Loading...
HEX Agenda 01/25/2018AGENDA THE COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER WILL HOLD A HEARING AT 9:00 AM ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 25, 2018 IN CONFERENCE ROOM 610 AT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/PLANNING & REGULATION BUILDING, 2800 N. HORSESHOE DRIVE, NAPLES, FLORIDA INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES UNLESS OTHERWISE WAIVED BY THE HEARING EXAMINER. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE HEARING REPORT PACKETS MUST HAVE THAT MATERIAL SUBMITTED TO COUNTY STAFF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING. ALL MATERIALS USED DURING PRESENTATION AT THE HEARING WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER 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. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER ARE FINAL UNLESS APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. HEARING PROCEDURES WILL PROVIDE FOR PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT, PRESENTATION BY STAFF, PUBLIC COMMENT AND APPLICANT REBUTTAL. THE HEARING EXAMINER WILL RENDER A DECISION WITHIN 30 DAYS. PERSONS WISHING TO RECEIVE A COPY OF THE DECISION BY MAIL MAY SUPPLY COUNTY STAFF WITH THEIR NAME, ADDRESS, AND A STAMPED, SELF-ADDRESSED ENVELOPE FOR THAT PURPOSE. PERSONS WISHING TO RECEIVE AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE DECISION MAY SUPPLY THEIR EMAIL ADDRESS. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. REVIEW OF AGENDA 3. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: NOTE: This item has been continued from the January 11, 2018 HEX Meeting. A. PETITION NO. PDI-PL20170002544 – Livingston Pro Center, LLC requests an insubstantial change to the Hiwasse PUD, Ordinance No. 05-59, as amended, to reduce the front yard setback, revise a development commitment relating to transportation, add two new development commitments relating to utilities, add two new deviations relating to landscaping and buffering, remove one deviation relating to sidewalks and bike paths, modify the plant material notes on Exhibit “C,” and revise the Master Plan to reflect these changes. The subject property is located on the west side of Livingston Road, approximately one quarter mile south of Pine Ridge Road, in Section 13, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of ±13 acres. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl, Principal Planner] NOTE: This item has been continued from the January 11, 2018 HEX Meeting. B. PETITION NO. PDI-PL20160003482 – Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston, LLC requests an insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 2008-06, as amended, the Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD, to add two deviations relating to landscape buffers and fence/wall height, to delete one deviation relating to cul de sac length, to modify development standards relating to minimum principal and accessory structure setbacks, to add a new cross section exhibit, and to revise the Master Plan to reconfigure the site layout. The subject property is located on the east side of Livingston Road, approximately one-half mile north of Veterans Memorial Boulevard, in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of ±17.52 acres. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner] 4. OTHER BUSINESS 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS 6. ADJOURN AGENDA ITEM 3-A This item was continued from the January 11, 2018 HEX meeting. The packet materials were submitted at the January 11, 2018 HEX meeting. PETITION NO. PDI-PL20170002544 – Livingston Pro Center, LLC requests an insubstantial change to the Hiwasse PUD, Ordinance No. 05-59, as amended, to reduce the front yard setback, revise a development commitment relating to transportation, add two new development commitments relating to utilities, add two new deviations relating to landscaping and buffering, remove one deviation relating to sidewalks and bike paths, modify the plant material notes on Exhibit “C,” and revise the Master Plan to reflect these changes. The subject property is located on the west side of Livingston Road, approximately one quarter mile south of Pine Ridge Road, in Section 13, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of ±13 acres. [Coordinator: Fred Reischl, Principal Planner] Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JANUARY 11, 2018 SUBJECT: PDI-PL-20170002544; HIWASSE CPUD This PDI was heard at the January 11,2018 HEX meeting and continued to the January 25 meeting,pending revised information requested by the HEX,to be supplied by the applicant. The revised information is attached. SECTION ONE: AMENDMENTS TO TABLE OF CONTENTS/EXHIBITS PAGE, OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT, ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 04-75, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 08-34, THE HIWASSE PUD The Table of Contents/Exhibits Page, attached to Ordinance No. 04-75, as amended by Ordinance No. 08-34, The Hiwasse PUD, is hereby amended to read as follows: TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION I Statement of Compliance 3 SECTION II Property Ownership, Legal Description, Short Title and Statement of Unified Control 4 SECTION III Statement of Intent and Project Description .5 SECTION IV General Development Regulations 6 SECTION V Permitted Uses and Dimensional Standards for Commercial Development .13 SECTION VI Development Commitments 15 EXHIBITS Exhibit A—PUD Master Plan Exhibit A-1 —Eatonwood Lane and FPL Easement Interface Exhibit Exhibit C—Landscape Detail &View Elevation/Cross Section Study Exhibit D—Architectural Schematic Page 1 of 5 Words struek-tlifeugh are deleted;words underlined are added. H:\2001\2001076\WP\PDI\HEX\Hex Continuance\Hiwasse PUD(PDI-PL20170002544)(1-17-2018).docx SECTION TWO: AMENDMENTS TO SECTION V, PERMITTED USES AND DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT, ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 04-75, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 08-34, THE HIWASSE PUD Section V, Permitted Uses and Dimensional Standards for Commercial Development, attached to Ordinance No. 04-75, as amended by Ordinance No. 08-34, The Hiwasse PUD, is hereby amended to read as follows: * * * * * * * * 5.5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS * * * * * * * * * * * * * A. Minimum lot area—20,000 square feet B. Minimum lot width— 100 feet C. Minimum yard requirements: 1. Front yard: 25 feet Livingston Road—25 feet,measured from the PUD boundary. Eatonwood Lane—24 feet,measured from the property line. 2. Side yard — 15 feet or 0 feet adjacent to FPL Easement Area provided all other requirements of the Collier County LDC are met. 3. Rear yard — 15 feet or 0 feet adjacent to FPL Easement Area provided all other requirements of the Collier County LDC are met. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Page 2 of 5 Words strep-through are deleted;words underlined are added. H:\2001\2001076\WP\PDI\FIEX\Hex Continuance\Hiwasse PUD(PDI-PL20170002544)(147-2018).docx SECTION THREE: AMENDMENTS TO SECTION VI, DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS, OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT, ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 04-75, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 08-34, THE HIWASSE PUD Section VI, Development Commitments, attached to Ordinance No. 04-75, as amended by Ordinance No. 08-34, The Hiwasse PUD, is hereby amended to read as follows: * * * * * * * * * * * * * 6.2 TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * G. The developer, or its successors in interest, shall sense grant, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, at no cost to the County, an easement to allow a 10- foot wide bike path/sidewalk along the existing FPL service road upon request by the County. The location of the bike path/sidewalk shall be consistent with the alignments for the County's proposed bike path/sidewalk system. The bike path/sidewalk shall be located as depicted on Exhibit A-1. Construction of the bike path/sidewalk, as well as installation of any associated landscaping, shall be the responsibility of the County. - ' - - .- - _ • ••• - •-• - - - .. - - , , - . . : , . _ - . - - -• , • .. . , . _ . - . .. . _ .,..1.• - ., . ' 6.3 UTILITY REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * C. The developer, or its successors in interest, shall grant, at no cost to the County and free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, a 20-foot wide county utility easement within the FPL easement to accommodate both the relocation of the existing 8-inch forcemain encroaching on the property along the Livingston Road frontage, and a new 24-inch forcemain necessary to connect the North and South Regional Water Reclamation Facilities. The developer, or its successors and/or assigns, shall grant, at no cost to the County and free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, a temporary county utility easement to the County for the existing 8-inch forcemain encroaching on the property along the Livingston Road frontage. The temporary easement shall terminate one year after the official acceptance of the public improvements by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, or on completion of the project, whichever comes first. See Exhibit A-1 for graphic illustration of easement locations and dimensions. Page 3 of 5 Words 4,114A-through are deleted;words underlined are added. H:\2001\2001076\WP\PDI\HEX\Hex Continuance\Hiwasse PUD(PDI-PL20170002544)(1-17-2018).docx D. The developer, or its successors in interest, shall grant, at no cost to the County and free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, a 15-foot wide county utility easement located on the southern portion of the property to provide for connection to the relocated forcemain described in Section 6.3 C. See Exhibit A-1 for graphic illustration of easement locations and dimensions. Page 4 of 5 Words seli-thr-eugh are deleted;words underlined are added. H:\2001\2001076\WP\PDI\HEX\Hex Continuance\Hiwasse PUD(PDI-PL20170002544)(1-17-2018).docx SECTION FOUR: AMENDMENTS TO SECTION VII, DEVIATIONS, OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT, ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 04-75, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 08-34,THE HIWASSE PUD Section VII, Deviations, attached to Ordinance No. 04-75, as amended by Ordinance No. 08-34, The Hiwasse PUD, is hereby amended to read as follows: 7. DEVIATIONS A. A deviation from Section 4.06.02 C.4, which requires a 10-foot wide Type "D" landscape buffer along the southern PUD perimeter boundary, abutting Eatonwood Lane, to allow no landscape buffer abutting Eatonwood Lane for a distance of 155' as depicted on Exhibits A and A-1. Sub3ection& 0c 02 , ef-t e B. A deviation from Section 4.06.05 C, which requires that all commercial buildings have foundation plantings located adjacent to building entrance(s), primary facades, and/or along facades facing a street, to allow the required building foundation plantings to be located in landscape areas throughout the site. This deviation is applicable only to the automobile self-storage use (SIC Code 4225). Page 5 of 5 Words stfuele-tiveugh are deleted;words underlined are added. H:\2001\2001076\WP\PDI\HEX\Hex Continuance\Hiwasse PUD(PDI-PL20170002544)(1-17-2018).docx — II F _1I k- J!_Jjy H/ 0 3 gI I C7.,y�,y�� ( jg 6 11), I L 9 3 $ 0 0 a �z ZI 1 w O 1 I >ci<Ww U Ole t I NZ = t tt 8 J etn 13�a. I< a.. Q Co' J07 ■ 4D $ �W.1 f 11 U LL- 1 4•_ ````1`I J O I I 4:.i Do vI I'I N 11 i!liI li }� 'II _Jli- -__ L m 111 <� a tu se 1 i Q W $ di 7 i� o iIiII 1h I It +Z ^4'z' W Za.i / /' I Is.. p njI, s4j0 = K�w coN J U.,,4Ii.I � z '1 1 12'E F I-r p O Q—O LI ircW 2 X,' jE � -i q W I NLL 2 ?W D a. .1.m o. la,- . I 1WY < w w p U w i 2 0 U N g D W 1�; I I j / I I 0 1fYA �/yp + + n o. W o W I I T/.G.A yaj ; ( I, d C vii m - O u. 1 .� . . ` r v M1 Q NQ !!++ + I •I G O _, n n K W M Illi- 2LLLL ce Q J i • 3 4J rd 6 I I il m 3 ,� F s Z 1Ny I g < w M 6' § J i N zO i 1. * Nw uF1 m Zf W a. O I ( tm: ' 1 10 W ° F 1NIn�1 i 3M 101 Si I -1 `L F Si IyN W V � '. .;z . . Q. 1 .I . a O aJ it ll �, 1 1 < w I z W o x z �W 4 O. at en �. . . N. I ., ':1:' i 1 t� I 1 I; • s a a p II _ I I I i ; i a�a�s I . 1 i r z c# �c41` 1 1 II 3 �i --------------- o i� �� _ Z � 1ffi I I d ®a E 1= 1- I. I^ il Wb a p ; ice 4 - a D = , , 0 1 w o 1 '4 . i V § m l e W N co • •,, 1 •_ co 11 z= le l in ....in N ' 0 0 4 CJ• r r . 3 , 7Wm � N $<Z NN — — — — — $24 Q 1 I /1r�^1 m i 25 g Ai 25 �ffi 2 1 1 dry dry ~ o 'I L--- ___i_ 4_1 T--I _ ,„ 1 — O' W �i ri -. r=---i-_ l ` N .0 5 :.11., 3NVl OOOMNOIV3 0 P 6 6 la Z i 100W 1 I _ I n N 1 1 c- g py Ov < O I O W ,1Zjy� ZS r 9 Pe hiViv CJ C ¢ Lf f C CC S W ` r3 o m ZJ NW 9932 57a } P{ 1 4. 1 Y Z • ® ,5 awn M rnw Mt-wi'u-vwww M wvr-�aValos4�w i 1s !i 8 ! 1 N 10 • 11 11 I 1 p 1::-.;' 1-II I 1_ 1 „ i, 708 cV \` , !! 1� 3NV1 QOOMNO1V3 �d ,, , Cr 1. i`` w '�� I '• 1.- ,''- ----- 1' —mss y/ 1—� 1. M in �� _ SIJ ` -.Y. \ •" I_ "" _ J m I LL= m' x O`' i '0W Z = a A W �' �WU i. -------------- ------------------ - _i---\_ _ _ — — J - - CIVON NOlSONIAn 7 _ _— — — —_ _-— _ —7 C = p o �� w _ rnW � Ww �-co Z �.—._ X13- n�A_ i._N —._. II w� .— - v w= a. 0 �n Nm a s// Z — x F— a) �' �il Q � ° CO .."1 o }WW N., E Y W NQ • D ZQ Y I 'W^ U Z n a. 1- O) 0 05-- Q03 85 ° a a 11 il J CV Is ; riUj9a , ° x = P a)Ii L° M uz � ) > qER b A B ° ,r,8€ n$ no EP , 55W 0IH -6s JH .c o 0 .< O Z5 EE' E$ o�� ° Oe °a s y 6 6f °�«° Ea i ms's �EZ W 8. Vg. ®pt` 4 a C� Eo.. b o 1.E S,i E§ •° "° not Q W w 11 ill < io§ qc Eaa ° Yci C 2.111 '4.7g = w ala 5 .73° m 3° u o3 E'°l W C E ina.6 d a a5 M °au a d6 OS dnd ii <i-°n 1 W 0 i 1 % ?.1-:t--- 8 - N;118� �+ J 45n 35 CV W` , 0.7p. W z C4* i','• • 4 - 3— u) Q . , • QU onoloki ---.1._•,_._c____ - ' 1 , ''.