Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CCPC Agenda 06/01/2017
AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., JUNE 1,2017, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—May 4,2017 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA A. PL20150001776: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 2011-08, the Addie's Corner Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, to allow 349 multi-family dwelling units or Group Housing/Retirement uses in Tract C as shown on the Master Plan and 75,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial development and Group Housing/Retirement Community uses in Tract A as shown on the Master Plan; providing for amendment to the Master Plan; by providing for revised development standards; and by providing an effective date. The subject property consists of 23.33+/- acres and is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. [Eric Johnson,AICP,Principal Planner] 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: Note: This item has been continued from the May 4, 2017 CCPC meeting, and has been withdrawn and will be re-advertised at a future date: A. CU-PL20130000320: A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida providing for the establishment of a conditional use to allow a facility for the collection, transfer, processing, and reduction of solid waste and an accessory use of incidental retail sale of processed horticultural material within a Rural Agricultural Zoning District with a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay-Receiving Lands (A/RFMUO-Receiving Lands) pursuant to Subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.(3)(c)iv. of the Collier County Land Development Code for property located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of U.S. 41 East and Riggs Road, in Section 20, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Eric Johnson,AICP,Principal Planner] Note: This item has been continued from the May 18, 2017 CCPC meeting and further continued to the July 6,2017 CCPC meeting: B. PL20160002736: A Resolution amending Development Order 85-5, as amended, the Pine Air Lakes Development of Regional Impact, providing for Section One: Extension Of Buildout Date And Expiration Date; Section Two: Findings Of Fact; Section Three: Conclusions Of Law; Section Four: Effect Of Previously Issued Development Order, Transmittal To The Department Of Economic Opportunity; and providing an effective date. The property is located at the intersection of Airport- Pulling Road and Naples Boulevard in Section 11, Township 49 South,Range 25 East in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, Principal Planner] C. PUDZ-PL20160001398: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from an Estates(E) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the County Barn Road RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 268 multi-family residential dwelling units or 156 single family residential dwelling units or any combination of dwelling unit types permitted in the PUD, not to exceed a trip cap of 157 p.m. peak hour two-way trips. The subject property is located on the east side of County Barn Road, approximately one quarter mile south of Davis Boulevard in Section 8,Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 38.59± acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Eric Johnson,AICP, Principal Planner] D. CU-PL20150001611: Epic Retail Seminole, LLC requests a Conditional Use to allow an auto supply store over 5,000 square feet of gross floor area in the principal structure (SIC Code 5531) within a Commercial Intermediate (C-3) zoning district pursuant to Section 2.03.03.C.1.c.20 of the Collier County Land Development Code. The subject property containing 1.24 acres on Lots 12-18, South Tamiami Heights subdivision is located on the southwest corner of US 41 and Seminole Avenue, in Section 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach,AICP,Principal Planner] E. PL20160002564: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD) for a project known as the Triad RPUD to allow development of 44 single-family dwelling units. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Palm Springs Boulevard and Radio Lane in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 10.75± acres; providing for repeal of Ordinance No. 05-11, as amended by Ordinance No. 05-23, the former Triad Planned Unit Development, and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach,AICP,PLA, Principal Planner] F. PUDA-PL20160002565: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 05-11, as amended, which established the MAC Residential Planned Unit Development,to reduce the residential density from 86 units to 44 units; to revise the Master Plan to reconfigure the development area; to revise development standards; to add deviations; and to modify and delete development commitments. The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Palm Springs Boulevard and Radio Lane in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 10.6± acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, Principal Planner] Note: This item has been continued from the May 4,2017 CCPC meeting: G. PDI-PL20160000404: A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission for an insubstantial change to the Wolf Creek RPUD, Ordinance No. 2007-46, as amended,to add a preserve exhibit that revises the preserve configuration for Parcels 3B and 9 only, for property located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, approximately one-half mile west of Collier Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 189±acres. [Coordinator: Mike Bosi,AICP, Zoning Director] H. PL20160003463: A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission approving an insubstantial change to Pelican Lake, a Planned Unit Development, to clarify the measurement of actual height of the accessory enclosed utility/storage structure is from the lower of finished floor elevation of the enclosed utility/storage structure or twelve inches above the FEMA flood elevation. The subject property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (SR-951) approximately 1/5 mile south of Tamiami Trail East (US 41), in Section 15, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator:Nancy Gundlach,AICP,PLA,Principal Planner] I. BDE-PL20160000481: A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission for a 12.5-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code, for a total protrusion of 32.5 feet, to accommodate a new boat dock facility with one boat slip for the benefit of Lot 21, Block E, Little Hickory Shores Unit No. 2 subdivision, also described as 254 6th Street West. The subject property is located on the south side of 6th Street West, approximately one-quarter mile west of West Avenue, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator,Rachel Beasley,Planner] J. BDE-PL20160001764: A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission for a 13.4-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 feet allowed by Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code, for a total protrusion of 33.4 feet, to accommodate a new boat dock facility with one boat slip for the benefit of Lot 20, Block E, Little Hickory Shores Unit No. 2 subdivision, also described as 258 6th Street West. The subject property is located on the south side of 6th Street West, approximately one-quarter mile west of West Avenue, in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Rachel Beasley,Planner] 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJORN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp May 4, 2017 Page 1 of 30 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, May 4, 2017 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Patrick Dearborn Diane Ebert Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak ABSENT: Stan Chrzanowski Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Eric Johnson, Planner Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative May 4, 2017 Page 2 of 30 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, May 4th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. If the secretary will please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Good morning. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chrzanowski is absent. Mr. Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Ebert is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak is here. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt is absent. And, Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Just for the record, Mr. Schmitt and Chrzanowski noted that they had family matters they had to attend to today, so they couldn't be here. So that's an excused absence. That takes us into the addenda to the agenda. We had three items on the agenda. We've had a request for two continuances, which I'll read, and then ask for a motion. The first request is for 9B. It's the Wolf Creek PUD to be continued to May 18th. That's PDI-PL20160000404. Is there a motion to continue that? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Patrick. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Ned. Discussion? Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we had asked that that be continued to June 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It came through. It's on our agenda for May. We can change that to June. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, can we go straight to June at this date, or do we have to re -- continue it to the next meeting and then the next meeting, do it twice, or can we just do it once? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. You can continue it to June. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because then I know the next one's being requested that, so we'll just double check. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So will the motion maker hold his motion for a moment? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next -- that particular item, Item 9B, was being requested now to be continued to June 1st. Now, is there a motion for (sic) continue to June 1st? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Again, the same motion maker and second. Discussion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. May 4, 2017 Page 3 of 30 COMMISSIONER FRYER: How many items will that then put on June 1? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, a lot. We're going to talk about that in a minute. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: What is the second one that they want to put off till June? You said Wolf Creek. What's the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the first one -- we're going to take them in order. The first one is Wolf Creek, and we're asking for -- we made a motion to continue that to June 1st. Is that -- now I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. The next one, to answer your question, is Item 9C, and it is being requested to move to June 1st. It's CU-PL20130000320, and it's for the Waste Recovery -- solid waste and accessory recovery horticulture material processing center on Riggs Road and U.S. 41. So the request is to June 1st as well. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to continue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Diane, seconded by Karen. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Now, Planning Commission absences, and this is where we're going to discuss some upcoming dates and talk about the June 1st meeting. First of all, our next meeting is, what, 14 days from today, the 18th of May. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it on the 18th? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we'll assume we have a quorum for the 18th. But then the June 1st meeting is the one after that, and because of the Board's upcoming vacation over the summer months, a lot of cases are trying to get on the last meeting the Planning Commission will have before those can get to the Board before they leave. And so June 1st has been backed up as a result, and there were at six or seven, maybe eight at the time, and now we've just moved a couple more. I looked at a lot of those. Some of them may resolve quickly; some may not. We can certainly plan on being here the full day on June 1st, which probably we normally would break around 4:30 or 5:00. Staff has asked -- we did talk, Mike Bosi and I, about a backup date in case June 1st has to roll over to another date. This room is open on June 5th or June 7th. So I needed to get a weigh-in from the Planning Commission members who are here on the June 5th date. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? May 4, 2017 Page 4 of 30 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I just sent you an email. I will not be here on June 1st. Of those two days, June 7th would work better for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm available both days. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom? MR. EASTMAN: I'm available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's fine with me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't -- either day I can -- we'll work with. So let's just -- since we know we have a quorum on the 7th because everybody's acknowledged they can be here, we'll go with the 7th, Ray. So if you could book this room for the 7th, we'll start at our normal time; if we have to. Now, on June 1st we may find that some of the cases move faster, and we can get through them all that one day; if we can, that will be fine, too. That takes us to Item 5 on the agenda, which is approval of minutes. The set of minutes that were distributed were April 6th, 2017. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Karen. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Ned. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 5-0. And that takes us to BCC report and recaps, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. For the record, Ray Bellows. The Board of County Commissioners did not hear any land use items at their last hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I don't have any chairman's report for today, and there are no consent items, so that moves us past 7 and 8. ***We'll move directly into 9. Our first and only advertised public hearing today is 9A. It's PL20160000183. It's for a PUD in the Bayshore overlay, Mattamy Homes Residential Planned Unit Development on Bayshore and Thomasson Drive. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Before we go too far, I notice there was a lot of people in the audience. The only case we'll be hearing today is the Bayshore case that we just started. The other two have been continued to June 1st. So if you're here waiting for either the Riggs Road Recycle Center or the Wolf Creek Planned Unit Development insubstantial change, neither of those items are on today's agenda any longer. They've been moved to June 1st. So that takes us, then, to disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission for Item 9A. We'll start May 4, 2017 Page 5 of 30 with Tom at the right. MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I had communications with Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah, just staff and -- just staff at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I spoke with Richard Yovanovich and Wayne Arnold. I don't believe -- I have no communications with staff on this. Go ahead, Diane (sic). COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Nothing to mention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll move right into the issue. COMMISSIONER EBERT: This gentleman has his hand up. MR. KRIST: I just have a quick question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to come to the mike; identify yourself for the record. This is a little out of order, but I'm trying to convenience you, so... MR. KRIST: I apologize. My name is Gary Krist. I live on Riggs Road; 11053 Riggs Road. We understand now that we've been postponed. We were never notified by mail or anything, or nobody in the neighborhood has been. All the signs for this meeting are obstructed by view. Nobody's able to see them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MR. KRIST: One of the signs has actually even been taken down; therefore, there's a lot of people that would normally have been here and are not here to represent themselves because they had no way of even knowing that this was happening. Now, I understand that we've been postponed. I truly believe that whosever in charge here should be required to send out letters to all these people to let them know that there is going to be a hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, okay. Let's take your issues one at a time. Who's the planner for the Riggs Road. Eric? Would you, between now and the next meeting, make sure everything's posted correctly? I know you normally do that, but if the gentleman feels it's not been posted on the site correctly, let's just make sure it is. MR. KRIST: I have photos. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Sir, we don't want to go that far yet until the hearing. So let me just try to clear up some of your issues. We'll get the -- this is actually opportunity, then, to get this fixed between now and the 1st. The applicant can make sure that the people are -- or the staff can make sure that every notification required by law has been established. That will now be done. You will actually have more time now to reach out to people who may not know. There is a certain radius that has to be notified outside the property. They're not legally obligated to notify beyond that. So we can only impose the law. MR. KRIST: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So whatever that is, I'm asking the planner to double-check to make sure it's done properly. And so between now and the 1st, it provides another opportunity to make sure everybody gets heard, and that's the best I can help you with today. MR. KRIST: No, that's absolutely fine. As long as we can get notification out to people properly. We appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll look forward to your discussions. MR. KRIST: All right. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. Now we'll move into presentation by the applicant on the Mattamy Homes project. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning, members of the Planning Commission. Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the applicant this morning. May 4, 2017 Page 6 of 30 With me today are several people: Matt O'Brien from Mattamy Homes; Wayne Arnold from Grady Minor & Associates; Mike Delate from Grady Minor & Associates; I think Jim Banks -- there he is. Jim Banks is our traffic consultant, and he's here on the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what position is he? MR. YOVANOVICH: Today he is here as a traffic consultant, but he may offer some marketing advice if we need him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Our civic responsibilities and things like that. We would expect that. MR. YOVANOVICH: He's a Renaissance man and capable of testifying to a lot of different things. I'm going to put on the visualizer -- I think I got the right direction -- an aerial showing the location of the property. The property is approximately 37 acres in size. It's at the corner of Thomasson and Bayshore. And you know I'm directionally challenged, and I'm really directionally challenged on that part of town. So I don't know what quadrant of that corner it is, but it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Northwest. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. I thought so. I didn't want to take any chances. The property used to be developed with an apartment complex that was razed a few years back. There were 200 apartments on the property at the time. And the property is within the Bayshore overlay and is intended to be redeveloped. The existing zoning on the property -- I'll put a map up real quick for you -- is both RMF6 for the majority and C3 for a portion of the property. The request is to rezone the property to a residential PUD on behalf of Mattamy Homes. Mattamy Homes is currently developing in Warm Springs and is committed to developing in Southwest Florida. They're a large home contracting developer and are committed to Southwest Florida and, in particular, Collier County for future development options. The request is to -- the PUD would allow for up to 276 units. The PUD is a typical PUD that allows for the full range of options: Stand-alone single-family, attached villas, multifamily. And Mattamy Homes is going through focus groups right now to finalize what options they will ultimately develop on the property. Under the existing zoning, we would be allowed up to 214 units, so we will need 62 units from the density pool that was established through the development of the Botanical Gardens, and I believe there are 388 units of potential density out there. I don't know if any of those units have been specifically called for. We'll go through some changes in the PUD, but one of your staff comments and conditions was that we only get those 62 units for a seven-year period, and if we don't use them by then, we have to have those renewed, and we'll show you how we incorporated that into the PUD. The request is consistent with the overlay requirements. We're required to go to a PUD if we want to use the density bonus units, we're required to do market-rate housing, which we're doing, and there are a couple of other requirements. We're limited to no more than eight units per acre. We're at 7.46 units per acre. So we're consistent with the requirements of the overlay applicable in the Future Land Use Element to this property. We've had multiple presentations to the CRA advisory board and did double duty by having that same meeting serve as our neighborhood information meeting for the property. We've believe we have addressed all of the comments or concerns that have been raised through our public outreach and not aware at this point of any -- any objections to our project from residents. And, obviously, your staff is recommending approval with certain recommendations that I'll take you through in a moment as to what our position is on those recommendations, and then I'll take you through some changes to the PUD that we've made based upon discussions we've had with members of the Planning Commission. And we've incorporated those comments into the PUD and are prepared to answer any other questions that may come up as we go through the public hearing today. So let me -- let's go through changes to the -- let me first highlight for you, we agree with -- of the eight recommendations from your staff regarding the approval of the project, there are only two that we don't agree with. The first one is we would like the ability to have an interconnection with the Windstar community if the Windstar community agrees to an interconnection. Your staff has said that we should delete the interconnection based upon a comment that was made at May 4, 2017 Page 7 of 30 the neighborhood information meeting, and the comment that was made at the neighborhood information meeting is at the time we did not have a formal agreement with Windstar, so we didn't have any formal plans for an interconnection with Windstar. We still don't have an agreement with Windstar, but we may have one in the future, and we don't want to have to come back to amend the PUD master plan to allow for that interconnection if we ever reach an agreement. If we don't reach an agreement with them, obviously there will not be an interconnection. So we would like to leave the interconnection on the master plan, and we'll put a specific note that it's conditioned upon reaching an agreement with Windstar. The other comment had to do with the, basically, size of the porches in the front of the homes. The way we wrote the footnote, if we have a front-loaded garage -- and I guess the picture's worth a thousand words. This is -- in the lower left is kind of an example of what we're talking about. What we had -- what we had provided is if we had a front-entry garage that was set back the required 23 feet -- because you have to be 23 feet back -- we would like to be able to have the porch encroach up to 15 feet. And staff said -- and we had written our condition accordingly. Staff, I believe, is saying we can only have a porch that's 50 percent of the width of the remaining facade excluding the garage, and we don't see the need -- why having a porch along the entire front of the house through this example would be an inappropriate condition. So we don't agree with that condition that we'd have to limit the porch to just 50 percent of the remaining facade when you exclude the portion of the garage. So, you know, by way of example, if you have a 45-foot-wide house and the garage is 22 feet, they're saying we can only have whatever 23 divided by 2 -- I think it's 11-and-a-half-foot-wide porch. And we would like to have a porch or entry feature along the entire remainder of the property. I believe they have some concerns about meeting the requirements for the landscape tree that you're required to have, and we can make it fit, and we know we're conditioned upon making it fit. If we can't make it fit, then we can't have the reduced setback. So we know we're obligated to do that. And over the last year or two, whenever we asked for what staff believes to be reduced setbacks, they make us do an analysis to show that all the required trees will actually fit on the lot. So we know we have to make the required tree fit on the lot in order to get this reduced setback. So those are the two things that we didn't agree with staff on. I want to take you through some changes to the PUD and another exhibit I have that shows kind of where the wall will be on Pine Street. And then, I think, through these changes, I will have addressed the comments I received from anybody. But if I forgot anybody -- any comment, I'm sure that will be pointed out to me. Hopefully I didn't. Page 2 of 10 of the PUD is the first proposed change. And I've highlighted in yellow for me and for you the strikethrough to some of the amenity area allowed uses. One of the comments was -- these are clearly intended just for your residents, so the need for -- you know, that it be private and intended for a use was redundancy, so we were asked to remove those words. So we have done that in the changes to those Items 2 and 3 on Page 2 of 10 of the PUD. Questions came up through this process or discussions about how many stories, how tall are the buildings going to be for both the townhomes and the multifamily use, so we modified the maximum building height section of the Development Standards Table to better clarify heights of the building. So if we're going to do a one- or two-story townhome, the zoned height would be 35 feet; tippy-top actual height would be 42 feet. If we did a three-story townhome, maximum height would be 42 feet zoned or 50 feet actual. And those same standards would apply to any multifamily product we were to do in there. There were questions about is there a possibility that we would do a two-story 42-foot-tall multifamily or townhome, and the answer's no, so we tried to better clarify the heights for both the townhome and the multifamily based upon questions we received. And then we clarified a footnote, No. 3, as applicable to the drainage easement setbacks to clarify that. You know, we could go down to -- because we now do those in separate tracts. We would now -- we would be allowed to reduce the setbacks to, basically, zero in certain places. I don't think we made any changes on Page 4. On the master plan, as I previously noted, we added May 4, 2017 Page 8 of 30 the note under the potential interconnect that if it's agreed to by Windstar HOA, we could then have that interconnection in the location on the master plan. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There will also be a change on the master plan if you accept staff's condition to limit the density units to seven years. So we'll do a cross-reference to the section in Exhibit F -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- on that page. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I want to talk about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's finish with the presentation first. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know. MR. YOVANOVICH: We did address that a little bit later in the words, so if we need to do a cross-reference on the master plan, we're happy to do that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: We had provided an exhibit previously that showed the cross-section of the road. And on that we had had a -- we had an actual number distance for the building setback, but the building setback varies depending on product type, so we wanted to eliminate any confusion between that exhibit and the master -- I mean the development standards. So instead of saying, I think it formerly said 20 feet for building setback, we just say "building setback" because it does vary depending upon the product type that we may put on the property from the setback to the road. And then on the next page, which is Page 9 of 10, that's where we modified, in 2B, the staff request that we make it clear that we're limited to the bonus units for seven years, and there would have to be an extension to go beyond the seven years if we don't use the bonus units by that time. I don't want to go too fast. Has everybody had a chance to look at that? And I believe that's all of the changes to the PUD documents. Another question that came was -- during discussions is "what about the wall along Pine Street?" And we prepared an exhibit, because what we intended was there would be a wall along Pine Street until we got to the existing lake. We would then go to a chain link fence with landscaping on both sides for this portion right here. Windstar has a chain link fence with landscaping on both sides, so we wanted to make sure we could show by exhibit where exactly the wall would end and where the chain link fence would begin. A question that came up during my discussion with Mr. Fryer was a question regarding EMS and fire. There's a fire station across the street. I reached out to Mr. Summers. I think he's a little bit busy dealing with some other things, because Dan did not get back to me when I reached out to him. But I do know that EMS -- obviously, there's an EMS impact fee, and they'll obviously provide service to this area, but I can't tell you what their specific plans are at this time. But I did try to get that answer. With that, again, staff's recommending approval. I think we've provided appropriate responses to the two recommendations that we don't agree with staff on. We are not asking for any reduction in providing the required landscaping under the Land Development Code. We will be providing the required landscaping, trees and all, under the Land Development Code. And with that -- did I miss anything? With that, I think that's an overview of what we're doing, and we can get into any more specific questions anybody from the Planning Commission or the public may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions from the -- for the applicant? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Richard, did you speak with anyone from Windstar? MR. YOVANOVICH: Did I personally? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Did anybody contact them? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. We had multiple meetings with representatives of Windstar. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. That was just one of the questions I had. The other thing I'm going to ask you about is -- because I have kind of two different plans. One of the plans is from Page 379 of 459, and it shows a little different layout where you don't have the RAs towards the back towards Windstar. So I kind of have two plans in here. What are you putting on Bayshore Drive? Is there going to be a wall, or is this going to be a fence? What is going to be there? If this is a gated community -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. It is gated, and it will be a wall. May 4, 2017 Page 9 of 30 COMMISSIONER EBERT: It will be a wall. And Tomlinson (sic) Avenue is also a wall? MR. YOVANOVICH: I was just looking to see. I can't see the exhibit but, yes, it's a wall. I wasn't sure -- did we label that on there? MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. My biggest concern, believe it or not, is delay out of this 50-foot right-of-way. And the reason for it is -- I'm going to pull this out of here. The reason for it is I've not seen one this way before. Your 50-foot right-of-way, you have to be 23-foot to the sidewalk. There's actually 24 would be between the building and the sidewalk. But you have the property line starting with the utility easement rather than after the utility easement. You also have the four foot. So if you had to have a 23-foot setback, 10 of those feet are in the utility easement, and you have another three feet out of the four in the public right-of-way. I think you could probably move that sidewalk; do something different. This does not make any sense to me at all. And we're having a lot of problems with landscaping going into the utilities. And I can tell you -- and I believe Mr. Fry (sic) is here, thank goodness; he does not want anything planted within seven-and-a-half feet of the sidewalk. That's right on top of the utilities. MR. DELATE: Good morning, Diane. For the record, Mike Delate from Grady Minor Engineers. Typically, we have a four-foot setback or, excuse me, separation between the valley gutter and the sidewalk, edge of sidewalk, as we've depicted in here. To your point about the utility easement, a public utility easement, which is typically FP&L and any other of the soft utilities, it's required by code to have 10 feet on either side of the right-of-way. That's where they put their utilities. So even if you had a 60-foot right-of-way, you'd still have a 10-foot utility easement on both sides where FP&L and other soft utilities go. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, usually a property line starts after the 10-foot utility easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it doesn't. We've never had a property come in with that configuration. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I can tell you mine does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've never had, on this board, a property come in with a configuration where the private utility was in the public right-of-way. It can't happen. It doesn't happen. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, I can tell you -- and I did go look yesterday at -- Mattamy has beautiful homes. Nothing against the homes at all. But I looked at these porches on the homes, and that bothers me that they would come out another five feet, because that's barely five feet without the post holding it up. So then, to me, you only have a 15-foot, if that's what you'd want to call the setback. And I don't know where you're going to put this tree, because if you have that porch out there, you're going practically right into the utility easement on this. To me this could be designed a little bit differently. I've not seen that. And now we do not allow anything less than a 50-foot right-of-way in Collier County. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's not what I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not true. That's not true at all. I mean -- MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, it has been a few -- couple month since I was here last, but I believe I've seen where we've done 40-foot right-of-ways; we've done 50-foot right-of-ways when we're talking about private road rights-of-way, keeping in mind that the pavement doesn't change within the width of the right-of-way. It's always the same width of the pavement. In this case it's -- remember, we're talking about a redevelopment project, an infill project in the Bayshore area where Mattamy Homes, which is, you know, a premier builder, is willing to spend a lot of money to put in a very nice product or project in this area, and these are going to be nice homes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I understand. I went and looked at the product. That's not my problem, Rich. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mrs. Ebert, actually, I do recommend that there be no canopy trees in a utility easement, as canopy trees are inconsistent with the use of utility easement because they're growing in May 4, 2017 Page 10 of 30 and interfering with the lines, and a lot of developments were getting complaints. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, did you read Page 10 of the PUD? If you'd look at Page 10, No. 5, landscaping, they've already addressed the issue. Staff's already approved it. So I'm just wondering why we're talking about items that have already been addressed and they reduced everything in that area. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because, Mark, we're having -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I asked Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I had read the PUD. I didn't read it while we were meeting just now, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that landscape -- this isn't new; this isn't anything new. It looks like the landscape issue was addressed with staff and the applicant when they came through the process. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I'm wondering why your statement -- are you against No. 5? Are you telling -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I just noted a concern. I'm not familiar with the landscaping trees that are in here, but I can tell you, also personal experience, I've had issues. So if you want to approve it, I've just noted my concern. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the canopy trees we normally see are oaks and items like that. None of -- the canopy trees on this list are smaller-size trees. They were purposely put on this list to accommodate just the issue that you have experienced. And without the species that are causing the problems and these here, I'm not sure we have a problem after it has been reviewed and approved by staff. So that's my issue with the -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I just made a recommendation. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. Heidi is familiar with this. I am familiar with this getting more and more as the communities get older, Mark. We have several communities -- and we can even talk to Ray. We're having problems with utilities where the tree roots -- where all this stuff is getting in there. I believe, Mr. McLean, now there's only 50 foot? You don't go any lower than that; is that true? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you think it's true, Matt, I'd like to tell you -- refer to the code and tell me where it that says that in the code, please. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's a land rights issue. MR. McLEAN: Yeah. We -- Matt McLean, for the record, Director of Development Review. We constantly do get applicants that request right-of-ways of various different widths. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MR. McLEAN: And there have been several within Collier County that have been approved that are less than 50 feet. Most recently, I am not aware of any that have been approved less than 50, but there are definitely several that have, and the applicants do have the right to be able to request something less than that. As far as the street trees are concerned, my understanding of that section of the Land Development Code is that there is one tree required per lot, essentially, but that tree is not necessarily required to be in the front yard. It could be anywhere on that particular lot. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Because I have talked to Mr. Fry on this. I've also talked to Mr. Smith. We have several communities that are having problems. It wasn't just Heidi's community. And what our problem is, is they're getting so narrow. And Ray knows this, too. They're getting so narrow that they're taking everything and planting right on top of the utility easements. And it's fine for the first three, four years, and after that we're starting to have problems. Is that true, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Yeah, staff has been responding to various communities' complaints of trees overgrowing. The attempt with this petition has been addressed, as Mark has indicated, in No. 5 on Page 10. We have a list of smaller trees that will have potentially less impact on the utilities. The attempt at trying to derive a setback with porch in the width of the facade was another attempt to help keep the area clear for a tree in the front yard. May 4, 2017 Page 11 of 30 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, are you familiar with -- since we're using Heidi's project as an example, are you familiar with the tree situation in her project? Have you been on site? Have you talked to the HOA? MR. BELLOWS: Not that particular project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have. The trees they're talking about there are not the trees in any U -- PUE. The trees are between the sidewalk and the curb. They're out front. They're -- what's happening is the roots of the trees -- because the code at the time didn't, apparently, require root barriers to be put in, so the roots are going in and buckling up the sidewalk. Had they put root barriers in, they wouldn't have had that problem. I don't know why that didn't occur, but that is not the issue that Diane seems to be talking about, because she's talking about trees in PUEs. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the complaints that I'm familiar with that you seem to be familiar with, I've gotten, too. And there's another project on 951. I forgot the name of the project. They had a similar complaint, but it was just like Saturnia Lakes. They had the trees planted in the right-of-way. So I don't know -- I haven't received any specific to the PUE, have you? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I have in Milano. They have trees in the utility easement, and they were supposed to go in the street. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You -- did you -- has anybody else looked at that? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I know staff is looking at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, who's -- MR. BELLOWS: That was the one I was referring to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Smith -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That was the one I was referring to. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- do you have some? MR. SMITH: Hi. Daniel Smith, Principal Planner. Currently, we have one; Marbella. They're coming in to remove all their street trees, and that -- the way that was set up, it was supposed to be within the sidewalk and the curb. Two or three -- or three or four feet isn't big enough for the oaks that they had planted. They ended up putting it on top of the PUE in the front of the house, and now they have to remove them. So that's going to be coming forward as a PDI shortly. I think it's in its second review. That's a similar situation like this. And we did something similar -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait. You said Marbella, and they were supposed to be street trees, but they put them in the PUE. So they're not street trees, correct? MR. SMITH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So they are -- basically went inconsistent with their permit or their SDP or whatever? MR. SMITH: Well, the PUD does allow them to move trees if there's issues, let's say sidewalks, which it was designed for only four feet, so it was in the ongoing truth that they were going to have to move them, regardless. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just a point of reference. You're saying "Marbella." For those that are here, Marbella Lakes, Marbella Isles? There's a bunch of Marbellas. MR. SMITH: I believe it's Marbella Lakes that's on Livingston, that project. I think it's about 10 or 15 years old. Something around that. Built in 2006/2007. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Marbella Lakes was started in 2009 by GL Homes. MR. SMITH: Oh, okay, 2009; I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dan, before we beat this thing to death about other projects, we're specifically talking about putting a tree system in that the PUD has referenced a number -- on Page 10, No. 5. MR. SMITH: Correct. May 4, 2017 Page 12 of 30 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that staff has approved. Are you saying you don't, as a staff -- member of staff, that was a mistake? Staff shouldn't approve this? MR. SMITH: My question is, is there was an issue regarding the applicant didn't agree with a condition, and that was 50 percent of the porch. I do agree with that 50 percent of the porch, because if the porch goes the whole distance to that house, you're only going to have five feet for that tree, and even the smaller trees, that's too -- that's going to be into the utilities at that time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they can plant the tree in the back; is that correct? MR. SMITH: Well, no. Based on the way the PUD is set up, they have a zero-foot setback if they have pool cages. So what I don't want to run into -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, they have a zero-foot setback if they have a -- MR. SMITH: For accessory structures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- okay. Show me that, please. He said "accessory," Eric. That's on the bottom of that standards table. What's the setback for accessory structures? Looks like it's 10 feet. MR. SMITH: It says zero if it's a -- next to a LME and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Doesn't it say that if it's -- it has Asterisk No. 3, and Asterisk No. 3 isn't applicable to the rear setback that's listed there, or is it? MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, for the record, my name is Eric Johnson, Principal Planner in the Zoning Division. According to the Development Standards Table, the rear setback for accessory structures is 10 feet; however, the rear setback for principal structures is also 10 feet, with that little note, No. 3. And if we read on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eric, I read all that. I'm just trying to go back to what Dan said. Dan said the accessory structures and pool cages could go to zero feet. Does the table say that? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Show me where accessory structures on that table can go to zero feet. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Accessory, no. It's the principal. It's on the principal foot back (sic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But accessory cannot? COMMISSIONER EBERT: But the house can? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I guess the principal can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that. I'm just asking -- I'm trying to understand what staff is trying to tell us. They said accessory structures, pool cages, can go to zero feet. Show me that on the table. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think that the asterisk is in the wrong place. I think it's supposed to be under the rear setback for accessory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I guess, then, we'll have to deal with that. MR. SMITH: That's what I saw anyway. It's in there somewhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it is in there somewhere? MR. SMITH: I saw zero. When I reviewed -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For accessories you saw zero? MR. SMITH: It was either accessory or the main structure was zero feet if it's an LBE, an LME. And that was my concern because what happens is, in this case, this happens to be Bent Creek. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Dan, you've got to use the microphone. MR. SMITH: Okay. It happens to be Bent Creek where what they're doing is they're putting a 30- to 40-foot canopy tree within five, six feet of the pool structures, and that's one thing I'm trying to prevent. So we're -- it's getting limited to the space for these canopy trees. I don't want them on top of the utility easements. Those are going to become a problem within 10 to 15 years, so that's just my concern. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And we are changing the trees, the different -- MR. SMITH: Yeah. I'm giving a recommendation for smaller trees. But usually I have 10 feet to work with. In this particular case, with that porch I've only got five feet, so that's my concern. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I know Mr. Fry doesn't want us in his utility easements. May 4, 2017 Page 13 of 30 MR. SMITH: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else got any questions? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a couple. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. A number of my concerns were resolved in communications with Mr. Yovanovich, so I don't have a lot here. But could you -- could -- Rich, could you say something about what the potential interconnection between Windstar and the proposed development would look like before an interconnection actually took place? MR. YOVANOVICH: As far as what would that -- how would it be -- it would be -- it would be gated. Is that the type of information you're asking for? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Does it look like it's preparing for such a thing, or does it look like there may potentially never be such a thing? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we're going to know relatively quickly as we go through the site planning for the property, which will be the next step, whether or not we're ever going to reach an agreement. I would say, if I'm a betting man, and I am, I don't think we're going to reach an agreement but, you know, you never say never until we have to do the final site plan. So if we get an agreement, obviously, it's going to be a nice, attractive, well-planned and well-thought-out interconnection between our community -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I'm confident of that. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's just we don't have one yet, so I can't even show you what the potential would look like because, again, I think it's a -- not unlikely -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: My concern is a little more about what it's going to look like before there is an agreement. Is it going to look like we're on the verge of establishing an interconnection, or is it going to look like there could potentially never be one there? MR. YOVANOVICH: It will be -- when we're ready to go, it will be we'll either have the connection or we won't. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, okay. So it won't look like a potential connection if you don't get the agreement. