 0 g c, ,, Z to ¢ c = # m § 2 c it 5 o f j § m , - \ § # § £ ) \ § 2 / 2 a 2 ƒ 4 Q. \ % N. / ca > ® ƒ A o o c # m f \ 2 = m \ / o .- G1 = p ( « N e c ,- $ X I > - 01 o LLI 4) 1 E . , R a 7 k } k § G 0 0 ® ® 0 > 2 % t \ . • \ \ \ _ \/ • LAJ \ , w w » i § 0 5 CC � k J � � at cc / 0 0 0 e D 7 = $ $ § > 0 Ct V) 5 2 7 0 0 0 / \ = G R / 0 \ a > ® ] f / to 2 \ f - § \ 0 \ f \ CI in m V. \ > co co EC } / , \ \ 1 " C 0 0 7.5 0 ,...• i C.) 0 0 m 0 03 0_ Y a. ... c = +3 0 0 ,----.. ,....z 0 — a sa x 0 lit' CI) C) CO ,..,'' ,,zr's (0 ,..4 .— to 6 — — ci = 0 0) a. -5 O. • > = 5 oo o = o o a it X cp c, CV CD CL > (0 (- = 0 ,...; = E — to co 04 • W (0 c0 0 ..2 4G -r W (0 a) CO ...o .... a. al z cr) a. >''' z —,1 < — .a- T2' :4 z a. III 'Cr Na 04 (4) Lil #% 0 2 . 0 c ......, ..0 0 " =11 V> 2 tis oi c:3 0 0 .... ea W 0 04 0 0. Y 03 LLJ 0 0 c .,c r-- 1--- c, ...% ..... CD 04 (N c0 N. 04 la 0 -% 0.1 cy CO 0 0 a) ol a a an Ire -4 C) a. C c 0 CSi 0 U-1 10 Of Z":). ..% .c 4) ".;;). 6 ,.., to 5 > — — — o a. o. U) ,1) CD 0) ("• C co 0 0 w •-, 747+ 0 0 ti > Ti Ca C6 W , o o > 4.1 -a 0 (/) r „--„, ■.-r; Ti a) co '0 > (a a) O -5 Ct 0 Z" en c ,tn z > M... +g 0 m c.) a ,F3-. n e 2 e Y Xg ' 1 11 i s _ 44 K� � 4444 100010 SO 1111 K III 5 � g _,��� gg $ u 421 �{"TIM, g c�S I )1i d);f t111�c�U' n�,ai2i i.'� c iiu°3 } fi 8 e� IV 1 ^ m R R ,wR R Q R J C y u.u U C U V m x m m 7 U U.U C U U 12 0 0 0 U 0 0 U u U U U C 0 U U U C C V C 0 U.0 D U=V U 0 w 0 0 0 V U m O u C C m 9 m U G m=C C C U U C G U U U U J 14 ^?o??15.a=as-.Aa: _Uaiiii3 aagdrnFIXRE6:i a"FF;i-Cli i6V RgkAmRR.a3 M414MIa Mia-AK E x sRmas�= s°. sa!^...zs^ zssmatt=F4E rimmi"smxgiemm m is-temR.,-.1azzalm-apr x 1 pp rnkF i.'e<§.T3.a= W o.8Co.rRj.-.W1Aketgig:Ek'..'R^akEER'6$fd �3$$EW7F7g000eo$coQQ"R!O "g52_F0W-I e ns .0 i ---« _ « R --`1 "� . .?� ..t^4^' RN«.._ �n�.^�F{�°ryxt Ar`:Inq 4 RC-1:z 4> l is 811111# & IL AAgmu g'IIIIMIWW ss sssg s$ alsasI 'i kkg$ig4k lA ............... mm:umm....Zm....z zzzzzzzz.."a.......x.zz2d...Zn;yf mm... 2i _w........0.m 0..O00mu wmu.........00....Wm.CCCO LLm n. .7....000.....C..mmux,,..... 21 i9@9 99°0RR99°8°93:49^iiaeRiR99nr99999°439a9:°°n2999l ieiiRR° 9999RRE«QSQ$S99o0 b E 7 .-.r y 3 ° ,-1-7M it j y 2 X 5 y g i F 4 3 ; 3 r s pa 4 - $ Y E _ g v c D fAliT 3 1 321-Ai leW x E . l_ @i rw •sE lc4 xi3 x 5 ig lu i'E i a ;/-5'.liga ^— i1 I s zrg —11+ $ @. 1s is ± $ z g1 111 Agc - IJ11= S' 1+s> e�db : =_ <_1Gra!-3i<_ 5> o�c;e58d4ao- 22f>4 ''<73o5 gi. ›E..“ I A<7S,_551 ] ' 3 s . ,! WA 2 elaa�m'.8�4 s 3 t'! �v e /11101 ' �. g 33 : 1 l'i] p t I:g 'F ^yt 0 °R of ' � c a"tas 2S .E6'eey°x 5?3� x�c.� ��3 •=.e c 3g °`ilai.�. 5iz121 Ili 1$114 `011101 3 11%14 01131 , d3s'x-$1= igill0E ,14§ G - ` 83 s 33 F$ s4` j' y"g z2'z z YY = .'� ti9 _ 111W144 ,1 = a I 5 11i� g O9 A1111] a y 6 . :' 5d ' gg , EE 3 > jz'2«; ' .<exuur88d L_ Sg� - i 8R3313S3zaa 3a a-,--^ E = g;gEea,_ .-s_R,PdAAV 3_ 3 _j_. . ., c ,c. g _'” i 53za/a Y e 11 11ms2m *a v**..T P v .g ei ii l i il i lii i n f E i E H a aC55555 5 cAgCC y U py:J U 55y55 6C C 555 Y%55 g GN 46555 V mC C xU5 B vE 5t 55555 55555 o. ilagE a `tE s$$ afit mm-Am i l §§1$1111$ Milli §§$1$§s will laic§ssli§ W. 422223 ■^^^ =222 C ==22*;*322= _h 3-• ...■ PXPS ;I P, A oA%—!:::5q _a4? ',"g - o ac _ry-n3;;; Rqe - — — 3Mitt o0000 of «o� - - �.g '.7.x^.� ��.^...°.R.�.....,r.., .^...T,"`S�^.9..%:��..:`13���::St.'.x�^7:NL°.N-o'.gv^�oo�Bfo,ag°'R All- 43 i*r, ,; • Ai li' < '11 Il E C I % O' 3 I 1 1 I I 11 § 11111 1 2g is s eie 211 2222 22 2 b K S U 3 J i 6 : 2Ks f77 -gt S wt il z i 15 `off ag { 6 _i O N C u C O C U U 9 0 0 O 9 0=J U=IA U CCU 9 U C C C:J C C U U A A U U O U C 6=6 O =0=0 U C C=C O C 9 C•U O FOICt itAU 3 3aga3eP _T3_=3R =iii $ nigh^_33RdR?e?..3"$ss$a;3R3U a f Elf. -a3:0 =I3aP3 . a«i_ ii,$E , s a«ankTI saEaP5FIg . a:a. aR ;i1 k E i a n$te^xsna.,ee �Y3" RIE "; e a o o'g as sonefe R&& - o ° eft g n I- a 33$3°_es�a=e"AAAZa gRE4 iP§Idi- s s:3�,e.k-3 ._3 3 ARRHIRRRRRRRRSSg l;;i - - — — i 31311ess?.111/A?-@1 FAA! I -la$s $ 111-MM_3§gg€3a° 3?iiiiiM33 WI 1 6p 33I333zZZazZZZ3..N.nN mau.uw .z2 Y .4��m m.zz ,_r.u3333-.—„+iNYZ+.e33z G 9 to OAiCALC9uw0AAACAAa -...on Om.,_,_ u C-CC..mAOCCCCCCCCCAOAAOOACCCAC 1 I ly I I i 1 1 Ilicialli tfcg! 11 11] .1 git lili-Wolio,1 Ad cij li g 1g! 1 -u 3 3ans3P,`t.tfPlfcJB 8 3 ol%eS3s> c" ,R-, "<_ cc-3-=8fr W 335. 3,.. 3c :3.c58 3 E I d WO ' _ � S 3 i � �'_{ 1] s rc! a ' Z 3; ' . � i = Slrc y i ailiJ 3 t"• .11 a 4• lhn 811383& 4_ L ' 1 wA3SOLJ 4yg . j 111111/1 111-- 333"3 31 e e e 1 G 13.1 $ 1 n4=_Z�?'$lal]i ffilidttS 33333°�I-- add r r rrr r`r =rrt•titi 's �_1 dl g ... .. .. I 1 g8 g g E}i a E9 '.p�$gg$D:.e3 g��a=°t�o$3aE�"��HIP$ 1ili yn�~�.•Zozi»vZ121 S1 - E €1111.1 16.8=111 "11111 ° 11.1t!33333� J� 33) - :,1 R 5 6 u�a`za 3, � .N r���t= � °''r°•Sr�°-t.°.r r-rrrrF»»i»>3336b$'c•�.,` Ld�Siuy6AbS; tii ix la tgg saa� ---i y6�y�°�` yy'�[[l!CCppC�ppyppyG ay' 'P op vu,„..., N N N N V.N =5 _ =S=7�'» U U 5555,5 V G+J U J ug lingln iinalgiii ii I; ad e e e a o e o n o o a-n..g o 0 0?'o 0 o g o o e, n e e -.. a a. e e o a�o o? z;;;; 'K;aa;;:t ;aa;aai;aR;;;Y oaaagsss�o—_n:� -=a;«;;;;"?'. M- ID jj{y66':r + m .1 1 I TIA , H 1 it i . I I 11 z R 1 111111 NNE ! i � � z i I i iF i ^_ T. } I ( I s 1.. i I I 1 1 1 i ; ! ! 4 z i 1014 r I. � . .1 ill <s �i� I 5 ,Y •I =ii I I I i i 1 3 i . 'II 1 I zI L ' i 1 x1 8 I! - i ,ft k I II!!i ig ; x S S .zi` J �'4 I l i l i 1 11 I ' 11 i ! I ! 1 IIIIIIIIII1IIIIIIKII I111 FIM i Ili ■ , 44 - ee® iaeec enaeeeegue�e ec -i !- SOe � aICeeIeee�e,. r i 111011) IFI]1 ai I 1-: I gi !` I : E1a11C11 1Prr Z.' 4 ill F, ' I ', I;1=�s I 1l0CC1111IC i'l "ill i ;1 IA CI 11H F-"4"11 EEL L. l�a n . etl imunalusamonomi I IF-it altd clummeacomerlii �_ !=� I s� ; IDAIE1 I =' IIH]1 'kj IOIII`' !.g Ia1 , ,,., ..„ -, , 1 , > ali IaI I� ' t I IRGHI 111111111'I III -. I 11 i=ii 10161i1- !-• 111 Y =1E 1 Il®0 =11119 1n991��9ei9s1 8 11 i9 0010101010111011101010101=1' 091011 "i2,'° 0 =1z, - 11119 !{:1010-100010200101g! 0 i " jj" L t 1 n I a1 i t '� z 3• I C A qyr v li < L 1 _l _ at L Yi� = 4 I '� t X11 ' Y _ai ! 5 1 I3 xi =i 5z : 3 I4. _� : s y a Il{ ,i i; 4 t s i�t 5g 4i ? 4 v z a l �. a •P 1 1 _ i� .1 E i ; ! c is I-. !1 11 2 y, : ,1µ J x � c g-g S x - !� � i! x e .1 t!-- P $ I a�' - �, �i 1 y, � � ill- Iii .='.I p .7 a `��-O - ?f._I� 1� z ' 1' + t 3 x 2I R �1 (' - 1 �� 14` i F •- I It i 1 .c !r iC 3 f ' 3 .y.' 3 a! r vi 1i > : l 11 T 1 t 1 }�..rt ;. i I i? Y�SI 1 j1 ill]] - ri i I .2 3 app JJ aa �y y _ i 14 li 1 3! 35 = s i - ti I3 x .5 �• i !C Y iqr 4 i '_ a•E; y ! ly >r Y �Z i ! F s 1 ; i.� ` 5 sE a +; I it a Ig it ` i . ` H . ; '<S < I «�_ < ,4 i - fa f - 1 . 1! 3 t !k ' 1_ 4i i I '' If li c i II S i:, >n ; II s t 0 l i 1 1 _ - I d , 1 t i 11 It .1!'; it I '.1 10 1 f 1111 �iI =_I ] -t. N �-I=1 , I��] i I _ z r� : 01011 T1 0�_ _; i t 01�1 i ! 1= 0OII ia� s , I ;��! 1116111011,311010 I��ili� I i ®�9 �iQ18i�=' i i6ii i�1�llilil ��: '.'� ,_ iiiiIiiiiiiC 1Ti :101E1111111111161 = _ M liiii1111121E121011111111131111111 i ► 1 1 Ii /4, tl f 1111 11111111111IRMINI is x • L. .,.. liii ' HIlHhIflhIIIflhIIlIIIIH HOIIIIIIIAIIIN ! 11 .•11 f W IRIUIIIIHIIIIHHUIIHIIOIIIII l 111 z i 1 I 1 III 1 IHhuIIHHhIIII1IIIIUIIIIIlIIIIH !,-t. , li_=_ _ 1 _-,_ I i s U -- ri ; I I 1 , Ij ' - 1 I IIIIIICUIIAIIIII 11111111 11 IIOIIIIHOIflhIlIIIllhINhIIIIII1IIIHuhIllI • '1°1] udriM MEIuMENdnQI I I I EMEN i 11 EVIECCIMMEIMIMMIVIMIZIMMICEIMEMECI tl INIZIMEEZIONINIMEMIKIIIMEdIECIMMOMIIMINUMMICI 1141 111101111111131 i 1 111311111111111113:13:11121213:111 k !I 1 ?i §11 HIL 1111 II11111111111 INOm I 1II IIiI:IIG :I : I1I !3 110 0o 01e111110 01 010110100 11010111011101 1011011, C 112121iI11 Ii! 1x I I 1 ++ ° ` 1 - 1412 Z` it i ? s I- •f `iil t„ LI E I t ` 11 ,' 1 Ig 1 . it E { 1 1 ' ��t a� 3 n i � � � �� i � Ti !_ # IS � I= � i � I � b yEji 3. " F ! s 3 si p _ =i I i _ e t� 1 5 1 2 if - ' ;/ � 1 3 � s v Y ; �I �.? y i '} R v 14 Y a I `� 1s s '_y _ I ; 41 �jS s, I Fi Ia f It _ 1 •i li - S w 1 1s 1 1; _ '4� i (z i S S 1 1 °- igg = 1.! X ! 3 ', =5 f i L! i 1 .. r -i # a i,z --{{I Iii' i 4, _ t = i i0 '•r 21 z 1. + 1 1 121 . sj j x 'rf 1 a, f � i ai I 1 8 _h s f¢ _ �i�`� T s^1 z 1 i 4 @ 1 it i1 : •+ 1I :- I 11 li it i l I ' �i1 '� ; 3 Jt : Ri €I " �s x .` I, " 3 aII. 1I3111 , 3 � 1ri t 1g ii ! ! 'l * iiii - I II E g Eg' IIIIINIM 1 � �-� t � 11811I�11_� IlllllhllH[UII]E t. .. :. 2 gm 1z�1�. , awn 11111E1311E 11 1t1�� I it, J] 1E1 '_1s1 E 1 EERIE I - Ids 11 '= 1®1 11e11u1 1 IIHI01®Di ! 11= : _011111':1 r� 1 I onlin 1 - �tll l i �6Eia�11EI 1�11101�11f11�13 ' 1; :{ aa OP 1i113E11111S11]1 12 M- 12. San Marino G MPA-PL2014-0000113 2"d Submittal EXHIBIT N WASTE GENERATION RATES IftI WALDROP ENGINEERING CIVIL ENGINEERING&LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS 123940&7899 z ,ue�, `a .„,r .,,✓ _.: y? .l�,.. EXHIBIT N WASTE GENERATION RATES The proposed increase in demand for solid waste services upon approval of this GMPA is 3,267 lbs. per day. The Solid Waste Demands Estimate below is based upon 4.43 lbs/day/capita @ 2.5 persons per unit. CALCULATION OF EXISTING DEMAND PER GMP Population=495 (1.0 du/acre X 196.4 acres+2 du per existing PUD X 2.5 persons per unit) Number Persons Per Per Capita Use of Units Unit Consumption Total Demand (lbs./day) Residential 198 2.5 4.43 lbs./day 2,193 lbs./day CALCULATION OF PROPOSED DEMAND PER GMPA Population = 1,233 (2.5 du/acre X 196.4 acres+2 du per existing PUD X 2.5 persons per unit) Number Persons Per Per Capita Use Unit Consumption Total Demand of Units (lbs./day) Residential 493 2.5 4.43 lbs./day 5,460 lbs./day EXHIBIT N 02/26/2014 San Marino GMPA Waste Generation Rates Page 1 of 1 San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2nd Submittal EXHIBIT 0 BOUNDARY SURVEY i P- VOlaold'UNnoo a3n1OO `8 19V39Z3oNVaHLnOS09dIHsNMO1'I Nou3 s 3S C}0 N § (\I 011'a�n;ua�Ol 8 H o> ~ ° 3 ,- II 011'a�n;uan dl 8 H m 6 $ A3AthlS.1dvaNnoe 5 o''n X N = xO v „ Nouma�saa azva 3w 4 m w ry a ISIIV W g SNOISIn321 S g LL gq 0.4 eq< € ."-- a g g O'12S a aPI �Iy pp g d Spa.ra a 142 R e R g'6 i 5123 F€< i ] 4<§3 It g g. .e,- Its ye € 3 € 144 gg„ gill `a `a gg 55g re gn3 !" 14 tY.$aN NY` �a9 $ € esa se fi s m°$ : 5fit m mg" € $ a A fi 3 e € o` gg o ;gaaaewzoo�e x g :o ° 4 ksvaa i 0 ol:04 V1 o i = € 4 1 / Ny ig g._j 4ca2. E ga g i'Ig§..11w.3 € = „°`z•' Lid 3 '' 5 5g .3 5 debi t.41 6-.v-m W E 1 1 p e 5 :5 vegan" = N W _ �_ ` a g °I. g -9 9 gw 2z A E°CR ?CR ,G« € 3 L,eg6 eC6 gC6 IsW 8 g$ $ $ Aand g .i !