\ 1;• ii z z 224 a al Ap ° • a1 AGENDA ITEM 3-13 Coer C014nty MEMORANDUM TO: COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER FROM: ZONING DIVISION — ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARING DATE: JANUARY 25, 2018 SUBJECT: PDI-PL20160003482, PEZZITTINO DI CIELO RPUD (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) The petition PDI-PL20160003482, Pezzittino Di Cielo RPUD, was continued from the January 11 Hearing Examiner meeting to the January 25, 2018 hearing to address issues related to an easement located along the north property line. The agent has also revised the PUD Document and Deviation Justifications to: - Clarify the type of plant material that will be in the shared landscape buffer easement. (See attached Deviations Justification #4 dated January 9, 2018 and PUD Document page 10, Deviation D, dated January 12, 2018.) - Clarify and limit the application of the proposed 7.5 -foot front yard setback to any lot with one front yard on Hardesty Road or Enclave Circle. (See attached PUD Document page 6, footnote # 8.) - Clarify that the maximum 8 -foot wall and berm height is composed of a 6 -foot high wall on top of a 2 -foot berm. (See attached PUD Document page 10, Deviation E, dated January 12, 2018.) The issues related to the easement located along the north property line are still being resolved. END OF MEMORANDUM PDI-PL20160003482, PEZZITTINO DI CIELO RPUD (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) January 16, 2018 PEZZETTINO DI CIELO RPUD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNING THE PEZZETTINO DI CIELO RPUD, A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED FOR: Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston, LLC Mr. Steve Fiterman 1845 Trade Center Way Naples, FL 34109 PREPARED BY: Richard VD. Yovanovich, Esq. Coleman, Yovanovich and delaseeKoester, P.A. 4001 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 Exhibit A DATE REVIEWD BY CCPC December 6, 200 DATE APPROVED BY BCC January 29, 20o8 ORDINANCE NUMBER 2oo8-o6 AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL 2004-41 Words underlined are additions; words s k- thtwugh are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD Last Revised 01/16/2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP & DESCRIPTION 3 SECTION II RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN 5 SECTION III CONSERVATION / PRESERVE AREA 7 SECTION IV DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 8 SECTION V DEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC -1i0 LIST OF TABLES AND EXHIBITS TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 6 EXHIBIT A RPUD MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT B TYPICAL SECTION (40' RIGHT-OF-WAY) Words underlined are additions; words :s l eugh are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 2 Last Revised 01/16/2018 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 Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being +/-17.52 acres is described as: Tax Parcel 22 located in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, described as: The West 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, LESS AND EXCEPT: A perpetual easement to Collier County, Florida for roads, utilities and drainage easement over and across the West 50 feet thereof. ��� Tax Parcel 9.1 more particularly described as: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12 Township, 48 South, Range 25 East, thence North 660 feet to a point; thence East 162 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continue East 132 feet to a point; thence South 330 feet; thence West 132 feet; thence North 330 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Subject to a road Right -of -Way over and across the North 30 feet thereof. KIM The East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, less and except the North 30 feet thereof, and The West 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, and The West 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, and The West 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4. I• MV PARCEL ONE as described in O.R. Book 3103, Pg 2950 Words underlined are additions; words s*w•e'gh are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 3 Last Revised 01/16/2018 The South thirty feet of the North 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 48 S, Range 25 E, Collier County, Florida, LESS AND EXCEPT the East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. All Located in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is under the ownership of: Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston, LLC Parcel Numbers 00147240008 and 00147840000) and Long Bay Partners, LLC (Parcel Number 00146680000). Distinetive ftem Long Bay PaAner-s, . The lands together make up the t 17.52 acres covered by this RPUD 1.4 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. LAND USE TYPE Single-family, zero lot line 43 Dwelling Units WATER MANAGEMENT +/- 2.2e87 acres PRESERVE AREA +/- 0.82 acres ROADS/ROW +/-1.9966 acres DEVELOPMENT TRACTS +/- 9 acres BUFFERS / OPEN SPACE +/- 3.17 acres TOTAL: +/-17.52 acres Words underlined are additions; words slag# are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 4 Last Revised 01/16/2018 SECTION II RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN 2.1 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS The maximum number of dwelling units allowed within the RPUD shall be 43• 2.2 USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: (1) Single family detached dwellings. (2) Zero lot line detached dwellings. B. Accessory Uses: (i) Customary accessory uses and structures, including private garages, outdoor kitchen facilities, privacy walls (6' height) pavilions, fountains, trellises, and other landscape features. (2) Common recreation amenities. Such uses shall be visually and functionally compatible with the adjacent residences which have the use of such facilities. (3) Essential services, water management facilities and other similar facilities designed to serve the infrastructure needs of the RPUD. 2.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Table I sets forth the development standards for land uses within the "R" Residential District. General: (i) All yards and setbacks shall be in relation to the individual parcel boundaries, except as otherwise provided. (2) In no case shall the minimum setback be less than the required landscape buffer width. Words underlined are additions; words sletegk are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 5 Last Revised 01/16/2018 TABLE I — DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS "R" Residential Areas Requirements Single Family Minimum lot area 5,000 square feet Minimum lot width Minimum floor area Minimum principal structure setbacks • Front yard$ • Front yard for side entry garage$ • Side yard • Rear yard • Waterfront • Preserve boundary Minimum accessory structure setbacks • Front yard$ • Side yard • Rear yard • Waterfront • Preserve boundary Minimum distance between principal structures Maximum height (zoned) 50 feet' 1,600 square feet 20 few io feet 6 feet io feet 20LOfeet5 25 feet SPS6 SPS6, s 5LO feet 2010 feet5 io feet 12 feet 35 feet Zero Lot Line 5,000 square feet 50 feet' i,600 square feet 20 feet2 io feet o and io, or 5 feet3 io feet 20 feet5 25 feet SPS6 o feet SPS4' 6 0,5 feet? 20 feet5 io feet io feet 35 feet ' Minimum lot width for cul-de-sac lots may be reduced by 20% provided the minimum lot area is maintained. 2 The distance from the back of the sidewalk to the face of the garage door must be at least 23 feet to allow room to park a vehicle on the driveway without encroaching into the sidewalk. Should the garage be side -loaded, plans must ensure that parked vehicles will not interfere with pedestrian traffic. 3 Where a zero foot yard option is utilized, the opposite side of the structure shall have a io foot yard. Otherwise, a minimum 5 foot side yard shall be provided on each side. 4 Patios, pools, 6 foot privacy walls, fountains, trellises, landscape features, screen enclosures and the like may encroach into the io foot yard and may attach to the adjoining dwelling provided an easement is granted from the adjoining dwelling unit owner. In no case shall these elements encroach into the lake maintenance easement. 5 Measured from control elevation. No setback shall be required from a Lake Maintenance Tract. 6 SPS = Same as Principal Structure. 7 Accessory structures shall not be placed within lake maintenance easements or required landscape buffers. 8 For any lot abutting Hardesty Road or Enclave Circle. a 7.54001 setback shall be permitted for one front yard on Hardesty Road or Enclave Circle. Words underlined are additions; words .�_'.w•e'r----- =---. ----���-;o �; are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 6 Last Revised 01/16/2018 SECTION III PRESERVE AREA 3.1 PERMITTED USES The RPUD Master Plan provides for .82 acres of preserve area which meets the 15% native vegetation preservation requirement. Minor adjustments may be made to the boundaries of preserve areas based on permitting considerations in accordance with the Land Development Code (LDC) and Growth Management Plan (GMP). No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following and subject to permitting: A. Principal Uses and Structures 1. Passive recreational uses such as pervious nature trails or boardwalks within the preserve areas, subject to LDC requirements. Fences may be utilized outside of the preserves to provide protection to the preserves in accordance with the LDC. 2. Water management detention and structures, excluding a perimeter berm. a. Native vegetation retention area(s) used for water management purposes shall meet the following criteria: (1) There shall be no adverse impacts to the native vegetation being retained. The additional water directed to this area shall not increase the annual hydro -period unless it is proven that such would have no adverse impact to the existing vegetation. (2) If the project requires permitting by the South Florida Water Management District, the project shall provide a letter or official document from the District indicating that the native vegetation within the retention area will not have to be removed to comply with water management requirements. If the District cannot or will not supply such a letter or other document, then the native vegetation retention area shall not be used for water management purposes. 3. Native preserves. 4. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) through the process outlined in the LDC. Words underlined are additions; words s-tmek Mr-eugh are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 7 Last Revised 01/16/2018 SECTION IV DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of the project. 4.2 TRANSPORTATION A. Nothing in any development order shall vest a right of access in excess of a right in/right out condition at any access point. Neither shall the existence of a point of ingress, a point of egress or a median opening, nor the lack thereof, be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by the developer, its successor in title, or assignee. B. The developer shall provide payment in lieu of the installation of sidewalks on one side of the road per the requested deviation in Section 5.1 of this RPUD in accordance with Section 6.o6.02 of the LDC. The amount shall be determined by utilizing FDOT's 2004 Transportation Costs as amended. Payment in lieu of providing the sidewalk shall be required prior to approval of plats and plans for the first phase of the project. C. A temporary turn lane shall be provided for the project prior to commencement of on-site construction, and the permanent turn lane improvements must be complete prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy (CO). D. All traffic control devices, signs, pavement marking, and design criteria shall be in accordance with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design 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 Collier County's LDC, as amended. E. Arterial -level street lighting shall be provided at all access points. Access lighting shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first CO. F. Access points shown on the RPUD Master Plan are 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 plans, final plat submissions, or by an approved Developer Contribution Agreement (DCA). All such access points shall be consistent with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Res. No. 01-247), as it may be amended from time to time, and with the Collier County Long Range Transportation Plan. The number of access points constructed may be less than the number depicted on the Master Plan; however, no additional access points shall be considered unless a PUD amendment is approved. Words underlined are additions; words stmek Ar-eugh are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 8 Last Revised 01/16/2018 G. 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 commencement of on-site construction. H. All proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Res. No. 01-247), as it may be amended, and the LDC, as it may be amended. Collier County reserves the right to close any median opening existing at any time which is found to be adverse to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but not limited to, safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity. I. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks, interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer in accordance with the applicable regulations of the State of Florida. Collier County shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. J. 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). K. If, in the sole opinion of Collier County, a traffic signal, or other traffic control device, sign, or pavement marking improvement within a public right-of-way or easement is determined to be necessary, the cost of such improvement shall be the responsibility of the developer, his successors or assigns. The improvements shall be paid for or installed, at the County's discretion, prior to the issuance of appropriate corresponding CO. 4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL A. Soil testing for contaminants including chlorinated hydrocarbons, organophosphates and total petroleum hydrocarbons must be performed prior to final residential development order approval. 4.4 WATER MANAGEMENT A. The storm water shall not be discharged into the preserve area until it has been fully treated in accordance with Collier County and Water Management District standards. Words underlined are additions; words'�-•e'�gh are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 9 Last Revised 01116/2018 Y. a MIN Y. • Words underlined are additions; words stmek ;fir are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 4-0 Last Revised 01/1612018 SECTION V DEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC 5.1 DEVIATIONS FROM LDC A. Right -of -Way Width: The developer requests a reduction in the width of a local roadway right-of- way from sixty feet (6o') as shown in Appendix B of the LDC to forty feet (40') as shown in attached Exhibit AB. B. The developer requests a deviation from Appendix B of the LDC, which requires a 5 foot wide sidewalk to be located on both sides of a local street to permit a 5 foot wide sidewalk to be located on one side of the local street. C. The developer requests a deviation from Section 22-112 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances to permit development excavations to be a minimum of 20 feet from a property line with protective barriers. D. The develeper- r-e"ests a devia- ien ftem Seefien 6.E)6.emsthe T DG, tepees tine-eul de sae to emeeed-r^^^ feet in-ft9- shown -ei-treMaster- Plan.—T D. The developer requests a deviation from LDC Section 4.o6.02 Table 2.4. Table of Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classifications, which requires a Type `A' Landscape Buffer, to allow for no landscape buffer on-site but to provide the required buffer within a joint landscape buffer easement (OR 416o PG 1841) located off-site along the north, east and south PUD boundaries. E. The developer requests a deviation from LDC Section-0.3.02.C.1.a and .1.03.02.F, Fences and Walls, which permits residential fences/walls to be a maximum of 6' in height from existing ground levels, to permit the perimeter combination berm/wall to be a maximum height of 8' above the Livingston Road average back of sidewalk elevation. Maximum 8 -ft wall and berm combination (6 ft wall on approximate 2 ft berm) shall be mea ured from the edge of pavement of the existing travel lane at the approximate mid -point o he parcel frontage on Livingston Rd. This pavement elevation i approximately i5.o NAVD. Words underlined are additions; words stmek- thpwugh are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 4410 Last Revised 01/16/2018 f>� MMpir uY.or! .e.riw .....ar. r,�Y.a.n+wn un..rr. +arr.aar n.Y..rin oerRor� _ wrorrrvmrarrrrrwwrrrrYrwwrYwr,rr�. E • �r�r.rrrtmw�e.wwwYre+rwisor�urrawrro r wwir. ww.RaeawvrrevrYa Z s�iwr.�i '�w�wi rerranaawaruenr.rrry s tuna nrrwrrrw�uywwnrtwrarrrrie�.sry irrweir7a MfrYlr�wwrRYiArM1a t ann�� IYYLM�.MfW.W�M WO��O�I .MrYgArr� 1dGl�Oi p�� ® DEVIATION NAKM M1 3"M I I I I I 20NM0: PUD I I 1 R I Q. MWOR ASSOCIATES,.L414XAR -MKDMFRA ' ICOU.IfR 4 � nun EASEUENT N WSt36' E 110444 1 I O �aerrs EXHIBT A I ML MILDdo LJ � r..r. t. � yy � I S JAIRIAR7 2607 .�� pfuTRA: MIMii 2 Y ' C - *PRESERVE �`1I •0.821 ACRES- - _SI LAKE 1•22t ACRES + p gp: Y oerRor� _ wrorrrvmrarrrrrwwrrrrYrwwrYwr,rr�. E • �r�r.rrrtmw�e.wwwYre+rwisor�urrawrro r wwir. ww.RaeawvrrevrYa Z s�iwr.�i '�w�wi rerranaawaruenr.rrry s tuna nrrwrrrw�uywwnrtwrarrrrie�.sry irrweir7a MfrYlr�wwrRYiArM1a t ann�� IYYLM�.MfW.W�M WO��O�I .MrYgArr� 1dGl�Oi p�� ® DEVIATION NAKM M1 3"M I I I I I I I 1 R I Q. MWOR ASSOCIATES,.L414XAR Dl CIELO RPUD 1 I � 1 I O �aerrs EXHIBT A I �I � r..r. t. � yy rMwM � S JAIRIAR7 2607 .�� pfuTRA: MIMii 2 Y ' N � I LAKE 0.981 ACRES I S W - M-44- w IFOADs (P) 110.7V (Y m MM ft*-MONTWRA mmmn ON IPEZZRrINO Q. MWOR ASSOCIATES,.L414XAR Dl CIELO RPUD Bi - . M•IpC�7»oei.tlApp�.lAlORa1RAR0/� AppWVM owe O �aerrs EXHIBT A JOR oon vRr,o rRvr r�s.�.� MASTER CONICEPT PLAN r..r. t. � yy rMwM JAIRIAR7 2607 .