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Also, with respect to the NIM, I thought some good questions were asked there by the neighbors. It was a little difficult to follow, and you explained to me how that comes about, that -- the tapes are transcribed. And I'm -- but it was hard for me to identify who was speaking for the development and who were the neighbors -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- in some cases. So it was a little bit confusing. But having said that, there were good questions raised in there, and so my question this morning is, have you had -- or has anybody on behalf of the developer had contacts with the folks in Windstar -- this was six months ago -- so within the last six months to see if -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- to see if the changes you've made are satisfactory to them? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think our last actual meetings with Windstar were in February, so they're aware. I can assure you that the residents of Windstar are active. And I don't mean that with any disrespect. I mean, they watch out for what's happening in their community, so they're aware of what we're doing and what we're proposing. And I think if they didn't like what we were doing, they'd be here in droves. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So they potentially could be here this morning; could they not? MR. YOVANOVICH: They may be. I'm pretty sure I know most of the people I've dealt with at May 4, 2017 Page 14 of 30 Windstar. I don't see them, but that doesn't mean they're not here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, one quick follow-up question. So you keep mentioning Windstar, and I know CalAtlantic is in there building multifamily. It sounds to be -- could be potentially similar type properties within Windstar. I think they're the last new construction within Windstar's development. Have there been communications with CalAtlantic as a potential -- I just -- I don't know, but I can't imagine them being super thrilled. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, CalAtlantic -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I think it's Regatta Landing is what they're building there. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it's not actually within Windstar. It is a separately zoned piece of property that reached an agreement with Windstar for interconnection, and -- so what happened was that project, who I know a little bit about since I actually worked on it. That project is -- it's a separate project. The issue really pertained to boat docks on that one, and Windstar and CalAtlantic reached an agreement as to an interconnection of the projects. Although it's not within the Windstar PUD; it is within the Windstar HOA. So that was all reached out. Have I had any conversations with CalAtlantic about this? I have not. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me go back to the PUD for a couple questions. On the Development Standards Table, one of the questions I wanted to ask you -- as soon as you want to pay attention. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm paying attention, I promise you. I can multitask. COMMISSIONER EBERT: He can't tell you up or down, but he's multi -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I can't tell, yeah, north, south, east, or west. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want to be talking to your back while you're talking to somebody else, so if you'd like -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the accessory structures, the minimum rear yard setback is listed as 10 feet, but under the principal structures, you have an asterisk that allows it to go to zero feet for the principal, which is kind of odd because generally your accessories are what go to the rear yard, and your principals don't. Are you wanting to change those asterisks, or are you willing to -- are you intending to live by how that could be interpreted? MR. YOVANOVICH: And I thought what I had said, which I probably didn't say, was that we need to have a footnote that would allow both to go up to the landscape buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you have a footnote. You just need an Asterisk 3. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. I need to do that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. He put it on the drainage easement, and the rear are all -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We need to add that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. And I was just going to say what Heidi said for me. You put it on the -- in the example you showed us, you did it only on the one below the rear yard setback. You really want to put it on the rear yard setback one, don't you? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: That was exactly the conversation Mr. Arnold was telling me I needed to clarify before you asked the question. So he's going to pick my lottery tickets now that he can read your mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the staff recommendations you have issues with No. 2, and the other one was No. 6, the potential interconnection. I think the interconnection; we've talked a little bit about. But I May 4, 2017 Page 15 of 30 have a question on No. 4 and No. 7. In No. 4 you're asking -- you've asked for a deviation, but staff is saying Deviation 3 must be updated to include a 15-foot-wide Type D buffer as minimum required where adjacent to right-of-ways, but No. 7 says the Type B buffer will be along Pine Street. Those two seem -- and, Mr. Sawyer, can you tell me if Pine Street is a right-of-way. Just nod your head "no" or "yes." MR. SAWYER: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it is. Mr. Johnson, why would we want a different buffer on 7 if it conflicts with No. 4, or does it? Can you explain that? MR. JOHNSON: For the record, Eric Johnson. Mr. Chair, No. -- Conditions of Approval 6, 7, and 8 were, what I felt, commitments that were made by the petitioner at the neighborhood information meeting. Mr. Arnold, at the NIM, said that they were -- with respect to No. 7, that they were pretty committed to having a wall be placed on the -- along the west property line along Pine Street, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not the wall. It's the reference to a Type B buffer where No. 4 references a Type D buffer. I just don't understand which one they would use -- supposed to use there. It looks like a Type D, but it says a Type B. Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, if I might, I'm Wayne Arnold, for the record, professional planner with Q. Grady Minor & Associates. And the reference to a Type B buffer, I think, is just simply a clarification. Under your code, a Type D buffer does not necessarily require a hedge or any other opacity other than trees. And in this case, since we were making a commitment to the wall for at least the portion of Pine Street between the like and southern boundary, the wall in itself would create the opacity that's normally associated with a Type B buffer. MR. JOHNSON: And, Mr. Chair, if I may continue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. From what I understand, the code requires a Type D buffer, and Mr. Arnold has said -- or I don't know if he said this, but the master plan proposes a Type B buffer, B as in bravo, which implies that it's a greater deal of landscaping. The Condition of Approval No. 4 was something that Mr. Smith was proposing. And so if you have any questions specifically about the wording in No. 4, I would have to really defer to him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd like to know what the required buffer is along a right-of-way, A, B, C, or D. MR. SMITH: Daniel Smith, Principal Planner. A D is required along the right-of-way; a B is actually more intense. So if they're going to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. Let's stop there. MR. SMITH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The required buffer along the right-of-way is D. MR. SMITH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The applicant is -- Transportation has knowledged by a nod that Pine Street is a right-of-way. MR. SMITH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they have to put a D buffer in. MR. SMITH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But staff's recommending a B buffer, but then where is the deviation to go from a D to a B? They're asking a deviation to put the D buffer from 20 feet to 15, but I see no deviation to go to the different buffer that's required by code. MR. SMITH: They don't have to go to it because a B is considered a more intense buffer. So if you just say it's going to be a D, that's fine, but during the NIM, from what I gathered from Mr. Johnson, they said they would be willing to do a B. They don't need a deviation for a B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Can you show me where in the code it says they don't need a deviation to change the code? Because normally we ask them for those deviations. Do you -- May 4, 2017 Page 16 of 30 MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, Manager with Zoning. The idea that there is an enhanced buffer over the minimum code requirements, we don't typically ask for deviations for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you're -- they're required to put a D buffer along all right-of-ways but they want to decide to put a B buffer in, we don't need any change to the code? Even though the code doesn't specifically say that, it's an allowed deviation by right? MR. SMITH: Let me answer that, please. The code is a minimum D buffer. Anything above and beyond that they can do. So it's -- so everything that has to do with these buffers are code minimum. If you go above and beyond those -- and in this case they're even talking about a wall which, with a wall, shrubs, whatever, it's up to us to make the determination it meets those opacity standards. So a D has a particular opacity standard. A B has a more opacity standard. As long as they're meeting that minimum code D buffer, we're good; and they're proposing to do a B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then why are we asking them to deviate from the width of the D buffer in the deviation? MR. SMITH: Because the code requires a 20-foot-wide because that's the way the code is. Anything over 15 acres requires a 20-foot area. They want to go down to a 15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's required to have a 20-foot area if it's a D buffer, but if they want to go to a B buffer, it's considered an enhancement to a D, but it's not required to have a deviation, but it's not as wide as a D buffer? MR. SMITH: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MR. SMITH: A 20-foot's required regardless. One deviation is just to -- is to go from 20 to 15 feet. That's one deviation. Now -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Even though the B buffer says it's 15-foot wide, you're telling me that 20-foot's required regardless? MR. SMITH: Anything over 15 acres, 20-foot is required. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the part of the D buffer that applies to the width is what we focused on for the deviation -- MR. SMITH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but they can switch to a B buffer that's 15 feet and doesn't need a deviation, and that's okay? MR. SMITH: The B buffer plant material, that's what we're concentrating on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. I'm concentrating on the language in the code. I'm sorry; I don't read just the plant material. You're a landscape fellow. You like to look at the landscaping. I understand that. But I'm trying to match this up to understand how we got here. MR. SMITH: Right. How we got here is we're looking at code minimums. Code minimum is a D buffer; 20 feet. They're asking for a deviation to go to 15 feet. They're going to do something above and beyond what a D is, which is B buffer plant material. Forget about the 15 feet. That's a different situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we say a D buffer with B buffer plant material? Something to tie it back to the code then. MR. SMITH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know how you -- I don't know how we are consistent if we don't even know how to get there. And if we say it should have been a D buffer because the code requires it but they've agreed to B buffer plantings, I'm fine with that. MR. SMITH: I'm fine with that, too. But the width is 15 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the staff recommendation will be a D buffer is required, but they're going to install B buffer plantings. MR. SMITH: At 15 feet, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, because they've got the deviation to go from 20 to 15 for the D buffer. May 4, 2017 Page 17 of 30 MR. SMITH: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Do you know why they asked for the deviation from 20 to 15? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you asking me? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. Well, they're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I haven't -- I can read it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, their justification was the fact that this land was cleared and so there was nothing there to begin with, and that's why they -- that's their justification, because all those apartments were knocked down. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the recommendation under No. 2, talking about this facade, how we count the facade, I understand the argument about the spacing. I understand the idea that we've got a PUE out front. As far as how you count the facade, where did we come up with the idea that we just eliminate half the house or the garage portion and it's not counted as part of the facade? Is there a section in the code you could refer me to? MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Strain, if I understand the issue here, it's 50 percent of the facade will exclude the garages, and the reason for that is because wherever you have a garage, you have a driveway, and whenever you have a driveway, you can't put a tree there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- so we're determining what a facade is based on where a tree could go in front of one? MR. JOHNSON: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't you just say that's why that portion of the facade's not counted? MR. JOHNSON: Chairman Strain, if you want, we could -- I could talk more about the reason behind the 50 percent, and we could walk through that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if your reasoning is because of the planting of a tree, I just want -- I'm trying to understand, are you saying that -- because I can't -- I couldn't find where the front of the house, including the architectural articulation that we've shown -- that they showed us on one of the plans doesn't meet the requirement of a front facade. I didn't see anything in the Bayshore overlay that says you exclude garages when you count front facade. Now, I'm just trying to understand how we got there, not regarding landscaping; landscaping is a whole 'nother issue. But from how we look at facades, did Peter, our architect -- did Peter say that the front facade is not counted if it includes the garage? MR. JOHNSON: I'm not sure Peter evaluated this project because it's not commercial. And I'm not -- look, I don't think there's anything in the code about the facade as it relates to, you know -- I don't want to say -- go ahead. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The issue isn't so much the dwelling facade as much as the accessory porch with a reduced setback where, if the tree was to be planted, it couldn't be planted in front of the garage because of the driveway so, therefore, where the accessory porch encroaches closer to that utility easement, the concern was there wouldn't be enough room for even the smaller tree. Well, granted, it can go into the back, and that would normally work in a lot of cases, but this has that caveat that it could go to zero. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Ray -- MR. BELLOWS: That's where we were concerned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's the argument that should have been in the staff report, not making up a precedent-setting establishment of how we now count facades. Because regardless of the reason, we're looking at just the facade. So if you don't consider half that building a facade because it's got a garage door, then somewhere we need to set that as the policy instead of -- instead of saying what we really mean, which is, if we don't put this close enough, you're telling this board, we may have a problem making -- fitting the planting in without intruding in the PUE. Even with the new plantings that staff, I thought, approved, now you don't approve May 4, 2017 Page 18 of 30 them. So somehow this isn't being clearly articulated as to your reasoning to this board, and I think it should be. MR. BELLOWS: Understood. And we had some language worked out, then when we started looking at how the tree would fit within there, that's when we started trying to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the focus is the tree? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's really not the facade? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. MR. JOHNSON: That's correct. It's not really the facade. We had to devise a condition of approval that was tailored to this project, because this project is what we're looking at. We're evaluating the development standards that are being proposed in relation to how it interfaces with the public utility easement. When this project first started, they were proposing a right-of-way that was 40 feet wide with 10-foot-wide utility easements on each side. Now it's a 50-foot right-of-way with, I believe, 10-foot public utility easements on either side of the right-of-way. When you have a house with the front -- the front setback's 20 feet, but for the things that were identified in the asterisk, it could be reduced to 15 feet. Well, 15 feet to the property line, and when you have a 10-foot-wide public utility easement within, it really compromises the space where you could have that requisite canopy tree. And that's really all I was trying to articulate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just -- I object to the issue of you guys approaching a definition of a facade and how we determine what a facade is as an excuse to explain a problem with landscaping. They're two different issues, and we need to stick to the landscaping issue, not the facade issue. Because you're going to set a precedent, and then everybody's going to come in and have issues with it. We don't want to go there. MR. BELLOWS: I agree. For the record, Ray Bellows. But, yeah, that wasn't our intent, and we'll look at that language again. And that was -- we were really just trying to address the tree issue, not the define facade. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, why did staff recommend approval for the PUD with that No. 5 on Page 10 there concerning the alternative landscaping where it says it could go in the utilities in the setback? I mean, did you -- did you not know that was part of the PUD? It's on Page 10, and it's No. 5, in order to avoid conflicts with utilities and sidewalks, the required canopy tree for an individual lot shall be on the following list. And I'm familiar with some of these trees. They're less intense trees. They don't get to, like, oaks trees, which cause the problem. They have lower -- less route intensity. So two questions: If we're looking at alternative landscaping to what the code says, does that need to be a deviation? Secondly, the PUE that seems to be the crux -- and I hear a gentleman by the name of Mr. Fry (sic) constantly referred to. Who's he work for? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Utilities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's he work for from staff? Does anybody on staff know? MR. SMITH: Eric Fey. MR. JOHNSON: Oh, Eric Fey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know Eric Fry. I just want to know who he works for. MR. JOHNSON: He's approaching. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What department? MR. BELLOWS: He's coming to the mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Come on up, sir. I have not -- I done run into you, apparently, very much, so I don't know you. You work for? MR. FEY: Public Utilities under Tom Chmelik, Engineering and Project Management. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you work on what kind of public utilities? MR. FEY: I'm in utility planning, so all water, wastewater, and IQ. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And where do you put wastewater, potable -- well, all the water -- where do you put all those, your utilities, do they go in the right-of-way? MR. FEY: Can I just stop for a moment. I haven't been sworn, so if I could take care of that. May 4, 2017 Page 19 of 30 (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. FEY: So I just want to clarify. Well, go ahead and repeat your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you put your utilities in the right-of-way? MR. FEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the public utility easement that doesn't have the water, the IQ, and the other things you just talked about within the right-of-way? MR. FEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The public -- the PUE is within the right-of-way? MR. FEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's not within the right-of-way? MR. FEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what's your jurisdiction with the PUE from your department? MR. FEY: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. FEY: Okay. And if I could just elaborate. You know, the original submittal on this application, I think, had something less than 50 feet; maybe it was 45. I made a comment on it about supplemental CUEs. That's one of the tacks that a lot of developers have taken lately, because the issue is, we need at least five feet for maintenance. And that's not a code provision. It's just a practical matter. So when they ask for right-of-way reductions, we're -- I am attempting to make sure that we get sufficient space for maintenance while maintaining our seven-and-a-half foot setback from valley gutter, back of curb. In this case, they widened the right-of-way to 50 feet, which gives us a five-and-a-half foot space from our seven-and-a-half foot setback to the right-of-way line, which is adequate for maintenance. Now, as far as the seven-and-a-half foot setback from center line of utility to any proposed planting, in this case canopy trees, you know, two feet of that is going to be on the property. That's not very much. And given the change to the landscaping list, you know, I think the concern has been addressed, and public utilities has no objection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. It took a bit to get there, but I appreciate it. MR. FEY: I should have come up sooner. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You should have asked him first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, people were using his name, and I didn't know he was here, so... COMMISSIONER EBERT: He's here at all the meetings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Diane, he may have been here for 50 meetings, but if I don't know his name, I wouldn't know that's who you're talking about. MR. SMITH: Just, if I may, the -- originally they had -- I believe it was a 40 or 45-foot right-of-way they were proposing. That's when that language was submitted. Because at the time I had 10 feet to work with between the public utility -- or the private utility easement and the home. Well, when they changed and did not -- weren't going for the deviation, they went to 50, the next review was now they wanted -- it was going to be a bigger right-of-way, but now the front porches were going to be only a 15-foot setback. That only gave me that five foot. So that's when my concern was is that I need enough room, because even with five feet, even with those smaller trees, they're still going to get a 20-foot spread. And so you're going to -- within, you know, 10 years, you're going to be removing them, and that's -- those are issues that I just wanted to be aware -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're saying we're going to be removing them. Why would we be removing them? MR. SMITH: Because they wouldn't have any room to grow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, you're saying "we" would be. The county's not going to be. MR. SMITH: No, no, we wouldn't. The applicant would, or the owner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would the county -- why would the applicant -- so the applicant would be forced to remove them? MR. SMITH: Well, what's going to happen is they're going to grow into the home and -- or the root May 4, 2017 Page 20 of 30 structure's going to go into the PUE, and it's going to be an issue that we're having with a lot of other projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the PUE issue is by your private utilities, correct? MR. SMITH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have any letters or correspondence from them that you could provide that show they have objections to these trees that are now on this list? MR. SMITH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. SMITH: A lot of the stuff that's coming down, though, that's really how they're addressing it is the smaller trees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then we're back to where this list is the list that you guys prefer. MR. SMITH: Correct; that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SMITH: But at the time -- I'm just letting you know at the time we had 10 feet. We're down to five feet now, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now you're saying this list that's in the PUD is not applicable because the review of the PUD that has gotten to us is not one that incorporated this, yet, it's in the document that came to us today? MR. SMITH: Under the condition about the porches. Once the porches were added, now there's concern about room for trees. So that's why we wanted to limit those porches so they don't go the complete length of the house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But your room -- your concern now is that it could go into the PUE, but you have nothing to provide us that shows the utilities who use the PUE have a concern about these. In fact, most of those utilities will sign off on things even like sign monuments in their PUEs. MR. SMITH: I know they will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if they don't have a concern, I'm just wondering why we've made -- MR. SMITH: I'm definitely doing this by a landscape definition, not by utilities or anything else. I'm just telling you from doing this for 30 years -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In Florida? MR. SMITH: Three-and-a-half years in Florida. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. SMITH: So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as the master plan goes, Mr. Yovanovich, the RA area that's up next to Windstar, if that isn't used as an interconnect, is that intended to be something else? MR. ARNOLD: If I might, Mr. Strain, let me try to address that. I'm Wayne Arnold, for your record. We included two potential areas for the amenity area, and we've referred to them as either residential or amenity, and we can only have one of those by condition of your -- of our PUD. But the reason we put in an amenity area closer to our northern property line was really in the event that we can somehow make an agreement with Windstar. In some of our communications, they talked about if we could create an amenity area that could be co-shared since we could potentially even share one access point on Bayshore Drive, and that's why we put an amenity there, thinking that maybe we could locate one closer to our property line that could service both communities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm fine with that. I just wanted to make sure that I understood that that RA, if it were to go away, it would potentially be another residential lot. MR. ARNOLD: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On your survey -- you submitted an ALTA survey, and I asked you to check this out when we met. There are two areas on the ALTA survey that show easements overriding the landscape buffer. Staff's approved the landscape buffer, but I've not seen anything or heard anything that says those easements are gone, so we'd be putting landscaping on top of easements, and we just heard a long story about that. May 4, 2017 Page 21 of 30 MR. ARNOLD: If I might let Mike Delate from our office address that. He's been doing the site engineering for Mattamy and can explain to you the two easement areas in question. MR. DELATE: Good morning again. Yes, both those easements would be accommodated with the final land plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What do you mean "accommodated"? MR. DELATE: We would work the landscape buffer around the easements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, did you look at the easement on the north of the ALTA survey? It's quite wide, so the landscape buffer's going to be pushed farther into the project? MR. DELATE: Yes, it would have to be, because it's a pump station there, Collier County pump station. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not just that one. I'm talking about -- there's a rather large easement along the entire northern edge where it borders Windstar. It looks like maybe an FP&L or something goes over onto your property. And by scale, I mean, the plan you gave us is an electronic version of the ALTA survey, so it's hard to determine what the scale is, but it looks like it's as wide as the potential buffer that would go there. MR. DELATE: I should clarify again. Collier County utility easements, we would avoid the landscape buffer being within that easement, as Eric had alluded to; Eric Fye. And as you alluded to do, FP&L sometimes accommodates, depending on the type of landscaping that's proposed, to be contained within their utility easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I just blew this thing up a bit so I could read it. It is a sewer easement, and apparently to the old pump station that was on the property. MR. DELATE: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's a -- I can't tell the width because of the way this ALTA survey was presented. But based on the LMEs and the other things that are assumed to be -- this looks to be at least 20 feet or more wide, so you would be kicking your landscape buffer that further into the property. MR. DELATE: I don't have that ALTA in front of me to look at, but my recollection is there was an old pump station on the site that served the apartment that, obviously, has been abandoned, and the new layout would accommodate a new pump station. And depending whether the property is platted or not would determine if it's eventually going to be a Collier County easement or a private pump station. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the only thing I have on the easements. Thank you. And I think that takes us to the end of my questions. Yes, it does. Thank you. Staff report? MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I add one thing before we get to it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Because I forget to put it in my comments. Initially we had asked for -- and I just wanted to clarify this for the record. Initially we had asked for a deviation from the architectural standards so we could go ahead and have Mattamy do its product type. As we were going through that process, we were told that the architectural standards in the overlay don't apply to this project because it's not mixed use and doesn't contain a commercial aspect to it. So I just want to make sure -- because we did ask for the deviation. We withdrew the deviation because staff told us we didn't need it. I just want to make sure that I don't come back as I'm now going through the process and find out I gave something up in the deviation that I didn't need to give up. So I just want to clarify on the record that the architectural standards don't apply to this project and we don't need a deviation for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 4.02.16.D, building types and architectural standards: One, purpose and intent, the purpose of this section is to supplement the revisions of LDC 5.05.08 by identifying and providing design standards for the building types allowed within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area. Standards are extended to attach the same importance to overall building design as is placed on the use contained therein and to assure proposed development is consistent with the CRA. What happens is applicability. Each proposed building shall be designed in compliance with the standards of this section. And then they have general architectural standards, of which there's frontages and May 4, 2017 Page 22 of 30 facades, and that's what -- I tried to find the facade question in regards to whether we can count the garage or not. But as you go on in there, under facades/treatment, building type, house, and then under house it talks about some building architectural standards. Are those the ones you're not trying to -- that are concerning? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair -- and we'd have to confirm with Mr. Bellows, but this request is to go to a PUD. It doesn't retain the overlay. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's fine. We just want to make sure we were safe. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're safe until we find a reason you're not. How's that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that's why we're going to have this record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fine. If it doesn't pertain to the PUD, that will take it out of the mix. We're good. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Richard, may I ask a question. On the recommendations, you are going to put in that 12-inch drainage pipe; you agree to that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And you are putting in the sidewalk on Pine Street? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: I meant it when I said there was only two. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. I'm just double-checking so it's on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Staff report? MR. JOHNSON: Yes, sir. Eric Johnson, Principal Planner. The staff reviewed the documents submitted in your packets, or an earlier version. I did want to point out that Pages 99 through 374 are provided for your inspection as well as public inspection on the GMD public portal. They were not included in this packet. I wanted to clarify Page 9 of the staff report with respect to setbacks. There's a sentence in there that says with the exception of the front setback, staff determined that the proposed standards would be comparable and compatible with the aforementioned developments and relevant provisions of the LDC. Really, it should strike out "with the exception of the front setbacks" because the front setbacks are, in fact, comparable and compatible. Staff was recommending, and continues to recommend, approval of the project with the caveat that the facades exclude the garages, and that was due to the landscaping issue that we had talked about. There are -- so with respect to Chairman Strain's question to me about the facade, you know, it was hard to answer those questions. So if I answered yes or no to them, I take them back. But there are eight conditions of approval, three of which were from the neighborhood information meeting, and we squared -- we discussed those at length. Staff supports all three deviations that are being requested. And I'm trying to think of anything else. Nope. That's it. Staff recommends approval. If you have any other questions, I'll be happy to answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody from the Planning Commission have any questions of staff based on the staff report before we go to public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Eric, I think I've asked everything I needed to ask of staff. On the staff recommendations, the No. 6, are you still insisting it be deleted or under the provisions that it would be referenced only as a -- if approved by Windstar, would the interconnection occur -- cure No. 6? MR. JOHNSON: Sure. This -- like I said, this came about from the neighborhood information May 4, 2017 Page 23 of 30 meeting. Since this constitutes a public hearing and the Windstar folks can come out and speak either -- you know, whatever their opinion is, really, that's just -- it doesn't matter. It's not a staff issue as to if that remains or stays. It's really up to the Planning Commission here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And No. 8, I mean, I understand it came up at the NIM, but did you inquire of Matt's group of whether or not they could even blast anywhere on that site since there is some new provisions that occurred -- I shouldn't say they're new. They're probably eight years old -- where blasting can't be within a certain number of feet? I think it's a 300 (sic) radius of a structure or a road, and I think most of this site would qualify for that. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, no, I did not consult with Mr. McLean on that. I just was really reporting on what was spoken about at the NIM. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But, I mean, at the NIM, if the public knew they couldn't blast there, then it would have probably -- by code, it would have made it easier to explain. But, I mean, it hurts nothing to leave it there. I just was curious. Okay. That's all the questions I have. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. JOHNSON: I hate to bring up a dead horse here, but staff is still insisting on No. 2 with the 50 percent of the facade. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, staff may be, but I -- I can't -- I don't think your reasoning to address it through the facade argument is correct. I think that's going to establish a precedent that everybody coming in here from now on is going to have their facade reduced because we've determined, because of a tree planting ability, that we can't count the facade to make sure we don't plant trees, or we do -- we have room for trees. To me it's the wrong approach, but if that's what you guys are going to insist on, that's fine. We'll deal with it on stipulations. Richard, did you have something you want to add? MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll wait till the normal. I just wanted to address the whole planting issue whenever it's appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question. Is this not a PUD? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a double negative. No, it is a PUD. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. And is not a PUD -- you keep saying "precedent," but we've been told a PUD is individual for that particular thing. So going back and forth, what Richard wants, this is his PUD. To make precedent from some other one, to me, is not correct. You don't -- to me it's not a precedent. This is this PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're entitled to your opinion. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I would like to hear some more about the planting, and I think Richard was going to speak to that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Just -- at the risk of being proven wrong, I'm not aware of anything in the Land Development Code that says a private utility easement is an exclusive easement and I don't retain rights to still use that portion of the property. So I believe I'm allowed to plant my tree, or whatever if I want, in that utility area, private utility area, unless and until Florida Power and Light or the telephone company or whoever else comes in and says, hey, that's inconsistent with the use of our easement. I could tell you, I'm sure I did when I lived in Berkshire Lakes, I'm sure I planted trees within utility easements, because it's not like it's marked on my yard that says here's where the utility easement ends. What we're -- the trees that we're proposing to plant have been approved by your staff never with the condition it had to be within a certain area on the property. So I think we're still allowed to plant the trees within the utility easement area -- the public utility easement area, not the Collier County, which your staff, May 4, 2017 Page 24 of 30 your utility person has even said he doesn't see it as an issue anymore. So I would like to just make it clear that we're going to plant the trees. We want to have options as to what we can develop on the property. And in order to have the potential to do single-family, we need to have the deviation we're asking for with regard to putting the porches in, because that's the type of product we want to put in. With -- when you -- when you -- and we think it will be a very attractive product. And you've seen their product, and I don't think it's going to hurt anybody by us planting a tree that may either have roots that go into the utility easement, a canopy that goes into the utility easement, and maybe we'll even actually plant it in the utility easement. I don't think that's going to hurt anything or degrade the project or threaten the utilities that will always be within the underground area of that utility. So that's what I wanted to address as far as planting. I know it was brought up by Mr. Strain about Florida Power and Light and others having no issues with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I've never had them object to any of that. In fact, they make it clear you can do that, but if they have to come through and tear it up, you might have to replace your stuff. MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely. We understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they've routinely always allowed it. Now, on the flip side, if they were to prohibit everything in a nonexclusive easement, I'm wondering how that might be considered a taking, then we've got another issue on our hands in property rights. MR. YOVANOVICH: We would be talking about a whole different set of facts as to people -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. I'm not really concerned about the taking issue, but I want to make sure Mr. Fryer understands the issue. The developer plants the tree in the utility easement, which, as owner, he can do as long as it's not inconsistent with the utility use. If the FPL says it's okay, then if it becomes a problem, it's the successor owner's problem who must remove the tree and replant somewhere on his property. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll go to -- well, let's take a 10-minute break and come back at 10:33 -- and we'll go to public speakers as soon as we come back -- so court reporter can have a moment. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If everybody will please take your seats, we need to resume the meeting. We had left off with public comment, so, Ray, do we have any public speakers registered? MR. BELLOWS: One public speaker; Maurice Gutierrez. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maurice, please come up. And, for the record, if you could spell at least your last name, Maurice. MR. GUTIERREZ: Good morning. For the record, Maurice Gutierrez, G-u-t-i-e-r-r-e-z. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hold on. Mr. Yovanovich had something. I'm sorry to interrupt you. MR. YOVANOVICH: One of the things -- I just wanted to make sure before the public speaks -- because we had initially asked for a payment in lieu of constructing the sidewalk. Staff recommended -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- against that, and we've agreed with staff's recommendation, and we will do the sidewalk concurrent with our site development. So there's no longer a request for that payment in lieu. That was one of the conditions we had agreed to. I just want to make sure that was clear on the record in case anybody public was concerned about that sidewalk. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. I had asked to get that on the record just in case -- I know Ellie -- and that is one person in my disclosure I forgot to mention. Ellie Soto had called -- is that your -- MS. McEWIN: McEwin. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: McEwin. I'm thinking of 40 years ago, Ellie; I'm sorry. Ellie had let me know that there might have been a problem with the sidewalks, but it's been, I think, resolved. May 4, 2017 Page 25 of 30 So with that, Maurice, please go ahead. MR. GUTIERREZ: Well, thank you. Besides being a property owner, currently I am chair of the MSTU as well as the advisory board for the CRA there. Primarily, here to thank Mattamy Homes for the presentation. When they did their public hearing, the public was -- I mean, we had a packed house. Really interesting, very positive comments. The questions that were asked were good questions, not negative questions. And just for a quick summation, the MSTU will be moving forward with the improvements on Thomasson Drive, which primarily include sidewalks, lighting, connectivity from our district all the way down to Hamilton Harbor entrance. I want to thank Mattamy Homes for the sidewalk, because now those individual property owners on the west side of the property will have a connectivity to the Thomasson area. We had a meeting yesterday, and we were expecting plans 60 percent complete, but we'll be getting them in June. It will include a roundabout, so I think their project is really going to dovetail into what we're doing to improve traffic flow, pedestrian crossings, and things of that nature. The landscaping of the roundabout will be handled by the Botanical Gardens. Again, another improvement as well as their development. The other thing I wanted to mention, we were informed yesterday -- we have been working on a connection bridge from Sugden Park onto Bayshore through a footpath, and that will be located almost directly across from the Windstar entrance which puts it in proximity to this project very closely. Obviously, an amenity and a positive note for those residents when they go. We received a federal grant confirmed to be distributed financially in October. So the MSTU is juggling the 3- to $4 million we'll be spending on all of the sidewalks there on Thomasson on both sides, as well as lighting and landscaping. And we were hoping that maybe we would be able to get a little financial assistance to complete the bridge. We have funding of $144,000. Estimated cost, per the drawings that we have received, is about 280,000. And other than that, that's really my only request to stand before you today, board members. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, I don't have that kind of money in my pocket to give you, Maurice. MR. GUTIERREZ: But you're also -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not in a -- exactions like that, we moved away from those quite a while back. And if you guys work out a private deal with the developer, that would be great. But I don't think it's this board's position to wade into that. So as much as I -- and, by the way, you guys do a great job. You've got a great CRA, and I've talked to you many times. I certainly like what you're doing down there. I don't know how we can help you with that kind of an issue, so... MR. GUTIERREZ: Okay. Well, I thought it was a good public forum to request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that when it gets to the next forum and you request, at least it can be discussed when they set the budgets up and things like that. Maybe there's possibilities to help there; I don't know. I don't get involved in that usually, but I know we can't -- we wouldn't be in a position to do much with that. MR. GUTIERREZ: All right. Thank you. But on behalf of the board members, the CRA and MSTU, we feel this project is fabulous, great for the community, and thank you for the support. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman? Excuse me, sir. Before you leave. MR. GUTIERREZ: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Did I understand you to say that you reside in Windstar? MR. GUTIERREZ: No. I live off of Bayshore on one of the single-family home side streets. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. MR. GUTIERREZ: Windstar is quite well represented on the CRA board, just for the record. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. May 4, 2017 Page 26 of 30 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other public speakers registered, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the public who has not spoken wish to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Mr. Yovanovich, do you have any closing comments you'd like to provide? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public meeting, and we'll entertain a motion and then discussion. Does anybody have a motion they'd like to make? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I make a -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion to approve -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- PL20160000183 with the -- with the requirements of staff on the back of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Point of clarification on the motion, if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: How is it intended to treat the disagreement with respect to the front porch? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I don't have a problem with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your motion is to approve but subject to everything in the recommendations as written; is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second to that motion? MR. YOVANOVICH: I think, honestly, then the appropriate motion would be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Rich, we're in a motion. Close the public hearing. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let us work it out. Is there a second to Diane's motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'll entertain a second motion. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to approve without the Recommendation No. 2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the one involving the measurement of the facades? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. A motion's been made. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Patrick. Now we'll go into discussion. As far as the motion goes, I agree with you, I don't think there's any provisions in the code to support No. 2 based on the way it's written. At the same time, we've had testimony clearly to say that those easements are not exclusive in the front. They're private easements. The Utility Department doesn't have any jurisdiction over them. They've provided no letters of objections from the Utilities saying that these easements can't be used, as, customarily, they have been for ages. So from that perspective, I cannot see a problem eliminating No. 2 nor supporting the staff recommendation in the PUD that included alternative landscaping for that very area. So I think the motion's good. There's a couple things we might want to make sure are included. The applicant walked through some changes that they were making. Those changes, I didn't hear any objections. They were going to add the seven-year limitation to the bones units as well as some other changes to the Development Standards Table. The Windstar interconnect was going to have a reference added to it on the master plan that says it will be subject to the approval of the Windstar community, or Windstar HOA, whatever jurisdictional agency or group there's there, and they were going to have a -- they had a wall/fence plan that -- Richard, is there any May 4, 2017 Page 27 of 30 objection to adding that plan to the record, or to the packet? MR. YOVANOVICH: We can do that. We'll refer to it appropriately as the -- whatever exhibit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that would help understand where you're putting fences and walls and all that. And other than that, those are the issues outside of the normal textual changes that were discussed as we went on with today's proceedings. Did you have anything else, Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure we talked about putting the footnote in the appropriate setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The No. 3 will go in those two locations, rear and LME. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I think that's appropriate. Anybody on the Commission first? Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: This, I suppose, is a legal question. I assume that the private easements in question with the utilities follow a template. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Usually they're platted. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So they're part of subdivision plat? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't know -- you know, when they're private utility, I don't know to what extent FPL is contacted and they get an objection. I don't know if they review the landscape plans or how that -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So that answered my question. So if -- if it comes to pass that a tree is planted -- and I like trees. I'm all about canopy trees. But if it happens that down the road, after a tree has been planted, it starts to encroach upon and, perhaps, obstruct a utility, then the Utility, as part of, presumably, the easement agreement, would say, you're going to have to take that tree down. Now, my question is, is there an ordinance, is there a law at this point that would require the owner to put another tree in its place if, without that tree, there was nonconformity to the canopy tree law? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: As our LDC is currently written, if they don't have one canopy tree per I think it's 3,500 square feet, then they would not be in compliance and would be required to find another spot on their property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or put a tree back in the spot where one was removed. FP&L and the utilities -- and I've dealt with them 20 years of my career, putting in plantings, monuments, and everything else in their easements. Basically, if they have a problem but if they have to go in and do a repair, dig something up and that tree or that monument get crushed, destroyed, it's up to you to replant it. If the code requires you to plant another tree, you could replant in the same location. Now, the utilities in those areas -- everything's in either -- mostly -- yeah, all of it's in conduit that I've ever done. It's quite deep. We put in all kinds of banks and conduits for both FP&L, Sprint, cable, and places like that. I've never known a problem. I've never seen where they've ever had to come in and tear all this out. But they have that provision in case they do, and it's a rare occasion. So the tree issues that we seem to be having mostly are those that buckle up the sidewalks because they're put in the right-of-way where we allow a street tree program to go in. And the canopy trees and those street trees, most of the time, are the big oaks, and the big oaks have roots that tear them up. And that is what's occurring on quite a few projects. And I know, based on testimony today, they have other projects where some of the PUEs have problems. But that's a private element. It's not a public element in regards to the -- our public utilities, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: I wanted to be sure that if they -- Utility exercises its private right to cause the removal of the tree, that the obligation to replant somewhere is continuing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it is. We have to have -- if you take out the required amount of trees, some have got to be put back in to meet that requirement. Is that correct, Ray? May 4, 2017 Page 28 of 30 MR. BELLOWS: Yes, that is correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else on the Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eric, then Rich. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, are we going to bring this back on consent agenda next time or, if not -- because I just want to make sure that I have all the corrections and updates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't see a need for it unless -- and the way we approach consent is if we require it, it comes back. If we don't require it, then it doesn't come back. But why don't we tackle your questions as soon as we hear any final comments from Rich. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: My only question is, in lieu of doing a separate easement for the wall plan, do you mind if we just add the wall plan to our master plan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- as long as the walls and fence areas are shown, I think that clarifies what you're doing where. I don't have a problem with it. Does anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're good. Okay. Eric, what are your questions? MR. JOHNSON: Okay. I just really want to make sure that I have all the changes that were going to be to the PUD document. I know that we talked about making changes on Page 2 of 10, striking out private -- the words "private intended," "private intended." And then on Page 3 of 10 of the ordinance, there were some changes to the maximum building height and zoned and actual, and then we're adding an Asterisk 3 under accessory uses, minimum rear yard setback; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under minimum rear yard setback accessory, we're doing Asterisk 3, that's correct. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're leaving the Asterisk 3 under the minimum drainage easement setback as well. That's where it was shown originally. Just out of curiosity, Wayne and Rich, why do you need that line under accessory for minimum drainage easement setback when it's really covered by your rear setback; is it not? I mean, Eric, that might just take away any confusion in regards to the -- and you have it up on your principal, too. See, No. 3 says, the landscape buffer easements shall be located within open space tracts, and it refers to the lake maintenance easements. And there it says, the structures set back on the platted residential lot may reduce to zero feet where it abuts the easement. So if you have that footnote, why do you need the lines? MS. ARNOLD: Mr. Strain, the only distinction I might make is that the lake maintenance tracts are platted separately, and so are landscape maintenance tracts -- or landscape buffer tracts, excuse me. There may be instances where we have a drainage easement that is not a platted lake tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Understand. Okay. Sounds fine. You're right. Good clarification. Thank you. Eric, did you have any other -- MR. JOHNSON: I think I have everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. JOHNSON: No further. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. With that, we'll call for the vote. All those in favor with the changes we discussed -- first of all, is the motion maker and the second comfortable with the changes we just finished discussion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. May 4, 2017 Page 29 of 30 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Thank you, all. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us down to 10, which is new business. There's nothing listed. 11, old business, there's nothing listed. 12, public comment. Anybody members of the public here wishing to comment today? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nobody has acknowledged. Therefore, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Diane. Seconded -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- by Ned. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:48 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ______ or as corrected _____. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. May 4, 2017 Page 30 of 30 PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 1 of 19 May 24, 2017 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JUNE 1, 2017 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20160001398 COUNTY BARN ROAD RPUD _____________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY OWNER/AGENTS: Owners: Applicant: Agents: County Barn Investors, LLC Jaxe, LLC D. Wayne Arnold, AICP 5800 Lakewood Ranch Blvd. 3435 Enterprise Ave, Ste. 25 Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. North Sarasota, FL 34240 Naples, FL 34104 3800 Via Del Ray Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Charles R. Keller Trust Contract Purchasers: 2301 County Barn Rd Jaxe, LLC Bruce Anderson Naples, FL 34112 3435 Enterprise Ave, Ste. 25 Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. Naples, FL 34104 821 5th Avenue South Jaxe, LLC Naples, FL 34102 3435 Enterprise Ave, Ste. 25 County Barn Investors, LLC Naples, FL 34104 5800 Lakewood Ranch Blvd. North Sarasota, FL 34240 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from an Estates (E) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the County Barn Road RPUD. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located on the east side of County Barn Road, approximately one-quarter mile south of Davis Boulevard in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 2 6 East, Collier County, Florida (See location map on page 2). AGENDA ITEM 9-C County Barn RDRattlesnake Hammock RDLivingstonRDDavis BLVD Ta mia mi T R L E Radio RD Santa Barbara BLVDGLEN EAGLE BLVD SDAVIS BOULE VARD E XTE NSIO NS.R. - 8 4 DAVIS BOU LEVAR D UNITY WAYCOUNTY BARN ROADCOPE ROAD COUNTY BARN ROADTRACT QTRACT B ROSEWOODCONDO AMELIA LAKECONDO 1 2 PH II PH II PH I AMELIA LAKECONDO 1810 NAPOLI LUXURY CONDO 1830 NAPOLILUXURY CONDO 1840NAPOLILUXURYCONDO 1835 NAPOLI LUXURY CONDO 1875 NAPOLILUXURY CONDO PH II INGRESS & EGRESS ESMTO.R. BOOK 337, PAGE 178O.R. BOOK 337, PAGE 178O.R. BOOK 2575PAGE 0604 O.R. BOOK 4093PAGE 2515 OR 4144 PG 702OR 4144 PG 702OR 4144 PG 702OR 4144 PG 674OR 4353/1190RES 2003-50MAGNOLIA FALLSCONDO PH IPH II BL DG1400BLDG1700BLDG1500BLDG1600 BL DG1800 BL DG1900 BL DG2000 BL DG1300 BL DG1200 BL DG2400 BL DG2300BLDG2100 BL DG2200 BL DG2500 BL DG2600 BL DG2700 1865NAPOLILUXURYCONDO 1885NAPOLI LUXURY CONDO À1 X72 X49X48X31X26.1 X34 X1 X30X2 À1 X96X22 X73 X14 X23 X4 X32 X79 X12 X28 X37 X70 X15 X69 X99 X15 X11 X97 X90X60.1 X60 X7.1 X52 X38.1 X24 X93X44 X87X86 X18 X84 X84.1 X58X101 X98 X53 X21 X59 X82 X83 X29 X100 X17 À1 X19 X102 À2 X65 X66 X54 X6 X20 X39 X35 X38.2 X104 X106 X107 X108 X111 X110 X109 P.U.e, V CU CU CU CU P.U.E, CU V DRI DRI PUD PUD PUD E P C-1 E E PUD RMF-6(4) CFPUD RPUD RPUD SEACREST UPPER& LOWER SCHOOLS FALLINGWATERS BRETONNE PARK BERKSHIR ELAKES COPE RESERVE AVALON OFNAPLES Location Map Zoning Map Petition Number: PL-2016-1398 PROJECTLOCATION SITELOCATION¹ PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 3 of 19 May 24, 2017 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner seeks to rezone 38.23± acres, from E to RPUD, to allow a maximum of 268 multi- family dwelling units or 156 single-family residential dwelling units or any combination of dwelling unit types permitted in the RPUD, but not to exceed a trip cap of 157 p.m. peak hour, two-way trips. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject project proposes a density of seven dwelling units per acre. This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding boundaries of the County Barn Road RPUD: North: A school with a zoning designation of Seacrest Upper and Lower Schools Community Facilities Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) and farther north is a church with the zoning designation of E and Avalon of Naples RPUD, and then farthest north is the right-of-way for Davis Boulevard. East: A church with a zoning designation of E and farther east a school with a zoning designation of E. East (to the south): An ornamental nursery with a zoning designation of E and farther east is a single-family home with a zoning designation of E, and then farthest east is Falling Waters Planned Unit Development (PUD). South: Stormwater management pond on property owned by Collier County with a zoning designation of E and farther south is right-of-way for Cope Lane, and farthest south are single-family homes with a zoning designation of E. South (to the west): Stormwater management pond on property owned by Collier County with a zoning designation of E and farther south is right-of-way for Cope Lane, and farthest south is vacant property with a zoning designation of Cope Reserve RPUD. West (to the north): Right-of-way for County Barn Road and farther west is multi-family residential with a zoning designation of Residential Multiple-Family-6 [RMF-6(4)]. West: Right-of-way for County Barn Road and farther west are two parcels, one developed with a church with a zoning designation of E, the other unimproved with a zoning designation of E with a Conditional Use (CU). West (to the south): Right-of-way for County Barn Road and farther west are vacant parcels with a zoning designation of E. PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 4 of 19 May 24, 2017 Aerial (County GIS) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): Staff identified the FLUE policies relevant to this project and determined that the proposed RPUD may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. Please see Attachment 3 – FLUE Consistency Review for a more detailed analysis of how staff derived this determination. 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 GMP using the 2014 and 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states, “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 developmen t, 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 PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 5 of 19 May 24, 2017 has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts on all roadways.” The proposed PUD on the subject property was reviewed based on the applicable 2016 AUIR. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the proposed new residential development will generate approximately 157 PM peak hour, two-way trips. The proposed development will impact the following roadway segments with the listed capacities: Roadway Link 2016 AUIR Existing LOS Current Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume/Peak Direction 2016 Remaining Capacity County Barn Road Davis Boulevard to Rattlesnake Hammock B 900/South 528 Davis Boulevard Lakewood Boulevard to County Barn Road D 2,000/East 409 Davis Boulevard County Barn Road to Santa Barbara C 2,200/East 636 Based on the 2016 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips for the amended project within the five-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 CCME. A minimum of 2.72 acres of native vegetation are required to be retained for the RPUD. PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 6 of 19 May 24, 2017 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. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 10.02.13 B.5, Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation (commonly referred to as the “PUD Findings”), and Subsection, 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establish the legal basis to support th e CCPC’s recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading “Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis.” In addition, staff offers the following analysis. Drainage: Stormwater Engineering Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document to address stormwater drainage concerns. The proposed RPUD is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area, provided the project’s stormwater management system is designed to the current Lely Canal Basin discharge rate of 0.06 cubic feet per second per acre (cfs/ac). Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage for this project will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). Key portions of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project (LASIP) off- site stormwater drainage infrastructure are currently in place and capable of adequately conveying SFWMD permitted stormwater discharges from this proposed development. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document to address environmental concerns. Habitats on site are fragmented due to past clearing activities making it necessary for the applicant to request a deviation from an environmental standard of the LDC, to allow more than one acre of preserve to be created on site. Since a deviation from an environmental standard had been requested, review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) is required pursuant to Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. The preserve within the RPUD was selected by the applicant to retain the highest quality vegetation on the property. This habitat contains wetlands which accepts off-site flows from the east and together, with adjacent uplands, maintains a connection to the County-owned pond to the south and off-site undeveloped lands to the east. These undeveloped lands to the east, in turn, extend north on undeveloped property owned by Unity of Naples, Inc. and then west to a preserve within Seacrest School, allowing for use of the area as a corridor for wildlife. This corridor can be determined to be consistent with the preserve selection criteria pursuant to LDC Section 3.05.07 A.5, which requires preserves to be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off-site preservation areas or wildlife corridors. PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 7 of 19 May 24, 2017 Landscape Review: No deviations to landscaping or buffer requirements are proposed. Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) District Review: There is sufficient capacity within the elementary, middle, and high school concurrency service areas for this proposed development. At the time of site development plan (SDP) or plat (PPL), if there is not capacity within the concurrency service areas the development is located within, adjacent concurrency service areas will be included in the determination of capacity. 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. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning Staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this project. Utilities Review: The project lies within the potable water and the south wastewater service areas of the Collier County Water-Sewer District. Water and wastewater service is readily available via existing infrastructure along the project’s frontage on County Barn Road. Zoning Services Review: With respect to project density, staff compared this RPUD with the densities of the abutting and adjacent properties (see Attachment 4 - Density Map). The maximum proposed density for this RPUD would be seven dwelling units per acre. Staff determined the density proposed for this RPUD would be acceptable given the fact that the subject property is located within a Residential Density Band on the FLUM of the GMP and that Avalon of Naples RPUD, another residential project located within close proximity of the subject property, was approved in 2015 with the same density requested for this petition. This RPUD proposes a range of residential uses including single-family detached, zero-lot-line single-family homes, two-family attached dwellings, townhouses, and multi-family dwellings. The petitioner proposes a maximum of 268 multi-family dwelling units, 156 single-family dwelling units, or any combination of dwelling unit types permitted in the RPUD, not to exceed a trip count of 157 p.m. peak hour two-way trips. Staff compared the principal uses proposed in this RPUD to those uses allowed nearby the subject property and determined they would be compatible. Staff determined that the proposed standards would be compatible with those allowed in the surrounding area. 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, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The nearby area is developed or is approved for development of a similar nature. The petitioner will be required to comply with all County regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 8 of 19 May 24, 2017 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 and roadway access to the subject site. Additionally, the development will be required to obtain SDP or PPL approval. These processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of conformity with the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion 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. As described in the Staff Analysis section of this staff report (page 6), staff is of the opinion that the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve th e development. The RPUD is required to provide at least 60% of the gross area for usable open space. The Master Plan indicates that 60% would be provided, and no deviation from the open space requirement is being requested. Compliance would be further demonstrated at the time of SDP or PPL. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or PPL), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans, are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has readily available supporting infrastructure, including public water distribution PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 9 of 19 May 24, 2017 and wastewater transmission systems, to service this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be continuously addressed as development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The petitioner is requesting 10 deviations, requiring an evaluation to the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this RPUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Each deviation requested by the petitioner is itemized and analyzed in the Deviation Discussion section of this staff report on page 12. Except for Deviation #2, staff supports all deviations as the petitioner has demonstrated that “the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community” in accordance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, and that the petitioner has demonstrated the deviations are “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations” in accordance with LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h. 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 other elements of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern (of the abutting properties) is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report. The proposed use would not change the existing land use patterns of the surrounding properties. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The proposed RPUD will not create an isolated, unrelated, zoning district. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The square-shape boundary of the RPUD logically follows the external boundary of the parcels assembled for the rezoning. PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 10 of 19 May 24, 2017 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed rezoning is necessary if the petitioner desires to develop the property with multi-family residences. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed RPUD is not anticipated to adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project at this time. The project is subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in the PUDZ Ordinance, which includes provisions to address public safety. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed RPUD is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area, provided the project’s stormwater management system is designed to the current Lely Canal Basin discharge rate of 0.06 cubic feet per second per acre (cfs/ac). Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage for this project will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting with the SFWMD. County staff will evaluate the project’s stormwater management system, calculations and design criteria at time of SDP and/or PPL. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated this RPUD would reduce light or air to the adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas. 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. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The basic premise underlying all development standards in the LDC is that their sound application, when combined with the SDP or PPL process, gives reasonable assurances that PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 11 of 19 May 24, 2017 a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of an abutting or adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. The proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, t he multi- family uses and proposed design standards cannot be achieved without rezoning to an RPUD. 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, associated development standards, and developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the RPUD would require considerable site alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP or PPL processes, 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 regarding Adequate Public PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 12 of 19 May 24, 2017 Facilities (APF), and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except what is 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 (LOS) will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the RPUD Document. The concurrency review for APF is determined at the time of SDP review. Key portions of the LASIP off-site stormwater drainage infrastructure are currently in place and capable of adequately conveying SFWMD permitted stormwater discharges from this proposed development. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is seeking ten deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are directly extracted from PUD Exhibit E. The petitioner’s justification and staff analysis/recommendation is outlined below: Proposed Deviation #1 “Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2 which requires dual sidewalks on local roads internal to the site, to allow a sidewalk on one side of the roadway where the property is permitted with single loaded homesites. Appropriate crosswalks shall be provided at crossing locations.” Petitioner’s Justification: The applicant responded to this request as follows: The developer wishes to construct sidewalks on only the side of the street where homes are located. It is unnecessary to construct sidewalks in areas of the community where no homesites are proposed. Constructing the sidewalk on the side of the street where homes are located will provide safe and convenient access to the pedestrian network for all residents. Staff Analysis and Recomm endation: Transportation Planning staff recommends approval of Deviation #1, noting the approval is consistent with other project deviation approval recommendations, where there will only be structures on one side of the street. As shown on the Master Plan, this deviation would only be applicable in two areas. One area is along the entrance road by the amenity center, and the other area is along the eastern property edge. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of this request as limited on the Master Plan, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community” and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 13 of 19 May 24, 2017 Proposed Deviation #2 “Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e, which allows temporary signs on residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height, to allow a temporary banner sign up to a maximum of 32 square feet in area and 10 feet in height. The temporary banner sign shall be limited to a maximum of 90 days during season defined as January 1 to March 31 per calendar year.” Petitioner’s Justification: The proposed deviation will allow for a banner sign located on the proposed wall along County Barn Road in order to advertise new homes available within the community. The 4 square foot banner sign permitted by the LDC provides minimal visibility and likely will be difficult to read by motorists travelling along County Barn Road, a 45 mph 2-lane roadway and separated from the travel lane by 100± feet. Additionally, the applicant is requesting that the banner be allowed for up to 90 days per calendar year to allow display throughout the peak winter season for home sales. Due to the property’s location on a busy road, high travel speeds along the roadway and the setback from edge of pavement, the Applicant is seeking an increase to the allowable banner size to ensure visibility of this new community. The requested banner size is in accordance with deviations approved for similar residential projects throughout the County. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: A deviation for relief from the sign size has been sought and approved in several other projects, such as Esplanade Golf and Country Club, which was approved for an eight-foot tall sign, not the 10 feet this petitioner is seeking. That sign usage was limited to 28 days, not the 90 days this petitioner is seeking. That petition also cited “the project’s location on a busy road with high speeds along the roadway and the [implied large] setback from the edge of pavement.” The Esplanade project is located along Immokalee Road, where there is a wide canal, as well as the six-lane Immokalee Road. That project was approved for 1,233 units on 1,658 acres. This current project proposes 268 multi-family units, 156 single-family units, or any combination of permitted uses listed in the RPUD, not to exceed a trip cap of 157 p.m. peak hour, two-way trips on 38.23± acres. Immokalee Road is, as noted, a six-lane, divided arterial roadway, whereas County Barn Road is an undivided two-lane collector roadway. The petitioner is seeking two other sign deviations that staff is supporting. Those signs deviations should provide enough flexibility for the development without this deviation. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL of this request, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has not demonstrated that “the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community” and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has not demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” Proposed Deviation #3 “Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5.a, which requires on-premises directional PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 14 of 19 May 24, 2017 signs to be setback a minimum of 10’ from edge of roadway paved surface or back of curb, to allow a setback of 5’ from edge of roadway paved surface or back of curb.” Petitioner’s Justification: This deviation will provide locational flexibility for directional signage internal to the RPUD. A unified design theme will be utilized for all signage throughout the community, thereby ensuring a cohesive appearance and increased aesthetic appeal. All directional signage will meet the Clear Sight Distance requirements in accordance with LDC Section 60.06.05. Furthermore, this deviation is typical of many of the master-planned developments throughout Collier County. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning staff anticipates no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of this request, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community” and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” Proposed Deviation #4 “Deviation 4 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, which permits two (2) ground signs per entrance to the development with a maximum height of 8’ and combined area of 64 s.f., to allow for two (2) ground signs per entrance with a maximum height of 10' and combined area of 80 s.f.” Petitioner’s Justification: The subject property will be accessed via County Barn Road, a collector roadway with relatively high travel speeds. Due to the property’s location, and high travel speeds along County Barn Road and the 100’ setback from edge of pavement of County Barn Road, the Applicant is seeking an increase to allowable entry sign height and area to ensure visibility. Further, sign height is measured from the centerline height of the adjacent roadway. The site will need to place 3’ to 4’ of fill material on-site to reach a finished grade. The sign location is anticipated to be located at or slightly higher than the finished grade; therefore the additional height is warranted. This deviation request is similar to numerous other requests approved for master-planned communities within Collier County. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning staff anticipates no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of this request, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community” and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 15 of 19 May 24, 2017 Proposed Deviation #5 “Deviation 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.1.a and 5.03.02.C, which requires fences or walls in a residential PUD to be 6 feet or less in height and prohibits the existing ground from being altered under the sign, to permit an 8-foot high wall on top of berm.” Petitioner’s Justification: The additional 2 feet of wall is necessary to provide a buffer from the adjacent road traffic noise and the ground must be altered to meet water management criteria. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning staff anticipates no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of this request, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” Proposed Deviation #6 “Deviation 6 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.H, which requires if any required turn lane improvement requires the use of any existing County rights-of-way or easement(s), then compensating right-of-way shall be provided at no cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement(s) upon final approval of the turn lane design during the review of the first subsequent development order unless waived by the County Manager or designee, to permit no additional compensating right-of-way as long as the existing County Barn Road swale cross section can be maintained.” Petitioner’s Justification: The typical cross section will be maintained. The right-of-way is currently 200 feet. 50 feet of right-of-way was taken from the subject property as a part of the LASIP project. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Transportation Planning staff reviewed this deviation and determined that the normally required compensating right-of-way is not needed in this instance, because there is adequate right-of-way way existing for the current and projected needs on County Barn Road. Furthermore, the current two-lane road configuration is adequate to address the projected traffic for this road segment, including drainage, pathway, and sidewalk facilities. For these reasons, it is staff’s opinion this deviation is reasonable. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of this request, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community” and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 16 of 19 May 24, 2017 Proposed Deviation #7 “Deviation 7 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J, which limits cul-de-sacs to a maximum length of 1,000 feet unless existing topographical conditions or other natural features preclude a street layout to avoid longer cul-de-sacs, to permit cul-de-sacs up to a maximum of 1,100 feet with placement of no through traffic signage.” Petitioner’s Justification: A portion of the proposed residential development tracts require access via cul-de-sacs. The 1,000’ length will need to be exceeded in order to gain adequate vehicular access to all development areas within the PUD. The cul-de-sac can be identified with appropriate signage indicating that the roads are not through streets. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The Fire Code Administrator reviewed the proposed Ordinance and has no comments or concerns at this time. Additionally, staff notes that a full review will be conducted at the time of SDP or PPL. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of this request, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community” and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” Proposed Deviation #8 “Deviation 8 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N, and Appendix B, which establishes a minimum 60-foot wide local road right-of-way, to allow a minimum 50’ wide right-of-way. This deviation applies when the developer proposes to develop local streets in lieu of a private drive or access way.” Petitioner’s Justification: The proposed 50’ wide private road right-of-way is sufficiently wide to accommodate the required roadway improvements. Utilities and sidewalks can be placed within easements outside the private right-of-way if necessary. The internal project roads will be private and the standard public right-of-way is not necessary for internal traffic volumes. Dual sidewalks will be provided on local street locations with homesites and a 23’ setback will be required between the garage door and back of sidewalk. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Transportation Planning reviewed this deviation and concurs with Zoning staff that this deviation request is reasonable. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of this request, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that “the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community” and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 17 of 19 May 24, 2017 Proposed Deviation #9 “Deviation 9 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.e.ii, which permits a maximum of 1 acre of required preserves to be created for property with less than 20 acres of existing native vegetation, to permit 1.3 acres of preserve to be created.” Petitioner’s Justification: The deviation is warranted because the highest quality vegetation that exists on-site is located in the southeast portion of the site and is approximately 1.40 acres. In order to meet the County required native vegetation preservation requirement in an area contiguous to the proposed preservation area, 1.32 acres of preserve will need to be created. This is consistent with plans presented to the SFWMD. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Environmental staff reviewed this deviation and concurs with Zoning staff’s approval. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of this request, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” Proposed Deviation #10 “Deviation 10 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02 A.1., which requires sidewalks and bike lanes must be constructed within public and private rights-of-way or easements, which are adjacent to the site prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for construction authorized by a final subdivision plat, site improvement, or site development plan, unless otherwise determined by the County Manager or designee, to allow no sidewalks and bike lanes to be constructed for the development.” Petitioner’s Justification: Relief is requested from this requirement understanding that the applicant will construct a right turn lane that is not warranted by the Collier County's Right of Way Handbook, and therefore, should not be required. However, the Developer proposes to construct the right turn lane in lieu of the sidewalk because it will preserve capacity along County Barn Road, and more importantly, avoid NB traffic flow conflicts and rear-end collisions. The capacity and safety benefits achieved by constructing the right turn lane far exceed the benefits of constructing a sidewalk that will only extend the length of the property and will not connect to other sidewalks because none exist along County Barn Road. There is adequate r/w along the east side of County Barn Road if the County decides to construct a sidewalk in the future. At this time, the County is planning to construct a multi -use path on the west side of County Barn Road. This should be conditioned with the following: 1. The right turn lane will be 185 feet long. PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 18 of 19 May 24, 2017 2. The adjusted swale section will allow for a sidewalk on the west side of the County Barn right of way. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Transportation Planning staff reviewed this deviation and determined this deviation will better serve the safety concerns of the public by retaining the free flow of traffic on County Barn Road. Staff requested the right-turn lane to reduce traffic conflicts on this two-lane road segment; however, the traffic volume generated by this development does not warrant this request. Additionally, the sidewalk along the east side of County Barn Road is not currently planned within the next five years; however, a multi -use pathway along the west is identified and partially funded in the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization’s pathway priority list, as well as the Florida Department of Transportation’s Five Year Work Program. It is staff’s opinion this deviation request is reasonable. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of this request, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.” NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on December 8, 2016. The applicant’s team consisted of Wayne Arnold, Michael Greenberg, Bruce Anderson, Chip Youman, Jim Banks, Brent Addison, and Sharon Umpenhour. Discussion items included LASIP, tree removal along County Barn Road, types and sizes of dwellings proposed, needed sidewalk/lighting/guardrail improvements to County Barn Road, permitting timeline, conservation areas, water management and drainage, school capacity, roadways accommodating school buses, construction trucks on County Barn Road, affordable housing, loss of green space, height of structures, density, and traffic. One member of the public commented that LASIP ought to be completed prior to allowing construction on this project. Please see the NIM summary in Attachment 2 – Application and Support Material for additional information. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s Office reviewed this staff report on May 19, 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC, acting as the local planning agency and the Environmental Advisory Council, forwards Petition PUDZ-PL20160001398 COUNTY BARN ROAD RPUD, to the Board with a recommendation of approval subject to the denial of Deviation #2. Attachments: 1) Proposed Ordinance 2) Application and Support Material 3) FLUE Consistency Review 4) Density Map 5) LIDAR Map 6) Legal Notifications ORDINANCE NO. 17 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM AN ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE COUNTY BARN ROAD RPUD, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF 268 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS OR 156 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS OR ANY COMBINATION OF DWELLING UNIT TYPES PERMITTED IN THE PUD, NOT TO EXCEED A TRIP CAP OF 157 P.M. PEAK HOUR TWO-WAY TRIPS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COUNTY BARN ROAD, APPROXIMATELY ONE QUARTER MILE SOUTH OF DAVIS BOULEVARD IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 38.59± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, and R. Bruce Anderson, Esq., representing Jaxe, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: [16 -CPS -01606/1337392/1]74 rev. 5/16/17 County Barn Road RPUD PUDZ-PL20160001398 Page 1 9 SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 8, Township 50, Range 26, Collier County, Florida, is changed from an Estates (E) Zoning District to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) for a project to be known as the County Barn Road RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 268 multi -family or 156 single family residential dwelling units or any combination of dwelling unit types permitted in the PUD, not to exceed a trip count of 157 p.m. peak hour two-way trips, in accordance with Exhibits A through F attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of 92017. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA �0 , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney BY: Penny Taylor, Chairman Exhibit A: Permitted Uses Exhibit B: Development Standards Exhibit C: Master Plan Exhibit D: Legal Description Exhibit E: Requested Deviations from LDC Exhibit F: Developer Commitments 116 -CPS -01606/1337392/1174 rev. 5/16/17 County Barn Road RPUD P UDZ-PL20160001398 Page 2 ObJ EXHIBIT A FOR COUNTY BARN ROAD RPUD Regulations for development of the County Barn Road RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this RPUD Document and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate. Where this RPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. PERMITTED USES: A maximum of 268 multi -family residential dwelling units or 156 single family residential dwelling units or any combination of dwelling unit types permitted in the PUD, not to exceed the trip cap specified in Exhibit F, item 4.b, shall be permitted within the RPUD. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: RESIDENTIAL A. Principal Uses: 1. Dwelling Units — Multi -family, townhouse, two family attached, zero lot line and single-family detached. 2. Any other principal use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") or the Hearing Examiner. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the principal uses permitted in this RPUD, including but not limited to garages, carports, swimming pools, spas, screen enclosures and utility buildings. 2. Gatehouses, and access control structures. 3. Model homes and model home centers including sales trailers and offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing. 4. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, gazebos and picnic areas. 5. Any other accessory use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and consistent with the permitted accessory uses ofthis PUD as determined bythe Board of Zoning Appeals or the Hearing Examiner. O County Barn Road RPUD, PL20160001398 Page 1 of 11 05/16/2017 U AMENITY AREA A. Principal Uses: 1. Clubhouse with cafes, snack bars and similar uses intended to serve residents and guests. 2. Community administrative and recreation facilities. Outdoor/indoor recreation facilities, such as a community swimming pool, tennis/pickle ball courts and basketball courts, fitness/spa, parks, playgrounds, pedestrian/bikeways, and passive and/or active water features intended to serve residents and guests. 3. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, bikeways, landscape nurseries, gazebos, boat and canoe docks, fishing piers, picnic areas, fitness trails and shelters to serve residents and their guests. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Model homes and model home centers including sales trailers and offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing. 2. Any other accessory use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and consistent with the permitted accessory uses of this PUD as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals or Hearing Examiner. PRESERVE A. Allowable Uses: 1. Nature trails and boardwalks that do not reduce the amount of required preserve area to be retained. 2. Mitigation for environmental permitting. 3. Passive uses, as per LDC requirements. 4. Water management as allowed by the LDC. County Barn Road RPUD, PL20160001398 Page 2 of 11 05/16/2017 G4'O EXHIBIT B FOR COUNTY BARN ROAD RPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Exhibit B sets forth the development standards for land uses within the County Barn Road RPUD Subdistrict. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. 