`:a i eg air :a=9 ' 3.,t3,3 g Fmo ! t z' „La; IN g' fig' W g y€ C 2 S € ge $ $ 6°w eve t ¢,sg pro gigOg1g: 1.:m O aS 1 ": a law §"M W,So :¢ € 22 .d 85, zsgy, a2-v4 eta 9°: L t I; s, mai gag -;°g g': gpa dry W d y gg z g bo $v 8 gnu88'" 3R 3R CA�//�7 !fin ° °g =" 4' ;'^„: Y2 S. ° O I� V .0t o .0 a o 8 aS. a; X-_ 'k_ - 'k O s c F a S ° 2$ t 0 it o Em€w tl `> I $1 5 =g �a S � MCI w 8y€ ° o j ? 4 4411 Z CM) IL , f A -, oaf Q ,w . 0� _ 8 4 .9 „a .en.e v.xe 3 '^2 2 o S € - 12 ! L< g - mill 1 5 : € q $€ a1 T,:6$ k = „ $gg, a < , as $ �@s , $igg. ee < _ ' a m=o , �W F � o , Y 0 g 3 PP o . v g s r r oo �°_ W A n g- : d� v mill 10- ILI O •-o r� V " W 0 68 w 6a $ s °5 axe Sw;i1: °` g °i:1'°°'egg° d a s 1'2 ELI=$"R956 21 "giEV,REP- .ggrAggi, €: � . �W = 3 gg k a N $9 's Y g $ ••ueo0•olio0i•oe.ap.ap•so10®+©°•8-Ok04% R _ Valaold'AINnoJ N3I 11OO '�'. 3Stl3 SZ 3ONVN'HLnOS OS dIHSNMOL u NOILO3S "' Q W (N w � � 011'am;uan a1'8 H o> � P� 011'am�uan al 8 H .l3/�21f1S�l2ibaNf108 >> i ^OI• t7 rah NoUdb]G30 31w kI P.' " N SNOISIn3I 3 a � / V A [A] !.....o OR ar m IR WU -3 II IOITNRtl MRYCB it O ry !64 p — ____, �w l.a •Ad KARRI Al .wn3,i 1' a a Y al w uOmr' '... 51—�— 'ro—`Z� ry ; 1'' 1 I ii i :o ff o o ° 1 R _ x:_51 w W _ -I_W'd _l_ — __ 2" g i I; 1 )! IM r -1 1 Thi 1 d t� 1 .1, t .., \ksi ,......j. q 5 (a),cr,ceu e.».crane `\ 2 .. ———` het (�I FIt4i a,anas \ C'1 ;I 8C1 hh_ g II i •--4-- $d ig1 $9g ri v e I 11 o tN " 04 ro r��l�—.�r— Q_ i$ — --i a r a g a z o Pi a 1 a EA 11 1 oa �i ix. bob * a;_—_ gY3y ,gY s° ,g1Y a i,■ g� ° eoo d °t° rp" a �g t �•,,J•/1,6 , s 6 - yp5 y [ e ' r a gkk if 1 1 L_ '$$ `: .�� :: fi= ,1 _g a m u se aa flR x ! � • S. Pi 01 a *i 1 €a$> €1,9 . • rl F 1E1_ p ale ia a fed tR B- E ii In)me-etc _- -__ (3)..4 11.41 s.vr.evaox - (3),se'e+c eSll eh. °h$ 3g as .,>m, 1 Ai ! t I% ¢1S ! 4 r• @ 4 %I - -- herb l i; ! 9 ( 1 it ! ppi 4 I 2 ef. a. se �� g 5' 5 Sg5 1p��11 @I a �A� t5'�2� I5g5 �'�Qp T� ;We m-- e 12, 6. ! T 6 y] i p i2 �-' h°__ I �j i a 5"y Hy eF ho0 c� I S o a� 6 1? ?� ::4 hs-oo a lb �{ E��{�•9°ja i "S °beesp i•a �^: 'S>r `t� €�4 4,2t1 � .e a ; 4 5i^ 1 a Mil m„ 411 iiLtt1 b +f� 2222! a l 3Q 1 , 8 !@igxl G I £ o' =i'' i ill/ a4` I 'It i �4Y = . IQ 1.§x r<e`.0 a �CC-. ;Ili pev j i{r 4E j. Ili 4ERE04 1 I 1$k w 2 " p 8 I 4 �i i`� a 11111 I ��SIQl EC ,• ' X114 e. I p i0I Ekt i h i ° I I LOAM. YI "a Y 2222 I i _avrl xnpunr __.• _ .cnol I&X., a ir-- nr nnm Cx „� l�.mlaArr m. l+vry alw�aa mr/�issti __ __ F� FRS --------_--_ .0..4, lY.aarr xw.am�— �` --_—�,/ —_j �� as r.n A.�� F "a'a M !C 2 mi4� 5 a al bf i 1i' (too avoa ALNnoo)mamma `o o_p S' g_ ¢�X aavnannoe aamoo San Marino GMPA-PL2014-0000113 2nd Submittal EXHIBIT P AMENDMENT JUSTIFICATION NARRATIVE WAI DRC)P ENGINEERING A CIVIL ENGINEERING&LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS 28100 Ilamm sow 1)1L#335 ss' BU*4TA€4400435,ilk: 34135 EXHIBIT P AMENDMENT JUSTIFICATION NARRATIVE INTRODUCTION The subject property ("Property") comprises 196 acres and is located immediately east of Collier Blvd., 1+/- mile south of Beck Blvd., and 1.5+/- miles north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road in southern Collier County. The Property has direct access to Collier Blvd., and approximately 1,000 feet of frontage on this arterial roadway. The Property is designated in the Urban Fringe Residential (URF) Subdistrict and is zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) per Ordinance 00-10. Approximately 39 acres of the overall PUD have been developed with 350 multi-family dwelling units known as the "Aventine at Naples" apartment complex. The remaining undeveloped 196 acres are the subject of this amendment request, and a forthcoming PUD Amendment, to allow for the development of the Property as a stand-alone residential community. The property is currently eligible for a density bonus of one unit per acre through the use of transferable development rights (TDRs). The Applicant is requesting two (2) site-specific text amendments to the Future Land Use Element to allow: 1) an additional density bonus of 1.5 units per acre to allow up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to 2.5 units TDRS per acre from lands designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands; and 2) to allow the use of TDRS from any lands designated as Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, thereby omitting the requirement to obtain TDRs from lands within one (1) mile of the Urban Boundary. The proposed text amendments apply solely to the 196.4-acre Property as described in the application. As outlined in detail below, the proposed text amendments will further the County's stated objectives regarding the TDR program by directing new development to an urbanized area of the County with adequate public infrastructure, while assisting in the protection of Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands by increasing the demand for their perpetual conservation through the severance of development rights. The unique development pattern surrounding the subject property, specifically the location of Forest Glen's and Willow Run's preservation areas under conservation easement, will ensure that the intended transition between urban and rural areas of the County is achieved through build-out of this property at the requested density. San Marino GMPA Justification Narrative Page 1 of 7 PROJECT HISTORY The Property was originally rezoned in 2000 from Agriculture and Rural Agriculture with Special Treatment Overlay ("A-ST") to PUD, allowing for the development of the 235-acre property with a maximum of 352 dwelling units, a golf course, and preserves. The approval utilized the "base density" of 1.5 dwelling units per gross acre permitted in the URF Subdistrict. In 2002, approximately 39 acres of the PUD was developed with 350 multi-family dwelling units known as the "Aventine at Naples" apartment complex, effectively utilizing all of the available base density for the entire PUD. The intent at that time for the remaining 196 acres was for development as a golf course and club. Since the rezoning approval market demand for stand- alone golf courses and golf course communities has significantly decreased, along with their financial feasibility. In response to Staff's questions at the pre-application meeting, the golf course was not intended as a private amenity for the 350 apartment homes, and it's removal through this petition and the forthcoming PUD amendment will not impact any rights enjoyed by residents of Aventine at Naples. SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN & COMPATIBILITY The subject property is located in an urbanized portion of the County as evidenced by the property's proximity to Collier Boulevard a six-lane arterial roadway, and other major thoroughfares such as 1-75 and Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. Additionally, the surrounding development pattern to the north, south and west is also indicative of the urban and suburban character of the area, and includes a diverse mix of multi- family, single-family, golf course, mixed-use development and non-residential uses. Please refer to Table 1 below and Exhibits D, F & G, which provide an inventory of the immediately adjacent Future Land Use Categories, zoning districts, and existing land uses. TABLE 1: INVENTORY OF SURROUNDING LANDS DIRECTION FUTURE LAND USE ZONING DISTRICT EXISTING LAND USE North Urban Residential Fringe PUD; Rural Agriculture Multi-Family&Golf Course (Forest Glen Golf&Country Club); Vacant Lands South Urban Residential Fringe PUD; Rural Agriculture Multi-Family (Aventine at Naples); (Pending PUD Approval) Mining(Willow Run) East Urban Residential Fringe Rural Agriculture(Pending Mining(Willow Run) PUD Approval) West Urban Residential PUD Multi-Family&Golf Course (Naples Heritage) Densities in the adjacent communities are developed at approximately 1.5 du/acre. These lower densities are largely a result of the internal golf courses that significantly reduce the gross density across the site. As noted above, development of the property as a golf course is no San Marino GMPA Justification Narrative Page 2 of 7 longer financially feasible, and would also serve to underutilize the public services and infrastructure available to service additional density. The requested density of 2.5 du/acre on the 196 acre subject property, or 4.0 du/acre when combined with the existing density on the Aventine at Naples property, is consistent with the approved density of 3.67 du/acre within the Lely Resort PUD/DRI, which is 1.5 miles southwest of the subject property. In addition to this comparable density, the Lely Resort approval allows for 820,000 square feet of commercial uses, which further intensifies the project and development pattern along Collier Blvd. Similarly, Hacienda Lakes is approved at a density of 2.8 du/acre, but also has 587,500 square feet of commercial uses permitted in the development. When the commercial lands are excluded from the density calculation, Hacienda Lakes' density is similar to that proposed through this application (1,760 approved dwelling units/447 acres of Residential Tracts = 3.9 du/acre). It is also important to note that uses immediately north in Forest Glen are multi-family dwellings, at a relatively high net density of approximately 12 du/acre. Additionally, these higher density residential uses are buffered from the subject property by the on-site preserve areas and golf course. Therefore, the proposed text amendment is supported by surrounding development patterns, and will not be inconsistent with the residential character and approved densities/intensities along the Collier Blvd. corridor. Compatibility will be further addressed through performance standards and development regulations provided in the companion PUD application. GMP ANALYSIS&CONSISTENCY The subject property is within the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict per the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP).This subdistrict is specifically sited on the Future Land Use Map to provide transitional densities between the Urban designated area and the Agricultural/Rural area, and