�� pfuTRA: MIMii 2 Y QTTT: (IATA - WATER MANAGEMENT 2.87± ACRES PRESERVE 0.82± ACRES ROADS / ROW 1.66± ACRES DEVELOPMENT TRACTS 9± ACRES BUFFERS / OPEN SPACE 3.17± ACRES TOTAL ACREAGE 17.52± ACRES OPEN SPACE: REQUIRED: 60% PROJECT - PROVIDED: 60% ENTRANCE FEATURE AND SIGN DEVIATIONS: ® RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH �1 SIDEWALKS LAKESETBACK LANDSCAPE BUFFERS 12' PROP. R.O.W. DEDICATION TO ® WALL HEIGHT COLLIER COUNTY (SECTION 4.2.J OF THE PUD BERM AND NOTES: 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. 2. ALL ACREAGES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL. LEGEN u.oradyMidormdeeeomaus.Pn. PEZZETTINO DI CIELO RPUD ® . ©GradyMinor Wa°e1Rey am.aN.%aR= =DEVIATION mer 60R1W SO3a00ft., Fldtlda 34134 EXHIBIT A ne nx R =RESIDENTIAL aoc ClvilaEngincers Land Surveyors Planners . Landscape Architects MASTER CONCEPT PLAN Revision a-0esc.�e6on gy scs� ..I. SlIllo: 239.947.1149 IXdN��w'Cratlr.M/nor. com Fort'.KveIs: 239.690.4380 SN¢¢f 1 OP i 2 10' P.U.E & S.W.E. il► i I 40' RIGHT—OF—WAY (ROW) I 10' P.U.E. (WHERE SHOWN i ON PLANS) 10' 1 10' 5' C.U.E. & S.W.E. (WHERE SHOWN ON PLANS) LEGEND 0. Grady Minor and ia[P.A. Del Rey GradyMinor 3600800 Via De PEZZETTINO DI CIELO RPUD N.T.S 016 COD& 60Wfa Sp"agn. Florida134734 Civil Engineers . Land Surveyors Planners . Landscape Architects Cert. of AuW. ED 0005151 Cert. of Aula. Lt, 0005151 Rusin 6000 LC 2268 EXHIBIT B TYPICAL SECTION (40 RIGHT—OF—WAY) 9 DA7& DCC zaa PIAa 1-t2-0> (aM-201 Bonita Sprtnp: 239.947.1144 www.GradyM]Bor.com Fort, Myers: 239.690.4380 SHE. 1 OF 1 Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD Insubstantial Change to a PUD Deviation Justification Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02 Table 2.4, Table of Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classifications, which requires a Type 'A' Landscape Buffer to allow for no landscape buffer on-site but to provide the required buffer within a joint landscape buffer easement (OR 4160 PG 1841) located off-site along the north, east and south PUD boundaries. Justification: The property owner negotiated with the adjoining property owner in 2006 to create a shared landscape buffer easement between the subject property and the Mediterra PUD. The adopted conceptual PUD Master Pan depicted the buffers on the Pezzettino Di Cielo PUD property. In 2006, the owner believed that zero lot line development was the highest and best use and consequently the displacement of the buffers to the joint easement was unnecessary. In 2017, the owner believes that the market has shifted to larger lot single family. The larger lots make it both practical and necessary to utilize the joint buffer. Due to title issues involving a roadway easement located along the northern Pezzettino Di Cielo property, the owner has had to redesign their proposed plans, resulting in the need to shift the 10 -foot wide buffers to be planted within the shared buffer easement. The existing buffer easement is a vegetated mature buffer that includes a berm, hedge and wall. The existing buffer, far exceeds type 'A' buffer requirements and will be further supplemented by the additional (new) type 'A' buffer plantings. Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.1.a and 5.03.02.F, Fences and Walls, which permits residential fences/walls to be a maximum of 6' in height from existing ground levels, to permit the perimeter combination berm/wall to be a maximum height of 8' above the Livingston Road average back of sidewalk elevation. Maximum 8 -ft wall and berm combination (6 ft wall on approximate 2 ft berm) shall be measured from the edge of pavement of the existing travel lane at the approximate mid -point of the parcel frontage on Livingston Rd. This pavement elevation is approximately 15.0 NAVD. Justification: This deviation is warranted because the existing grade of the property is significantly lower than the adjacent Livingston Road requiring several feet of fill to support the proposed residential project. The additional 2 feet is needed in order to place a 6' high wall on the perimeter berm in order to provide security and to buffer the adjacent traffic noise from Livingston Road. January 16, 2018 Page 1 of 1 PEZPDI Deviation Justification_v3.docx GradyMinor Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landseape ArchlleeLs AGENDA ITEM 3-B Cofer C014nty STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER FROM: ZONING DIVISION -- ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JANUARY 18, 2018 SUBJECT: PDI-PL20150003482, PEZZITTINO DI CIELO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) PROPERTY OWNER: Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston LLC 1845 Trade Center Way Naples, FL 34149 APPLICANTIAGENT: Applicant; Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston LLC 1845 Trade Center Way Naples, FL 34109 REQUESTED ACTION: Agent: Mr. D. Wayne Arnold Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 The petitioner requests that the Hearing Examiner consider an insubstantial change to the Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD to allow the following changes: To add a deviation relating to landscape buffers; - To add a deviation relating to fence/wall height; To delete one deviation relating to cul de sac length; To modify development standards relating to minimum structure setbacks; and - To revise the Master Plan to reconfigure the site layout. Page 1 of 11 Pezzittino Di Cielo RPUD, PDI-PL20160003482 December 15, 2017 principal and accessory Location Map @ Q PROJECT LOCATION VLEECOUNTY 1RRr• F R COUNTY SITE TRACT._ LOCATION s�. C) TRJuCT l-:5 Z IMMOK LEE RD TFAGi L-7fi m � ID a TfLYGT A � J J T IL 0 � Q RP U D TRACT L • 73 a r � a Location Map @ Q o 1RRr• F SITE TRACT._ LOCATION TRACT C TRJuCT l-:5 TFAGi L-7fi ID TfLYGT A (D p 0 0 0 RP U D TRACT L • 73 a r -FACT �-3 TR.6T CZ TTEAGT L -TU Q <-- I ra C', TR TFAGT L -T2 TRACT 03 Ty 0 P TRACT F bra MAE L -M CJ o C-0 ?RI Q TRACT 475 Q Q TRF O - o � O O O Petition Number: PL20160003482 Zoning Map GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject 17.52± acre property is located on the east side of Livingston Road, approximately one- half mile north of Veterans Memorial Boulevard, in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See Location Map on page 2.) The PUD is currently undeveloped. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Pezzittino Di Cielo RPUD (Ordinance number 08-06) was approved on January 29, 2008. (Please see Attachment B.) The RPUD Ordinance allows for up to 43 residential dwelling units including single-family detached dwellings and zero lot line detached dwelling units. The subject property is currently undeveloped. The purpose of this Insubstantial Change to a PUD (PDI) request is to: - Add a front yard setback of 7.5 feet in order to accommodate the Hardesty Road easement located along the north property line of the PUD; - Add a waterfront accessory setback of 20 feet; - Delete the Affordable Housing Commitment, which was previously administratively approved for removal on July 14, 2015; - Delete a deviation related to cul de sac length; - Deviate from the required LDC landscape buffers in order to relocate the required LDC landscape buffers along the north, east, and south PUD boundaries to instead allow them to be placed offsite in the existing, adjacent Mediterra landscape buffer areas; - Deviate from the 6 -foot maximum berm/wall height to allow an 8 -foot berm/wall height along Livingston Road; and - Modify the PUD Master Plan to reflect a new site layout. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: A landscape buffer, and then unbuilt single-family residential lots with a zoning designation of Mediterra PUD East: A landscape buffer with a wall, and then Messina Lane, a two-lane roadway with a zoning designation of Mediterra PUD South: A landscape buffer with a wall, and then a lake, and then Lucano Way, a two-lane roadway with a zoning designation of Mediterra PUD Page 4 of 11 Pezzittino Di Cielo RPUD, PDI-PL20160003482 December 15, 2017 West: Livingston Road, a four -lame divided median collector roadway, and then Mediterra PUD, developed with single-family homes See attached landscape buffer photos and Photo Reference Master Plan. iw Vd M Ad AERIAL PHOTO STAFF ANALYSIS: Comprehensive Planning: The proposed PDI is consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. See attached Exhibit C: Future Land Use Consistency Review dated September 21, 2017. Conservation and Coastal Management Element: Environmental staff has evaluated the proposed changes to the PUD documents. No revisions to environmental portions of the PUD are proposed with this petition. Page 5 of 11 Pezzittino Di Cielo RPUD, PDI-PL20160003482 Deoember 15, 2017 Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of the request. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE CRITERIA: There are three types of changes to a PUD Ordinance: Substantial, Insubstantial, and Minor. An insubstantial change includes any change that is not considered a substantial or minor change. An insubstantial change to an approved PUD Ordinance shall be based upon an evaluation of LDC subsection 10.02.13 E.1. LDC Section 10.02.13.E.1 Criteria: a. Is there a proposed change in the boundary of the Planned Unit Development (PUD)? No, there is no proposed change in 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, there is no proposed increase in the number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development. C. Is there a proposed decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation, or open space areas within the development in excess of five (5) percent of the total acreage previously designated as such, or five (5) acres in area? No, there is no proposed decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation, or open space areas within the development as designated on the approved Master Plan. 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, the requests do not impact the size of non-residential areas or proposed to relocate such areas within the PUD boundary. 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, there are no substantial impacts resulting from this amendment. 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? Page 6 of 11 Pezzittino Di Cielo RPUD, PDI-PL20160003482 December 15, 2017 The proposed amendment would not result in land use activities that generate higher levels of vehicular traffic based upon the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, which were not anticipated when the principal uses were originally adopted. g. Will the change result in a requirement for increased stormwater retention, or otherwise increase stormwater discharge? No, the proposed changes will not impact or increase stormwater retention or increase stormwater discharge. h. Will the proposed change bring about a relationship to an abutting land use that would be incompatible with an adjacent land use? No. There will be no incompatible relationships with abutting land uses. i. Are there any 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. Comprehensive Planning staff determined the proposed changes to the PUD Document would be consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. Both environmental and transportation planning staff reviewed this petition, and no changes to the PUD Document are proposed that would be deemed inconsistent with the CCME or the Transportation Element of the GMP. This petition does not propose any increase in density or intensity of the permitted land uses. 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 Statues, 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)(e)2., F.S., and any changes to a DRI/PUD Master Plan that clearly do not create a substantial deviation shall be reviewed and approved by Collier County under Section 10.02.13 of the LDC. Due to the limited nature of this request, a determination and public hearing under F.S. 380.06(19) will not be required. 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.? Based upon the analysis provide above, the proposed change is not deemed to be substantial. Page 7 of 11 Pezzittino Di Cielo RPUD, PDI-PL20160003482 December 15, 2017 LDC Section 10.02.13.E.2 Criteria: Does this petition change the analysis of the findings and criteria used for the original application? No, the proposed changes do not affect the original analysis and findings for the original application. (See attached Rezone Findings and attached Findings for PUD.) DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is seeking to remove Deviation D, related to the cul de sac length, from the PUD Document as the deviation is no longer needed. The petition is also seeking to add two new Deviations to the PUD Document: a new Deviation D, related to landscape buffers, and Deviation E, related to fence/wall /berm height. The deviations are directly extracted from PUD Section V. The petitioner's justification and staff analysis/recommendation is outlined below. Proposed Deviation D "Deviation D seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02 Table 2.4, Table of Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classifications, which requires a Type `A' Landscape Buffer, to allow for no landscape buffer on- site but to provide the required buffer within a joint landscape buffer easement (OR 4160 PG 1841) located off-site along the north, east and south PUD boundaries." Petitioner's Justification: The property owner negotiated with the adjoining property owner in 2006 to create a shared landscape buffer easement between the subject property and the Mediterra PUD. The adopted conceptual PUD Master Pan depicted the buffers on the Pezzettino Di Cielo PUD property. In 2006, the owner believed that zero lot line development was the highest and best use and consequently the displacement of the buffers to the joint easement was unnecessary. In 2017, the owner believes that the market has shifted to larger lot single family. The larger lots make it both practical and necessary to utilize the joint buffer. Due to title issues involving a roadway easement located along the northern Pezzettino Di Cielo property, the owner has had to redesign their proposed plans, resulting in the need to shift the 10 foot wide buffers to be planted within the shared buffer easement. The existing buffer easement is a vegetated mature buffer that includes a berm, hedge and wall. The existing buffer, far exceeds Type `A' Buffer requirements and will be further supplemented by the additional (new) Type `A' Buffer plantings. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting_public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Page 8 of 11 Pezzittino Di Cielo RPUD, PDI-PL20160003482 December 15, 2017 Proposed Deviation E "Deviation E seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.1.a and 5.03.02.F, Fences and Walls, which permits residential fences/walls to be a maximum of 6 feet in height from existing ground levels, to permit the perimeter combination berm/wall to be a maximum height of 8 feet above the Livingston Road average back of sidewalk elevation." Petitioner's Justification: This deviation is warranted because the existing grade of the property is significantly lower than the adjacent Livingston Road requiring several feet of fill to support the proposed residential project. The additional 2 feet is needed in order to place a 6 -foot high wall on the perimeter berm in order to provide security and to buffer the adjacent traffic noise from Livingston Road. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting_public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The NIM was held on October 26, 2017, at Vanderbilt Presbyterian Church, 1225 Piper Boulevard, Naples, Florida. The summary of the NIM is attached to the staff report. The following commitments were made by the applicant: - The project will be single-family. - There will be one access point onto Livingston Road that is the same as the currently approved location. - Buffer landscaping is going to be placed in the buffer easements that are already there. Pezzittino's landscape buffers will be displaced to the existing buffer area that is just off Pezzittino's property. - The wall along Livingston Road will be placed on a berm. - The project will have a loop road that utilizes Hardesty Road. - The internal setbacks will be reduced. - The front yard setback is 20 feet, if a side entry garage, then 10 feet. - The rear yard setback is 10 feet for a principal structure and 5 feet for an accessory structure. - There is no bulkhead proposed for primary lakes. - There could be modifications up until the time the hearing occurs. - The property is currently being replatted for 27 lots. - The project is currently approved for a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. Page 9 of 11 Pezzittino Di Cielo RPUD, PDI-PL20160003482 December 15, 2017 The commitments are part of the proposed PUD Document and proposed Plans and Plat. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney's office on December 13, 2017. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Hearing Examiner approve Petition PDI-PL20160003482, Pezzittino Di Cielo PUD. Attachments: A. Proposed Ordinance Revisions B. Ordinance number 08-06 C. Landscape Buffer Photos and Photo Reference Master Plan D. Comp Planning Consistency Review E. Rezone Findings and Findings for the PUD F. NIM Transcript G. Letters of Support H. Minor PUD Change Letter deleting the Affordable Housing Commitment, dated July 14, 2015 Page 10 of 11 Pezzittino Di Cielo RPUD, PDI-PL20160003482 December 15, 2017 PRE PARED BY: rz"J NANCY G WACFI, AICP DATE ZONIN R ICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: lz7t7 RAY V LOWS, MANAGER D T ZONING SERVICES SECTION MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION Page 11 of 11 Pezzittino Di Cielo RPUD, PDI-PL20160003482 December 6, 2017 PEZZETTINO DI CIELO RPUD A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNING THE PEZZETTINO DI CIELO RPUD, A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED FOR: Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston, LLC Mr. Steve Fiterman 1845 Trade Center Way Naples, FL 34109 PREPARED BY: Richard VD. Yovanovich, Esq. Geedl e, Coleman, Yovanovich and jehnsenKoester, P.A. 4001 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 380o Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 Exhibit A DATE REVIEWD BY CCPC December 6. 200 DATE APPROVED BY BCC January 29.2008 ORDINANCE NUMBER 2oo8-06 AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL 2004-41 Words underlined are additions; words stmek M?wgk are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD I Revised 08/16/2017 Attachment A TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP & DESCRIPTION 3 SECTION II RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN 5 SECTION III CONSERVATION / PRESERVE AREA 7 SECTION IV DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 8 SECTION V DEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC -1i0 LIST OF TABLES AND EXHIBITS TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 6 EXHIBIT A RPUD MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT B TYPICAL SECTION (40' RIGHT-OF-WAY) Words underlined are additions; words s_`:- e-'_----. --��:=off are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 2 Last Revised 08/16/2017 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION i.i 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 Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being +/-17.52 acres is described as: Tax Parcel 22 located in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, described as: The West 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, LESS AND EXCEPT: A perpetual easement to Collier County, Florida for roads, utilities and drainage easement over and across the West 50 feet thereof. AND Tax Parcel 9.1 more particularly described as: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12 Township, 48 South, Range 25 East, thence North 66o feet to a point; thence East 162 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continue East 132 feet to a point; thence South 330 feet; thence West 132 feet; thence North 330 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Subject to a road Right -of -Way over and across the North 30 feet thereof. AND The East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, less and except the North 30 feet thereof, and The West 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, and The West 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, and The West 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4. AND PARCEL ONE as described in O.R. Book 3103, Pg 2950 Words underlined are additions; words stmek thfwbto are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 3 Last Revised 08/16/2017 The South thirty feet of the North 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 48 S, Range 25 E, Collier County, Florida, LESS AND EXCEPT the East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. All Located in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is under the ownership of: Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston, LLC Parcel Numbers 00147240oo8 and 00147840000) and Long Bay Partners, LLC (Parcel Number 0014668000g). n;�sfinetfi.ve Residential Develepme iAngJten, r r n 1. a eeatrraete fr-efn Leng Bay Paftaerrs, t t G The lands together make up the f 17.52 acres covered by this RPUD 1.4 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. LAND USE TYPE Single-family, zero lot line 43 Dwelling Units WATER MANAGEMENT +/- 2.2s87 acres PRESERVE AREA +/- o.82 acres ROADS/ROW +/-1.906 acres DEVELOPMENT TRACTS +/- 1:2.5i9 acres BUFFERS / OPEN SPACE +1-2.17 acres TOTAL: +/-17.52 acres Words underlined are additions; words stmek threug# are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 4 Last Revised 08/16/2017 SECTION II RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN 2.1 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS The maximum number of dwelling units allowed within the RPUD shall be 43• 2.2 USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: (1) Single family detached dwellings. (2) Zero lot line detached dwellings. B. Accessory Uses: (1) Customary accessory uses and structures, including private garages, outdoor kitchen facilities, privacy walls (6' height) pavilions, fountains, trellises, and other landscape features. (2) Common recreation amenities. Such uses shall be visually and functionally compatible with the adjacent residences which have the use of such facilities. (3) Essential services, water management facilities and other similar facilities designed to serve the infrastructure needs of the RPUD. 2.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Table I sets forth the development standards for land uses within the "R" Residential District. General: (1) All yards and setbacks shall be in relation to the individual parcel boundaries, except as otherwise provided. (2) In no case shall the minimum setback be less than the required landscape buffer width. Words underlined are additions; words .stmek th..e,_o h are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 5 Last Revised 08/16/2017 TABLE I — DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS "R" Residential Areas Requirements Single Family Zero Lot Line Minimum lot area 5,000 square feet 5,000 square feet Minimum lot width 50 feet' 50 feet' Minimum floor area 1,600 square feet 1,600 square feet Minimum principal structure setbacks • Front yard$ 20 feet2 20 feet2 • Front yard for side entry garage$ 10 feet 10 feet • Side yard 6 feet o and 1o, or 5 feet3 • Rear yard 10 feet 10 feet • Waterfront 20&few 20 feet5 • Preserve boundary 25 feet 25 feet Minimum accessory structure setbacks • Front yard$ SPS6 SPS6 • Side yard SPS6, 5 0 feetSPS4, 6 • Rear yard 5LO feet 9 5 feet? • Waterfront 2010 few 20 few • Preserve boundary 10 feet 10 feet Minimum distance between principal structures 12 feet 10 feet Maximum height (zoned) 35 feet 35 feet ' Minimum lot width for cul-de-sac lots may be reduced by 20% provided the minimum lot area is maintained. 2 The distance from the back of the sidewalk to the face of the garage door must be at least 23 feet to allow room to park a vehicle on the driveway without encroaching into the sidewalk. Should the garage be side -loaded, plans must ensure that parked vehicles will not interfere with pedestrian traffic. 3 Where a zero foot yard option is utilized, the opposite side of the structure shall have a io foot yard. Otherwise, a minimum 5 foot side yard shall be provided on each side. 4 Patios, pools, 6 foot privacy walls, fountains, trellises, landscape features, screen enclosures and the like may encroach into the io foot yard and may attach to the adjoining dwelling provided an easement is granted from the adjoining dwelling unit owner. In no case shall these elements encroach into the lake maintenance easement. 5 Measured from control elevation. No setback shall be required from a Lake Maintenance Tract 6 SPS = Same as Principal Structure. 7 Accessory structures shall not be placed within lake maintenance easements or required landscape buffers. 8 A 7.5 -foot setback shall be required from the 3o' wide ingress/egress easement (Hardesty Road) extending along the northern property line of the PUD Words underlined are additions; words stmek- thtwgk are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 6 Last Revised 08/16/2017 SECTION III PRESERVE AREA 3.1 PERMITTED USES The RPUD Master Plan provides for .82 acres of preserve area which meets the 15% native vegetation preservation requirement. Minor adjustments may be made to the boundaries of preserve areas based on permitting considerations in accordance with the Land Development Code (LDC) and Growth Management Plan (GMP). No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following and subject to permitting: A. Principal Uses and Structures 1. Passive recreational uses such as pervious nature trails or boardwalks within the preserve areas, subject to LDC requirements. Fences may be utilized outside of the preserves to provide protection to the preserves in accordance with the LDC. 2. Water management detention and structures, excluding a perimeter berm. a. Native vegetation retention area(s) used for water management purposes shall meet the following criteria: (i) There shall be no adverse impacts to the native vegetation being retained. The additional water directed to this area shall not increase the annual hydro -period unless it is proven that such would have no adverse impact to the existing vegetation. (2) If the project requires permitting by the South Florida Water Management District, the project shall provide a letter or official document from the District indicating that the native vegetation within the retention area will not have to be removed to comply with water management requirements. If the District cannot or will not supply such a letter or other document, then the native vegetation retention area shall not be used for water management purposes. 3. Native preserves. 4. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) through the process outlined in the LDC. Words underlined are additions; words sk thpwmgh are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 7 Last Revised 0811 612 01 7 SECTION IV DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of the project. 4.2 TRANSPORTATION A. Nothing in any development order shall vest a right of access in excess of a right in/right out condition at any access point. Neither shall the existence of a point of ingress, a point of egress or a median opening, nor the lack thereof, be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by the developer, its successor in title, or assignee. B. The developer shall provide payment in lieu of the installation of sidewalks on one side of the road per the requested deviation in Section 5.1 of this RPUD in accordance with Section 6.o6.02 of the LDC. The amount shall be determined by utilizing FDOT's 2004 Transportation Costs as amended. Payment in lieu of providing the sidewalk shall be required prior to approval of plats and plans for the first phase of the project. C. A temporary turn lane shall be provided for the project prior to commencement of on-site construction, and the permanent turn lane improvements must be complete prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy (CO). D. All traffic control devices, signs, pavement marking, and design criteria shall be in accordance with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design 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 Collier County's LDC, as amended. E. Arterial -level street lighting shall be provided at all access points. Access lighting shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first CO. F. Access points shown on the RPUD Master Plan are 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 plans, final plat submissions, or by an approved Developer Contribution Agreement (DCA). All such access points shall be consistent with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Res. No. 01-247), as it may be amended from time to time, and with the Collier County Long Range Transportation Plan. The number of access points constructed may be less than the number depicted on the Master Plan; however, no additional access points shall be considered unless a PUD amendment is approved. Words underlined are additions; words stmek-tl pwmgk are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 8 Last Revised 08/16/2017 G. 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 commencement of on-site construction. H. All proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Res. No. 01-241), as it may be amended, and the LDC, as it may be amended. Collier County reserves the right to close any median opening existing at any time which is found to be adverse to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but not limited to, safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity. I. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks, interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer in accordance with the applicable regulations of the State of Florida. Collier County shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. J. 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). K. If, in the sole opinion of Collier County, a traffic signal, or other traffic control device, sign, or pavement marking improvement within a public right-of-way or easement is determined to be necessary, the cost of such improvement shall be the responsibility of the developer, his successors or assigns. The improvements shall be paid for or installed, at the County's discretion, prior to the issuance of appropriate corresponding CO. 4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL A. Soil testing for contaminants including chlorinated hydrocarbons, organophosphates and total petroleum hydrocarbons must be performed prior to final residential development order approval. 4.4 WATER MANAGEMENT A. The storm water shall not be discharged into the preserve area until it has been fully treated in accordance with Collier County and Water Management District standards. Words underlined are additions; words stmek4hroug4 are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 9 Last Revised 08/16/2017 YPV"W. MTM .wN Y_ Words underlined are additions; words s4w•e'4hr&ugh are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 4-0 Last Revised 08/16/2017 SECTION V DEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC 5.1 DEVIATIONS FROM LDC A. Right -of -Way Width: The developer requests a reduction in the width of a local roadway right-of- way from sixty feet (6o') as shown in Appendix B of the LDC to forty feet (40') as shown in attached Exhibit AB. B. The developer requests a deviation from Appendix B of the LDC., which requires a 5 foot wide sidewalk to be located on both sides of a local street to permit a 5 foot wide sidewalk to be located on one side of the local street. C. The developer requests a deviation from Section 22-112 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances to permit development excavations to be a minimum of 20 feet from a property line with protective barriers. the ,,,,1 de sae t„ a ,] , ,vAv feet in lengthas r iewn on the A4ast Dcrri,n.