The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Agenda 06/16/2016 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA JUNE 16, 2016 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., JUNE 16,2016, IN CONFERENCE ROOMS 609/610,GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT,2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE: 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: A. PUDZ-PL20140002809: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance no. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Mobile Home (MH) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD) zoning district for the project known as Highview Roost Road RPUD to allow development of up to 60 single-family detached dwelling units or 86 single-family attached dwelling units on property located on Roost Road, south of Manatee Road in Section 11, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 21.59+/- acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator:Nancy Gundlach,AICP,RLA,Principal Planner] 1 9. ADVERTSDED PUBLIC HEARINGS: NOTE: This item has been continued to the July 7,2016 CCPC meeting: A. PL20130002637/CPSP-2013-11: A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing county-initiated amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, primarily to update and clarify text and correct map errors and omissions specifically amending the Conservation and Coastal Management Element; Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series; Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map; Stormwater Management Sub-Element of The Public Facilities Element to remove the discharge rates; Transportation Element and Transportation Map Series; and the Capital Improvement Element; and furthermore recommending transmittal of these amendments to the Florida Department Of Economic Opportunity. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt,AICP,Principal Planner] NOTE: This item has been continued from the June 2,2016 CCPC meeting: B. PUDZ-PL20140000890: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from the Residential RMF-6 zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project known as the Onyx RPUD to allow development of up to 48 single family and/or multi-family dwelling units on property located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard approximately one-half mile north of Rattlesnake- Hammock Road in Section 16, Township 50 South,Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida,consisting of 8.72+ acres; providing for repeal of Ordinance No. 06-53 and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator:Eric Johnson,AICP,CFM,Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 2 Ann P. Jennejohn From: Puig,Judy Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 3:06 PM To: Anthony, David; Blair Foley (Fols000@aol.com); BrownAraque, Summer; Cromer,Aaron; Kinaszczuk, Danette; Lantz, Lorraine; Lenberger, Steve; Minutes and Records; rsinger@naplesgov.com; Sawyer, Michael; Scott, Trinity; VanLengen, Kris Subject: CCPC June 16th meeting Attachments: 6-16-2016 CCPC AGENDA.pdf Hi everyone, There are no staff reports or minutes for next Thursday's meeting. Attached is the agenda, note the location has changed to GMD/Planning & Regulation Building, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive. Thank you, , - / , a 4. .. , , , N r- ... alldeolif ,„, ' io, Y" f gat4 Nil0 ie.... ..e:.: $ ...., , JudyPuig, Operations Analyst Growth Management Department/Operations& Regulatory Management Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-2370 (239) 252-6348-Fax JudyPuig@colliergov.net Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 I AGENDA ITEM 9-C miOer County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JUNE 02, 2016 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20140000890 ONYX RPUD PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT/AGENT: Owner/Applicant: Polly Ave,LLC 1111 Kane Concourse, Suite 217 Bay Harbor Island, FL 33154 Agents: Tim Hancock, AICP R. Bruce Anderson Stantec Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. 3200 Bailey Lane 850 Park Shore Drive, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34105 Naples,FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application to amend the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the subject property from Residential Multi-Family-6 (RMF-6) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD)zoning district for a project known as the Onyx RPUD,to allow for the development of up to forty-eight(48) single-family and/or multi-family dwelling units. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property,consisting of 8.72 acres,is located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, approximately 1.5 miles north of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 1 of 17 May 21,2016 L_ 1 � sai h $ 4 II ---- — F 1 o IOW 111ft HI 61.11t1 _I \ t El •Pri ssoti 4 o�� a EN 1:11..-. a Q oevA3M10a lENn6 0 1� S =i =iii iit ii i;i i El I il gi :' Mill rn •ra Nse Z I a %%., S i=ii'.:.;: O CnLL © d��CC — Z ONVATVWe vevsuYN VINYe O WIA31f109 MeV.%VINYL y N 3 e 3 a N N e 3 e C t 0 3 41 EIIPIPI7 MilMit°�iiiii i©5#4 w�� N 1• 1 Si . P _ i n N N N N F 70 MI MI 4'6' l 'i-1 8 a k \ ail o§ cc D, ii 'o I Nom•Te0 7_, N 31V=01 ION 0 O. Z W Xi i ill 3 li A it I �j � � © 1 a ii __ . --.4-._, :reap aavnatnoe aanm �� Irv ?, ,111 01 k,..0,,, n g o U O N °� , ,, ,\ or - it 7;t 113 Iiii. 1— 1 211 x1v„wvc ' pg e i a A Z CIl .k , MIIILVINftel ,LVIII1 li P 0§I'-'. atten31A041 - k. a - - _ iWBEtl6y1— �- T_ 17 § ., 711 R. 4' W ibis a /1:ill 1ju o 3 avow Nave uNrro� x,. pi W �� p r ■ LITE...Ea 111n WNV1 0:01131 1 000.011,11 1 [ I PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner,who owns the subject property, is requesting to rezone 8.72 acres for the purpose of constructing up to 48 dwelling units. Although the exact mix of unit types has not yet been determined at this time,the petitioner is requesting approval for single-family,townhouse,or multi- family dwellings. The petitioner is also requesting provisions for recreational facilities and accessory uses/structures (see Attachment#1 —Proposed PUD Ordinance). SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the subject site. North: Unimproved Adkins Avenue road easement, then farther north is a water management area, zoned Rural Agricultural (A) and Planned Unit Development(PUD) (3.25 dwelling units per acre). East: Right-of-way for Sunset Boulevard, then farther east is single-family residential, zoned A [0.2 dwelling units per acre (1 du/5 acres)]. South: Right-of-way for Polly Avenue,then farther south is single-family residential, zoned A[0.2 dwelling units per acre(1 du/5 acres)]. West: Right-of-way for Santa Barbara Boulevard, then farther west is Tract N (drainage easement) of Royal Wood Golf and Country Club,zoned PUD (3.34 dwelling units per acre). PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 2 of 17 May 21,2016 I'OYA Wn, C-., E {� p'.' e" f .1 .i YR is i IF, p it *1' i Subject Property 4'Ii. 1 31 yr I Y• ^ A..q t SI"- 1 , 3 -• 1I I ..`'fest h I 1 1 \It ' • ,,,., 4, I b I ATI T,„1 t I e sI I . r ~ •. 1}i, Aerial(County GIS) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP)CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban,Urban Mixed Use District,Urban Residential Subdistrict, as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the FLUE of the GMP. Relevant to this petition,this Subdistrict permits residential development(variety of unit types) at a base density of four (4) dwelling units per gross acre (DU/A) and recreation and open space uses. This project is relying on the Residential In-fill density bonus provision of the FLUE for an additional one and one- half(1.5) DU/A; that provision includes a requirement to utilize TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) Credits. Density calculation and explanation is shown below. I 8.72 acres X 5.5 DU/A=47.96 DUs -3 48 DUs (OR,48 DUs/8.72 acres=5.5 DU/A) Base Density 4 DU/A(8.72 ac. X 4 DU/A= 34.88 DUs) Infill Bonus TDR Credit Density 1 DU/A(8.72 ac. X 1 DU/A=8.72 DUs) Infill Bonus non-TDR Density 0.5 DU/A(8.72 ac. X 0.5 DU/A=4.36 DUs) Total Sum: 47.96 4 48 DUs (34.88 DUs+ 8.72 DUs+4.36 DUs) Of the forty-eight(48)total DUs,nine (9) DUs are derived from TDR Credits. Since TDR Credits cannot be transferred in fractions,the TDR figure of 8.72 DUs must be rounded up to nine(9)DUs derived from TDR Credits. PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 3 of 17 May21,2016 Per LDC Section 2.03.07 D.4.g., TDR Credits must be used (redeemed) proportionately for each Plat or SDP that includes dwelling units. The petitioner is requesting a deviation (Exhibit E, #2) from this requirement so as to allow the base density (35 DUs) to be constructed prior to the redemption of TDR Credits. Justification offered is based upon financial hardship that would be incurred to acquire the TDR Credits for the first phase of development. Staff has no objection to this deviation request. Staff evaluated this petition for consistency with the Residential Infill density bonus provision and in light of certain FLUE policies, and finds the petition to be consistent with the FLUE. For the complete FLUE consistency evaluation, please see Attachment #2 - Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan(GMP) using the 2014 and 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Reports(AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states the following: "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system,and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant upto the point � where it is equal to or exceeds 3%of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways." The proposed rezoning to allow a maximum of forty-eight (48) residential units on the subject property that will generate approximately thirty-three (33) PM peak hour (single-family detached PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 4 of 17 May 21,2016 calculation), peak direction trips on the immediately adjacent roadway link. The current RMF-6 zoning allows a maximum of twenty-seven (27) residential units on the property that generate approximately twenty-one(21) PM peak hour,peak directional trips on the adjacent roadway link. Therefore the proposed forty-eight (48) residential unit development represents a net increase of twelve (12) PM peak hour trips. Based in the 2015 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips for the proposed project within the five (5)-year planning period. Therefore,the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). A minimum of 1.12 acres of native vegetation is required to be retained for the PUD. 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. This petition is consistent with the GMP. ANALYSIS: Applications for amendments to,or rezoning to,the PUD shall be in the form of a PUD master plan of development along with a list of permitted and accessory uses and a development standards table. The PUD application shall also include a list of developer commitments and any proposed deviations from the LDC. Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5,Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the"PUD Findings"), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses the aforementioned criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC,who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document to address environmental concerns. The subject property is small, approximately 8.72 acres in size, and surrounded on all sides by existing roads or undeveloped public right-of-way (ROW), therefore isolating any potential preserve from possible future connection to adjacent parcels. The proposed preserve, as conceptually shown on the PUD master plan, exceeds the minimum width requirement for preserves,which is twenty(20)feet for property less than ten(10) acres. On-site native habitats are impacted with exotic vegetation and consist solely of pine flatwoods with no listed wildlife species observed or known to occur on the subject property. Therefore, the type and quality of habitat and presence of listed species did not factor in on the selection of the preserve.Land uses adjacent to the ROW abutting the proposed preserve consist of single-family homes situated on A-zoned parcels. A more intense use, Santa Barbara Boulevard, occurs on the other (west) side of the property. Although preserves, which are linear in shape, are PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 5 of 17 May 21,2016 discouraged by LDC Section 3.05.07 H.1.b, the configuration and location of the preserve can be justified for the reasons stated above. Landscape Review: Approved. No comment. School District: At this time there is sufficient capacity for the proposed development at the elementary,middle,and high school levels. 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 platting or SDP, the development would be reviewed for concurrency to ensure there is capacity either within the concurrency service area the development is located within or adjacent concurrency service areas such that the level of service standards are not exceeded. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition request, the PUD Document,master plan,and as noted above, for consistency with the transportation elements of the GMP. Transportation Planning staff is recommending approval of the request. Utilities Review: Approved. No comment. Zoning Services Review: When evaluating this proposed amendment,staff analyzed the 1)proposed density, 2) proposed uses, 3) associated development standards, and 4) open space requirements. The analysis is as follows: Proposed Density - The subject property currently contains a density cap of 3.2 dwelling units per acre pursuant to Ordinance 06-53 (known as the Manus Rezone, RZ-2005-AR 8427). Under this ordinance,the subject property was approved for a total of twenty-seven(27)multi-family dwelling units on 8.68 acres. Among other stipulations,the developer was required to convey a seventy(70)- foot wide easement along the then-future Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension. The original petition (RZ-2005-AR-8427), which staff supported, requested to rezone from A to Residential Multi- Family 12(RMF-12)with a density of seven(7)dwelling units per acre for a total of sixty-one(61) multi-family dwelling units. Of notable consideration, the Santa Barbara Extension right-of-way improvement project was completed subsequent to when the original petition was approved in 2006. With respect to the proposed density of this petition, it is staffs opinion the proposed project contains critical design elements that help promote compatibility. The master plan intentionally focuses the intensity of the development towards the northwest boundary of the parcel,to a six(6) lane roadway along the western boundary and a water management area of the adjacent property to the north. Preserve areas along the east and south sides of the subject property would help mitigate how the project interfaces with the immediately adjacent A-zoned properties. Staff supports the proposed density of this petition based on the proposed setbacks, placement of preserve and water management areas, location of the access points for vehicular ingress/egress, and landscape buffering as illustrated on the PUD Master Plan. Proposed Uses - The purpose and intent of the RMF-6 is to provide for single-family, two-family and multi-family residences having a low profile silhouette, surrounded by open space, being so situated that it is located in close proximity to public and commercial services and has direct or PUDZ-P120140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 6 of 17 May 21,2016 convenient access to collector and arterial roads on the County major road network. The RMF-6 district corresponds to and implements the urban mixed use land use designation p on the future land use map of the Collier County GMP. The RMF-6 allows single-family dwellings and multi- family/dwellings as permitted uses; however, if developed as a cluster housing development, then conditional use approval is required. Staff determined the uses proposed in this PUD would be compatible with the uses alreadyallowed in the RMF-6. p Development Standards- Staff compared the development standards of the proposed uses with that of the RMF-6 zoning district, generally, and with the cluster housing provisions found in Section 4.02.04 of the LDC. The comparison is as follows: ggi MFt 9Y 77� (See following page) PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 7 of 17 May 21,2016 Table 1. Development Standards Comparison Onyx Multi- Onyx Single- RMF-6 Zoning District Cluster Housing LDC family Dwelling family &Townhouse Dwelling/ZLL Minimum Lot Area N/A 3,500 s.f. 6,500 s.f.(for SF) 3,000 s.f. 12,000 s.f.(for duplex) 5,500 s.f.(per unit for 3+ units) Minimum Lot Width 60 feet 35 feet 60 feet(for SF) 40 feet 80 feet(for duplex) 20 feet(cul-de-sac) 100 feet(for 3+units) Minimum Floor Area 900 s.f.(per unit) 1,000 s.f 750 feet N/A Internal Setback 20 feed 20 feet' 25 feet(for SF) 20 feet (front) 25 feet(for duplex) 10 feet(side entry 30 feet(for 3+units) garage) Internal Setback 20 feet' 6 feet,or zero(0) 10 feet(SF waterfront) ZLL on (side) feet on one side 7.5 feet(SF non-water) one side 10 feet and 12 feet on the 10 feet(duplex water) other' 10 feet(duplex non-water) No ZLL 5 feet 15 feet(3+units water) 15 feet(3+units non-water) Internal Setback 20 feet' 20 feet' 20 feet(for SF) 10 feet (rear) 20 feet(for duplex) 20 feet(for 3+units) PUD Perimeter 20 feet 20 feet N/A N/A Setback(north) PUD Perimeter 150 feet 150 feet N/A N/A Setback(east) PUD Perimeter 70 feet 70 feet N/A N/A Setback(south) PUD Perimeter 20 feet 20 feet N/A N/A Setback(west) Minimum Distance 25 feet 12 feet N/A N/A between Structures 15 feet 0 or 10 feet N/A (principal accessory) Maximum Height (zoned) 2 stories&35 feet 2 stories&35 feet 35 feet N/A Maximum Height (actual) 2 stories&42 feet 2 stories&42 feet Per underlying zoning district 1. Setback from a lake tract for all principal and accessory uses may be zero (0)feet provided architectural bank treatment is incorporated into the design. Architectural bank treatments shall include any structural materials used to retain earth such as concrete stone or wood placed per LDC requirements. PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 8 of 17 May 21,2016 Open Space Requirements - The total area required for open space is sixty percent(60%) or 4.674 acres. A note on the master plan indicates that 4.67 acres would be provided,which complies with , the LDC; however, the land use summary table only indicates that 0.42 acres of"additional open space" would be provided. Open space would likely be accounted for within portions of internal rights-of-way,residential areas,and the amenity center. Open space would also likely be achieved throughout the water management areas, preserves, and perimeter buffers. Compliance with open space requirements must be demonstrated at the time of Plat or SDP. Staff determined the proposed density, uses, and development standards of the proposed single- family and/or multi-family/townhouse residential uses would be comparable to the RMF-6 zoning district(including in connection with Ordinance 06-53)and cluster housing standards. Compliance with open space requirements must be demonstrated at the time of Plat or SDP. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: This petitioner is requesting two (2) deviations, which are itemized in Exhibit E of the PUD Document. The petitioner's justification and staff analysis/recommendation are as follows: Proposed Deviation#1 A deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, which requires that a five (5)-foot wide sidewalk be provided on both sides of public and private right-of-ways or easements which are internal to the site,to instead provide a five (5)-foot sidewalk on one side of the private right-of-way as depicted in the master plan(Exhibit C). The sidewalk may only be omitted on one side of a street which is immediately adjacent to the rear of the structures and where no driveway accesses are provided. When residential units front on or have driveway access to both sides of a street, sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of the right-of-way. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant responded as follows: "Due to the limited number of units and the design of the site, the applicant is requesting to allow for a sidewalk on one side of the internal roadway where the residential uses will only be accessing the road on one side. The eastern portion of the internal roadway will provide access to the homes on the eastern side of the road. Therefore a sidewalk on the western portion of the roadway is not necessary. A sidewalk will be provided on both side (sic) of the roadway to the western and southern portions of the internal roadway as shown on the MCP." 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 the proposed master plan contains a unique residential lot configuration in that the middle row of units have rights-of-way on both the front and rear sides of each lot;therefore, it is reasonable to expect sidewalks to be required only along the front sides of each lot. Furthermore, staff fmds the proposed sidewalk layout shown on the master plan appears to provide adequate sidewalk access for all of the proposed residential lots. Additionally, staff finds 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 PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 9 of 17 May 21,2016 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." Proposed Deviation#2 fEaP A deviation from LDC Section 2.03.07 D.4.g which requires,upon the issuance of approval of a site development plan or subdivision plat that is part of a PUD or DRI, TDR credits and TDR Bonus credits shall be redeemed at a rate proportional to percentage of the PUD or DRI's approved gross density that is derived through TDR Credits and TDR Bonus Credits,to instead permit the developer to construct all units from base density(35 units)before requiring application of TDR Credits. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant responded as follows: "The referenced section of the LDC, as it relates to the proportionate percentage of units being constructed based on the required TDR's represents a disproportionate up front expense for a small-scale project such as this. Due to the limited size, scope and the developer's intent to build the project in limited phases, the applicant seeks permission through this deviation to construct 35 units in a first phase in consideration of the base zoning contained within the RPUD. SDP or Plat approval for the second phase, containing the remaining 13 units, shall be granted once proof is provided showing the required number of TDR's have been redeemed, and all other requirements for the SDP or Plat have been met." Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The justification offered is based upon financial hardship that would be incurred to acquire the TDR Credits for the first phase of development. Staff has no objection to this deviation request and recommends APPROVAL. Of the thirteen (13) density bonus units requested,nine (9)would require redemption of TDR Credits,which must occur prior to,or concurrent with,the four(4)non-TDR bonus units. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 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 in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08": 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land,surrounding areas,frame and access,drainage, sewer,water,and other utilities. Potable water and sanitary sewer lines are in the vicinity of the subject parcel. The master plan shows there is an existing eight(8)-inch water main and eight (8)-inch sanitary sewer line within the Santa Barbara Boulevard right-of-way. The master plan also shows the location of the existing six(6)-inch force main as well. The project proposes two(2)points of vehicular ingress/egress along Adkins Avenue. fi PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 10 of 17 May 21,2016 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. The applicant states the property is under the unified control of the current property owner, "whose sole beneficiary is Jorge Savloff,Managing Member." 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 Consistency section of this staff report (or within an accompanying memorandum). 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses,which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The applicant has responded to this criterion by stating as follows: "In addition to the use of native vegetation, buffering, increased setbacks, and building height limitations, the owner has agreed to ensure that each unit will include one attached garage.This self-imposed requirement is intended to ensure that apartment-style development with a high amount of at-grade parking lots will not be developed in this location. This commitment has been made in concert with the neighbors who have participated in the public process to date." 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The total area required for open space is sixty percent (60%) or 4.67 acres. The land use summary in the master plan indicates that 3.32 acres would be open space. This equates to 42.6%,which is less than the minimum required. The applicant states the project would be compliant by "utilizing active or passive recreation areas as well as required yards and landscape areas which will meet or exceed the sixty percent(60%)requirement. Compliance with open space requirements must be demonstrated at the time of platting. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities,both public and private. The applicant has responded to this criterion by stating as follows: "The development may be phased over the course of 2-3 years, and adequacy of roadway capacity, water and sewer availability, school capacity and fire/EMS service has been shown to be available." The proposed rezoning petition represents a net increase in the number of peak hour trips; however, as noted in the GMP Consistency section of this staff report,the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips.Operational impacts PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 11 of 17 May 21,2016 will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, 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 systems and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations,or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Two(2)deviations are being requested with this petition. Staff supports both 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": 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. Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUM and elements of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern (of the adjacent properties) is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report. Staff determined the proposed uses are appropriate for this area of the County. The PUD density would be approximately 5.5 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the density rating system in the FLUE of the GMP and would further the County's TDR Program. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The Official Zoning Map shows the parcels are directly adjacent to Waterford Estates PUD and the Royal Wood Golf and Country Club PUD. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that rezoning these parcels from RMF-6 to RPUD would not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 12 of 17 May 21,2016 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The subject parcel is currently owned by the Polly Ave,LLC. The square-shaped boundary of the new RPUD is not illogically drawn. S. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. Thero sed change is not necessary,Po per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes. The rezoning to RPUD also allows for the two (2) deviations. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Staff does not anticipate the new uses would adversely impact living conditions in the neighboring community. 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 proposed rezoning represents a net increase in the number of peak hour trips;however, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips. The project's development must also comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations and operational improvements when development approvals are sought at time of SDP or PPL review. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed change will not create a drainage problem as the applicant will be required to submit a SFWMD permit and all required stormwater documentation to County staff to be evaluated during the development review process. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated that this amendment would significantly reduce light or air to the adjacent areas. PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 13 of 17 May 21,2016 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 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. Staff does not anticipate the rezoning to RPUD would be a deterrent to the improvement or development of the vacant property to the south of Polly Avenue; neither would it have any effect on the adjacent water management area to the north;nor the adjacent properties to the west;nor in connection with the Royal Wood Golf and Country Club PUD;nor the adjacent properties to the east,which have already been developed with residential uses. 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 development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment,then that constitutes 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. g The property may stiII be developed within the parameters of the current RMF-6 zoning district at a density cap of 3.2 units per acre;however,the petitioner is requesting a density bonus,which is allowed under the GMP. A density bonus requires a rezoning and therefore,the petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staff's opinion the proposed uses and associated development standards 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. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC,and staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 14 of 17 May 21,2016 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 platting or SDP 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 (APF) and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by County staff 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. The concurrency review for APF is determined at the time of PPL or SDP review. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of thepublic health,safety, (BCC) P and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during their advertised public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL(EAC)RECOMMENDATION: The project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), since the }, project does not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews identified in Chapter 2, '# Article VIII,Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): Davidson Engineering, Inc. conducted a NIM on February 17, 2015 at the Collier County South Regional Library, located at 8065 Lely Cultural Pkwy. The NIM summary is provided in Attachment#4—NIM Summaries and Legal Notices. The applicant then hired a new agent to work on the petition. Stantec conducted another NIM on October 26, 2015 at New Hope Ministries, located at 7675 Davis Boulevard. However, because no newspaper advertisement was procured, this NIM could not be counted as an official NIM. Since the applicant's petition activity extended beyond one(1) year from the date of the first NIM (i.e., February of 2015), the original NIM was considered outdated and a new NIM would be required. A new NIM was held on May 12,2016 at New Hope Ministries. The agent mentioned that all buildings would be no more than two(2)stories or 35 feet in height. Also, there would be a one hundred fifty (150)-foot setback from Sunset Boulevard and seventy(70)-foot setback from Polly Avenue. The public and the agent also engaged in discussion that included but was not limited to the following: a wall along Santa Barbara PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 15 of 17 May 21,2016 Boulevard, an apparent drainage problem in the area, finished floor elevation(s), unit size(s), the type of construction for each building, self-governance of the new community, rental vs. condominiums,project phasing, location of utilities,and the cost of construction. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on May 16,2016. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the BCC with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: 1) Proposed Ordinance 2) Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review 3) Density Map 4) NIM Summaries and Legal Notices 5) Letters/Emails from Public 6) Application& Support Material PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 16 of 17 May 21,2016 PREPARED BY: 5119 //6, ERIC JOHNS N,AICP, CFM,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: - 7'r :>'?_ 5://9‘41 RAYMa ' I V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER ATE ZONIN DIVISION MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: AMES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT tri b DAVID S. WILKISON, DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE d GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD Page 17 of 17 $j pp tl� ATTACHMENT #2 Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review F 1 a 1 3 C . er County Growth Management Department Zoning Division Memorandum To: Eric Johnson,AICP, CFM, Principal Planner,Zoning Services Section From: David Weeks,AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: May 3, 2016 Subject: Future Land Use Element(FLUE) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PUDZ-PL20140000890 REV: 7 (April 28 and May 3, 2016) PETITION NAME: Onyx RPUD REQUEST: Rezone +_8.72 acres from RMF-6, Residential Multi-family zoning district (site is limited to 3.2 DU/A per Ord. 06-53)to RPUD, Residential Planned Unit Development, to permit a maximum of 48 residential dwelling units at a density of 5.5 units per acre. LOCATION: The subject project is located approximately 2.5 miles south of Davis Boulevard (SR 84), on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, north side of Polly Avenue, and west side of Sunset Blvd., in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban— Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of four(4)dwelling units per gross acre (DU/A) and recreation and open space uses. This project is relying on the Residential In-fill density bonus provision of the FLUE for an additional one and one- half(1.5)DU/A. Density calculation and explanation is shown below. 8.72 acres X 5.5 DU/A=47.96 DUs 4 48 DUs (OR,48 DUs/8.72 acres= 5.5 DU/A) Base Density 4 DU/A(8.72 ac.X 4 DU/A=34.88 DUs) Infill Bonus TDR Credit Density 1 DU/A(8.72 ac.X 1 DU/A=8.72 DUs) Infill Bonus non-TDR Density 0.5 DU/A(8.72 ac. X 0.5 DU/A=4.36 DUs) Total Sum: 47.96 4 48 DUs (34.88 DUs+ 8.72 DUs+4.36 DUs) Of the 48 total DUs, 9 DUs are derived from TDR Credits. Since TDR Credits cannot be transferred in fractions,the TDR figure of 8.72 must be rounded up to 9 DUs derived from TDR Credits. Per Land Development Code (LDC) Section 2.03.07 D.4.g., TDR Credits must be used (redeemed) proportionately for each Plat or SDP that includes DUs. The petitioner is requesting a deviation(Exhibit E, #2) from this requirement so as to allow the base density (35 DUs) to be constructed prior to redemption of TDR Credits. Justification offered is based upon financial hardship that would be 1 incurred to acquire the TDR Credits for the first phase of development. Staff has no objection to this deviation request. The Residential In-fill provision is listed below, and further below are certain FLUE policies, followed by staff analysis in bold, italicized text within brackets. To encourage residential in-fill in urban areas of existing development outside of the Coastal High Hazard Area, a maximum of 3 residential dwelling units per gross acre may be added if the following criteria are met: [The site is outside of the CHHA, which is identified on the Future Land Use Map series, and the requested bonus is for 1.5 DUM.] a. The project is 20 acres or less in size;[The project is 8.72 acres.] b. At time of development, the project will be served by central public water and sewer; [Provided for within PUD Exhibit F,Development Commitments,Public Utilities.] c. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses; [The site is located in the Urban Residential Subdistrict which is identified as an appropriate location for residential land uses; allowable densityis as provided for by the DensityRating System, though eligible densityis not an entitlement. The Comprehensive Planning Section leaves the determination of compatibility to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety (also see FLUE Policy 5.4 below).] d. The property in question has no common site development plan with adjacent property; [The property has no common site development plan with adjacent properties.] e. There is no common ownership with any adjacent parcels; [Santa Barbara Boulevard is located west of the site, and the properties to the north, east(across Sunset Blvd) and south (across Polly Ave.)have no common ownership with the subject site.] f. The parcel in question was created prior to the adoption of this provision in the Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; [Collier County Property Appraiser's records indicate that the subject parcels were in existence prior to 1989.] g. Of the maximum 3 additional units, one (1) dwelling unit per acre shall be transferred from Sending Lands. [This is provided for in PUB Exhibit A,Permitted Uses, 1'r paragraph, and PUD Exhibit F, Development Commitments, Proposed Density and TDRs; and, is explained in petition Attachment A,Deviation and Justification Summary, #2. Of the 13 density bonus units requested, 9 will require redemption of TDR credits - which must occur prior to, or concurrent with, the 4 non-TDR bonus units.] h. Projects qualifying under this provision may increase the density administratively by a maximum of one dwelling unit per acre by transferring that additional density from Sending Lands. [The project applicant proposes to obtain the required 9 TDR credits if the project is developed beyond the base density of 35 DUs(4 DUM). See above comment regarding timing of TDR redemption.] Policy 5.4 New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses as set forth in the Land Development Code. [Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff would note that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses/densities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis might include a review of both the subject proposal and surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location, traffic generation/attraction, etc. Regarding surrounding densities, staff notes the surrounding lands to the northeast, east, southeast and south are all zoned A, Rural Agricultural; lands to the north are zoned "A" and Waterford 2 Estates PUD (19.4 acres, approved for 63 DUs at 3.25 DU/A, undeveloped except for Collier County water management pond); and, lands to the west, across the 6-lane divided Santa Barbara Blvd, are zoned Royal Wood Golf and Country Club PUD (239.84 acres, approved for 800 DUs at 3.34 DU/A, developed). All surrounding properties are designated Urban Residential on the FLUM and are eligible for a base density of 4 DU/A, and possibly eligible for one or more density bonuses; eligible density is not an entitlement~] 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 Master Plan does not depict direct access to Santa Barbara Boulevard — a collector road, as identified within the s Transportation Element—but does provide access to it via unimproved Adkins Avenue.] 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.[The RPUD 1 Master Plan depicts a single loop road to provide internal access for all residential units.] 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. [Interconnections are not possible. The eastern, western and southern boundaries are adjacent to existing public roads, and the northern boundary abuts unimproved Atkins Avenue. The development's primary access will be via a dedicated right-of-way through unimproved Atkins Avenue to Santa Barbara Boulevard. Policy 7.4 The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The PUD allows for multi family, townhouse, single-family, and single-family zero lot line;and,provides for open space and preservation area consistent with the Land Development Code(LDC). Regarding provision of sidewalks,Deviation #1 provides that sidewalks will be provided on both sides of all streets except may be provided on only one side of a street "which is immediately adjacent to the rear of the structures and where no driveway accesses are provided." Exhibit C,PUD Master Plan, depicts sidewalks on both sides of streets except on the west side of the easterly street-the potential area where the deviation would be applicable. Staff has no objection to this deviation.] CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis,staff determines that the proposed PUD rezone may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. IN CITYVIEW cc: Michael Bosi,AICP,Zoning Director Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager PUDZ-PL20140000890 Onyx RPUD—REV6 G:ICDES Planning Ser ices1Consistency Reviews120161PUDZ dwl5.3.16 3 I ATTACHMENT #3 Density Map Iz it ykr } • i L. 1111 Gri�Slty f7 0 ,-'' "3 �I�n 9 u_ a f A .........-- -L . . VI, �f,,ng: E ' a PUC? �. .trfoo -_.. aa11.. _ D -ns ty ZONING:,RMF-6 RMF-6( 3e) i "` - +V` 111". �. .. ..,,w'F • •,. ,IRP _ , ,mss,,... Zoning. PUD • . '' ' ' �" 1 ir :� ZonZ.ing ' A �; '. .\ 1 ' : to v; ,11 111 k ", ` F 4,^ 1 < �' Onyx RPUD 1 Q .4 •`t - .1 • Q TCa Sn _ ..ter `•t hq z •� .1Z; f � +�� 4 , 4 r " a,t ek a , t 1 S b T �....t ` # w4 �, .w. a'4 'r`' -.i"6 P Y Ir .! _ e; ; PO i , • Air ' , ' . w, - Zoning•IPUDg r . : w + • 'Roya'l', Ogd"date,:C[ L1 r 7 , 1 40 , , ° +e,--1-,ei,i• ity �'-- , i ,, , . , • ''31-. 411P RSF- ( )` 3 r " • i'R ti tea, It. 4. ', P t " rI :0'0,v' •,....&:.i., ""'. ..:74010 AS.: ,_ - -_ ,.:.•, ,, : 4 • .. ..,.. ., . , ,.., ,,.... Z ni g. R F 5:� • k,, F _ ` e Al" RSF3 .4 t , y 4 �, ,Huntin u }�� ' Y� V.Irk I- i ' - 1 r.I ' ' , ` M daftly. ._- =. x®Am %MAE .., :.` .N4 000 i • Ya ft �4."-- 11,7‘...."."-- M_or, ..I il. i;,-i �1'f a -m7'. . - `- `—- RATiTLIESNAKE I IAMMOCKrRD 1_ ' °„�— _—�+ -• ,...R�7 ,f-..r"�. fir+«.,,'": '*i •w ;.,r.;;S.,+ q GROSS DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE (UPA) N 0 FOR ONYX RPUD AND 0 150 300 Bao_—_—Feet SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Olbm.ylln•..In Y.e•MOP Oreton AYMp.m.n1e. I. O .Ay020101 S0,30M if ATTACHMENT #4 NIM Summaries and Legal Notices 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 hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance / ' f s `. (Signature of Applicant) State of Florida County of Collier The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this day of AL, , 20 i6 by I' 61,4 ,who is personally known to me or who has produced as identification. (Signature of Notary Public) (Notary Seal) Printed Name of Notary sA91NnE,r1,wDv� n tai M'COMMISSION 9 FF 189889 _• • ;.: "' t,.�� EXPIRES:January 14,2019 '�`e:� BondedThruNotaryPublkUnderWr9ere �a�Ar th•° G:\NTM Procedun siAffidavit Of Compliance-NIM Oct2010.Doc Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 'i+ Stantec 3200 Bailey Lane,Suite 200, Naples,FL 34105 II April 22, 2016 Dear Property Owner: The public is invited to attend a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) held by Polly Ave, LLC on PUDZ-PL20140000890, a request to rezone 18,72 acres from RMF-6, Residential Multi-family zoning district, to Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD). Date: May 12, 2016 Time: 5:30 PM Location Name: New Hope Ministries Event Center Address: 7675 Davis Blvd., Naples, Florida 34104 Subiect Property: The subject property consists of 8.721 acres located on the north side of Polly Ave, less than 1 mile north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road at the intersection with Santa Barbara Boulevard, in Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. LOCATION MAP I IliWNIokin.0.D '-ii.-41-1111)- i 54 S b I E. ti f AdkI$AV! Pokl•-AV! t_,c4 1 su ProrCIl anon -1 ^� Ewell ST_ 4,� 11 11unirum / I I -L.I e r j rVrig/rril au �4r � mB�°o ;I111M11111ea � +\Imag maim Nor 0 141 IMO 11, IIIII IIIIIiIlli=_ 0.a�.�rke Hammock RD IIII{I{IIH Fh .- 1Z7),, A wu RPUD Rezone Description: A request to rezone ±8.72 acres from RMF-6, Residential Multi-family zoning district, to Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD)to permit a maximum of 48 dwelling units which is a density of 5,5 units per acre with a maximum height of two stories. A RPUD Rezone application is currently being reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Department. Design with community in mind February 2, 2015 Error!Reference source not found. Page 2 of 2 it Reference: Error! Reference source not found. In order to provide you an opportunity to become fully aware of the proposed RPUD Rezone and to give you an opportunity to provide input, we are holding a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). WE VALUE YOUR INPUT Business and property owner, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the proposed RPUD with the applicant and County Staff. If you are unable to attend this meeting, but have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone, fax or e-mall to: Tim Hancock, AICP Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34105 Phone(239)649-4040 Fax: (239)643-5716 • Email:tim.hancock@stantec.com Sincerely, Stantec Consulting services Inc. /1;;;C /\/.1(‘ Tim Hancock Senior Associate Phone: (239)649-4040 Fax: (239)643-5716 Tim.Hancock@stantec.com AMHERST COVE CONDO ASSOS INC ANAGNOST CO-TR ET AL,NICK G • 5975 AMHERST DR THE NICK G ANAGNOST REV/TR UTD 2/22/01 NAPLES, FL 34112 • PO BOX 816 MONTOUR FALLS,NY 14865 ANDREW,STEPHEN 1&MARYANNE L ARMANTROUT JR, FREDDIE E 16 WADSWORTH RD TAMMY S ARMANTROUT ARLINGTON, MA 2476 3499 SUNSET BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 BALLARD, DAVID H &BARBARA L BARBARA F JONES TRUST 6059 POLLY AVE 3000 COUNTY BARN RD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 BAYER, ERICH H& MARIANNE P BEATY,ALLEN J &SHARON M 879 HERITAGE HLS UNIT A PO BOX 31 SOMERS, NY 10589 NAPLES, FL 34112 BEDNAR,ALAN J& PATRICIA 0 BLAISING, PATRIC H&ANNE E 3535 ROYAL WOOD BLVD 3645 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 BLOOM,JAMES STEWART BLOOMFIELD RIDGE ASSOC INC 6072 POLLY AVE C/O SANDCASTLE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT NAPLES, FL 34112 9150 GALLERIA COURT SUITE 201 • NAPLES,FL 34109 BOLGAR, FRANCESCA CLIFFORD F GREGOIRE REV TRUST 4036 ROYAL WOOD BLVD 650 SARATOGA ClR#204 NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34102 • COLLIER CNTY COUPLAND,GENE ALAN C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT HELYN CHRISTINE COUPLAND 3335 TAMIAMI TR E,STE 101 3953 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 CRANBROOK COLONY COMMONS ASSOC DANG,TIN C/O BICKNELL PROPERTY MGMT THUY TRAN 2375 TAMIAMI TRL N STE 206 6090 EVERETT ST NAPLES, FL 34103 NAPLES, FL 34112 DE LOS SANTOS, FELIMON F NOVA DI ORIO,AMELIO V& MARY N KENNY Y DIAZ LOPEZ DE NOVA 15 ALYSSA DR 6067 POLLY AVE WAKEFIELD, MA 1880 NAPLES, FL 34112 DIPAOLO TR,PAUL&ANNETTE DORIA,ALBERT&VERONICA DIPAOLO FAMILY TRUST 5735 WASHINGTON ST 3601 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES,FL 34112 DOUGHERTY TR,JANE V DOUGLAS, KEITH JANE V DOUGHERTY TRUST ELIZABETH BELLAVANCE 3909 ROYAL WOOD BLVD 4106 ABERARDER LINE RR2 NAPLES, FL 34112 CAMAELACHI,ON NON1EO EDWARDS,JEFFERY M ELBA DEVELOPMENT CORP 6050 EVERETT ST 600 5TH AVE S STE 207 NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34102 EVELY, NORMAN &MARY ANN FAIOLA TR,ALICE M 6080 EVERETT ST GERARD P FAIOLA FMLY TR EST NAPLES, FL 34112 ALICE M FAIOLA FMLY IRREV TR WOBURN, MA 1801 FARAH, PIERRE FIDALGO,JOSE A FARAH,ANITA ILUMINADA FIDALGO 4107 ROYAL WOOD BLVD 6135 EVERETT ST NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 FISCHER,GUY P FITZPATRICK THOMAS J& MARY A 6145 ADKINS AVE 3711 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 FONTAINE, RALPH E&SUZANNE D GOLF,JERRY J&DEBBIE 3865 ROYAL WOOD BLVD 2445 N DE COOK CT NAPLES, FL 34112 PARK RIDGE, IL 60068 GONZALEZ, MADERLINE GOREY,PAUL.1 EDILEYDIS GONZALEZ PAUL 1 GOREY II 6066 ADKINS AVE 3733 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 GRIFFIN, KIMBRA LYNN HINGSTON,SHIRLEY 6145 POLLY AVE JAMES LAVINSKI NAPLES, FL 34112 3755 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 HOLDERS OF MASTR ASSET SEC TRU HOLLINGER, KURT&MARY MCCALLA RAYMER LLC 10398 PLANK RD 225 E ROBINSON ST#155 MILAN, MI 48160 ORLANDO, FL 32801 HUMES, STEVEN G &GLADYS JONES, BENNY F 4313 SUNSET BLVD 430 SAN JUAN AVE NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34113 is JONES, ROBERT O JONES,WILLIAM L& BARBARA F 6100 POLLY AVE 3000 COUNTY BARN RD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 JULA,TAMMY TOOMAN LAMINA, ROBERT W BARBARA MATTHEWS ROBERT WILLIAM LAMINA JR 6059 EVERETT ST 4126 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 LAPORTE, DONALD J &PATRICIA A LEMLEY, ROGER L&JETTA 2001 MARINA DR#410 3533 SUNSET BLVD QUINCY, MA 2171 NAPLES, FL 34112 LEWIS, BARBARA A LOOKER,THERESA M &JOSEPH P 4096 ROYAL WOOD BLVD 307 SHAKER LANE NAPLES, FL 34112 WEST CHESTER, PA 19380 LUTZ,CHARLES A& MARY M MACDONALD, BRIAN 3931 ROYAL WOOD BLVD CATHLEEN A MACDONALD NAPLES, FL 34112 6085 EVERETT ST NAPLES,FL 34112 MACOMBER, EUGENE G MCCANDLESS,JOHN C MACOMBER,ANITA P 6134 ADKINS AVE 3557 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 MCENDREE, MICHAEL L&TAMMY S MCKINNEY,CHARLES D 6025 EVERETT ST BARBARA ANN MCKINNEY NAPLES, FL 34112 4041 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 MEECH,JOHN R&SANDRA F MORGAN,ANDY 699 MESSINA DR 172 HICKORY RD WADSWORTH,OH 44281 NAPLES, FL 34108 MORGAN, ANDY R MULLIN, MARY R 172 HICKORY RD 3777 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34108 NAPLES, FL 34112 r. MURPHY, LANCE W& MAUREEN A ,MYERS,CORNELIA 4010 ROYAL WOOD BLVD 3667 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 • NANNEMAN, RICHARD J &KAREN K NELSON, LINDA RAE 3651 SUNSET BLVD ADRIANA CUEVAS ROMAN NAPLES, FL 34112 6058 EVERETT ST NAPLES, FL 34112 is NORMA R FARMILO TRUST OBERMILLER,WAYNE L&SUZANNE 4036 KENT CT 3489 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34116 NAPLES, FL 34112 ORCHELL,SHIRLEY ANN POLLY AVE LLC KELLY M MC GILL 2601 COLLINS AVE 6122 POLLY AVE MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140 NAPLES, FL 34112 PRICE, RICHARD W&ANITA L RAYMOND&YOLANDA FERN REV TRU 3579 ROYAL WOOD BLVD 3623 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 REINHARD,MARIA RHODES, DANIEL L MARION DIGNAM 4300 SUNSET BLVD INGRID REINHARD NAPLES, FL 34112 4063 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES,FL 34112 RHODES,WILLIAM&WENDY ROBBIE L RAYBURN REV FMY TRUST 24 THE LAWNS 4620 CHIPPENDALE DR SHEFFIELD NAPLES, FL 34112 ENGLAND, 511 9FL ROBERT&EILEEN HOULIHAN TRUST ROCKEY,STEPHEN &SCARLETT 4085 ROYAL WOOD BLVD 6055 EVERETT ST NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 ROYAL WOOD MASTER ASSOC INC RUBINO, STEPHANIE L 4300 ROYAL WOOD BLVD 4016 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES,FL 34112 SANGER, RICHARD&KATHERINE SAPONE JR, BRUNO 4024 ROYAL WOOD BLVD 28015 GROSSETTO WAY NAPLES, FL 34112 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135 STACEY,GERALDINE TECKLA A BASKIN REV TRUST 2904 PENIEL RD KENNETH D BASKIN REV TRUST COLUMBUS, MT 59019 4138 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES,FL 34112 A THOMAS L JONES TRUST THOMAS P RILEY REV TRUST 4129 ROYAL WOOD BLVD 3843 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 TRAN,TRANG TRAN,TUAN 11250 RIGGS RD 6051 POLLY AVE NAPLES, FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112 TREMBLAY, LISE YOUTH HAVEN FOUNDATION INC WILLIAM J PETRICK JR 5867 WHITAKER RD 3982 ROYAL WOOD BLVD NAPLES,FL 34112 NAPLES, FL 34112S5 ZUNIGA,ADAN &AURORA 3380 36TH AVE SE TRYON, NC 28782 I'. apLrG 33aiLij rig NaplesNews.com Published Daily Naples,FL 34110 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida Counties of Collier and Lee F' Before the undersigned they serve as the authority,personally appeared Daniel McDermott who on oath says that he serves as Inside Sales Manager of the Naples Daily News,a daily newspaper published at Naples,in Collier Coun- ty,Florida;distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida;that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples,in said Collier County, Florida,and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida,each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples,in said Collier County,Florida,for a period of one year next pre- ceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement;and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person,or corporation any discount,rebate,commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Customer Ad Number Copyline P.o.# STANTEC 1059481 Stantec Pub Dates April 27,2016 (Sign ure of affiant) oalm r.eksalagab/wpw'wargairanne Sworn to and subscribed before me ( . '"��a,.,, IVONNE GORI This May 02, 16 'Oil ' Notary Public•State oh Florida k Commission M FF 9006704 , c3•° My Comm.Expires Jul 16,2019 -Vi e Borax!through National Notary Asan. (Signatur of affiant) ' 1134 N Wednesday,April 27,2016 0-.oAci FS 00110 5105 Memories painful on Chernobyl's 30th anniversary —' 4F-::-- Tie final death an O yalav Chummy ' ~fir andp.ran.a a.ov ' - ; toll from Cher- Atwrp4a • a nobyl is subject NEv Ulydre As Ukraine Y /tom - and Belarus IlrosdaY 4t' .-- ,v^ to speculation, I. marked the30thnlVoe I y v ; ,� .. due to the long- I• y int the Chernobylemn M r f * term effects of cords and an angry pr ci. -•z 1u $IT 'S i ` , f�` radiation,but i test,some o[the men tvh :..x' y & ret to the site in the ffin— t r.(g " i f ranges from were haotic dmd fri IMen . ( F mg days were gnppgcd by E' ° an estimate of painful memories ;i�' I e - T 9,000 by the Ukrainian President } f '3 ) t Petro Porosh nko led , '1;. g sf I.,f: World Health ceremony In Chernobyl, ( }4 j :, t erg 0, i y S ere work Is underway I'mak' '. fr ,ll T Organization to i m complete a 52 25 billion One Of a pos- ✓ ry long-term shelter over Ore Cr;co Q bufdingcorMxlingCher- 1i - shble90,040 idyl's exploded reactor. '' `.' '� .- by the environ- CO C co ilio structure i m �` N Q l0 place,work will begs t !•`i li - r• - , 1 mental groupstml _ U) to remove the reactor and It $..27,,,,,I.:;.4 . Greenpeace. Z < lav like radioactive w tc °- s% The disaster shone a an. „ ,' • t /': uCi Chernobyl vigil was held spotlight on lax safety mm. „�y�„..;-, - - =`'sl'- ?- - sothe Ukralosil town of l dards and government se e/ .,:t.„-_..-_,,,- _ ' Crecy In the former Soviet �- K-a*O v:,, "'••,y Enavutycle,where many k v _ •�,, former Chernobyl workers Union.'flit explosion re �`wey. d were relocated. , O Poole 201986,[vas not ' y"y'"• ',. `• dirty years tonna many C ported by Sarre[athenrrttil __ - iQ Wove ersvin ale.lc ern only -.` �,. "4°4'4'44. coo not bid ac the fBenvndshsd curried the ..