extends 1 mile east of Collier Blvd., from Davis Blvd. south to US 41. See also Exhibit G. The maximum allowable "base" density within the URF subdistrict is 1.5 units per acre, which may be increased by 1.0 unit per acre via the use of transferable development rights (TDRs) severed from Sending Lands located within one (1) mile of the Urban Boundary. The Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict was established in 1989 to provide a transition from the urban area which allowed a density of 4 units per acre to the rural area that allowed a density of 1 unit per 5 acres. Since the original adoption of the GMP in 1989 the need for a transition area no longer exists and higher density can easily be accommodated from an infrastructure and environmental standpoint. See Exhibit J demonstrating the predominance of publicly owned conservation lands east of the Collier Blvd. corridor. There is existing utility infrastructure along Collier Boulevard, which is now a 6 lane arterial road and not a two lane road as was the case in 1989. Impact fees have been adopted to address other infrastructure San Marino GMPA Justification Narrative Page 3 of 7 related issues which may result from an increase in density. In addition, the RFMUD concept has been introduced into the GMP which provides for the necessary transition or protections to the environment that was initially provided by the transition in density. Therefore, there no longer is a need to allow for a transitional density between the urban area and rural area. The proposed amendment furthers the RFMUD goal to preserve sending lands by providing additional opportunities for TDRs to be utilized by receiving lands. The stated intent of the TDR Program is two-fold. Its primary purpose is to provide a mechanism for the protection of the County's most valuable environmental land. Additionally, the TDR Program is intended to implement the Collier County Growth Management Plan's objectives of focusing growth and development towards areas where services such as sewer, water and transportation exist or can be readily provided. As outlined above, the proposed site-specific text amendments directly support the intent of the TDR program by increasing the demand for TDR credits, thereby increasing the amount of Sending lands put into permanent conservation, as well as directing new development to an area with existing public infrastructure and services. Per recent amendments, the County agreed that an increase to 1.3 units per acre of bonus density was appropriate for lands that "straddle the Urban Residential Fringe and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations and meet other Density Blending criteria..." Therefore, the County has decided that higher densities are appropriate on certain properties within the URF where TDRs are utilized to achieve the density bonus, based upon site-specific characteristics. Additionally, Staff has agreed that the potential demand for TDR credits within the URF subdistrict exceeds the TDRs available in "qualified" Sending Lands, or those Sending Lands within the 1 mile Urban Boundary, by more than 1,000 TDR credits. Table 2 below is excerpted data from the staff report for GMPA-PL-2013-0000139, as amended, and excludes Winding Cypress PUD/DRI, Naples Reserve, and the pending Willow Run RPUD as eligible for TDR use. Table 2:TDR Availability vs. Demand within 1 Mile of Urban Boundary TDR AVAILABILITY WITHIN 1 MILE BOUNDARY Total TDRs in Qualified Sending Lands 1,804 TDRs Committed for Use in URF 721 Remaining Available TDRs from Qualified Sending Lands=1,083 TDR DEMAND IN URF URF Acreage Eligible for TDR Use 1,876 Remaining Available TDRs from Qualified Sending Lands 1,083 ti vv, Esti ateo ' .,,et4 a1 fled 7:1)' „0;:, emanr " Based upon the above information, the request to obtain TDRs from outside the 1 mile boundary is appropriate in consideration of the lack of "qualified" TDRs, and complies with the intent of the TDR Program to permanently protect Sending Lands. San Marino GMPA Justification Narrative Page 4 of 7 In terms of the request for bonus density of up to 2.5 du/acre through the use of TDRs, the property's boundary does not "straddle" the URF and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Land designations, and is not eligible for the additional 0.3 units of available density bonus. Therefore, under the County's current policies and regulations, the maximum attainable density for the 196-acre subject property is 198 dwelling units through the purchase of 196 TDR units as outlined in Table 3 below. The Applicant respectfully submits that building out the property at 1.0 du/acre will result in an underutilization of the available infrastructure in the area, and is not necessary to achieve the transition from Urban to Rural required in the URF for the reasons outlined above, as well as the location of off-site preserves along the northern and eastern boundaries. Table 3: Density Calculation- Existing MAX. DU/ACRE ACREAGE ALLOWABLE DENSITY DENSITY DENSITY UTILIZED AVAILABLE Existing Base Density 1.5 235* 352 350 2 Existing Bonus Density 1.0 196.4** 196 0 196 EXISTING DENSITY 198 units [1 du/acre] *San Marino PUD acreage **Amendment Acreage less apartment site/developed acreage The Applicant is requesting a text amendment to the URF policy within the Future Land Use Element to allow for the build-out of the 196-acre subject property with a maximum of 493 units, which are calculated in Table 4 below. This calculation outlines the intent to exclude the "Aventine at Naples" portion of the San Marino PUD from the amendment request, as the Applicant does not own this property. Table 4: Density Calculation—Proposed MAX. DU/ACRE ACREAGE ALLOWABLE DENSITY DENSITY DENSITY UTILIZED AVAILABLE Existing Base Density 1.5 235* 352 350 2 Existing Density Bonus 1.0 196.4 196 0 196 Proposed Bonus Density 1.5 196.4** 295 0 295 493 units/ PROPOSED DENSITY [2.5 du/acre] The amendment is justified by the infill nature of the property, and its location along an urbanized 6-lane arterial corridor, which is a desirable location to direct higher densities from a land use standpoint. This application demonstrates that the required infrastructure is available to support the project based upon the additional 1.5 units of bonus density requested. The request will prevent the underutilization of the County's ongoing investment in the public infrastructure San Marino GMPA Justification Narrative Page 5 of 7 along the Collier Blvd. corridor. The amendment will serve to direct new development to an area of the County intended for development, while reducing the pressure to develop eastern portions targeted for long-term preservation in direct alignment with the stated TDR Program goals. The subject property is uniquely located immediately west and south of preserve lands under conservation easement, which and ensures compatibility with the surrounding development pattern, while accommodating the demand for housing along the Collier Blvd. corridor. ENVIRONMENTAL The proposed site-specific text amendments will have no effect on the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. As outlined in the Environmental Report prepared by Passarella & Associates, the site contains wetlands that are largely concentrated in the northeastern portion of the site. The Applicant's intent is to meet the required native preservation requirements via the conservation of these lands, which will provide a natural connection to the off-site wetlands to the east within the Willow Run property, and north within Forest Glen. INFRASTRUCTURE The subject property will be accessed from Collier Blvd, a 6-lane arterial roadway. As outlined in the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) prepared by JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc., all roadways impacted by the project will continue to operate at the County's adopted minimum Level of Service through project build-out. Potable water and sanitary sewer for this project will be provided by Collier County Utilities (CCU) through existing infrastructure located along Collier Blvd. A statement of availability from CCU is enclosed as part of this application. Exhibit "K" demonstrates the property's proximity to available public infrastructure including parks, schools, fire, and EMS services. This data reflects that the subject property is an appropriate location for additional density, and proposed text amendments will serve to utilize the County's investment in public infrastructure along the Collier Blvd. corridor. CONCLUSION In summary, the proposed site-specific text amendments are justified as follows: 1) The proposed amendment furthers the RFMUD goal to preserve Sending Lands by providing additional opportunities for TDRs to be utilized by Receiving Lands; 2) Will further the objectives of the TDR Program by increasing demand for TDRs; San Marino GMPA Justification Narrative Page 6 of 7 3) Will allow for a compact and contiguous development pattern along a major arterial thoroughfare with available public services and infrastructure; 4) Will be compatible with adjacent developments, both existing and proposed. 5) Will recognize that sufficient "qualified" Sending Lands are not available to support the development potential in the URF. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests approval of this petition. San Marino GMPA Justification Narrative Page 7 of 7 AGENDA ITEM 9-C Si&9y STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES DIVISION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARING DATE: APRIL 2,2015 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20140000100, SAN MARINO RPUD (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) (COMPANION ITEM TO SMALL SCALE GMPA TO SAN MARINO RPUD, PL20140000113/CP-2014-2) PROPERTY OWNER&APPLICANT/AGENT: Applicant/Petitioner: Owner: Stock Development H& LD Venture LLC c/o Keith Gelder do Joseph Boff 2647 Professional Circle, Suite 1201 7995 Mahogany Run Lane Naples,FL 34110 Naples,FL 34113 Agents: Alexis V. Crespo,AICP Mr. Richard Yovanovich, Esquire Waldrop Engineering, P.A. Coleman Yovanovich&Koester,P.A. 