1. Guardhouses, gatehouses, access control structures, clock towers, fences, walls, columns, decorative hardscaping or architectural embellishments associated with the project's entrance features are permitted within the "R" designated area abutting the project's entrance, or within the private roadway as depicted on the PUD Master Plan, and shall have no required setbacks; however, such structures cannot be located where they create vehicular stacking or sight distance issues for motorists and pedestrians, and cannot exceed 35 feet in zoned height and 40 feet in actual height. County Barn Road RPUD, PL20160001398 Page 3 of 11 05/16/2017 U EXHIBIT B FOR COUNTY BARN ROAD RPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARDS SINGLE ZERO LOT LINE TWO FAMILY TOWNHOUSE MULTI- AMENITY FAMILY ATTACHED FAMILY AREA DETACHED PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE SETBACKS Minimum Lot Area 5,000 SF 3,500 SF 3,500 SF 1,600 SF Per N/A 10,000 Unit Minimum Lot Width 40 feet 35 feet 35 feet 16 feet N/A N/A Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet N/A N/A Minimum Front Yard *1,2 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 15 feet Minimum Side Yard 5 feet 0 or 10 feet 0 or 5 feet 0 or 5 feet 10 feet % BH Minimum Rear Yard *4 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Minimum Preserve 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Distance Between Principal 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 0 Or 10 feet 20 feet % sum of BH Structures *3 35 feet 2 Maximum Height 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet stories 35 feet Zoned 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 2 40 feet Actual stories ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACKS Minimum Front Yard SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS Minimum Side Yard SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS Minimum Rear Yard*4 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet Minimum Preserve 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Maximum Height Zoned 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet Actual 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet SPS—Same as Principal Structure BH — Building Height (zoned height) LBT— Landscape Buffer Tract LMT — Lake Maintenance Tract *1—The minimum front yard setback may be reduced to 12' where the unit has a recessed or side entry garage. Front -entry garages shall be set back a minimum of 23 feet from back of sidewalk. *2 — For corner lots, only one front yard setback shall be required. The yard that does not contain the vehicle access shall provide a 10' setback. *3 — The minimum distance between buildings may be reduced to 0' where attached garages are provided. However, the principal structures shall maintain a 10' minimum separation. *4 — If single family or two family attached development is pursued through the County's plat process, LBTs and LMTs will be platted as separate tracts. Where a lot abuts a LBT or LMT, the setback may be reduced to 5 feet for principal structures and zero feet for accessory structures. Note: Nothing in this RPUD document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in a list of deviations. County Barn Road RPUD, PL20160001398 Page 4 of 11 05/16/2017 O SUMMARY TAL SITE AREA: 38.23± ACRE XIMUM DWELLING UNITS: 268 (SEE NOTE 4) NSITY: 7 D.U. PER ACRE (BASE DENSITY 4 D.U./AC + BONUS DENSITY 3 D.U./AC) ESERVE: REQUIRED: 2.72± ACRES (10.89t ACRES NATIVE VEGETATION X 0.25) PROVIDED: 2.72± ACRES EN SPACE: REQUIRED: 22.9± ACRES (38.23 X.60) PROVIDED: 22.9± ACRES ZONED: RMF -6 (4) USE: RESIDENTIAL 1 'I ZONED:CFPUD USE: SEACREST UPPER 8t LOWER SCHOOL I 15' WIDE TYPE 'B' BUFFER T N R I A 000' 11x17 SCALE: 1" = 200' �r 2' WIDE EASEMENTS R I ZONED: E --------------------------------- - �� USE: CHURCH WATER ---- -- O Iii WATER I it - MANAGEMENT AREA MANAGEMENT I III -SF-10'WIDE I ---------------------- TYPE 'A' BUFFER MF - 15' WIDE TYPE'B' BUFFER NOTES — — — -� l R 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS 20' WIDE f Q I R-- I --------------- SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY TYPE'D' p ------------- ---- '- I PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. BUFFER ¢O 2. ALL ACREAGES, EXCEPT PRESERVE ACREAGE, dr- I J ® WATER ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO zII I MANAGEMENT CrQ MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF AGENCY PERMITTING, SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL IN ZONED: E m -' ZONED: E ACCORDANCE WITH THE LDC. USE: RESIDENTIAL Z (Lf`J ___ USE: RESIDENTIAL 3. PRESERVES MAY BE USED TO SATISFY THE p0 II ® R f LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AFTER U 3 7 EXOTIC REMOVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC I ��_ - - PRESERVE-.- SECTION 4.06.02 AND LDC SECTION 4.06.05.E.1. e SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGS WITH NATIVE I I I R r PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE I e WITH LDC SECTION 3.05.07.--167 r 4. MAXIMUM TOTAL OF 268 MULTI -FAMILY OR 156 SF - 10' WIDE TYPE'A' BUFFER± SINGLE FAMILY OR ANY COMBINATION SO MF - 15' WIDE TYPE'B' BUFFER LONG AS THE TRIP CAP SPECIFIED IN EXHIBIT F, ITEM 4.B, OF THE PUD IS NOT EXCEEDED. ZONED: E 5. 12.0' EASEMENT FOR ROADWAY(OR 230, PG 600 USE: COUNTY WATER MANAGEMENT LAKE AND OR 2355, PG 2715). TO BE VACATED. s LEGEND � COUNTY BARN ROAD RPUD W o ,� xw. � DEVIATION ®GradyMinor xx,x)v,a nrl xrx Rpnila >Vr,n®t. 1'IuriUa J{IJi 5.° ae/sos/zcc EXHIBIT C REVISED ,t ge•;se pe. scan +� ommentz 5u � r3 °" 3 R RESIDENTIAL Cm Engineers .n.,.l �.�e. ,.x,w°,, i.,, Land Sur Byers planners Landscape archi[ecL �.r��.,e aan� °x ann.,i.,i x<.,ne.. u: zsrx,nzee MASTER PLAN 04/24/2017 er, ian i<« <emm<m: ooz z x<.« per ,mn 'retie. z <a meme s.u. '° M xvaxmu. mme: I xOF AAMENITY AREA x<m:e Fn •mr, r<.I< m<„sR'lDescripllan n,nxld +prixr.. -1,19 117.11.11 x'!,'r'n A,v l/ln r, r. rrrm RprI. My— 239.Ii40. IJxx SnEFf 1 I E av EXHIBIT D FOR COUNTY BARN ROAD RPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1 (PER OR 5144, PG 238) THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; LESS AND EXCEPT THE WEST 50 FEET THEREOF AS DESCRIBED IN DEEDS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 165, PAGE 350; OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 304, PAGE 261 AND IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 324, PAGE 290; AND ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT THE EAST 50 FEET OF THE WEST 100 FEET THEREOF, AS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER OF TAKING RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4144, PAGE 702, AS AMENDED BY THE PARTIAL FINAL JUDGMENTS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4501, PAGE 1596 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 2 (PER OR 4048, PG 2662) THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, LESS ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 3 (PER OR 5201, PG 1326) THE SOUTH ONE-HALF (S 1/2) OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF (N 1/2) OF THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST 50 FEETTHEREOF; AND LESS AND EXCEPT THE EAST 50 FEET OF THE WEST 100 FEET AS DESCRIBED ON THE ORDER OF TAKING RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 4155, PAGE 190, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE CENTER SECTION OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THENCE RUN ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8, SOUTH 00°43151" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 339.31 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, NORTH 89°29'03" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,231.26 FEET TO A POINT ON THE RIGHT -OF WAY OF COUNTY BARN ROAD; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, NORTH 00°42'45" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 337.84 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY, NORTH 00°43'39" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,012.63 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, SOUTH 89°44'27" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1,230.25 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 8; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID EAST LINE, SOUTH 00°46'20" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1,016.69 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 38.23 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. O County Barn Road RPUD, PL20160001398 Page 6 of 11 05/16/2017 U EXHIBIT E FOR COUNTY BARN ROAD RPUD LIST OF DEVIATIONS 1. Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2 which requires dual sidewalks on local roads internal to the site, to allow a sidewalk on one side of the roadway where the property is permitted with single loaded homesites. Appropriate crosswalks shall be provided at crossing locations. 2. Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e, which allows temporary signs on residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height, to allow a temporary banner sign up to a maximum of 32 square feet in area and 10 feet in height. The temporary banner sign shall be limited to a maximum of 90 days during season defined as January 1 to March 31 per calendar year. 3. Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5.a, which requires on -premises directional signs to be setback a minimum of 10' from edge of roadway paved surface or back of curb, to allow a setback of 5' from edge of roadway paved surface or back of curb. 4. Deviation 4 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, which permits two (2) ground signs per entrance to the development with a maximum height of 8' and combined area of 64 s.f., to allow for two (2) ground signs per entrance with a maximum height of 10' and combined area of 80 s.f. 5. Deviation 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.1.a and 5.03.02.C, which requires fences or walls in a residential PUD to be 6 feet or less in height and prohibits the existing ground from being altered under the sign, to permit an 8 -foot high wall on top of berm. 6. Deviation 6 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01M, which requires if any required turn lane improvement requires the use of any existing County rights-of-way or easement(s), then compensating right-of-way shall be provided at no cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement(s) upon final approval of the turn lane design during the review of the first subsequent development order unless waived by the County Manager or designee, to permit no additional compensating right-of-way as long as the existing County Barn Road swale cross section can be maintained. 7. Deviation 7 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J, which limits cul-de-sacs to a maximum length of 1,000 feet unless existing topographical conditions or other natural features preclude a street layout to avoid longer cul-de-sacs, to permit cul-de-sacs up to a maximum of 1,100 feet with placement of no through traffic signage. 8. Deviation 8 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N, and Appendix B, which establishes a minimum 60 -foot wide local road right-of-way, to allow a minimum 50' wide right-of-way. This deviation applies when the developer proposes to develop local streets in lieu of a private drive or access way. O County Barn Road RPUD, PL20160001398 Page 7 of 11 05/16/2017 GQ' 9. Deviation 9 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.e.ii, which permits a maximum of 1 acre of required preserves to be created for property with less than 20 acres of existing native vegetation, to permit 1.3 acres of preserve to be created. 10. Deviation 10 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02 A.1., which requires sidewalks and bike lanes must be constructed within public and private rights-of-way or easements, which are adjacent to the site prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for construction authorized by a final subdivision plat, site improvement, or site development plan, unless otherwise determined by the County Manager or designee, to allow no sidewalks and bike lanes to be constructed for the development. County Barn Road RPUD, PL20160001398 Page 8 of 11 05/16/2017 d U 50' RIGHT-OF-WAY SECTION (N.T.S.) LEGEND GradyMinor U. Grady Minor and Asso36UU Via ReydatO Del P.A.os ® y R Bonita Sprinp„v. Florida 34134 Civil Engineers . Land Surveyors . Planners . Landscape ArchitectsrBE Umt.4%.th-EBOOB,5151 fM.rAa,h.1.BIBM15151 BuI.— Lf; 261810266 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144 w w w. GradyMinor. rom FortMycrs: 239.690.4380 COUNTY BARN ROAD RPUD ao; To s coos: _ NCLea DEVIATION #8 50' RIGHT—OF—WAY CROSS SECTION DAM + U-2011 NAME; - oe„_BowxsccnnN SHEET 1 OF 1 EXHIBIT F FOR COUNTY BARN ROAD RPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 1. PUD MONITORING One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close- out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is County Barn Investors, LLC, 28100 Bonita Grande Dr., Suite 106, Bonita Springs, FL 34135. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed -out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. 2. MISCELLANEOUS a. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. b. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development 3. ENVIRONMENTAL a. The RPUD shall be required to preserve 25% of native vegetation. 10.89± acres of native vegetation exists on-site requiring a minimum preservation of 2.72± acres (10.89 x.25 = 2.72) of native vegetation to be retained. b. Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements after exotic removal in accordance with LDC Section 4.06.02 and LDC Section 4.06.05.E.1. Supplemental plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance with LDC Section 3.05.07. County Barn Road RPUD, PL20160001398 Page 10 of 11 05/16/2017 4. TRANSPORTATION a. Owner, its successors and/or assigns shall construct a right turn lane on County Barn Road at the time of plat or SDP. See Deviation #6. b. The PUD shall be limited to a maximum of 157 p.m. peak hour two-way trips. 5. LANDSCAPING In order to avoid conflicts with utilities and sidewalks, the required canopy tree for an individual lot shall be one from the following list: Wax Myrtle Green Buttonwood Satin Leaf Simpson Stopper (Myrcianthes fragrans) 2:1 Dahoon Holly 2:1 or any other small native tree approved by the County's Landscape Architect. Where it can be demonstrated that another tree species can be planted without conflict, staff may approve this alternative species. OCounty Barn Road RPUD, PL20160001398 Page 11 of 11 05/16/2017 (�j COLLIER COUNTY Growth Management Department May 12, 2017 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 (urban areas) or 1,000 feet (rural areas) of the following described property, that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission at 9:00 A.M., on June 1st, 2017, 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 Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from an Estates (E) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the County Barn Road RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 268 multi-family residential dwelling units or 156 single family residential dwelling units or any combination of dwelling unit types permitted in the PUD, not to exceed a trip cap of 157 p.m. peak hour two-way trips. The subject property is located on the east side of County Barn Road, approximately one quarter mile south of Davis Boulevard in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 38.59± acres; and by providing an effective date. [PUDZ-PL20160001398]. 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 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 COUNTY STAFF MEMBER NOTED BELOW, 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 related to this petition, is kept on file and may be reviewed at the Growth Management Department building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. Please contact the staff member noted below at (239)-252-4312 to set up an appointment if you wish to review the file. Sincerely, Daniel James Smith Daniel James Smith, AICP Principle Planner danielsmith@colliergov.net p 0 300 600 900150 Feet PUDE PUD E EC-1C-3 A PUD PUD CFPUD E E Zoning: E Zoning: PUD Zoning: RMF-6(4)Zoning: CFPUD Zoning: RPUD R PUD P Da vis BLVD County Barn RDGROSS DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE (UPA) FOR COUNTY BARN ROAD PUD AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES(PL-2016-1398) ³ SUBJECT PROPERTY:COUNTY BARN ROAD PUD De nsity : 1 per 2.2 5 ac. Cope ReserveDensity: 3.0 Avalon of NaplesDensity:7 Falling Wa tersDensity:5.07 Bretonne ParkDensity:4.14 Be rkshire LakesDensity:3.99 Seacrest Upper & lower Schools Falling Wa tersDensity:5.07 Falling Wa tersDensity:5.07 1 pe r 5 a c. Dens ity : 1 per 2.2 5 ac. Seacres t U pper & lower School s !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( Cope LNCounty Barn RDF lo r id a C lu b D R L e a d e rsh ip L N Hidden Lake CTUnityWAYBayou LNMagnolia AVECountyBarnRDBayou LNBayou LNCounty Barn Road PUDZ LIDAR 2007FEET 9.1 - 9.5 8.6 - 9 8.1 - 8.5 7.6 - 8 7.1 - 7.5 6.6 - 7 6.1 - 6.5 5.6 - 6 5.1 - 5.5 4.6 - 5 4.1 - 4.5 -9.4 - 4 *ALL GRADES NAVD ¹ Created by: GIS Team - GMDN4/26/17 0 0.075 0.150.0375 Miles AGENDA ITEM 9-D Coil'fer County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION — ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JUNE 1, 2017 SUBJECT: CU-PL20150001611, O'REILLY'S TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Applicant/Contract Purchaser: Epic Retail 41 Seminole, LLC 907 S Fort Harrison Ave., Suite 102 Clearwater, FL 33756 Agent: Peter Pensa, AICP Avid Group 2300 Curlew Road, Suite 201 Palm Harbor, FL 34683 REQUESTED ACTION: Owner: William C. and Irene K. Scherer 19218 Eastwood Drive Harper Woods, MI 48225-2043 To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for a Conditional Use to allow an auto supply store over 5,000 square feet of gross floor area in the principal structure (SIC Code 5531) within a Commercial Intermediate (G3) zoning district pursuant to Section 2.03.03.C.1.c.20 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject 1.24f acre parcel is located on Lots 12-18, South Tamiami Heights subdivision at the southwest corner of US 41 and Seminole Avenue, in Section 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Seethe Location Map on the following page) CU-PL20150001611, O'REILLY'S TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST May 19, 2017 Page 1 of 9 O — 6 a PROJECT LOCATION 71 - a 9 -� N Location Map 9 / \ \\ N \`{4,\ Pu,e CU a' F 6 GC o �2si RNID CNR PUD RPUD ¢ m SITE m LOCATION O o.m o 0 R� C-3 GC v4 ®®®� 9 / \ \\ N \`{4,\ Pu,e CU a' Petition Number: PL -2015-1611 Zoning Map ®®®� \ MINIMS Petition Number: PL -2015-1611 Zoning Map FUTURE LOT 9 L B 10'TYPEA LANDSCAPE BUFFER\ ' •,) 70NING C9 `s FLU UC OT II \e\< PROPOSED 10'TYPE D LANDSCAPE BUFFER v- \ 1STORYBUILDING W/ FENCE OB WALLPEB CODE 9,000 SF ZONINORSF< FLU UC EXISTING SINGLE / PADLOCATION SINGLE J FAMILY HOUSEPROPOSE0EMINOLE AITNUE 5'SIOEWgLK 1PTYPE O LANDSCAPE BUFFER WI FENCE OR WALL PER CODE ( ZONING G 3 FLU IOR N 191YPE O LANDSCAPE BUFFER i{P EXISTING ACCESS TO BE CLOSED r � PROPOSED SIDEWAU'. � � P GUSTING SIDEWALK PROPERTY THE \, 15'COUNTYUTIUTYEASEMENT ti b 1 ST mO,L,y *1 ' iPOFy�� \ ZONING C3 Ub0 FLU UC 10TYPE C W4DSCAPE BUFFER 2y1 HI -1 STOP SIGN WI C STOP BAR SRIF DATA PROPERTY OWNER: PROPERTY LOCATION: ` AND IRENEK. 3508TAMIAMI112 E 19218ESWILLIAMC. R EASTW00, DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34112 P HARPER WOODS, MICHIGAN 09225 H PARCEL NUMBER: PROPERTY DEVELOPER: 74010400006, )4410360003, 7441036000] EPIC RETAIL 41 SEMINOLE, LEC ZONING: FUTURE LAND USE: C-3 (COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT) URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT UC (URBAN COASTAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICT) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 12,13,14,15, 16, 17 AND 18, BLOCK A, SOUTH TAMIAMI HEIGHTS, AS RECORDED AND PLATTED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 99, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS: FRONT: 50%OFBLDGHTNOTLE06 THAN2SFT TAMIAMI TRAIL: 15 FT TYPED" SIDE: 50%OFSLDG HT NOTLESS MAXIE" SEMINOLEAVE: tO FF TYPED. REAR: 50% OF BLDG HT NOT LESS THAN 15 FT TAMIAMI LANE: Ion TYPE -0' NW (COMMERCIAL): 10 FT TYPE -A - PROPERTY USE: EXISTING: PROPOSED COMMERCIAL - RETAILSERVICES COMMERCIAL -AUTO PARTS STORE MISCELLANEOUS (SIC#7529-7631,7699) (AUTO AND HOME SUPPLYSTORES(SIC#55317)) FORMERLY A CONVENIENCE STORE WISPS PUMPS (GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS (SIC# 3541)) PARKING (REQUIRED): PARKING (PROPOSED): 1 PARKING SPACE PER 250 SF OF FLOOR AREA STANDARD PARKING SPACES =30 SON SF125D SF= 32 SPACES REQUIRED HC SPACES =x TOTAL PARKING SPACES = 32 HC SPACES REQUIRED:2 STANDARD STALL SIZE -9'.19' PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: 1 HC STALL SIZE =12'[10' 22'.4'+/. (50 ALLOWED) ' CIVIL ENGINEERING 2300 CURLEW ROAD GTE 201 OIREILLY @ US 41 & SEMINOLE AVE. LAND PLANNING PALM HARBOR, FLORIDA lAvip TBAFFICIiRANSSURVEYING 34633 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN SURVEYINGGIs PHONE�727)789-9500 COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA AVIDGROUP.COMI revised 5/10/17 R .CITF PI AN R B X 11 nwr mm/10/2017 The purpose of the subject Conditional Use is to allow an 8,000 -square foot, automobile supply store to have an increased area larger than the LDC prescribed area of 5,000 square feet. The subject site is currently developed with a vacant 2,425 -square foot convenience store with gas pumps that is no longer operating. The subject site has been designed to minimize impacts to the residential neighborhood to the west. An approximate 40 -50 -foot wide storm water management area, a 10 -foot wide Type D Landscape buffer, and a fence/wall separates the parking and building from the residential neighborhood to the west. The proposed automobile supply store will not have direct access to Tamiami Trail East (US 41). Instead, the subject property's existing access will be removed. Shared cross access is proposed with the neighboring parcel to the north which has access to Tamiami Trail East (US 41). To date, no letters of objection or support have been received. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: The site is currently developed with a vacant store, with a zoning designation of C-3 (Commercial Intermediate) SURROUNDING: Northeast: Tamiami Trail East (US 41), a 6 -lane Arterial Road, and then a developed commercial shopping center, with a zoning designation of C-3 (Commercial Intermediate) Southeast: Seminole Avenue, and then a commercial parcel with a zoning designation of C-3 (Commercial Intermediate), and then a multi -family residential development, with a zoning designation of TTRVC (Travel Trailer Recreational Vehicle Campground) Southwest: Tamiami Lane, and then parcels developed with single-family homes with a zoning designation of RSF-4 (Residential Single-family) Northwest: A developed commercial parcel, with a zoning designation of C-3 (Commercial Intermediate) CU-PL20150001611, O'REILLY'S TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST May 19, 2017 Page 4 of 9 AERIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The proposed PUD rezone is consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the GMP. See attached Exhibit C: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review dated December 14, 2016 Conservation and Coastal Management Element: Environmental staff has evaluated the petition. The petition is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the GMP. Transportation Element: The project is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan, which states: "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element CU-PL20150001611, O'REILLY'S TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST May 19, 2017 Page 5 of 9 (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 currentAUIR 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 percent 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 percent of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds percent 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 retail auto parts development will generate a projected 35 PM, peak hour, 2 -way trips for the proposed facility on the adjacent local roadway, Tamiami Trail East (US 41). This road segment has a service volume of 2,900 trips, with a remaining capacity of approximately 391 trips between Airport Pulling Road and Rattlesnake Hammock Road; and has a current LOS (level of service) "D" as stated by the 2016 AUIR (Annual Update and Inventory Report). Additionally, this road segment has an AADT (Average Annual Daily Trip) of 45,650 total trips (AUIR 2016). Therefore, the subject Conditional Use can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. The Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) indicates that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the five-year planning period. STAFF ANALYSIS: Pursuant to LDC Section 10.08.00 D., before any Conditional Use recommendation can be offered to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) must make findings that: 1) approval of the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property of uses in the same district of the neighborhood; 2) all specific requirements for the individual Conditional Use have been met by the petitioner; and 3) satisfactory provisions and arrangements have been made concerning the following matters, where applicable: 1. Consistency with the Land Development Code (LDC) and the Growth Management Plan (GMP). CU-PL20150001611, O'REILLY'S TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST May 19, 2017 Page 6 of 9 This request is consistent with the GMP, and this project will be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the LDC. 2. Ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures thereon, with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. The subject site is located at the corner of US 41 and Seminole Avenue. The access on US 41 at this location is determined by Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). It is staff's understanding that the Site Plan submitted with the petition showing a potential shared access with the adjacent parcel to the north is consistent with FDOT's determination. Transportation staff also worked with the applicant regarding a single access on Seminole Avenue that meets Access Management requirements. Additional operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any plats and/or site development plans, are sought. 3. The affect the Conditional Use would have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects. The purpose and intent of the C-3 limit of 5,000 square feet of gross floor area is that these land uses generally have a greater impact in relation to noise, glare, economic, or odor effects. However, these impacts can be addressed as part of the Conditional Use process. The subject site is surrounded by developed commercial to the north, east, and south, along with developed single-family and multi -family to the south. The site has been designed to keep the building and parking away from the residential land uses by locating the water management area, landscape buffer, and wall adjacent to the residential area. The Conditional Use will have a minimal impact on these neighboring commercial properties in relation to noise, glare, economic, or odor effects. 4. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district. The proposed automobile supply store can be found compatible with adjacent properties and other properties in the immediate area. As previously stated, the subject property is located between two commercial properties on a principal arterial road. Based on the above findings, this Conditional Use is recommended for approval. CU-PL20150001611, O'REILLY'S TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST May 19, 2017 Page 7 of 9 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant duly noticed and held the required meeting on February 1, 2017. For further information, please see attached Exhibit C: "NIMSummary. " The meeting ended at approximately 6:25 p.m. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office has reviewed the staff report for CU-PL20150001611, O'Reilly's Tamiami Trail East, revised on May 11, 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition CU- PL20150001611, O'Reilly's Tamiami Trail East, to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: Exhibit A: Proposed Resolution Exhibit B: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review Exhibit C: NIM Summary CU-PL20150001611, O'REILLY'S TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST May 19, 2017 Page 8 of 9 PREPARED BY: .I -?G ` 1 NANCY ACH, AICP, PLA I DATE PRINCIP PL R ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: RAYMOtSb V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DkTE ZONING DIVISION -ZONING SERVICES SECTION MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION -ZONING SERVICES SECTION APPROVED BY: 4ES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT CU-PL20150001611, O'REILLY'S TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST April 30, 2017 Page 8 of 8 RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW AN AUTO SUPPLY STORE WITH OVER 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA IN THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE (SIC CODE 5531) WITHIN A COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE (C-3) ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.03.03.C.1.c.20 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONTAINING 1.24 ACRES ON LOTS 12-18, SOUTH TAMIAMI HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF US 41 AND SEMINOLE AVENUE, IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (PL20150001611) WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67-1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of Conditional Uses; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals (Board), being the duly appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a Conditional Use of an auto supply store with over 5,000 square feet of gross floor area in the principal structure (SIC Code 5531) within a Commercial Intermediate (C-3) Zoning District pursuant to Section 2.03.03.C.1.C.20 of the Collier County Land Development Code on the property hereinafter described, and the Collier County Planning Commission has made findings that the granting of the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest and the specific requirements governing the Conditional Use have been met and that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 10.08.00.D. of the Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered al] matters presented. [I6 -CPS -01602/1337203/1]81 CU-PL20150001611 5/5/17 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit A NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: Petition Number PL -20150001611 filed by Peter Pensa, AICP of Avid Group, representing Epic Retail Seminole, LLC, with respect to the property hereinafter described in Exhibit "A", be and the same is hereby approved for a Conditional Use for an auto supply store with over 5,000 square feet of gross floor area in the principal structure (SIC Code 553 1) within a Commercial Intermediate (C-3) Zoning District pursuant to Section 2.03.03.C.1.C.20 of the Collier County Land Development Code, in accordance with the Conceptual Site Plan described in Exhibit "B". Exhibits "A" and `B" are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this This Resolution adopted after motion, second, and super -majority vote, this _ day of 2017. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK M , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A - Legal Description Exhibit B - Conceptual Site Plan [I 6 -CPS -0 1602/13 37203/1] 81 CU-PL20150001611 5/5/17 Page 2 of 2 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PENNY TAYLOR, Chairman EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOTS 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 AND 18, BLOCK A, SOUTH TAMIAMI HEIGHTS, AS RECORDED AND PLATTED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 44, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 10' TYPE 0 UNDSCAPE B� WI FENCEON WALL PER lOT 21 \ ZONING C,O FLU UP H "L 10'TYPE D LANDSCAPE BUFFER FUTURECROSS-ACCESS 20 EXISTING ACCESS TOM CLOSED LOT9 / �.¢ 2. PROPOSEDSIDEWALK 10'TYPEAIgN08CAPE BUFFEPA ap Amt d 4 OMNG CO $ LOi tO �r FLU UC d EXISTING \ 81DkWAlH PPOPERTYLINE \ OT ^ 15'COUNTY UIIUTVEASEMENi PROFOEED J I-STORYB NG ar ZONING flBFAjP FLUI A �6 P 6E PROPOSED ZONINGCG� DUMPSTER`l� FLU UC PAD LOCATION -S' IY TYPE D LANDSCAPE BUFFER . ... ... 1111. 1 PROPOSE05'8IDEWAU( MMgF A1£xuE pypµyT pAVEMEM � 91.1 _ - _ !60• p LF RWIY PI-0STOP SIGN W/2 -STOP D PESUFW� UNEOFBGT W/FENCEORWALLPERODDE ZONING MH TY, 04F®Q4/a1 FW UC 0' 801 180' SCALE: 1" = 80' PROPERTYOWNER: PROPERTY LOCATION: 6CHERER, WIWAM C. AND IRENE K. 660E TANNISH TRAIL E 10216 EABTWOOO DRIVE NAPLES, FL U112 HARPER WOODS, MICHIGAN AR26 lAloll" PARCEL NUMBER: PROPERTY DEVELOPER: 1AA101CCDOO,TN10660W0, 7M10180001 EPIC RETAIL AI SEMINOLE. LLC ZONING: FUTURE LAND USE: W ICOMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE DISTRIOT) URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA UC (URBAN COASTAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICT) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 12, 10, 14, 1S, 18, 17 AMC 18, BLOCK A. SOUTH TAMIAMI HEIGHTS, AS RECORDED AND PLATTED IN PIAT BOOK D, PAGE AA, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS: FRONT: STROP BLDG NT NOTLE66THAN 26 FT TAMIAMI TRAIL 19"TVPET! BIDE: MOF RDO M NOTLFSBTHAN 15 FT SEMINOLE AVE: IO PT TYPES REAR: W% OF BLDG HT NOT LESS THAN 15 FT TAMIAMI LANE: tO FT TYPE T' SW ICOMMEROMLI: 10" TYPE W PROPERTY USE: EXISTING: PROPOSED COMMERCIAL-RETMLSERVICES COMMERQAL-AUTO PARR STORE MISCELLANEOUS ISICI TW*7WI, 7600) (ALTO AND HOME SUPPLY STORES (SIC#6611!)) FORMERLY A CONVENIENCE STORE WIGAS PUMPS (GASOUNE SERVICE STATIONS (SIC# 6541)) PARKING (REQUIRED): PARKING (PROPOSED): 1 PANNING SPACE PER VW OF OF FLOOR AREA STANDARD PARKING SPACES .W B,WO SPAIN SIF - M SPACES REQUIRED NC SPACES .2 TOTAL PARKING SPACES . 6S HC SPACES REQUIRE.2 STANDARDSTALLSUE.V,;IW PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT: HC STALL IN R'61B` 22`--+1-(6D ALLOWED) K9PRO.IFCTS1300I31D01NIDWGIOIIRRFNITIPLANNING\319018-SITE PLAN 8.5X 11.0WG. mm/10/2017 CIVIL ENGINEERING 2900 CURLEW ROAD STE 20/ OIREILLY @ US 41 & SEMINOLE AVE. lAloll" LANDPLANNING TRAFFIC/iflANSPORTATION PALM HARBOR, FLORIDA 34683 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN SURVEYING GIB PHONE PNONE^121�1088600 COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA K9PRO.IFCTS1300I31D01NIDWGIOIIRRFNITIPLANNING\319018-SITE PLAN 8.5X 11.0WG. mm/10/2017 Coe -r Co-K-Kty Growth Management Department Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Memorandum To: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: May 1, 2017 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PL20150001611 PETITION NAME: O'Reilly's Auto Parts — CU — Review 3 REQUEST: To obtain a Conditional Use (CU) for an 8,000 square -foot auto parts store (Standard Industrial Classification code - SIC 553 1) in the C-3 zoning district, as provided in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). This site is currently developed with a 2,425 square -foot commercial building that will be demolished in order to completely redevelop the property. LOCATION: The subject site, consisting of±1.24 acres, is located on the northwest corner of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) and Seminole Avenue, in Section 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict), and is within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), as identified on the Future Land Use Map within the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use for a future 8,000 square -foot auto parts store in the Commercial Intermediate (C-3) Zoning District. This site is currently developed with a 2,425 square -foot commercial building that is not operating and will be demolished in order to completely redevelop the property. The previous use for the subject site was a convenience store with gas pumps. The proposed project is an infill redevelopment that will utilize Collier County's existing infrastructure (water, sewer, and roads) and will reuse previously developed commercial land. Relevant to this petition, zoning on property for which an exemption has been granted, based on vested rights, dedication, or compatibility determination, and the zoning on property for which a compatibility exception has been granted, both as provided for in the Zoning Re-evaluation Program established pursuant to former Policy 3.1K and implemented through the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance No. 90-23, as Properties Consistent by Policy, shall be considered consistent with the Future Land Use Element. The subject site, previously developed (1981) convenience store with gas pumps and zoned "C-3", was deemed "Consistent by Policy". Such property shall be considered consistent with the Future Land Use Element only to the extent of the exemption or exception granted and in accordance with all other limitations and timelines that are provided for in the Zoning Re-evaluation Program. This means the subject site may be developed or redeveloped in accordance with its existing zoning — permitted and conditional uses. FLUE Policy 5.4 (shown below in italics) followed by staff analysis in bold text. Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit B New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). [Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of the petition.] Objective 7 of the FLUE states: "In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable." Staff analysis follows each of these policies in bold print. 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. [There are currently two existing ingress/egress locations on the subject site: one accessing Tamiami Trail East (US 41), an arterial roadway, and one accessing Seminole Avenue, which is a local road adjacent to the southern boundary of the subject property. The petitioner stated per Collier County Transportation and Florida Department of Transportation, the existing curb cut on the subject site that accesses US 41 is to be closed/removed and the proposed redevelopment project is being encouraged to utilize a cross -access with the neighboring commercial parcel to the north, which will continue to maintain an existing curb cut onto US 41. The current ingress/egress point on Seminole Avenue is to be relocated further away from the US 41/Seminole Avenue intersection for improved safety.] 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 site is proposed as a single development project. Given the small size of the project, and the proposed development, a loop road or drive is not feasible.] Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [A parking lot/driveway interconnection between the proposed redevelopment and the commercial property to the north is being encouraged to allow the subject site to have an ingress/egress with US 41 through the neighboring property to the north.] 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. [Mostly not applicable given that this is a commercial development. There is a sidewalk on Tamiami Trail East (US 41), but there is currently no sidewalk on Seminole Avenue. However, the applicant has stated in their application that they will provide a direct sidewalk connection to the existing sidewalk on Tamiami Trail East and will install a sidewalk along the length of their frontage on Seminole Avenue to promote pedestrian safety.] CONCLUSION: Staff concludes the requested conditional use may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County GMP. cc: Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Raymond V. Bellows, Manager, Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section CU-PL2015-1611 O'Reilly's Auto Parts Store R2.docx Zoning Division 9 2800 North Horseshoe Drive 9 Naples, FL 34104 • 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 2 A /D GiPO!/P TO: Collier County FROM: Peter Pensa, AICP SUBJECT: Neighborhood Information Meeting(NIM)Summary O'Reillys Tamiami Trail East Collier County Petition No. PL20150001611 AVID JOB NO.: 319-018 DATE: February 1, 2017 2300 CURLEW ROAD, Suite 201 PALM HARBOR, FLORIDA 34683 PHONE (727) 789-9500 [AUTH#6139 LB73451 W W W.AVI DGROU PCOM The neighborhood information meeting (NIM) was held on Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. at the East Naples Branch Library. Notification letters were mailed to 120 property owners by USPS Certificate of Mailing on January 12, 2017. Newspaper advertisement was published in the Naples Daily News on January 16, 2017. Peter Pensa (project planner — AVID Group) and Andrew Hupp (developer — Epic Retail 41 Seminole, LLC) were in attendance to present the project. Fred Reischl from Collier County was in attendance to observe the meeting. Three residents (same household) arrived prior to the start of the meeting (approx. 5:10 p.m.) and asked a few questions about site access and screening, Mr. Pensa gave an overview of the project layout and Ms. Bird stated that there are problems with two neighboring businesses that have employees using Tamiami Lane (road to rear) to test drive vehicle repairs and to cut through the neighborhood when making delivery runs. She noted that she has called Code Enforcement several times about this in the past and they have observed it happening. Mr. Pensa explained the site layout, including specifically pointing out the perimeter landscape buffer, fence, and use of the stormwater management area as additional open space buffer/separation from the residential neighborhood and how on-site delivery vehicle circulation worked and the provision for future vehicular cross access with the neighboring commercial parcel, Mr. Pensa explained that the development will be a retail auto parts store with no repair bays, so noise and aesthetic issues related to outdoor activities/storage will not be an issue. Mr. Hupp confirmed that delivery vehicle traffic will not use Tamiami Lane as a cut through. These residents gave positive feedback about the project layout and decided to not stay for the meeting since there questions/concerns were addressed. One more resident, along with the current property owner and real estate broker, arrived and the neighborhood meeting started shortly after 530pm and lasted for approximately 15 minutes. Mr. Pensa gave a brief overview (similar to the above-described discussion), and opened the meeting to questions. Additional questions/discussion related to the design of the pedestrian circulation, site access, not using Tamiami Lane for commercial traffic, building architecture and height, landscaping, and stormwater management. The resident gave positive feedback about the project as well. Exhibit C AGENDAITEM9-E Collier County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION BEARING DATE: JUNE 1, 2017 SUBJECT: PETITION NO: PUDR-PL20160002564, TRIAD RPUD APPLICANT: DR Horton 10541 Ben C. Pratt Six Mile Cypress Pkwy Fort Myers, FL 33966 OWNER: Sarecino LLC, an Ohio Limited Liability Company 22720 Fairview Drive #150 Fairview Park, Ohio 44216 AGENT: Mr. Patrick Vanasse RWA Inc. 6610 Willow Park Dr. Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 The petitioner seeks to amend Ordinance Number 05-11, as amended, which established the Triad Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), to reduce the residential density from 86 units to 44 units; to revise the Master Plan to reconfigure the development area; to revise development standards; to add deviations; and to modify and delete development commitments; and by providing an effective date. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 10.75f acres, is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Radio Lane and Palm Springs Boulevard in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the Location Map on the following page.) TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 Page 1 of 21 May 22, 2017 PROJECT LOCATION Location Map Poo, ' 3 2 1 fi 3 2 1 3 % + 3 0 0 3 Q O a O z + 9 5 5 3 � + 3 4 0 Q Poo, ' 3 2 1 fi 3 2 1 3 % + 3 Petition Number: PL -2016-2564 0 (D 0 Z0 ID 0 6 e + .�, 3 RPUD fi e 4 x O 2 d 6 e PUD Zoning Map - SITE LOCATION PUD n RPUD 0 D O O MF -6 O + 3 9 6 5 4 0 Q Petition Number: PL -2016-2564 0 (D 0 Z0 ID 0 6 e + .�, 3 RPUD fi e 4 x O 2 d 6 e PUD Zoning Map - SITE LOCATION PUD n RPUD SITE DATA TOTAL SITE AREA: 10.75± ACRES MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS: — 44 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES MASTER PLAN NOTES EXISTING, 1. THIS MASTER PLAN IS o CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE ''„ ""`M * AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES m DUE TO AGENCY REVIEW ' AND SITE CONDITIONS. w z ,�RESEf?,V, .. 2. ACREAGE AND THE DESIGN, ; LOCATIONS AND RATIONS OF THE CONFIGURATIONS a 'a' 2 � a i , LAND IMPROVEMENTS ARE LL v f � I APPROXIMATE AND .' BOUNDARY SUBJECT TO REFINEMENT AT THE TIME OF PLANS AND PLAT APPROVAL. R I .-REAR LOT 3. INTERNAL ROADWAY LINE (TYP) I I 15' TYPE "D" I DEPICTED ON MASTER PLAN I BUFFER I 1 I z IS CONCEPTUAL, ROW FOR I LL ROW ' SINGLE FAMILY. p , 4. REQUIRED PRESERVE: ±1.40 PROPERTY BOUNDARY ��{ 2 AC (15% OF ±9.37 AC OF m EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION). PRESERVE I, , "--DRV i!i PROVIDED: ±1.40 AC.DETENTION -------------- PRESERVES MAY BE USED TO SATISFY THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AFTER EXOTIC VEGETATION REMOVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTIONS 4.06.02 AND 4.06.05.E.1. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGS WITH NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTION 3.05.07" L EXISTING, AASONRY WALL I I z I w � ma 2 I , t- -, I , I � I PROPERTY II .' BOUNDARY R I R I .-REAR LOT LINE (TYP) I I 15' TYPE "D" I I BUFFER I 1 I z 50' I LL ROW ' T SIDEWALK II. p , PROPERTY BOUNDARY ��{ I ZONING: MAC RPUD CURRRENT USE: RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY 0 ROW ,-TRprgT ' 55' LOT WIDTH m i I � REAR PLAN VIEW DETAIL CORNER LOTS ABUTTING ROADWAY TYPICAL Sc ;V=2a 5' S/W PLAN VIEW DETAIL LOT ABUTTING ROADWAY TERMINUS TYPICAL Scnte: i• =za' 50' RIGHT OF WAY 3' VALLEY GUTTER DEVIATIONS DEVIATION #1 REQUIRES MINIMUM LOCAL STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH OF 60 FEET, TO ALLOW FOR A 50 -FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY MINIMUM WIDTH FOR THE PRIVATE STREETS. DEVIATION #2 REQUIRES THAT STREETS SHALL BE CLASSIFIED BY THE CROSS-SECTIONS CONTAINED IN APPENDIX B, TO ALLOW FOR AN INVERTED ROADWAY DESIGN, AS DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT C. DEVIATION #3 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION S.04.06.A.3.E, WHICH ALLOWS TEMPORARY SIGNS ON RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES UP TO 4 SQUARE FEET IN AREA OR 3 FEET IN HEIGHT, TO ALLOW A TEMPORARY BANNER SIGN UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 32 SQUARE FEET IN AREA AND B'HEIGHT. THE TEMPORARY BANNER SIGNS SHALL BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 90 DAYS DURING SEASON DEFINED AS JANUARY 1STTO MARCH 31TH PER CALENDAR YEAR. DEVIATION #4 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02.C, TABLE 2.4, WHICH REQUIRES A 15 -FOOT WIDE TYPE B LANDSCAPE BUFFER WHERE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING ABUTS MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING ALONG THE EASTERN PUD BOUNDARY, TO ALLOW FOR A IS -FOOT WIDE TYPE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE EXISTING MASONRY WALL. DEVIATION #5 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 6.06.02.A.1 WHICH REQUIRES THAT SIDEWALKS BE CONSTRUCTED ON BOTH SIDES OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RIGHTS-OF-WAY, TO ALLOW FOR SIDEWALKS ON ONE SIDE OF THE ROW FOR ROADWAY STUBS WHERE INDICATED ON THE MASTER PIAN. DEVIATION #6 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.05.N.1.c WHICH REQUIRES ALL BODIES OF WATER, INCLUDING RETENTION AREAS EXCEEDING 20,000 SQUARE FEET, AND WHICH ARE LOCATED ADIACENTTO A PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAV, MUST INCORPORATE INTO OVERALL DESIGN OF THE PROJECT AT LEAST 2 OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: I. A WALKWAY 5 FEET WIDE AND A MINIMUM OF 200 FEET LONG, WITH TREES OF AN AVERAGE OF 50 FEET ON CENTER AND WITH SHADED BENCHES, A MINIMUM OF 6 FEET IN LENGTH OR PICNIC TABLES WITH ONE LOCATED EVERY 150 FEET. It. FOUNTAINS. III. PARTIALLY SHADED PLAZA/COURTYARD, A MINIMUM OF 200 SQUARE FEET IN AREA, WITH BENCHES AND/OR PICNIC TABLES ABUTTING THE WATER,BODY, OR RETENTION AREAS;TO ALLOW FOR ONLY THE INSTALLATION OF AN AERATOR/FOUNTAIN. WATER MAIN TYPICAL ROAD CROSS SECTIC�SANITARY SEWER MAIN $CFLE:1 =5' SITE SUMMARY USE ACREAGE RESIDENTIAL ±5.34 OTHER OPEN SPACE ±1.62 LAKE/ WATER MANAGEMENT ±0.92 ACCESS DRIVE/ RIGHT OF WAY ±1.47 PRESERVE AREA ±1.40 TOTAL ±10.75 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezone will change the land uses from the currently approved 86 multi -family dwelling units to 44 single-family dwelling units. The Board approved the original Triad RPUD on September 27, 2005 under Ordinance 05-11 (see attached Exhibit B), and the subject site was rezoned from Commercial Professional and General Office District (C-1) and Commercial Convenience District (C- 2) to PUD. The residential structures shall remain at a height of 35 feet. The preserve area shall remain in a similar location, as originally approved, along the north and east property lines. The petitioner is also requesting the following changes to the PUD, and they are listed below: - Removal of a commitment to contribute towards the construction cost of a concrete panel fence at an off-site location in the neighborhood. (See attached Exhibit E: Fence Location.) - Removal of other commitments related to phasing, a bus shelter, and LDC redundancies related to transportation, planning, water management, and environmental requirements. The petitioner is also requesting Deviations related to: - Private street right-of-way width - Roadway drainage design - Size and height of a temporary banner sign - Reduction in landscape buffer width - Relaxing of a required sidewalk in "roadway stub" locations - Removal of one of the required amenities around a lake For further information, please see the Deviations Section located on page 13 of this Staff Report. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Subject Parcel: The subject property is a 10.75+ acre site is currently undeveloped, with a zoning designation of PUD Surrounding: North: Single-family residences in the Palm Springs Village subdivision, with a zoning designation of Residential Multi -family -12 District (RMF -12 (7)) East: Multi -family residences with a zoning designation of Saddlebrook Village PUD, with a density of 12.96 units per acre South: Radio Lane, a 100 -foot right-of-way TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22, 2017 Page 5 of 21 West: Palm Springs Boulevard, an 80 -foot right-of-way and then the undeveloped land with a zoning designation of Triad RPUD, with an existing density of 8 units per acre and a proposed density of 4.09 dwelling units per acre AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The proposed PUD Rezone is consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the GMP. See attached Exhibit C: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review dated April 6, 2017. TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 Page 6 of 21 May 22, 2017 Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP using the 2014 and 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: "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 up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways. " The proposed PUD Rezone on the subject property was reviewed based on the then applicable 2016 AUIR Inventory Report. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the proposed new residential development will generate approximately 50 PM peak hour two-way trips. The proposed development will impact the following roadway segments with the listed capacities: TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 Page 7 of 21 May 22, 2017 Roadway Link 2016 AUIR Current Peak Hour 2016 Remaining Existing LOS Peak Direction Service Capacity Volume/Peak Direction Radio Road Davis Boulevard B 1,800/West 1,135 to Santa Barbara Davis Radio Road to B 2,900/East 2,210 Boulevard Santa Barbara Davis Radio Road to B 2,900/East 1,737 Boulevard Collier Boulevard Based on the 2016 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips for the amended project within the 5 -year planning period. Therefore, the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the CCME. In accordance with CCME Policy 6.1.1, a minimum of 1.40 acres of native vegetation are required to be retained for the PUD. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13 B.S., Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analysis: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document to address environmental concerns. Approximately 9.37 acres of native vegetation occur on site, fifteen percent, 1.40 acres (.15 x 9.37) of which are required to be retained for the PUD. The location of the preserve along the rear of the property will align with preserve to the west within the Triad PUD. TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 Page 8 of 21 May 22, 2017 This project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), since it does not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews identified in Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition request, the PUD Document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues and is recommending approval. Utility Review: The Utilities Department staff has reviewed the petition. The project lies within the water service area and the south wastewater service area of the Collier County Water -Sewer District. Water and wastewater service is readily available via existing infrastructure along the project's frontages on Palm Springs Boulevard and Radio Lane. Downstream wastewater system capacity must be confirmed at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP) or Plans and Plat (PPL) permit review and will be discussed at a mandatory pre -submittal conference with representatives from the Public Utilities Engineering and Project Management Division and the Growth Management Development Review Division. Any improvements to the Collier County Water -Sewer District's wastewater transmission system necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the Collier County Water - Sewer District at no cost to the County at the time of Preliminary and Final Acceptance. Collier County Public Schools (COPS) District Review: CCPS staff has reviewed the petition and has concluded that there is sufficient capacity for the proposed development within the elementary and middle school concurrency service areas and within an adjacent high school concurrency area. This finding is for planning and informational purposes only and does not constitute either a determination of capacity or concurrency for the proposed project. At the time of SDP or PPL review, the development will be reviewed for concurrency. This is to ensure that there is capacity either within the concurrency service area that this development is located in or within adjacent concurrency service areas such that the level of service standards are not exceeded. Zoning and Land Development Review: As previously stated, this PUD Rezone petition will change the land uses from the currently approved 86 multi -family dwelling units to 44 single-family dwelling units. The proposed building heights will remain the same as the previously approved height of 35 feet. Access to the subject site remains the same and will be from Palm Springs Boulevard. The subject site is mostly surrounded by residential single-family and multi -family development. Along the northern property line is an approximate 50 -200 -foot wide preserve area providing separation and buffering between the proposed single-family homes and the existing single-family homes. To the east, an existing wall and a proposed 15 -foot wide Type A Landscape buffer shall separate the proposed single-family TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22, 2017 Page 9 of 21 residences from the existing multi -family residences. To the south, the applicant is providing the Code -prescribed, 15 -foot wide Type D Landscape buffer along Radio Lane. To the west, across Palm Springs Boulevard, is a similar development to the Triad RPUD called MAC RPUD, which also proposes 44 single-family homes with similar development standards as the Triad RPUD. LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners ... shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below: Rezone findings are designated as RZ and PUD findings are designated as PUD. Staffs responses to these criteria are provided below in non -bold font. 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the GMP. The Comprehensive Planning Section has indicated that the proposed PUD Rezone is consistent with all applicable elements of the FLUE of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report (page 5) and discussed in the zoning review analysis, the neighborhood's existing land use pattern can be characterized as residential and commercial lands. The residential land uses proposed in this PUD petition should not create incompatibility issues. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. Commercial, single-family, and multi -family zoning districts surround the subject site. The proposed conversion of multi -family to single-family will not create an isolated, unrelated, zoning district. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The district boundaries are logically drawn as discussed in Items 2 and 3 above. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22, 2017 Page 10 of 21 The proposed change is not necessary, but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes, because the petitioner wishes to develop single- family residences instead of multi -family residences. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change from multi -family residential to single-family residential will reduce the overall density and intensity of land uses allowed by the current PUD. Therefore, the proposed change will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. 7. The proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project at this time. The project is subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in the PUD Ordinance. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed development will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore, the project is subject to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed change will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Staff is of the opinion this PUD Rezone will not adversely impact property values. Zoning by itself however may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market demand. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Most of the property surrounding the subject site is developed. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the LDC is that their sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22, 2017 Page 11 of 21 to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The proposed development will comply with the GMP, which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship, because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be developed within existing multi -family residential PUD zoning. The surrounding single-family residential land uses would suggest, however, that the rezoning to single-family residential PUD is more compatible and in character with the surrounding single-family residential land uses. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD Rezone is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or county. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the county that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC. Staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require site alteration and these sites will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance. TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22, 2017 Page 12 of 21 The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by County staff that is 'responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and that staff has concluded that the developer has provided appropriate commitments so that the impacts of the Level of Service will be minimized. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. DEVIATION DISCUSSION. The petitioner is seeking approval of five deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are listed in PUD Exhibit E. The petitioner's justification and staff analysis/recommendation is outlined below. Proposed Deviation #1 The petitioner seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.0l.N, "Street System Requirements," which requires a minimum, local street right-of-way width of 60 feet to allow for a 50 - foot right-of-way minimum width for the private streets. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states that the following in support of the new deviation: Minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet is requested for local streets within the TRIAD RPUD. This deviation is justified because of the size and the small-scale neighborhood character of this project. A 50 foot right-of-way for a residential street can successfully facilitate movement of the vehicular, pedestrian and bike traffic while accommodating all utility and drainage needs. The 50 foot right-of- way accomplishes traffic calming to provide a safer transportation system within the neighborhood This deviation is commonly approved and has been effectively implemented in numerous residential PUDs throughout the County. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.13.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meetingpublic purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22, 2017 Page 13 of 21 Proposed Deviation 02 Petitioner seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N, "Street System Requirements," which requires that streets shall be classified by the cross-sections contained in Appendix B (6), to allow for an inverted roadway design, as depicted in Exhibit C. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states that the following in support of the new deviation: The proposed inverted roadway design will not only allow for more efficient drainage of the neighborhood streets but will also provide immediate construction cost savings from not having to provide outside curbing. Moreover, this design requires fewer structures, connections, and drainage inlets that need ongoing maintenance, thus reducing long term costs, for the HOA. A 3 -foot wide, concrete valley gutter will be utilized to increase revetment durability and reduce long term maintenance concerns. The design of the roadway will still maintain a low point above the 25 year flood elevation. The reduced construction costs associated with this roadway design will allow for greater housing affordability, as the cost savings will be reflected in home prices. Furthermore, the reduced maintenance cost will also provide affordability benefits to the residents. The inverted crown design has been and continues to be used in numerous communities throughout Florida, it is consistent with engineering best practices and does not pose any concern from a public health and safety standpoint. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees a detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved, as the proposed deviation is a reduction in engineering standard from the current Land Development Code crowned roadway design requirement in Appendix B — Typical Street Sections for a Local Street. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends DENIAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.13.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meetingpublic pumoses to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Proposed Deviation #3 Petitioner seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e, which allows temporary signs on residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height, to allow a temporary banner sign up to a maximum of 32 square feet in area and 8' height. The temporary banner signs shall be limited to a maximum of 90 days during season defined as January 1" to March 31 st per calendar year. TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22, 2017 Page 14 of 21 Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the new deviation: Due to the property's location within the view of a busy arterial road and the high travel speeds along the roadway, the Applicant is seeking an increase to the allowable banner size to ensure visibility of this new community. The proposed deviation will allow for a banner sign located along Radio Lane in order to advertise new homes available within the community. The 4 square foot banner sign permitted by the LDC provides minimal visibility and likely will not be seen by vehicles travelling along Davis Boulevard, a 50mph 4-1ane divided roadway. Additionally, the applicant is requesting that the banner be allowed for up to 90 days per calendar year to allow display throughout the peak winter season for home sales. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Proposed Deviation #4 Petitioner seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C, Table 2.4, which requires a 15 -foot wide, Type B Landscape buffer when Single -Family Residential Zoning abuts Commercial Zoning, to allow for a 10 -foot wide landscape buffer with Type B plantings along the existing public utility easement. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the new deviation: The western boundary of the property abuts a 30 foot wide, public utility easement, which in [and of] itself provides significant spatial buffering from the adjacent property. The plantings for Type B buffering will occupy approximately 7-8 feet. Any loss of open space within the buffer will be mitigated by the presence of the 30 foot public utility easement. The combination of a 10' buffer with Type B plantings and the abutting easement will meet or exceed the intent of the code by providing ample separation and screening. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated. TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 Page 15 of 21 May 22, 2017 Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Proposed Deviation #5 The petitioner seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.1 which requires that sidewalks be constructed on both sides of public and private rights-of-way (ROW), to allow for sidewalks on one side of the ROW for roadway stubs where indicated on the Master Plan. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the new deviation: The portions of roadway associated with this deviation and identified on the Master Plan abut the side yard of only one lot, whose front yard is serviced by the sidewalk along the intersecting roadway. The proposed sidewalk configuration meets the intent of the code by providing safe pedestrian access to all lots. Other than the identified stub -out locations, the proposed sidewalk network meets the requirement of providing sidewalks on both sides of the road and ensures that all homes are provided pedestrian access and fully interconnected to one another. The proposed deviation will not affect public health and safety, nor is it contrary to the intent behind the sidewalk requirements. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.13.51, 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 #6 Petitioner seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.05.N.1.0 which requires all bodies of water, including retention areas exceeding 20,000 square feet, and which are located adjacent to a public right-of-way, must incorporate into overall design of the project at least 2 of the following items: i. A walkway 5 feet wide and a minimum of 200 feet long, with trees of an average of 50 feet on center and with shaded benches, a minimum of 6 feet in length or picnic tables with one located every 150 feet. ii. Fountains. iii. Partially TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22, 2017 Page 16 of 21 shaded plaza/courtyard, a minimum of 200 square feet in area, with benches and/or picnic tables abutting the water -body, or retention areas; to allow for only the installation of an aerator/fountain. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the new deviation: The design and positioning of the water management structures on this property was done in a manner to provide maximum drainage functionality and buffering from the adjacent Palm Springs neighborhood to the north, rather than serve as an amenity to residents. Additionally, such features as a walkway with benches and/or a plaza/courtyard would encourage activity along this buffered area, which the neighbors have made clear they would like kept to a minimum. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." PUD FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the Planning Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria:" 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The nearby area is developed or is approved for development of a similar nature. The petitioner will be required to comply with all County regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22, 2017 Page 17 of 21 Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property and roadway access to the subject site. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or site development plan approval. These processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. As described in the Staff Analysis Section of this staff report (page 5), staff is of the opinion the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The 60 percent open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time, a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any plats and/or site development plans, are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal systems and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22, 2017 Page 18 of 21 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. This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. The petitioner is seeking six deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06 A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes that the five of the six deviations proposed can be supported, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h., the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviations are "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Please, refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report for a more extensive examination of the deviations (page 13). NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on April 6, 2017. The neighbors in attendance spoke of their desire for the developer provide an off-site fence/wall that was a commitment in the current PUD Ordinance. For further information, please see Exhibit D: Neighborhood Information Meeting Notes and Exhibit E: Fence Location. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW The County Attorney's Office has reviewed the staff report for Petition PUDA- PL20160002565, Triad RPUD, revised on May 12, 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission, acting as the local planning agency and the Environmental Advisory Council, forward Petition PUDR-PL20160002565, TRIAD PUD, to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the denial of Deviation #2. TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002566 May 22, 2017 Page 19 of 21 Attachments: Exhibit A: Proposed PUD Ordinance Exhibit B: Ordinance Number 05-11 Exhibit C: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review Exhibit D: Neighborhood Information Meeting Notes Exhibit E: Fence Location TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 Page 20 of 21 May 22, 2017 PREPARED BY: 2,%(7 NANC LACH, AICP, PLA ATE PRINC L PLANNER ZONING DIVISION -ZONING SERVICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: RAYMO V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING IVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION s-�- MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION -ZONING SERVICES SECTION APPROVED BY: FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE OWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22, 2017 Page 21 of 21 ORDINANCE NO. 17 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE TRIAD RPUD TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF 44 SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLING UNITS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PALM SPRINGS BOULEVARD AND RADIO LANE IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 10.75± ACRES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 05-11, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 05-23, THE FORMER TRIAD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL201600025641 WHEREAS, Patrick Vanasse of RWA, Inc. representing D. R. Horton, Inc, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to rezone the subject property. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: Amendment to RPUD Document. The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to be known as the Triad RPUD in accordance with Exhibits A through F, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. [16 -CPS -01625/1338422/1185 Triad \ PUDZ-PL20160002564 5/11/17 I oft Exhibit A SECTION TWO: Repeal of Ordinances. Ordinance No. 05-11, as amended by Ordinance No. 05-23, is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION THREE: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2017. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Deputy Clerk PENNY TAYLOR, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A — Permitted Uses Exhibit B — Residential Development Standards Exhibit C — Master Pian Exhibit D — Legal Description Exhibit E - List of Requested Deviations Exhibit F — List of Development Commitments [l6 -CPS -01625/1338422/1185 Triad \ PUDZ-PL20160002564 5/11/17 2 oft EXHIBIT A List of Permitted Uses Triad Residential Planned Unit Development Regulations for development of the Triad Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) shall be in accordance with the contents of this RPUD Ordinance and applicable sections of the Land Development Code (LDC) and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of approval of site development plan or subdivision plat. Where this RPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. MAXIMUM DENSITY: There shall be no more than 44 single-family residential dwelling units permitted on the f 10.75 gross acres, resulting in a maximum density of 4.09 dwelling units per acre. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: I. RESIDENTIAL A. Principal Uses: 1. Single-family, detached 2. Temporary Model homes 3. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (`BZA") or Hearing Examiner, as applicable. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to swimming pools, spas, screen enclosures, private garages, and other recreational uses. 2. Gatehouses and other access control structures. 3. Project sales, construction and administrative offices that may occur in temporary model homes and/or temporary structures. 4. Walls, berms, and signs. 5. Mail Kiosks. Page 1 of 9 5/19/2017 envision Triad PUDA RWA File 130019.02.00 PUDZ-PL20160002564 EXHIBIT A List of Permitted Uses Triad Planned Unit Development Amendment 6. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted accessory uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") or Hearing Examiner, as applicable. II. PRESERVE AREA A. Permitted Uses: 1. Native preserves. Page 2 of 9 5/19/2017 revision Triad PUDA RWA File 130019.02.00 PUDZ•PL20160002564 EXHIBIT B Development Standards Triad Planned Unit Development Amendment Exhibit B sets forth the development standards for the land uses within the Triad PUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the site development plan (SDP) or subdivision plat. Guardhouses, gatehouses, access control structures, clock towers, columns, decorative hardscaping or architectural embellishments associated with the project's entrance features are permitted within the "R" designated area abutting the project's entrance or within the private roadway as depicted on the PUD Master Plan, and shall have no required setbacks; however, such structures cannot be located where they create vehicular stacking or sight distance issues for motorists and pedestrians, and cannot exceed 35 feet in actual height. Development Standards PRINCIPALSTRUCTURES SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED MINIMUM LOT AREA 4,000 S.F. MIN. LOT WIDTH 40 FEET MIN. FLOOR AREA 1500 S.F. MIN. FRONT YARD •2 15 FEET MIN. SIDE YARD 5 FEET MIN. REAR YARD 15 FEET MIN, PRESERVE SETBACK 25 FEET MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 10 FEET MAX. ZONED BUILDING HEIGHT 35 FEET MAX. ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT 40 FEET ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MIN, FRONT YARD SPS MIN. SIDE YARD SPS MIN. REAR YARD' 0 FEET MIN. PRESERVE SETBACK 10 FEET MAX. ZONED BUILDING HEIGHT 35 FEET MAX, ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT 40 FEET S.P.S. = Same as Principal Structure BH = Building Height LME = Lake Maintenance Easement LBE = Landscape Buffer Easement Page 3 of 9 5/19/2017 revision Triad PUDA RW A File 130019.02.00 PUDZ-PL20160002564 EXHIBIT B Development Standards Triad Planned Unit Development Amendment Footnotes 1. For corner lots, only 1 front yard setback shall be required. The yard that does not contain the driveway vehicle access shall be considered a side yard and shall provide a minimum 5' setback. 2. The minimum 15' front yard setback may be reduced to 12' where the unit has a recessed or side -entry garage. Front -loading garages shall be set back a minimum of 23 feet from edge of sidewalk. 3. Where the rear yard of a lot abuts the rear yard of another lot, the rear yard setback for the accessory structures shall be 5'. General Notes 1. All minimum yard setbacks will be measured from lot boundaries — LMEs and LBEs will be platted as separate tracts 2. For corner lots and lot abutting roadway terminus, see typical plan view detail in Exhibit C depicting lot with measurement and yard configurations. Page 4 of 9 5/19/2017 revision Triad PUDA RWA File 130019.02.00 PUDZ-PL20160002564 SITE DATA TOTAL SITE AREA: 10.75± ACRES MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS: 44SINGLE—FAMILY RESIDENCES MASTER PLAN NOTES 1. THIS MASTER PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES 8 DUE TO AGENCY REVIEW AND SITE CONDITIONS. i 2. ACREAGE AND THE DESIGN, m z LOCATIONS AND CONFIGURATIONS OF THE E, LAND IMPROVEMENTS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO REFINEMENT AT THE TIME OF PLANS 3 AND PLAT APPROVAL. 3. INTERNAL ROADWAY i DEPICTED ON MASTER PLAN v IS CONCEPTUAL, ROW FOR SINGLE FAMILY. 4 REQUIRED PRESERVE: ±1.40j AC (15% OF ±9:37 AC OF 223 EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION). PRESERVE PROVIDED: ±1.40 AC. PLANTINGS WITH NATIVE PLANT �— ___.. — m - to i -I m MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE ZONING; MAC RPUD WITH LDC SECTION 3.05.07.' CURRREW USE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY L 1W101LfD Ib-1mA3RpYM MWiYY� DEVIATIONS DEVIATION. RI SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 6.06.OLN, "STREET SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS' WHICH REQUIRES MINIMUM LOCAL STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH OF 60 FEET, TO ALLOW FOR A 50 -FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY MINIMUM WIDTH FOR THE PRIVATE STREETS - FRONT I DEVIATION #2 SEEKS RELIEF FROM EDC SECTION 6.O6.O1.N,"STREET SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS, WHICH i $'SIDEWALK REQUIRES THAT STREETS SWILL BE CLASSIFIED BYTHE CROSS-SECTIONSCONTAINED IN APPENDIX B, TO ALLOW FOR AN INVERTED ROADWAY DESIGN, AS DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT G SIDEWALK DEVIATION 83 SEEKS RELIEF FROM EDC SECTION SD4116A.3.E, WHICH ALLOWS TEMPORARY SIGNS ROW �FR'lj _ _ -. • RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES UP TO 4 SQUARE FEET IN AREA OR 3 FEET IN HEIGHT, TO ALLOI TEMPORARY BANNER SIGN UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 32 SQUARE FEET IN AREA AND 8'HEIGHT. . ROW TEMP RY RY BANNS TO MARCH SIGNSSHALL BE PERLAIL pTTO YEAR. A MAXIMUM OF 90 DAYS DURING SEASON DERNEE JANUDEVIATK)N 04 SEEKS TYPE B LANDSCAPE RESIDENTIAL ZONING In N LANDSCAPE BUFFER 60' EAT WIDTH RCA REAR PLAN.VIEVDETAIL PLAN VIEW DETAIL TYPICAL CORNER LOTSTYPICAL ROADWAYPLAN ABUTTING ROADWAYTERMINUS ..-.._ _.. _..��------ --_. BrAE£:r-w SrN V -w AERATOR/FOUNTAIN. 5' DEVIATION 95 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 5.0601A1 WHICH REQUIRES THAT SIDEWALKS BE CONSTRUCTED ON BOTH SIDES OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RIGHiSOF-WAY, TO ALLOW FOR SIDEWALKS ON ONE SIDE OF THE ROW FOR ROADWAY STUBS WHERE INDICATED ON THE MASTER PLAN. 3' 2% s' MNR/X/YA`IAyW\}\\Y�K.YRV.T K/.j�/l� WATER MAIN TYPICAL ROAD CROSS SECTIOSANITARY SEWER MAIN soNE:r.s SITE SUMMARY USE ACREAGE RESIDENTIAL ±5.34 OTHER OPEN SPACE ±1.62 LAKE/ WATER MANAGEMENT ±0.92 ACCESS DRIVE/ RIGHT OF WAY ±1,47 PRESERVE AREA ±1.40 TOTAL ±10.75 45 )E LY A Q EXHIBIT D Legal Description Triad Planned Unit Development Amendment (AS TAKEN FROM TITLE COMMITMENT) ALL OF BLOCKS 2,4 AND 6 AND THAT PART OF VACATED CALLE DEL REY LYING EAST OF PALM SPRINGS BOULEVARD, NORTH OF BLOCK 4 AND SOUTH OF BLOCK 6, PALM SPRINGS PLAZA, UNIT NO. 1, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 8, PAGE 21, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. Page 7 of 9 5/19/2017 revision Triad PUDA RWA File 130019.02.00 PUDZ-PL20160002564 EXHIBIT E List of Deviations Triad Planned Unit Development Amendment Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.0l.N, "Street System Requirements," which requires minimum local street right-of-way width of 60 feet, to allow for a 50 -foot right-of-way minimum width for the private streets. Deviation 02 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N, "Street System Requirements," which requires that streets shall be classified by the cross-sections contained in Appendix B, to allow for an inverted roadway design, as depicted in Exhibit C. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e, which allows temporary signs on residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height, to allow a temporary banner sign up to a maximum of 32 square feet in area and 8'height. The temporary banner signs shall be limited to a maximum of 90 days during season defined as January 11 to March 316i per calendar year. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C, Table 2.4, which requires a 15 -foot wide Type B landscape buffer where Single -Family Residential Zoning abuts Multi -Family Residential Zoning along the eastern PUD boundary, to allow for a 15 -foot wide Type A landscape buffer along the existing masonry wall. Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.1 which requires that sidewalks be constructed on both sides of public and private rights-of-way, to allow for sidewalks on one side of the ROW for roadway stubs where indicated on the Master Plan. Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.05.N.1.c which requires All bodies of water, including retention areas exceeding 20,000 square feet, and which are located adjacent to a public right-of-way, must incorporate into overall design of the project at least 2 of the following items: i. A walkway 5 feet wide and a minimum of 200 feet long, with trees of an average of 50 feet on center and with shaded benches, a minimum of 6 feet in length or picnic tables with one located every 150 feet. ii. Fountains. iii. Partially shaded plaza/courtyard, a minimum of 200 square feet in area, with benches and/or picnic tables abutting the water -body, or retention areas; to allow for only the installation of an aerator/fountain. Page 8 of 9 5/19/2017 revision Triad PUDA RWA File 130019.02.00 PUDZ-PL20160002564 EXHIBIT F PUD Commitments Triad Planned Unit Development Amendment PUD MONITORING: A. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is DR Horton Inc., a Delaware corporation, or its assigns. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed -out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. TRANSPORTATION: A. The proposed development is limited to 50 unadjusted two-way PM weekday peak hour trips consistent with the TIS provided at the time of rezone. STORMWATER: A.<RESERVED> ENVIRONMENTAL: A. Per LDC Section 3.05.07 Preservation Standards, 15% of the subject property's existing native vegetation, or 1.40 acres, will be preserved onsite as generally depicted on Exhibit C: RPUD Master Plan. Required preserve: ±1.40 ac (15% of ±9.37 ac of existing native vegetation). Preserve provided 4:1.40 ac Page 9 of 9 5/19/2017 revision Triad PUDA RWA File 130019.02.00 PUDZ-PL20160002564 n ii.- R *1 MAC PUD AGENDA ITEM 9-G coierCounty STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION — ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JUNE 1, 2017 SUBJECT: PETITION NO: PD1-PL20160000404 — WOLF CREEK APPLICANT: Sobel Vanderbilt, LLC. 2385 NW Executive Dr., Suite 370 Boca Raton, FL 33431 REOUESTED ACTION: AGENT: James Carr, Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. 7400 Trail Blvd., Suite 200 Naples, FL 34108 The applicant is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an insubstantial change to the Wolf Creek RPUD, Ordinance No. 2007-46, as amended, to add a preserve exhibit that revises the preserve configuration for Parcels 3B and 9 only. This PUD consists of 189± acres. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, approximately one-half mile west of Collier Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See page 2). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PRESERVE RELOCATION: The purpose of this petition is to request an amendment to the existing Wolf Creek PUD, reconfiguring the existing preserves on Parcels 3B and 9, while still meeting the Code minimum requirement for preserves for the entire PUD (See proposed Master Plan on page 3). Wolf Creek PDI-PL20160000404 Page 1 of 13 June 1, 2017 CCPC Public Hearing O Location Map Petition Number: PL2016000040 Zoning Map PROJECT LOCATION kmnoM Le RD L[tBeac&h VantlD 0 m _ Golden Geed BLVD W U J qCO O J Rne i e R ) - Green BLVD Mau N m m Location Map Petition Number: PL2016000040 Zoning Map 4l .9] y NOTE THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRESERVE ~- 36 EXHIBIT IS TO REVISE THE PRESERVE //�� - aruc.:.0 CONFIGURATION IN PARCEL535 AND 90NLY. C..::JJ wom, ALL OTHER ASPECTS OF THiE PUD OVE MASTER $ §§ Ra�yrurrorue.naolunxra PLAN SHALL REMAIN A$APPROVEO BY ORDINANCE NO. 13- .. �: - .ueau 3t. 09-3iI. ANp flil6.�� ji n 8 � m1M,wNtlNYxorXbg9.� •• � my�� a is wz3LL qq 3 z so3� s�a.Itv.mr.+mmnurm rxaxua x (M.ONYNMC�m6W wY jwB� romaYSNaLkw, r.+m» �b.Nlwalx.iFWtNBtl» wr°xr,[�w�oe:[u � raNBW1Y ev m�ufuuwrovmmv w3 pa YYW'afi.A.tlb1F19 Rif EIIOIW.WY,CYf11YtYrt mi WOLF CREEK RPUD TOTAL PRESERVE AREAS rommwaunia'oe° -- g s& mYii.21flt fl E 1fi At AYC WiYyiMM fPMCELS q 18 1A, 16 Y K Q m,2 IP. R/.2B 3N1 •4m rw. v ,� .*y ` RaMxl=°i 4 �� 9b WMYA/JI�H W m n I{ 1=.dlnN � r °� 0luvucp Pi+➢Y.pW Nm 6 B"CI(BEAR AIDGE 911 i� I —E NII_ SS 6 w. PARMEA P91 ° — MptlMW i�J$ryA1RmWY � .. uva ^namrm..a.r�f � amrwtusr.n.rarv.wY+. Mnawl I E amn+o FALLOf cElSi51TOFIND IPARCEIS d. SS9 FFFt WTm4itltlYilW.YmM ; nI�WYW` °.!» � TI.GBbiMlYltle� dbMLl�1RAHa.W M4 ����d°VO VMDERBILTRESERVE 3 EMCQ Yw+ rwnxEv.Irc -S SHEET 1 tura. ......_ v 2s nc 3 Wamammfumr�umrmn V,��.. w.. __ ,WfE I+Ew-wEtw nrvErnwr,xawN rawuf.au mer —_. +xe°us muc um ams ormmmexicu.ua,umav °rrw..errwn.Emf "m vw - ,xw HISTORY In 2003, the Board approved the Wolf Creek PUD for 147.69 -acres, changing the land use from Agriculture (A-2) to a residential PUD with a maximum density of 591 units, which is four dwelling units per acre (DU/AC) and preserving 27.4 acres of on-site native vegetation. In 2007, this ordinance was repealed by Ordinance 07-46 and 20.27 acres was added to the new Wolf Creek RPUD totaling 167.96 acres with a maximum density of 671 units, (which is 3.99 DU/AC). The requirement for preservation increased to 32.32 acres of on-site native vegetation (See Master Plan below). 2007 PUD Master Plan Wolf Creek PDI-PL20160000404 June 1, 2017 CCPC Public Hearing - Subject Area Page 4 of 13 In 2013, this PUD was amended by Ordinance 13-37 adding an additional five acres of land zoned RMF -6 and 16 acres of land zoned Palermo Cove PUD. The Wolf Creek PUD now had a land total of 188.78 acres with a maximum density of 3.99 DU/AC acres (maximum density 754 units). The preservation requirement for native vegetation again increased to 34.26 acres (See PUD Master Plan below and on pages 6 and 7), which is the current minimum preserve requirement for the PUD. However, per Note 1 "All shaded areas of the PUD will remain as approved by Ordinance No. 07-46, Exhibit A, and Ordinance No. 09-34." Lots 3B and 9 are shaded areas. m n r' Master Plan — Page 1 of 3 (Additional acreage in yellow) Wolf Creek PDI-PL20160000404 Page 5 of 13 June 1, 2017 CCPC Public Hearing �! 1 Iuu�uORll m�M i � N I � N uw m«n �.mmm I I Master Plan — Page 1 of 3 (Additional acreage in yellow) Wolf Creek PDI-PL20160000404 Page 5 of 13 June 1, 2017 CCPC Public Hearing V d m IV,", .M L-trT W'F FYub�bT R$M..CF-✓✓Y' _ _ - TGG T. BA,mw• w'i.: CRsP �z Bn»aP. MATCH LINE �SHHET 2OFF 3 F0.'P KS tE P _ L4MpY0K &T.Ff77j` ttSGEMyIwMU I� L•. L 9.Iv v Al u,. V tiCG cPKM+J ,�q1 I efsccrn r,w., R ME -A" lM•LYA4 &Jf?4:. y PMiCEL Ss fMhTBI[ Ed PE t s+ ua^eneuae( r1WekG iP+oWS@) tBeae nq Burusem-. RMTCH LINE ,,Y Att /t w enw se *a»I ) uTT A^R[2 SHEET 2 Of= )� PWCQ 5 MD"U'L IPl.tt-Ffd0.Y1 I �yyj bti£G. ,'I W PBM wS cT' aWmv+[ e>_ea AParc- �>?/MVPr i KREF M xrz. �I PaoVPI n m I �+u BoBA ABC` >ue)'��PaR-ia Baals +J wg hwa.J SIIID Pr LPo yvnS y� 77 Rn 2 Id YI ] Fe Omrt:ma t Eva, a !•WIlTIVf'/YNIYI' ( I pj>> wq[5 PRESERVES: PARCEL IA=6.19,E-ACRES Jbxr ANIEL IBPaxI -o Ilm�itn'"�"im a IREPOLI"IUL fnR Lm wW 1 (R m Lv w `' I nmtP�ai�a_ 9. m PARCEL 3A = 0 7i1- ACRES aRYaiO iOYn Ndl ) W P4NAM AL PW0.3vib Sv EA B k BEAR R f£ p �J' IXtPINdhT bY-,i Mq W -S, ( I IML 9%xi dJ P4!B-B2 . a> d NGE NCE u I �) �p _ tunas o -w :aE. NA) Bssma.. �xst4rmK ,PCP I rs�a+>aBu, I DA -rwttR TM..bp4>I-.fPwLt TA R[441 A4 4AWIh¢ M _ n#iE0 TQYA I g W NPltl11 IOPkP.ib Bt 0.4 U$RN W-. No PLT. BIKX &'l.R WCCE ' b>-�'� m -N & I fRsi 9XP5 e3 RPY B9 82 a> � iqi Rsx w-, w wwa ;r_rsl ff0 rutsmar (ALIBIED) (ALIBIED) I'BCsitte�ruLNPA a Lwo m. _ p G,E ' sBcu. no. wcn-rxa, bP � 'n .wrcxeu .x.n.[ +sle I \ w imwm kr '— ONMte'6:E ILI M O!2- IIAL, A m.ur. ET+ p IV,", .M L-trT W'F FYub�bT R$M..CF-✓✓Y' _ _ - TGG T. BA,mw• w'i.: CRsP �z Bn»aP. MATCH LINE �SHHET 2OFF 3 ALssbue 10 ,EVIATIIINS c -E >NEEf 3 Lf '_ i B� W beM k0 E5 hwa.J SIIID Pr LPo yvnS I ALL SHADED AREAS O(TfEBUD WILL REMAIN AS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 11,,EXNIBIT'A'AND 77 Rn 2 Id YI ] Fe Omrt:ma " ORDINANCE CEu _ All PRESER LE c5 AND LMES IN SHADED AREAS WILL REMAIN AS SM WVN AND APPROVED N.ORDINANCE C•> -.G. E%Nlbli PRESERVES: PARCEL IA=6.19,E-ACRES A* AND ORDINANCE 093+ Lm wW II PARCEL 3A = 0 7i1- ACRES REQUIREMENTS + ALL ACREAGES (EXCEPT r' R PRESER9ES ARE APFROMMATE AND SUBJECT TO MOOIPICATION AT TME TIME Of SOP OR PLAT APARGVAL j 300' hJG' y'ralE_ S ; = 600' ALssbue 10 ,EVIATIIINS c -E >NEEf 3 Lf '_ NO CHANGES PROPOSED k0 E5 hwa.J SIIID Pr LPo yvnS I ALL SHADED AREAS O(TfEBUD WILL REMAIN AS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 11,,EXNIBIT'A'AND 77 Rn 2 Id YI ] Fe Omrt:ma " ORDINANCE CEu _ All PRESER LE c5 AND LMES IN SHADED AREAS WILL REMAIN AS SM WVN AND APPROVED N.ORDINANCE C•> -.G. E%Nlbli PRESERVES: PARCEL IA=6.19,E-ACRES A* AND ORDINANCE 093+ PARCEL 2A = 9 9N- ACRES 3 THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR DIT$CATION DUE TC AGENCY. ERMI-ING PARCEL 3A = 0 7i1- ACRES REQUIREMENTS + ALL ACREAGES (EXCEPT r' R PRESER9ES ARE APFROMMATE AND SUBJECT TO MOOIPICATION AT TME TIME Of SOP OR PLAT APARGVAL ALssbue 10 ,EVIATIIINS c -E >NEEf 3 Lf '_ WOLF CREEK PUD hwa.J SIIID Pr LPo yvnS �•'I . rr .. .. •� RPLC M STEP C AN AMENOEG Rn 2 Id YI ] Fe Omrt:ma .,"" rta IISny wn r tm..ma ••- r C G LIST GF DEVIATIONS FROM L D ,PRMOUSLY APPROVED BY DRDMANCE lAA6 DEOATION u> SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 506O2A6 h, REQUIRES ON-PREMLCES SIGNS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO MAINTAIN A TER -FUO= SETBACK FROM ANY PROPERTY LINE UNLESS PLACED ON A FENCE OR WALL TO ALLOW A ZERO tD, FOOT SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE SHARED WITH THE CAROL MA VILLAGE MIXED USE PUO THIS DEVIATION WILL PERMIT APPROXIMATELY HALF OF ONE, DOUBLE-FACED IN A. FASHION IN THE ROAD BETWEEN THE WOLF CREEK RESIDENTIAL PUD ILASELED PRISTINE DRIVE ON EXHIBIT TIP AND THE CAROLINA VIL-AGE MIXED USE PUD ANO ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE CARO INA VILLAGE PROPERTY LINE ANO TO REDUCE THE III NIMUM 10. 00T SETBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORING CAROLINA VILLAGE MIXED USE PUD TO 0 FEET WIT. THE ADVERTISING LIMITED EXCLUSIVEL'T TO NO MORE THAN 3 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE WOLF CREEK RESIDENTIAL PUD THE PROPOSED SIGN MUST MEET ALL VEHICULAR SAFETY SIGHT DISTANCE STANDARDS FOR COLLIER COUNTY AND HAVE A MINIMUM It1-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROPE RIGHT-OF-WAY. AS DESCRIBED M SECTION 51X. 02A 6 A OF THE LOC THE PROPOSED SIGN MUST BE EXTERNALLY LIGHTED AND NOT INTERNALLY LIGHTED SITE DATA f] TOTAL SITE 4FEEA. 188 i8i AC MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS. 754 iidQ ]Bt AC XJ QUA, ull�W PRESERVES a ORIGINAL WOLF CREEK PUD NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT = 32.32 AC OJ PLUS AREAS BEING ADDED TO PUD PARCELIA: (N AREA =15]T AC REQUIRED PRESERVE - 1.54 ACES 5 OF 6.19 ACRES OF NATIVE VEGETATION. PARCEL2B: AREA = 5.0 AC REQUIRED PRESERVE = 290 AC CI51m OF 1,59 AC OF NATIVE VEGETATION, TOTAL PRESERVE REQUIRED = 3232 AC !.6A AC * 0A AC = 36.26 AC TOTAL MINIMUM PRESERVE. PROVIDED = 3A.26 AC LIST OF DEVIATIONB FROM L D C. tPARICELS t .3A ONLY'I DEVIATION 0.1 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LID' SECTION 90602 OIL TV£ BUFFER REQUIREMENTS WHICH REQJIFES A 10 FOOT WIDE TYPE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER BETWEEN SIMILAR RESIDENTIAL LAND USES TO ALLOW NO BUFFER BETWEEN COMMONLY OWNED PROPERTIES WHERE INDICATED ON THE CONCEPTUAL MAE FOR PUN DEVIATION Al SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION DJ60212, SIDEWALKS BIKE LANE AND PATHWAY REQUIREMENTS. WHICH REQUIRES SIDEWALKS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON BOTH SIDES OF LOCAL STREETS TO ALLOW.SIDEWALKS ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET ONLY FOR PRIVATE STREETS WHERE IDENTIFIED ON THE ALTERNATIVE PATHWAYS PLAN SEE EXHIBIT D OF THE PUD EXHIBITS, DEVIATION " SEEKS RELIEF FROM LOG SECTION 606.01.0 STREET SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS AND APPENDIX B. TYPICAL S'REET SECTIONS AND RIGHT -OF,WAY DESIGN STANDARDS. 'WHICH ESTABLISHES A 60 FOOT WIDE LOCAL ROAD TO ALLOW A MINIMUM AQ }NIDE PRIVATE LOCAL ROAD ,SEE EXHIBIT C OF THE PUD EXMBITSI DEVIATION Ob SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 606011 STREET SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS. WHICH LIMITS CUL -DESACS TO A MAXIMUM LENGTH OF 1 0010 FEET TO PERMIT A CUL-DE-SAC. APPROXIMATELY I.JAC FEET IN LENGTH WITH APPROPRIATE NO THROUGH TRAFFIC SIGNAGE NOTES I. ALL SHADED AREAS OF THE PUD WILL REMAIN AS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 0746. EXHIBIT 'A AND ORDINANCE 09 -DI 2 ALL PRESERVES AND LAKES IN SHADED AREAS WILL REMAIN AS SHOWN AND APPROVED IN ORDINANCE 01-x6. EXHIBIT `A' AND ORDINANCE 09-34 3. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND I$ SUBJECTTO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS a ALL ACREAGES (EXCEPT FOR PRESERVES, ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO MODETCAT,ON AT THE TIME OF SOP OR PLAT APPROVAL. WOLF CR££A' PUD �ll itlV �I11701 , ,;; EXHIBIT A -I ...... a. I,. .. PLD MAz_"TEP FLAN .WENDED FxraKm a RIMmamm :k.iE SHEET N.a XlI iS icN! o—+r' Cm�mrm.Y. •11 .• 11 1 . - s iii �41orn �.w Y i -:4 .I,— W Nvinaer Mar J'll sn p7w \ ' 1 1 ,NSMV . P R. IP.. � C _WORM9PNIN4Y M �..Iri C Y Ca sip,• •.�. aF vl ISLANL1WaLN + 'tl L 11,W1y� PINES •iy ix N Iryf. 4 1Uj ff-lp ir �:lq I& - I � t-AMXrtm Nri �*T V� _[ �lNl N4P ES rI � U f' �` C Ni W II 1r�T+. V WPY...� ..� •r, �IPJIf�P MUJ+I+a II C P ,1 WRY l I +I a �• 1.R.IRIA 1111 ri Je 4 I SWIM F r IT SECTION 10.02.13.E.1 a. Is there a proposed change in the boundary of the Planned Unit Development (PUD)? No. There is no proposed change to the boundary of the PUD. b. Is there a proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development? No increase is proposed for the total number of dwelling units, intensity of land uses, or height of buildings within the development. C. Is there a proposed decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation, or open space areas within the development more than five (5) percent of the total acreage previously designated as such, or five (5) acres in area? No. The applicant is continuing to propose 34.26 acres of preserve in this reconfiguration. No decrease in overall preserve area has been proposed. However, the visual depiction of the preserves for Parcels 3B and 9 on the 2007 PUD Master Plan is revised to show the remaining portion of the PUD's minimum preserve requirement of 3.06 acres. d. Is there a proposed increase in the size of areas used for non-residential uses, to include institutional, commercial and industrial land uses (excluding preservation, conservation or open space), or a proposed relocation of nonresidential land uses? No. e. Is there a substantial increase in the impacts of the development which may include, but are not limited to increases in traffic generation; changes in traffic circulation; or impacts on other public facilities? No. This application is for reconfiguration of the required preserves only. f. Will the change result in land use activities that generate a higher level of vehicular traffic based upon the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers? No. This application is for reconfiguration of the required preserves only. g. Will the change result in a requirement for increased stormwater retention, or otherwise increase stormwater discharge? No. The proposed changes would not increase from that which was already contemplated. appropriate information to SFWMD should permitted stormwater management system. Wolf Creek PDI-PL20160000404 June 1, 2017 CCPC Public Hearing stormwater retention or stormwater discharge The applicant will be required to submit all this change necessitate modifications to the Page 9 of 13 h. Will the proposed change bring about a relationship to an abutting land use that would be incompatible with an adjacent land use? No. Although the visual depiction on the 2007 Master Plan will decrease for Parcels 313 and 9 by approximately 4 acres, 3.06 acres of preserve area remains. PPRCEL ]A RnMIENrILL Y1E1 u]ACREs IwoLe r+wsrl MFf4 PRFSENVEPNA9� R .. _. -_._ aK[PI Nl r[.N F]E[I [MGLw L+� Vi[1Mo +__ J awRaloR r]u]n IwonuL+R[+ � IxorYNur a I[[]oL[. Yw4wnnsuard+n+c,®]vw[Nouw[I �8 anln VANDERBK.T RESERVE � t iRACt P 1 Lam.-.. MVRlf9 L Y• PEEER EAR Approximately �^ REEalNYW +Yw+ 4 acres renim-ed �. rA�[ I I �� 1[[IOLe rAwLYI � wa.am U BUCK BEAR RII �I IY.'W+.two.watl�wnro[+nN[IaolawYlNwrq � vuaERRa?nEe�txvF - I �VANDERBILT RESERVE '. �m Nc1¢a _ rRERERVE ARE+ � rwao I tw iM1Dw PPIM'?q �I] P(IE MII.M]I ,i II l PESFRVE RREa R] Rf51DlNL14 +11[R A.i .] S f IRINOLE PWILYI 0 ]1 R[P[ R[wIV11YLM4 �I1, i. Are there modifications to the PUD Master Plan or PUD Document or Amendment to a PUD ordinance which is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element or other elements of the Growth Management Plan or which modification would increase the density of intensity of the permitted land uses? No. j. The proposed change is to a PUD District designated as a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and approved pursuant to Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes, where such change requires a determination and public hearing by Collier County pursuant to Sec. 380.06 (19), F.S. Any change that meets the criterion of Sec. 380.06 (19)9e)2., F.S., and any changes to a DRUPUD Master Plan that clearly do not create a substantial deviation shall be reviewed and approved by Collier County under Sec. 2.7.3.5.4 or Sec. 2.7.3.5.6 of this Code. No. Wolf Creek PDI-PL20160000404 Page 10 of 13 June 1, 2017 CCPC Public Hearing k. Are there any modifications to the PUD Master Plan or PUD Document or Amendment to a PUD ordinance which impact(s) any consideration deemed to be a substantial modification as described under Section(s) 10.02.13 E.? RM Approval by the Planning Commission shall be based on the findings and criteria used for the original application and action should be taken at a regularly scheduled meeting. SECTION 10.02.13.E.2 Does this petition change the analysis of the findings and criteria used for the original application? No. The proposed Master Plan has an equivalent amount of acreage as the original Master Plan for preservation area (See Attachment 3 and below, taken from PUDZA-20120000650 Findings). Conservation and Coastal ManggtTeru Element (CCMEI' Environmental review staff found this project to he consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). A minimum ol'25 % ofthc eristing native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier Counh�. The minimum preserve required q/ 34.26 acres is being provided This meets the GMP requirement. Environmental Review The existing WoljCreek PUD preserve area is 32.32-1- acres: the Proposed preserve area is 34.26+ acres. A total of]. 94 acres will be added: 1.54+ acres from Palermo Cove PUD and 0.40+ acres tram the 5 -acre Scenic Woods parcel. The minimum preserve required ol'34.26 acres is being provided. 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 25 percent of the existing native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. The minimum preserve requirement of 34.26 acres is being provided. This does NOT require EAC REVIEW, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition to address environmental concerns. The minimum preserve requirement of 34.26 acres is continuing to be provided. With this petition, the applicant is proposing to remove approximately 4.05 acres of the preserve from "Parcel 9" shown on the existing PUD Master Plan, because the minimum preserve requirement for the PUD has been met elsewhere in the PUD (See Preserve Map, page 5). The preserve standards in LDC section 3.05.07.H. Lb. states that, "Thin linear and perimeter `picture frame -shaped' preserves are discouraged, unless such preserve shapes are dictated by environmental or environmental regulatory considerations." The requested reduction in preserve results in a portion of the preserve being linear. The LDC requires an average of 50 feet in width but not less than 20 feet. The proposed preserve boundary provides approximately 75 feet at its narrowest point Wolf Creek PDI-PL20160000404 Page 11 of 13 June 1, 2017 CCPC Public Hearing [Note: The LDC does not prohibit changing preserve locations on a PUD Master Plan if the preservation criteria (LDC section 3.05.07.A.) and preserve standards (LDC section 3.05.07.H.) are met] TRANSPORTATION REVIEW: Transportation staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Documents and approves this request. There are no new accesses or units proposed that would impact transportation. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): On November 10, 2016, a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was conducted. Concerns were raised regarding traffic congestion, wildlife habitat, quality of the proposed development, and commitments not met by developers and the County. The neighboring residential community surrounding the subject property within the Wolf Creek PUD are mainly concerned of the inequities that would exist having the preserves reduced on Parcels 3B and 9. Currently, with the existing Master Plan approximately 7 acres or 21 percent of Parcel 313 and 9 contain preserves. If this proposal were to be approved the preserves would be reduced to approximately 3 acres or 9 percent The residents believe this is below the average of the preserves maintained on all other developed communities within the Wolf Creek PUD The residents also believe this reduction will eliminate the use of passive recreation (trails boardwalks) that are some of the approved uses within the PUD If approved the preserves would be at the minimum eliminating all possibilities for these recreation uses COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on March 26, 2017. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) approve Petition PDI- PL20160000404 Wolf Creek PDI for the reconfiguration of part of the existing preserve per the plan with the following conditions: 1. A new preservation Master Plan Exhibit shall be created showing the preserves accurately for the total PUD. Attachments: I CCPC Resolution 2 PUD Exhibits 3 Existing PUD Ordinance 4 2013 PUDZA Findings 5 Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review 6 E-mails 7 Petition Against Reduction of Preserve 8 Application and Backup Material Wolf Creek PDI-PL20160000404 Page 12 of 13 June 1, 2017 CCPC Public Hearing PREPARED BY: DAN SMITH, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: RAYMOr V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER ZONING'DIVISION MICHAEL BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR ZONING DIVISION JAMIE FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Wolf Creek PDI-PL20160000404 June 1, 2017 CCPC Public Hearing S -17-I DATE S-/717 DATE DATE S-/7-/7 DATE Page 13 of 13 CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 17 — A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR AN INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE WOLF CREEK RPUD, ORDINANCE NO. 2007-46, AS AMENDED, TO ADD A PRESERVE EXHIBIT THAT REVISES THE PRESERVE CONFIGURATION FOR PARCELS 3B AND 9 ONLY, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD, APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF MILE WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 189± ACRES. PDI-PL201600004041 WHEREAS- the Legislature of the State ofFlorida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public: and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County: and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Convnission is authorized by the Board of County Commissioners to grant insubstantial changes to PUD Ordinances in accordance with Subsection 10.02.13.E.2 of the Land Development Code: and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission. being the duly -appointed planning agency for the area hereby affected, has held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of the requested insubstantial change to add a preserve exhibit that revises the preserve configuration for Parcels 3B and 9 only. as shown on Exhibit A. tot the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 10.01. 1 1E.2 of the Collier County Land Development Code: and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled and the Commission having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA, that: Petition No. PD1-PL20160000404 tiled by .lames A. Carr. P.E. of Agnoli, Barber &. Brundage, Inc., and R. Bruce Anderson. Esq., on behalf of Sobel Vanderbilt. LLC, with respect to the property described in Ordinance No. 2007-46, as amended, the Wolf Creek Residential 111n1J Creek RPUD Petition Alf). PM -PL 20160000404 I 16 PS -0 1550/1304817/1152 1 ev.5/17/17 I °.fid Attachment 1 Planned Unit Development, be and the same is hereby approved to add a preserve exhibit that revises the preserve configuration for Parcels 3B and 9 only, as shown on Exhibit A. and subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto as Exhibit B. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion. second and majority vote on the day of .2017. ATTEST: ,lames French, Deputy Department Head Growth Management Department Approved as to form and legality: Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Karen Homiak, Vice- Chairman Attachment: Exhibit A —Preserve Exhibit for Parcels 3B and 9 Exhibit B —Conditions of Approval Wolf Creek RPUD Peri,ion No. PD/-PL20160000404 116 -CPS -01556/1304817/1)52 rev. 5/17/17 1 C 9 � Pw1EaK tN IFOIBBLY Pw11CG tl Ys Mala NE�amEL wNU IBIif F1YLn NO CWNGE.S PRORiEEO V m�~�Ra®� 111 olorANEt ts.n, natAlotw DPRESERVE MEd WOLF CREEK RPUD TOTAL PRESERVE AREAS RAFFIA PRESERVE 1641 (PARCELS 1& 18. 2A, 2B. 3A) RY(N PPESENVE RL SE I RAI BOOM1 ^P.11.1 NOTE: THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRESERVE PEL6RY0 COVE BRIO REamENnu EXHIBIT IS REVISE THE E iy CONFIGURATIONTI N PARCELS 3B AND 9 ONLY 3 PIIEIIYO CDVERWD REamEPT1LL u rnEaeutowlq tallAau PLAN SHALL REMAIN AS APPROVED BY EAttulE.ru.Aan MtlNPNWmO Pu0. Yo cove RPUD ORDINANCE NO. 73-37. 09-34, AND 0746. ESIOENT4 eE �sn,Pwmwal �0 0� nou rANrnu s'°u 9 � Pw1EaK tN IFOIBBLY Pw11CG tl Ys Mala NE�amEL wNU IBIif F1YLn NO CWNGE.S PRORiEEO V m�~�Ra®� 111 olorANEt ts.n, natAlotw DPRESERVE MEd WOLF CREEK RPUD TOTAL PRESERVE AREAS RAFFIA PRESERVE 1641 (PARCELS 1& 18. 2A, 2B. 3A) RY(N PPESENVE RL SE I RAI BOOM1 ^P.11.1 NOTE: THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRESERVE PEL6RY0 COVE BRIO REamENnu EXHIBIT IS REVISE THE E iy CONFIGURATIONTI N PARCELS 3B AND 9 ONLY ql ALL OTHER ASPECTS OF THE PUD MASTER u rnEaeutowlq tallAau PLAN SHALL REMAIN AS APPROVED BY EAttulE.ru.Aan MtlNPNWmO Pu0. Yo cove RPUD ORDINANCE NO. 73-37. 09-34, AND 0746. ESIOENT4 eE �sn,Pwmwal 9 � Pw1EaK tN IFOIBBLY Pw11CG tl Ys Mala NE�amEL wNU IBIif F1YLn NO CWNGE.S PRORiEEO V m�~�Ra®� 111 olorANEt ts.n, natAlotw DPRESERVE MEd WOLF CREEK RPUD TOTAL PRESERVE AREAS RAFFIA PRESERVE 1641 (PARCELS 1& 18. 2A, 2B. 3A) RY(N PPESENVE RL SE I RAI BOOM1 ^P.11.1 r.uosPI -) ISs P-) (RMIICn OF'. K P.I iy INc'o: ql (MCI o.e ]N .1I{ BLACK BEAR RIDGE 9 11 (PARCELS 6. 7. 8) .KF BEAR ROSE. PMY L RAI BW[.] PGS.A: tRAr. rs EAR InzE.I 'M Pr.R we W Ac<a-PMSE z PUT aDOd.r Pcs w.E) IMCr P I T.T o.) urCJ P.� rWCiPY SY TW Cr P<B 0)e0 rMCr n.l l»KSF 011K FALLS OF PORTOFINO 566 (PARCELS A. 5) SL9-)UM.AR.IY BIXY Atl P[{.ql. 7R<' VANDERBILT RESERVE 3.06 (PARCELS 38. 9) I PRceO)EDPur TOTAL 34.26 AC. VOTE REWIRED PERUAETER OUFFER56N PMCa )B LN09 MF PER FUO LOC REcRRwRENTa NOTE PNESERVES W V BE USED TO SATIFFIME vANOSCME Bt MOFOO VP.L AFTpRFYOiIC VECE RO. FSE, I WACCORONTA .LOC aECOON01T 0]AND.ddEI SVPREYENk P4NrING3STH WEEEPEMITMO7 5 SIULL BE 1N ACCOR041EE W1Tx tLC SECTON 1090T I. i a� 3� �W 9 "ISCEL u IFa1YERLr FRR.L 21 SEL ACREt RESOE ro REYARA 4¢AIHNOLE (EYR.rI PI Aa ArrROVEO ry olmwrlce tsn, ErAtwNO ENu rdLFYIO COVE RrDO REamEN14L INS ".S-iiACELX LTMA ~1IOP eEEa PO fE)I W NREa O M<PEJIOEx1ML MFn IT t�1AYpMI.GLE.IN'O UL AYILr ORl R,ATTACKED TOWN HCXi RNI EPN E$ R R"El H LINE I 1111AL.IF.=IFF n mlDNuw u Arwatsn rAPca1 _ � etm�Rnce lrn. Nr�Ew�EE MnAMS _ rAM.RE xalw -- -- REEmEPMLAREI L RE,t)ENIYY ARIe. a.il0..1Nn :INGL 'SE TRIO. WLTLEAYEI OR mNg1EM MAlACYOT PRESERVE MEA ATTICNFD (OMI Mp09EE) - OIIpNNE10E 1,taaOSAlOry ) K ACRES FARM 4 Ij} II�E Hl ACRE. EESE)ENiIK MFA IWIE.T TGNViK/.YLYI mm®may AE' A1TK)1®TO'NNXONfl,B I: OdMIIE!\IO. nJa}!BW M WMMYAIrNOVEO OI ORONYICE I]-]f.Of�E MO EPN ' IL rARCEt) 1liR ACREO RESIOFNML ARFA IaINGLE. rw0. tuanFANar OR AI fFARI TOWNXOVf0 fi TO RFIVJN 19 .1.. BY ORMIAXf.E IUI.OlJ6 AN000.L VANCERNII.I BEACx POsp PRItiIME MIVE vwrlciaa�dww OEfICE3PECVLLTr RETM VANEERBRT BFACN ROAp NIMOYA IAXEI WO 0.Ef10EN01t)CpLILPNCLLL mms" RR,S mPVE V. CREEK RPUO OUND1Rr .m410N PLu Pun coNYERcuL $XOPPiMG CENTER U0 n �PUD EWNI SNEET OF 11503yu0 EXHIBIT B Conditions of Approval The sole purpose of the Preserve Exhibit for Parcels 3B and 9 is to revise the preserve configuration for Parcels 3B and 9 only. All other applicable state or federal pen -nits must be obtained before commencement of the development. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S.. issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. [I6 -CPS -01556/1330966/1] Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added. Revised 5/3/17 LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT "A" RPUD MASTER PLAN — ORIGINAL (pertains to Parcels 313-9) EXHIBIT "A-1" RPUD MASTER PLAN AMENDED (pertains to Parcels 1A, 113, 2A, 2B & 3A) EXHIBIT "B" RPUD CONCEPTUAL UTILITY/WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN EXHIBIT "C" PRIVATE ROAD CROSS-SECTION — PARCELS 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B & 3A EXHIBIT "D" ALTERNATIVE PATHWAYS PLAN — PARCEKS 1A, 16, 2A, 2B & 3A EXHBIT "E" PRISTINE DRIVE CROSS-SECTION — PARCELS 1A, 113, 2A, 2B & 3A EXHIBIT "P" PRESERVE EXHIBIT FOR Parcels 3B & 91 TABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PARCELS 3B-9 TABLE 11 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS — PARCELS 1A, 16, 2A, 2B & 3A [12137-0002/2549355/1] Revised 08/22/16 Word=..... ek through are deleted; words underlined are added. Attachment 2 SECTION IV PRESERVE AREAS PLAN 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for the Preserve Areas as shown on Exhibit "A", RPUD Master Plan, Exhibit "P" Preserve Exhibit for Parcels 3B and 9,and Exhibit "A-1", RPUD Master Plan Amended, as may be amended pursuant to this Document. The sole purpose of Exhibit "P" is to revise the preserve configuration for Parcels 3B and 9 only. Any approvals to remove native vegetation in the on-site Preserve Areas shall be conditional upon having a remaining minimum of 34.26± acres of native vegetation on- site. [12137-0002/2549354/1] Revised 08/22/16 Words StFUGIE are deleted; wordsRaR ter,.,,"- i are added. ez yl.Iuluoluw� i :€ E� rI.Po61P E w E pE o.mr�____ _drNc oaoo Niq'.TCh f En>= ©Fi NO CHANGES PROPOSED PRESERVEAREA WOLF CREEK RPUD TOTAL PRESERVE AREAS Mafchline - A 1841 (PPAAR S-SIA.`R, 1a, 22B,r N `WOLF CREEKRPRO awaau ne..an�.LL.M a`�iaa..=w aE .� i .roa.xaeln. o,«.xopw BOUNDARY •R•n�n•rA .ui`��u. u P^uuLvi�esr�wgewuq 5.11 Alcon j moolwucelaarplaswopo-L WOLF CREEK RPUD TOTAL PRESERVE AREAS RAFFIA PRESERVE 1841 (PPAAR S-SIA.`R, 1a, 22B,r N `WOLF CREEKRPRO awaau ne..an�.LL.M a`�iaa..=w aE .� i .roa.xaeln. o,«.xopw BOUNDARY Twwmr, vas u SUCK BEAR EIDER WOLF CREEK RPUD TOTAL PRESERVE AREAS RAFFIA PRESERVE 1841 (PPAAR S-SIA.`R, 1a, 22B,r N `WOLF CREEKRPRO awaau BOUNDARY Twwmr, vas C — SUCK BEAR EIDER 5.11 (PARCELS SN D = = carnuxcw=axarrlxocexrtP e. mw.avaze , L ; ng! g i r aunm.n.x Iml•mm.lminummulluuunwllnluuiu nasi 11503y,d-Ravi xr-0 s..w 7FAIIFAA III _,H_lrxAs[T di3 rE u E _ FALLS OF PORTOFINO 5.68 (RARCE0. 4A Iii "§I e SHEET OF OF v 11503 Dud VANDERBILTRESERVE 3.06 9I rP .IFIru3B. TOTAL 3425A0. NOTE THIS RPUD PRESERVE MASTER PLAN IDENTIFIES THE PROPOSED PRESERVE ON PARCELS 38 AND 9 AND CALCULATIONS FOR THE TOTAL 3428ACRES MINIMUM REQUIRED PRESERVE THE PRESERVE LOCATIONS ON PARCELS IN 3A M. 4, 6, TANG 8 A IDENTIFIED ON EXHIBIT W AND PXHINT"A-1' DO NOT CHANGE. NOTE: REQUIRED PERIMETER BUFFERS ON PARCEL AS AND 9 ARE PER P U W (DC REQUIREMENTS. NOTE: PRESERVES SHALL MEET OR EXCEED BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AFTER EXOTIC VEGETATION IS REMOVED. m..art:`=xep.ew.xo�ae:�III I `WOLF CREEKRPRO BOUNDARY C — vuau wmMMLA w_ ryvmST•+um�� v q«wm� xxoloeq II PrsmEp ugxrrEr.xi=n oulxulaasn,orxuleow = = carnuxcw=axarrlxocexrtP ap 5 Is L ; ng! g i r aunm.n.x Iml•mm.lminummulluuunwllnluuiu nasi 11503y,d-Ravi xr-0 s..w PUUDDaExhlM1ibl rE u E _ .A.me'I .p= owlwnzren, orx Auomr I.-_____—_ BIL I V ______ ------------ ommvecmr.xmu= Iii "§I e SHEET OF OF v 11503 Dud Z xssm[xnn. J W C ulnulunulnuu•Ilnuluuuu imilm lulry WpLL w Fwz Q w��a w,na 0 SO aIN G G r4mxaa mveuuo m N o"� _'n�.ual.uaial.ual.uala r--------------------------- j n. o A m -NT p.a�x,� m.%o SS �:I'°�'"""�n E m:PmnmP� n : a 3 e.mwe�a>.,. e.eoa.e. •= w F w x mm e,w,Mu=n_21: °,rm.°cxm,apnn=m.n N.T.P 2 W .`n eAw _ ow. E g ! U W K LL w w wmm commm�l p w a Ilnunu•unli----._I 3 a m..art:`=xep.ew.xo�ae:�III I `WOLF CREEKRPRO BOUNDARY C — vuau wmMMLA w_ ryvmST•+um�� v q«wm� xxoloeq II PrsmEp ugxrrEr.xi=n oulxulaasn,orxuleow = = carnuxcw=axarrlxocexrtP ap 5 Is L ; ng! g i r aunm.n.x Iml•mm.lminummulluuunwllnluuiu nasi 11503y,d-Ravi xr-0 s..w PUUDDaExhlM1ibl rE u E _ .A.me'I .p= owlwnzren, orx Auomr I.-_____—_ BIL I V ______ ------------ ommvecmr.xmu= Iii "§I e SHEET OF OF v 11503 Dud !U i91 ORDINANCE NO. 13-37 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2007-46, AS AMENDED, THE WOLF CREEK RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY INCREASING THE PERMISSIBLE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 671 TO 734; BY AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN ADDITIONAL 5+1- ACRES OF LAND FROM RMF -6(4) SCENIC WOODS REZONE TO THE WOLF CREEK RPUD AND BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF' AN ADDITIONAL 16± ACRES FROM PALERMO COVE PUD -f Q_ WOLF CREEK PUD; BY REVISING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; BY ADDING EXHIBIT A-1, THE AMENDS_ MASTER PLAN FOR PARCELS IA THROUGH 3A; BY ADDIII>q'G: EXHIBIT "D", PRIVATE ROAD CROSS-SECTION FOR PARCELS' IA THROUGH 3A; BY ADDING TABLE II, DEVELOPMONT, STANDARDS FOR PARCELS 1A THRUGH 3A; AND BY ADDING! DEVIATIONS AND REVISING DEVELOPER COMMITMEN :i THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SSM OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD (C.R. 862) APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF MILE WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R. 951) IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 189+/- ACRES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 2007-03, THE SCENIC WOODS REZONE; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, WCI COMMUNITIES, INC., represented by Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, PA. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the PUD and change the zoning classification of the additional herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: ZONING CLASSIFICATION The zoning classification of approximately 20 acres of the herein described real property, located in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida is changed as Wolf Creek RPUD \ PUDZ-A-PL20120000650 Page I oft Rev. 4!22,'13 Attachment 3 follows: 5t acres are changed from RMF -6(4) Scenic Woods Rezone to the Wolf Creek Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district and 16t acres are changed from Palermo Cove PUD to Wolf Creek RPUD and when combined with the existing Wolf Creek RPUD provides for a 189+/- acre project in accordance with the revised RPUD document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 2007-03 Ordinance No. 2007-03, the Scenic Woods Rezone, is hereby repealed. SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 11P 'k - day of 2013. ATTEST: BOARD CiCOUNTY f IS: a^ia DWIG.-Bk i`CK, CLERK COLLIERO N, T , FA I�I�iI 1 � By: By: Afitest a5o Ghairi��' 1 GEOR, I A. LLER, ESQ, chairwoman signature �nlysr :;� Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Heidi Ashton-Cicko 4111 \3 Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment. Exhibit A - RPUD Document including Exhibits This ordinance filed with the Secteto?-j of State's Office the day of_ LO_ and ocknowl!a e. ent that CP1.I2-CPS-01201`40 filiro received his AA day Wolf Creek RPUD 1 PUDZ-A-PL20120000650 Page 2 of 2 Rev. 4/22/13 EXHIBIT "A" WOLF CREEK RPUD A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNING THE WOLF CREEK RPUD, A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED FOR: LARRY MAYER ABBO, V.P. PRIME HOMES, INC. 21218 ST. ANDREWS BLVD., #510 BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33433 and WILLIAM L. HOOVER, PRES. of CATALINA LAND GROUP, INC., the MANAGER of WOLF CREEK ESTATES, LLC and BUCKSTONE ESTATES, LLC 3785 AIRPORT ROAD N., SUITE B-1 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34105 and Wolf Creek Naples Holdim-ys LLC 265 Sevilla Avenue Coral Gables, FL 33134 PREPARED BY: HOOVER PLANNING & DEV., INC. 3785 AIRPORT ROAD N., SUITE B-1 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34105 AMENDED BY; 0. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. 3800 VIA DEL REY BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34134 and RICHARD D. YOVANOVICH GOODLETTE,COLEMAN, &-K*NS9N-,YOVANOVICH & KOESTER, P.A. 4001 TAMIAMI TRAIL N., #300 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34103 DATE FILED DATE REVISED 15, 2013 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC DATE APPROVED BY BCC ORDINANCE NUMBER 2009 34 AMENDMENTS ANDREP9, 6 3-45.07-46.09-34 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SECTION III RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN SECTION IV PRESERVE AREAS PLAN PAGE 42 4i-3 44 25 610 912 14 20 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 4,521 TABLE I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PARCELS 3B - 9 4015 TABLE II RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PARCELS 1A 113, 2A 2B U n n Words 4FUA-threygH are deleted; words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 614-2013 Page 2 of 26 LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT "A" RPUD MASTER PLAN — ORIGINAL (pertains to Parcels 3B — 9) EXHIBIT "A-1" RPUD MASTER PLAN AMENDED (pertains to Parcels 1A 1 B 2A 2B & 3A) EXHIBIT "B" RPUD CONCEPTUAL UTILITY/WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN EXHIBIT "C" LOCATION--MARPRIVATE ROAD CROSS-SECTION — PARCELS 1A, 18, 2A, 2B&3A EXHIBIT "D" ALTERNATIVE PATHWAYS PLAN — PARCELS 1A 1 B 2A 2B & 3A EXHIBIT "E" PRISTINE DRIVE CROSS-SECTION — PARCELS 1A. 1 B. 2A. 2B & MQ TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS — PARCELS 3B — 9 TABLE II DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS — PARCELS 1A 113, 2A 213 & 3A Words stmek !hreegh are deleted; words underlined are added. Wol/Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 3 0/26 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of approximately 167 AR188.78± acres of property in Collier County, Florida, as a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to be known as the Wolf Creek Residential PUD, will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). The residential facilities of the Wolf Creek RPUD will be consistent with the growth policies, land development regulations, and applicable comprehensive planning objectives for the following reasons: 1. The subject property's location, in relation to existing or proposed community facilities and services, permits the development's residential density as described in Objective 2 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). 2. The project development is compatible with and complimentary to surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the FLUE. 3. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with applicable sections of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) as set forth in Objective 3 of the FLUE. 4. The project development is planned to protect the functioning of natural drainage features and natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas as described in Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub -Element of the Public Facilities Element. 5. The project is located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict designation of the FLUE. The project density of 3.99 dwelling units per acre is in compliance with the FLUE of the GMP based on the following relationships to required criteria: Base Density +4 dwelling units/acre Maximum Permitted Density +4 dwelling units/acre Maximum permitted units = 167.96188.78 acres x 4 dwelling units/acre = 674 756 units. Requested dwelling units =-674754, which results in a requested density of 3.99 dwelling units/acre. 6. All final local development orders for this project shall be subject to the Adequate Public Facilities Requirements, of the LDC. Words s4Vek4kreegh are deleted; words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 4 of 26 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of the Wolf Creek Residential RPUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being 167.96188.78± acres is comprised of 9-12 separate parcels that are located in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, and are fully described as: A. Parcel 1A — A portion of land located in Section 34 Township 48 South Range 26 East Collier County Florida Being more particularly described as follows: commence at the West quarter corner of Section 34 Township 48 South Range 26 East Collier County Florida; thence along the West line of the Northwest quarter of said Section 34 north 02014'01" West a distance of 668.74 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel of land herein described: thence continue along said West line north 02°14'01" West a distance of 1054.64 feet thence north 87°46'17" East a distance of 364.37 feet to a point on a non tangential curve to the left: thence Southerly 88.00 feet along the arc of said curve having a radius of 210.00 feet a central angle of 24°00'38". (chord bearing South 07°14'58" East a distance of 87.36 feet)' thence South 18°28'14" East a distance of 65,84 feet thence South 04°30'25" East a distance of 65.59 feet thence South 10°22'28" East a distance of 73.39 feet to a point on a non tangential curve to the right thence Southerly 86,02 feet along the arc of said curve having a radius of 533.38 feet a central angle of 09°14'25". (chord bearing South 01°10'52" East a distance of 85.93 feet) to a point on a non tangential curve to the right thence Southerly 62.48 feet along the are of said curve having a radius of 485.08 feet a central angle of 07°22'50" (chord bearing South 06°57'20" West a distance of 62.44 feet) to a point on a non tangential curve to the left; thence Southerly 212.02 feet along the arc of said curve having a radius of 1,667.96 feet a central angle of 07016'59" (chord bearing South 08°44'13" West a distance of 211.88 feet) to a point on a non tangential curve to the right thence Southwesterly 21.41 feet along the arc of said curve having a radius of 30.00 feet a central anqle of 40°53'51" (chord bearing South 25°31'05" West a distance of 20.96 feet) to a point on a non tangential curve to the left thence Southwesterly 76.34 feet along the arc of said curve having a radius of 254.07 feet a central angle of 17°12'57" (chord bearing South 37021'31" West a distance of 76.05 feet); thence South 01 °15'45" East, a distance of 44.93 feet: thence South 89°51'46" East Words skwek-t#xeugh are deleted; words underlined are added. WoN Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 5 of 26 a distance of 84 45 feet to a point on a curve to the right thence Easterly 126.29 feet along the arc of said curve having a radius of 430.00 feet a central angle of 16°49'40" (chord bearing South W26'56- East a distance of 125.84 feet) to a. point on a reverse curve to the left thence Easterly 238.56 feet along the arc of said curve having a radius of 325.00 feet a central angle of 42°03'25" (chord bearing north 85°56'11" East a distance of 233.24 feet) to a point on a reverse curve to the right thence Easterly 361.70 feet along the arc of said curve having a radius of 430 00 feet a central angle of 48°11'45" (chord bearing north 89°00'21" East a distance of 351.13 feet) to a point on..a reverse curve to the left; thence Easterly 111.61 feet along the arc of said curve having a radius of 180.00 feet a central angle of 35°31'37" (chord bearing South 84039'35" East a distance of 109.83 feet) to a point on a reverse curve to the right thence Southeasterly 52.79 feet along the arc of said curve having a radius of 40.00 feet a central angle of 75°37'08" (chord bearing South 64°36'49" East a distance of 49.04 feet) to a point on a reverse curve to the left thence Southeasterly 54.96 feet along the arc of said curve having a radius of 220 00 feet a central angle of 14°18'51" (chord bearing South 33°57'41" East a distance of 54.82 feet) to a point on a non tangential curve to the left; thence Southeasterly 68.01 feet along the arc of said curve having a radius of 223.33 feet a central angle of 17°26'56" (chord bearing South 49°58'34" East a distance of 67.75 feet) to a point on a non tangential curve to the left; thence Easterly 84.06 feet along the arc of said curve having a radius of 220.00 feet a central angle of 21°53'34" (chord bearing South 69046'49" East a distance of 83.55..feet)i thence South 00°08'14" West a distance of 157.48 feet to a point on the South line of the lands described in officials records book 4714 page 2675 public records Collier County Florida; thence along said South line _north 89°52'01" West a distance of 1387.90 feet to the point of beginning. AB. Parcel 1 B- The South half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, subject to an easement for public road right-of-way over and across the south 30 feet and the west 30 feet thereof. 5C. Parcel 2A - The South half of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, subject to an easement for public road right-of-way over and across the south 30 feet thereof. D. Parcel 2B — The West 330 feet of the West 660 feet of the North half of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 34 Township 48 South, Range 26 East Collier County Florida GE. Parcel 3A - The North half of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, Words stMek thMkirh are deleted; words underlined are added. WoB Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 6 of 26 less Parcel 3B, subject to an easement for public road right-of-way over and across the north 30 feet and the east 30 feet thereof. 9F. Parcel 3B - A parcel of land located in the Southwest quarter of Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: commence at south '/. corner of Section 34, Township 48, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; thence run north 02°13'26" west, along the east line of the southwest % of said Section 34, for a distance of 2005.53 feet to the southeast corner of the north '/z of the northeast '% of the southwest '% of said Section 34 and the Point of Beginning of the parcel of land herein described: thence run north 89051'58" west, along the south line of the north '/2 of the northeast '% of the southwest '/. of said Section 34, for a distance of 1245.00 feet; thence run north 02°13'26" west, parallel with the east line of the southwest Y. of said Section 34, for a distance of 420.21 feet; thence run south 89051'58" east, parallel with the south line of the north Y2 of the northeast % of the southwest '/, of said Section 34, for a distance of 1245.00 feet; thence run south 02013'26" east, along the east line of the southwest''/. of said Section 34, for a distance of 420.21 feet to the Point of Beginning. €G. Parcel 4 - The North half of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. FH. Parcel 5 - The South half of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, subject to an easement for public road right-of-way over and across the east 30 feet thereof and less the southerly 145 feet for Vanderbilt Beach Road right-of-way. GI. Parcel 6 - The North half of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. #J. Parcel 7 - The South half of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. IK. Parcel 8 - The East 660 feet of the North half of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. JL. Parcel 9 - The South half of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP A. The subject property is owned by: Words stmek-thfaugh are deleted; words underlined are added. WoH Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 514-2013 Page 7 of 26 Parcels 1A, 113, 2A, 2B, and 3A by William L. Heave ' F, President E)f Raffia Holdings of Naples LLC, 265 Sevilla Avenue Coral Gables Florida 33134 and If Creek Naples Holdings Estates, LLC, 94265 Sevilla Avenue, NaplevCoral Gables, Florida 3410533134. 2. Parcels 4 and 5 by Prime Homes at Portofino Limited, Attn.: Larry Mayer Abbo, 21218 St. Andrews Boulevard, Suite 510, Boca Raton, Florida 33433. Parcels 6, 7, and 8, by William L. Hoover, President of Catalina Land Group, Inc., the manager of Buckstone Estates, LLC, 3785 Airport Road North, Suite B-1, Naples, Florida 34105. 4. Parcels 3B and 9 by Prime Homes at Portofino Falls, Ltd., 5555 Anglers Avenue #16B, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312. 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA A. The subject property is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, approximately 'Y2 mile west of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), unincorporated Collier County, Florida. 1.5 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The project site is located within the Harvey Drainage Basin according to the Collier County Drainage Atlas. The proposed outfall for the project will be to the northwest into the proposed Palermo Cove RPUD water management system and then to the west into the Island Walk stormwater management system and to the south along Vanderbilt Beach Road. In both cases, the stormwater outfall will enter the Island Walk stormwater management system. Natural ground elevation varies from 11.2 to 13.6 NGVD; average site elevation is 12.6 NGVD. The entire site is located within FEMA Flood Zone "X" with no base flood elevation. specified. Words StMek 1INFeugk are deleted; words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 514-2013 Page 8 of 26 The water management system of the project will include the construction of a perimeter berm along portions of the proiect boundary with crest elevation set at or above the 25 -year, 3 -day peak flood stage. Water quality pretreatment will be accomplished by an on-site lake system prior to discharge as described above. The water management system will be permitted by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) through the Environmental Resource Permit process. All rules and regulations of SFWMD will be imposed upon this project including, but not limited to: storm attenuation with a peak discharge rate per Collier County and SFWMD Rules, minimum roadway centerline, perimeter berm and finished floor elevations, water quality pre-treatment, and wetland hydrology maintenance. Per Collier County Soil Legend dated January 1990, the soil types found within the limits of the property are: #2 — Holopaw Fine Sand, Limestone Substratum; #27 - Holopaw Fine Sand and #33 Urban Land - Holopaw - Basinger Complex. Site vegetation consists predominantly of pine flatwoods, pine -cypress, cypress forest and woodland with a mix of different vegetation types. 1.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Wolf Creek RPUD is a project comprised of a maximum of 6-7-4754 residential units. Recreational facilities and other facilities and services will be provided in conjunction with the dwelling units. Residential land uses, recreational uses, and signage are designed to be harmonious with one another in a natural setting by using common architecture, quality screening/buffering, and native vegetation, whenever feasible. 1.7 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "Wolf Creek Residential Planned Unit Development Ordinance." Words stmekthFough are deleted; words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 9 of 26 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally describe the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances, the respective land uses of the tracts included in the project, as well as other project relationships. 2.2 GENERAL A. Regulations for development of the Wolf Creek RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Document, RPUD - Residential Planned Unit Development, and other applicable sections and parts of the LDC and GMP in effect at the time of building permit application. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the LDC shall apply. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the LDC in effect at the time of building permit application. C. All conditions imposed and graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of the Wolf Creek RPUD shall become part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the RPUD site may be developed. D. Unless modified, waived or excepted by this RPUD other provisions of the LDC, where applicable, remain in full force and effect with respect to the development of the land which comprises this RPUD. E. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of the Adequate Public Facilities Requirements, of the LDC. F. Throughout this PUD all references to Exhibit "A" (RPUD Master Plan) shall pertain to Parcels 3B — 9 and all references to Exhibit "A-1" (RPUD Master Plan Amended) shall pertain to Parcels 1A, 1 B, 2A, 2B & 3A. 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES A. The project Master Plan, including layout of streets and use of land for the various tracts, is illustrated graphically by Exhibit "A", RPUD Master Plan and Exhibit "A-1" RPUD Master Plan Amended. There shall be numerous land use tracts, plus necessary water management lakes, street rights-of-way, the Words "Nelklk th"Feug : are deleted; words underlined are added. WoN Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 10 or 26 general configuration of which is also illustrated by Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A- V. B. Areas illustrated as lakes by Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1" shall be constructed as lakes or, upon approval, parts thereof may be constructed as shallow, intermittent wet and dry depressions for water retention purposes. Such areas, lakes and intermittent wet and dry areas shall be in the same general configuration and contain the same general acreage as shown by Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1". Minor modification to all tracts, lakes or other boundaries may be permitted at the time of subdivision plat or SDP approval, subject to the provisions of the LDC. C. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1", such easements as necessary (utility, private, semi-public) shall be established within or along the various Tracts as may be necessary. 2.4 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DENSITY OR INTENSITY OF LAND USES A maximum of 674754 residential dwelling units shall be constructed in the residential areas of the project. The gross project area is 167 96188.78± acres. The gross project density shall be a maximum of 3.99 units per acre if all 674-754 dwelling units are approved and constructed- A minimum of 83 dwelling units will be assigned to parcels 1A — 3A due to the additional acreage being added to the PUD by the owner of those parcels In addition parcels 1A — 3A shall be entitled to incorporate any other density owned by the developer of these parcels. There shall be a maximum density of 163 dwelling units on parcels 1A — 3A. 2.5 RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS A. Prior to the recording of a record plat, and/or condominium plat for all or part of the RPUD, final plans of all required improvements shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure compliance with the RPUD Master Plan, Collier County subdivision rules, and the platting laws of the State of Florida. B. Exhibit "A", RPUD Master Plan and Exhibit "A-1" RPUD Master Plan Amended, constitutes the required RPUD development plan. Subsequent to or concurrent with RPUD approval, a subdivision plat or SDP, as applicable, may be submitted for areas covered by the RPUD Master Plan. Any division of the property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with the RPUD Master Plan Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1" -and LDC. C. Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrastructural improvements regarding any dedications to Collier County and the methodology for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. Words stmak &akigh are deleted; words underlined are added. WoN Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 514-2013 Page 110/26 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for the Residential Areas as shown on Exhibit "A", RPUD Master Plan and Exhibit "A-1". RPUD Master Plan Amended. 3.2 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS The maximum number of residential dwelling units within the RPUD shall be X754. 3.3 PERMITTED USES No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Single-family dwellings (includes zero -lot line and townhouses intended for fee simple conveyance). 2. Variable lot line dwellings single family (As to Parcels 1A 1B, 2A, 2B & 3A only) A variable lot line dwelling unit is a single family dwelling where the side yards may vary between 0 and 10 feet as long as a 10 -foot minimum separation between principal structures is maintained. 23. Two-family dwellings and duplexes. 34. Multi -family dwellings. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: 1. Customary accessory uses and structures including carports, garages, and utility buildings. 2. Recreational uses and facilities including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, fishing docks, walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings, and basketball/shuffle board courts. Words sfatsli tkreagh are deleted; words underlined are added. Wod Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 12 of 26 3. Temporary sales trailers and model units homes and model home centers including offices for proiect administration construction sales and marketing. 4. Gatehouse. 5. Essential services limited to utility facilities, such as electric transformers, pumps and lift stations. Q. 6. Water management facilities. b. Interim Uses 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Table I sets forth the development standards for land uses on Parcels 3B through 9 and Table II sets forth the development standard for land uses on Parcels 1A 1B 2A 2B & 3A within the Wolf Creek RPUD. Front yard setbacks in Table I and II shall be measured as follows: If the parcel is served by a public or private right-of-way, the setback is measured from the adjacent right-of-way line. 2. If the parcel is served by a non -platted private drive, the setback is measured from the back of curb or edge of pavement. If the parcel is served by a platted private drive, the setback is measured from the road easement or property line. 3. Carports shall be permitted within parking areas and garages shall be permitted at the edge of vehicular pavements except garages shall be set back to provide 23 feet of driveway between the garage and sidewalk to prevent parked vehicles from overhanging the sidewalk. 4 (As to Parcels 1A 16 2A 2B & 3A only): Guardhouses gatehouses, fences walls columns decorative architectural features streetscape and access control structures shall have no required setback except as listed below and are permitted throughout the "R" designated areas of the PUD: however such structures shall be located such that they do not cause vehicular stacking into the road right-of-way or create sight distance issues for motorists and pedestrians. Maximum Height Zoned: 25' Words StRiek-thFOUgh are deleted; words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 13 of 26 Actual. 30' Setbacks PUD Boundary 10' except fences or walls shall have no setback Words stfueli through are deleted; words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 6-14-2013 Page 14 of 26 TABLE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PARCELS 3B-9 STANDARDS SINGLE- SINGLE-FAMILY TWO-FAMILY AND MULTI -FAMILY FAMILY ATTACHED DUPLEX TOWNHOUSES Minimum Lot Area (per unit) 5,500 Sq. Ft. 1,800 Sq. Ft. 4,500 Sq. Ft. NA Minimum Lot Width (1) 50' Interior Lots 18' Interior Lots 80' Interior Lots (40') NA 60' Comer Lots 25.5' Exterior Lots (2) NA 100' Comer Lots (50') (2) Minimum Front Yard Setback (6) 23' (3) (4) 23'(3) (4) 23'(3) (4) 15'(3) Minimum Side Yard Setback (5) (6) 1 Story 0' & 12' or both NA 0'& 6' or both 6' 7.5' 2 Story 6' 0' or 7.5' 0'& 7.5' or both 7.5' 10' 0' & 15' or both 7.5' Minimum Rear Yard Setback (6) Principal Structure 20' 15' 20' 20' Accessory Structure 10' 10' 10' 10' Minimum PUD Boundary Setback Principal Structure NA NA NA 20' Accessory Structure NA NA NA 10' Minimum Lake Setback (7) 20' 20' 20' 20' Minimum Preserve Area Setback Principal Structure 25' 25' 25' 25' Accessory Structure 10' 10' 10' 10' Minimum Distance Between Structures Main/Principal/Accessory 12' NA 12' 15' 1 -Story 15' 15' 15' 20' 2 -Story Maximum Height Principal Building 35' and 2 stories 35' and 2 stories 35' and 2 stories 38' and 2 stories Accessory Building 25' /Clubhouse 25' /Clubhouse 35' 25'/Clubhouse 35' 25' /Clubhouse 38' 35' Minimum Floor Area 1400 Sq. Ft. 1400 Sq. Ft. 1200 Sq. Ft. 1150 Sq. Ft. (I ) May be reduced on cul-de-sac lots and lots along the inside and outside of curved streets by 25%. (2) Minimum lot frontage in parenthesis applies in cases where a dwelling unit in a 2 -family structure is on an individually platted lot. (3) Community tennis courts, basketball courts, and similar recreational facilities shall have a 15 -foot minimum setback from all property boundaries of the recreational tract/lot. (4) The front yard setback for side -loaded garages may be reduced to 18 feet, with the home remaining at 23 feet, where it can be demonstrated 2 vehicles can be adequately parked on double -wide driveways without the vehicles overhanging onto the sidewalks located at the edge of the right-of-way. (5) Where fee simple lots are created for each dwelling unit, no side yard shall be required between interior units of a unified principal structure, and the side yard shall be measured from exterior wall of the unified principal structure. (6) In no instance shall there be an encroachment into a required landscape buffer. (7) Lake setbacks are measured from the control elevation established for the lake. Words stwele thFengh are deleted; words underlined are added. Won Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 15 of 26 TABLE II RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PARCELS 1A, I B, 2A, 2B & 3A STANDARDS SINGLE-FAMILY VARIABLE LOT LINE SINGLE FAMILY AMENITY CENTER DETACHED FOR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED Minimum Lot Area 5,000 SF 4,000 SF 3,500 SF 10,000 SF Minimum Lot Width*3 SO feet 40 feet 3S feet NA Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet WA Minimum Front Yard 20 feet *2 20 feet *2 20 feet *2 N A Minimum Side Yard 6 feet 0 - 10 feet *4 0 or 5 feet N/A Minimum Rear Yard Principal *1 Accessary *1 15 feet 10 feet 15 feet 10 feet 15 feet 10 feet NLA Maximum Height Zoned Actual 30 feet 35 feet 30 feet 35 feet 30 feet 35 feet 30 feet 35 feet Minimum Distance Between 12 feet 10 feet 10 feet N/A Principal Structures *5 Floor Area Min. (S.F.) 1500 SF 1000 SF 1000 SIF N A PUD Boundary Adiacent to Palermo Cove PUD 15 feet 0 feet 15 feet 0 feet 15 feet 0 feet 15 feet 0 feet Preserve 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet ACCUSORYSTRUGTURES h Front 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Side 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 10 feet PUD Boundary Adiacent to Palermo Cove PUD 15 feet 0 feet 15 feet 0 feet 15 feet 0 feet 15 feet 0 feet Preserve 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Minimum Distance Between 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Structures Maximum Height Zoned Actual 25 feet 30 feet 25 feet 30 feet 25 feet 30 feet 25 feet 30 feet Minimum lot areas for any unit type may be exceeded. The unit tvpe, and not the minimum lot area, shall define the development standards to be applied by the Growth Management Division during an application for a building permit. For or variable lot single family and single famil attached units a conceptual exhibit showing typical building configurations, including building setbacks and building separations, shall be submitted to the Growth Management Division with the application for the first building permit for the platted development tract. Verification of ingress/egress for maintenance shall be provided for variable lot line single family units. The 30 -foot wide interconnection between the Island Walk development and Pristine Drive shall not constitute a road right -of -way ..for the purpose of calculating setback or buffering requirements All distances are In feet unless otherwise noted. Words sitaek-thfaugh are deleted; words underlined are added. ki Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 16 of 26 *1 —Rear yards for principal and accessory structures on lots and tracts which abut lake oro ens ace areas. For preserve areas, all principal structure setbacks shall be 25' and accessory structure set back shall be 10'. Front yards shall be measured as follows: A. If the parcel is served by a public right-of wasetback is measured from the adjacent right-of-way line, 8. If the parcel is served by a private road setback is measured from the back of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement Of not curbed). C. If the parcel has frontage on two sides setback is measured from the side with the shortest frontage with the other frontage designated as a side yard. *2 —Front entry garages must be a minimum of 20' and a minimum of 23' from a sidewalk. Porches entry features and roofed courtyards ma be reduced to 15'. '3— Minimum lot width may be reduced by 20% for cul-de-sac lots provided the minimum lot area requirement is maintained. *4 — The side setback may be variable between zero feet f0') to ten feet (10') as long as a 10 foot minimum separation between principal structures is maintained. °S — Building distance may be reduced at garages to a minimum of 0' where attached garages are rovided and a 10' minimum separation is maintained, if detached. Note: nothing on this Table II shall be deemed to aggrove a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in Section 3 4 F Deviations. Words stmek thFeHgh are deleted; words underlined are added. WoN Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 17 of 26 B. Natural Habitat Preserve Area Requirements: A minimum of 32 3234.26± acres of natural habitat areas shall be provided on-site, including both the under -story and the ground cover emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible, as described in the LDC. All preserve areas shall be a minimum average of 50 feet in width and no less than 20 feet in width, pursuant to the LDC. C. Architectural Standards All proposed lighting, signage, landscaping and visible architectural infrastructure shall be architecturally and aesthetically unified within any project that is developed. Said unified architectural theme shall include a similar architectural design and use of similar materials and colors throughout all of the amenities within the project. Landscaping and streetscape materials shall also be similar in design along Pristine Drive and within any project that is developed. All proposed roofs shall be finished in tile, metal, wood, or architecturally -designed shingles (such as Timberline). D. Signs Signs shall be permitted as described within the LDC, except for signage described within Paragraph 3.4.14E. E. Deviations Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02A.6.a that requires on -premises signs within residential districts to maintain a ten -foot setback from any property line unless placed on a fence or wall to allow a zero (0) foot setback from the property line shared with the Carolina Village Mixed Use PUD. This deviation will permit approximately half, of one double-faced sign a maximum of 8 feet in height and 64 square feet in area, located in a median in the road between the Wolf Creek Residential PUD (labeled Pristine Drive on Exhibit "A") and the Carolina Village Mixed Use PUD and on the west side of the Carolina Village property line and to reduce the minimum 10 -foot setback from the neighboring Carolina Village Mixed Use PUD to 0 feet with the advertising limited exclusively to no more than 3 residential developments within the Wolf Creek Residential PUD. The proposed sign shall meet all vehicular safety sight distance standards for Collier County and have a minimum 10 -foot setback from the Vanderbilt Words stfueli thfough are deleted; words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 18 of 26 Beach Road right-of-way, as described in Section 5.06.02A.6.a. of the LDC. The proposed sign shall be externally lighted. F. Deviations —Applies to Parcels 1A, 1 B, 2A 2B & 3A only. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief LDC Section 4.06.02 of the Buffer Requirements, which requires a 10 foot wide Type A landscape buffer between similar residential land uses to allow no buffer between commonly owned properties where indicated on the Conceptual Master Plan. 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2. Sidewalks. Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements, which requires sidewalks to be constructed on both sides of local streets to allow sidewalks on one side of the street only for private streets where identified on the Alternative Pathways Plan (see Exhibit D of the PUD Exhibits). 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.0 Street System 5 Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.) Street SVstem Requirements, which limits cul-de-sacs to a maximum length of 1,000 feet to permit a cul-de-sac approximately 1,300 feet in length with appropriate no through traffic signage. Words straek threagh are deleted; words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 19 of 26 SECTION IV PRESERVE AREAS PLAN 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for the Preserve Areas as shown on Exhibit 'A," RPUD Master Plan and Exhibit "A-1" RPUD Master Plan Amended, as may be amended pursuant to this Document. Any approvals to remove native vegetation in the on-site Preserve Areas shall be conditional upon having a remaining minimum of 32 3234.26± acres of native vegetation on-site. 4.2 PERMITTED USES No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following, subject to regional, state, and federal permits when required: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Passive recreational areas. 2. Biking, hiking, and nature trails, and boardwalks as long as any clearing required to facilitate these uses does not impact the minimum required vegetation. 3. Water management structures. 4. Native preserves and wildlife sanctuaries. Words stwek FHreugh are deleted; words underlined are added. WoH Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 20 0/ 26 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the commitments for the development of this project. 5.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with SDPs, final subdivision plats and all applicable State and local laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this RPUD, in effect at the time of final plat, final SDP approval or building permit application, as the case may be. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the LDC shall apply to this project even if the land within the RPUD is not to be platted. The developer, its successor or assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this Document. The developer, its successor or assignee, shall follow the RPUD Master Plan and the regulations of this RPUD as adopted, and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successor in title or assignee, is subject to the commitments within this Document. 5.3 PUD MASTER PLAN A. Exhibit 'A," RPUD Master Plan and Exhibit "A-1" RPUD Master Plan Amended, illustrates the proposed Development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed area, lot or land use boundaries, or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as final platting or SDP approval. Subject to the provisions and applicable sections of the LDC and the GMP, in effect at that time, amendments may be made from time to time. B. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to ensure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities and all common areas in the project. 5.4 ENGINEERING A. This project shall be required to meet all County Ordinances in effect at the time final construction documents are submitted for development approval. Words stf:wek through are deleted; words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 21 of 26 5.5 WATER MANAGEMENT A. A copy of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) - Surface Water Permit Application, permit modification, or waiver shall be sent to Collier County Development Services Staff with the improvement plans. B. A copy of the SFWMD Surface Water Permit, SFWMD right-of-way Permit, and SFWMD Discharge Permit shall be submitted to Collier County Development Services Staff prior to final approval of the improvement plans. C. An excavation permit shall be required for the proposed lakes in accordance with the applicable County ordinances and SFWMD Rules. All road impact fees shall be paid prior to removal of material from the site. D. As applicable, existing or proposed easements for Collier County stormwater facilities shall be maintained free of landscaping, berms or any other kind of obstacles that would impede adequate access to maintenance crews and equipment. 5.6 UTILITIES A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project shall be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with applicable County ordinances, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. B. The applicant shall reserve an area to be conveyed for a potable well easement on Parcel 6 at the time of plat or SDP approval, as applicable. The well easement shall not exceed a dimension of 40 feet by 40 feet. The Collier County Utilities Division will provide applicable technical support in agency permitting relative to lake siting or other relevant issues that may arise. The proposed well easement will not interfere with the location of project lakes or preserves. The applicant shall ensure that the well easement area has direct access onto Buckstone Drive in perpetuity. C. The applicant shall follow all current ordinances regarding utilities in effect at the time of SDP or plat approval. 5.7 TRAFFIC A. All traffic control devices, signs, pavement markings and design criteria shall be in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design Words StMeh thF8ugh are deleted; words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 514-2013 Page 22 of 25 Standards, current edition, and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), current edition. All other improvements shall be consistent with and as required by the LDC. B. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all development points of ingress and egress from any County collector or arterial roadway. Said lighting shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first permanent certificate of occupancy (CO). C. Site -related improvements (as opposed to system -related improvements) necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. All required improvements shall be in place and available to the public prior to the issuance of the first CO. D. Road Impact Fees shall be paid in accordance with applicable County ordinances and the LDC. E. All proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution No. 01-247), as it may be amended, and the LDC, as it may be amended. Collier County reserves the right to modify or close any median opening existing at the time of approval of this RPUD which is found to be adverse to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but are not limited to: safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity. F. Interconnections shall be required by Collier County staff as a condition of SDP approval. G. The developer shall be responsible for its proportional share of the cost of a traffic signal system, or other traffic control device, sign, or pavement marking at any development entrance onto the County's collector/arterial roadway network, including both ends of the loop road, should a traffic signal be warranted. If warranted, upon the completion of the installation, inspection, burn -in period, and final approval/acceptance of said traffic signal it shall be turned over (for ownership) to Collier County, and will then be operated and maintained by the Collier County Transportation Department. H. Access points, including both driveways and proposed streets, shown on the RPUD Master Plan Exhibit A and Exhibit A-1, shall be considered to be conceptual. Nothing depicted on any such Master Plan shall vest any right of access at any specific point along any property frontage. All such access issues shall be approved or denied during the review of required subsequent site plan or final plat submissions. All such access points shall be consistent with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution No. 01-247), Words strdelk thFaugh are deleted; words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 5-14-2013 Page 23 of 26 as it may be amended from time to time, and with the Collier County Long - Range Transportation Plan. When ingress and egress improvements are determined, as necessary, right-of-way and compensating right-of-way shall be provided for and in conjunction with said improvements. J. All work within the Collier County rights-of-way or public easements shall require a right-of-way permit. K. All internal access ways, drive aisles and roadways, not located within County right-of-way shall be privately maintained by an entity created by the developer, its successor in title, or assigns. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks and interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer and Collier County shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. L. The proposed loop road located around the Mission Hills development, that would provide access for the project onto Collier Boulevard, is conceptually shown on the RPUD Master Plan and shall be a public roadway. It shall be designed and constructed to a minimum 30 mile per hour design speed. The construction costs of the loop road shall not be eligible for impact fee credits, but the developer of the roadway may be able to privately negotiate "fair share" payments or reimbursements from neighboring property owners. NM. Within 30 days of the adoption date of this RPUD rezone, the developers owning the property fronting Pristine Drive shall convey in fee simple to Collier County the right-of-way necessary for the two-lane construction of Pristine Drive. Each developer shall convey 30 feet for the Pristine Drive right-of-way. The anticipated width of the right-of-way is 60 feet. The turn lanes required for each individual project shall be accommodated within the project's boundary. There are existing SDPs and plats within the PUD issued to individual developers within the PUD. No further Certificates of Occupancy or development orders shall be issued to any individual developer within the PUD within an already approved SDP or plat until that individual developer conveys all of the right of way for the portion(s) of Pristine Drive owned by that individual developer whether the right of way is located within an approved SDP or plat or located outside of an approved SDP or plat. Words StFUA AFOugh are deleted; words underlined are added. Won Creek RPUD PL2012-0550 - Revised 5-14-2013 Page 24 of 26 9N. No further SDPs or plats shall be approved for any individual owner within the PUD until Pristine Drive from its current terminus to Wolfe Road is under construction and all of the necessary right of way has been dedicated. No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued within new Site Development Plans and/or Plats until Pristine Drive, from its current terminus to Wolfe Road, is substantially complete. RO. The developer shall design and permit, but not construct, a 30 -foot wide interconnection between the Island Walk development and Pristine Drive (fifteen feet to be provided by the respective property owners on each side of the shared boundary between the properties owned by Wolf Creek Estates, LLC, or its successor, and Prime Homes at Portofino Falls, Ltd., Builders LLC, or its successor). The interconnection design shall include 20 feet of pavement and one 5 foot sidewalk. The 30 -foot wide strip of land shall be granted as a public easement. Said interconnection requirement shall be completed, i.e., conveyed, designed and permitted within one year of the adoption date of this RPUD rezone. This connection road shall not constitute a road right-of-way for the purpose of calculating setback or buffering requirements. This commitment has been fulfilled and the easement is recorded in 0. R. Book 764 Pagel 667. 5.8 PLANNING A. If during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity a historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. 5.9 ENVIRONMENTAL A. A minimum of 32 3;234_26 acres of native vegetation shall be preserved on- site, including all 3 strata, and emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible. The RPUD Master Plan identifies 3M34.26 acres. The remaii;inq FeqUiFe.! pFeseFve area f 4.52 aGFes shall he le....ted .,djaGent to anal Pte, . This . _..._.... _.._d pFe6eFve aGFeage `-hall he ideRt.Ced ..n the fiFS S -;-DP submitted after appFGval of this R121 -1-D. B. Any development order approval having FLUCFCS 424 melaleuca areas within its preserve areas shall require supplemental plantings within such melaleuca areas. Words sEtmek through are deleted; words underlined are added. WoN Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 514-2013 Page 25 of 26 Words stmek thfeugb are deleted; words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUO PL2012-0650 Revised 514-2013 Page 26 of 26 k 1 I aa.ea a I ra.+wn j � e, on..mrear� I 1 euueewwooE Rua�m.awwwAnml I I I — S L70= mNlnoL s�ucn�c OWNERIDEVELOPER '�aaka p raEVTAVE.nv v.a�um mp,..r ®IwrceArtn rren.uo �e �rhia q .a. r ,w �'r mr nmr •mm TOTAL ONSITE INOI AEN PRESERVE W'p1 BE • Is. U CRES.APPROXIAM T 30.8 /GiffS (85%) A �S CUPAE!(ILY SHOWN ON THE VX]LF CRE£N PILO �y�yV�Y{� MASTER GLM. AN lllOWM A tb3 ACRES WILL BE SIbYIN.WO PRESERVED AT T1E TW OF SOP OR PIATAP%EWAL cwrc ru: i . m II II I I us*or oEwTvcmoa�o.c �a I o . W.E w - M.IT 'A PUD MASTER PLAN .11M !LINT. i.IM ALERE COVRPUD RESIDENTIAL CC PAI FRMO COVE RPULI RFSIOFUTW ' N RESERVE, I.... # ..'.... - PALERMO COVE RPUD RlSIDLNIIAL INTERCONNECT WTH V2 PALERMO CUVI, NO BUFFER REQUIRED I/ [I ' PROPOSED ADDITIONAL EASEMENT AREA FOR 7� - �• �.. R -� 1 INTERCONNECT Willi PALERMO COVE PROPOSED CROSS -ACCESS FOR PARCELS PARCEL 1A (FORMERt Y PARI of P4LPM0 COVE RPUD) PALERMO COVE RPIp 0 THE NORTH AND NORTHWEST O 3OO BOO SA nCRfS RESIDEMIPI SCALE: 1 = BOO TO FOOT WIDE R RE40[nluL AREA (SINGLE 1.11) 1I1 LANE CA LINE /r NO BUFFER REQUIRED LANDSCAPE PUFFER .�© s R R PRESERVE ;-- yi; ..`= E '[';'; �NO BUFFER REQUIRED PARCEL 19' (FORVERLV PARCEL I), _ _ ...... 3 ft[SICFN141 ANEA SINGLE FAMILYI 'TME ... .•': .....:.;.;. OU R R� ID -INTERCONNECT WITH PALCRMO COVE o - lFa(E PARCEL 24 1 AND ACCESS TO WOLFE ROAD AND (TcauERLY PARCF. )) ' PRISTINE DRIVE PALERMO COVE RPUD } ` APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF RESIDENTIAL 10 2¢29 ACRES PRISTINE DRIVE ROW REALIGNMENT POSSIBLE Full R BUFFER R RCS10CNikL NEG , I NO BUFFER REQUIRED TRAFFIC SIGNA ID ISLAND wux ORI;- (SINGLE FAHRT) 2 _ WOLFE ROAI�60_RIGHT-OF-WAY ODT WIDE TYPE 'A LANDSCAPE a POD I + PARCEL 3A I I C PMCEL 8 GATED RESDEN141 COMMUNITY.) - R 0.0 SIOFNTWRES AREA 9014 ACRES I ,I ID FUOT WIDE _ 1LnGLE_FgVLLYl R_ 1 .I RESIDENTIAL AREA s TYPE A UNDSCAPE BUFFER_ ----------------- E I' o (SINGI£-FNtlO� PARCEL 3B PHI INC DRIVE m ZONED: A I I TO REMNN AS I o -0 ACCES5 6 DRANACE CASCMENI - 12.00 ACRES (PROPOSED) P CEL 2 EXISTING APPROVED BY PFR OR 764. P6. 7667 RESIDENTIAL MEA. 5. B ACRE .I` FACIA S, I1 ORDINANCE07-4607 46. I o (SINGLE. TWO, MULTI -FAMILY R IOCNTIP - PRFSfRVC —� - DR ATTACHED TOWN HOUSES) AREA (NOT PART 'STACK BEAR RIDGE - o o WULF CREEK PUO BOUNDARY 0.72 ACRES TO REMAIN AS APPRQVED.BV (SINGE[ OF PUD) II (PUT BGOIL5 E3 PAGE ORDINANCE 07-46 AND 09-34 I MI Y) I 9-92, O PACE 40-42 I a _ _ _ 'IAB PAGE ]1-]2)" " r T MATCH LINE a 1 I i PARCEL E I MATCH LINE 0 o i PARCEL 9 PRI57INE DRIVE 20.2] ACRES SHEET 2 OF 3 ; ¢ RES�OENT4 RMEP (PUB C(P�NYDO WA 1 RESIDENTIAL AREA o l _ (SINGLIZ BEY) SHEET 2 OF 3 (SINTTACHED TOWN HOLISM) TO RE I' I ORDNANCEMAI077- 6 ANDED BY N-334. L4. u I TO REMAIN AS APPROVED BY I 1 BUCK BEM RIDGE EXi ORDINANCE 07-46 AND 09-34 ` - (PUT BOOKS -4] PAGE 89-92 47 m .. ..L. -:I '::..PAGE 40 42._45 PAGE NOTES NO CHANGES PROPOSED t. ALL SHADED AREAS OF THE PUD WILL REMAIN AS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 076, EXHIBIT'A' AND ORDINANCE D9-34- 2. ALL PRESERVES AND LAKES IN SHADED AREAS WILL REMAIN AS SHOWN AND APPROVED IN ORDINANCE 07-46, EXHIBIT "A" AND ORDINANCE A. PRESERVES: PARCEL 1A = 6.19+/_ ACRES 3. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. PARCEL 2A = 9.9+/- ACRES 4. ALL ACREAGES (EXCEPT FOR PRESERVES) ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PARCEL 3A = 0.7+/_ ACRES PLATAPPROVAL. WOLF CREEK PUD DEVIATIONS (SEE SHEET 3 OF 3) ® GPBdyMIDOP FwtrAKen� Las: oizeo EXHIBIT A-1 Rerawn 3: :/22/2015 Pe, CCPC H I', CINI BIrglnccrx LARIBDIVBYPPRPlanners • IaRBHCaIK'An011ecib RPUD MASTER PLAN AMENDED :. Nry 1 Y lI2H/20'..} Hey n De�iaGont � M'AtTl.n¢mr A UFURN.u4405�51 • MaINW LciptllX I¢[ WK R-- l ./'H/2U s ea•nry CP" O aPuna} Woa. ma A,wonaYn. P.A. FOOT WIDTYPE -A' LANDSCAPE OUPFER7 �R Rf51UENML MG "�': I '- -NO OUifB REOUIRCD TRAFFIC 9GNH _ (9NGLf FAMILv) .-.1-/f_ 2' _ _ WOLFE — — — — - ROAD_(60 RIGHT -OF -W ISLAND WALK DRi/;IUD PARCEL .M - I CALRESDENTUL COMMUMY) I O� PMC"T-,. o V q G 5.21 ACRES :D FOOT WIDE R xESIOEHIw. utU R I rn_u,LrL 10.14 ACRES RESIDENTIAL AREA I9 I I I n 3 5 q a _ _- _JSINGLC _ _._ _ _ _ _ TYPE A .' - _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ LAKE (SINGLE-FAMILY) Rd, LANDSCAPE BUFFER _. _. _ '. PARCEL 313 PRIER DHNE �1 I ZONED: A II TO REMAIN AS X ACCESS d OR4rvPGC 12.00 ACRES (PROPOSED) - Lu P RCEL 2 t EXISTING APPROVED BY COMCAST ORDINANCE 07-6 I a_ I 166EYEWT RESIDENTIAL AREA PEP OF 76x, PC 166J 'R (SINGLE. TWO, MULTI -FAMILY 5. B ACRE (DENT FACILMT' I I MVO 09-3/ ITA BLACK BEAR RIDGE r o CREEK PUD BOUNDARY tt U MATCH LINE PRESERVE -_ OR ATTACHED TOWN HOUSES) - 0.71 ACRES oRol E AS APPROVED Bf 1 AREA (NOT PART OF PUO) I(A-+T BOOKS 43 PAGE (SI LE I 9-92. 1] PAGE 40-42. h o WO.F I u 7 ' r MATCH LINE 0 SHEET 2 OF 3 6 .w0 09-31 _ � 6 PACE 71-72) E' SHEET 2 OF 3 T® 1. MIIIIII� . . . - . 1MMII� . o_ I -PNIS:INFFORIVE I PARCEL 7 I �u 027 ACRES <' 2017CACRES (PUTTED) Y RESIDENTIAL AREA (PUIWC RIGHT-OF-WAY I RESIDENTML AREA (SINGLE-FAMILY)TO I $ o 3 w u I (yNGLE, TWO, MULTI -FAMILY OR REMAIN SY PANG 9-31 I_ o - ATTACHED TOWN HOUSES) I I ORDINANCE 0]S 6 5 REMAIN AAPPROVED I - BLACK BEAR RIDGE pz Io OTO 07-46 (PLAT BOOKS 41 PACE 89-92. 47 0 PAGE TO -42, 6 PACE 71-72) Iv.05 iNISSIUN HIIL� UHIVL (E/%I1J IN(i) 4 �I PARCEL 6PARCEL I 20.27 ACRES WOIf CREEK POP BOUNOAR� o NTACRES i W(11f CREEK PUD 30DNDARY- RESIDENTIALAREA - RESIO. RESIDENTIAL.UE-FAAREA -FAMILY) (AIN / n - I (SI MLN OR TO A APAID ED El I o ATTACHED TOWN-FkKNLY F HOUSES) II ORDINANCE 07-46 09-.M BUCKS10Nf ORNE kTO REMAIN AS APPROvED BEAR RIME MISSION HILLS ORDINANCE 07-46 AND 09834 (PMT BOOKSK 43 89-92, 47 ROAD'' �o I PAGE 6-42, 48 PAGE 71-]2) ¢" I Yoo PRISrINT1EE0 AVE MISSIOUD HILLSPG x P&R COMMERCWN CENTER _ I —_— PROPOyFnIpUyp JVAv_ _ Ti RESIDENCITK AREA �w I (SINGLE, TWO, MULT-FMMLY OATTAR I N HED TO CARpONA VILLAGE APUD I I UAII` TO RECMAIN AS MPROVED DIN6NGE 07-=6 AND 09-334 OFFICE/SPE RETML / — _ VANDERB1-1 OEACH RpAO — VANOER0ILT BEACH ROAD ESTATES ZONING LEFT INM,OK.1 PASS KCE4 TO BE PMWkDF010 ESTATES ZONING 0 300' 600' I.LLWI KE ELK:w IE. io�vAlr. SCALE: 1" = 600' oR�,AHMI`E¢fvsso:°„Li.`Kc rFNrzR NOTES lul NO CHANGES PROPOSED 1. ALL SHADED AREAS OF THE PUD WILL REMAIN AS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 07-46, EXHIBIT "A" AND 2. ORDINANCE ALL PRESERVES AND LAKES IN SHADED AREAS WILL REMAIN AS SHOWN AND APPROVED IN ORDINANCE 0746, EXHIBIT PRESERVES: PARCEL 1A = 6.19+/_ ACRES "AAND ORDINANCE 09 -34. PARCEL 2A = 9.9+/_ ACRES 3. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. PARCEL 3A = 0.7+/_ ACRES 4. ALL ACREAGES (EXCEPT FOR PRESERVES) ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PLATAPPROVAL RGEND WOLF CREEK PUD IE DEVIATIONS (SEE SHEET 3 OF 3) ® GradyMinor EXHIBIT A-1 Fev vun 3 3/22/20'3 PK, CCPC Hno6, CNIIE.Onerre• Laud Snry• ryOR IYa.o. . lanikuapr AP hIlela RPUD MASTER PLAN AMENDED Re.-.wn > ]/]n/901} Pease DevloMluns tuT cen x �r TI. Ta®sl°\ .i'nl'Tx.uomslsl ualnlm termmu r..rrr.ir Ht. sun 1, i/2S%: U'S Coutty Comments ��!%mIMMa.em 0.f ulT AllmraM lwMulu.f�\, SRCET 2 OF 3 LIST OF DEVIATIONS FROM L.D.C. (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY ORDINANCE 07-46) DEVIATION 91 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 5.06.02A6 THAT REQUIRES ON -PREMISES SIGNS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO MAINTAIN A TEN -FOOT SETBACK FROM ANY PROPERTY LINE UNLESS PLACED ON A FENCE OR WALL TO ALLOW A ZERO (0) FOOT SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE SHARED WITH THE CAROLINA VILLAGE MIXED USE PUD. THIS DEVIATION WILL PERMIT APPROXIMATELY HALF, OF ONE DOUBLE-FACED IN A MEDIAN IN THE ROAD BETWEEN THE WOLF CREEK RESIDENTIAL PUD (LABELED PRISTINE DRIVE ON EXHIBIT -A-) AND THE CAROLINA VILLAGE MIXED USE PUD AND ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE CAROLINA VILLAGE PROPERTY LINE AND TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM 10 -FOOT SETBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORING CAROLINA VILLAGE MIXED USE PUD TO 0 FEET WITH THE ADVERTISING LIMITED EXCLUSIVELY TO NO MORE THAN 3 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE WOLF CREEK RESIDENTIAL PUD. THE PROPOSED SIGN MUST MEET ALL VEHICULAR SAFETY SIGHT DISTANCE STANDARDS FOR COLLIER COUNTY AND HAVE A MINIMUM 10 -FOOT SETBACK FROM THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 5.06.02A.6.A OF THE LDC. THE PROPOSED SIGN MUST BE EXTERNALLY LIGHTED AND NOT INTERNALLY UGHTED. SITE DATA TOTAL SITE AREA 188.78± AC MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS: 754 (188.78±AC X 4 D.U.A) PRESERVES ORIGINAL WOLF CREEK PUD NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT= 32.32 AC PLUS AREAS BEING ADDED TO PUD: PARCEL 1A: AREA= 15.77 AC REQUIRED PRESERVE = 1.54 AC (25% OF 6.19 ACRES OF NATIVE VEGETATION) PARCEL2B: AREA = 5.0 AC REQUIRED PRESERVE = 0.40 AC (25% OF 1.59 AC OF NATIVE VEGETATION) TOTAL PRESERVE REQUIRED = 32.32 AC + 1.54 AC + 0.4 AC = 34.26 AC TOTAL MINIMUM PRESERVE PROVIDED = 34.26 AC LIST OF DEVIATIONS FROM L.D.C. (PARCELS 1A- 3A ONLY) DEVIATION K2 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02 OF THE, BUFFER REQUIREMENTS, WHICH REQUIRES A 10 FOOT MADE TYPE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER BETWEEN SIMILAR RESIDENTIAL LAND USES TO ALLOW NO BUFFER BETWEEN COMMONLY OWNED PROPERTIES WHERE INDICATED ON THE CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN. DEVIATION k3 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 6.06.02.A2, SIDEWALKS, BIKE LANE AND PATHWAY REQUIREMENTS, WHICH REQUIRES SIDEWALKS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON BOTH SIDES OF LOCAL STREETS, TO ALLOW SIDEWALKS ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET ONLY FOR PRIVATE STREETS WHERE IDENTIFIED ON THE ALTERNATIVE PATHWAYS PLAN (SEE EXHIBIT D OF THE PUD EXHIBITS). DEVIATION $4 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 6.06.01.0, STREET SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS AND APPENDIX 8, TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY DESIGN STANDARDS, WHICH ESTABLISHES A 60 FOOT WIDE LOCAL ROAD TO ALLOW A MINIMUM 40' WIDE PRIVATE LOCAL ROAD. (SEE EXHIBIT C OF THE PUD EXHIBITS). DEVIATION K5 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 6.06.01.J, STREET SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS, WHICH LIMITS CUL -DESACS TO A MAXIMUM LENGTH OF 1,000 FEET TO PERMIT A CUL-DE-SAC APPROXIMATELY 1,300 FEET IN LENGTH WITH APPROPRIATE NO THROUGH TRAFFIC SIGNAGE. NOTES 1. ALL SHADED AREAS OF THE PUD WILL REMAIN AS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 07.46, EXHIBIT "A" AND ORDINANCE 09-34. 2. ALL PRESERVES AND LAKES IN SHADED AREAS WILL REMAIN AS SHOWN AND APPROVED IN ORDINANCE 07-46, EXHIBIT "A" AND ORDINANCE 09-34. 3. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. 4. ALL ACREAGES (EXCEPT FOR PRESERVES) ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL. PL.GEND WOLF CREEK PUD ®GradyNnor°`^ ^ sw, "a Pat l.�en pJ8 ti90A]90 EXHIBIT A-1 Rn. m,' 3 _/22/20'3 N, ccac n«c��..y ❑utl Eoglnrero Isnn Surveyuro Pt... rti Lan4xapc Anmllecle RPUD MASTER PLAN AMENDED ." ir comm.ms •••,.agwn"r..o.0 afrx.m uioo."mn.«me:. r.t. NOTE SHEET -IM 3 or 3 r ri l Y � Y r/ 10' UTILITY/SIDEWALK 10' EASEMENT 40 UTILITY RIGHT—OF—WAY EASEMENTS EPL SPRINT FPL MEDIA ONE PE SPRINT MEDIA ONE 10' 0' 5 4' 2' TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE 2' 8' I I 1 w I 7, I U 2" Z TYP. K Ii n 1/4 (MIN"/FT. 1/4"/ET. 2% .) (MIN.) 29 I WATER MAIN 12" STABILIZED SUBGRADE (LBR 40) 1-1/2" ASPHALTIC CONC. (TYPE S-1) 8" GRAVITY SEWER B" LIMEROCK BASE PRIMED (LBR 100) ion 2: 03-22-2012 Per CCPC Hearing Ian 1: 11-21-2012 Change Exhibit Number LEOEN4 —�— ®GradyMinor - f' ., 2J9.&9 Inx. 0 5' 1V � IAvllti INY.rI: LaW Survepur. ' Planneln La1lUscuprt rtrcAl4rls SCALE: 1"= 10° ux �Mminwnlsl or mm.ua.sly Mmwa � ffio� v.+'.ptlyMb,im �. 41W�'Mlpof mE.lax'Y�n.YA WOLF CREEK RPUD EXHIBIT C PRIVATE ROAD CROSS SECTION PARCELS 1A — 3A STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of: 2013-37 which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 14th day of May, 2013, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 20th day of May, 2013. DWIGHT E. BROCK Clerk of Courts ggn&R C]prk Ex -officio to Soa'rd .o'f: County Comm s.pi(260 ,' • b' n By: Martha Vergar,l, :� Deputy Clerk;' Coil e,r C�-nty Growth Management Department Zoning Division Comprehensive Planning Section MEMORANDUM To: Daniel Smith, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Date: August 9, 2016 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PDI -PL -2016404 PETITION NAME: Wolf Creek Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Rev.2 REQUEST: Amend the existing Wolf Creek RPUD to eliminate inconsistencies between the two approved master plans (Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1" in Ordinance #13-37) regarding preserves and provide a new RPUD Preserve Master Plan (Exhibit `P') showing the location and acreages of all the preserves within the RPUD boundary. This PDI amends only Parcels 3B and 9, which are owned by the applicant. The PDI clarifies the locations of the preserve areas and acreage in exhibit `P'. LOCATION: The site is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road generally south of the companion Palermo Cove RPUD, approximately one-half mile west of Collier Boulevard, in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed -Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict as depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. This District is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential uses, including Planned Unit Developments. The Subdistrict permits a variety of residential unit types at a base density of 4 DU/A and limited to a maximum of 16 DU/A, as allowed under the Density Rating System. No density bonuses were requested and no density reductions are applicable. Therefore the site is eligible for 4 DU/A. The PUD is (via Ordinance #13- 37) for 754 dwelling units (754 DUs / 188.78 acres = 3.99 DU/A). This petition is for Insubstantial changes to the Planned Unit Development (PDI) to clarify preserves areas on the RPUD Master Plan, by clarifying the acreage. No increase or decrease to the preserves total acreage are being requested; the 34.26 -acres minimum will be maintained_ No changes to the PUD boundary, or in permitted uses, densities, or intensities are being requested. Relevant FLUE Objectives and policies are stated below (in italics); each policy is followed by staff analysis (in bold). 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Page 1 of 2 Attachment 5 FLUE Policy 5.4: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). (Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of the petition.) FLUE Objective 7 and Relevant Policies Due to the minor changes proposed (no changes in permitted uses, densities, or intensities), and since the Wolf Creek RPUD was evaluated for consistency with the Future Land Use Element prior to the adoption of Ordinance # 13 -3 7 in December 2013, staff is of the opinion that a re-evaluation of FLUE policies under Objective 7 (pertaining to access, interconnections, walkability, etc.) is not necessary. Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PDI may he deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. cc: Mike Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Ray Bellows, Manager, Zoning Services Section PDIPL2016-404 Wolf CreekR2.docx 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Fl, 34104 Page 2 of 2 AGENDA ITEM 9-B Cofer County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES --LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION --PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: MARCH 21, 2013 SUBJECT: PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD (COMPANION TO PUDZA-PL20120000680: PALERMO COVE PUD) PROPERTY OWNER & APPLICANT/AGENT: Contract Purchaser/Applicant: Agents: Barry Ernst, AICP Wayne Arnold, AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. WCI Communities, Inc. Q. Grady Minor & Assoc. P.A. Coleman, Yovanovich, & Koester, P.A. 24301 Walden Center Dr 3800 Via Del Rey Northern Trust Bank Bldg Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 Owners: Raffia Holdings of Naples, LLC Wolf Creek Holding of Naples LLC 13440 Parker Commons Blvd, Suite 103 265 Sevilla Ave Fort Myers, FL, 33912 Coral Gable, FL 33134 Raffia Holdings of Naples LLC owns all property except for Parcels 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 as shown on Exhibit A-1 attached. RE, 0UESTED ACTION: The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPQ to consider an application for an amendment to the existing PUD zoned project known as the Wolf Creek Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). For details about the project proposal, refer to "Purpose/Desctiption of Project." GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 1891 acres, is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road (C.R. 862) approximately one-half mile west of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the following page) PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 Attachment 4 Page 1 of 18 PALERMO COVE RPUD RESIDENTIAL PALERMO COVE RPUD I. .., RESIDENTIAL PALERMO COVE R2UC 4ESDENAL Y—IN WITH PALERMO COVE -L'C BUFFER REQUIRED I` R, - 1 'N-yy(EREgIAVEa WITH PALERMO COVE PARCEL to [FURTIVELY PART OF=AL++WC C =:PGD) � 1577 aCzU ,;lt k NO CHANGES PROPOSED PALERMO COVE 10 PoOT WIDE R ESOEIrtIAL AR(SIFGLE FAAIL) IRPUD R TYPE "A" 11 LAKE JDEVIATIONS (SEE SHEET 3 OF 3) LANDSCAPE BUFFER ©GradyMIIIOP B26vi °� I R f 'ARCELB (F03McROPAQC:L 1) R CP" .. , 1 0.19 Fra 11 ` \O RESIDENTIAL ARJ (51.GLE FAMILY)ARE PLannets . ) R o IR PA C-_1 x 4 WYE I`DRv F Ft' ], w I o R 5 f 10 r T IP. b" LA ILS k B_=FEiT FSrt L AREA ,;I I R SF6ET l Oi 3 +3I1L t..LIT ISLANDIz I43LK U.IOWITU GATEDDPEAFESIF 'ilei COMVU`a} R I R sL�mIL-iIISA R lF Fool WIDE _____-!_—L TYPE "A" LANDSCAPE BUFFER ` PARCEL 38 >PoSiudC r yr JO' ACCESS E WNNAGE TEJET ' 12,00 ACRES (PRCPOSEO, '4 PEA OR 764, P6. I667RESIDENTIAL AREA I (SINGLE. TWO. MULTI -FAMILY PRESERVE —1 OR A7ACHED TOWN HOUSES) 0,71 ACRES �,I TO REMAIN AS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE 07-46 AND OR -34 ---------r------1 a MATCH LINE 5 -= I I. rnrsrmsnxrvs ''':I e t PARCEL 9 SHEET 2 OF 3 SHEET y n ACRES (PUBLIC 'L { RESIDENTuL AREA 3 A, I (SINGLE, TWO. MULTI-FWDY OR °> I AIIACH.ZD TOWN HOUSES) " v TO REMAIN AS APPROVED RY {I� - � ORDINANCE D7-46 AND 09-34 111 k NO CHANGES PROPOSED PRESERVES: PARCEL 1A = 6.19+/ -ACRES PARCEL 2A = 9.9+/- ACRES PARCFI 3A = D 7+/- ACRFfi N AREA FOR - PARCELS 0 300 600 SCAT -E: 1" = 6001 -INTERCONNECT WITH PALERMO COVE �I AND ACCESS TO WOLFS ROAD AND PRISTINE DRIVE PALERMO COVE RPUD _ RESAENTIAL POSSIBLEFUTURE AP L 7E LC 0 TRAFFIC Jb, ' PRISTINE DRIVE ROW YI REALIGNMENT � _ _ _ WOLFS ROA0160_RIG4T-OF-YIA� _ tC IL �i�_�PARCEL 6014 ACRESRLSIDENTAL AREA D, ZDNED: Al (TO BEVAIN ASEXISTING APPROVED BY CGMCAST ORDINANCE 07-45FACIE" AND 09-34 BLACK BEAR RIDGE e .-ti^IF CREEK PUD BOUNDARY(OFT PaPT11"xT BOOKS 43 PAGEl . yy-s2, A7 PACE 40-42. PARCEL 7 20.27 ACRES RESID_NTAL AREA (SINGLE-FAMILY) TO REMAIN AS APPROVED 6Y ORDINANCE 07-46 AND 09-34 BLACK BEAR RIDGE (PWT BOOKS 45 PAGE 69-92, 41 PAGE 40-42. 48 PAGE 71-72) I MATCH LINE SHEET 2OF3 YU 10< , i� IVw NOTES 1. ALL SHADED AREAS OF THE PUD WILL REMAIN AS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 07-46, EXHIBIT WAND ORDINANCE 09-34. 2, ALL PRESERVES AND LAKES IN SHADED AREAS WILL REMAIN AS SHOWN AND APPROVED IN ORDINANCE 07-46, EXHIBIT "A" AND ORDINANCE 09-34. 3. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. 4. ALL ACREAGES (EXCEPT FOR PRESERVES) ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PLATAPPROVAL. LEGEND WOLF CREEK PUD JDEVIATIONS (SEE SHEET 3 OF 3) ©GradyMIIIOP B26vi °� 309 N71 LAW - EXHIBIT A-1 Civil 6nglneels� e Lane Sunayors PLannets . Eantlscape Archuccis RPUD MASTER PLAN AMENDED Revision d - ReviEe Oev vGens - 2/Z9/20 L' [H4E AUR. ..INS, cu¢oeaml uuu'alal SS Lezwlmcs ® _- Revsbn 2 -County Comments - G ZZCV ZO12 won'CratlN Y➢normm G-anG'}InoraE Ialm PAS SF6ET l Oi 3 'CO, A D Y'E -'" J24D7 =Fr _ TRAFFIC 51 V (�L WOLFEPRISTINE DRIVE OREALG ROAD�60_P,IGM-OF-WAY _ _ _ ISIAND WALK DRI PUD GVED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY) I I I ID 14ACRES In J L R' R ' II RE5I0ENTIAL AREA �3 Ip ECOTWDE -��[4 __j II _ LIVES [SINGLE-FAMILY) �Lna TYPE "A' UNDSCAPE BUFFER YY -BOOED, A I TO REMAN AS <0 lDl JO' ACCESS t OdA1N4tf J.Ebr" - L F ,'TING APPROVED 6i P L _' CONCAST ORDINANCE 07-46 PER GP 164,. PC I6fi] y E - 8 P - FA„ILDY I AND 09-34 0 - a " MATCH LINE PRESERIE - / F - 1 OEr L. I (MOOT V ;T I CBOOKSBEAR 4b DGE P GE I 0 g fWOLF CREEK PUG BOUNDARY yIU MATCH LINE 07} ACRES - } E: -G2. 47 PACE 40-92. SHEEN F� I� +' -"a") I =B PG -7z, L'� SHEET 2 OF 3 •. —�— oNz I PARCEL 9 PR/ST/NBORlVe�I 20.27ACRES 20.27 ACRES m ATTED) RESIDENTIAL AREA Y'� s RESIDENTIAL AREA (PUELIC StC6=-q1-W>") I (SINGLE-FAMILY) 3 o q. I (SINGL. TWO, MULTI -FAMILY OF TO REMAIN AS APPROVED SY I p 0 n 0 ATACHETI TOWN HOUSES) { I ORDINANCE 07-46 AND 09-34 5� TO REMAIN A$ APPROVED BY �I BLACK BEAR RIDGE OROIN4NCE 07-46 AND 09-34 I (PLOT BOOKS 43 PAGE 69-92. 47 PACE 40-42. 4S PAGE 71-72) Ima - I - - MISSION MILLS DRIVE IE'TISJ D:GI , PARCEL 4 I p0 R EL 5 lY'OLF CREEK PUD BOUNDARY lu WDLF CREEK PUD BOUNDARY—"*I 20.27 ACRES RESIDENTIAL AREA RESIOENl AFEA III (SINGLE-FAMILY) (SINGLE, T40. MULTI-aAMILY OR l TO REMAIN AS APPROVED EY = ATTACHED TOWN HOUSES) di ORDINANCE 07-46 AND 09-34TO REMAIN AS APPROVED js1 BUCKSTONE DRIVE k L' of I ORDINANCE07-45 AND 9e34 I'I (PUT BOOKS 43 PAGE BEAR 0H9-92. 47 / NAKA ISSIOYDOP RCn9"Hit E �L PACE 40-42. 48 PAGE 71-72) �w I JPRIST7NE DP -'VE - MISS ON HLLS PUD 1 PARCEL 1590 5 (P1gT1£O) COIAMERCIAL SHOPPLVG f.ENTFR TAT 0S I 1590 ACRES •�I' _ PRCPD9DD BOLL RES�Y_ W 1V 5mW IDOCNAL AR .EA 1-�- — — — -- - _ - - 4 (SINGLE, TWO, MULT-FAMILY OR ` CAROL %I VILLAGE gMPUO ' '2 � 1 ATTACHED TOWN HOUSES) I 6fI 0 TO REMAIN AS APPR09ED BY OFFICE/SPEO'ALITY RETAIL bI I— ORDINANCE 07-41 AND 09-334 ' — - - �• VkHEITIB3LT BEACH ROAD ;'.H .FE+' dEA.C+ ROAD , ESTATES ZOMNG —_[ E`-"^:+vea n ESTATES ZONING ' _EFT IN— :.;gin noE -.: f3S:GE4ML 0 300, 600' SCALE: 1 " = 600' NOTES NO CHANGES PROPOSED 1. ALL SHADED AREAS OF THE PUD WILL REMAIN AS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 07-46, EXHIBIT "A" AND ORDINANCE 0934. 2. ALL PRESERVES AND LAKES IN SHADED AREAS WILL REMAIN AS SHOWN AND APPROVED IN ORDINANCE 07-46, EXHIBIT PRESERVES: PARCEL 1A = 6.19+/_ ACRES "A"AND ORDINANCE 0934. I•' -"- 3. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECTTO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING PARCEL 2A = 9.9+/_ ACRES REQUIREMENTS. PARCEL 3A=0.7+/ -ACRES 4. ALLACREAGES (EXCEPT FOR PRESERVES) ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECTTO MODIFICATION ATTHE TIME OF SOP OR PLAT APPRCVAL. LEG>:mTD WOLF CREEK PUD 71 DEVATIONS (SEE SHEET 3 OF 3) ®GradyMMor psrllPra :39 B90,i30 jeB.o Pa EXHIBIT A-1 VM`�a CN51 c'ngineere Land Sun'eybrs• Plannere a Landscape Architects RPUD MASTER PLAN AMENDED �13 2) Revision 2 - County Comments - 2/25/2013 49an.11.111.15l ^r^_urumsnuoussl ePrsan .xu'Me 10 .,,: ew MOor.wm 11 Gra,N3unorarl RA _ _ SHEET 2 OF 3 LIST OF DEVIATIONS FROM L.D.C. (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY ORDINANCE 07-46) DEVIATION #1 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 5.06.02A6 THAT REQUIRES ON -PREMISES SIGNS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO MAINTAIN ATEN-FOOT SETBACK FROM ANY PROPERTY UNE UNLESS PLACED ON A FENCE OR WALL TO .ALLOW A ZERO (0) FOOT SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE SHARED WITH THE CAROLINA VILLAGE MIXED USE PUD. THIS DEVIATION WILL PERMIT APPROXIMATELY HALF, OF ONE DOUBLE-FACED IN A MEDIAN IN THE ROAD BETWEEN THE WOLF CREEK RESIDENTIAL PUD (LABELED PRISTINE DRIVE ON EXHIBIT W-) AND THE CAROLINA VILLAGE MIXED USE PUD AND ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE CAROLINA VILLAGE PROPERTY LINE AND TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM 10 -FOOT SETBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORING CAROLINA VILLAGE MIXED USE PUD TO 0 FEET WITH THE ADVERTISING LIMITED EXCLUSIVELY TO NO MORE THAN 3 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE WOLF CREEK RESIDENTIAL PUO. THE PROPOSED SIGN MUST MEET ALL VEHICULAR SAFETY SIGHT DISTANCE STANDARDS FOR COLLIER COUNTY AND HAVE A MINIMUM 10 -FOOT SETBACK FROM THE VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 5.06.02A.6A OF THE LOC. THE PROPOSED SIGN MUST BE EXTERNALLY LIGHTED AND NOT INTERNALLY LIGHTED, SITE DATA TOTAL SITE AREA: 188.78±AC MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS: 754 (188.78:1, AC X 4 D.U.A.) PRESERVES ORIGINAL WOLF CREEK PUD NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT= 32.32 AC PLUS AREAS BEING ADDED TO PUD: PARCELIA: AREA = 15.77 AC REQUIRED PRESERVE= 1.54 AC (25% OF 6.19 ACRES OF NATIVE VEGETATION) PARCEL2B: AREA=5.0 AC REQUIRED PRESERVE = 0.40 AC (25! OF 1.59 AC OF NATIVE VEGETATION) TOTAL PRESERVE REQUIRED = 32.32 AC + 1.54 AC + 0.4 AC = 34.26 AC TOTAL MINIMUM PRESERVE PROVIDED = 34.26 AC LIST OF DEVIATIONS FROM L.D.C. (PARCELS 1A- 3A ONLY) DEVIATION #2 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02 OF THE, BUFFER REQUIREMENTS, WHICH REQUIRES A 10 FOOT WIDE TYPE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER BETWEEN SIMILAR RESIDENTIAL LAND USES TO ALLOW NO BUFFER BETWEEN COMMONLY OWNED PROPERTIES WHERE INDICATED ON THE CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN. DEVIATION #3 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 6.06.02.A.2, SIDEWALKS, BIKE LANE AND PATHWAY REQUIREMENTS, WHICH REQUIRES SIDEWALKS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON BOTH SIDES OF LOCAL STREETS, TO ALLOW SIDEWALKS ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET ONLY FOR PRIVATE STREETS WHERE IDENTIFIED ON THE ALTERNATIVE PATHWAYS PLAN (SEE EXHIBIT D OF THE PUD EXHIBITS). DEVIATION #4 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LOC SECTION 6.06.01.0, STREET SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS AND APPENDIX B, TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY DESIGN STANDARDS, WHICH ESTABLISHES A 60 FOOT WIDE: LOCAL ROAD TO ALLOW A MINIMUM 40' WIDE PRIVATE LOCAL ROAD. (SEE EXH1131T C OF THE PUD EXHIBITS). DEVIATION #5 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 6.06.01.J, STREET SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS, WHICH LIMITS CUL-DE-SACS TO A MAXIMUM LENGTH OF 1,000 FEET TO PERMIT A CUL-DE-SAC APPROXIMATELY 1,300 FEET IN LENGTH WITH APPROPRIATE NO THROUGH SIGNAGE. DEVIATION #6 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 5.06.02, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SIGNS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, WHICH ONLY ALLOWS ON -PREMISES SIGNS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, TO PERMIT ONE OFF -PREMISE RESIDENTIAL SIGN, IF DEVELOPER IS ABLE TO OBTAIN A SIGN EASEMENT AND PUD AMENDMENT FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE SONOMA OAKS MPUD, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE WOLFE ROADICOLLIER BOULEVARD INTERSECTION. THE SIGN AREA WOULD BE A MAXIMUM OF 80 SQUARE FEET, AND BE DESIGNED TO BE A GROUND MOUNTED SIGN HAVING THE SAME SIGN COPY AND DESIGN THEME AS THAT PERMITTED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WOLFE ROAD WITHIN THE PALERMO COVE RPUD, NOTES 1. ALL SHADED AREAS OF THE PUD WILL REMAIN AS APPROVED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 0746, EXHIBIT"A"AND ORDINANCE 09-34. 2, ALL PRESERVES AND LAKES IN SHADED AREAS WILL REMAIN AS SHOWN AND APPROVED IN ORDINANCE 0746, EXHIBIT "A"AND ORDINANCE 09-34, 3. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. 4. ALL ACREAGES (EXCEPT FOR PRESERVES) ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL. LEGEND WOLF' CREEK PUD im GradyMinor EXHIBIT A-1 Ow orlon 25'2013 - 'Y 6 2 C1v0Englna m v IdiAft "c.vors • Planners o Landscape Arclmc".s RPUD MASTER PLAN AMENDED � R"dvcn 3 — Reerse / / cmvnva�mi FBaws�ai ce .0±nvn� vawos,m ni-u�1�u.:o..css 0im� Fw�am� R.m,.lon z - com,ly 2/25/2013 ,„,x..pnysuc"no", a.ummswwraa.wxiaiu.rs NOTE SHE±? ST,FEI 3 OF 3 '. PURPOS) EUDE 80UPTION OT PROJECT: The subject property is partially developed with single family and multi -family buildings. The multi -family dwellings are within The Falls of Portofino Condominium complex, and the single- family homes are within the Black Bear Ridge subdivision, The property has been the subject of several previous zoning actions. The majority of the site, 147.69 acres, was originally rezoned from the Agricultural zoning district to a PUD in Ordinance #03-45 on September 23, 2003. Subsequent to that action, on May 22, 2007, 20.27f was added into the project via Ordinance #07-46. Ordinance #09-34 amended Subsection 5.7, paragraphs "N" and "O" addressing changing transportation issues. The project is approved at a 4 units per acre. No increase in density is proposed. The proposed changes are summarized below (taken from the application material): 0 Add the Scenic Woods RMF -6(4) zoned 5f acres into this project; • Add 16f acres from the Palermo Cove PUD project into this project: • Add Exhibit A-1 to show the new parcel designations; 0 Add Table II, to incorporate development standards for the lands that are being added --Parcels IA and 2B, and other lands within the PUD that the amendment applicant controls --2A, 3A, and 1B. r --r--- .: - --- --------------- ------ ------ I - - �•�r. � ��. ♦:\� W-F'IP'JYZi w, rxm<ac ,y, I r err. R .•A. .'h rn'nv�.ccs rsel:C T'✓In [t. "!.1 L ,Mia-. ... f .> I I I 1 ..'.'. ham:.•.•, t ^L,P -.Ya w� I rrr7b-r<arLiF.IrVYFinaierwrr4'r:�+rf.•+Y.vanMs..>ry ,-. ___I I I 1: FOLTnGE 1`=E'F' L_YOUi YTiEh... R R I , ,L]O Ki6Y I � I '�:�� i3+nLTiA YUMwI:•wl.rt,vFeo rtn+n,ovsl �,;. t I I }: m1c+Wrn rra�rtrnLrS+'sur.+. 4, •, n. .. 1 I I '• I _--_---____Z-t-R------------------------------------ II' PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 2 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5113 ® Add Exhibit "D," Private Road Cross -Section for Parcels lA through 3A; • Add deviations that will be applicable to Parcels 1A, lb, 2A, 2B, and 3A; ! Revise some developer commitments to address the added lands and the additional Exhibit A-1; ® Revise some developer commitments to remove outdated transportation commitments; • Revise a developer commitment to increase the amount of required native vegetation commensurate with the 21 acres of additional land; and • Revise a developer commitment to remove the parks and recreation playground requirement. Because this PUD is already partially developed, the petitioner cannot prepare a new PUD document using the latest format, e.g., Exhibits A -F rather than sections. To do so could create non -conformities in the existing development. Instead the petitioner is providing the proposed changes in a strike thru/underline format, showing the new information in underlined text and showing the text to be removed in a strike thru format. As noted above, the petitioner is seeking approval of five new deviations. These deviations are discussed later in this report. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:. North: Wolfe Road and the undeveloped Palermo Cove PUD, approved at a density of 4.0 units per acre for a total of 524 units on 1311 acres. Palermo Cove PUD is being amended as a companion to this petition to reduce the number of units from 524 to 237 and reduce the acreage to 115± acres with the 16 acres± being incorporated into the Wolf Creek PUD. East: Sonoma Oaks MPUD, an undeveloped project approved for a mix of commercial and a variety of residential uses and Mission Hills PUD, a partially developed commercial project. South: Carolina Village, a 15.88± -acre mixed use project with a zoning designation of MPUD whose residential portion was approved at a density of 4.03 units per acre; and Vanderbilt Beach Road. West: Island Walk DRI/PUD, a 705 acre project approved for a maximum of 2,100 residential units (approved at a density of 3.0 units per acre) and fifteen acres of commercial uses. PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 3 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 ■ .....-�.� � ---: \_AIL Md f ,»G� z � � ■r m � � iit-ilk ® Z z } ■ .....-�.� � ---: \_AIL Md f project has been provided via Wolfe Road, onto Collier Boulevard, and via [proposed] Pristine Drive, onto Vanderbilt Beach Road.) FLUE relevant policies are stated below (in italics); each policy is followed by staff analysis (in regular type within parentheses). 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. (Internal access has been provided onto and [by cross -access] through the neighboring use development, and Mission Hills commercial shopping center to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads.) 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 Master Plan provides interconnection between Wolf Creek PUD and Palermo Cove RPUD to the north by way of Wolfe Road, and is further depicted on the Master Plan that the developer of Palermo Cove PUD will extend Pristine Drive north of Wolfe Road. To the south, between the entrance of Wolf Creek PUD and Buckstone Drive, is an interconnection with the proposed roadway, Carolina Way. To the cast, provides connection between Buckstone Drive and Mission Hills Drive which connects to Collier Boulevard (CR 951). To the west is the developed gated community of Island Walk PUD, where intercormection is not possible.) Policy 7.4 The County shall encourage new developments to provide wallcable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. (This amendment reconfigures two adjacent existing residential planned unit developments of previously uniform density. With this PUD amendment, Wolf Creek and Palermo Cove provide a blend of densities from two to four residential units per acre. The PUD includes open space in the form of preserve areas and, recreational uses and facilities. The PUD permits several types of dwelling units — including single-family, two-family and multi -family, with minimum floor areas ranging from 1,150 sq.ft. to 1,400 sq.ft. This amendment requests deviation from the LDC Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements to allow sidewalks on one side of the street only, in 3 of the northernmost tracts to be developed; nonetheless, the project does include sidewalks.) Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed uses and density may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's combined Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for the companion items Wolf Creek and Palermo Cove. As the remaining developable rights for the two PUDs are being combined to form a single development using a common access point, the TIS was considered as a joint/combined study. The unit count for Wolf Creek is found to increase by 83 units; however the adjacent Palermo Cove decreases by 287 units. The total for the two developments is 991 dwelling units, a net reduction of 204 units below the previous total. The study indicates that there is a net decrease in the PM Peak Hour Trip Generation. Therefore the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5 year PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 5 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 planning period. Staff recommends that the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Conservation and Coastal Management Element (COME): Environmental review staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). A minimum of 25 % of the existing native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. The minimum preserve required of 34.26 acres is being provided. This meets the GMP requirement. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as indicated previously in the GMP discussion. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff also recommends that the petition be found consistent with the COME. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.03.05,I, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the bases for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in tum use the criteria to support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental RevieN;: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. There are no outstanding environmental issues. This project is not required to be reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC). The existing Wolf Creek PUD preserve area is 32.32± acres; the proposed preserve area is 34.26± acres. A total of 1.94 acres will be added; 1.54± acres from Palermo Cove PUD and 0.40± acres from the 5 -acre Scenic Woods parcel. The minimum preserve required of 34.26 acres is being provided. Tran&3orlation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues and is recommending approval subject to the Transportation Development Commitments contained in the RPUD Ordinance. Transportation Planning staff offers the following analysis of roadway issues. Vanderbilt Beach Road Discussion: The first concurrency link on Vanderbilt Beach Road that is impacted by this zoning amendment is Link 112.0, between Logan Boulevard and Collier Boulevard. This segment of PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 6 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5113 Vanderbilt Beach Road currently has a remaining capacity of 1,684 trips, and is currently at LOS 'B" as reflected by the 2012 AUIR. Collier Boulevard Discussion: The first concurrency link on Collier Boulevard that is impacted by this zoning amendment is Link 30.1, between Immokalee Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road. This segment of Collier Boulevard currently has a remaining capacity of 1,067 trips, and is currently at LOS "C" as reflected by the 2012 AUIR. Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. Zoning staff is of the opinion that this project will be compatible with and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. To support that opinion staff offers the following analysis of this project. The petitioner has added Table II that proposes Residential Development Standards for Parcels IA, 2A, 3A, 1B and 2B, the parcels controlled by the current petitioner. This table provides standards for single-family detached, variable lot line for single-family and single-family attached units as well as for the Amenity Center. Those are the units types that can be constructed in the areas identified above. Comparing Table I that established the property development regulations for the other portions of the project with Table II, it becomes apparent that the lots and homes in these newly defined parcels can be somewhat smaller than what is currently allowed. Floor Area Minimum square footages however vary. The single family detached units would be 100 square feet larger (approved 1,400; proposed 1,500). The other unit types would be smaller. However, it is important to note that the proposed property development regulations are minimum standards; the petitioner can provide larger homes on larger lots if that is desired. According to the Collier County Property Appraiser's website, the homes already constructed are in excess of 2,000 square feet, with most over 2,500 square feet. Since no increase in density is proposed and the petitioner will only be placing these new units types in selected areas of the site—away from existing development, staff believes this amended project will be consistent with FLUE Policy 5.4 that requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. The surrounding area's zoning and land uses have not significantly changed since this project has been developing. The Surrounding Zoning and Land Use discussion on page 2 of the staff report and the Master Plan all reflect zoning and uses that have been in effect for years. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking approval of five new deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are listed in the PUD document in Section 3.41 (previously approved Deviation 1 approved in Ordinance #07-46 is to still remain in effect). Deviations are a normal derivative of the PUD zoning process following the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC Section 2.03.06 which says in part: PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 7 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs .... may depart from the strict application of setback, height, and minimum lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the public interest.... Deviation 1 was approved in Ordinance #07-46. No changes to that Deviation are proposed as part of this amendment. Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02, Buffer Requirements, which requires a 10 foot wide Type A landscape buffer between similar residential land uses to allow no buffer between commonly owned properties where indicated on the Conceptual Master Plan. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation isjustified in this PUD due to the common land ownership and development between the northern portion of Wolf Creek PUD and Palermo Cove PUD. Approval of the deviation will permit development of a unified development plan. The locations where no buffers are required is shown on the Conceptual Master Plan. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved with the limitation provided in the rationale, i.e., the deviation is only applicable "between the northern portion of Wolf Creek PUD and Palermo Cove PUD." (The boxed deviation #2 is also shown on the Master Plan Exhibit A-1 also.) However staff recommends that the trees that would be required in the buffer be planted elsewhere on site. Since Wolf Road will be a primary access point into the development, staff believes that it would be appropriate to relocate the trees along that roadway frontage. These trees would be in addition to any required trees. Staff is recommending approval of this same deviation in the companion request for Wolf Creek PUD with the same recommendation. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation subject to the following stipulations: b. The trees that would be required in the buffer shall be relocated to the lfiolf Road roadway. These trees would'be in addition to anv required vegetation: finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is ` justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 8 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved with the Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation but the deviation approval is only applicable for that area between the northern portion of Wolf Creek FUD and Palermo Cove PUD finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3_ the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community." and LDC Section 10 02.13.B.S.h. the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public taurposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 3 Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements, which requires sidewalks to be constructed on both sides of local streets, to allow sidewalks on one side of the street only for private streets where identified on the Alternative Pathways Plan (see Exhibit D of the PUD Exhibits). Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation is justified in this PUD due to the limited number of units authorized to be constructed within. the amended portion of the Wolf Creek PUD (163 units). The sidewalk on one side of the roadway will also permit the developer to provide a streetscape more desirable to the residents of the community. Dual sidewalks will be provided along the private primary loop road within the community and public roadways. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved with the limitation provided in the rationale, i.e., "Dual sidewalks will be provided along the private primary loop road within the community and public roadways." The applicant has provided Exhibit D showing an Alternative Pathways Plan, that has been approve by Transportation Planning staff. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation but the Section 10.02.13.A.3, the. petitionerhas demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health safety and welfare of the conummity " and LDC Section 10 02 13 B 5 h the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "Justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to Iiteral application of such regulations." Deviation 4 seeks relief from the former LDC Section Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.0, Street System Requirements and Appendix B, Typical Street Sections and Right -of -Way Design Standards, which establishes a 60 foot wide local road to allow a minimum 40' wide local road (See Exhibit Q. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation will allow the developer to provide all required infi astructure within a combination of dedicated right-of-way and easements. All roadways are intended to be private and within a gated community. A cross-section of the proposed internal private road is provided and has been successfully utilized in other communities. PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 9 of 18 March 21. 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved subject to compliance with Exhibit C. It has been approved in numerous other PUD zoned projects such as the Brynwood Center PUD (PUDZ-PL2011-0000406); Naples View RPUD ( PUDZ-PL20110001519) to 45 feet; Mirasol (PUDZ-A2012-0000303) to allow a minimum right-of- way width of 40' for private local streets and 50' for private spine roads; Parklands PUD (PUDA- PL20110001551) to mention a few. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, subject to compliance with Exhibit C, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A_3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B_5.b, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.7, Street System Requirements, which limits cul-de-sacs to a maximum length of 1,000 feet to permit a cul-de-sac approximately 1,300 feet in length with appropriate no through signage. Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation: The deviation will be limited to one cul-de-sac street within the PUD, and is warranted due to the configuration of the lake and preserve areas on the Master Plan. The County Engineer is authorized to grant this deviation administratively; however, the owner wishes to have certainty in order to proceed with engineering design. Appropriate signage indicating the cul-de-sac is not a through street will be provided. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved, however in recognition of past CCPC recommendations, staff suggests that the following stipulation should be added to this approval: The developer, or successors and assigns, shall provide a stabilized emergency vehicle turn - around, meeting local fire prevention code criteria, approximately midway along the cul- de-sac. The petitioner has not sought relief (nor can he) from any fire code requirements as part of this zoning action, thus it is understood that compliance would be required. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the stipulation that the developer, or successors and assigns, shall provide a stabilized emergency vehicle turn - around, meeting local fire prevention code criteria, approximately midwav along the cul-de-sac, finding that. in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3 the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10,02.13.B.S.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.'° PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 10 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 Deviation 6 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02, Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, which only allows On -premises signs within residential districts, to permit one off -premise residential sign, if developer is able to obtain a sign easement and PUD amendment from the property owner of the Sonoma Oaks MPUD, located immediately south of the Wolfe Road/Collier Boulevard intersection. The sign area would be a maximum of 80 square feet, and be designed to be a ground mounted sign having the same sign copy and design theme as that permitted on the north side of Wolfe Road within the Palermo Cove RPUD. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation will allow the property owner to have residential entry signage located orz both sides of Wolfe Road, which will allow appropriate visibility of the residential project. Because the area immediately south of Wolfe Road is located within another PUD locating a sign on both sides of the project entry is not possible unless it is placed off-site. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved subject to the stipulation to require the Sonoma Oaks PUD to be amended to allow same. However, staff does not believe this deviation in the Wolf Creek PUD is required. A deviation was approved for the Longshore Lake PUD (Ordinance #09-20) to allow and off-site sign for the Terafma PUD. Staff, however, can find no evidence to show that Terafrna PUD had any language or deviation to address that off-site sign. As to the proposed sign size; and type, i.e., ground mounted; and the sign copy and design theme, those issues would be addressed as part of any amendment approval of the Sonoma Oaks PUD. Zonin¢ and Land Development Review staff recommends DENIAL of this deviation, finding that the deviation is not necessary. FINDINGS OF FACT: LDC Subsection 10.03.05.L2 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 plarming commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Conunission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below. [Staff s responses to these criteria are provided in bold, non -italicized font]: PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" (Staff s responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 11 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and believes the uses and property development regulations are compatible with the development approved in the area. The commitments made by the applicant should provide adequate assurances that the proposed change should not adversely affect living conditions in the area. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion and the attached report from Comprehensive Planning staff and the zoning analysis of this staff report. Based on those staff analyses, planning zoning staff is of the opinion that this petition may be found consistent with the overall GMP. 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 requirernents. Staff has provided a review of the proposed uses and believes that the project will be compatible with the surrounding area. While the applicant proposed some additional property development regulations, the uses are not changing as part of this amendment and the uses approved in the original PUD rezone were determined to be compatible. The petitioner is revising some property development regulations, but staff believes uses remain compatible given the proposed development standards and project commitments. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of native preserve aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. The project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. Additionally, the PUD document contains additional developer commitments that should help ensure there are adequate facilities available to serve this project. PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 12 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 315113 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as road capacity, wastewater disposal system, and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The petitioner is seeking approval of eight deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06.A). These new deviations will only be applicable to certain areas of the site. This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff has provided an analysis of the deviations in the Deviation Discussion portion of this staff report, and is recommending approval of the deviations. (The overall PUD had three other deviations approved in Ordinance #07-46. These deviations are to remain in effect for the entire PUD.) Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.03.05.E states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners ... shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold font), 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The zoning analysis provides an in-depth review of the proposed amendment. Staff is of the opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with neighborhood development. Staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. The petition can also be deemed consistent with the CCME and the Transportation Element. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed it at length in the zoning review analysis. Staff believes the proposed amendment is appropriate given the existing land use pattern, and development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The proposed PUD amendment would not create an isolated zoning district because the subject site is already zoned PUD with the exception of a small tract of land that is abutting the existing PUD boundary that is being added (the Scenic Woods RSF-6(4) zoned site). PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 13 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5113 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Staff is of the opinion that the district boundaries are logically drawn given the current property ownership boundaries and the existing PUD zoning. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed amendment is not necessary, per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LAC provisions to seek such the amendment to allow the owner the opportunity to develop the land with uses other than what the existing zoning district would allow. Without this amendment, the property could be developed in compliance with the existing PUD ordinance regulations. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood, - Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendment, with the commitments made by the applicant, can been deemed consistent County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. The project includes numerous restrictions and standards that are designed to address compatibility of the project. Development in compliance with the proposed PUD amendment should not adversely impact .living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affeetpublic safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project with the mitigation that will be provided by the developer (Developer Commitments). Staff believes the petition can be deemed consistent with all elements of the GMP if the mitigation is included in any recommendation of approval. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed amendment should not create drainage or surface water problems. The developer of the project will be required to adhere to a surface water management permit from the SFWMD in conjunction with any local site development plan approvals and ultimate construction on site. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this amendment petition is approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. The setbacks and project buffers will help insure that light and air to adjacent areas will not be substantially reduced. 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 PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 14 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC - Revised: 3/5/13 external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market conditions. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; The proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning designations; however, the petitioner is seeking this amendment in compliance with LDC provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed amendment meets the intent of the PUD district, and further, believes the public interest will be maintained. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; As noted previously, the majority of the subject property already has a zoning designation of PUD; the PUD rezoning was evaluated at the rezoning stage and was deemed consistent with the GMP. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban -designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such. use. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMP as it is proposed to be amended as discussed in other portions of the staff report. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 15 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 Additional development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration. This project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. This petition has been reviewed. by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the 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. I& Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (N -RU The applicant's agents conducted a duly noticed NIM on December 6, 2012, at the Sheppard of the Glades Church on Rattlesnake Hammock Road for the two projects. Wayne Arnold, agent for the applicant, opened the meeting at 5:35 p.m. and introduced himself, Michael Delate and Sharon Umpenhour with Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and Richard Yovanovich with Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A., representing the owner/developer, Sean Mat -tin with Waterman Development, representing the property owner and Kay Deselem, representing Collier County Growth Management. There were approximately thirty members of the public in attendance. Mr. Arnold introduced and explained the project as it exists and then proceeded to explain the proposed amendment requests. He stated that approximately 16 acres of the existing Palermo Cove RPUD would be removed from the Palermo Cove RPUD and incorporated into the Wolf Creek RPUD and the total number of dwelling units for the proposed Palermo Cove RPUD would be reduced to 237 dwelling units. He explained that the Wolf Creek PUD would increase the number of units from 671 to 754. Aerial photographs of the PUD's were displayed along with the existing and proposed Master Plans. It was also explained that a common development plan was intended for all properties owned by Waterman, and that only single-family dwellings would be built in these areas. A PowerPoint presentation was provided showing proposed and existing preserve areas, boundaries, acreages, maximum dwelling units and unified development of the PUD Mr. Arnold discussed the removal of the affordable housing commitment and removal of multiple - family uses from the proposed Palermo Cove RPUD and amended portion of the Wolf Creek RPUD. Mr. Arnold concluded his presentation and asked for comments or questions from the meeting attendees. Questions asked were regarding hearing dates, setbacks, construction access locations, building heights, product type, buffers and if the development would be age restricted. Mr. Arnold PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 16 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised; 3/5/13 addressed the attendee's questions and also provided an explanation of the distinction between zoned and actual height and described variable lot line product type proposed. Mr. Arnold offered to provide any additional information if requested and to contact, Kay Deselem, Sharon Umpenhour or himself if anyone had further questions. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:05 p.m. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on March 1, 2013, RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-A-PL20120000650 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval subject to the following stipulations: Approve Deviation #2 subject to the following limitation: a. This deviation approval is only applicable ,for that area between the northern Portion of Wolf Creek PUD and Palermo Cove PUD. b. The trees that would be required in the buffer shall be relocated to the Wolf Road roadway. These trees would be in addition to any required vegetation. 2. Approve Deviation 43 subject to compliance with Exhibit D. 3. 1 Approve Deviation #4 subject to compliance with Exhibit C. 4. Approve Deviation #5 subject to the following limitation: The developer, or successors and assigns, shall provide a stabilized emergency vehicle turn - around, meeting local f re prevention code criteria, approximately midway along the cul-de-sac. 5. Deny Deviation #6 as it is not necessary. PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 17 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 PREPARED BY: ��y Lat&14 2/a5113 KATY ESELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEWED BY: Zaw r- ;4411S RAYNtONON. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3-1 - r3 MIKE BOSI, AICP, INTERIM DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVED BY: NICK ASALANGUI , ADMINISTRATOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION � 4-13 DATE Tentatively scheduled for the May 14, 2013 Board of County Commissioners Meeting PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD March 21, 2013 CC PC Revised: 2/25113 Page 18 of 18 152 Signed Letters (Sample) Daniel Smith DanielSmith@coliiergovnet Mark Strain MarkStrain@colliergov net Burt Saunders BurtSaunders@colliergov.net Summer Araque 5ummerBrownAraque@colliergov.net I am a resident of Black Bear Ridge a community located with the Wolf Creek Pud. It was brought to our attention at the Neighborhood Informational Meeting held on Nov. 10th that a proposal has been submitted to reduce the preserve areas in parcel 313/9 of the PUD. The developer, Sobel Vanderbilt LLC was represented by an their engineering company and legal counsel. There were many concerned residents from the impacted surrounding communities in attendance at that neighborhood meeting. After much reluctance the representatives finally presented plans for the potential development :.chic,", would require a reduction of the preserve to accommodate the number of units Included. After reviewing the PUD Master Plan it appears that much of the preserve area they propose to remove is listed on the Plan as Wet Land. One argument they claim in their favor of reduction is that the existing communities have met the majority of preserve acreage as required by the PUD. Our developments were sensitive to the ever decreasing preserve areas m Collier County and did not decrease the preserves to the maximum this should not allow Sobel LLC to transfer that unused deduction allocated to our parcels and use it to their benefit. By decreasing the preserve they have increased the number of proposed units to 214 which is far above the allowed density per acre according to the PUD. According to Collier County Environmental Review Guide Book and Collier County Engineering and Natural Resources the Country requires the preserves to be interconnected to allow for wildlife corridors of travel. We know our area has manyprotected species, such as Florida Panther which was documented with Florida Wildlife, Bears, Turtles, Snakes and Birds including Woodpeckers. Reduction in preserves will impact Florida wildlife and natural vegetation. Our native animals rely on the preserves for their existence. 'Wildlife and natural areas are quickly diminishing in Collier County and the entire concept for Naples is slowly being chipped away by increased development and loss of preserve areas. Small developments being `squeezed" in small parcels of land have negatively affected all of Naples. Development can be a benefit for all residents if it is controlled and long term impacts are taken into consideration. Personally I feel that this benefit for residents is being pushed aside for the benefit of developers. I plan to stay involved regarding this matter and ask for any assistance you may provide regarding the procedure and status of this proposed reduction to the preserve. Respectfully yours Signature C, " d e f �Sp ` (;—r 13 ch 0 UI Address 7� Acorn Way Print Name Attachment 7 PETITION AGAINST REDUCTION OF PRESERVE VANDERBILT PRESERVE DEVELOPMENT THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE RESIDENTS OF SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS "VANDERBILT PRESERVE" PARCEL 313 & 9 OF THE WOLF CREEK PUD OWNED BY DEVELOPER SOBEL VANDERBILT LLC. THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS REJECT THE PROPOSAL TO REDUCE THE PRESERVE AREA BASED ON THE DISRUPTION TO PROTECTED WILDLIFE AND NATIVE VEGETATION. WILDLIFE AND NATURAL AREAS ARE QUICKLY DIMINISHING IN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE ENTIRE CONCEPT FOR NAPLES IS SLOWLY BEING CHIPPED AWAY BY INCREASED DEVELOPMENT AND LOSS OF PRESERVE AREAS. SMALL DEVELOPMENTS BEING "SQUEEZED" IN SMALL PARCELS OF LAND HAVE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED ALL OF NAPLES, DEVELOPMENT CAN BE A BENEFIT FOR ALL RESIDENTS IF IT IS CONTROLLED AND LONG TERM IMPACTS ARE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION. PERSONALLY I FEEL THAT THIS BENEFIT FOR RESIDENTS IS BEING PUSHED ASIDE FOR THE BENEFIT OF DEVELOPERS. U 73 �1 f ACORN WAY ACORN WAY rl-x�jt- J� ACORN WAY s i J,Cf ACORN WAY Uva C� P� QSL/L�-- `3 �I ACORN WAY . PETITION AGAINST REDUCTION OF PRESERVE VANDERBILT PRESERVE DEVELOPMENT THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE RESIDENTS OF SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS "VANDERBILT PRESERVE" PARCEL 3B & 9 OF THE WOLF CREEK PUD OWNED BY DEVELOPER SOBEL VANDERBILT LLC. THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS REJECT THE PROPOSAL TO REDUCE THE PRESERVE AREA BASED ON THE DISRUPTION TO PROTECTED WILDLIFE AND NATIVE VEGETATION. WILDLIFE AND NATURAL AREAS ARE QUICKLY DIMINISHING IN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE ENTIRE CONCEPT FOR NAPLES IS SLOWLY BEING CHIPPED AWAY BY INCREASED DEVELOPMENT AND LOSS OF PRESERVE AREAS. SMALL DEVELOPMENTS BEING "SQUEEZED" IN SMALL PARCELS OF LAND HAVE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED ALL OF NAPLES. DEVELOPMENT CAN BE A BENEFIT FOR ALL RESIDENTS IF IT IS CONTROLLED AND LONG TERM IMPACTS ARE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION. PERSONALLY I FEEL THAT THIS BENEFIT FOR RESIDENTS IS BEING PUSHED ASIDE FOR THE BENEFIT OF DEVELOPERS. Y-1% ACORN WAY l� �l ACORN WAY ACORN WAY 307 ACORN WAY _ ACORN WAY 1 ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY a �5 ACORN WAY y ACORN WAY 7Z Y� ACORN WAY CORN WAY 17f 7'U CORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY PETITION AGAINST REDUCTION OF PRESERVE VANDERBILT PRESERVE DEVELOPMENT THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE RESIDENTS OF SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS "VANDERBILT PRESERVE" PARCEL 3B & 9 OF THE WOLF CREEK PUD OWNED BY DEVELOPER SOBEL VANDERBILT LLC. THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS REJECT THE PROPOSAL TO REDUCE THE PRESERVE AREA BASED ON THE DISRUPTION TO PROTECTED WILDLIFE AND NATIVE VEGETATION. WILDLIFE AND NATURAL AREAS ARE QUICKLY DIMINISHING IN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE ENTIRE CONCEPT FOR NAPLES IS SLOWLY BEING CHIPPED AWAY BY INCREASED DEVELOPMENT AND LOSS OF PRESERVE AREAS. SMALL DEVELOPMENTS BEING "SQUEEZED" IN SMALL PARCELS OF LAND HAVE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED ALL OF NAPLES. DEVELOPMENT CAN BE A BENEFIT FOR ALL RESIDENTS IF IT IS CONTROLLED AND LONG TERM IMPACTS ARE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION. PERSONALLY I FEEL THAT THIS BENEFIT FOR RESIDENTS IS BEING PUSHED ASIDE FOR THE BENEFIT OF DEVELOPERS. c. ,, �,� 1 a 4 q ACORN WAY DA V,A -*e-r M aaq ACORN WAY frtsci ACORN WAY �e a4 1a9R ACORN WAY Aksi,u, i 4tc ac�zs lz"& ~` Raw, 1a9q ACORN WAY aceai en vv J ACORN WAY I ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ftk ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY /,/ :q 7 ACORN WAY �3��ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY 1 ACORN WAY ACORN WAY e ACORN WAY ` r ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY X Mih Rct�rrv_ MAaela 7a�(q ACORN WAY [ A7 `f'3 ACORN WAY n 7S -7 ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY J� ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY PETITION AGAINST REDUCTION OF PRESERVE VANDtRWT I � DPt L!0PM-T THE €BOLL_€ gtl�Ai�j�s,gRESS_IWN�l�.� S REJECT j� �qqr'r{�{��iqE.;{ PROPOSAL_y��agTO REDUCE THE `SHE PRESERVE AREA ON THE DISRUPTION T6 PROTE`-r�TG.i WG"P—AND NATIVE VEGETATION. DEVE�Fk A i1tf i C tt rF f'� r4iL Flc43IL+G ii kE tw2= {i.'kfF'xxR CONTROL AND LOW TERM IMPACTS ARE TA{ f�ty+R�G;4INTO�•6�y��{�3i �{F �T}I��y�hi;ASIDE �t� R _.tyi�4i Y I FFE t�F�AT !}�M�}'�i?E�NEfII! f SIDE alit 9 i3�tF!!# i`Y�FiM f4SIDE. f-Vt! THE VtE�Y EFI i EVEL SPEW ACORK WAY ORt'l AY ACORN MAY ACiOFti+lWAY S3i, 736�3 ACORN WAY ACORN WAY i 3 ACORN WAY ACORN WAY 7� L ACORN WAY ACORN WAY jj2s�✓--- ACORN WAY �— — ACORN WAY Cj C%'.�+e�J �� ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY 72 t,,CORN WAY cxn� V �� /2(k ACORN WAY Z)L71 ACORN WAY ACORN WAY �36 CORN WAY 1 5 �� ► J7 (vW 7 _`)ACORN WAY 14 CORN WAY IT Lott ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY vwwnlz P�rs r Cpm --I 3a ACORN WAY 23J-4 ACORN WAY GL�i1 O`'``,,* -73:L6, ACORN WAY -7 CULL -)3a( ACORN WAY 7-�-)7K ACORN WAY 7:3 ] a ACORN WAY �� � 73 70 ACORN WAY PETITION AGAINST REDUCTION OF PRESERVE VANDERBILT PRESERVE DEVELOPMENT THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE RESIDENTS OF SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS "VANDERBILT PRESERVE' PARCEL 3B & 9 OF THE WOLF CREEK PUD OWNED BY DEVELOPER SOBEL VANDERBILT LLC. THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS REJECT THE PROPOSAL TO REDUCE THE PRESERVE AREA BASED ON THE DISRUPTION TO PROTECTED WILDLIFE AND NATIVE VEGETATION. WILDLIFE AND NATURAL AREAS ARE QUICKLY DIMINISHING IN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE ENTIRE CONCEPT FOR NAPLES IS SLOWLY BEING CHIPPED AWAY BY INCREASED DEVELOPMENT AND LOSS OF PRESERVE AREAS. SMALL DEVELOPMENTS BEING "SQUEEZED" IN SMALL PARCELS OF LAND HAVE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED ALL OF NAPLES. DEVELOPMENT CAN BE A BENEFIT FOR ALL RESIDENTS IF IT IS CONTROLLED AND LONG TERM IMPACTS ARE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION. PERSONALLY I FEEL THAT THIS BENEFIT FOR RESIDENTS IS BEING PUSHED ASIDE FOR THE BENEFIT OF DEVELOPERS. 7W ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY -� 733RACORN WAY �.4dlqs 73S"` ACORN WAY �3S ACORN WAY ACORN WAY 73`/Z ACORN WAY �c! ACORN WAY o � 7 Z-ZGACORN WAY IXACORN WAY ACORN WAY Ls � �CORN WAY Z %C/ ACORN WAY -7}/0 ACORN WAY � ✓L,tc� ���" i 7r�. co—i �73D-7 ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ` ,)-7 i 7%4z a4CORN WAY ��— 7//2 ACORN WAY Kj I c 73S-Ca ACORN WAY ACORN WAY �i� 7Z V! ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ;7�3/ACORN WAY 7'�/ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY •� 7(ti/�,, }�(�, ACORN WAY 3t13 ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ' / ACORN WAY � R ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY i ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ,v- ?35 ACORN WAY V � y ea ACORN WAY f� r N'/ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ➢/� l0� 1 ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY 7�ACORN WAY `?3 9 q ACORN WAY ACORN WAY 7a061 ACORN WAY 7,kL ACORN WAY 70T3 ACORN WAY ACORN WAY �rACORN WAY M ?` /3 ACORN WAY 7 Lll� ACORN WAY ACORN WAY f iS7�c�LC� ��1'91%ruitt(aV �� ACORN WAY fl 01411-> ACORN WAY �® ltd ACORN WAY �� bS ACORN WAY 7,),JACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY lf2 ACORN WAY e ACORN WAY 2U-1 ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ").A j S ACORN WAY -72 grACORN WAY kCORN WAY 4 40�CORN WAY �( �%'( LI�GL ��C �✓2 J D'1CORN WAY CCt�C� �J /(3CORN WAY f ACORN WAY ACORN WAY December 12, 2016 Mr Daniel Smith Principal Planner Growth Management Department Zoning Division 2800 Horseshoe Drive North Naples, FI 34104 Re: Application to Reduce Preserve - Wolf Creek PUD Vanderbilt Preserve, Sobel Vanderbilt LLC Dear Mr Smith: We respectfully submit the attached petition and letters of detail on behalf of the residents of Black Bear Ridge. Black Bear Ridge is a 100 home community located in the Wolf Creek PUD adjacent to the proposed Vanderbilt Preserve Development. The petition with signatures of 155 and 151 individual letters represent the objections to the reduction of any of the preserve as proposed by application from Sobel Vanderbilt LLC. A copy of the petition and letter has been forwarded by email to the following County Officials for their review: Mark Strain Burt Saunders Summer Araque Please do not hesitate to contact myself, or representatives listed below, if you require additional information or wish to discuss the matter in more detail. Respectfully, Beverly Smith 7278 Acorn Way Naples, FI 34119 bevsmith 116 @ gmai Isom Terrie Abrams terrie.abrams@gmail.com Marc Allen mallenn r Eyghoo.com Attachment 6 Re: Application to Reduce Preserve on Property Located Pristine Drive, Naples, FL. We respectfully object to any reduction in preserve by Developer, Sobel Vanderbilt LLC in proposed development to be known as Vanderbilt Preserve. This property falls in the zoning of Wolf Creek PUD. A petition of 155 signatures is hereby submitted on behalf of the residents of Black Bear Ridge, a 100 home community located in the Wolf Creek PUD. Along with this petition we have 151 letters submitted on behalf of the residents of Black Bear Ridge detailing our objection to the reduction of preserve. Attached please find a copy of the petition and the letter submitted. Originals have been delivered to the office of Daniel Smith. Should you require any additional information or would like to discuss this in more detail please do not hesitate to contact the following: Beverly Smith bevsmith 116 @gmail.com Terrie Abrams terrie.abrams@gmail.com Marc Allen mallennv@omail.com Page 1 of 1 From: Kourtney [kourtneyleighl8@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 10:55 PM To: SmithDaniel Subject: Sobel vanderbilt LLC To whom this may concern, I currently live in the same township as the new community Sobel Vanderbilt LLC will be located. There will be a meeting on November 10th in regards to their request to have the minimum preserve requirement on some of their lots. I am concerned about this. I feel the preserve is already extremely limited, the animals are being forced from their habitat and the beauty of collier is being diminished. I feel strongly we should not approve this request and try and preserve what natural beauty is left in this town. Thank you, Kourtney, Collier County Resident Sent from my Whone Page 1 of 1 From: Terrie Abrams [terrie.abrams@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 7:00 AM To: SmithDaniel; BrownAraqueSummer; StrainMark Subject: Re: Proposed reduction in Wolf Creek Preserve Please confirm received. Sent from my iPad Terrie 630.244.4800 On Nov 15, 2016, at 5:21 PM, Terrie Abrams <terrie.abramsOgmail.COm> wrote: Den Dan,Summer and Mark I am a full time resident of Black Bear Ridge a community located with the Wolf Creek Pod. It was brought to our attention at the Neighborhood Informational Meeting held on Nov. 10th that a proposal has been submitted to reduce the preserve areas in pareel 3B/3A of the PUD. The developer, Sobel. Vanderbilt LLC was represented by an their engineering company and legal counsel. As you are aware, there were many concerned residents from the impacted surrounding communities in attendance. After much reluctance the representatives finally allowed us to see the potential development and why they desired to reduce the preserve for the purpose of adding additional units. Afterreviewing the PUD Master Plan it appears that much of the preserve area they propose to remove is listed on the Plan as Wet Land. One argument they claim in their favor of reduction is that the existing communities have met the majority of preserve acreage as required by the PUD. I firmly believe that because our developments were sensitive to to ever decreasing preserve areas in Collier County and did not decrease the preserves to the maximum this should not allow Sobel LLC to transfer that unused deduction allocated to am parcels and use it to their benefit. Wildlife said natural areas are quickly diminishing in Collier County and the entire concept for Naples is slowly being chipped away by increased development and loss of preserve. areas; Small developments being "squeezed" in small parcels of land have negatively effected all of Naples. I have been visiting Naples since the late 70's. I have a sistegUncle and cousin that all live here and have seen the transformation over the last 35+ years. Development can be a benefit for all residents if it is controlled and long term impacts are taking into consideration. Personally I feel that this benefit for residents and environment is being pushed aside for the benefit of developers. Rem is one picture of our beloved Panther that was wandering through the preserves that has been documented by Florida Wildlife Commission. We have wonderful animals in our area that depend on the preserves to maintain existence. We have seen salamander,mrtles,owls and many many birds. Please don't let their homes be destroyed ... they need every inch of preserve to help maintain the balance. I plan to stay involved and organize the surrounding areas to protest regarding this matter and ask for any assistance you may provide regarding the procedure and status of this proposed reduction to the preserve. Terrie Abrams 7213 Acorn Way Naples, Florida 34119 Terrie 630.244.4800 <WGI_0002 (3).JPG> Page 1 of 1 From: Terrie Abrams [terrie.abrams@gmail.coml Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 7:05 AM To: R. Bruce Anderson Cc: SmithDaniel Subject: Re: Neighborhood Meeting for Portofino Replacement Project Hello, Yes we would very much like to meet after the first of the year. Please invite a representative from Collier County Planning and our surrounding neighbors from Island Walk and Raffia. In addition to artistic renderings please bring the plot/plan view of the proposed development. We look for seeing you in early January... how about the 10th ? On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 1:08 PM, R. Bruce Anderson <rbandersonAnanleslaw.com>wrote: Hi Terrie, I spoke with my client about your residents' concerns and questions and we would like to schedule an informal neighborhood meeting like you had with George Vuko last week. We will provide renderings of what the bldgs will look like and are looking into the other requests and concerns that were voiced. And the developer will be there. Because of the time it will take to get the renderings done (4 weeks), could you all meet on Dec 19th, or we could wait until the first week in January or so? We will not schedule any public hearings until after we have met with you. Would you please check and let me know. Thank you, Bruce R. Bruce Anderson Attorney at Law CHEFFYPASSIDON10 I Cheffy Passidomo, P.A arrragaxs Ai �_t. 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 (239) 659-4942 direct (239) 261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile rbanderson cDnaoleslaw.com www.napieslaw.com This a -mail, along with any files transmitted with it, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. Ifthis e-mail is not addressed to you (or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you), please notify the sender by return e-mail or by telephoning us (collect) at 239-261-9300 and delete this message immediately from your computer. Any unauthorized review, use, retention, disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the law firm. Terrie 630.244.4800 Page 1 of 1 From: Terrie Abrams [terrie.abrams@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 5:22 PM To: SmithDaniel; BrownAraqueSummer; StrainMark Subject: Proposed reduction in Wolf Creek Preserve Attachments: WGI_0002 (3).JPG Dear Dan,Summer and Mark I am a full time resident of Black Bear Ridge a community located with the Wolf Creek Pud. It was brought to our attention at the Neighborhood Informational Meeting held on Nov. 10th that a proposal has been submitted to reduce the preserve meas in parcel 3B/3A of the PUD. The developer, Sobel Vanderbilt LLC was represented by an their engineering company and legal counsel, As you are aware, there were many concerned residents from the impacted surrounding communities in attendance. After much reluctance the representatives finally allowed us to see the potential development and why they desired to reduce the preserve for the purpose of adding additional units. After reviewing the PUD Master Plan it appears that much of the preserve area they propose to remove is listed on the Plan as Wet Land. One argument they claim In their favor of reduction is that the existing communities have met the majority ofpreserve acreage as required by the PUD. I firmly believe that because our developments were sensitive to to ever decreasing preserve meas in Collier County and did not decrease the preserves to the maximum this should not allow Sobel LLC to transfer that unused deduction allocated to our parcels and use it to their benefit. Wildlife and natural areas me quickly diminishing in Collier County and the entire concept for Naples is slowly being chipped away by increased development and loss of preserve meas, Small developments being "squeezed" in small parcels ofland have negatively effected all of Naples. I have been visiting Naples since the late 70's. I have asistegUncle and cousin that all live here and have seen the transformation over the last 35+ years. Development can be a benefit for all residents if it is controlled and long term impacts us taking into consideration. Personally I feel that this benefit for residents and environment is being pushed aside for the benefit of developers. Here is one picture of our beloved Panther that was wandering through the preserves that has been documented by Florida Wildlife Commission. We have wonderful animals in our area that depend on the preserves to maintain existence. We have seen salamander,turtles,owls and many many birds. Please don't let their homes be destroyed ... they need every inch of preserve to help maintain the balance. I plan to stay involved and organize the surrounding areas to protest regarding this matter and ask for any assistance you may provide regarding the procedure and status of this proposed reduction to the preserve. Terrie Abrams 7213 Acorn Way Naples, Florida 34119 Terrie 630.244.4800 file://bcc. colliergov.net/data/GMD-LDS/CDES%20Planning%20Services/CUrrent/Daniel... 4/26/2017 Daniel Smith DanielSmith(cDcollieraov.net Mark Strain MarkStrain6cD.collienaov.net Burt Saunders BurtSaunders(acolliergov.net Summer Araque Su mmerBrownArague(a)colliergov.net I am a resident of Black Bear Ridge a community located with the Wolf Creek Pud. It was brought to our attention at the Neighborhood Informational Meeting held on Nov. 10th that a proposal has been submitted to reduce the preserve areas in parcel 36/9 of the PUD. The developer, Sobel Vanderbilt LLC was represented by an their engineering company and legal counsel. There were many concerned residents from the impacted surrounding communities in attendance at that neighborhood meeting. After much reluctance the representatives finally presented plans for the potential development which would require a reduction of the preserve to accommodate the number of units included. After reviewing the PUD Master Plan it appears that much of the preserve area they propose to remove is listed on the Plan as Wet Land. One argument they claim in their favor of reduction is that the existing communities have met the majorit of preserve acreage as required by the PUD. Our developments were sensitive to the ever decreasing preserve areas in Collier County and did not decrease the preserves to the maximum this should not allow Sobel LLC to transfer that unused deduction allocated to our parcels and use it to their benefit. By decreasing the preserve they have increased the number of proposed units to 214 which is far above the allowed density per acre according to the PUD. According to Collier County Environmental Review Guide Book and Collier County Engineering and Natural Resources the Country requires the preserves to be interconnected to allow for wildlife corridors of travel. We know our area has manyprotected species, such as Florida Panther which was documented with Florida Wildlife, Bears, Turtles, Snakes and Birds including Woodpeckers. Reduction in preserves will impact Florida wildlife and natural vegetation. Our native animals rely on the preserves for their existence. Wildlife and natural areas are quickly diminishing in Collier County and the entire concept for Naples is slowly being chipped away by increased development and loss of preserve areas. Small developments being squeezed" in small parcels of land have negatively affected all of Naples. Development can be a benefit for all residents if it is controlled and long term impacts are taken into consideration. Personally I feel that this benefit for residents is being pushed aside for the benefit of developers. I plan to stay involved regarding this matter and ask for any assistance you may provide regarding the procedure and status of this proposed reduction to the preserve. Respectfully yours, Beverly R Smith Signature Beverly R Smith ame 7278 Address Acorn Way PETITION AGAINST REDUCTION OF PRESERVE VANDERBILT PRESERVE DEVELOPMENT THIS PETITION IS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE RESIDENTS OF SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS "VANDERBILT PRESERVE" PARCEL 3B & 9 OF THE WOLF CREEK PUD OWNED BY DEVELOPER SOBEL VANDERBILT LLC. THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTS REJECT THE PROPOSAL TO REDUCE THE PRESERVE AREA BASED ON THE DISRUPTION TO PROTECTED WILDLIFE AND NATIVE VEGETATION. WILDLIFE AND NATURAL AREAS ARE QUICKLY DIMINISHING IN COLLIER COUNTY AND THE ENTIRE CONCEPT FOR NAPLES IS SLOWLY BEING CHIPPED AWAY BY INCREASED DEVELOPMENT AND LOSS OF PRESERVE AREAS. SMALL DEVELOPMENTS BEING "SQUEEZED" IN SMALL PARCELS OF LAND HAVE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED ALL OF NAPLES. DEVELOPMENT CAN BE A BENEFIT FOR ALL RESIDENTS IF IT IS CONTROLLED AND LONG TERM IMPACTS ARE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION. PERSONALLY I FEEL THAT THIS BENEFIT FOR RESIDENTS IS BEING PUSHED ASIDE FOR THE BENEFIT OF DEVELOPERS. ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY F001617il ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY ACORN WAY Page 1 of 2 From: Beverly Smith [bevsmith116@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:45 PM To: Burt Saunders; BrownAraqueSummer; BellowsRay; BosiMichael; stanch rzanowski@colliergove.net; HomiakKaren; SawyerMichael; SchmittJoseph; SmithDaniel; markstrain@colliergove.net; jodiebert@reagan.com; PuigJudy Subject: Fwd: Application to Reduce Preserve on Property Located on Pristine Drive, Naples FI. Attachments: Preserve Letter From Homeowners 12.doc; ATT00001.htm; PETITION AGAINST PRESERVE.doc; ATT00002.htm Residents of Black Bear Ridge met with the developer, SobelCo, on January 10, 2017, The developer asked for an opportunity to present their proposal and plans for the property called "Vanderbilt Preserve". The residents have not agreed to the proposals and still have many issues regarding the development of this property. Black Bear Ridge will not be withdrawing the petition or letters that have been submitted. See attached the original email with petition and letter sent on 12/19/2017 Begin forwarded message: From: Beverly Smith <bevsmithl 16@gmail.com> Subject: Application to Reduce Preserve on Property Located on Pristine Drive, Naples Fl. Date: December 19, 2016 at 3:28:32 PM EST To: Burt Saunders<burtsaundersforcollierCa)gmail.com>, MarkStrain(a)colliergov.net, S ummerBrownArague(a)col liergov. net Cc: Terrie Abrams <TERklE.ABRAMSCa2GMAIL.00M>, Mike Fuchs <flguv55(cilgmail.com>, Rob Nossen <TheNossens anaol.com>, marc alien <mallencny(a.vahoo.com>, Faye Collett - Sutton <Faye.collettsutton@louisviIle. edu> We respectfully object to any reduction in preserve by Developer, Sobel Vanderbilt LLC in proposed development to be known as Vanderbilt Preserve. This property falls in the zoning of Wolf Creek PUD. A petition of 155 signatures has been submitted on behalf of the residents of Black Bear Ridge, a 100 home community located in the Wolf Creek PUD. Along with this petition we have 151 letters submitted on behalf of the residents of Black Bear Ridge detailing our objection to the reduction of preserve. Attached please find a copy of the petition and the letter submitted. Originals have been delivered to the office of Daniel Smith on December 19, 2016 Should you require any additional information or would like to discuss this in more detail please do not hesitate to contact the following: Beverly Smith bevsmith 116agmail.com Page 2 of 2 Terrie Abrams terrie. abrams(a,gmail. com Marc Allen mallenny(a,gmail.com file://bcc.colliergov.net/data/GMD-LDS/CDES%o20Planning%20Services/Current/Daniel... 4/26/2017 wolf creek Pud - Proposed From: Beverly Smith [bevsmith116@gmail. Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 11:58 To: SmithDaniel subject: wolf Creek Pud - Proposed Dear Dan, Alteration to Preserve.txt com] AM Alteration to Preserve I am a full time resident of Black Bear Ridge a community located with the Wolf Creek Pud. It was brought to our attention at the Neighborhood informational Meeting held on Nov. 10th that a proposal has been submitted to reduce the preserve areas in parcel 3B/3A of the PUD. The developer, Sobel Vanderbilt LLC was represented by an their engineering company and legal counsel. As you are aware, there were many concerned residents from the impacted surrounding communities in attendance. After much reluctance the representatives finally allowed us to see the potential development and why they desired to reduce the preserve for the purpose of adding additional units. After reviewing the PUD Master Plan it appears that much of the preserve area they propose to remove is listed on the Plan as Wet Land. One argument they claim in their favor of reduction is that the existing communities have met the majority of preserve acreage as required by the PUD. I firmly believe that because our developments were sensitive to to ever decreasing preserve areas in Collier county and did not decrease the preserves to the maximum this should not allow Sobel LLC to transfer that unused deduction allocated to our parcels and use it to their benefit. Wildlife and natural areas are quickly diminishing in Collier county and the entire concept for Naples is slowly being chipped away by increased development and loss of preserve areas. Small developments being "squeezed" in small parcels of land have negatively effected all of Naples. I have been visiting Naples since the late 70's (family has lived here) and have seen the transformation over the last 35+ years. Development can be a benefit for all residents if it is controlled and long term impacts are taking into consideration. Personally I feel that this benefit for residents is being pushed aside for the benefit of developers. I plan to stay involved regarding this matter and ask for any assistance you may provide regarding the procedure and status of this proposed reduction to the preserve. Respectfully, Beverly R. Smith 7278 Acorn Way Naples, F1 34119 201 396-7197 bevsmithll6@gmail.com Page 1