—_ 't• ""� . •,," `US d they Mought enu fallout washe had gone as fndcerwleemamemo- N Swedish experts had gone UYralnet President Petro Purmaenko lays flowers Tuesday al a monument to rex rkllms of the Chernobyl nagedy out:Me the riot fertile workers killed in tT public with heir concerns. nuclear power plant in Ukraine, the explosion.Some of the CO CC "We honor those who former liquidators dressed N 0. lost their health and re. dangerous keels of ra- radiation dose. by Chernobyl fallout's.a The Ukruintan gotcno- in white runes and caps in - C ' quire a spacial attention diatlon and furred a wide- "'Thirty years passed than 1,000 people held a scent,however,has since for the memorial,lute like Croup the eernmem and scale,ppermanem evacua- lot still alive,despite protest march through scaled back benefits fur ilio once they had worn xo 'C U O •a- society,"_government said. tion oflmndreds of towns doctorsgiving me MM.rill the city caster.Belarus Chernobyl survivors,mak- many years ago, 7 0 "It's with an everlasting aadvillagesin Ukraine and happy about that." routineh•cracks down en ing many fed betrayed by AndriyVeprev,olte had 0) 0 110)0) pain in our hearts that we Palates. My soul hurts when I dissent,bidautism-Pieautism-Pies al- their own country. worked at clic Chernobyl • reember those who lost At a ceremony In their think of those days,"said lowed the march. I went in there when nuclear plant for 14 years 3 Q < (/) GI their 1hes to fight nuclear honor in Sims some of the Dmitry Mikbailov, 56. "Chernobyl is comimr everyone War Naming.We before the explosion and death.' former liquidatorstoidThe He was on a crew sent to gtoduy'•Our rclaivesand were going right Ito the helped toMean opthe min. About 000,000 poopk, Associated Press of their evacuate a village where friends are dying of can- heat,"said Myknla Mud- iamination,sritd memories often referred to as Cher- ordeal and surprise they resklenL knew nothing of cer,"said 21-year-old pro- cloy,who arrived in the of the mayhem in 1980 were nobyl's"ligtddetuee,were hoed through it. the accident tester Andrei O.atrnvtsov. Chernobyl exclusion cone still vivid Mills mind. sent intofiglx the fire at the Oleg Medtedev,now 65, 'They smiledaus,Thcy The final death toll on May 5,lost days aper "I'm proud of them guys nuclear plain and clean up was Wilt 0 enc acne on the didn't twdecstand what was from Chernobyl is subject the explosio "Md today who wore with nd me a the worst milts contanina- first day of the crisis to help happening,"he said."l wish to speculation,due to the everylhingisforgottemit's who are not with us now,' tion.Thirty workers died evacuate the workers'city I knew where and how they long-term effects of radia• a disgrace." he said. C either from the explosion of Pripyat,less than 2 i5 arc now.I just can't forget lion,but ranges Irons at He spoke Taasday after In Russia, President or from acute radiation from the destroyed rector. them' estimate of 5,000 by the a an-simony in Kiev,wher< Vladimir Putin,Inames- h0 sickness within several Four days later"I already In Minsk,the capital of World}tealth Orglmioaom top officials were laying sage to the liquidators, • N months, had to go away front the Belarus,wherethegovenr- to orw of a possible 90,0110 wreaths to a Chernobyl called the Cbemobyidims- '<'• millions in accidentlireport to theebecause I'd received rnent is max mum allowable Islb w A affected grgto byoup the roenvironmental memmidni Men Monday, mankind."Few lessonfor all of long group otmgcace g Ce X PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE Pt113LIC NOTICE NEIGHBORHOO;Q Q D o . Radoo9lftegonat Z M Z INFORMATION MEETING : RRC Vascular Specialist Taw public 0z'PLd tomcod a,C Went to tnldmatton Martino(MX MW by Posy Ave, LW on P/102•ena ttm 0o0aeo,A request to oeaons 00.72 acres nom RMFB,Resawntid LASER 6, VEIN THERAPY Mdtl-wmlyconingdisa,m,toResimentIMPlanned Una Development mPwl. Also specializing iii Dade Mey12,2510 C iso., 5:30 PM E RRC Premier Beauty Treatments Location Hares: New Dery awe Naples,Eact rent 3/04 0) L.nv,1, Leigh mu [icier Set,MD [math I n+.,, nn(n„a,hang„n, N Z AQNp t't51r,AMNI'Ar. agggsf L1.91rafL”The subpct properly consists at 8,72.ewes betted on the north side • C T of Pally Ave,less pian 1 mea north of RMtleeneke Hemlock Raid at the aitarsecriae E O I"- ,rr with Sante Barbara Botaevard,n Section t8,Township 50 South,Range 2a East,coiner O - - county,Fonda. 2 0 ia O LOCATION MAP to N O s i - Q c U >4o. Do You Have Varicose Veins? I --- S m toms• i' • Treatment i ty^ I •y PA Benefits: Pain •Cramping 2 '� ,r i`lo U1mn Tree •throbbing Nu Pain 01 •Aching „ -10;,. •hnmediate •� •Weakness '' - ' Symptom Relief11 I • EFORE ..'ER x: irk t Varicose Veins Paid by Medir are&-Most Major Insurances.._ p� ',. 1'. i E p Call today to schedule a , N FREE Vein Screening RPCD Rea Desalwlon A rogues(b 972 acresfrom RMF-A,Rasidentia Multi-forret'coring district,to Residential Planed Unit Development(RPM to permit • Ou and/or Beauty Consult! a maximum el 45 dwdkn9 units Mach Is adenwty of 5.5 units per acre with mammon - helot a two codec sh 1 A lot of two Po application is currently DNn9 reviewed by ase Panrvrg and Zoning kap N • ppC ' Department t Y` ea utv q n oNv o p ovba you an opportunity 0 wane Idy aware d the proposed RP 0 . Prem er SCJ" Rezone end to gas you an opporhnUy to provide input,we are holding a Ndyrbothood �r.�►� r1L. 1. recstm IntonrwlenMaeinglNIM), �•f(Q a �, Our expetient�editracglloncrsalso weVALUE YOUR Irmur laa�. ymvide aeslhetiC lrealmenls: Business and Wopatymmer.residents and Macara sror.Moome toahand thapiasanta[bn l and discuss the proposed RPUD with the applicant end County SIM.If you eta unable to �t� attendins moatvg but level unseals taco-rooms,they can be directed by mall phone, '• Fillers and Relaxers,Laser Treatments, rex w a-mai to Z > facial Peels,and more! TimHancock ACP scant,.Consulting Services inc. 3300 Smiley Lane,SUM 200 (239)425-4775Naples,Ronda 34105 Phar(239)540-4140 Gm.(23g)5x3.51 I0 kllU) Emelt:Um,ha codkOstantec.cam ` www,MyFinrjdaLegs.cum ,`,• lorafmns In Naplce,tit nel;l 510011,FI.Myers.and(:ape Conal Na,1059481 . ...__-,...April 77.7010 e � W It C t'Cdl a) �� sr y�3 Hancock, Tim From: JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@coiliergov.net> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 1:25 PM To: Hancock,Tim Subject: RE: Neighborhood Information Meeting for Onyx RPUD on May 12th Tim, When you provide the NIM information,I think it would be a good idea to include this email as well. Thanks! Eric Johnson Principal.Planner From: Hancock,Tim [mailto:Tim,Hancock@stantec.com] Sent:Wednesday, May 11, 2016 5:16 PM • To:JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net>; lizzarde7@gmail.com; Ebydk@embaramail.com; barblbgolfPgmail.com; norm<n.evelyPembaromail.com>; richkarenann@hotmail.com; Suzanne<orschks@comcast.net>; bharris1702@comcast.net;ccolvinl@comcast.net;frannieb@comcast.net Cc: Philpott,Joshua <Josh.Philpottt stantec.com> Subject: Neighborhood Information Meeting for Onyx RPUD on May 12th Good afternoon. I am hoping you have received notice of our next NIM which Is being held tomorrow night at the New Hope Church (same room as last time)at 5:30 pm, The reason for holding another NIM Is that it has been more than one year since the first 'official' NIM so before we can go to the first hearing with the Planning Commission, we are required to hold another NIM. As we discussed at our last meeting, I wanted to update you on the progress we have made and how we have addressed the commitments we discussed at our last meeting. Each commitment is followed by a page number of the attached RPUD document where you can find how the particular commitment has been written into the PUD requirements: 1. Building heights are limited to two stories and 35 feet. (see page 4 of 10) 2. The density has been reduced from 60 units to 48 units, maximum. (see page 1 of 10) 3. The preserve area has been identified along Polly and Sunset and totals over one acre of land (page 6 of 10) 4. This project is a market rate project, not affordable or workforce housing. 5, The emergency exit drive on Polly has been removed (page 6 of 10) 6. Each unit must have an attached garage-no at-grade parking lots(Page 9 of 10) 7. Trash pickup will be curbside to avoid any dumpsters(page 9 of 10) 8. Clubhouse and pool area are shown as an Amenity Center on the Master Concept Plan (page 6 of 10) The above captures most of what we discussed at our last meeting but I look forward to meeting with you tomorrow night if you can make it. If you cannot be there but have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, Senior Associate Stantec 1 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200 Naples FL 34105 Phone: (239)649-4040 x 6413 Fax:239-643-5716 Tim.Hancock@stantec.com Stantec The content of this email is the confidential property of Stantec and should not be copied,modified,retransmitted,or used for any purpose except with Stantec's written authortzatIon,If you are not the intended recipient,please delete all copies and notify us immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email Under Florida Law.e-mail addresses are public records If you do not want your e-mail address released in response foe public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity instead contact this office by lerephone or in writing • 2 Stantec Meeting Minutes New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting No. 2 Date/Time: May 12, 2016 /5:30-7:00 PM Place: New Hope Ministries, Room 211 (Lecture Hall) Next Meeting: TBD Attendees: See attached list Absentees: N\A Distribution: • Eric Johnson, Collier County Planner Bruce Anderson, Polly Avenue, LLC File Safety Moment: Commence Meeting Call to Order 5:35 Introductions: Tim Hancock-Stantec Consulting Services- Project Planner representing Polly Avenue, LLC, the property owner In a rezone. Directions to restrooms and water fountains Eric Johnson, Collier County Planner: Eric's roll is the key lead in the review of our application, Tim Hancock: Invite everyone to sign in if they haven't already. Tim Hancock overview of project: This application has gone along to a point to where it is scheduled or at least currently scheduled for hearings and I will give you those dates in just a minute in case you want to jot them down. Many of you may recall this is not the first time we have gotten together. February of last year a different agent that was representing the property owner brought forth the project which didn't go over so well. I was not a part of the project at that time.The property owner then engaged us and we stepped back and took a look at a couple of things we floated a couple of things and they seemed to go fairly well. I have a little history with this project I rezoned this back in 2006. We met with some residents on site and had a meeting at this same location back in October to get a few ideas and input. Because a year had passed from our last scheduled meeting to our scheduled hearing we had to hold another meeting.This is the last meeting before we go to hearing.The hearing dates are Planning Commission June 2, 2016.The Board of County Commissioners on July 121h. Design with community in mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\public_notices\nim\nim_2016_05\nlm_meating_minutes_bullet_points_20160512.docx Stantec May 12,2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 2 of 17 RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development document if you didn't pick one up please come and get one or on your way out. All development standards that apply on how this project can be developed.They are not all the rules Any other elements that are not on that document we have to comply with the County Land Development code, for example if it says you need a type A buffer it doesn't tell you what that is but the Land Development code does. If you have any questions we can help expand on that tonight.Setbacks, distances, commitments, that's primarily what is in this document. Mr. Johnson brought a copy of the RFM6 standards if you would like a copy please see him after the meeting.Tim asks Mr. Johnson if he would like to add or cover anything else before they start walking through the project. I am going to walk you through some exhibits please feel free to walk around and look at the exhibits as I talk. One of the First things I did was review the minutes NIM that was held back in February of last year and read all the residents letters and emails that were sent in to the planners at that time,to get an idea on what the issues and concerns were at that time. Apparently there is another project in the area that is an affordable housing project; nothing against affordable housing I feel there is a need for one.This is not an affordable housing or work force housing project.This is a market rate project we are not getting any density bonuses for providing affordable housing. Most affordable housing projects will have what's called a density bonus agreement attached to them we do not have that. WE are a market rate project. We are competing with everybody else in the market place. Please understand the distinction. We are located at the North East Corner, 8.72 acres, of Polly Ave. and Sunset this is Santa Barbara North and South and here is Rattlesnake hammock.9 tenths of an acres sits in the right of way when it was rezoned in 2006 we agreed to give the County that portion for the construction of Santa Barbara. It's still a part of the property it just has a road way easement over it. In 2006 what we came forward with at that time the single family market place was on fire. I'll also point out again giving you orientation this over here at this time was future Santa Barbara it was still in design and had not been constructed yet.This is Polly Ave down here you can see it even had the bend to it before Santa Barbara was there. This over here is Sunset. At the time when we came in recognizing that around us is very low density residential. We looked at single family in here single family was a strong market at the time we thought that was the right play in 2006. One of the issues we had was the only way to access the property then was off of Sunset.So the big concerns we heard from the neighbors were traffic. Not just traffic coming in but also the concern that traffic would travel up Sunset to Whitaker out Whitaker to what would be a median opening onto Santa Barbara and people would use this as a cut through there was a lot of concern about that.So we met with the neighbors and worked out a 27 lot plan that had access off of Sunset.We had the buffer closer to Santa Barbara. The water management for the site at that time was to be enclosed into this area that looks like a T with a bulb on it.That's dry retention this site is not big enough to put a lake on because a lake has to be a minimum half acre preferably one acre in size. We were going to use dry retention to Design with community In mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\PublIc_notices\nim\nim_20)6_05\nimjneeting_mlnules_bullet_poln15_20160512.docx 15612869\planning\publlc_notices\nim\nim_2016_05\nim_meeting_minules_builet_polnls_20160512.docx Stantec May 12, 2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 3 of 17 accomplish the water management and under the rules at that time for that kind of work, The density at that time was 27 single family dwellings the density was 3.2 units per acre the approved building height was 35 feet for 2 stories and project access was all off Sunset Blvd., also want you to notice that the buffer along Sunset was a 10 foot buffer. So if you lived in that area you would have a 10 foot buffer then you would have 71/2 foot set back and then you would have a side of the house.They were all single family but you would see sides of houses as you go up II Sunset. Concerns at the time were traffic and drainage. Shortly after the rezone this thing called a recession hit and many projects had to be put on hold, and this was one of them. Unfortunately the owners of this property didn't use a bank when they bought it.So when the recession hit they had nobody to give the keys back to.They owned it outright,so they had to shelf their plans and waif it out and let the market come back. So they have been sitting on this land carrying it for all that time. With not really having any valuable development opportunities. As the market came back they decided maybe now was the time to try to put something back together.WE are in a different market place today;we are not in the same market place we were in 2006. We have to recognize that and the concepts we are looking at. Now that Santa Barbara is complete we might have the opportunity to change our access to a way that is better for the neighborhood, and better for our project.The only negative to that is that to be veryexpensive.ensive. Chris can tell you just try to build a turn ontoSanta Barbara it's going p access lane into a project you're looking at 150 thousand more just for the turn lane. We think it is better for the project and better for the neighborhood. Something else that is changed is how the County reviews Stormwater in this part of the County. When we did the rezone in 2006 I remember getting a picture from somebody in the neighborhood or in the newspaper, but what it was a pickup truck with a tow rope pulling a kid on a surf board down Sunset. Looked more like a river then a road.There were a lot of drainage problems back in 2006. I had this written, Donna even if you weren't here. I said the County has done a lot to improve drainage in the area. I have to commend Commissioner Fiala and the other Commissioners particularly for the LASIP program it has done a lot to relieve drainage problems particularly in East Naples, and this area has been one beneficiary of that.So the drainage has improved, however, the County has adopted stricter standards for all new development.Those stricter standards would apply to this project means even what we had that worked in 2006 for drainage won't work today. For those of you that weren't at the last meeting this is the plan that came forward in February of last year.They were using a perimeter buffer, but I think its biggest issue for this was they were proposing buildings that were 50 feet tall they called it 3 stories over parking, but the reality is when you got done it was a 50 foot tall building around a small central water management and I think the look and feel of this is something that probably concerned the neighbors most in the area. Whether you're living back here or driving along Santa Barbara there were a lot of concerns about that plan. What we are proposing to do is to move the development that is being proposed as far away from Sunset and Polly as we reasonably can.To limit the building heights to 2 stories or 35 feet. What we Design with community In mind ci v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\publIc notIces\nlm\nim_2016_05\nlm_meetIng_minutes_bullet_polnls_20160512.docx { Stantec May 12,2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting • Page 4 of 17 have done here is what you see is basically 3 vertical development tracks within the project. Remember I mentioned the water management more significant then it use to be. Instead of that little T that you saw in the 2006 plan, all of this area you see here is required for water management. It's about 3 times the area as the 2006 plan.So we have less land to work with now than we did in 2006 from the development stand point. Now you could do single family in here and get about 35 or 36 small lots. It is our opinion that 2 story town homes are probably the best market for us. I also want to point out that we have a native buffer is being retained to the South and to the East.This one is between 40 and 50 feet in width this one down here is over 30 feet in width. We are going to have to go in and hand clear some of the exotics out of there.We won't be using Meccanized clearing to any great degree because those pines. We start running tracks over the roots of the pines we are going to kill them.There may be some areas we can use some mechanical clearing but there is going to be a lot of hand clearing in there. Anywhere this gets thinned out because we have to remove the exotics. WE will be planting things back in there to fill back in. What we are going to see from the folks that live around the project and have to drive by it every day is you are going to see those native pines are going to be retained on both sides.The most significant thing is we have lowered the number of units I think there was going to be 60 back in February we have lowered that to 38.There's an economic volubility for every project. If you are going to put a turn lane and an entry road in that is not inexpensive. WE can't get there with the old number of units we have to have a few more units where we need to go and this is the plan we are developing. One of the conversations that I had with the residents on site was kind of funny. I showed up there with some examples of what this kind of project might look like and before I could even pull it out and show them one of the neighbors handed me something off google earth and said why can't you build something like this. I looked at his picture and I looked at mine and they were pretty much the same.That was comforting. One of the things we talked about is in a PUD someone's already asked the question of me today. How much are these going to sell for? It's a good question.The problem is it's not a zoning question. As much as Commissioner Fiala would love to set the price on the real estate market she can't do that. So the county can't say you have to sell that between this and this.So the question is what do we do to make sure this is a quality development. Some of the characteristics of a higher quality multifamily development that we can commit to. One of them that occurred to me right away is attached garages. Generally when you see attached garage either built into the building or physically attached to the building it tends to hold a higher value then does at grate parking or even carports so after talking to my client about it they said we are planning to do that anyway.So we have committed it's the only PUD I've ever written where we are requiring ourselves to do attached garages. But it's actually in the PUD. I think that's important. Because when you look at the other plan there was a lot of at grate parking and it starts to take on a little more of an apartment feel that way. Whereas when you have attached garages you get more of that home feel. These really are being designed as family early retires; this is not a millennial project.The second Design with community In mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\public_nolices\nim\nim_2016_05\nim_meeting_minuies_bullet_points_20160512.docx 15612869\planning\pubiic_noflces\nim\nim_2016_05\nim_meeting_minuies_bullet_poinls_20160512.docx Stantec } May 12, 2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 5 of 17 thing was there were concerns I read about dumpsters in the plan from last year. Well we have contacted waste management and through Collier County growth Management we have been able to determine that this style of development will be able to use individual cans like single family homes. So we are not going to have to have a dumpster you won't have to worry about dumpsters clanging and that kind of stuff. WE are doing what we can to try to address some of those issues from that last plan. Not to mention if I lived here I would much rather roll out my cart then do deal with the dumpsters as well. That is the project as proposed.What that looks like in the master plan not nearly as pretty but pretty much says the same thing is if you look in the PUD document we provided you this is the master plan.This is the preserve area we talked about and this is the water management area and then we have the 3 residential tracks. Now I have a couple of questions for you I'll get to those after we feel your questions as well.The last thing I want to share with you is that when we looked at the picture someone came up and the neighbor said why don't you build something like this and the pictures looked about the same. I am not committing to an architectural style but these are the types of townhouse projects that we are looking at that we think represent a type of architectural style that we are looking at on the project. I want to show these to you because sometimes it's hard to visualize exactly what it is we are talking about.We are in a process of selecting an architect right now so I can't really say to you that any one of these is the real deal. I want to give you visual image of the road and path we're on as to what we are trying to do on this site.With that couple of quick summary things is currently the 27 unit plan has some negatives attached to it. It's a lower number of units but it has access directly off of Sunset it has homes about 17 feet off of the roadway. I think it will have more of an immediate presents on the neighborhood. Where this plan the buildings are minimum 140 feet away from Sunset and a minimum of 70 feet from Polly.Yes we have agreed to a 150 foot set back from Sunset and a 70 foot set back from Polly.So when you compare that to the previous plan that's a move in the right direction.The existing zoning 35 foot tall buildings we're not changing that. We have kept it at 35 feet. Probably the biggest change is all of the access coming off Santa Barbara. As opposed to coming in off Sunset and Polly, Liz and I met a number of years ago in her living room and I'll tell if there was anybody who had the right to be upset about access off of Sunset it would be Liz because she is right across the street. Tim Hancock: And I think your dad is too right? LIz: Yep. And so we were able to work with some buffering and that kind of stuff, but I'll tell you that was an imperfect solution for Liz.I call this the Liz plan. Coming in off Santa Barbara I don't know if anybody else likes it but Liz likes it.That makes me happy. So I think even though there are more units in this plan What you are going to see is the immediate impact to this neighborhood is much less. Design with community In mind cl v:\2156\active\215612669\planning\public_notioes\nim\nim_2016_05\nim_meeting minutes_builet_poinls_20160512.docx Stantec May 12;2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 6 of 17 The impact to neighbors across the street almost nonexistent because you are going to have heavily landscape buffer the rear of the units will face the roadway. 35 feet in height actually the same height that you are permitted across Santa Barbara. So I think we are blending very well,The only difference is there are more units then was previously approved and is multifamily instead of single family.Those are the 2 primary differences. The one question I have for you to think about is. We are trying to figure out a way to make this a gated community. It will help values. I think it is a positive for everybody. Except the sheriff because people in gated communities think they are safer. Not always the case. I think it does give people that one level of additional security. It's important in the market place.The problem is the County requires a minimum road distance of 100 feet from any public right away to the gate. As you can see we can't have that because we would have outside of the gate. So the one thing we're thinking about and I would really appreciate your input tonight. If we took this amenity center down here and maybe moved it up here and slid the buildings down I' not getting passed that 70 foot line we might be able to have enough space to put a gate in ry there.This is what we talked about the last time and 1 don't want to go showing you one thing and doing another. So any input you have on that we would be happy to hear and understand better to see if it's worth going forward and looking at that possibility. That is the end to what I have to provide to you we have one question in the back. What I will do when you ask you question to make sure it is picked up, this meeting is being recorded, those minutes will be typed up and provided as part of the County record. Mr. Johnson will listen to this all over again to make sure that what we give him is accurate. Believe me he will be sick of this voice by about Monday I guess. Question: I have one question now just before you start the Q & A. In your PUD document its maximum zone height and the maximum actual height and maximum zone height would be 35 feet and maximum actual height is 42 feet. Could you elaborate? Tim Hancock: Collier County has 2 definitions of height zoning building height is from the finished floor to the mid line of the hip or gable roof, so if you are building over here and it's 35 feet from your finished floor to the mid line of your roof is how your height is measured. For PUD's because there was a concern that people may take advantage of that they adopted something called actual height. Actual height is from the finished floor to the very tip top of anything stuck to that building. For example if I do a church it may have zone height of 35 feet. And an actual height of 75 feet. Because they want a steeple. So you have to kind of factor that in. So what we do is we allow for about a 7 foot differential between the mid line of the roof and the top of the roof or any cupolas or architectural embellishments. So that is the difference between zoned and actual why you will see 2 heights in there. Tim Hancock: Yes ma'am Question: I just wanted to ask you are thinking about gating it will there be an 8 foot wall Tim Hancock: The only place I would consider an 8 foot wall would be along Santa Barbara as more of a noise buffer.The balance of the community if there is any wall it will be a 6 ft.wall for Design with community in mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\plannIng\public notices\nim\nim_2016_05\nim_meeling_minvtes_bullet_Polnts_20160512.docx i% giStantec May 12, 2016 !I New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 7 of 17 these 3 sides. No reason to have an 8 foot wall. Just doesn't help or look anything like the way we want it to. Question: When you started out you said that the Santa Barbara made it drainage better. It actually didn't it made it worse. I am 3 houses in from the property where you're at and Santa Barbara goes up hill now it takes 6 times longer for our ditches on Adkins to drain and there's I called the County several times a month and they don't come out and clean the ditches out anymore or cut the shrubbery.Some of the neighbors on Adkins can see the over growth on the side of the roads all the way over. I just want to know when you build this place our drainage what are you going to do about the drainage because Santa Barbara made it worse and the road and bridge its going uphill now.There's nothing you can do we are basically in a retention pond because of Santa Barbara, Rattlesnake and Davis so all I see is this is going to be more problems with drainage when you build your place. It's going to be less space for the water to go and I'm just running into brick walls and can't get anything done.The drainage is worse than it's ever been since they built Santa Barbara. Tim Hancock: When they did Santa I am sorry I was actually repeating information that I had been told by some other residents that they said it was better.So I apologize that's not my personal experience I want to be clear about that. When Santa Barbara was first built did the drainage work at that time and it's gotten worse? 