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Suite 305 4001 Tamiami Trail North Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Naples,FL 34103 NOTE: The owner noted above only owns Parcel B which is the subject of this amendment application. Tract A is owned by Aventine of Naples, LLC; 1427 Clarkview Road; Suite 500; Baltimore,MD 21209 and is already developed and not affected by this amendment. REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2000-10 (see Attachment) which established the San Marino Planned Unit Development (PUD) to increase the maximum dwelling units from 352 to 650;to remove the Golf Course Uses;to establish two Development Parcels: Parcel A and Parcel B; to add Permitted Uses for Parcel B; to add Development Standards for Parcel B; to add Deviations; to revise the Master Plan; and to revise the Developer Commitments. PUDA-PL20140000100: SAN MARINO RPUD Page 1 of 27 March 17,2015 as , •.............. ..........................•....................... O f Id P e. x a i ................ ..... . 3..........................,...........- r i C ''i •......... ............................. . ............. . 0 Z =..'I•;`„k a : d e:::::: :: :>::::::::::::::::::::.:::.: I ' ;. 'l: ':::i: e ;' i'ilEi;:€: ---g• tiI ll I Q I _ Z ____ .1:::!:::21:::..0.1:1Z1170:://4"*- .101 �.� Use•ayS aavn�noe aarTp] Cip #;e11.091 m O a, 8 i� r �ti J a �a.�tl o n a 2 Lr i O R a b — r1 E R w oZ I a O ,a 1g! 111 l' b Oa' , i 8 mil M — ' A 7 l SJ j Ili I9(1110 : 111 1 Otl :4 III Z YA97p9 tl3f110] �. p'HE�6 I Y$!J 9 '�""°°K ilk i !!i i i ' O 3 �a it fix 'i it �,' `b 10111 e f� J .+ x 1—J F E , 88 I 1 tloarmvv 6 il V 3 wva roa /m. •w nmtiva..ii a n . — `, g .,I§ dill R i1 R A P N r-n m C X�z -Dim �zpD Oz -1 Ocm Oc-OCfl1 YZ C- �1 D COQ 0zzcoZ 0r OCmill -IC m� DG�Z) fx113D ;U(C!7•ih• �I� ODZ '�cnm.ZCI �� O� z-OI� ZOO mclo�m Xj r-0/l CnDz C CA D,(n �n0 rp Z m-<moHI- E< 0OITI -DIZ m D n� 0K (0°Om -- -- r _ OO -IA Zo1 0C Z —"' – COLLIER BLVD/CR951 _ _- m OO nC)m mD m 3 O m D o -I- 20.TYPE tY BUFFR 4 X 0`2 *-A Oz r Ill m cn O{ I>zm OD z _ X A Z,�-5 --{ O O� 2j� zmc m - ::::::.::..:.:...'r._•. / 1 Z c m 1m m-I,ZxI C)m ..., ZN 'm Co * z3 omm vz ::::>`:':-'.. czcz W mm 3� 171:.: D c]•my 3 0 O D rn .:. ..:.:,;.:.1-' • ,.. . _;y......::::::. A 70 70 I \I D D-I 11 C > 0 70 m c 0 O< mm oA o� : Ir- 1� I -zi - D o v 0 0 C) co r C Om C �1 3 -i .. .. ::� O•O o� �D 0 / A 'o r BUFFER PER LDC firi ( ,--- .4"-jor �/a�r O y ° _o ? O m z 7 I M -11 + '1_ A 1-S,�MIE c D 11111114S1�, w ■ �� , in <R r. C O i I III �?r m S ` i 0CX'3 c o 1 ` i o IOTt z I 1 . S C v,\ CI I 1 l ! i m o x17) x )0I x m o A m it cmi3 9, Nt 1,1 rn -0 m DD m < v D m 'D -00 -I m X v - H I 1` m M C o O rn ` I m r D m m o m 0 3 r r m i co D m W D ai Z * m D D 0 ._I— _� . f O O p Z D r X x X FF x x x x x roo BUF.... Rc�l tReD m m o - 0 x l 1 m ° i O o O x Z C I m T F- en m m C C L7mNZ m O <xOG)� C p w �?mD 7 a ` m > m C z o Z C I z 1J o zzOwom r n X Oz�c_ r L) m ! v Z C -{o m X J A w 0 < F ?'0X2 m m ° m O m Oµ - m m o 0 m I- 9 -I <d m m-i Z. ro w ¢ v W N V/ O 0 (4 CO ry Q CD K 1+ N C C I mo+ H- A il Y ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL:06/13/14 _ S PLAN REVISIONS WALDROP G Zh 09108114 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS SAN MARINO ; 11/12114 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS ENGINEERING 01109/15 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS CLIENT:H&LD VENTURE,L.L.C. _✓� . d;,;, PARCEL"B"PUD MASTER PLAN r EXHIBIT B i0;,`; ...""0 4 I, — 17 1.1 L bp-799mm ,.: ... • 6W!L" in. I ra —i=7:- t - r 77 7 4 l'az,..: I . ,_____. IN iiilLri . . , ., •.. ,:. : , r - 114,A rilL'----= V AD g 1 ! r i.!!.! . 1 . : , i , > , , 1 'I ( I i 3 ils • , 1 0 ,..... e 1 Ai , : i8 •:. ! , iv , . . , ... ,. ....., ;.__,........._ it . _ , i.,,. • Y _1 , .. --=--,-.1 - - ' - -I I- EMI I f/Fid +, 5/0 1 i .. • : • ,.. • ___ __ _____ --_—_ __ 11■11......iiiimilim—ii--—--—--—--—- .. .. . - -- -----'—'-^"•--• ir... .. ......... . . ........ a 13 c 1170.. - - 40 IIIIIIW. M 4 1 < _. 0 c h..... 0 i 1 re ..■ • A• "' • • : 'CI • _._ . 1 -1 • .I .. ......„„,, CD ---• ... • • 1 < ZI -Z.3 Z . O. --13 r% ..---- -- ,-, 1 • 0 r 74:. IN • • i 1 ri) Z • . • • 1 1 1 3 : i • I■li . 5 = 1 1 • i i I 1 1 • . • - 11 . . & - . • . it • : il . . . • alit 1 . . . . . gil 4 • • • • i 1 • . . . . . . . a . . . • • . - • . t . • A • . • II • • -.; . . . . i . . X . • . • - • • i • . . . . , . . . . • • • • • • . • . - • . . . • . . • - . . - . . ' . . • • • • • • • • . . • . . . . . • • • • -.0... ............-. I - ......." .J..,...1 Zeal Estate stmeres 5AN MVINO PW/A- ..._ ,,,,,j..,,...,,.......... 9.......... i •MOP' a■, Extrbtt "A" :I -- t 4 Pup. Maker Ram . i GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 235± acres, is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard approximately nine tenths of a mile north of The Lords Way,in Sections 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida(See Location Map on the previous page.) fi PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: According to the application,the following changes are being requested: • Increase the maximum density from 352 dwelling units to 650 dwelling units (see below for more information); • Amend Section I of the PUD Document— "Property Ownership and Description" to reflect existing conditions and address increased density; • Amend Section II of the PUD Document— "Project Development Requirements" to correct LDC references and address increased density; • Amend Section III of the PUD Document— "Residential/Golf Course Areas Plan" to add single-family detached, zero lot line, two-family, duplex dwelling types, and clubhouse, and provide for development standards; • Amend Section IV of the PUD Document— "Preserve Areas Plan" to add permitted uses; • Amend Section V of the PUD Document— "Development Commitments" to reflect existing conditions and the modified development program; • Add Section VI of the PUD Document— "Deviations from the LDC;" • Amend ExhibitA of the PUD Document—PUD Master Plan; and • Add Exhibit B "Parcel B PUD Master Plan, " The applicant offers the following as supplemental information to support the requested changes: The request for bonus density of 2.5 units per gross acre (on the 196 acres controlled by the Applicant) will allow for a maximum unit count of 843 dwelling units, calculated as follows: Table 1:Proposed Density DU/AC ACREAGE MAX.ALLOWABLE DENSITY Existing Base Density 1.5 235+/-. 352 du. Proposed Bonus Density 1.525 196.4+/-" 298 d.u. TOTAL 650 du. *Total San Marino PUD acreage **Parcel "B"acreage The density increase will be achieved through the use of transferable development rights (TDRs). The applicant offered the following synopsis of previous history for the subject site: The Property was originally rezoned in 2000 from Rural Agriculture ("A') and Rural Agriculture with Special Treatment Overlay ("A-ST") to PUD, allowing for the development of the property with a maximum of 352 dwelling units, a golf course, and preserves. The approval PUDA-PL20140000100: SAN MARINO RPUD Page 5 of 27 March 17,2015 utilized the "base density" of 1.5 dwelling units per gross acre permitted in the Urban Residential Fringe (URF)Subdistrict. In 2002, approximately 39 acres of the PUD was developed with 350 multi family dwelling units known as the "Aventine at Naples" apartment complex, effectively utilizing all of the available base density for the entire PUD. The intent at that time for the remaining 196 acres was for development as a private golf course and club. Since the rezoning approval, market demand for stand-alone golf courses and golf course communities has significantly decreased, along with their financial feasibility. In response to Staff's questions at the pre-application meeting, the golf course was not intended as a private amenity for the 350 apartment homes, and it's removal through this petition will not impact any rights enjoyed by residents of Aventine at Naples. In February 2014, Stock Development and H& LD Venture, LLC filed a Growth Management Plan Amendment to allow: 1) density bonus of up to 2.5 units per gross acre via the transfer of up to 2.5 units (transferable development rights)per acre from lands designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands; and 2) to allow the use of TDR's from any lands designated as Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, thereby omitting the requirement to obtain TDR's from lands within one (1) mile of the Urban Boundary. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: an undeveloped, 37± acre Agricultural (A) zoned parcel and Forest Glen of Naples PUD, a developed residential golf course community East: an undeveloped, 560± acre Willow Run PUD, approved for a maximum of 590 units [Willow Run, PUDZ-PL20140000682] South: an undeveloped, 560± acre Willow Run PUD, approved for a maximum of 590 units [Willow Run,PUDZ-PL20140000682] West: Collier Boulevard (CR 951), then Naples National Golf Club PUD, a developed golf course PUDA-PL20140000100: SAN MARINO RPUD Page 6 of 27 March 17,2015 "L_L......._ I Tar .. 1-•s yi. ; �.O t:f K. ;'.f 'c % :l( as , , .,t 1 -_ .._¢<.- _- � - -r k4 1 ,, 74 .i - w ;. 1 '4' . ►i a ' , II s ` y;b 7i A 47 r F4 nL it r !