—rz whiele tur-fiar-euiad meeting leeal fire distr-iet standards shall be pr-e,,4ded. D. The developer requests a deviation from LDC Section 4 o6 02 Table 2 4 Table of Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classifications which requires a lype `A' Landscape Buffer, to allow for no landscape buffer on-site but to provide the required buffer within a joint landscape buffer easement (OR 416o PG 1841) located off-site along the north east and south PUD boundaries E. The developer requests a deviation from LDC Section 0� 02 C 1 a and 5.0�.02.F. Fences and Walls which permits residential fences/walls to be a Road average back of sidewalk elevation Words underlined are additions; words stmek4hroug# are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD "10 Last Revised 08/16/2017 sE loo� ,j '• I rtr usislpir m W:Wif's lwta #�; f C - i -ae auks-_ LAM ,.=* t.,r.. _ .t Amss f raaar�r aw Mrwrfa�la �rw ,......a »..� � I �� CIB.O Cr. (4a A yy i t bl LAKE ACKS a .rrr.r+F�+��rw�rrrwwwiwr�� � I L _rL�r�+a4a�� r1r Y M A A$SOUKIT& P-A- ZE77N0 DT CILLO APUD 9�vuinprt a�r� • n arrwr "rte a� wlris ASTER COri� PUW ""atw"�+ea' awn ara .aa saun.: rrt� � . SITE DATA: WATER MANAGEMENT 2.87± ACRES PRESERVE 0.82± ACRES ROADS / ROW 1.66± ACRES DEVELOPMENT TRACTS 9± ACRES BUFFERS / OPEN SPACE 3.17± ACRES TOTAL ACREAGE I7.52± ACRES OPEN SPACE: REQUIRED: 60% PROJECT PROVIDED: 60% ENTRANCE FEATURE AND SIGN DEVIATIONS: Al RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH R SIDEWALKS m C1 LAKESETBACK Cb ® LANDSCAPE BUFFERS 12' PROP. R.O.W. ti DEDICATION TO Q WALL HEIGHT COLLIER COUNTY (SECTION 4.2 .1 '4 OF THE PUD ORDINANCE) I I I � � BERM AND NOTES: 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. 2. ALL ACREAGES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL. A = DEVIATION R = RESIDENTIAL LANUSUAI'r, BUFFER (BERM AND WALL) ZONING: PUD - MEDITERRA o. cram Mioor aaa.waa�.ia�a en. PEZZETT/NO D/ C/ELO RPDD © GradyMinor 3800 p,a Re, Boma Sprlp®. YIoeIJa 39134 EXHIBIT A .c5�xx gyp& Clvll E'glneers' plane Sumeyom, Planners . I,andmape AmhZlecla MASTER CONCEPT PLAN _ gy s"a' Boone SpllW: 23994].1144 awin LB �, GreOyMM--. Fod M-139.690.9380 9HCCi�1 oY 1 h^1y�31415 U �0 o, N 1 ti AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY r 41') COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, \�'DE6ZSZ�2� 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 AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE PEZZE'ITINO DI CIELO RPUD, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF 43 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED IMMEDIATELY EAST OF LIVINGSTON ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 4.5 MILES NORTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846) IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 17.52+/ - ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ORDINANCE NO. 08-06 ag rrn ry a� x� D N� rvx To rN o� �a o—+ m rn 1 -o Y 0 WHEREAS, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and Richard Yovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette Coleman and Johnson P.A., representing Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston, 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: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from an Agricultural (A) Zoning District to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) for a project to be known as the Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 43 residential dwelling units in accordance with the Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD, attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 200441, 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. Page 1 of 2 Attachment B M v PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 3V1_ day of [+lU t , 2008, ATTEWV'� - "4f? DW16HT E... BROCIK, CLERK By:. Attnt .as . r, Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: %l% jA "� u.Gr yy Marjo M-. Student -Stirling U Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER CO Y, ORIDA By: TOM4N�NING.'CHAIRMAW Page 2 of 2 This ordinance filed with the c ry 001f ate , _Z t and ocknowledgemer�thot Pili r ceived this dcy of V„n cw k PEZZETTINO DI CIELO RPUD A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNING THE PEZZETTINO DI CIELO RPUD, A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED FOR: Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston, LLC Mr. Steve F'iterman 1845 Trade Center Way Naples, FL 34109 PREPARED BY: Richard V. Yovanovich, Esq. Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A. 4001 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 Exhibit A DATE REVIEWD BY CCPC D em er 6 tow DATE APPROVED BY BCC t4 ORDINANCE NUMBER - o` AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL 2GG¢ i 1 'a SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP & DESCRIPTION SECTION II RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN SECTION III CONSERVATION / PRESERVE AREA SECTION IV DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS SECTION V DEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC LIST OF TABLES AND EXHIBIT'S TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS EXHIBIT A RPUD MASTER PLAN 2 PAGE 3 5 7 8 11 6 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 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 Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD. The subject property being +/-17.62 acres is described as: Tax Parcel 22 located in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, described as: The West 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, LESS AND EXCEPT: A perpetual easement to Collier County, Florida for roads, utilities and drainage easement over and across the West 6o feet thereof. O Tax Parcel 9.1 more particularly described as: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12 Township, 48 South, Range 26 East, thence North 66o feet to a point; thence East 162 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continue East 132 feet to a point; thence South 330 feet; thence West 132 feet; thence North 330 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Subject to a road Right -of -Way over and across the North 30 feet thereof. AND The East 1/2 of the East V2 of the SW i/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE V4, less and except the North 30 feet thereof, and The West 'A of the East 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, and The West V2 of the East % of the SW W of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, and The West 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4. AND PARCEL ONE as described in O -R Book 31o3, Pg 2960 3 The South thirty feet of the North 1h of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 48 S, Range 25 E, Collier County, Florida, LESS AND EXCEPT the East Ih of the East % of the East % of the North 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East All Looted in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The subject property is under the ownership of: Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston, LLC and Long Bay Partners, LLC. Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston, LLC has a contract to purchase the balance of the property not under their ownership from Long Bay Partners, LLC. The lands together make up the + 17.52 acres covered by this RPUD ull 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. LAND USE TYPE Single-family, zero lot line 43 Dwelling Units WATER MANAGEMENT +/- 2.20 acres PRESERVE AREA +/- 0.82 acres ROADS/ROW +/-1.99 acres DEVELOPMENT TRACTS +/ 12 J;1 acres TOTAL: +/-17.52 acres SECTION I1 RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN fir_ : .,Q16 1Ji I IAJAWITeHM_t, The maximum number of dwelling units allowed within the RPUD shall be 43. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: (i) Single family detached dwellings. (2) Zero lot line detached dwellings. B. Accessory Uses: (1) Customary accessory uses and structures, including private garages, outdoor kitchen facilities, privacy walls (6' height) pavilions, fountains, trellises, and other landscape features. (2) Common recreation amenities. Such uses shall be visually and functionally compatible with the adjacent residences which have the use of such facilities. (3) Essential services, water management facilities and other similar facilities designed to serve the infrastructure needs of the RPUD. Table I sets forth the development standards for land uses within the "R" Residential District. General: (1) All yards and setbacks shall be in relation to the individual parcel boundaries, except as otherwise provided. (2) In no case shall the minimum setback be less than the required landscape buffer width. TABLE I — DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS "R" Residential Areas Requirements Single Family Zero Lot Line Minimum lot area 5,000 square feet S,000 square feet Minimum lot width 50 feet' So feet' Minimum floor area i,600 square feet 1,600 square feet Minimum principal structure setbacks • Front yard 20 feats 20 feet2 • Front yard for side entry garage to feet to feet • Side yard 6 feet o and 10, or 5 feet3 • Rear yard to feet to feet • Waterfront 20 feets 20 feet' • Preserve boundary 25 feet 25 feet Minimum accessory structure setbacks • Front yard SPS6 SPS6 • Side yard SPS6 o feet' • Rear yard 5 feet o feet' • Preserve boundary to feet to feet Minimum distance between principal structures t2feet to feet Maximum height (zoned) 35 feet 35 feet ' Minimum lot width for cul-de-sac lots may be reduced by 20% provided the minimum lot area is maintained. a The distance from the back of the sidewalk to the face of the garage door must be at least 23 feet to allow room to park a vehicle on the driveway without encroaching into the sidewalk. Should the garage be side -loaded, plans must ensure that parked vehicles will not interfere with pedestrian traffiQ ' Where a zero foot yard option is utilized, the opposite side of the structure shall have a to foot yard. Otherwise, a minimum 5 foot side yard shall be provided on each side. ' Patios, pools, 6 foot privacy walls, fountains, trellises, landscape features, screen enclosures and the like may encroach into the io foot yard and may attach to the adjoining dwelling provided an easement is granted from the adjoining dwelling unit owner. In no case shall these elements encroach into the lake maintenance easement. ' Measured from control elevation. 6 SPS = Same as Principal Structure. ' Accessory structures shall not be placed within lake maintenance easements or required landscape buffers. 6 SECTION III PRESERVE AREA g.i PERMITTED IMES The RFUD Master Plan provides for .82 acres of preserve area which meets the 15% native vegetation preservation requirement. Minor adjustments may be made to the boundaries of preserve areas based on permitting considerations in accordance with the Land Development Code (LDC) and Growth Management Plan (GMP). No building, structure or part thereof shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following and subject to permitting: A. Principal Uses and Structures 1. Passive recreational uses such as pervious nature trails or boardwalks within the preserve areas, subject to LDC requirements. Fences may be utilized outside of the preserves to provide protection to the preserves in accordance with the LDC. 2. Water management detention and structures, excluding a perimeter berm. a. Native vegetation retention area(s) used for water management purposes shall meet the following criteria: (r) There shall be no adverse impacts to the native vegetation being retained. The additional water directed to this area shall not increase the annual hydro -period unless it is proven that such would have no adverse impact to the existing vegetation. (2) If the project requires permitting by the South Florida Water Management District, the project shall provide a letter or official document from the District indicating that the native vegetation within the retention area will not have to be removed to comply with water management requirements. If the District cannot or will not supply such a letter or other document, then the native vegetation retention area shall not be used for water management purposes. 3. Native preserves. 4. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) through the process outlined in the LDC. SECTION IV DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 4A PU SE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of the project. A. Nothing in any development order shall vest a right of access in excess of a right in/right out condition at any access point. Neither shall the existence of a point of ingress, a point of egress or a median opening, nor the lack thereof, be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by the developer, its successor in title, or assignee. B. The developer shall provide payment in lieu of the installation of sidewalks on one side of the road per the requested deviation in Section 5,i of this RPUD in accordance with Section 6.o6.02 of the LDC. The amount shall be determined by utilizing FDOT's 2oo4 Transportation Costs as amended. Payment in lieu of providing the sidewalk shall be required prior to approval of plats and plans for the fust phase of the project. C. A temporary turn lane shall be provided for the project prior to commencement of on-site construction, and the permanent turn lane improvements must be complete prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy (CO). D. All traffic control devices, signs, pavement marking, and design criteria shall be in accordance with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOIJ Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design 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 Collier County's LDC, as amended. E. Arterial -level street fighting shall be provided at all access points. Access lighting shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first CO. F. Access points shown on the RPUD Master Plan are 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 plans, final plat submissions, or by an approved Developer Contribution Agreement (DCA). All such access points shall be consistent with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Res. No. 01-247), as it may be amended from time to time, and with the Collier County Long Range Transportation Plan. The number of access points constructed may be less than the number depicted on the Master Plan; however, no additional access points shall be considered unless a PUD amendment is approved. G. 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 commencement of on-site construction. H. All proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management policy (Res. No. os -247), as it may be amended, and the LDC, as it may be amended. Collier County reserves the right to close any median opening existing at any time which is found to be adverse to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but not limited to, safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity. I. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks, interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer in accordance with the applicable regulations of the State of Florida. Collier County shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. J. 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). R. If, in the sole opinion of Collier County, a traffic signal, or other traffic control device, sign, or pavement marking improvement within a public right-of-way or easement is determined to be necessary, the cost of such improvement shall be the responsibility of the developer, his successors or assigns. The improvements shall be paid for or installed, at the County's discretion, prior to the issuance of appropriate corresponding CO. (lam= LU1; 1 zhr I Do oil A. Soil testing for contaminants including chlorinated hydrocarbons, organophosphates and total petroleum hydrocarbons must be performed prior to final residential development order approval. A. The storm water shall not be discharged into the preserve area until it has been fully treated in accordance with Collier County and Water Management District standards. 