1. Audience: Before Santa Barbara I use to clean out the culverts on my street because I am 3 houses in from the property and Santa Barbara and I would clean out the culverts from the debris floating through and it would drain the next day it would be 3 feet down. Now I mean some of the neighbors it stays there I have measured it 3 or 4 ft, in the ditches for over a month. And the drainage is worse because of Santa Barbara. So I can only imagine when you build this that the drainage is going to get even worse because there is nowhere for the water to go uphill. Our sheet flow was always from Polly Ave at the end of Adkins there you know west. But now they have put Santa Barbara in then you're putting your property in there's nowhere for water to go in our neighborhood and my house was built in 67 so I am low.The County told me basically you're in a giant retention pond. Tim Hancock: In a sense I can see what they are saying and I think there's 2 people in this room taking notes on what you are saying and both of them... Audience: Well I called road and bridges I just can't get they came out and helped us sometimes but then Adkins you can see you can't even drive your boat down there with your fishing rods out, Trucks have to go around there's really only one lane to go down Adkins. When Adkins runs into Sunset the water just stops. It doesn't even make it to Santa Barbara you can clearly see it goes uphill. My drainage has gotten worse and I am sure your project is going to make it even worse. Therefore I'm going to flood for sure. Tim Hancock: Weil 2 things first of all anything that impedes the travel of a fishing rod should be made illegal. There's no excuse for that.This Florida cracker needs to get to my bass. As far as drainage about our project. I mentioned how the standards are different today then they use to be. Let me explain why this project will not negatively impact your drainage, here's why. Design with community in mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\publIc_noilces\nlm\nim 2016 05\nim._meetIng_minules_bullet_points 20160512.docx Stantec May 12,2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 8 of 17 Audience: Well I just want to know how you are making water go uphill. I just don't understand. Tim Hancock: What your property that was built in 67 does not have is it doesn't have any positive drainage. Structures were designed and it's no one's fault that's just the way built in 1967. Audience: It worked fine before Santa Barbara believe me you could stand in my yard and watch the sheet float rush go and it was gone overnight when you clean out the culverts. Believe me it drained a lot better back then. Tim Hancock: Well all I can tell you about is how our project is designed, and there's 2 components to our design. Every project that is designed in SW FL has to design for what's called pre and post discharge.So we cannot release more water off the site in other words we cannot contribute more water to the downstream condition then historically the site has provided. Mr. Haggen who is an engineer I may get some of the words wrong but if I step way out of line please correct me. Chris has been doing this longer than I think I have. We also have an additional flood plain compensation requirement on this site. So we had to calculate in its current condition how may acres feet of water are currently moving onto over and through the parcel so for each square foot of impervious there's a calculation that's done as to how much treatment and water quality storage we have to provide for every bit of driveway and building you see on the plan in this area based on the County ordinance you also have to add into that the water that is historically come over onto and through the site.You combine those 2 and that's how your water management system is basically designed.We also will have a perimeter berm that creates in essence for our site a bathtub.The bathtub will actually retain and hold more water on our site then it currently does and allow typically the same or lower rate of discharge then we currently experience. I don't know if all that sounds to good to be true and I understand that in layman's terms there's no way you can add this much stuff and not negatively impact everyone around you, but if you can picture this the existing grade is what it is our buildings are going to be raised higher than yours but by raising the buildings and the roads it creates a deeper bathtub in this area, to actually store water before it discharges off site. Right now there is no bathtub at all. So by using the perimeter berm and using the finished floor elevation of the buildings we create a bathtub that does not exist today. Its function is to hold water for a period of time until it rises to a certain level and discharges. As far as how can you make it go uphill our downstream system has control elevations. WE know what they are and we have to design to that control elevation. I believe our design is allowing for positive discharge from our site. We will not be discharging back into the neighborhood none of the water from our site is going to go anywhere other than into the existing drainage system. Audience:That's what they said about Santa Barbara. But it's not working either. You are just building another damn there as far as I am concerned. Tim Hancock: I am sorry my explanation doesn't give you any satisfaction.So maybe we will have to take a look and be ready at the planning commission to give detailed testimony from our civil engineers to see how that is going to work. We will be happy to do that. I'm not trying to pull the wool over your eyes but, the truth is calculations are that thick and you and I could sit and look at them all day. WE will make sure one of our site civil engineers is there and is able to address that question more fully. Design with community in mind d v\2156\active\215612869\planning\publlc_notices\nim\nim_2016 05\nim_meeting_minutes_bullet_polnts 20160512.docx Stantec May 12, 2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 9 of 17 Audience: I am just going on from me being there for 20 years and see how the water use to flow then Santa Barbara got built it got worse. All's I can see is it's going to be another dam for us also for our neighborhood. Tim Hancock: Maybe Eric we need to see if Jerry Kurtz or somebody with stormwater can be at the planning commission so that we can understand a little bit more about Santa Barbara is and isn't doing. Maybe there are some problems out there that we can bring to light you know in the course of this project that might.... Audience: I am sure we can get the County or road and bridges to dig our ditches deeper and getting across there it would help a lot also. • Tim Hancock: Usually there's a cork in the bob somewhere we just have to figure out where it is. I can't honestly say on this project that that's necessarily our job, but this isn't the first time we have taken a project through and that the neighbors have been having a problem and we use the project as a platform to see if we could get that addressed. Audience: If you could email me Tim Hancock: If you could email Mr. Johnson Eric Johnson: And state whatever you want to say and I will forward it to the appropriate staff member Audience: Yes sir, thank you Tim Hancock: Maybe we can get some answers for you if nothing else. I can tell you that we are prohibited by law from discharging any storm water from our site onto a neighborhood. We can't do it, our design has to show that in a 100 year storm we are not discharging ... Audience: I am not talking about discharging. I am talking about blocking the flow going that way. Tim Hancock: OK let me see if I can you know get someone better qualified then me to give you more detailed answer to that and actually Eric if you would copy me on that email maybe I can at least on .. Address the issues on our project may or may not be contributing to verses you know the issues with Santa Barbara.They are 2 separate issues, but I understand how certainly for you they come together. Any other questions? Audience: I am not a neighbor but I am with the East Naples Civil Association.Tim actually presented to us a couple of weeks ago. So we wanted to do a follow up make sure we were following the course of the project as well. Couple of the things we talked about at our last meeting Tim was unit sizes the PUD has 900 sq. feet for a multifamily type product. And 1000 sq. ft. for single family product. In one of your presentations you said you weren't going to be anywhere near those but the PUD is really the rule book. In theory you could build 900 sq.foot units which from what you have told us you are going for a higher quality and so I guess I'd reemphasize the point that we made at our meeting which would be to maybe relook at those unit sizes and make a commitment for a little larger unit so that at least the play book is set for a little greater unit size to Design with community In mind cl v:\2156\active\215612569\planning\public notices\nim\nim 2016_05\nim meeting_minutes_bullet_polnis_20160512.docx Stantec May 12,2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 10 of 17 ?' further guaranty that they're going to be a quality development built on site, Tim Hancock: OK I can repeat for everybody here what I expressed to the East Naples Civic Association, and that's this we have not designed the units yet. If somewhere along the way a decision is made to make some 1 bedroom units available verses 2 or 3 bedroom units available it's hard for me to commit to something that has not been designed yet.So while we have no intention of building 900 and 1000 sq. foot units I don't know what number to plug in there yet. But can tell you go online look up any real estate listings in this area and tell me how many 900 sq. foot units you see. It's not plausible or realistic that you could even build one and sell it and be profitable.The problem is I don't have a number to plug in. We can make one up you know but my concern is it has taken us over a year to get to this point. If we put 1400 sq. ft. in there and we want to build a 1395 sq. ft. unit I have to rezone the property. Audience: You could do it through a less costly and shorter time frame then a full PUD amendment. Tim Hancock: Actually that's a regulation in the PUD it would be a PUD amendment. Might be a minor amendment, but it will take 6 to 9 months and 30 to 50 thousand dollars. Audience: I don't agree with that Tim Hancock: Well it's what I do for a living Chris and you know that Audience: Well a hearing examiner can hear it sooner than that. Tim Hancock: Well then I will suggest my client hire you to take it through Audience: Well if no units in the area are 900 sq. feet then why not make a commitment for a little larger unit. I just don't get it. Tim Hancock: For the same reason I just expressed Chris. Audience: OK well if you are trying to maintain quality I would think a little larger unit would help. Tim Hancock: I appreciate your opinion Audience: We never heard what type of construction the last time we talked we talked about having concrete construction at least on the bottom floor, I don't see anything in this booklet that says what type of construction.There have been a few frame constructions go on in the town and my concern is what type of construction they are looking at. Tim Hancock: I do remember we had this conversation in October of last year I had hoped to have an architect on board and plans prepared to the point that I could give you an answer on that and that has not happened yet. I am always concerned about putting construction methods in a zoning document.That's a building permit issue. So while I don't believe it's our intent to do stick built construction on this site. I don't have a set of plans I can look at and say. Let me give you an example. If we said first flood is block construction let's say you do an element of the first floor that putts out a little bit and you do that portion in stick you just violated your zoning. Yet I still have Design with community in mind cl v\2156\active\215612869\planning\public_notices\rum\nim 20I 6_05\nlm_meeling_minuies bullet_polnts_201605I2.docx Stantec May 12,2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 11 of 17 fr. block construction on the first floor except for that one pop out. I get hesitant about putting construction standards in a zoning document.So that's my hesitancy I wish I had a set of construction plans in front of me and I could answer Chris's question about sq. footage and I could answer your question about methods of construction. But I would just be saying something to maybe make you happy.That could or could not be true I don't want to do that. I hear you and understand where you are coming from like you there was a project on Vanderbilt and Livingston and the whole thing was done in stick construction ground up. I think it is an assisted living facility. I would have my concerns if I am not worried about wind load on it.They meet that. Just for longevity. Audience: Longevity and if there's ever a fire. Tim Hancock: Yes sir.. I will tell you that multifamily I believe all multifamily has to be sprinkled down. Under the new fire code regulations. Chris do you know if that's the case. Yeah so that's one thing that at least is a little bit of a mitigation is 10-20 years ago multifamily didn't have to be sprinkled now it does. Which is an additional expense, I really believe it's going to be block construction possibly stick on the 2nd floor. I don't have a set of architectural plans and I don't want to miss lead k' Il. you sir. Audience: I understand I think that's some of our concern, you know the quality. Tim Hancock: Understood and I still actually have that note as in my mind that for you is unresolved. Audience: Does your owners know that there is a purposed habitat project. Whitaker being, Tim Hancock: They do as of yesterday when I found out about it. ti Audience: Did they have any comment on that, Tim Hancock: We are not them you know Audience:That could hurt the property values just like we are worried it will hurt our property values and our stuff.Same being if I was a developer coming in there and I just found out there's a habitat almost within eye sight of my project. Tim Hancock: I would sense that they would agree with you. Maybe as we get through our zoning we will see if there's a position to be taken there. I really don't want to comment on another project not my place here tonight to do it. I am aware of it Audience: I guess the answer is as long as they know so they can Tim Hancock: They do and I will be honest with you I didn't even know that one had come in. I usually have an idea what's going on generally out there. But it wasn't until Eric got some phone calls and people were asking if this was the habitat project and I said what habitat project. Audience: It didn't start off very well you know very small room we didn't have enough information Design with community in mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\public_notices\nim\nim_2016_05\nim_moeting_minutes_bullel_points_20 160512.docx Stantec May 12,2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 12 of 17 people couldn't even come in. I mean this was a nice set up here and this is how it should have been. Tim Hancock: They used the East Naples Library right, I made that mistake once. So if they are not from this area and they use that as a meeting room, maybe I would say they just didn't know. Because I had an informal meeting there with folks 10 years ago and 20 people showed up and we couldn't have our meeting. It was so tiny. Hopefully they will get a better run at it and what not. But, yes my clients now know and are aware of that and are asking for more information on that. Audience: What if they decide to back out can they change the zoning on the existing ,. What is it it for now if theyback out and decide not to build. going to be zoned Tim Hancock: You mean on this property? If the zoning is approved? • Audience: Yeah Tim Hancock: No if the zoning is approved it would have to be built generally consistent with what you see here the only 2 options we would have would be multifamily or single family. But the development standards would remain the same.The building height would remain the same the setbacks would remain the same. So it could be multi or single family but it would have to be built with all the conditions you see built into that document in front of you. If we were not successful they would revert back to that 27 unit plan and I honestly don't know what they would do then. If that plan made sense we wouldn't have gone through this beautifully fun process called rezoning. Are hope is we are successful. Audience: What's the base finished floor elevation on the lower units on them, I guess the flood zone is like 9 foot 9.5 NAVD or something in the area. Tim Hancock: If you will be kind enough to grab my card and shoot me that question I'll get you an answer. We have that answer but I don't have it with me. I'd be giving you a number that I'm trying to recall and that is dangerous for me. Audience:That's the FEMA flood zone in that area I know that area roughly I know that much. Tim Hancock: It what 9 Audience: About 9-9.5-but what about water sewer? Tim Hancock: I am pretty confident we are well above that Audience: Well no you are not Tim Hancock: No No I mean the finished floor elevation of the units is going to be well above that. Audience: That's what I figured because that road is probably I don't know around 8 ft. or somewhere around there Tim Hancock: And that's always a challenge for us, because you know as you raise the finished Design with community in mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\public_notices\nim\nim_2016_05\nim_meeting_minutes_bullet_points_20160512.docx Stantec May 12, 2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 13 of 17 floor elevation you have sloop issues to deal with so the higher you go the longer the sloop has to run down to existing grade.This water management area, back here the bottom of that will be about 1 foot above the wet season water table. So you have to look at how that slips up the finished floor so you want to get up a little bit.The bottom line is they start a control and it builds up to finished floor. Audience: Yeah I understand that Tim Hancock: I can get you the number I just don't have it off the top of my head right now Audience: I guess once you figure out what your finished floor is then you said you going to go from 35 to 42 feet up. Tim Hancock: Oh I see what you are saying so if the finished floor is 15 and you're sitting at 8 or 9 Audience:So 3 feet above the road then you have another 35 or 42 feet up Tim Hancock: I see what you are saying you're looking for that gap in other words is it really going to be 35 or is it going to look more like 45 because you're way above everybody else. Audience: You don't know what the finished floor is at yet Tim Hancock: We have actually done a more detailed water management analysis on this piece then you typically do at zoning because the flood plain compensation. I can tell you what we anticipate the finished floor to be exactly, I have business cards up here just shoot me that question and I will give you that information. Audience: Is there any number right now of what the natural ground level is? An average height? Tim Hancock: There is and it's on the survey and it's actually a little higher then what's around us because we have quite a few pines so this land is a tiny bit higher. Like a lot of you have some cypress on your lots kind of mingled in.There's just not that much cypress on this one. So we are a little bit higher then what's around us but 6 inches is everything in FL. Audience: You got a minimum lot width of 60 feet for multifamily townhomes if you sell a townhome how do you sell a townhome fee simple with a 60 foot lot? Tim Hancock: You have to understand it's ..Let me go to my first of all I don't expect to sell townhomes by foot print. Otherwise we would have had a smaller narrower lot width.So we used a 60 foot minimum lot width basically for multifamily we expect this to be a condominium project as a multifamily project as opposed to selling fee simple foot prints. Audience: Ok because I thought the picture you showed was a 2 story townhome concept. Tim Hancock: It is Audience: OK I've typically seen those as a fee simple product not a condominium product. OK Design with community In mind d v:\2156\active\215612869\plann1ng\publlc_noI1ces\nim\nim_2016_05\nim meeting minutes_bullet_polnts_20160512.docx Stantec May 12,2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 14 of 17 • Tim Hancock: It maybe fee simple in that you own the footprint of the unit as a townhome but it is still sold as a condominium within the larger context of the development. So the footprint is not the lot. Audience: It's like common area? Tim Hancock: Correct.There's usually phase lines Audience: Yeah but in order to sell an individual unit. It's a 2 story unit like the Neal community the one on Davis and County Barn. I believe they have 24 to 26 to 30 foot lots were they sub divided and you own that particular one and share a common wall, With this layout it seems like that is not going to be the case. Either be rental or condo type units where you have 60 foot minimum lots for you and the buildings. Tim Hancock: Our intent is condominium. Any other questions? Yes sir • Audience: Can you discuss what the developer's intent is upon the completion of the project? I,e. the governess? Is it going to be governed by statue 7.18, 7:20 what might that look like in the event that this project is completed? Tim Hancock: I am not going to be able to quote the FL statue, but there will be a master condominium association for the project and operated under the condominium rules of the state of FL. All common areas will be maintained by the condominium association as well the preserve. Audience: Is it the intent you mentioned,which is very nice about the amenities the aspect of having whatever size of that clubhouse, but there will be a clubhouse a community pool aspect as part of the amenities? Tim Hancock: It is anticipated at this point a small clubhouse what we are finding particularly in smaller communities is you can let your amenities get out of hand and then your monthly fees get to high.That becomes a disincentive to people. So what we are anticipating a fairly small clubhouse, maybe a meeting room,fitness center, couple of bathrooms, then the pool area. Audience: But that's a component that will not be wiped away, that's going to be part of the project as well. Tim Hancock: Yes as a matter of fact on our master plan you see we have committed to an amenity center on the plan itself, and so the only potential change we might do is maybe move that amenity center. I have heard one person talking about you know be in support if it were gated and I am not saying that it is a vote issue we still have to figure out if we can make it work. If that amenity center was moved from here to here that probably would be insubstantial change to the master plan and we would have to go through a process to do that. That's the very stream line process is the insubstantial change and that may be something we look at but we are just not sure if that is an option. Yes sir Audience: I just want to clarify something you said your intent is not to be rentals, but to be • Design with community in mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\public_notices\nim\nim_20)6_05\nim_meeting_minutes_buliet_poinis_20160512.docx Stantec May 12, 2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 15 of 17 condo's. Tim Hancock: Yes Audience: But what happens if you decide, does that mean you could decide to do rental or leasing apartments like they are doing down on Livingston. People can't get financing and stuff and you say you know what we would rather just lease them then it becomes a rental apartment complex. Tim Hancock:Technically it could be a rental project. Audience: Ok thank-you • Tim Hancock: I would encourage you to look around at how many 48 unit rental projects are actually in the market place. Audience: Rentals are big right now. Everybody is building rental apartments right now. Tim Hancock: I actually broached the idea with the client Audience: Collier County and drive down Livingston. I just want a clarification Tim Hancock:Technically it could be a 48 unit rental community.The PUD does not restrict that. Audience: Thank you Audience:Tim,just to clarify the projects zone height is going to be 35 ft. and actual height will be 42 ft.correct? Tim Hancock: Correct 35 ft.zone and 42 ft. actual. Yes sir Audience: Any idea from the time that it is approved to the time it is completed? Time wise Tim Hancock: It depends on how many units are getting absorbed on a small project like this I would say no more than 2 phases. 