� '- ✓ 7 I d \lJ r�-'' p .y c,,,°°gi 1 Subject w� ,; 1 - Property r -'1 t E t • ts, . , om, .,� i., ....; tzi>" ,iii _, :Ie I - •-I b=slales`E 'a15 I -- - \ .l 1 (, -. L— I Aerial Photo (subject property depiction is approximate) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and addressed in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan(GMP). This petition relies on recently transmitted (final adoption hearing anticipated to be on or about May 12, 2015) amendments of provisions in the FLUE to achieve consistency. That amendment (reference CP-2014-2/PL20140000113) changes the URF Subdistrict to allow the use of TDRs derived residential density from more than one (1) mile from the Urban Boundary so as to allow PUDA-PL20140000100: SAN MARINO RPUD Page 7 of 27 March 17,2015 the utilization of TDR credits from any Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands to achieve a density of 3.02 units per acre in the undeveloped portion of the San Marino RPUD(196.4 acres). The URF Subdistrict encourages a rezone to be in the form of a planned unit development. San Marino began as a PUD and is proposed here as a PUD amendment. Density calculations are shown in the table below. PUDA Subject Site=235 acres (the entire San Marino PUD) Base density(presently allowed) 1.5 DU/ac 352 DUs Base density(presently allowed and developed) 1.5 DU/ac 350 DUs • REMAINDER (presently allowed, unused and available for 1.5 DU/ac 2 DUs development) GMPA Subject Site=196.4 acres (the undeveloped portion of San Marino PUD) II, Base density(all but 2 DU used in the developed portion of 1.5 DU/ac 2 DUs San Marino PUD) TDR density(presently allowed) 1.0 DU/ac 196 DUs TDR density increase—the GMPA petition 0.52 DU/ac 102 DUs SUM 3.02 DU/ac 300 DUs DUs already developed in San Marino PUD(Base density) 350 DUs to be developed in undeveloped portion of San 300 Marino PUD(Base &TDR density) Total DUs to be built in the PUD 650 DUs The provisions of the URF Subdistrict and the Density Rating System proposed in the companion GMP amendment are listed below, followed by staff analysis in [bold text]. URF Subdistrict subsection a.iii. provides that "Up to 1.52 units per acre may be achieved for Urban Residential Fringe lands within the 196.4 acre portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described below, via the transfer of 1.52 dwelling units (transferable development right) per acre. The Property shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs derived from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density. The Property is further described as follows: That portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described in Ordinance No. 2000-10, as amended, excepting the 39±acres located in the South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and in the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest Y4 of Section 11,Township 50 South, Range 26 East." The Density Rating System, Density Bonuses' subsection 2.£(c)iii. provides (similarly) that "Up to 1.52 additional units per acre may be achieved for Urban Residential Fringe lands within the 196.4 acre portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described below, via the transfer of 1.52 dwelling units (transferable development right) per acre. The Property shall not PUDA-PL20140000100: SAN MARINO RPUD Page 8 of 27 March 17,2015 ik { be subject to the one mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs derived from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density. The Property is further described as follows: That portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described in Ordinance No. 2000- 10, as amended, excepting the 39±acres located in the South /2 of the Southwest 'A of the Northwest %4 of Section 11,Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and in the Northwest V4 of the Southwest'/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East." [This PUD amendment would increase the approved density in the undeveloped portion of the San Marino RPUD from 2.5 DU/acre to 3.02 DU/acre. The requested density is consistent with Subdistrict and Density Rating System provisions. Comprehensive Planning staff points out that the LDC requires that TDR credits be utilized in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.03.07.D.4.g. The PUDA application requests a deviation from the LDC requirement to utilize TDRs proportionately (which would be 54 percent Base DUs and 46 percent TDR DUs). Of the 650 DUs proposed, 352 are derived from Base density and 298 DUs are derived from TDRs. 3' However, as 350 DUs are already built — all from Base density — only 2 Base density DUs remain. Staff has no objection to allowing the 2 Base DUs to be built prior to requiring use of TDRs.] Main URF Subdistrict provisions provide that"Proposed development in the Subdistrict shall be fully responsible for all necessary water management improvements, including the routing of all on-site and appropriate off-site water through the project's water management system, and a fair share cost of necessary improvements to the CR 951 canal/out-fall system made necessary by new development in the Subdistrict." [Comprehensive Planning defers to the Engineering Services staff as part of their review of the petition.] FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. [Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. Please refer to PUD Findings and Rezone Findings.] 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, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Policy 7.1: 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. [This site fronts PUDA-PL20140000100: SAN MARINO RPUD Page 9 of 27 March 17,2015 Collier Boulevard. Exhibit B, Parcel B PUD Master Plan, depicts a single, direct access to Collier Boulevard (CR 951), classified as an arterial road in the Transportation Element.] Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [Exhibit B, Parcel B PUD Master Plan, depicts an internal road configuration providing internalized accesses and a loop roadway. All vehicular traffic accesses Collier Boulevard (CR 951)from the single street access.] Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and 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. [Transportation Policy 9.3 provides that "The County shall require, wherever feasible, the interconnection of local streets between developments to facilitate convenient movement throughout the road network. The LDC shall identify the circumstances and conditions that would require the interconnection of neighboring developments". LDC Section 6.06.O1.B provides that "The street layout of all subdivisions or developments shall be coordinated with the street systems of the surrounding areas, [and] adjacent properties shall be provided with local street interconnections unless topography, other natural features, or other ordinances/regulations do not allow or require said connections". Local street connections with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments are not disallowed by other ordinances or regulations, and appear to be feasible on two sides of the subject site,as follows: • Land to the north the subject PUD is developed as Forest Glen Golf& Country Club, where predominantly Golf Course, Open Space and Preserve areas lying along the adjacent boundary appear to make vehicular interconnection infeasible. • Willow Run earth mining property lies to the east of the subject PUD. Willow Run is presently approved for a residential PUD, where a Preserve area lying along the northerly two-thirds of the common boundary appears to make vehicular interconnection infeasible. A portion of the Willow Run PUD residential development area lying along the southerly one-third of the common boundary does not provide interconnection points,and makes vehicular interconnection infeasible. • Land to the south (southeasterly) is approved for a residential PUD, but still developed with Willow Run earth mining uses. A portion of the Willow Run PUD residential development area lying along the southerly common boundary does not provide interconnection points [east of the FPL easement], and makes vehicular interconnection infeasible. The Willow Run PUD does provide for interconnection west of the FPL easement, with the developed "Parcel A" component of the San Marino PUD, making vehicular interconnection fully feasible. • Collier Boulevard lies to the west of a portion of the subject PUD. Land to the west (a ±37 acre tract), between this site and Collier Boulevard,is developable land lying in the URF Subdistrict—where interconnection is possible and appears feasible. PUDA-PL20140000100: SAN MARINO RPUD Page 10 of 27 March 17,2015 An `internal' interconnection between the developed "Parcel A" component of the San Marino PUD and the undeveloped portion of the PUD is feasible. An interconnection point is designated on the current Master Plan for San Marino between these 2 properties. It should remain as an important design element in support of this Policy. However, this amendment eliminates that internal interconnection. The absence of interconnection between these properties exacerbates problems associated with underdeveloped interconnectivity (increased greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle congestion), and perpetuates a development style not encouraged by the County. PUD Traffic Commitment 5.5.0 is an ineffective commitment without additional support elsewhere in PUD exhibits. A corresponding reservation for interconnection/interconnection points does not appear in Exhibit B, Parcel B PUD Master Plan, or other PUD exhibits — making PUD materials internally inconsistent. Generally, rt the number of (interconnection) points constructed may be less than (but not more than) the number depicted on the Master Plan. The addition of arrow symbols to the Exhibit B, Parcel B PUD Master Plan along the boundary between adjoining sites where interconnection appears feasible with labeling to indicate potential future vehicular interconnection/interconnection points, and between the two internal components with labeling to indicate potential future vehicular interconnection/interconnection points,would lend effective support to the commitment for these connections. This commitment is written in a manner that postpones any such decision until after the PUD is amended, and excludes the County from further involvement with ensuring vehicular interconnection/interconnection points are provided per this Policy. This needs to be revised in the PUD.] 