12 to 18 months construction 2 years on the outside. If it takes longer than that.There's probably been a market change that has caused things to stall. Any other questions? Audience: I have one. Tim Hancock: Yes sir Audience:The utilities furnishing the utilities to that is that going to be down Santa Barbara.The • water the sewer, the electric, and of course the pump. Tim Hancock: Yes.The utilities are in Santa Barbara some do come across right down here at Polly. If we are taping in anywhere we are taping in here or jack and bore under to get to them under to Design with community in mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\public_noilces\nlm\nlm 2016_05\nlm_meeling_minules bullet_points_20160512.docx jS Stantec May 12, 2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 16 of 17 get to them over here. Audience: The second question that I have, I live on Sunset and that retention water you're going to have there. How deep is that and will it be stagnate water. Tim Hancock: No it's not going to be stagnate. It is the depth I am trying to remember 2 to 21/2 it's fairly shallow.The reason I said that the bottom of that was 1 foot above the wet season water table is the idea is that during peak periods you might have water standing but not more than 24 hours. It will percolate down to the water table even in the wet season. Audience: What's going to keep the water moving so we don't have an additional Tim Hancock: The water is not going to be standing long enough to in a dry detention situation to really contribute to a mosquito problem. It perks down its called dry retention for a reason it's because it's dry even during the wet season it's dry more than it is wet. Is the ground going to be a little soggy in the wet season, absolutely. It's not something to where we are going to have standing water for extended period of time. Yes sir Audience: You having stated that this can be a rental or a how much will the client pay per square foot for these units. Because that could drive the market either way. Tim Hancock: Since we don't have building plans I can't answer the per foot construction cost, But I want to be clear about this.The reason why we can't put in the zoning document that you are prohibited to rent is because we are legally not allowed to do it. I been sitting at the board before when this has come up. We have zero intent for building a rental community Zero! So I can't be clearer on that. However, the county attorney has a pined on a previous case that the Board was prohibited from telling them you couldn't rent the units. I don't know where that comes from our why it comes from. Audience: Say you build your thing and I buy one there and I can rent? '. Tim Hancock:That's correct. It's no different than the unit owner deciding to rent it out. I can't give you comfort on something that even the county attorney and if he changes his mind great. But again I am not trying to be evasive about it I just know the rules we have to operate within. So I can't promise you that we are going to put something to PUD that we have already been told we can't do. On another project probably 7 or 8 years ago I have a feeling this will be discussed at the planning commission so let's have that discussion. By all means. Because I know what my clients intent. I am trying to do it within the rules as they are created. Any other questions? Tim Hancock: With that I thank you, I have my business cards up here if you would like to grab one in case you have any other questions or concerns or issues that you would like for us to address. I Look forward to hearing from you.' 6:24 PM-Tim Hancock calls a close to the meeting. Design with community in mind cl v:\2156\aciive\215612869\planning\public_notices\nim\nim_2016_05\nim_meeting_minutes_bullet_poinis_20160512.docx Stantec May 12,2016 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 17 of 17 The foregoing is considered to be a true and accurate record of all items discussed. If any discrepancies or inconsistencies are noted, please contact the writer immediately. STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Tim Hancock, AICP Senior Associate Phone:239-649-4040 Fax: 239-643-5716 Tim.hancock@stantec.com Attachment: Exhibits (7) NIM sign in sheet o. Design with community In mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\pubGc_notices\nim\nim_2016_05\nim_meeting_minutes_bullet_points_20160512.docx -4. 4M�b4r.• 7 00. �. �� M *OA. .mak.°l'imillR'4� ,,ll ,^( 4! 4' ai + 4 `� Ave 1 k 9 �i ;;�� R 4�i ' .. r IFI ' r f k .. **•.r.. ,,, _ ' ; 1-1 II 4 t:p,z, . `,1,X r ' /'''• • q yf s3 ' 41, A ' Y'R 4 t � t w e , ,, ,, . %.1a,r R" # a :oil , .. : ,',..N; '.' i - 4 4— 1 '''..,--7 i .,-,,40-..•, t - 4.4.40,s.li I q ,,gym x �. ', ' ', a •A -4 ��` ., . ;I nc IN $ �� '.' 4� ' !J I y M1 Z` � Ddb - �x°, I 4 00.11 fi , i 1'+` Lp "B ''''‘0',, '4'4- gik * '41r. 4.': ' ',. to 3 $ and..._ d a, • ..«..., r - " '. %' ,, to ' i I 4for'r' ' ,, , x 1111111110411V 1 � baa a • b ra1I k H t i1 911 ' —"' 1 k r �._ _ _._ a i•, , t .4..i+ w I , R 1 �6 G �� ix s �S � .�� r ..:47 4 ,.$ Parcel Boundaries "�° ,y ` ONYX RPUD °""" "' 1s ,r S'tdntec u" CURRBNIAERIALS%HIBI! u Biu" '-" r 1.-�...\ g 101 g l i tiP 611 101 1110.X ti ' 11! Pzi4 OR 1 „wi- N IUHI 1 111,11 aA k f.,,s14 qq 1 i i ti E ° WO 1gs i 1 ,0 1 eig IR . " 1 d 1 /lir II/ i 11 ° 4 of owe `dIfrilli r. $ 5it3 r •ffi Z; fil ,IIIIYVd 310W19. la a3dO13A3a q a3 I Wi CB ri-VMS Amami" —_—__..--.......--.11_____—_____—....---.- _ ' —__ .._- il _ — ---------..---.._.'N ----— . .,t d�. , Z51/ i' 1 i 1-14MO i$liil < 4311 ft i I111 1 1 i li 07 la I I ` 4 21 I R i L. r ^ N , ,ii-- } —I \ i ti 11147,i. E i 4 ;.i rEl 014 \ \ t- - LOVIL lP 11. M1 momlvAoa g <d 6l k�a aadolanda Bt1OOMlWAOtl-alld P 1 NV1d 2131SVW 1Vf11d3DNo0 +., ' I •- .'-� 1 , all`aAtl.11Od .. �V ......�... f. ,0 oz3a cnaa allo iv o 33 O " T t da f.. U1- a y . 'Him H M NIM 41 � W i .:L IS- tl 2 K F� U�J W-Wy W W WW.�� C7 Q 1 5z' a' ''.—-..�,..{,--/--._»...• f.1 D. N :a t � ft a 1, V'L1 K ULL1 LL ir. IwL V N 0I a F- 'd. u w m V I''.-1.). 'ii U.U U U 1' a v, 1`;i T' '2 -'g u1 ? s o f i a' z Nit? w a a a. (< a s W `�' w w `" ., F+ a a$ 03 m &I r o a i u � t . col a F-1 v) N a n _ Ic id - ., H1 Y., Vml x • U 2}Z "" W ti M +1 41 11 % N 11 e W COtC n (,'., K 2 w x Q 11 c,-7. ,,L9 w_2 �a.�.rc I:. a - m. U Z a s h Q "i 1 w a lx ZP co[� 8.1 > W O z J x Z q 0 zt-affi ii.� UZJ icon IY 1r .11 a D G < o Q 1'' Z 5 a. W y 1-g 12 Gmafn fAI Q fn;,II- a V N� 1 a. 8_ p ( nIll P- w tl) W' uf < R' x JJ ..o L'I Il ,C7 m !•'(J Q I iW Frc1 f� a s ul �!a'<rc mclifr '. W 1 r wE � a v> o ,- Qa z m, O.— Z�� AVoLLy g 1 w Z - a z uW In w Ix Liiu1 w Z_ N nfn -4 �1 W'.w � .{ l¢LLy `¢w ul I W ulW O) .t , g 4 D m c v Z aU : g AG 3 n g Q Y Z W 1 S Lm? Z Z m7 J (yC u1 V {W{��11U,_.m i ti.(Y l/ F W' > N ziJ a 2 JT F ,, m g ,i».5waqq dl a pp4r z �� a a o a fTf� -. a O o W 3 a. z `z % I a'' qq &, o a 5a,1-.u 2a -]I�.K0 � 1 C`mR F0. m g g0. AG'14< Jev1c1 01c v w g �_, O O _ a . 1..1 w 11 1biLN30153a A1INVJ'912N16 3UPM Pg 511 1VII.N2OKITIAl6YV.I•31UN15 3ti11CCNV1 Qt n IVan V101a:yr V UNINO% 1VL'illlft^.17:')V•V '71.4WOZ 1 LOfl iti 3A23tiad `.,.:,� :Mr 101x1 VA2Nltld L. _ ,_ _. GNVA31(10813shf15 .: _ .,,. I_ K N V. • V I • i`...: .. _ VFIaV 1N1W3`1VNVFY 431'M _ . { •Mnn.: r`i1 , . �r 1 ._. ..._. _. _ - 1 i Vi � .Fi1 I1 ...�.:...w_ Y 111 I lVI1vd-u.- i! 1 i 1 AIIWVd91�f1W ., rt_. 1 1 �.._ 1 LL S, 1i -1 --1 i Rtw K 0 I2 Ell ;!.c; It, 1. �� ti-Lu • 0. . g,v H..7,-,. a �l it ' -N i J— E I5 7 W ��a t :l ll r �� 1 0IZ" ,. aA ¢ fI 1 is f `i 1 • 1 v;ibsala anv. f x�' ! -I I`,.`I - I a�+ <'' t.z 'l l y. ;(NiV-+ItiNPNa?''' --_.- • S til t ;_y' I K !I'll? _�' .. a$�`1 ilj IVIlN301S311 •i 1-1 j ° � 11 ,' 1 0\ AIIWVA-11-11W ' , S1tI/ a ;' t,.] 1 I. i ♦, I g ,u. \ Q : � '. \ `. _ (3yNV70Nf UB HIiA7N +♦ ,, ♦� 1::;:.-r M`..,,-,\A.,..'...';.4..'....\.♦ A. 1L C1^I8 f8a 8 V1NY6 w .. r.n d.r ,in-.)...-. ..A. r A.A..'A.A. i > �.. w.i za AVil-(T1N:>'U Vab44-sV8 V1NVANaNwnz 35f1 C1NV 1 skh vt A r. r �:.r� ....w rr.r r..r.r r.,-rar�:..r�.,r,rr ..rr ..w:i..''fw • 1VIJN_i(IlS111 AIRIV3•IC1f11N A TIMIiiisn ONVI 01481,12.12.111•010,2 V POO 0000.1V.AO8 3114IN0/ w --_:. i Ip 4 N co. N co O 6 ., Wi— O d' MC (E) V ' 4 C.. h Wa 0 Ce Ili ii O Z g EY o ,- ('i 6 .- o o 06 w z Z w Z Q W w O ,, J W a ¢ d 1 � Q Q LL a > ce U w U 0 Z W Z m ¢ w W 0 Z w U r' a' w i H 0 O . ¢ a a .� U O ¢g w a 0 n O I-- Iw- z O z Z ° d +, g wkI LI•I0 ILI O ¢ w Z Z d CO g -J Z N 5 o a ' re z v u. w I U 0 F- w I— w O x 0 � ? a" U m > t�j I^ re O 2 W O W O U w U J O i- a en z O F- N a o Q _ a O ,r O m ¢ N cQp Q 0 c). wJ Z W w a w n re D a a W z U O I� a < ww ¢ a a 4 0 a U a U a a N a N. * < 0C3 :—n' (MN.OBI'QA18 1BSNO8 ANVQNf1O3 133COHd • 1 .,. /// i 1 W 3 Id)JMJ S3 Id••"' I 1 1 + SR u i 1 _ b I ry I N _ i iir w i i '- z gig � 0 •a� g o i cn � . < i ! i i 1 CZ Iit I • i U i a3djne I » ..P73,2-AR i � Q.o`u < i •+0vei2s112. i 3 1 12 i12 i ' 'z 1 I U ia WK .i C {u i 1113 I. w � m L W I , - ;IA,: ..''xz!I - --- Ei.I.5 t/ ..1.174°71338 ..sie.:".::"--_AiIVONf1091Q3eoad OLVAS1Q09%weave V1NVS 1 x f F g �/''/ 9 ( y a,ti g *1 $ f A,' t,/,:', t �' � •tom" .0 r r'„� • :se i, r ? w a Mr „ „ill-Al. -. v,-, .. - u 11 te! ! a+! o a :, R Es > r ' w ' Y" , 14 x ^�«:b° ..!'its r zt ` ,�� zin O LU i >` n $ Z cu ` ' "��.rte t 6 a _tea r ''''' ,.;# 't;:tr,‘,.., *41:'''..'1''''''':;-.,, 4 i �, }} � �� :r ° 3 pp,;:,,; x s €, s'''''ari' $ 5 la t 4 .---- V , •-•,\ io •ca C Ctri ° d .„' xt qq - rte' Sa E -O 3 a cz , ► �, �`' �, v C7 a > a � 4 i ,, , 4 e , �° • ' 31 o c w V U C b � C - a? c. 4 S) 11 L Ut.4 �• W • D.vi '� , LI.] _ � Q E• '' a, 3 N M ti l� � y � � � o ) � m Ni) • Z —� y �_ �Q _ 00 < w ke) 4'. 2 .17' ° c.... • %a%. S""I ,. q... ,.. ... c t..) .0 ".... s' LT o 1.0 2. I •3 G v O J •0 Ow, al .4.9 C L . I U * cC •a za3 l w ° 61 °�% oco � ^ NN— .. - .oLyxs —� t-ii . J J O Z � V, i > toronC. • •'" �. � W * o`aIV a a W �o Q "1" �" S ' �l. 2 `\ i o � � Q �. � o � � � � � Q � _ X.._ .__, L1.1 @camCO 4er5t) � � � M c,! 3. u o *_ 0 aUJ C 0 C aJ t u r n C t0 vi C3-7 0_. . V H v, o > a� _. . W -c � -n ons p o z c E• .0 o `iii ry o E o as ' .a- q i r2 12 , � 4 o ca .� �' EyAi4 11 , E a o ,/� .0 o o •- Z ��` 9� , v 0 11 P c a > c 0) 0, 4 \ � ' � .� �`, L M co CU —Q• J 9) Q d � ! � z v g Tir I ki- 04 .41Q N 0 ”i •rT5- c a 0 a) t4 �, Q a C4 A1) A 7" ° Q .p �© a SS Y f j 7g c E O c Lb -'� 4 s , ... O co L O ,($j, Q`� LL bA N fC Tv - i nJ, CD LRI -CI H f0 � A r 1 v Z a E i 6910 D E .- c c \ CTIA' j . .� UeJ > � sC a` tee , � �v . C` �a — C G8 >' E ja 3 coo H ( CZ 6 -- it ,4:: . •LO % s-4- , -0 0 L 0 >, rod +' � c L. J , L d L , / ,' 1 p Z' a �, s e \ � � r cv •� <, .o L ro c `, O t N � rov1.17 '+ � �OngWmaiw ' ,-. \k,i, 0 CL >' U) L- °2 E L" 3 k LLt '4 Ni 107- a 1 v Q 2 c..„.4. ,. co 0 ce < = ...0 0 . 0 .,3 _0 :E ;13 A v) .,,,,,z ci ..,,* r (t ..., ,._ >. co Lei ...., CL' a os E ° Q 0 °`,IN, tom r o Sr � � � m I .l t C ^ a� c a ._ fn L e x 0 in fR In ."C (� O V y L. QJ 0 y _ z C E ro `- 'c \` 'U W N O 7 , , tC ° CliEC ° CO '4 a 0 sl ..., Eru .= LE iv .� 1j) `4.1) cofW ori 8 0 r • d CU 0 ° :153U) It E -o u c L . 0 0 0 < L Q R1 ' O E Z ': C N O C W 1 'R] O a) u- O li! O 'p ++ L y_ Vf E ZC f.," 4 ` c LCY) 3 C L u 0 ca O Wr °' 4-' ' C o v s _ a s 7a f> m N Z u - w Oc v ° 161 Ce = .> 0.) .:2 >, 4 oa Q CU a) 4, .0 tn U C) L() W * `z c C.) c G N.- V - ca = a O CN N— I ->o' o L 0w 'c s J. , � _J0Z6. 0c .0 ., - 0 . cc c � a- Na_ � E- h � � zoc� n.. � = a' l3 � v) • LLI QLL * O a. CO 4Od a115 j dJ E OCf 3 �, (C L S4 T a O c u = vi W E ,�LLu 00 �- oc = C in u 4 ` a) E s ?; '_^ O c Z a -0 t C O (� OJ c Q �-/ '^ vii vii u -0 O W 0 L a) N - s.+ ] 0. d Z cEmc c N c Rs O 47, c c O y o L Q g O co s r O LI O w ! W c a1 T c C C C 4) 4) M - - F- ma ' c4 z y a ms s ° '':' PUUi.IC H£�rniu R gUES ING a REZONING TO t' B i N Ri C R t1Ui STIN( A EiEXtli iii C Tia s RESIDE tiNIT-.DEVELiit PtT(9PUf) •• R' EtF 1 Niy 1.Pi a1l1 N C1'UNIT i i+ i i= i �uT� u ) • Pb1 rnQt4 PUDZ.N.D`4000O O,CNMX APUD ro as neraaer tileaoffba waerr z�+ CPflhIONr pUYY7�pLR�M1>�-.— AUYX APUD•M10 Pe 11 M90 ar T,$ O.fikA U17Y FM,ANNtlN1 DMM9i1QN tG'441'444eaMoaraUUa('y'Lm:::10Garryoci C,k', PLNIN�N41�152atMJ44p tF#4bPM ANR H67 aD tlP atluMYCOMMI%MAHia$4DC 4 4'''''''''''''''41'''''' ,opix a wrf::u w,a#riumr$ kaa wu e+..a v 4�, ew r Si k c r infimb w eaxrHrx u�ar�aa ewro, .na,c r.; .a.«s w,��ra ri"aw+N:4•ar PA 11 Ctl4k104,sii$A LW 'a 4'A Yba . ,,,, .,,,,,,,,,,,t,..;,,,,,,, a 4 x .�', I/,..* 4P r Au4FI p plra.Mm: ttt t ¢ ,, t 4 S# P 44, ,p, , i a�( 14tt FMX+E.�tafYMaf14 cA 4€La 4 Ha:�.A 'HMMtt- 1 N '$L?, Qi(4 11 4114 n4P14G4 1 18 >€1 tP k Vt f 4 M M ;47:', A4 Pt A44r''iFt'24MYrM4W:xSy M1Yy4•`:mW' ALF' l4'W45Y°^+1 ' if43f P�M1 Pu4. h t 4i ( . 'tW'"";; f�l2�dZ•ll "4iA W„,,,„.4,4,,t,..-if,,;,,„:, ut'K kkY:7✓�fM f'�b4ti.. '''''''',4'''''''''!'='''''';'.4"..'4'=',."7 Mk-k N+�"km s' 44.1=00=4'1.‘A,,,,,,,,,,,,,Y4.',r?F �+ ‘4,-,''''''''''''' : K i #m a k. K A°sNc Uw : t' 'Na5'''.4ri#a4a i7M.tniS4PY±- UF'F4 P 4 Y,l,41 ',..,==,,,,,,,,,,„,,,,,,,,F k 4k ^°< s .:W CkVd`a4ti'+7r4Y*"a`iia :N M wY kNx9 +k”aFA ''{th4TfJ1 Cfd4'U.P Mi PPk iF 4 A pA R D 1 RMS.,==; L! 4 1 tAf P 4) aSMt 1 -Q C A ( '$'Y4f ' 'ha ki1N4�'4''''"',t A 4 F iIt <PPPptf 9 NSmY=""+==''''''''''' , 2+.w w'e•t s1*µ 1 L1iY.'..( UtxSSII.W Y4 4Ea 5• ... 6Y.lN A 4 aha C>°.a E « r4aow lm,«tzvfi.48.M1 WM Nb'A«iw}f fi-R PP*PP{(rw KPM1�fx ry t.i4n.++F 4,. PPaa�4 py, k np u Tfk f b,_ lff \fif4%'°',''''' ai riK•+ 4i , # 16.-'t .2''!i'' -sff aSTMf Y +k °Sd; zrixF•;;;•,,,Wst r�«'"'t,eF V4ga, r•,f-.x« am'k10..:1.4�t�a ,krv,,,,,,,,,,,''''..,,,,,,1::4,%,0:;.1':',;''':`r a , ,...e .t., '4 Y '''',4,41.,: .At) b - , k ' • ' '�` d� t � � �$4r bl sWP 9p a 4 ` m ems: "" , - ,-,,,,,,i' C- xW �vi'"F.i • ., +, t£` ,4W.. .. .4; • i' Litt tdf Eta I 1 tpt11 r;it214 Al Rk" a'tidti,"it ° P. iE W1tifASf.P1PH',—,-.� ,ifl ,t.lwt! e #�;; Ft v M1 • a s i • z ff. ''\ , •1 1 F i _ ,bN 1 d w+ s # „• `, ' ,5 , ,K � M1 F o w a t ,f r 4'',,:".''''.f..',,,.-".' M1, Y -;10',°;';;:•,';',„'„,.. ;,ra ,� a ^t a t '.:.•',',, ''':-•' � "3a Kk , 3 r .g; �"� a° "r ''.,"?••17'.:.''''''' ', ts' ' 4 4 (1 "`, '„„-':4„,.:,.,',< 1 ; S w,4 ., at� ';':',== q � P s�`4 %="1='; x,k,"":",;',,+� ��M1 a�. �°a�w 9 d,r 5. �a•",. ° s, " �,a„ �';',:;•i;41-'-k;:::".•:4;-''''.`,,'I.,^y9t ' +tea "�� .�:4;,:c.:•,,#:`;;•:;*!!;”..';;,,--,-;;;i‘;',,;:', spa. '.B NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE(S) Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission at 9:00 A.M., on Thursday, June 2nd, 2016, in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room,Third Floor, Collier Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples FL.,to consider: { An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from the Residential RMF-6 zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project known as the Onyx RPUD to allow development of up to 48 single family and/or multi-family dwelling units on property located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard approximately one-half mile north of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road in Section 16,Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 8.72* acres; providing for repeal of Ordinance No. 06-53 and by providing an effective date. [PUDZ-PL20140000890] DAVIS' BLVD. (S.R.84) I NAPLES HERITAGE FREE A 7 COOK NAPLES GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY HERITAGE \ I TAORMINA GOLF RESERVE AND SEACREST FALLING +I COUNTRY NAPLES NATIONAL UPPER 8J WATERS I-- CLUB GOLF CLUB ER COPE SCHOOL r ` Q 9 10 RESERVE _ Hm co — HOMES OF ISLANDIA w l l SHADOW- LASIP CONSERVATION AREA OYOUTH woo PROJECT o HAVEN _ WATERFORD RIVIERA lx ESTATES c BY z LOCATIONS m 17 I 0} ROYAL WOODS 16 ( rn co 1-1 Z G&C CLUB HUNTINGTON 15ti ce 0 WOODS NAPLES LAKES U ILI WIND- U / MANDALAY WOOD w COUNTRY CLUB p SONG (C.R,864) / RATTLE. NAKE HAMMOCK RD. — All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office, Fourth Floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite #401, Naples, FL, one week prior to the scheduled hearing. Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section, prior to Thursday,June 2nd,2016. 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. Collier County Planning Commission Mark Strain, Chairman Petition No PUDZ-PL2014000890,Onyx RPUD AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE FOR PROVIDING INDIVIDUAL MAIL NOTICE TO AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS 1. I hereby certify that pursuant to Subsections 10.03.05.B.8 and 10.03.0513.10 of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did give notice of the public hearing before the Collier County Planning Commission scheduled for June 2, 2016 by U.S. mail to the affected property owners at the addresses provided to me by the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office on May 3, 2016. A copy of the list of addresses from the Collier County Property Appraiser's Office is attached to this Affidavit. 2. Copies of the letters mailed to the affected property owners are attached to this Affidavit. c Dated this day of 4 2016. ri r Signatur . sit Lye. Print ame if' C COL d � rar- Print Ti le I of 2 STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) ss COUNTY OF COLLIER) BEFORE ME, a duly authorized notary of the State of Florida, personally appeared Tr ,who is personally known to me or produced 1 �✓L as identification, and under oath stated that the above is true and correct and to the best of his/her knowledge. DATED this 2,r-3 day of Pnisq ,2016. ito rntit � r JAMIE PUGUA No 4,,ate of Florid ;i' NMSVy Pubo•01*of WO.�• OFF 033432 . My Comm.Exokos Noy a,2019 ''`" t'" WOO Il roY$MONISNM Notary Printed Name-) • My commission expires: 2 of 2 4 -.4:30 el- la434 . .ty May 13,2016 Dear Property Owner: This is to advise you that because you may have interest in the proceedings or you own property located within 500 feet of the following described property that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) of Collier County, Florida, at 9:00 A.M., on June 2, 2016, in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room, third floor, Collier Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail,Naples FL.,to consider: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended,the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from the Residential RMF-6 zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project known as the Onyx RPUD to allow development of up to 48 single family and/or multi-family dwelling units on property located on the east side of Santa Barbara Boulevard approximately one-half mile north of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road in Section 16,Township 50 South,Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida,consisting of 8.72±acres;providing for repeal of Ordinance No.06-53 and by providing an effective date. [PUDZ-PL20140000890] You are invited to appear and be heard at the public hearing.You may also submit your comments in writing, 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 CCPC. 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 ME, 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 Collier County Planning Commission 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. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. This petition and other pertinent information are kept on file and may be reviewed at the Growth Management Department, Zoning Division building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. Please contact me at (239) 252-2931 or ericiohnson@cgllie;gay.net to set up an appointment if you wish to review the file. Sincerely, /J Eric L.Johnson,AICP,CFM,LEED Green Associate Principal Planner I /L. u 3 Tfr_ , I , 2 N Q F A WO A N 1 6 A' R Q 'Al SSOA A < � R _It_.,_! ipR P 1 R 8� Ni 3Nldnl a 06tlA3lnOB 135Nn5 u - Q B B 2(1 MI c! �,.„,„„!,,„0„,„„„,,:„,:„„,. � 0 : ..,..,..... „.............. .. ..• ........ :, „„„,„,,t„,„!,,,,,,,,„„„, M 1 `R. r Q6VA31no6 YVY BM VIM'S 0116631(106 66,18 P2(16 Y1S z Nlvw 6 R A R P a b ¢ t i Y 9 67� O 081161116)6 000M 1rA9R R e ` c R , �© ; R A att 2 cc i i 1111 D € dd ` vlry� 8 y{ L---� i 0. 11111. 8 03 Ulki U. �� tr i p 8 N II J 0. 'Ira 01 1QN 0 CL Z l! i I go it Aga L I ' � V � LUa �. _ A V.. 1 0_ritimi ,1 q 1 • III 6i wp 6 o Qarnax oe 6amoo '�\ no ArwuvR lcv3 0 y 5 N >IQoq�� w 4 Y" ego LLI O m ^• i p `..N. imi. .�riliilLip as .� I Q ■ it it H NO6VINIld -8 U li 1 ' t a 1A 11 I/ r ,':J:,'.,1,,,,, u ;= 1.... ... .-i_ 1 `',.: Pi i Lii 1 i 11 ::''''' ii' ,....-!I 11!! 1 -?, ro 1 I if pt 1 Q 10 o $11 I_..._OVOa NM uNnoo ' 1 0 tla � ■ p6 QY3YN3LLiW ... IN ~ F � � S3Arl OON1V3l�•' �'�"� n i l l ro � •i g M www 06116.11d•61iii 11 V ..... 8 .• Stantec Meeting Minutes New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting No. 2 Date/Time: October 26,2015/5:30-7:00 PM Place: New Hope Ministries, Room 211 (Lecture Hall) Next Meeting: TBD Attendees: See attached list Absentees: N\A Distribution: Eric Johnson,Collier County Planner Bruce Anderson, Polly Avenue, LLC File Safety Moment: Evacuation plan in the case of an emergency- Emergency Exit locations Commence Meeting Introductions: Tim Hancock-Stantec Consulting Services-Project Planner representing Polly Avenue, LLC, the property owner and applicant for the Conditional Use. Josh Philpott, Project Planner, Stantec Consulting Services Sabina Hardy, Project Management Assistant,Stantec Consulting Services -registration desk, meeting minutes. Bruce Anderson, P.A., Legal Land Use Attorney Eric Johnson, Collier County Planner Tim Hancock: Invite everyone to sign in if they haven't already. Tim Hancock overview of project: There was a Neighborhood Information Meeting on this project back in February. Something was presented at the time and what we are here to talk about tonight is a follow up meeting,is a variation,a change,to what was presented in 2006. I think you will find,after tonight,what we are proposing is going to be less intensive and hopefully more desirable than what you experienced in February. Taking you back just a little bit, I actually did a rezone on this back in 2006. I was with Davidson Engineering at the time. I got the chance to meet a lot of you. We worked very closely together to come up with a plan that we thought would work based on what was going on at the time. Overview of the orientation of the 2006 plan on the exhibit. Referencing the "future"Santa Design with community In mind cl v:\2156\octive\21561?869\planning\public_notices\nim\final_nim_meet Ing_20151026\nim_meetin e_m Inutes bull e l_p el n t s_102615.docx Stantec October 26,2015 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 2 of 11 Barbara which had not been built yet, Polly Avenue and Sunset. The original plan had 27 lots that all had access directly off of Sunset. This plan is what exists today. It is the current zoning. If you were coming in or out you would have to come in on Polly to Sunset and when you were leaving you went out to Polly and maybe to Whitaker to get out to Santa Barbara. That was approved and there were two major areas of concern. Number one, obviously compatability. We want to make sure it is compatable with the neighborhood. Number two, at that point Sunset was dirt from a certain point (view on exhibit). It is now paved, congratulations to you. None the less, traffic was an issue and that had an effect on how many units made sense or didn't make sense. The third thing was drainage. This was before the LASIP (Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Plan) project was getting into full gear. When Santa Barbara was constructed and widened and the LASIP program was put into play, my understanding is that the drainage in the area has gotten a little better. Maybe even a lot better in some areas. Reference to newspaper article from 2006 where a pickup truck was towing a guy on a surf board down Sunset. About a year and a half ago I joined Stantec (brief overview of Stantec) and the folks I did work for back in 2006 went back to Davidson (they didn't know I had left) and Davidson took it and ran with it. I don't mean to cast any aspersions at anyone at Davidson. I think they were trying to do what was allowable. I could • have told them, by the experience I had with you back in 2006,a 50 foot building probably wasn't going to be received very well and I think that has been the case so the client came and met with me and we had some discussions. We backed up and started over. We tried to re-build the project. Overview of the new plan (exhibit) orientation, neighborhood of Royal Wood, etc. The property is 8.7 acres in total size but about 9/10 of an acre is an easement for the Santa Barbara widening that was donated to the County as a condition of the 2006 zoning. When we did this in 2006, the County got about 70 feet of right-of-way for free. So we have around 7.8 acres left that we can do something with on the property. So we have gone over the 2006 plan,this is about 3.2 units an acre,27 units,with a height of 35 feet and two stories. We talked about the access. I was not at the Neighborhood Information Meeting in February so I'm not going to speak as to what was or wasn't said and/or done there but I believe this was the plan that was shared. There were four buildings sort of creating a square complex. Overview (with exhibit)water management area in the middle,clubhouse.The one good thing about tis plan is that it looks like they were able to get County Transportation to allow for an access onto Santa Barbara Blvd. We were shooting for that back in 2006 when Santa Barbara had not even been designed yet so the County was not going to do that. Looks like the County is willing to give a right in,right out access to this project off of Santa Barbara. That is good news. The buildings were however were planned at 3 stories over parking and a height of about 50 feet. Total number of units of 55, I believe,is what was being proposed.Just to let you know, I have read everyone of your letters. If sent a letter of objection to us, not only did my client keep everyone of those letters, I've read every one of them. I also read every email that were part of the record and the file and sent to the County. Because if I was going to help my client continue going forward, I needed to know what was going on and what that clearly showed me is there were some issues in several areas. There were some little things to work on but the big thing to me was a 50 foot building does not fit here. During the meetings we had we had to figure out how to make this work at a lesser height. There is another change that happened in 2012.The County has a stormwater management ordinance. A floodplain ordinance. In 2012 the rules really kicked in and the original plan which was going to accommodate stormwater management in a dry detention area (reference map locations x2). Design with community In mind ci v.\2I 56\alive\215612869\planning\publlc_notices\nim\tind_nim_meeting 20151026\nim_meeting_minvtas_butlet_poinls_102615.docx Stantec October 26,2015 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 3 of 11 That no longer works. The County's floodplain management requirements are a little bit stronger now than they used to be.So as a result,we have to accommodate all the water that is historically flowed onto this site.We have to continue to accommodate that water,account for it on our site, and then discharge it off site. What that means is that this area (reference exhibit) is insufficient for water management. It's going to take a lot more space for what we want to do under that revised ordinance. For a couple reasons this plan (the 2006 plan) doesn't work anymore. What we came up with is what you see to your right (reference exhibit). Present elements of new plan: What we are proposing is building heights of no more than 30 feet and two stories. That is the exact same building heights as the 2006 plan. He maximum number of units would be 48. I know it does not sound like a lot less than 55 but the truth is, this access off of Santa Barbara Blvd.is expensive. To design and construct that is around 1/4 million dollars. For us to expend that money you have to make the numbers work on our end. That is not your problem, I understand that,that is our problem but that number of 48 allows us to run the numbers and we can see that to make it work with some of these additional expenses,which this access, I think, is good for everybody. We are going to retain our native vegetation (view on exhibit). Things we are willing to commit to in our PUD,that's another thing that is nice is,this was straight zoning called RMF-6 and it had a density cap on it, this is going to be zoned Residential PUD (Planned Unit Development). The nice thing about a PUD is you can write some standards in with a little more detail and it makes it enforceable instead of straight zoning. We have not made any changes to the PUD yet because we wanted to meet with the neighborhood first,get your input,and then we are going to go back and make some changes and then send it to the County and Eric gets to review it. Some of the things we are weighting in are;what we are going to do for clearing? Because the Pines are so sensitive when you get machinery in there and start clearing out exotics, any exotics that need to be cleared out are going to be hand cleared. That is a commitment that we feel is important to keep the Pines healthy. Those areas where the hand clearing leave big gaps,we will look at that and come up with a planting plan to bring natives back into those areas so that they will re- populate (it won't be over night) and it will fill back In a little bit. What you will see just on the other side of the native vegetation (view on exhibit) is going to be a 6 foot privacy wall. So,you are going to have the native vegetation and behind it will have the privacy wall. If you are driving up and down Sunset you are not going to just see a wall sticking out there all by itself. You are going to see the Pines that are out here (reference exhibit), additional plantings,and then behind that is a wall. Reference water management area on the exhibit. There are two ways of handling water management areas in Collier County. The typical one is that you dig a lake. To dig a lake and have it count for water management,it has to be at least a half-acre in size. Half acre lakes start to look like little dip ponds. Really,a one acre lake is the size that gets kind of healthy and does well. Two problems. We don't really have the area to put in a one acre lake and have enough land left to develop.What we are proposing here (reference exhibit) is dry detention. You come in and scrape it down and sod it. In dry season it is dry all the time. In the wet season it will get a little head of water on it but percolates down typically over the next 24 hours. You don't have standing water all the time. The bottom of that retention area is about one foot above the wet season water table. Where you have water sitting in the ditches in the wet season, the bottom of that will be about one foot above that. During a heavy storm it will have some water in it, it will percolate down to where the water table is,and it will repeat it again about 24 hours later. During the wet Design with community in mind cl v:\2156',oclive\21 5612869\planning\rwblic_notices\nim\final_nim_meeting_20I5 1026\nim_meeting_minutes_bullet_points_1026 15,docx Stantec October 26,2015 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 4 of 11 season that is how that will work. In this area we are considering doing some wet foot\dry foot planting like Bald Cypress. The nice thing about the way these buildings are oriented is,the water management area is the back yard,we want to make the area as visually pleasing as you would want it if you were looking at it from the other way. By putting other clusters and plantings in there, it will help thicken things up on their side but it also helps us out with the way the units look. To give you an idea of what the product looks like,and I want to stress, these are architectural concepts, they have been pulled from other projects. (view exhibit of architectural concepts) What we are talking about is a two story building with attached garages. The garages are not going to be separated from the building. They will be a part of the building. You will see a couple different elevations but they will all have similar characteristics. They will all have two stories in height, no more than 35 feet tall,and they all have attached garages. Comment:What kind of construction? Are they going to be block construction? Tim Hancock response: We haven't designed each unit yet so I can't answer that question. You have basically two choices on this type of unit. Almost always going to have block on the first floor. The second floor will either be wood frame or block. It kind of floats with, to be honest with you, I think it comes down to what's available in the market place. I remember after Andrew,you couldn't get your hands on a 2x4 so everybody was doing block and back to wood on the second floor. I really don't have an answer for you yet. Tim Hancock resume overview of project: So,these are the architectural concepts. We wanted to give you an idea, something to picture. I also want to mention that we don't want to rule out that if the market changes,these could be single family homes. Instead of two story condominiums you could have one or two story single family homes. If you go that way,there is going to be fewer units. Single family home lots are a little larger. Instead of 48 units, you would have a lower number of units. What we want to make sure we can do is two story units or single family homes because they are both comparable. Someone asked the question before we started,what are they going to sell for? There is no zoning in the world that puts a price in there that says that you can only sell them for so much. I can tell you that these products, two story town homes, that are in the market place today, are selling for upwards of$300,000. This is not affordable housing,this is not section 8 housing, this is market rate real estate. Build it,sell it for what the market will bear. Comment: If it were going to be homes,do you have a number? 20 homes,half that,25 homes? Tim Hancock Response: I don't. We haven't even done a site plan because I don't think it is going to bare out. I think the number is pretty low. It is less than the 27. That is why we are looking at the multi-family component. I think it is going to go multi-family but I want to be honest. If they built two rows of multi-family and some single family, I wouldn't want you to say"he lied to us". Tim resume overview of project: Another thing I wanted to mention is about lights. I think in the PUD we have the ability to talk about lighting. I think the County allows light poles to be about 25 feet, We have seen a desire to lower them a bit. You want to keep them below the rooftop levels so if you are on the other side Design with community in mind cl v:\2156\active\21561 2869\planning\publlc_nof ices\nim\final_nlm_meeting_20151026\r6mmeelinQrninute$_bUllaI_points_102615.docx Stantec October 26,2015 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 5 of 11 you are not looking at the light fixture itself. Either 25 or 20 feet,we can look at both of those. The other thing is the type of lights is important. A lot of times you get lights that throw light everywhere or you can do flat panel fixtures and they aim the light downward,you don't get light spilled upward and outward. Most of the folks out here,when you moved out here,you could see the stars at night. Every year you are seeing fewer and fewer. The new LED lighting allows us to direct light a lot better than they used to be able to. In the PUD,one thing we are considering is putting lighting standards in there that limits the height and type of lighting so that it is not a problem or an issue for you. Just to give you a little bit of a comparison, the before and after is (referencing exhibits) this was only 27 units,the roads accessed onto Sunset Blvd.,and all traffic would use Sunset and either Polly or Whitaker. There was a 10 foot buffer along Sunset and you would have seen the sides of four homes. It is not a bad thing but it is how the plan was done. The new design we are talking about an area of approximately 50 foot of vegetation all along Sunset. A little less here, in the 25-30 foot range but with a wall on the back side. The nearest unit from the edge of the pavement is over 150 feet away. The access will be off of Santa Barbara. If they give us a hard time over the access off of Santa Barbara,we are going to ask you to come fight for us because it is good for us and it is good for you. Even though it is going to cost us more money, I don't think anybody in this room wants us coming off of Sunset. Comment:The buildings that are backing up to Santa Barbara, it doesn't look like you have a lot of room there. What is going to be the buffer between the units and the road? Tim Hancock response: What is required is a 20 foot Type D buffer. It's a 12-14 foot tree; I think its 25 foot centers and a double row staggered hedge.There will be a privacy wall there as well. I think for noise you have to. The reality is that we were trying to get the buildings as far away from Sunset as we could. What you do back here (by Santa Barbara) is enhance the landscaping. The code requires one thing but if you are going to sell those units,it almost needs to be garden like back there. Comment: The setback is what,35 feet along Santa Barbara?The building setbacks on the sides? Tim Hancock response: On the rear,we have it at 20 feet which is the buffer width. It will probably be a little more than that. Comment: Are you saying there is going to be a solid wall on Santa Barbara? Tim Hancock response: Yes. It is our plan right now is to basically have a privacy wall around the site. If we heard in this meeting that this was troublesome or bothersome to people,we would re- consider. Our plan right now is that,even though we are not going to have gates, a wall gives people a sense of security,weather it is real or not. And the other side a wall says we are trying to buffer and separate us (you) from it. Comment: On Sunset, are you going to do the 6 foot wall or 8 foot prison wall? Tim Hancock response: We are more than happy with the 6 foot. An 8 foot costs a lot more and looks worse. If 8 foot doesn't work for you,it doesn't work for us. We would be happy to limit that Design with community In mind d v:\2156\acllve\215612869\planning\public_notices\nimMinalnim_meeting_20151026\nim_meeling_mnutes bullel�olnls_t02615.d❑cx Stantec October 26,2015 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 6 of 11 to a 6 foot wall. The nice thing about Sunset is while the buildings are a little closer;it is the end of the building as opposed to the back of it. What's nice is our project signage will be up here (reference Santa Barbara side of plan). Comment: How about on Santa Barbara, how high is the wall going to be there? Tim Hancock response: I don't think we are allowed, unless we get a deviation, to have a wall in excess of 8 feet.So, maybe along Santa Barbara we will look at an 8 foot wall there just to buffer some of the noise. The good news about any wall,in Collier County,if you put a wall up as part of a private development,at least 50%of the landscaping has to be on the outside of the wall. You can't put up a wall and put all the landscaping on your side and tell everyone else "tough nuts". Comment: That is what they did at Quail Hollow. Tim Hancock response: That was put up by the transportation department as a noise barrier and that is different that a private sector developer putting a wall up. Comment: Right.There is no landscaping on the Santa Barbara side of the Quail Hollow wall. Him Hancock response: If you were to put a wall up on a private development,you would have to put landscaping up on both sides of the wall. But noise barriers do have a different classification for height and for landscaping because their functioning is more for noise, Our goal here is to do the lowest wall necessary to achieve noise compliance there but as far as along Polly and Sunset we are happy to commit to a 6 foot wall. Comment: Is the 6 foot from the ground or on a buffer or berm and then a wall? The natural ground is about 3 foot lower than the sidewalk. Tim Hancock response: There is two different ways to measure it and in the PUD we can specify that. I believe we are allowed to have a wall that is 6 feet measured from the finish floor elevation of the homes. Let me check that because in some cases it is measured from the crown of the roadway, some cases It's from finish floor elevation and to be honest with you, I didn't look at it on this one. Comment: What is proposed finish floor elevation? Tim Hancock response: Don't have it yet.Collier County is requiring that the finish floor elevation be anywhere form 1-3 foot above FEMA flood requirements. We don't control that. We like it as low as we can get it otherwise it increases our fill costs. Our floor is going to be a little bit higher than what yours is, I guarantee you that but I don't have an answer for you what it is. Comment: None of this is in writing yet, it is just what you propose right? Tim Hancock response: Here is what we will do. We are going to take the input from this meeting and we are going to make changes to the application that has been filed by Davidson Engineering. Design with community In mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\publtc_notIces\nim\final_nlmineeting_20151026\nlmmeeting_minules_bullet_points_102615.docx Stantec October 26,2015 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 7 of 11 Comment:So the application has already bee file,but not this one? Tim Hancock response: The application is active and rather than making these changes and submitting it before talking to you,we would address the things that come up with your first. We are willing to take all the commitments that you have heard here tonight and write them into the zoning documents. So when I tell you that the wall height will be a maximum of 6 feet between Sunset and Polly as measured by code,we will write that into the PUD. If I tell you we are going to hand clear in the native preserve areas,we are going to write it into the PUD. Comment: But it has not been done yet, right? Tim Hancock response: No, but what I will do is,once it is written into the PUD,if you signed in and gave us an email address, I will send you a copy of the PUD. I have to prepare you for this. When this goes into a PUD,this is how beautiful it looks (reference site plan with developable area similar to what will be in the PUD). The buildings come off of it but it is the exact same thing as far as development area,amenity center,and water management and preserve. It's not very attractive but it is the same. Eric Johnson: If anyone wants to, they can contact me at any time. I would be happy to share whatever the applicant gives me,if you feel uncomfortable communicating with the applicant directly. Tim Hancock response:These people have no problem communicating. (Everyone laughs) Eric Johnson: The Planners role is to be neutral,to evaluate the project based on the codes we have in place so my role here is not to be for or against this,it's really just to make sure it complies with the codes we have. Anytime that you would email me,that becomes public record so if you want to call in lieu of (I also take notes of calls and phone numbers and such). I suspect that this will be going before the Collier County Planning Commission,which is an advisory board. They advise the Board of County Commissioners to approve, approve with recommendations, conditions of approval or denial, and then ultimately this would go before the Board of County Commissioners. They are the final authority in this matter. From what I am understanding,the intent is that you will be submitting documents to me, sooner rather than later, it would go through staff review provided that it meets legal sufficiency,then we will figure out a hearing date. Tim Hancock: Once the hearing date is determined, I'm happy to do this.We now have a mailing list that includes everybody that was within 1,000 foot radius, plus any one who attended the last Neighborhood Information meeting, plus any one who wrote a letter of objection. To make sure that nobody gets left out,that has been involved in the process,once we have hearing dates,we will send out a letter letting everyone know when the Planning Commission hearing date is so you can show up and tell them how much you love this project. I just want to make sure you are informed. In particular, areas like this,where lots are much bigger,that 1,000 foot radius doesn't go very far. Comment:Was this being recorded? Tim Hancock Response: Yes, this is being recorded and the minutes, even though this is not a Design with community in mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\Public notices\nim\fInd_nlm_meeting_20151026\nim_meeting_minulesbullet polnts_I02615.docx Stantec October 26,2015 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 8 of 11 formal Neighborhood Information Meeting, this is a follow up with you to share some of the changes we are proposing,reduced the intensity,reduced the height, I think overall your more comfortable with this proposal than with the previous one. The minutes will be provided to the staff, both the recording itself and we will transcribe it into minutes. Comment: How about the emergency exit or anything like that? That is another concern of ours. Tim Hancock response: I'm going to talk to the Fire District about that because there are lots of projects,when you can come in and make the rotation and come out, they haven't required emergency exits. I'm hoping we don't have to do that. If we are going to have to do that,we would have to do a right out here only (reference south side of site\ Polly Avenue) through a break through gate. It doesn't make sense to me, if you enter from Santa Barbara, all the radiuses would meet the turn radius requirements for a ladder truck. They designed it that way. If we are forced to have it, an exit only onto Polly. Another thing you can do. You can landscape across the emergency exit so if they have to drive through it,they just drive over the bushes. So,there are different things you can do to make it look"not like a driveway"and we would certainly do that. Comment: Are you trying to change the zoning so you can put more units per acre? It's going to be for upscale housing, not low income housing so if they decide to sell it down the road, they can flip it for that? Tim Hancock response: Yes,we are asking for more than what was permitted in 2006. This is not income restricted. We cannot put in the PUD what the sale price is going to be but there are things you can do that will improve the quality of the product,to help keep prices up. For example the wall,that is an item that is desirable, therefore doing those types of things, helps the project value stay up. The other thing I suggested and I've already talked to my client about it, and they have agreed, that is each unit will have an attached garage vs.say a carport or"at grade" parking. If you look at 2 bath 2 bedroom condominiums with a carport and one with an attached garage, all other things equal, the attached garage increases value.That pushes it in the right direction for you as neighbors, the right direction as far as value, and a cost standpoint for us. That is why we are comfortable showing you the sample elevations because it is our intent to build a two-story product with an attached garages, if not,single family. Again, I have to keep throwing that out there but I really think this is going in the multi-family direction. Again,in the PUD,we can make that condition;each unit has to have an attached garage, as a way of keeping the value of the project up. Comment: Is this going to be like if the person owns it going to own the bottom and the top or is it going to be a unit on the bottom and a separate unit on the top? Tim Hancock response: It could go either way. I've seen both and they take about the same footprint. We are looking at townhouses which mean it's a two story unit. That is what we are heading toward. I've actually seen others that have better floor plans that have the over\under units but each have their own garage. The target market for this community is young families and early retirees. Comment: Young families? I don't see a playground area there. Design with community in mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\plannIng\publIc_notices\ntm\flnal_nim_meeting_20151026\rIlmmeeling__mhutes_bulet_polnts_102615.docX Stantec October 26,2015 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 9 of 11 Tim Hancock response: No mom. Playgrounds become a huge insurance liability. Most community associations start taking them out after about 5-6 years when the insurance rates go up. We have a great park system though. Comment: Does it have a swimming pool? Tim Hancock response:Yes, there is a small clubhouse and there is a pool area (reference exhibit). What I've seen across the board the amenity centers for communities like this,really get small because what happens is,when the people move in and the monthly association fees are so high to keep up the beautiful amenity center they got sold, they are unhappy. So,these are being kept on the smaller side and that is what we have planned for here as well. Any other questions? On behalf of Polly Avenue, LLC and Stantec, I thank you for coming out tonight and it is by my experience in 2006 and still my experience today,you folks have always been honest and upfront about what you were looking for, I will do the same for you. If we can't do something, I will tell you. Leaving here tonight,feel free to email me or call me, my cell number is on the letters you received. Feel free to copy Eric as well so that there is a record of it, in the public record. Comment:So there are going to be seven buildings? Tim Hancock response: It may be more,it may be less but they will all be in the tract you see. It depends on the product and which one the market place is going after. We are going to be engaging a market analyst to tell us that. We don't know if the townhouse product it's the way to go or weather the over\under units are the way to go. We have to figure that out. Comment: How does that work? When do think we would know? You get approval and then you can make the decision? Tim Hancock response: Yes. Comment: Right now what is approved is like the single family plan from 2006. The way to ensure that it is true is to show up at the County meeting and make sure what "this guy" is telling us is true. Right now, none of that is happening. Tim Hancock response: You will have a copy of the PUD, a copy of these minutes, but please, hold our feet to the fire. Comment: What is the developer's norm? Does he build high end stuff, all low end,everything? Tim Hancock response: This is their first project in Collier County. They do a lot of work in Dade County of high end hotels. So they do high rise development in Dade County. I think that is where some of the ideas came from on the last proposal (in February). They are so used to high rise, they didn't think it was a big deal. I've been here 25 years, I didn't think a 50 foot building was going to work here. In 2006 they actually had floor plans for single family homes for this. They were in the process of getting them done when the recession hit. As we started to come out of the recession Design with community in mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\publ c_notices\nlm\final_nlm_meating_20151026\nwm_meetIng_minutes_buNe1_points_102615.dot% Stantec October 26,2015 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 10 of 11 and they went to dust off this plan, the market changed. Comment: I don't see how single family homes would make it, unless they were "jammed" in there. Tim Hancock response:That's part of the problem. The only way single family makes sense here is if the market ticks upward strongly in this area for those in the next 12 months and then it might make sense to do some single family but, I don't see this as being a single family development. But then again in 2006,we didn't see it being multi-family. Comment: Right now it is single family development? Tim Hancock response: It is. We are going to multi-family but leaving the door open for single family but I can honestly tell you that if a portion of this were to go to single family,single family would sell for a higher price than the multi-family would. Comment: Right now it is approved for how many single families? Tim Hancock response: 27. Going to 48, a higher unit count,we are in a smaller development footprint,about 2/3 of the 2006 plan,shoved out to the west as best we can. We tried to say, If I lived in your neighborhood and I'm not going to be upset about 48 units,what would make me "not upset" about it? Keeping the height down two stories, keeping the buffers significant, access on Santa Barbara. Those are the tradeoffs, on behalf of my client,we are asking you to accept. Comment: For the record,do you know what the approved density is comported with the proposed density? Tim Hancock response:The existing approved density is 3.2 units per acre and what is being proposed is 5.5 units per acre. It goes from 27 to 48 units. There are some other costs that we will have to incur to get to that number of 48 units. It has something to do with the TDR program and it means they have to spend more money in order to go above 40 units. We will see what the market brings. The conditions are,we are asking you to look at what we are proposing is the box we have to live in and the conditions we are willing to impose upon ourselves inside that box. Hopefully that is enough for you to be comfortable. That what we are proposing is as good,if not better than the existing conditions. Comment: Proposed. Right now we are stuck with the 2006 plan. I want everyone to note that because there were only 4 people at the last County Commissioners meeting and I went. So everybody has to go to the County Commissioners meetings. Comment: Will we be informed when the meeting is? Is it going to be like at 2 o'clock when we work? Tim Hancock response: Unfortunately,The Planning Commission meets on Thursdays at 9:00 am, and the worst part is,you have no idea when you are going to come up on the agenda. Sometimes things that look like they might take 20 minutes, take 3 hours and vice versa. If you are within the 1,000 feet, you will get a notice directly from Collier County. If you're not, I'm making the commitment, that if your name is on that list,as soon as we have that day confirmed, I will mail Design with community In mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\public Helices\nim\find nlm_meeting 20151026\nim_meeting_minutes_bullet_polnts_102615.docx Stantec October 26,2015 New Hope Ministries Neighborhood Information Meeting Page 11 of 11 everyone on this list and the master list of when the Planning Commission hearing date is. If you have concerns,talk to us before hand,we will work with you. The Planning Commission is not the best place to resolve things.Somebody said it best to me earlier,this property is going to get developed. Right now this is what it is going to look at (reference 2006 plan),this is where we are trying to go (reference the proposed plan). Those are the two options on the table. Comment: I'm one of those vocal complainers. The plan looks ok to me. The only thing that I'm concerned about would be the construction type. If it's "stick" construction, and we can't really dictate how they do it, but I would like to see block construction at least for the first floor. Tim Hancock response: Let me talk to my client and see if that's something they are willing to commit to. I honestly don't know the answer to that yet. I understand the value of that. I will ask the question. 5:50 PM-Tim Hancock calls a close to the meeting. The foregoing is considered to be a true and accurate record of all items discussed. If any discrepancies or inconsistencies are noted, please contact the writer immediately. STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. Tim Hancock, AICP Senior Associate Phone:239-649-4040 Fax:239-643-5716 Tim.hancock@stantec.com Attachment: Exhibits (7) NIM sign in sheet Design with community In mind cl v:\2156\active\215612869\planning\publIc_noticeAnimMinal_nim_meeting_201,51026 nim_rneeting_minules_bullet_pchls_102615.docx „,,,,,,,,,„„,,mllwmwrirrijorrror*ntg,„:1 ., ,, 1.,,, . , '',..i:-. • ..4.,,...,,,,,21.1 lilat y { lam , a...- > ,ter W 1; >f$ 'I t i 42 'IV ' 't , , e .. �1 0 � Adkins-AVE 41, t a,{ r 1,';', h�a,r ''' cl .� tt E. k�,es: ,i r 4 �k � ( 4, , � �- '� � tan .0 ,' ;a'� 14, :� sf fA %pmt' 7,..v �r ', ',S r Y t B Iv r I • 4'n 4r � C' s9 t Roya] �j �` m� ' ,,, ; ''�, � 7 ate, er ' ,' i r 4 , 44,40,,,,,-, i ,. , , -. 1,. ., ., ,,,, 4 ', -,' ! • 't @ F ; 1 ilk '.f ' ' 4..illir- `,1 * e�s s l fi P ,E 111 k . S >fP.`ir $ DiJ lk Irr`nli 11Pcinnc,1 ti >;4.+ex. I ' { � "F` 'moi R” 4 4 L E G F N U j Parcel Boundaries a .. % ,. Ohcbim In eI.nlut wtvm4+raeecnil'vppycc duly GaNec Gvn.Wl n,Sv�Yc.e ho. a mppN.dineaclroccfmmm.hwcacanclgccepM ONYX RPU 07008 tc, 51 10o mrwt Stantec WNa+pppbplY(ww+SNnplheaecvoplvM Npe II y31a pmpt.bh.0 cI Ih.Cnla m.rsco.nl.elio+u+ CURREM AERIAL EXH18R z p p 5P�o SlaNac,llr eHceiy empla3ee+.c mxllwhana betob12o15 f 709 M9SIt6 penll.Ovm uny p,xl N3 v>nt w.Mt,.7, pY + J w ohv hvm the pni I.e pl lh qd nueunun�e„Yr.rw x3u. un. „f,.. ,,,, '.1 ,,, ck,, ' ,,, i 5 +g ia `N � 'a° wp • , I, `,',..::.',-,4'0,..:,,,::::,' 4 , .*,.::,,,, 1 4 ilis!,' ',,'ii„i '1 1r , . . . , , ,, , , . . ,, ,, ‘ r .ni..1„,... , ..,,..„_„,1:.. ,,,,,„, , iiiiiliaitt. , ... ,,,,, I ,, i,„, ,..,,,, i illit- ' , b r blstoneLN �•eob ., ...... �4 fi qe s *r § ! ,I,,, ,:,:,,,e47;1.,I it:, 1L,,ii,,,,,,,it'ii,,,,i 1 fi:i i °"''i,i :#4 � � � .� I xy» a rt�� ,' Zt ' ,mfb . f'° of „,.-4 c' i 4-.1"-''',,, c :k,,,,kat' - t 11„I (.- ' • /�( ,' ''' ' ' r }f }i .. hex [”. C xf r" :J :3?�=ti.a" 1 �i, MIS I .� aTT s>b ,..A"i'v ',-','flet.ii,c*---.'. ' .. - - 1 allt '' I 1 °,-,t, , -''" '74 '.,,.? A,, .,, ., ',. , r, i''' .,;,, ,I, , /.1, • , " ' ,‘, '' 441,14,$),,rjl.' ' ' ' 'Q -+ . , f / r ' ,1 ',IVA I� t.'� aye ,„l,{ 1' a #, gra+ Y .p! � �/ �; ; �� H. How �/ > t. I I '4''' t asp 1.� 1'v ,:,,,,,*,..4, ` 1r " k, 'tlk to11' :'''..'',,:'''. 4A '''' [ ''''''' ' ''. '4ii' ;';' ''. PI 4....'t i40.w. of. xt a • • bt 3 S {�x, or SSV d- , 6 ' 81 . inr§ ifih r i hi2 . 4i qi d i i ! ,Ti 1!1 %14 1 0 kti N11, ear $& � H. 4p . Hp 1 . 11) 1 . t a, i i ii as f il Aili 11/ �� aa�y,y ' ' "PO fl516 s Z3. Ze AIIIYVd 310NI9 Q3d013A3O F W i \ V �! _^Ili r WO 136N116 y- ` (9 li X IWagg„ r N i gig r i o gs al I i.1( 'i 5111 ft 4 I i$ oia9 m 0, WI Li g i I ,11-1 \ —I- ! 