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. [As to walkable communities, the PUD provides for sidewalks located on only one side of single- loaded streets (with dwelling units on only one side of street) without providing for greater sidewalk width. Deviations from the LDC, VI.2 requests a formal deviation from the County's requirement for sidewalks on both sides of streets. LDC Deviation VI.2 allows sidewalks on only one side of single-loaded streets in Tract B (where future development occurs). It is common practice to provide wider sidewalks where they are constructed on only one side of a street. This is especially important where pedestrian traffic grows more dense as it is funneled to major route(s) and connection(s). Sidewalks constructed on both sides of the entry drive that provides the connection between Collier Boulevard and the internal loop street— optimizes pedestrian safety — and allows movement without mixing vehicular and non-vehicular this in this street segment where the greatest two-way traffic is found. This Deviation needs to be revised in order to not include the entry drive that provides the connection between Collier Boulevard and the internal loop street. Similar to the design shortcomings with vehicular interconnection discussed above,Exhibit B, Parcel B PUD Master Plan, or other PUD materials do not provide for non-vehicular interconnection with abutting properties — even though the opportunities to interconnect PUDA-PL20140000100: SAN MARINO RPUD Page 11 of 27 March 17,2015 are present. Non-vehicular interconnection is possible and appears feasible with undeveloped land to the west. Land to the north of the PUD is developed as Forest Glen Golf& Country Club—where sidewalks, bikepaths and cartpaths are generally permitted; boardwalks, nature trails, bikeways, hiking trails pathways and bridges are specifically permitted in the Golf Course, Open Space and Preserve areas that lie along the shared boundary. An `internal' interconnection with the adjoining, developed "Parcel A" component of the San Marino PUD appears to be feasible, AND is presently planned and approved. The current Master Plan for San Marino (Exhibit A), provides for interconnection (internally) between these 2 properties,and remains an important design element. As with the absence of vehicular interconnection discussed above, the lack of pedestrian and bicycle interconnection with abutting properties exacerbates problems associated with underdeveloped interconnectivity, and perpetuates a development style not encouraged by the County. PUD Traffic Commitment 5.5.0 is an ineffective commitment without additional support elsewhere in PUD exhibits. Corresponding reservations for pedestrian and bicycle interconnection/interconnection points do not appear in Exhibit B, Parcel B PUD Master Plan, or other PUD exhibits — making PUD materials internally inconsistent. Generally, the number of (interconnection) points constructed may be less than (but not more than) the number depicted on the master plan. The addition of arrow symbols to Exhibit B, Parcel B PUD Master Plan, along the boundary between adjoining sites with labeling to indicate potential future non-vehicular interconnection/interconnection points, and between the two internal components with labeling to indicate potential future non-vehicular interconnection/interconnection points, would lend effective support to the commitment for these connections. This commitment is written in a manner that postpones any such decision until after the PUP is amended, and excludes the County from further involvement with ensuring non- vehicular interconnection/interconnection points are provided per this Policy. This needs to be revised in the PUD. With regard to common open spaces, preserve areas and civic facilities, the PUD provides the sixty percent open space the LDC requires; permits community centers and clubhouses, various recreational uses and facilities, and open space uses and structures in residential areas. Designated preserve areas permit passive recreational areas, biking, hiking and nature trails,and boardwalks. With regard to a blend of densities and a range of housing prices and types, the application identifies multi-family residential units(with 600,800 and 1,000 sq. ft. minimum floor areas for 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units, respectively) on developed Parcel "A". The application identifies single-family, two-family, townhouse and other multi-family residential units on undeveloped Parcel"B",but does not provide minimum floor areas for these unit types.] REVIEW OF PUD DOCUMENT Staff recommendations: 1. Exhibit B, Parcel B PUD Master Plan: Add arrow symbols to the boundary between adjoining sites with labeling to indicate potential future vehicular and non-vehicular PUDA-PL20140000100: SAN MARINO RPUD Page 12 of 27 March 17,2015 interconnection/interconnection points, and to the internal boundary between the two components, with labeling to indicate potential future vehicular and non-vehicular interconnection/interconnection points. 2. Development Commitments, subsection V.5.5.C: Modify language to involve County personnel, e.g. at time of the first Site Development Plan, for providing, to the maximum extent feasible, vehicular and non-vehicular interconnectivity between adjoining sites and between the two internal components. This commitment will indicate that the developer shall provide to staff all correspondence between the parties so as to document efforts to interconnect. 3. Deviations from the LDC, subsection VI.2: Modify language to ensure sidewalks are constructed on both sides of the entry drive that provides the connection between Collier Boulevard and the internal loop street and,to provide for widened sidewalks where constructed on one side of single- loaded streets. Based upon the above analysis, the proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment may NOT be deemed consistent with the FLUE. Staff sent an email to the agent (please see attachment) requesting the above changes and the Applicant has not made the changes. However,this petition may be deemed consistent if the above requested changes are made. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this amendment within the 5 year planning period. Therefore, the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME). The proposed preserve is interconnected with adjoining preserves within Willow Run and Forest Glen of Naples PUDs which in turn are connected to native forested lands within the Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay and Picayune Strand State Forest to the east, to form an interconnected wildlife corridor. Listed and managed species documented in the area and within the San Marino PUD include Florida panther and Florida black bear. In the proposed preserve within the San Marino PUD are tropical hardwood hammocks and several species of listed epiphytic plants. Habitats known to be utilized by listed species or that serve as corridors for the movement of wildlife are the first priority in the preserve selection process pursuant to CCME Policy 6.1.1 (4). Preservation of hardwood hammocks is next in accordance with the Policy. The CCME Policy is provided below: (4) Selection of native vegetation to be retained as preserve areas shall reflect the following criteria in descending order of priority: a. Wetland or upland areas known to be utilized by listed species or that serve as corridors for the movement of wildlife shall be preserved and protected in order to facilitate the continued use of the site by listed species or the movement of wildlife through the site. This criterion shall be consistent with the requirements of Policy 7.1.1 and 73.2 of this element. b. Xeric Scrub, Dune and Strand, Hardwood Hammocks. PUDA-PL20140000100: SAN MARINO RPUD Page 13 of 27 March 17,2015 c. Onsite wetlands preserved pursuant to Policy 6.2.5 of this Element; d. Any upland habitat that serves as a buffer to a wetland area, as identified in (4)c. above. e. Dry Prairie, Pine Flatwoods, and f All other native habitats. GMP Conclusion: This PUD amendment petition is contingent upon approval of the companion GMPA petition CP-2014-2/PL20140000113 and the acceptance of Staff Recommendations 1 thru 3 listed on the previous pages. The GMPA petition is subject to possible changes through the Adoption public hearing process. GMPA Adoption hearings are tentatively scheduled for April 2, 2015 (CCPC) and May 12, 2015 (BCC). ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13 B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.02.08 F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the bases for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Review." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. This project does not require an Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review since the project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Chapter 2,Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Transportation Review: Transportation staff has reviewed this petition and has found that the traffic analysis to be correct when analyzing projected background traffic. However, Staff has also analyzed the cumulative zoned units in this area (CR-951 Corridor between Davis Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road) and notes that there may be capacity/concurrency issues in the mid-range future. The capacity issue depends on the rate and actual density at which recently zoned developments in the immediate vicinity such as Hacienda Lakes DRI, (Development of Regional Impact) Willow Run PUD, and a few others)build-out. Utilities Review: Public Utilities staff has reviewed this petition and notes that it has sufficient capacity; other than the required commitments listed in the PUD Document, Public Utilities has no further comments or objections. 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 PUDA-PL20140000100: SAN MARINO RPUD Page 14 of 27 March 17,2015 and high school concurrency service areas that the development is located within. There is sufficient capacity within the adjacent currency service area for the elementary level. This finding is for planning and informational purposes only and does not constitute either a reservation of capacity or a finding of concurrency for the proposed project. At the time of site development plan or plat review, the development will be reviewed for concurrency to ensure there is capacity within the concurrency service area the development is located within and adjacent concurrency service areas such that the level of service standards are not exceeded. Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. As noted earlier in the staff report, the area to the north is developed as the Forest Glen of Naples PUD and an undeveloped agriculturally zoned tract. To the east and south is the proposed Willow Run PUD. To the west is Collier Boulevard. Zoning staff is of the opinion that this project will be compatible with and complementary to,the surrounding land uses. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking approval of seven deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are listed in Section VI. Deviations are a normal derivative of the PUD zoning process following the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC Section 2.03.06 which says in part: It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs . . . . may depart from the strict application of setback height, and minimum lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the public interest. . . . Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 2.03.07D.4.g, which requires TDR credits to be redeemed at a rate proportional to percentage of the PUD approved gross density that is derived through TDR credits and TDR Bonus credits, to allow for use of the PUD's base density prior to the redemption of TDR credits. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation is required due to existing conditions permitted via Ordinance 2000- 10, specifically the build-out of the base density (less 2 dwelling units) as part of the Aventine at Naples apartment complex. Planning Commitment 5.6.0 is included in PUDA-PL20140000100: SAN MARINO RPUD Page 15 of 27 March 17,2015 the PUD Document to address the future use of TDR credits in accordance with the LDC. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h,the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." The following deviations are applicable to Parcel "B" only: Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements, which requires sidewalks to be constructed on both sides of local streets,to allow sidewalks on one side of the street only for streets with homes on one side of the street. One canopy tree (or canopy tree equivalent) shall be provided per 30 linear feet of sidewalk. Canopy trees located within 10 feet of the sidewalk may count towards a sidewalk canopy tree. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: Providing a sidewalk on both sides of a private street where homes are provided on a single side of the street is unnecessary in order to provide safe pedestrian access within the community. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: As previously stated in the GMPA Consistency review, Staff recommends sidewalks are constructed on both sides of the entry drive that provides the connection between Collier Boulevard and the internal loop street and to provide for widened sidewalks where constructed on one side of single-loaded streets. If this recommendation is adopted into the PUD document, than Staff could see no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved for the development. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the stipulation noted above,finding that,in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A,3,the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h,the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is"justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation#3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N, Street System Requirements and Appendix B, Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way Design Standards, which establishes a 60-foot wide local road to allow a minimum 40-foot wide local road. (See Exhibit E-1, Private Road Cross Section.) Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: PUDA-PL20140000100: SAN MARINO RPUD Page 16 of 27 March 17,2015 The proposed 40 foot wide private road right-of-way is sufficiently wide enough to accommodate the required roadway improvements, including sidewalks. The internal project roads will be private and the standard public right-of-way is not necessary for internal traffic volumes. The reduced right-of-way widths will also provide a traffic calming effect within the community, thereby upholding public health, safety and welfare measures. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, fording 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 5.03.02.C, Fences and Walls, which permits a maximum wall height of 6 feet in residential zoning districts. The requested deviation is to allow a maximum wall height of 8 feet throughout the development, and a 12 foot tall wall, berm, or combination wall/berm along Collier Boulevard. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The proposed deviation will allow for additional visual screening and mitigation of noise pollution resulting from traffic along CR 951, a 6-lane divided arterial roadway. Approval of this deviation will serve to promote public health, safety and welfare, as well as enhance the aesthetic appeal of the proposed community and the Collier Boulevard corridor. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation for those only those areas described above, fording that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation#5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.04.B.5, Model Homes and Model Sales Centers, which permits a maximum of five (5) model homes, or a number corresponding to ten(10)percent of the total number of platted lots,whichever is less,per platted approved development prior to final plat approval. The requested deviation is to allow for a maximum of six (6) model homes per development tract, not to exceed 17 model homes within the overall RPUD. As part of the application material for every building permit for a model home, the developer shall provide PUDA-PL20140000100: SAN MARINO RPUD Page 17 of 27 March 17,2015 documentation stating how many model homes are in existence so that the maximum of 17 model homes is not exceeded. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The RPUD proposes a variety of product types to accommodate various demographics and income levels. Due to the size of the project, the phased nature of the development, and the variety of dwelling types proposed, the Applicant is seeking an additional model home allowance to ensure the community is properly marketed to prospective buyers. The proposed deviation provides the County with the necessary safeguards to ensure an excess of model homes are not constructed Therefore, public health, safety and welfare will not be negatively impacted upon approval of this deviation. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Due to the size of the project, staff agrees that some allowance can be made to allow additional model units. Hacienda Lakes PUD, which was approved for over 1,700 residential units received deviation approval to allow up to 60 model homes. Bent Creek Preserve PUD received approval to allow 15 model homes for 450 dwelling units. With this project's proposed number of units (650), allowing a maximum of 17 models seems appropriate therefore; staff concurs with the applicant's assessment of the situation for this particular project. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated. However, as noted in the deviation request, staff agrees that the developer should provide documentation at each development order or plat stating how many models are in existence to ensure the total of 17 is not exceeded. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e, Temporary Signs, which allows temporary signs on residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height. The requested deviation is to allow a temporary sign or banner up to a maximum of 32 square feet in area and a maximum of 8 feet in height. The temporary sign or banner shall be limited to 28 days per calendar year. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: Due to the property's substantial setback from Collier Boulevard as well as the high travel speeds along the roadway, the Applicant is seeking an increase to the allowable banner size to ensure visibility of this new community. The requested banner size is in accordance with deviations approved for similar residential projects throughout the County. PUDA-PL20140000100: SAN MARINO RPUD Page 18 of 27 March 17,2015 This same deviation was approved for Naples View PUD, which is an 11-acre, 66-unit residential project on Airport Pulling Road. Both Airport Pulling Road and Collier Boulevard s are busy arterial roadways, thus staff sees the need to temporarily bring attention to this new project. The temporary sign would need to conform to all other requirements for temporary uses and signage. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation#7 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.2, Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, which permits one (1) real estate sign per street frontage that is setback a minimum of 10' from any property line. The requested deviation is to allow for a maximum of two (2)real estate pole signs per street frontage along Collier Boulevard. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The property line is set back approximately 100 feet from Collier Blvd a six (6) lane arterial roadway. Due to the setback and the high travel speeds along the road the Applicant is seeking an increase to the allowable number of real estate pole signs in order to ensure visibility of this new community. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff finds the requested number of signs is somewhat concerning. If approved, the requested deviation along with the 32 square foot sign listed in Deviation# 3 could constitute visual blight. Staff believes this deviation is not in keeping with the purpose and intent of the LDC to prevent ". . . .unsightly and detrimental signs that detract from the aesthetic appeal of the county and lead to economic decline and blight, by preventing signs from reaching such excessive size and numbers that they obscure one another to the detriment of the county. . . ." Staff therefore recommends denial of this deviation. Zoning and Land Development Review 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 not demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation#8 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, which permits two (2) ground signs per entrance to the development with a maximum height of 8' and total sign area of 64 s.f. per sign. The requested deviation is to allow for PUDA-PL20140000100: SAN MARINO RPUD Page 19 of 27 March 17,2015 two (2) ground signs per project entrance with a maximum height of 10' and total sign area of 80 s.f.per sign face. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The subject property is accessed via an arterial roadway with high travel speeds. Additionally, the property has a significant street setback due to the location of the canal along the property's frontage. Due to the setback and the property's location along an arterial road, the Applicant is seeking an increase to allowable entry signage height and area to ensure visibility of the community. This deviation request is similar to previous requests approved for large master planned communities within Collier County. The required setback from rights-of-way for entry sign will meet LDC standards, thereby ensuring public health, safety and welfare are protected Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved, with the stipulation that these signs shall be limited to only the entrance on Collier Boulevard. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." FINDINGS OF FACT: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below. [Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold, non-italicized font]: PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation,the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" (Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed uses are compatible with the approved uses and existing development in the area. In addition, the proposed property development regulations provide adequate assurances that the proposed project will be suitable to the type and pattern of development in the area. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may PUDA-PL20140000100: SAN MARINO RPUD Page 20 of 27 March 17,2015 relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application,which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to obtain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion and the zoning analysis of this staff report. Based on those staff analyses, planning zoning staff is of the opinion that this petition may be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element contingent upon Board approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition GMPA- PL2014-0000113,to amend the Subdistrict language. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. As described in the Analysis Section of this staff report, staff is of the opinion that the proposed uses, development standards and developer commitments will help ensure that this project is compatible with the surrounding area. S. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project as noted in the GMP FLUE and Transportation Element consistency review. In addition, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal systems and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. PUDA-PL20140000100: SAN MARINO RPUD Page 21 of 27 March 17,2015 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The petitioner is seeking several deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06.A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes the deviations can be supported, some with stipulations, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report for a more extensive examination of the deviations. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The zoning analysis provides an in-depth review of the proposed amendment. Staff is of the opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with neighborhood development. Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed PUDZ application consistent with the Future Land Use Element contingent upon the previously stated Staff recommendations 1 thru 3 listed in the GMP Consistency Review and Board approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition GMPA-PL2014-113, to adopt the Subdistrict language. The petition can be deemed consistent with the CCME and the Transportation Element. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP contingent upon Board approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment. 2. The existing land use pattern; Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed it in the zoning services review. Staff believes the proposed rezoning is appropriate given the existing land use pattern, and development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The proposed PUD rezone would not create an isolated zoning district. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing PUDA-PL20140000100: SAN MARINO RPUD Page 22 of 27 March 17, 2015 conditions on the property proposed for change. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed district boundaries are logically drawn since the zoning boundary mirrors the existing property boundary for the contract purchaser. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes, and the proposed rezoning is being requested in concert with a request to amend the GMP. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change, subject to the proposed list of uses and property development regulations and the proposed Development Commitments detailed in Section V, is consistent with the County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element(FLUE)of the GMP. Therefore, the proposed change should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in Section V of the RPUD ordinance. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have other specific regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new developments. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this petition were approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. This project's property development regulations provide adequate setbacks and distances between structures; therefore the project should not significantly reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results,which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. There is no guarantee that the project will be PUDA-PL20140000100: SAN MARINO RPUD Page 23 of 27 March 17,2015 marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; With the exception of an undeveloped property located in the northwest corner of the subject site, properties adjacent to the subject site are developed and undeveloped PUDs with similar uses. Rezoning this property to a PUD district seems appropriate. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; If the proposed companion GMPA is approved, then the proposed development will comply with the Growth Management Plan which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning designations; however, the petitioner is seeking this amendment in compliance with LDC provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed amendment meets the intent of the PUD district, and further, believes the public interest will be maintained. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; As noted previously, the proposed rezone boundary follows the existing property ownership boundary. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, staff has evaluated the appropriateness of this particular zoning petition. There are other sites in Collier County that would allow the proposed uses; however the proposed uses are also appropriate at this location as well. 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 PUDA-PL20140000100: SAN MARINO RPUD Page 24 of 27 March 17,2015 proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities,except as it may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD document. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The agents conducted a duly noticed NIM on October 21, 2014. Please see attached copy of notes. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on March 16,2015. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDA-PL20140000100 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval subject to the approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment,Petition GMPA-PL2014-113, and subject to the following stipulations: Staff recommendations: 1. Exhibit B, Parcel B PUD Master Plan: Add arrow symbols to the boundary between adjoining sites with labeling to indicate potential future vehicular and non-vehicular interconnection/interconnection points, and to the internal boundary between the two components, with labeling to indicate potential future vehicular and non-vehicular interconnection/interconnection points. PUDA-PL20140000100: SAN MARINO RPUD Page 25 of 27 March 17,2015 2. Development Commitments, subsection V.5.5.C: Modify language to involve County personnel, e.g. at time of the first Site Development Plan, for providing, to the maximum extent feasible, vehicular and non-vehicular interconnectivity between adjoining sites and between the two internal components. This commitment will indicate that the developer shall provide to staff all correspondence between the parties so as to document efforts to interconnect. 3. Deviations from the LDC, subsection V1.2: Modify language to ensure sidewalks are constructed on both sides of the entry drive that provides the connection between Collier Boulevard and the internal loop street and, to provide for widened sidewalks where constructed on one side of single-loaded streets. 4. Denial of Deviation#7 which requests an additional real estate sign. Attachments: A. Proposed PUD Ordinance B. Ordinance Number 2000-10 C. Density Map D. Email request/response E. NIM Synopsis PUDA-PL20140000100: SAN MARINO RPUD Page 26 of 27 March 17,2015 PREPARED BY: IL,; 0.4 Jai .►. . .. Ylitt6 (0 2015 NA Y G I LAW H, • CP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE GROWTH ,;N• EMENT DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: ___ A XAL 3-10. 1C RAYMO P V. :ELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE GROW MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 3. 11- 1f- MIKE BOSI,AICP, DIRECTOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY: q---14 r IC' C= SA •NGUID ,ADMINISTRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Attachment: NIM transcript This petition will has been tentatively scheduled for the May 12,2015 BCC hearing. PUDA-PL20140000100: SAN MARINO RPUD Page 26 of 26 March 10,2015