1 1 r - . p (.. ) _„ .., 1 i „ �,, � f ,. . , 0 4 Voiti \ a 4- -- - -- - ---- -- - - - -- - I (QQQ ,. I i `�V <ps ...Ai.VUVVe� YAMS 8ldflifld Val SOOOM1VAON ai Ng a k10 V 03dO13A30 8000M-wAo I Old u,,, — mum 1 �m _ o uxaw NVId 2131SVIN 1V(lld30N00 a _.. w tt 1,nNVM ww••w.w wx x -. _.. - aAOi•9 [31N93ltlnWtl IN _.... y(• • • O ...._. EnVel A11O ° 011 dA44 AllOd ..(aUxvol aura rvu wlroa n111,P. • MgIy11 x 3NOZ32f arida XANO -.— 9 AAtgM..00)=o, .41,..144.Ellam 4 sm � ' fNOlsl/�3tl .11, _lanM U< -z z F z a`V a 2 1- 1- >e o io U4 )H o Z (� F- 0 w W 0 ca t�. `� m 2 6 6 3 `!�' W 0 w LA r•1 s tttp��d? a O tri m o o ' N M 2 > 11-- J LL Fy (q�. o q Q O ° N al +I M N M uJ ((F�� Q IQ- LL i- F. ffl F. 1-6(-2 U CO Ce 9 t Sg w CO u1 6 cS V li SC) d u ff a a El,- m a 3 8 Fm S 8 44 Z a <.tt1 rn L'. w ¢ a ¢ 4a ¢� 4 al W q w w w S'um M z 9 E•. ¢N N cn Wa U rn ..• e o rn n <. U `s K O h Vl g 1- I....U �N N > a 44 44 .- Id tl QQ a ¢ F- Y :II 4) l�. wO �aO Ocozo H « x * +t f- ryW W `v M Q .? O ¢aW w � 0� ' > g x V a8 Q t U Li. OaZ ria z¢x O>! (X �6 5 C ¢ 2 `W 4 CD Z gB 0 Gz Z' (lj a In w 0 Q g. Q d > ) a F' m 2 W G Z y W �- to cw�qW W H w N a"j q LL1 W , W ,LU w'I,9 �i I- k '� =_ tw F'o O O 6- •O �s a, 8 O 9 Z S W ± W ti K U W N V (2K W Z U n Nq z > 8 0 to O a i;rn id LL. F- p, gg to w Digi � ZZ W w ut/�� W � x � OJ .�( q �tY Zu V� z ed$ (3622 g O Z ❑ (L a m 9 W O w Q a w,a W W O O W Z F c`li x6'71 zkis'5Z (n a i 2 2 5 Lu a o P. EP e, K 0.. 0 x LL o o ut w H , 2 I�oN W wco}- a m z ,2toz W .7 w . 6 Z a m w w ri a OJ ? i > CC a a m N a tEz �wz a wgw � O � ? o w z W u 3 � f a g u a > z3 Z to w n .O.- z a a ai0 5 w N W a E- ¢ O z --g z d z 4.1 5' 3 W ;�O .c 1-4i 3 a a, ' °-• a ' m i i o 4. w Q b'' ❑ w ie m " W to 8R 5' a z i Uaaq a?cn LLOaUW0c z wax 0 a a n ¢ gym 14 21V11N301S344 A1'4Hd-31ON18 '3Sl OWlVI1N30 344AIIWV}3lDNl3 3440 ONV1 QI ✓ lUHflllllOI21DV-V ONINOZ 1VilO1lf101HOV-V DNINOT 1 37\ H0V44136 3A8383444 3anionHIS 144413441444.5Z . •-�_�t.•.�-R.•. _...,...-_... A31n0013SNf18 - .402ro \\\ J W a F 1 I V310IN31N30VNVIb NOM 1 .. z1 1 s U1 ' Aff,cf, 1 j • 1VI1N3UIS32.1 33 1 s I AlIW'dd-1111101 as < 2gi w z $ r 1 __\` r.-.1 g 4 H5Z w^ r d 4'Ill 1 O a I 1 6 , 0.3 0 D L.li / 11111111 7- '3� 1 a r6 ❑g1 aw LI c i IrV3111111111111HV31LN3WV ¢g S . C Q Q 1 $NV 8l0H81110 ?• f •. ¢❑ ¢ $&t 1 a - t �i ;'sty'. ¢ . s ldI1N30IsaN 1�� 1 �. I\ AlAl1WHd91lnW . 1 Z 1 �._�..,V�_�_�...�._ HOV813S ONVA 1NOad,OE---- ___3i 1 1 g g 1. 1 �_ �_—�.._ __.. ._ .._ �—_ _ -- ---- l N30138 Ni 0-\ - W \ \ (63NV10NN06 NINON) W W 1. \ .\\. \ OAIH 44:14498446 V1NVS�\ �• IY a. iiir �i�lY.��rr�a •i ual w r ated ft. p II,. © AVM-40.1HDIH Vl1i1VB V8 44144446 :36R ONVI \\\\ $IIS V/N 'DNINOZ 1VU443019344 7114W41119W 4 3104416 3811044441 0414 9/113 1 4JiN403 4 4100 mom 34444044 :0444307 uiyt-•4t bl wy PO...(47)!#'m•-.-wo ZI-i-4141\•.+.,\oto\:auvW4017"•094✓577..u..ta t ss .•, �B �•" } x w%< °,v ..".',"?'•,.. { � , kd r � 4 �1�- �d �i � '� ,. .:Dilt sil (� t a�° ''axa a lt,>+'iSt ,�S r4.�rj°�,Sa�3��aFs�� Vd �.. ..€$�s,,i�r %��de s�s s€a.�• a€�P a*aPp °I i; G'•, � ��..I'''• , --77: ••• .. - •••:.-" -!--- - --- • -'• ' ,,,•• ,.,,• • :., .• ';:;•..• ,,••, ,,.,:';:" •• • • ••:;:,,„,.,••,',:,,.,]!:::';:::•••7•71i,-7,,,k,):;:'-';"••'-'',;-47;- .: b �' ¢ ¢ ,te!!!,t :1;4-„ ,,,•••', ...:.::,..:;.•:.•• -•;.1,,,i4.,,,:•-,,.,:;:,.:':,,::fi • .,••,,:. a € € 'a `t.a,w €. $:€ki 9 t. ,P6,i,qP na�'t sa. tam n °t,� 9 t• a°' a;ate fir.; se«3 M4a;t^_Y•e.��'es^ s e.,e axta..l.tb1..� A"S;',4 �xlek��d4Bt{ vt.9t >e€ra,"a€p � P,,,'< � • ei {' ate# 4 .. 11`-� s'�. • Y - - € c ;t :f 'k -s 7 R c a. aid °E€ a€a s€ "•:5;,,,i,;• �,, )��a .7' -�wa" 3 � �: t? e �Bg �.'°'°"i';"11:',,"". ..",,,,'," �- b�. a m 1 B�. i � � ¢ L�Y �{e � '§y„ �i a,' "" ' €i _ sadSdy;kt a 1 s.�;. qt t ',-:,:-'-'7.i.;.-:"'"°;;•°;,.} r '°i'i. ! :.-;.;,!,;;;°...°,0:.,„-•.- 1 Y.3' ..11 s,�,.; a „ °�r ,ry„a€` a .,.,- .a,i,s .:' P r 9 4 �'rn a i-� ,i :NY;c...:\•,°';'•";''''. \ !,',;,.,,`,°",',1,...„,,,-- aRS4 a- lit' �� it -iiii.,!,:,4„;-Z,'?';,, *A:A:::.&"::::-"5.14;:..• ::•', Ji 'i'”. ,waw:' �'' n ,.. $� \ri T i 4 -.,";4W1+ >.u f za' li0 ' 3, a.• ,7 Pr tt' i a€s €$ '':',!°,,,-4;:,:-:::',. :- .t. z e€d y i.' ( €F1a Y a § _i to sas '€4,11!,. a B a }s, s w's i $, t li €al {. . a t S €q a: a k €§4 in i a€ c ' ` �'` "2 9€3 t al to ��. a x a i. X 4�, ;€ ,,Fr'.. lab^ i a R4 .t, ''a� fr �, a. �� # `"iii • r �p .v „ as '," p^1r" d' 4 � 'a'e a , I •:� -, bA.r _f°°.0d. �'a i '�i' - '; �;7P • r_ IC am • A^ h A 0 dad a,e ,} � "; w a S $ L' aW �i Z }nn1 U F a w o w z w ^. w w o 1 3 m a_ a o a j // •aAza sasxns 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 9 4 3 '/\213$32id93n11.*N ) ) ) 9 a 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 a 4 4 3 C Z U W Q 9 CC 13) W ' • N 3 ii I-- Z � � I 4 •4 W3 u_ j W 4i a LFfJ-----'....\\ a j j W cc -> Q 4 I 4 I 4 ii. 4 4 3 d 4 -ii!►x+10ikvamicllfais 1vax * ErbitIr- Z� ,r , . I' I 'QAA'IS VIida2IVa UNITS % ob 31 4 iit gi, fir' ;> '' 3 m • u 4 v • A orb= Fs, "'°, ,,� ros` ^ - ,5t �' spr a �} w ,, ,L; as �,� s� I v R,r: t!'..,„1*.!..-',..' ,,,,,‘ 'Oil: at , , ' )r-kit, 1: , '' �3 1t1 z -,,,, , ,, ,..... .. 1 , i. !' d `E, . „,r,,,,„„ ,.. ,, „, , , , F , r3f �-P Y 1 .. ± .1, 4?- t. ‘ , e # ..s,,K' i: w ,r 0) j11J „ * E4 „„) ,,5 , 8 ' u 'p s ° Y. c Q i E . C f!'� ai w 01 C � t S'' '� +moi” .7 Z v0. tY -, .Q , r U Ill ate " 7, ilrf, Oa � ( ° c s4 t." LL- 2 8 g,' -1.1 ,,,,;zi, A) 11 4 , 9 r..... ._. ....5 0 .0 re 43 5 = ,c u d' —� ° Ct O > a ''°6 3 NCH oz'� °' t5E2 A , g .1 -. _,, 'I %C.. 4 .. Li a v Cr c N "' ,,.r, "� VI- 0 (00. gEwm H ~, . , .4 o L- W liv a t �,, c '"1 ri v. ,2_. ..., ` ` - ° 0"- A 0 a. in y 9 6 I � ,- '. r n a) a g i ver V LU Y 2 ° Vi 1 Si It 11.1 U ,,,,„,,4 411 t j... :it 4,,,,\-/ i,,'A ktil m N ° 43 S2 E `J '41 4 ' t �t a ,.r7 / `4 1 - 4,„„z „, . 6, at .‘, „L k- ) 4 •rii w C k* w 4. " . 2_ e, Nili 0-,--z), I -t- -c ,,,.0 •... 0 . ce to -0 y .A R a t a t c Q a cooco O s € 2 , a o oo o W • ELrp` 3 G OZ a r 0 al r40 a — o9 w " a W '° N w,. �---I � a. H Jo a a 2 aca 2 ›.. 1- ! i t lit; (CM Z � O.. � � �Q � - 1 p O m � Ea pcr) Q 3 ,Q W ,..;--- • pcciJ zott CD `-tS� L.L. � .o — a fl ,JCZ a. 6.. •E " a C m o — o ZCfl � a � a °3 '° E ,P. 0) 0 nE* ap W .QtCc �ao' N Vash� m 0 -0Q p m ..p J a G 9 t'n O > c (1 0 _I 0 g O o 3 T . �, uo E o .o 3 CD w A. a > x v « u m g u An. i 1:3 W vada tri L a v N rl Z • 40 F. N ` » `° O C3 O .' S 4-, a• D z C " Et '3 c o rN cacc • 8 z DE DAVIDSON ENGINEERING 4365 Radio Road,Suite 201 • Naples,FL 34104 • P:(239)434.6060 F:(239)434.6084 www.davidsonengineenng.com MEMORANDUM February 25,2015 TO: Mike Sawyer FROM: Tocia Hamlin,Senior Project Coordinator REVIEWED BY: Frederick Hood,AICP,Senior Planner RE: Onyx RPUD-2-17-15 NIM Meeting Notes A Neighborhood Information Meeting was held on Tuesday, February 17, 2015, at the South Regional Library. The meeting was properly advertised in the Naples Daily News and started at 5:30 p.m. A total of 20 interested parties attended, please see the attached sign in sheet. In addition, the following individuals associated with the review and presentation of the project were present: • Mike Sawyer,Collier County • Frederick Hood,Davidson Engineering, Inc. • Fernando Zabala,Zabala Erickson, LLC • R. Bruce Anderson,Cheffy Passidomo Wilson&Johnson,LLP Fred Hood started the meeting by introducing himself, Michael Sawyer,Bruce Anderson and Fernando Zabala. He stated he was representing the developer Polly Avenue, LLC the applicant for the Onyx RPUD, Residential Planned Unit Development project and he then began to explain the following in regards to the project: • Size and Location: o The subject Property is±8,72 acres and currently undeveloped. o It is located, approximately,one-half(%z) mile north of the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, on the eastern side of Santa Barbara Boulevard. o Neighboring land uses and zoning in the surrounding area consist of single-family residential with A - Agricultural zoning to the east (across Sunset Boulevard) and south (across Polly Avenue). Pagel of 16 De fNC.,I YIWh RIIJ 4.,. o To the north, a drainage/water management pond with A-Agricultural and PUD zoning (Waterford Lakes) is situated across the unimproved ROW for Adkins Avenue. o To the west, across Santa Barbara Boulevard, is the Royal Wood Golf & Country Club. Royal Wood has PUD zoning and consists of single and multi-family residential homes with golf-course and clubhouse facilities. • Purpose of the RPUD: o The property was rezoned in 2006 to allow 27 multi-family units. o The current application seeks to increase the density for the project from 3.2 units per acre to 7 units per acre;creating the potential for a total of 55 multi-family units. o The final plan of development has not been completed yet, but the maximum height proposed will be 3-stories or 50 feet in the form of multifamily condominium buildings, townhomes or single-family homes. The original rezone allowed 27 units of single family homes and multifamily development. The application seeks an increase in density and height. The original building height was 35 feet. The proposed building height of 50 feet includes 2-story units on top of garages for a condominium development and or townhouses. o A clubhouse/and amenities area will be provided to residents of the community located near the entrance to the north and west of the project.This clubhouse amenity area,and all common areas within the project will be for the sole use of owners and their guests. Emergency Access will be provided off of Polly Avenue and will not be open to the residents. • Buffering and Setbacks: o Where the project is adjacent to residential uses,we are proposing to provide our native vegetation preserve area.The previous proposed PUD Master Plan showed access off of Sunset Boulevard with a loop road coming in and lots placed on either side of the loop road. We are proposing and have requested to connect to Santa Barbara Boulevard during the pre-application meeting with Collier County and through several application reviews. o Access was not available off of Santa Barbara Boulevard in 2006 because the improvements had not been completed to the level it is currently at therefore the County requested for access to be off of Sunset Boulevard. o What this means for our neighbors on Sunset Boulevard and Polly Avenue is a natural and existing buffer being retained anywhere between 45 — 60 feet along our property boundary to the south and east. Page 2 of 16 DE PAVIDSON I1 Ci II`4 CFI(INC o In addition to our provided preserve areas adjacent to our residential neighbors,all other code required buffering will be provided along the northern property boundary as well as Santa Barbara to the west. o Shown on the renderings,you will see that no more than the roof tops are visible and this will also provide you with an idea of the proposed maximum building height. • Access(Traffic): o The original access point planned for the project in the last rezone were from Sunset Boulevard.The plan as proposed today,will provide access from Santa Barbara Boulevard. Access to the Property will be in the form of a dedicated limited to ingress and egress driveway improvement within the currently unimproved Adkins Avenue right-of-way that will provide access to Santa Barbara Boulevard. Turning movements will be limited to right in/right out to and from Santa Barbara Boulevard. o Per the traffic impact statement that we were required to prepare,approximately 40 pm peak hour trips are being proposed. That number of trips projected is consistent with a residential condominium development. o There is a proposed limited emergency access point along Polly Avenue that will be gated and only accessible by emergency vehicles and their personnel. • Wrap Up: in summary o Sufficient water management has been provided that rings the site between the preserve and proposed area of development. There is also a water management area in the center of the project which is not large enough for a lake and will likely be a dry detention area. o Specific architectural look of the buildings or the actual types are not known at this time. We are currently at a zoning level to discuss the types of development allowed. Where you see future residential development areas,these are areas where buildings could be placed,the exact locations are currently not known. o We are seeking the same uses that were proposed in the last zoning request; only a change in the access point,an increase in building height and an increase in density. o We are looking at a ring road with trash and recycling areas to pick up on the northeast section behind the buffer and onto Atkins Avenue boundary. Page 3 of 16 DE wippSpN Il c,>IIJC N INC. o We are utilizing our-required Preserve area in dual purpose.One for required vegetation preservation and secondarily as an increased buffer for our residential neighbors to the east and south. o The proposed access is now from Santa Barbara Boulevard, relieving any traffic concerns from Polly Avenue or Sunset Boulevard. I will do my best to answer and questions you may have.Thank you. Fred then asked if there were any questions. 1. What is the square footage of these apartments? Response: We do not know the exact square footage at this time, but think it will be approximately 1,200 — 1,800 s.f. The architecturals have not been drawn up but the minimum required square footage for townhouse or multifamily units is 750 s.f, We are not seeking any one bedroom units and the s.f would be large enough for at least 2 bedrooms. Again, this has only been discussed and not set in stone. 2. Will there be rental restrictions within the community? Response: We have not gotten to this point yet but condominium units have an association. The property owner of the unit would have to abide by the associations regulations for renting out the unit. 3. There is currently a water flow way down the Atkins Extension as well as a drain that is pretty sensible for flood water for the area. Looks like you are planning over that. Response: We are not at the level of construction drawings for our site development plan. That would be our next application if the rezone is approved. There is currently a drainage swale that is located in the Atkins Avenue ROW, the drainage would not be affected because the engineering design would have to allow for the area and volume to remain and flow out to the Santa Barbara Boulevard ROW, A possibility would be a piping system under our drive out to Santa Barbara. 4. Is there a turn lane off of Santa Barbara? Response: That would be a part of the construction drawings, but a turn lane would be provided northbound providing safe access into the development. The developer is required to put one in as part of the Collier County Transportation requirements. 5. What would be the base price? Do you have any idea yet? Response: We have not gotten to that level and do not know at this time. Page 4 of 16 DE NCIH9,RIN!'r. A statement was made from someone in the audience: This is kind of interesting,you would have to do a u turn in order to enter this development. If you think of 100 people (2 per unit) that's going to be wild. It's going to be crazy. 6. You're saying the height of this is 50 feet? Response: Yes sir, the maximum is 50 feet. This would be the actual top of your roofline. 7. What type of vegetation as far as trees,Palm Trees? Can you leave all of the existing? Response: Mostly slash pines and there are some palmettos. Anything that is considered exotic, we are required to remove. Replanting will be provided so the natural preserve area will take back over. 8. When construction starts will they keep everything in the front of the pond or will you have equipment coming down Polly and Sunset? Response: At this time, we do not know what type of construction there will be. We are currently considering to bring in all of the construction and equipment off of the Santa Barbara side. We will not be disturbing anything on the Polly or Sunset side. Santa Barbara is the easiest access and we do not want to disturb the preserve area. 9. Why do they want to put so many units on 8 acres? It used to be 3 units per acre, is that correct? About 10 years ago we talked about how many units—I don't see where it would hold any more than that? There is nothing around that is 3 stories in our neighborhood—it doesn't fit our neighborhood. There is nothing in between Rattlesnake and Davis that is like that. Falling Waters is 2 story, That's my case. We don't need any more people,it's hard enough to get onto that road right now. Response: in 2006, it was 3.2 units per acre with 27 unit's total, The original plan was only going 2 stories, in this plan we are asking to go an additional 3`d story which would be 3 stories and.50 feet, that is where you would get your additional units. One of the reasons we brought this plan forward today is because everything to the east and south of this project are single family 5 acre lots or lots that have been split. We are proposing to add an extensive preserve buffer so it doesn't visually impact development to the east and south. This is going to be facing Santa Barbara and a water management lake here. You are correct in saying that this project will not mesh or exactly match what is to the east or south. The developer is requesting an increase in height and the developer is looking at how many units they can get it. Page 5 of 16 A55 DAVIp80N 10. Most of us have homes back there because of the privacy,then you are going to put 3 story in there where there is foliage. What guarantee is there that you will not take stuff out? There is a lot of pepper hedge in there,a lot of stuff coming out. Response: We are taking things out but we are also replacing that vegetation being pulled out with native vegetation, that is not pepper hedge,not Melaleuca, not anything that is invasive, we actually have to do that. 11. One thing that you have not mentioned to the public - what is the minimum opacity that your preserve has to have? Response: There is a level of opacity that our buffers and preserves have to have. In this case, we are looking at using our preserve as our buffer. We are holding ourselves to a certain standard for opacity because not only do we want you to retain your privacy the people that buy in here want to retain their privacy as well. What we have looked at in this case, is when we take out all of the exotics and replace with the required native vegetation in the preserve to a level of opacity that will be beneficial to both communities. 12. If these building have balconies, is everything going to be facing inward toward Santa Barbara? Response: We have not gotten to that point yet,but the amenity areas are facing toward the center of the development, it would be likely that the balconies would be facing that way, we don't know, but that is where everything is going to be happening. This is going to be a green area with some trees and water management, so for someone to look out of their unit onto green space Is more attractive than looking out onto a road. We still don't know yet but it is a possibility. 13. We still don't understand the leap from 3.2 units to the 7? I understand the numbers—what allows you? Response: The original zoning allowed us to go to 3,2 units per acre and that was 27 units. That was without us looking at any additional infill provisions within the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). The infill provision within the GMP allows us to look at additional 3 units per acre for projects that are within the Urban Residential subdivision. The urban residential subdivision has a base density of 4 units per acre, it is not guaranteed that we get the 4 units per acre, but we are requesting it. The infill provision allows us to increase our density by 3 units per acre. One of those units has to be a transfer of owner rights, that TOR is basically a unit that is stripped from another piece of land that goes into a conservation easement that allows for additional units to be put onto this property. Two of those three units in the infill provision are up to the planning commission,review staff, Board of County Commissioners, to allow us to go up to those 3. It is ultimately their decision how we get to that point. What we are doing right now, is requesting that and showing how we are getting there, that's where we get the 7 units an acre which brings us to the 55. Page 6 of 16 DE p/�VID ON t!�NY=4aJ(�Ritd e�. 14. So this transfer of development rights,in other words,that is like a mitigation. In other words,you're going to put it on us,you're going to add it there but it's going to be lighter somewhere else. Response: Well it's not lighter, wherever the land is that we are taking the TDR off of, that land goes into a perpetual conservation easement but a level of that can't be developed on. If we were to move forward with the site development plan process of this project the TDR would need to be in place prior to going vertical. 15. Have you determined if every unit had two children in it, what impact it would have on the local schools. Response: We have to comply with the school concurrency standards. At this present moment, when in review, we haven't had any thoughts of impact from the school board and they are telling us there is capacity right now. 16. If this gets to the height of 50 feet and the next project comes up, let's say they don't need parking underneath,there will be 4 stories allowed once this gets started? Response: That is more of a question to the reviewers of what they would allow to be put there, we did not want to go above the 3 stories and the only reason we asked for the 3 stories is because we wanted to have the garages underneath. For instance, if this project got sold, before it was developed with the original developer's intention, and they wanted to do 3 stories of actual units, they would still be locked into their density. So they couldn't have 4 buildings with 3 stories of units because they can only have 55, so maybe they do 2 buildings that have 55 units. Will that happen—probably not, there will be water management and spacing issues with a building that would have 25-26 units. 17. I guess the better question would be,once you allow a 50 foot building will it be allowed all the way down to Davis? We thought this was all settled back in 2005 and here we sit today. Where will we be sitting two years from now—or Section H Housing? Response: Hypothetically it could but that's not for me to say. We are not looking for any affordable housing density in this project and it will all be at market rate. in our application we are not asking for any affordable housing,so if this goes through zoning,there will be no affordable housing because it's locked into the zoning. 18. You have to have"X"amount of parking spaces per unit,and as far as the parking design it's around the exterior of the building. Response: Yes,parking is around the exterior of the building and there will be guest parking around areas near the clubhouse. Page 7 of 16 DE DAVIDSON N 1 Nrr.v,I Ncb 19. Do you have a price point yet on these units? Response: We do not have a price point yet. Those will be determined when we figure out if they will be townhouses. 20. Will the single family units be around 1,000 s.f. How much are you expecting to put in? Response: That would be the minimum square footage. If we did single family we would probably go the original site plan because that was the most efficient site plan with 27 lots, in this case we are looking at what the maximum would be. If we were looking at the maximum we couldn't put 55 lots on this property. That wouldn't be something that someone would want to buy that wasn't a 10,000 s.f,footprint requirement. 21. With your proposal to get 55 units, how many of those would be single family? Response: None of them. The 55 units are multifamily. That's the upper threshold, 55 units of multifamily/condominium units. 22. So,here we are tonight;what is the next step? Response: The next step after the NIM, is we are currently in the 2nd review with the County. The staff will come back and let us know if there is anything else they would like to see in the application. Once we receive staff approval the project can move forward with posting signs and getting the hearing date for the CCPC. I will brief the Planning Commission just like i did at this NIM and if they agree with us at that hearing we move forward to the Board of County Commissioners hearing and if further explanation is needed that will be provided and then ultimately we would get approval for 55 units. That's the timeline. A statement was made from someone in the audience: It's more of the traffic. Those people are going to be hurting getting out of there. I have a real good question to ask. Does anyone want more than 3 acres per unit, raise their hand. Ok,that simply answers it right there. I think what everyone fears is this is the tip of the ice berg and it's going to be the domino effect. We all live in that area,even though some of us still live on dirt roads,and we are so close to the County facilities but that's beside the point, we still like our little paradise there. I know I don't want to drive out every day by a bunch of condos, I enjoy my 10 acres, horses and stuff like that on my property,that's what we all bought in there for. I think once this starts, north of the retention pond could be bought up, north of Whitaker could be bought up,just a domino effect all the way up to Davis Boulevard. Condos with 50 stories. Response:I understand. Page 8 of 16 �7AYMD$QN DE rocs rve�en+�. 23. I thought I heard someone say they are plans to continue extending Waterford north, but you're not a part of that? This is the precedence.Once this is established this is going to be the footprint. Response: No, I do not know any of that. 24. I will give you an example—before Santa Barbara was put through, and I live on a dirt road,there was probably 30 people that drove up and down my road a day, now I have over 100 people that drive up and down my road a day and it's a dirt road. That's the kind of impact we are feeling and we like living where we live. Mr. Mike said,were there for a reason. Response: I understand. The architect of the project, Fernando Zabala,asked to speak: If I can say one thing, my name is Fernando Zabala, and I'm with the architectural firm that is starting to work on this. The team that is working on this project is very much aware of everything you are saying, and we are looking at this as professionals. We are trying to address the duality of these things. There is a growth that you can't stop and there is a lifestyle that you have bought into and have. As you can see, the way we have laid out the preliminary sketches the approach to the land actually respects both. As you can see we have maximized a very thick preserve area between you and whatever is coming. Before Santa Barbara was 3 lane or there was nothing there,your noise has increased. This project would actually block the noise of the road to your site. A response was provided by an attendee: I understand your argument. Your developer can make as much money putting fewer buildings in than cramming all of these people in there. We want you to note,that we are as professional's approaching this from a serious point of view,we are giving you a buffer that we believe will suffice and showing you these drawings are not misleading. What you see there is exactly what we can do. We are actually perfecting this equation you have by your development giving you an exclusive access to Santa Barbara without causing any conflicts to your local property. Everything is out of view and completely encapsulated. You only see a forest of trees. I just wanted to point out those two things because we have been working very hard to provide the best to you and whatever is coming. Parkers Hammock,about 15 years ago,made a lot of promises. It wasn't two or three months after they built that mess in there that someone got murdered in there.This is what we don't want. We are a quiet neighborhood and we all mind our own business. Once you dump all these people there,they are going to be walking down my road, complaining about all of my animals, complaining about my dogs,this and that, I'm not looking forward to this at all. About 10 years ago we agreed on 3.5 units per acre,we as a group,that's what we agreed on and we thought it was done. I don't think anyone here feels differently, if they do,speak up. I think money can be made with fewer units and be a nice thing. I would be much happier if it was nice. Page 9 of 16 DE DAVIDSON I have 40 in laws and outlaws that come during Thanksgiving and there are about 20 cars parked on my 5 acres and that's a lot of cars. I don't want to see all that if it's something we can avoid. I understand that it is all contained but you got to remember, 55 acres, that's a lot of people. We were all "A" zoned in there at one time,in the Waterford PUD,that's been passed around from person to person over the years. We know that something is going to go in there,we would just like for it to not be a big impact. Response: We are not proposing any outside parking that would cordage to a parking lot. We are trying to mitigate that impact to you. If you were to look at the original plan as Fernando mentioned earlier, we were dumping traffic onto Sunset Boulevard and that traffic was going up and down Sunset and out onto Polly. We didn't have Santa Barbara to the left of us,so now,you have Santa Barbara that frankly is bring development to your area. Where Waterford is not developed,it could be developed within the next couple of years. Now that there is access and there are trips available on Santa Barbara they can actually do it now. What we have tried to do is shield everybody to our east and south of our development. We understand that you have a lifestyle and you have acres out there and you have a certain density that you enjoy and it's the developer's intent, not just for money,but they have a certain product that they want to put out. 25. We have over 80 active PUD's in the County. That's a lot of activity. The government has over 80% control over this County and there is nothing left. I understand that something's going to go there but I believe this group of people should have a say so about what is going on. I don't mind as long as it's something nice. We have some nice new houses that are in our neighborhood that are very nice and I'm just happy to see them. We got people talking about doing more nice homes in our neighborhood and I'm just tickled pink but they are confirming to our neighborhood. I would like to see something out there with a lower density and we have a good neighbor. There are plenty of places that have bad neighbors and I don't want that to happen in our neighborhood. In our neighborhood we have a lot of diversity and we all look out for one another, That's where my concern is and that's where everybody's concerns is. Response: Ok, we understand. 26, On the Santa Barbara side,what if these 100 people get into these 55 units and start complaining about the noise coming from Santa Barbara. Then here goes that big privacy wall. Response: They bought into it. We are not looking into doing a privacy wall but we are not taking it off the table. It would be the developer's prerogative if they wanted to build one but it is not something that is specifically required. The ones on Royal Wood, they built that there because they wanted it there and prior to Santa Barbara being there it was all"AG"land and they had to provide some type of buffer from their multifamily development. 27. Back in 2006 when it was just 28 units, I recall that the County said they couldn't even get there CO until Santa Barbara was done. Now that Santa Barbara is done and there is more access they want 55 units and to increase the density, Response: Yes, that is correct and they didn't do anything. Page 10 of 16 DE 6A,,VID$ON fN �+NEkkINt= 28. I hear a lot of don't knows and were not taking that off the table with this project. Response: We are in the zoning phase, we are not/n the construction plan phase. Ail I can say to you at this point is that these are the things we are asking for, if you would like to see us take a look at something we are going to take that under advisement, but at this point for us to have an exact plan of what the buildings are going to look like or have wall locations put in where they are not required. We are going in with this application showing what is required per the WC and what things are supposed to look like on this plan with the addition of using our preserve as a buffer area. Everything on this plan,for a lack of better words, It is a bubble plan. it shows you what can go on the project, it doesn't show you exactly what is going to go there because we are not cit that level yet. 29. Today you have presented your proposal,your idea, and I think unfortunately we have gone down this road a couple of times where the developer comes in and says we are going to do A, B&C and then things kinda of get changed and I just wanted to know when in this process will things be locked in? I guess when you guys go to the planning commission,then you will have to have a formal plan and is that when it's written in stone? Response: The PUD document is what we use and it gives you all of the development standards that if you are going to build here then you have to follow these development standards. This is at the County and is public record if you would like a copy. This is what is in review right now. When I tell you the PUD setbacks for the property—you got a 30 foot setback from Polly Avenue and Sunset. That's in the middle of the buffer, so no building would be able to be any closer to those property lines. You have a minimum setback from Santa Barbara at another 30 feet,so you can't go within 30 feet of that property line. 30. I thought you mentioned earlier that the buffer was going to be 65 feet? Response: This buffer right here is between 45&50 feet. It is the width of the preserve area. What I'm saying to you is that the maximum setback the minimum setback that you could have if this wasn't here,if this was gone,you would have to have 30 feet from here and 30 feet from here. We are doing better than that, we are giving you 45 here and 65 here. 31. Is that what you will have to hold to? You could change your mind tomorrow and let's do 30 feet. Response: This is the thing, you have to hold a vote because this document holds the plan that has to be 75% the way it's going to be when we go for our site development plan. To get the preserve location, we have to go through a whole other application. The water management area can change but the location we have things, this is our path and what we can develop on. 32. That building that you see out the window here,that's like 3 stories,so it would look like that? Response: Yes,except for the 1st floor would be the parking garages. Page 11 of 16 DAVIDSONDE t 33. You would also have people move into here that are not use to animal noises. We have chickens and donkies and these people will complain. Then they will come knocking on our door complaining about that noise. Response: I completely understand and my recommendation to the people that would come to buy here can check out the area and see if it is somewhere they would like to live. I can't guarantee you that the people that want to move here will not have an issue with your chickens or your dog or your lifestyle, 1 can't guarantee that. I can't guarantee that to someone that might buy the house next door to you. 34. With that being an agricultural area out there they have to understand that. Response:That's correct. When they buy their property and they do the due diligence on that property they have to understand where they are buying. It's not your job to tell them that you have chickens or dogs. A statement was made from someone in the audience: I work at the Sheriff's office and live on Polly Avenue. I get that business is business and I get that aspect of it but they are moving into an Agriculture area where we all moved into to have some land. Let me tell you something when the complaints start, Commissioner Fiala, who I respect severely as she knows, her phone is going to be ringing off the hook and my phone is going to be ringing off the hook because I'm the chief of operations so I receive everybody that runs a random light. So I'm going to be dealing with that problem, so it sounds good but as those complaints keep coming in and they are going to come in,I assure you,cause I hear the goats,I was raised on a farm, I don't have any but I hear them and I'm used to it. Most of those people moving into a community like that are not going to be,they are going to be miserable,just like the Airport.These people come from up north and buy there and the City has to deal with it, I deal with it and the commissioners deal with it. Complaints almost daily about that,so I'm telling you it's going to occur and it's going to be a change for everybody. 35. I know you are going through the County to approve the increased density, if they turn it down to you can you go with the original. Response: If this gets turned down the original zoning is still on the table. We would hope that it doesn't get turned down or some variation of what we are proposing here would be approved. We don't know what is going to happen yet but if it did get turned down It would defer back to the original zoning from 2006. 36. I think your statement of the buffer provision is way over stated. For one thing, you are definitely going to see the building way over the trees. Response: Yes, the roof line is going to be seen. Page 12 of 16 DE PPN AVID ea pa c� 37. This building footprint is what is usually to follow,in addition to that if you look at these projects that have occurred through the County where the preserve presumably occurred,you end up with sparse pine trees and coco plum that you can very easily see through. Response: We are trying to avoid that. This is not exactly what is there. l can't go through and draw every tree exactly the way it is now. I can show you the pictures and tell you what is there right now and tell you how wide that is going to be and what is already here. Right now, as you can see, on Sunset and on Polly It's a very thick preserve area buffer. There Is a bunch of Brazilian pepper in there. What we propose, again, is everything we pull out of there we are trying to keep it as opaque as possible. Every Melaleuca, every Brazilian Pepper bush, and every other exotic that is not supposed to be there we are going to try and re plant those areas with native vegetation that will grow to be as thick as hopefully, what's there. If a hurricane came through, we would have to plant a buffer, a preserve,from what was there 10 years ago by looking at a previous aerial. I can't sit here and tell you for certainty what we are going to plant will grow up to be in the next 6 months to 5 years. All we know is, we are working with a landscape designer and environmentalist on staff to tell us what to plan here to make this buffer more opaque so that you don't see as much of this development as possible. 38. Who is the developer? Response: it's a company that is the owner and developer of the property,Polly Avenue,LLC. It is the same developer that owned the property from before. 39. Have they developed anything in Naples? Response: i don't know. 40. Are they from Naples? Response: They are not from Naples. 41. Out of State? Response:No. They are from Miami. 42. I thought that was a wall;there is no wall,that's the building. There is no wall? Response: That's just the roof line. 43. Can we take a vote and go back to the original? The original plan with the exit onto Santa Barbara. Can we take a vote on that? Where is the developer?Get him in here. Response: Acknowledged. Page 13 of 16 DE AkAQ R Mtn. 44. What is the time line to go before the planning commission? Response: We are in the second review right now,so once that review is complete, we will get the signage underway and put on the property to say we are going before the planning commission. We don't have dates right now, but if all goes well with this next review,potentially May—maybe, I can't tell you for sure. 45. Will we be sent letters? How many people were sent letters because some of the people in here I don't even think were sent letters. Response: Yes,you will. There is a 500'radius that we have to take from the property line. 46. Can you make it a lot larger than that,please? Response: That is a land development code requirement that we had to adhere to and Mike,you can back me up on that. You can go to the commissioners and request an amendment to the LDC to change that requirement. 47. Are these people going to have City Water/Sewage? Response: This project will have access to public utilities from the Santa Barbara side. We would tap into that access and not disturb the Polly/Sunset area. 48. Is the entrance off of Santa Barbara?And there is no back entrance? Response: Yes,that's correct. No,there is no back entrance,but there is an entrance here that is only for emergency vehicles. This will be gated, nobody in here can come up this way. 49. Are they estimating any price range of these units? Response: We are not to that level yet. We do not have a price point yet. 50. These are for sale and not apartments? Three bedroom 2 bath? Response: These are for sale and not an apartment complex. We have discussed 2 bedrooms as our minimum but again it's not set in stone. 51. What is your minimum square foot? Response: The minimum square footage for our zoning is 750 square feet. We are not anticipating that level that is what RMF-6 zoning states right now. We are looking to increase the density, height, and access locations, everything else is mirrored from what is allowed in the RMF-6 zoning. Page 14 of 16 DE P,MIDSQN,. 52. You could do a minimum of 750 square feet if you wanted to? Response: Yes, you could. 53. You guys are dealing with the developer and you have to know if he is talking about a cheap apartment or a high end thing? Response: It's not affordable housing. 54. But 750 square feet is not high end either. That would be something that would help us a lot to know if there are crappy apartments coming in or something else. Response: That is the absolute minimum that we wrote in,now we could take a look at increasing that for the development type but we are Just not at that level yet. That's our bare minimum and that is something we can discuss with you all about adding into the PUD document and we will go back and discuss this with the developer. 55. Can you say if there is a price per unit,for the 55 that you are proposing?They use to say that a unit is worth this much. Is that number available? Response: I don't have it, with the way things have developed in the recent years, I'm sure it is higher than what it used to be but i don't know exactly what that number would be. 56. Is this a 55 or older living community? Response: This not an assisted living facility and not deed restricted to age either. It is a full market rate development that we are looking at right now. 57. So you don't have anything of where the buildings are going to be?Do you know where the dumpsters are going to be? Response: Originally,we tried to do a layout but we don't know exactly where we want to put buildings yet because we are looking at zoning right now, but looking at 55 units we are looking at about four buildings, We are planning to have the dumpster located on the north side of the development,right now we are required to have a 12x24 foot enclosure with two dumpsters in it. It does not preclude us from putting in a trash compacter or something similar or additional dumpster areas, but right now we have put the minimum on the plan. We are just not to that level of construction drawings yet. 58. Why can't we have the dumpsters on the Santa Barbara side? Response: We can look into putting them there. We are at a conceptual level and the dumpster location can be moved around. Page 15 of 16 DE �AVID ON �c.inie�kiri<:� 59. Will there be a gatehouse? Response: There probably will be. It's not shown on the plan because we are still in the conceptual phase. It is in the PUD document as an accessory use. The PUD document is a guideline book to show you what could be developed. 60. Are you getting out of this meeting,that a lot of us are not happy about this? Response: Yes. Definitely, we will be talking to our client. Fred asked if there were any further questions and thanked everyone for coming. Meeting adjourned at approximately 6:30 p.m. End of Memo Page 16 of 16 wzo, cy, A 1- c— (, t i _ . N ,1'.. .,..j 6. 1\e, Li, N•,.., ..,,,t ,, • - ---"'-,4-- "K\I ... ,. 1 - i,....., ki\ 1th k•-‘ ''''','".'K., - ,,,, -,, „,,k' ....... 4-._ Cr ' ,..) < It) 11:! N. CV i‘'..k..)...., ...' . • 1i ' ,1 / r t'N , ...;- — Cl 0 J AdiE. , ce ,) >1% --.. ...: ......',.. c ? .,_".,\_.,.\__ -'• .7 1/ L., V ' 0 2 / \ `• ''''' 1-- N 0) Nt 1.0 0 I,- 00 0) 0 1— N 0') •cf. 0 0 I,- CO W Z Cf % rf) 9 -6 0 0 rY uxt ,.„, cy) ,......s. e,, ,:,) 1).v, , c\ ' u , --, ,2.z '\ L",.., P '`'' (Ji cP N ----- '`- .?- ( ND -() 47 \s) IN, , -.. • , t ! ',..------,- • t{,...) r\i' Oa, a) c.,`' ' cr• ' 0.-- U--, ' ,N, 6 (----- CD f .....-, ....„ ,..,..., ,...„ ,-k v c -'<, (--- 0 :4! "4 Z) ri (-Vs() ,.-9, '....') •••.,;) 13 `.•,,4 in .74-. C'.'q, 29 , V3 < ,-.... In st ...... g) ci N.. „,., . I , , , kJ Cs1 i•\ 1,,,,, CI „c- o.). 0 12. •,. - J (--N Ci. 1:. •,.., ---0 1---4 1/4” ( , (-) ,?- IX --,,.. ' 0 4, 2 L,, , ----,:' , , p, C t r,„;,_ . ,) r 4 ..,, . -, 0 7 0 . , ,, . ;_: ' N •,.5 f 1-\f\ 11 ,,r. 2 '-, '^- "' ki .4 4 Ii. ATTACHMENT #5 Letters/Emails from Public JohnsonEric From: GEORGE DANZ <ghdanz@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 5:05 PM To: Lenore Meurer; Leo Gallardy; kkenney@royalwoodcc.com; geocyck@aol.com; Helen Phlbin; peter@derogatis.net; Shelly Kelly; donnamjones7@yahoo.com; edcheco@aol.com; Larry True; Richard Rogan; matkatamiba100; fawnatnaples@hotmail.com; moe07@aol.com; dgolya@aol.com; naplespatward@gmail.com; Russell@jamiegreusel.net; JohnsonEric Subject: Reply from George - Re: Fwd: Project at Polly ave. & Santa Barbara Lenore: Polly Ave. LLC at Santa Barbara. The developer gave a presentation at the East Naples Civic Association's Board of Directors meeting on May 4th. They indicated the project was going to be 35' 2 stories with attached garages. 48 units on 8.7 acres. Egress to the development would be off Santa Barbara. It is located to the immediate North of Polly Ave. To the rear would be 170' set back from the road. I believe the setback from Polly Ave. was 70'. They indicated they have had some discussions with residents immediately surrounding the property. The Civic Association did not take any action pending further feedback from residents. Hope this helps a little. George Danz, President Riviera Golf Estates (239) 774-2618 From: Lenore Meurer<lenorem122@gmail.com> To: Leo Gallardy<Igallardy@comcast.net>;kkenney@royalwoodcc.com;geocyck@aol.com; ghdanz@yahoo.com; Helen Phlbin<hphilbin@gmail.com>;peter@derogatis.net; Shelly Kelly<shel42@gmail.com>; donnamjones7@yahoo.com; edcheco@aol.com; Larry True<larryctrue@gmail.com>; Richard Rogan <rmrogan40@gmail.com>; matkatamiba100 <Manganredx@aol.com>;fawnatnaples@hotmail.com; moe07@aol.com;dgolya@aol.com;naplespatward@gmail.com; Russell@jamiegreusel.net; EricJohnson@colliergov.net Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 10:24 AM Subject: Fwd: Project at Polly ave. & Santa Barbara Here is Eric's response to The Project, known as Onyx and he shared the agent's information so we can contact him. I'll try to get more published data on it and having the name will make it easier. Eric, can you share the narrative with us? Should be available online now or at least the link? Thanks! Forwarded message From: JohnsonEric <EricJohnson( colliergov.net> Date: Fri, May 6, 2016 at 9:46 AM Subject: RE: Project at Polly ave. & Santa Barbara To: Lenore Meurer <lenorem122@gmail.com> Cc: "Hancock, Tim" <Tim.Hancock@stantec.com> The project is known as Onyx, and it proposes up to 48 single-family and/or multi-family dwelling units. I believe each unit would sell for market rate, but you ought to contact the agent for more information regarding anticipated sales prices. The agent is Tim Hancock and he can be reached at 239-649-4040. Thanks! Eric Johnson Principal Planner From: Lenore Meurer[mailto:lenorem122@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, May 05, 2016 5:10 PM To: doolya@aol.com; Helen Phlbin <hphilbin@gmail.com>;gmail.com>; naplespatwardPgmail.com;ghdanzPvahoo.com; geocyck@aol.com; matkatamiba100 <Manganredx@aol.com>; donnamiones7Cavahoo.com; edcheco@aol.com; kkinneyCc royalwoodgcc.com; peter(Wderogatis.net; JohnsonEric <EricJohnsonOcolliergov.net>; Larry True <larryctrue@gmail.com>; Richard Rogan <rmrogan400gmail.com>; Russell@jamiegreusel.net; Shelly Kelly <she142( gmail.com>; fawnatnaples@hotmail.com Subject: Fwd: Project at Polly ave. & Santa Barbara Leo, I Have no idea about this project and have cc'd Eric at Collier to maybe shed some light on it. From what I undertand, Polly Avenue no longer exists so not sure where this project is even located. This project wasn't on the April 26th Board of County Commissioners Agenda so I cant even refer to that to get some info on it. I will look further back on past month's agendas if it shows up there. I hope you and others who got the notice will attend? Forwarded message From: <lgallardy@comcast.net> Date: Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:22 PM Subject: Project at Polly ave. & Santa Barbara To: Lenore Meurer <lenorem122@gmail.com> There is another info meeting scheduled for 5/12/16 at 5:30 p.m. At New Hope Ministries at 7675 Davis Blvd for a development at the above address.Stantec Consulting wants to rezone from RMF6 to 5.5 units to an acre at 2 stories on 8.72 acres. I have no idea if this is low income or not ,however it would be best to learn what is planned. Leo Gallardy Lenore Meurer Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.Ifydo not wantyour a-mail address released In response you to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. Lenore Meurer 2 JohnsonEric From: Lenore Meurer<lenorem122@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 5:10 PM To: dgolya@aol.com; Helen Phlbin; naplespatward@gmail.com; ghdanz@yahoo.com; geocyck@aol.com; matkatamiba100; donnamjones7@yahoo.com; edcheco@aol.com; kkinney@royalwoodgcc.com; peter@derogatis.net; JohnsonEric; Larry True; Richard Rogan; Russell@jamiegreusel.net; Shelly Kelly; fawnatnaples@hotmail.com Subject: Fwd: Project at Polly ave. & Santa Barbara Leo, I Have no idea about this project and have cc'd Eric at Collier to maybe shed some light on it. From what I undertand, Polly Avenue no longer exists so not sure where this project is even located. This project wasn't on the April 26th Board of County Commissioners Agenda so I cant even refer to that to get some info on it. I will look further back on past month's agendas if it shows up there. I hope you and others who got the notice will attend? Forwarded message From: <1gallardy@ comcast.net> Date: Thu,May 5, 2016 at 4:22 PM Subject: Project at Polly ave. & Santa Barbara To: Lenore Meurer<lenoreml22@gmail.com> There is another info meeting scheduled for 5/12/16 at 5:30 p.m. At New Hope Ministries at 7675 Davis Blvd for a development at the above address.Stantec Consulting wants to rezone from RMF6 to 5.5 units to an acre at 2 stories on 8,72 acres. I have no idea if this is low income or not ,however it would be best to learn what is planned. Leo Gallardy Lenore Meurer JohnsonEric From: Lenore Meurer <lenorem122@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 10:25 AM To: Leo Gallardy; kkenney@royalwoodcc.com; geocyck@aol.com; ghdanz@yahoo.com; Helen Phlbin; peter@derogatis.net; Shelly Kelly; donnamjones7@yahoo.com; edcheco@aol.com; Larry True; Richard Rogan; matkatamiba100; fawnatnaples@hotmail.com; moe07@aol.com; dgolya@aol.com; naplespatward@gmail.com; Russell@jamiegreusel.net; JohnsonEric Subject: Fwd: Project at Polly ave. & Santa Barbara Here is Eric's response to The Project, known as Onyx and he shared the agent's information so we can contact him. I'll try to get more published data on it and having the name will make it easier. Eric, can you share the narrative with us? Should be available online now or at least the link? Thanks! Forwarded message From: JohnsonEric<Eric.lohnson@colliergov.net> Date: Fri,May 6, 2016 at 9:46 AM Subject: RE: Project at Polly ave. &Santa Barbara To: Lenore Meurer<lenorem 122 @ gmail.com> Cc: "Hancock,Tim" <Tim.Hancock®stantec.com> The project is known as Onyx, and it proposes up to 48 single-family and/or multi-family dwelling units. I believe each unit would sell for market rate,but you ought to contact the agent for more information regarding anticipated sales prices. The agent is Tim Hancock and he can be reached at 239-6494040. Thanks! Eric Johnson Principal Planner From:Lenore Meurer[mailto:ienorem122@gmail.coml Sent:Thursday, May 05,2016 5:10 PM To:dgolya,E.aol.com; Helen Phlbin<hphilbin@gmail.com>;naplespatward@gmail.com;ghdanz@yahoo.com; geocvck( aol.com; matkatamiba100<Manaanredx@aol.com>; donnamiones7@yahoo.com;edcheco@aol.com; kkinney@royalwoodgcc.com;peter@derogatis.net;JohnsonEric<Ericlohnson@colliergov.net>;Larry True <larrvctrue@gmail.com>; Richard Rogan<rmrogan40@gmail.com>; Russell@iamiegreusel.net; Shelly Kelly <shel42@gmail.com>;fawnatnaples@hntmail,corn Subject: Fwd: Project at Polly ave.&Santa Barbara 1 Leo,I Have no idea about this project and have cc'd Eric at Collier to maybe shed some light on it. From what I undertand, Polly Avenue no longer exists so not sure where this project is even located. This project wasn't on the April 26th Board of County Commissioners Agenda so I cant even refer to that to get some info on it. I will look further back on past month's agendas if it shows up there. I hope you and others who got the notice will attend? Forwarded message From: <lgallardy@comcast.net> Date: Thu, May 5, 2016 at 4:22 PM Subject: Project at Polly ave. & Santa Barbara To: Lenore Meurer<lenorem122@gmail.com> There is another info meeting scheduled for 5/12/16 at 5:30 p.m. At New Hope Ministries at 7675 Davis Blvd for a development at the above address.Stantec Consulting wants to rezone from RMF6 to 5.5 units to an acre at 2 stories on 8.72 acres. I have no idea if this is low income or not ,however it would be best to learn what is planned. Leo Gallardy Lenore Meurer Under lorida to this entity. addresses arepublic records.Ifyoupdo not wantyour 0-mall address released in response � » ... se p to a public records request,do not send entity.Instead,contact this office bytelephone or In writing. Lenore Meurer 2 . . . • . ., • . . e' . . • . . . : . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . , . . . , ..' . . . . , . ,,. . , . . . . • . . . ... . . . i . , • . .. . 0 ... . ,' •',' . ' . , *jet & Asoceettelx • . Real Estate Consulting Services . 1Vliehele F.Kelly ' gelliononsultent,Broker ,. 1 . , 239.398.6689 • ,A.',.(,',' 7' www.prirchasenaples.com * , micheie@purchasenqpIes.corrt . . • • . 3685 Whitaker Rd.,#221,,Naples, ] 34112 Oa LIWI . . .. •• . • • 1 . , . , . , r , . • . . ,• . . , . . / 1.-/ffE-- '77/45 . , Parqd.47 . . . : C..."..... N.. , . , , . . . • 1 'i. JohnsonEric From: clerk reid <clark.reid@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 5:33 AM To: JohnsonEric Subject: Onyx rpud Eric— I own property in Sunset Estates near this proposed development. Is there a site plan? Where is the access to the property, Santa Barbara Blvd, Polly Ave,Sunset Blvd? Clark Reid r • • • • • • 1 JohnsonEric From: Clark Reid <clark.reid@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 11:15 AM To: JohnsonEric Subject: Re: Onyx rpud Thank you for your prompt reply. I like the new entry road using the undeveloped portion of Adkins, and strongly suggest that no future proposal to connect with the existing Adkins Rd be considered. Or any entry off of Polly or Sunset be considered. The way the plan is helps preserve the rural environment of the area. Clark Reid On Friday, May 20, 2016,JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net>wrote: Please see pp. 8-9 of the attached. Access to the site would be from Adkins Avenue, which is currently unimproved. Respectfully, Eric L.Johnson, AICP, CFM Principal Planner Growth Management Department-Planning &Regulation Zoning Division-Zoning Services Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 phone: 239-252-2931 fax: 239-252-6503 LEED assGREEN E CO Cr CC my 1 From: clark reid [mailto:clark.reid@gmaii.com] Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 5:33 AM To: JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov.net> Subject: Onyx rpud Eric— I own property in Sunset Estates near this proposed development. Is there a site plan? Where is the access to the property, Santa Barbara Blvd, Polly Ave, Sunset Blvd? Clark Reid Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your a-mall address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing, is 2