9 A. The developer shall contribute $1,000 to the Collier County Affordable Housing Trust Fund for each residential dwelling unit constructed within the project. This sum shall be paid prior to the issuance of the CO for the residential unit. The $1,00o contribution for each residential unit shall be a credit against any affordable housing fees that may be adopted by the County which may be applicable to this project. 10 SECTION V DEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC 5.1 DEVIATIONS FROM LDC A. Right -of -Way Width: The developer requests a reduction in the width of a local roadway right-of- way from sixty feet (6o') as shown in Appendix B of the LDC to forty feet (40') as shown in attached Exhibit A. B. The developer requests a deviation from Appendix B of the LDC which requires a g foot wide sidewalk to be located on both sides of a local street to permit a 5 foot wide sidewalk to be located on one side of the local street. C. The developer requests a deviation from Section 22-112 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances to permit development excavations to be a minimum of 20 feet from a property line with protective barriers. D. The developer requests a deviation from Section 6.o6.oi of the LDC, to permit the cul-de-sac to exceed 1,000 feet in length as shown on the Master Plan. A vehicle turnaround meeting local fire district standards shall be provided. 11 L1 1� ! � I i � I Iwl•/IM. 1�•�� s �t••��t ww.MM wM+lwlwe ssa • wtir�w+rw..wrr.wwe��r+�+�ww ® oewmon 0 _ = ' u� • o' iEF � L J Ol - PRESERVE _ �I Il . -Q8Z* ACRES- - . - • - i mrro:pw-M r.r.. N MY4Jt, E 110144 I I LAKE 1 1.22* ACRES 1 r R MM, R ^I / LAW R r l ACRES s em.w w treat# pry rrcayr M mrwe tie-•ss.rw MARY M m a ASSC +r�w�oaseaer y.CJ PA. PBUSITMO D! CfZLO MVD sea EMINT A MASTER CONCEPT PIAN .eo. ,N onm: rasa t • 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 copy of: ORDINANCE NO. 2008-06 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 29th day of January 2008, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 31st day of January 2008. DWIGHT E. BROCK Clerk of Courts and Clerk Ex -officio to,.,Ba$rd. ;of County Comnt�lisi'oriers '. ;,.lit By:Martha Ve gara." ' Deputy..Clerk , tO I r . t.k. A&K All- , tO I r PHOTO PHOTO "8" CPHOTO "1" PHOTO "2" PHOTO "Y' PHOTO "4" PHOTO "5" I I I PHOTO "6" PHOTO "7" 0 GradyMinor CINI Engineers ,_d.w A,cElW. 'd snZerors Dlanners u spmp nn open xa9.M1o.,3¢0 v.Ore�Mbnr.r N-1 e. vwe,onen w.n O � w vAzLu 3 �ZH x P Wl P. �Ow 5 wF-2 x �H BEYIBIOM9 SHEET 1 OF 1 PCBMUNtT 2011 Growth Management Department Zoning Division Comprehensive Planning Section MEMORANDUM To: Nancy Gundlach, A1CP, PLA # 1244, Principal Planner, Zoning Services From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Date: December 12, 2017 ,Subject: Future Laud Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER PDI-PL20160003482 PETITION NAME: Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD (Residential Planned Unit Development) Rev.5 REQUEST: To amend the Conceptual RPUD Master Plan and the Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD document, approved via Ordinance 408-06. to request a deviation for a joint buffer easement; to remove a deviation for cul-de-sac lengths and fire vehicle turnaround: to add a deviation for an increase to the height of perimeter fences and walls from 6 feet to 8 feet: to depict a 30 foot roadway easement and make the Master Plan more legible; and to correct a scriveners error on the Master Plan identifying a 20 feet wide landscape buffer along the eastern property line although original submittal documents depicted the correct 10 feet wide buffer. The 3rd submission of this petition provided letters of support, revisions to clarify property ownership, and Right of Way cross section revisions to indicate the width and location of the water main. The 4`h submission of this petition provided evidence that the grantors of the landscape buffer easement agree to the proposed enhancement as a joint shared buffer. The 4" submission also added bufFerslopen space to the PUD section 1.4 Description of Project Plan and Proposed Land Uses. The 5`h submission responded to Collier County Attorney's Office comments concerning the buffer easement owned by Long Bay Partners. LOCATION: The ±17.52 -acre subject site is located on the south side of Hardesty Road, the east side of Livingston Road. and approximately %2 mile north of Veterans Memorial Blvd., in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENT'S: 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 Pian. This District is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential uses, including Planned Unit Developments. According to the FLUE, the purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and }Manned public facilities are concentrated. Within this designation, and in accordance with the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), a base density of four (4) units per acre is allowed. The Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD was approved for a maximum of 43 dwelling units which is a density of 2.45 DU/A (43 DUs 1 17.52 acres = 2.45 DU/A). This petition is for Insubstantial changes to the Planned Unit Development {PDI} to modify the Conceptual Master Plan and the PUD text to reflect changes to the deviations from the LDC, modify joint buffer easement, a 30 -foot 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, K 34104 Page 1 of 2 Attachment D roadway easement, and the landscape buffer. 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]. FLUE Policy 5.4: New developments shall he 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 in its entirety to perform the compatibility analysis.] FLUE 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 he made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD Master Concept Plan Exhibit `A' depicts the subject site fronting on Hardesty Road, a local roadway, and Livingston Road, a principal arterial road shown on "Collier 2025 Functional Classification Map" in the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD will provide an ingress/egress onto Hardesty Road that will connect with Livingston Road to the west,] FLUE Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an q fort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need far traffic signals. [The Master Conceptual Plan Exhibit `A' shows a looping road for circulation throughout the site.] FLUE Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall he encouraged to connect their local streets andlor interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection oflocal streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 ofthe Transportation Element. [No interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments are shown on Exhibit `A' connecting the Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD to Mediterra PUD, which surrounds the eastern and southern boundaries of the Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD. Mediterra. PUD also Iies to the north of Hardesty Road, which does not connect to Mediterra PUD. Based upon the subject site's PUD Master Plan and the existing development and infrastructure in Mediterra PUD, a vehicular interconnection does not appear to be feasible. However, staff encourages a bike/pedestrian interconnection.] FLUE Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic _ facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD has been previously approved for sidewalk deviations for just one side of the road (Section V, Deviations from LDC, B). No new housing is being proposed with this petition. Open spaces, civic facilities, and housing were approved with the previous Ordinance #08-06. CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PDI may be deemed consistent with the Future band Use Element. PETITION ON CITYVIEW cc.' Mike Bost, 41CP, Director, Zoning Division David Weeks, AICP, Growth lianagement Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Ray Bellows, ,+1 -tanager, Zoning Services Section Pal-I'L2016-34$2 Pezzettino Di Cielo R5.docx 2800 North iIorseshoe Drive, Naples, Fi, 34104 Page 2 of 2 REZONE FINDINGS PETITION PUDZ-2005-AR-8416 Pezzetino di Cielo RPUD Chapter 10.03.05.G of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following, where applicable: 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. Pro: The Comprehensive Planning Department has indicated that the proposed rezone is consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) land use designation of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Con: None. Findings: The proposed change is consistent with the designated Urban -Mixed Use, Urban Residential Subdistrict on the FLUE. In addition, the proposed density of 2.5 dwelling units per gross acre does not exceed the maximum 4 dwelling units per gross acre allowed by the Urban Residential Subdistrict; therefore, the project is consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; Pro: The existing pattern of development is single-family residential. The project is consistent with the existing residential land use patterns as explained in the staff report. Con: None. Findings: The residential units are deemed acceptable for this site because the rezone complies with the GMP and LDC requirements. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; Pro: An isolated district from the neighborhood is determined by topography and inadequate public facilities. Since the proposed RPUD rezone is consistent with the GMP with regards to adequate public facilities the change will not create an isolated district. Con: None. Findings: The proposed RPUD rezone will not result in an isolated district since the proposed residential uses and density complies with the FLUE. There are several other PUD developments in the area with similar land uses and development standards. Therefore, the rezone request will not create an isolated district to the adjacent districts. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Page 1 of 5 Attachment E Pro: The boundaries are logically drawn and provide a complimentary development to the Mediterra PUD. Con: None. Findings: The district boundaries are logically drawn and follow the existing property boundaries. Therefore, the project is compatible with existing conditions as well they are consistent with the Urban Residential Subdistrict, as identified on the FLUM of the GMP. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. Pro: The request is reasonable because the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates this area as the Urban Residential Subdistrict. Con: The proposed RPUD rezone is not obligatory at this location. Findings: The proposed RPUD rezone is appropriate based on the existing conditions of the property and because it adhere to the FLUE. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Pro: The proposed dwelling unit types are similar to the currently approved Mediterra PUD residential development in the area. Con: None. Findings: The development will not adversely affect the living conditions in the neighborhood because the recommended development standards and other conditions for approval have been designed to ensure the least amount of adverse impact on the adjacent and nearby developments. 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. Pro: The site generated trips will not lower the Level of Service (LOS) below the adopted LOS standard for Livingston Road (CR -881). Therefore, the project is consistent with policy 5.1 and 5.2 of the GMP. Con: Since the site is currently vacant and if this petition request is approved, there will be more site generated trips on Livingston Road (CR -881). Findings: The Transportation Services Division has reviewed the proposed PUD and has recommended approval of the petition based upon the project will not lower the LOS below the adopted LOS for the area. Page 2 of 5 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; Pro: The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the proposed water management and drainage is designed to prevent drainage problems on site and is compatible with the adjacent water management systems. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new developments. Con: Staff will not determine if the new development will have drainage problems until the review of the development order. Findings: Every project approved in Collier County involving the utilization of land is scrutinized and required to mitigate all sub -surface drainage generated by development activities as a condition of approval. The drainage plan has been approved for all existing land uses and future development will be reviewed at the time of the first development order. This ensures that the drainage meets County standards. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; Pro: The proposed development requires the site to conform to the development standards which are based on the LDC. These standards provide for open space, corridor management, and building height restrictions, etc. to protect the adjacent areas. Con: None. Findings: The proposed change will not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties. Furthermore, the final site design and the effect of light and air on adjacent properties will be finalized at the time of first development order. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; Pro: Urban intensification typically increases the value of adjacent land. Additionally, the development standards are similar to those approved for the Mediterra PUD. Con: There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. Findings: Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination by law is driven by market value. The mere fact that a property is given a residential zoning designation should not affect value because the surrounding area is also residential zoning. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; Pro: The adjacent properties are also designated Urban Residential on the FLUE and they allow for similar dwelling types. Therefore, the proposed development will not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. Page 3 of 5 Con: None. Findings: The LDC's criteria for review of each land use application to allow Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners to follow standardized review process which requires consistency of the GMP. The development of adjacent properties, in accordance with existing regulations, will not be affected if this rezone amendment is approved. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; Pro: Land Use application are subject to the public hearing process to assure that the rezone thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity in which the property is situated. Con: None. Findings: The proposed rezone complies with the land use designation of the Urban (Urban Residential Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the GMP, which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with the entire GMP. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; Pro: The proposed RPUD rezone conforms to the future land use element of the GMP because it will be used in accordance with the existing residential zoning within the area. Con: None. Findings: The subject property could not develop residential dwelling units in accordance with the existing zoning because the current zoning is Agriculture (A) and that zoning does not allow this type of residential development. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; Pro: The proposed rezone meets all objective criteria set forth for residential zoning and conforms to the purpose and intent of the GMP and all its elements. Con: None. Findings: The proposed RPUD will not generate vehicular trips that will lower the LOS below adopted standards the project will not adversely impact the neighborhood. The proposed RPUD is compatible with surrounding property in scale. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Pro: There are many sites which are zoned to accommodate the proposed development but this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a rezoning Page 4 of 5 decision. The determinants of the zoning are with consistency with all the elements of the GMP. Con: None. Findings: Each zoning petition is 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 RPUD is consistent with the FLUM because it is in the Urban Residential Subdistrict. 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. Pro: The land use pattern should accommodate carefully planned levels of development, safeguard the environment, reduce sprawl, promote efficient use of land, and help to maintain a sense of community. Con: None. Findings: The site will not require extensive alteration to make it usable for residential development. 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. Pro: The proposed RPUD rezone meets all objective criteria set forth for residential zoning and conforms to the purpose and intent of the GMP and all its elements. Con: The GMP encourages but does not require the synchronizing of development with the availability of public facilities needed to support that development. Findings: This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP and they have concluded that no LOS will be adversely impacted because the proposed development is consistent with all Elements of the GMP. Page 5 of 5 FINDINGS FOR PUD PUDZ-2005-AR- 8416 Pezzetino di Cielo RPUD Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning Commission to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plans' 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. Pro: The project is located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the GMP and this district permits residential uses with a variety of dwelling types. The RPUD rezone will intensify the land but relative to public facilities this project will be required to comply with all county regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities. Con: The existing residents in the area may perceive the residential intensification in the area as contributing factors to traffic congestion. Findings: The proposed level of development of 2.5 units per gross acre is below the 4 units per gross acre which is permitted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The level of service for all utilities is at an acceptable level and the proposed project will not reduce or adversely affect the Level of Service for adjacent roadways or for any utility providers. 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. Pro: The application has indicated that the project has evidence of unified control and a homeowners association will maintain common areas. Con: None. Findings: Documents submitted with Pezzetino di Cielo RPUD application provide evidence of unified control. The RPUD document makes appropriate provisions for continuing operation and maintenance of common areas. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Pro: The proposed development is compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding land uses. The development standards contained with in this RPUD are nearly identical to permitted development standards in the Mediterra PUD which bounds this project on all sides. Furthermore, due to the smaller size of this parcel, on-site amenities such as golf courses and expansive amenities are not possible. Absent that Page 1 of 3 particular element which serves to greatly reduce the gross density of Mediterra, the development pattern is this PUD closely mirrors the development tracts contained within the Mediterra PUD. Con: None. Findings: The project as proposed is consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) which designated the subject property as Urban Residential. The subject petition has been found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. The staff report expounds in detail of how the project is deemed consistent with the GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Pro: The RPUD Master Plan has been designed to optimize internal land use relationships through the use of various forms of open space separation. External relationships are regulated by the Land Development Code (LDC) to assure harmonious relationships between projects. Con: The development standards in the RPUD document allow for zero lot lines and together with the requested deviations for a reduction in the width of the local roadway from sixty (60') feet to forty feet (40') and, to only construct a five (5') foot wide sidewalk to be located on one side of the roadway will give the appearance of an overcrowded neighborhood. Findings: Staff analysis indicated that the petition is compatible, both internally and externally with the proposed uses and with the surrounding uses but is not compatible with the deviation request. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Pro: The amount of open space set aside is the minimum requirement of the LDC provisions. Con: The lot size with side yard setback of zero and the deviations requested to limit the roadway to forty feet wide and sidewalks on one side of the roadway will limit the open space for the residents. Right -of -Way is not Findings: While the proposed single-family development would be appropriate for the site, careful consideration must be given to the protection of new residential uses from potential impacts resulting from over crowded development and limited internal roadways. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Page 2 of 3 Pro: No capacity issues are known at this time and the petition has been reviewed by all the required county staff and they have determined that no Level of Service (LOS) standards will be adversely affected. Con: None. Findings: The timing or sequence of the development for the proposed RPUD in light of concurrency requirements automatically triggers review by County staff to assure the project will not adversely impact the timing or sequence of development that is currently allowed in the area. Furthermore, the adopted concurrency requirements ensure that further Level of Service (LOS) degradation is not allowed or the LOS deficiency is corrected. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Pro: Currently, the utility and roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed RPUD as well as the surrounding development at the time of build -out of this project. Con: None. Findings: Supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal systems, potable water supplies and capacity of roads is at a level supportive of expansion. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Pro: Staff has reviewed this petition for adequate public services and levels of service and found it is consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) land use designation and meets the regulations of the GMP. Con: None. Findings: The Pezzetino di Cielo RPUD contains development standards that are either consistent with the LDC and/or comparable to the development standards contained in the Mediterra PUD. The proposed building heights, setbacks and development commitments ensure a similar product to that of the adjacent property. Page 3 of 3 TRANSCRIPT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING FOR PEZZETTINO DI CIELO RPUD Appearances: WAYNE ARNOLD STEVE FITERMAN MICHAEL DELATE NANCY GUNDLACH JAMES SABO SHARON UMPENHOUR OCTOBER 26, 2017 Attachment F MR. ARNOLD: My name is Wayne Arnold, and I'm here representing the developer of this project. It was originally approved as Pezzettino Di Cielo PUD. We're probably changing the name on the plat that will come forward to the Enclave of Distinction, but the PUD will remain known as Pezzettino Di Cielo. And tonight Sharon Umpenhour, from my office, is recording the meeting. We're required to create an audiotape of the meeting. We have owner representatives in the room, Steve Fiterman and (indiscernible) and Mike Delate from my office is the project engineer who's been working on this. So we can hopefully answer any questions that you have. And then I'll introduce Nancy Gundlach. She's with Collier County government. She's one of the principal planners. And we have James Sabo, who is also with Collier County. He's a newbie and sitting in to learn how this occurs. So this is our neighborhood information meeting. And we're required to hold an informational meeting whenever we make changes to a planned development. So we are proposing a handful of changes to this PUD that was approved back in 2008. And Steve and his group have -- you know, are moving ahead. And the current direction seems to be larger lot single family. The project was approved originally for single family and zero lot line. Looks like -- and if development occurs soon, it's probably headed more towards the single family, but our PUD will continue to allow both uses. And it was originally approved for a maximum of 43 houses. And that's remaining the same. So nothing will change for that. Most of you probably know where the property is. It's surrounded by Mediterra on three sides, and it's on the east side of Livingston Road. So most of you all are neighbors. So this is the original master plan that we prepared for the project. And a couple of changes that we're proposing. I've got the other plan. I don't have them side by side, unfortunately, but it was approved. All residential. One large cul-de-sac envisioned to service the project. We show landscape buffers along our perimeter. And there's one access point on Livingston Road. And then the plan that we've submitted to the county keeps generally the same access location, but we're going to use what's known as Hardesty Road, and I'm sure many of you have seen the little strip of land that's between Mediterra and this project. But there's already a wall and landscaping around the entire project. And we're proposing to invoke and utilize a landscape buffer easement that was approved back, I don't know, Steve, what year it was approved, but many years ago. So we're going to go ahead and utilize that, and supplement the required landscaping that we would have had to put on our property back in that buffer that's already there. So that's one of the key changes that we're proposing, is to displace our landscape buffers to the area that's technically just off of our property. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So is it the buffer or is it the landscaping itself? Will there be less landscaping? MR. ARNOLD: No. It will result in the same amount of landscaping for the project. It will just -- the landscaping that we would have normally planted on our side, we're going to plant it right in the buffer easement that exists today. So it will supplement and beef up what's there. It just seems like, you know, it's already a mature buffer with a wall. It doesn't really seem to make sense for us to put another strip of trees, you know, just behind our houses. It would be better to just supplement the buffer that's there. So that's what we're intending to do. And then we've asked for a new deviation to deal with the wall that would go along Livingston Road. We want to place it now on a berm. So the County technically allows us only a six-foot high wall and they measured it from, you know, the ground elevation, not the top of the berm. So we're proposing to put the wall on top of the berm, which makes it a total of eight feet high as they measure it. So we've asked for a deviation for the wall height and the landscape buffer. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And how would that compare with the wall that's there (indiscernible) Mediterra? MR. ARNOLD: Mike, do you know? I mean, I think it's probably a little shorter than what you have, yeah. That was -- yeah. I don't know exactly, but I think it is. So this results in a new master plan configuration that shows not just along the cul-de-sac, but utilizing Hardesty Road and then having a loop system inside our project. So, you know, it's still residential tracts remain on the perimeter. We have modified some of our internal setbacks, front rear and waterfront, because the county now requires us to plat our landscape buffer tracts and our lake tracts as separate tracts of land. We used to be able to incorporate a landscape buffer, for instance, as part of your rear yard. The county is making us create those as a separate tract, but they're allowing us to reduce our setback commensurate with it because now the property line measurement is from a different location than it would have been if it were an easement. So we're making adjustments in that regard. And anybody who would like a copy of what we have submitted to the county, we're happy to provide it. If you'll give Sharon an e-mail address or the best way to get information to you, if you want it. We'll be happy to provide you a copy of this plan and the document. It's not a very lengthy document that's been changed. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well, what is the setback requirement? MR. ARNOLD: Well, every PUD establishes their own. For instance, in ours, we have a front yard setback of 20 feet is the minimum front yard setback. And then we've allowed for rear -- let me put my glasses on so I don't misread it. MS. UMPENHOUR: Can I just -- can I just ask everybody to speak up just a little bit -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Sure. MS. UMPENHOUR: -- so we can get this? Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: So we have a 20 -foot front yard, for instance, and then with the side entry garage, it's allowed to go down to 10 feet. But if we have a sidewalk, which, Mike, I think we do have a sidewalk, we'll have to have a 23 -foot setback from the sidewalk so cars don't overhang. If you all live in Mediterra, it's probably very comparable development standards. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And the rear setback? MR. ARNOLD: The rear setback varies, but we have 10 feet for the principal structure, and then a rear yard of five and zero proposed for the accessory structures. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Will you have a seawall or will it be a berm to the lake? MR. ARNOLD: It's probably just going to be returned to grade at the lake. There's no bulkheading proposed for our primary lakes. Now, keep in mind, too, I want to caution. I know that this process is still ongoing, so some of this is subject to modification. That's why I like to tell people to stay tuned if you're here and want to follow it, because as we get into the further reviews by the county, things can change or, you know, Planning Commission member before -- or our hearing examiner, of which this is proposed to go to, could ask a simple question and say, can you please clarify one of the setbacks or can you change the way that you've expressed it. So there could be modifications right up until the day that the hearing occurs. So if there's something in here you want to continue to follow, let us know. We have a link on our website to the county's website. So you can review any outstanding comments and documents that are there. And then for this property, we'll have to put -- for the hearing examiner, we still have to put up signage, correct? MS. UMPENHOUR: Yes. MR. ARNOLD: You've probably seen those on your own community, four -by -eight, you know, signs will go up on the frontage. Probably just one, I'm guessing, for this frontage. But then that will be posted and noticed for the hearing examiner or the -- could be Planning Commission. I mean, unless there's a, you know, super outcry of opposition, typically, it would stay with the planning commissioner, and he would have a public hearing, hear testimony and public input as well, if that -- you know, if somebody wants to appear and express a question or comment, concern, whatever they might have to say. So that's really, in a nutshell, what we're trying to do. And I'm happy to -- I know we talked a little before the meeting officially started, but if somebody would like to ask some questions. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Can you put that other picture up that showed the -- you said you've reduced it down to 27 houses. MR. ARNOLD: We have -- we are in for review with Collier County for a plat for the property, which is the way -- you record a plat before you can actually sell the lots. And that's what I said when I started the meeting. The direction that Steve is headed with the project at the moment would replat this or plat the property for -- it's 27, right, Mike? Yeah, 27 lots. We're approved for a maximum of 43. That's why I say if things change, the economy changes, you know, so we may -- we could revise this to ratchet that to a different number, but the orientation for the project would remain as shown on the overall master plan. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well, would you -- so the lot sizes, then, are about a half acre to -- MR. ARNOLD: Well, the minimum -- the county requires minimums. And, today, this project is approved for a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. MR. ARNOLD: And it contemplated that we could have 50 -foot wide lots by -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I'm sorry? MR. ARNOLD: The existing PUD, as it's approved today, would allow us to have a 50 -foot wide lot, so -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. But what you're proposing -- MR. ARNOLD: What's in for review with the county for the plat is larger than a 50 -foot lot, but what I'm saying is that could change. I mean, Steve could go back and decide that, you know what, the market has moved away from having these larger lots, I want to go back and build some smaller lots. And he could do that. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So -- thank you. Because that means up until you break ground, you -- I mean, and even after you break ground, you could have some at zero lot, like one part of the street could be zero lot, and the others could be larger? MR. ARNOLD: Technically, yes, you could. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: I don't know that I envision it actually developing that way, but, I mean, it could. You're right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: The site really isn't large enough to do two different types of uses. I mean, they're going to have to be one use, whether it's a 50 -foot wide lots or 65 -foot wide lots. MR. ARNOLD: But there could be a blend. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. MR. ARNOLD: I mean, all of these aren't exactly the same lot size. You'll continue to have them, but I think the distinction is between single family attached versus a zero lot line product. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. MR. ARNOLD: Probably meaning you could do one or the other of those. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And what price points are you planning? (Indiscernible). MR. ARNOLD: I don't know. I think it really depends on the market when Steve and his group decide to break ground. I don't know. Are you -- one of the questions that they ask, Steve, just in fairness, because you're probably going to get it from them, they asked if you are going to be the master builder and developer, or are you going to sell lots and then individual homeowners can hire their own builder. MR. FITERMAN: Wayne's making it so that you can see all the flexibility, but you can't go into business with just flexibility. You've got to make some decisions. And, of course, this plat that Wayne is showing is our intention today. And we'd like to get started as soon as we get our approval, which hopefully will be either by the end of this year or very early in '18. So what you're seeing is pretty much what we are intending to do. We would have to take and basically scrub everything we've been working toward as a plan, you know, a business plan, and it would probably cost us a couple of years if we were going to go back and do something different. The point of the matter is a PUD, as I understand it, that PUD is there, in fact. We're not asking to change it from the standpoint of starting with something totally different, instead of residential, you know, eldercare or whatever the case may be. We're trying to work within that PUD. This is considered an inconsequential amendment to the PUD, because we're not doing anything that would take -- throw it out of whack other than the fact that we're going from 43 down to 27 units. And, yes, we believe that's where the market is today, and that's our business plan, our intended business plan. MR. ARNOLD: But like I said, for the purposes of the PUD, I mean, should Steve decide that, you know, he's platted this, he's trying to sell these lots and he can't, the PUD will retain the flexibility to change that product type or change lot sizes. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I think that's more of a curiosity question, what do you see the trends being? MR. FITERMAN: Well, we've put a lot of time and investment into this business plan, into single family. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But that's, I think, why we asked price point, is -- MR. FITERMAN: Well, the homes that we're envisioning -- the size of the homes are going to be between 3,000 and 4,000 square feet. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So under today's sort of, well, guidelines, that basically comes down to about a million two or a million three range. MR. FITERMAN: We're -- we (indiscernible) custom builders. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So it's more than that. (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: (Indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: That means (indiscernible) that means 1.9. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Not to be inflammatory, but we're all London Bay (indiscernible) so we come from worst case scenario (indiscernible). I'm sorry to say (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Really? You should like buy lots. (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) MR. ARNOLD: Folks, one at a time, so we can pick it up on the recorder. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Hopefully, they will be even higher (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: That's exciting. Do you have a style in mind? MR. FITERMAN: The current -- the current contemporary look. It's not going to be the Italian -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: More of a transitional -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Transitional contemporary. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. That's exciting. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So is that, Mike, the new homes that I'm seeing being built in sort of downtown Naples? It's kind of contemporary, but has a little old Florida to it? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes, Barry, exactly. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: You had a question, sir? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So as a neighbor, one of our worst fears was, you know, something with height. So single family is a good thing. The buffer -- the next thing, right, for us, since most of us live in Lacarno (phonetic) and, you know, next door that way, the buffer to us in terms of just screening. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I assume, in order to have your lots attractive, you're going to want, you know, screening in the rear of the lots coming back toward our way. MR. ARNOLD: In this area? road. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. And the MR. ARNOLD: Well, this is all common element of your community -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. berm. MR. ARNOLD: -- with a landscape buffer and UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I'm very familiar with our side of the -- our side of the wall. MR. ARNOLD: Right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I'm wondering what kind of visual you would expect for that on the other side. MR. ARNOLD: Well, we're going to be -- the deviation we're requesting would allow us to put our required landscaping within the existing common easement that exists for landscaping. So we would be landscaping our inside portion of that landscape buffer. So if you walk back in here, for instance, you'll see what the buffer looks like from the other side. So we would be supplementing buffering on these three sides. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. I'm just still not quite sure. Just help us understand what your plan is. Is it 5 feet, 10 feet? I think I heard you say 5 feet based on the lots, but I'm sure that -- MR. ARNOLD: Well, the buffer easement exists, and it's a recorded buffer easement that we're putting in. So that is our deviation to allow us to do the buffer on our property, but to supplement the buffer that's there. I'm just looking to see what the -- do you know the width of it offhand? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It's a 10 foot. MR. ARNOLD: It's a 10 foot? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: 10 foot, yeah. MR. ARNOLD: Yes, supplemental buffer easement, which is the buffer easement that's minimally required from a single family to single family anyway. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the pump house, right, that we're pumping out. So -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right, right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: No, no. MR. ARNOLD: This is the pump house. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So what is that? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: That's a shed that's got to go. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Cool. (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: All right. But so the buffer is going to come how far? Are we talking like -- how much of that -- MR. ARNOLD: It's going to be planted -- if you went behind your wall, there's a return to grade with a berm and landscaping already on it. We're talking about putting our landscaping and supplementing those buffers that are already in place. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Because the tallest trees that are on your property are here. I mean, what we see, those big tall trees that when we look out, that's -- they're going to go. MR. ARNOLD: Oh, yeah. We have a preserve area on the plan that's -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So what are we (indiscernible) be looking (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It will be trees. Just short. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. I mean, south of Hardesty Road would be, you know, our development tracts, and then we have a small preserve here in the entrance. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I wouldn't think you'd want to be keeping those tall, spindly pine trees. MR. ARNOLD: Well, most of -- Mike, you can speak to it, I guess, if need be. MR. DELATE: Yes. It's actually a protected wetland. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Oh. MR. ARNOLD: All this would be protected. So we'll have to remove exotics from that area, and then possibly do supplemental plantings, but the trees that would get replanted are going to be, what, Mike, canopy trees of some sort meeting the code? MR. DELATE: Supplemental, yeah. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Now, you had supplied us with a landscape plan or somebody did, the buffer plan earlier this year. Is that still -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: We worked very, very diligently with the Mediterra communities. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: That's -- this is (indiscernible) replacement. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Oh. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Oh, okay. (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: He said you were going to be a really -- an improvement. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I don't believe it. Are we talking about Terry or Greg? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Greg. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: He was very, very UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: But, no, we worked with your board. We worked with Greg. And we satisfied -- we satisfied the concerns -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Because the plan looked pretty substantial, what I saw. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And nothing has changed. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: We needed to go through this with you all. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I know. I know. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Even though the whole idea was not to have this meeting, but by going -- by working directly with your board, we thought that it would -- it would accelerate time -wise. And the County said, no, we've got to have the meeting. So that's fine. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I think I might also add, you know, your concerns on that east side, I mean, those are the rears of all those houses. As much as you don't want to look at them, they don't want to look at you either, because that's their pools. So, I mean, it's going to be buffered, because they're going to be sitting out there in the pool. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Well, that's my next question. Thank you for that lovely segue. Now we're talking about noise from -- because our front yards are going to be looking and joining with their backyards. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: You'll have no front yards. MR. ARNOLD: These are their front yards. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. MR. ARNOLD: I think you're talking about (indiscernible). (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Those are all (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: That's a long ways away. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: First -- and there's a huge berm between. You know the berm. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: There's a huge berm. So between the berm and all the foliage and the distance, you're not -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: There's an elevation of like 3 or 4 feet. There's close to 5 feet difference between our property and theirs. And you're not going to fill that up. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well, we have to fill some of it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Some, but not 5 feet. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: The backs of the houses on the east side face east. They're not facing -- none of them are facing south towards your homes. So -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Even the corner one down at the bottom? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. That corner lot still -- that house still faces east. And it's going to be behind the buffer. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Faces east or west? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: East. The front house -- (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: The rear of the house faces east. So none of the -- none of the homes are going to face the rear facing south. So none of that is going to impact you in that way. And the berm there is substantial at that -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And look at the foliage. I mean, we're not going to take out that foliage that's on that line. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: We're just going to enhance that and add to it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Now, that larger building, is that the one that's coming down? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: That's an old barn. It's an old pole barn. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It's from the prior owner, previous owner. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I asked this question before the meeting got started, but do you foresee a long-term difficulty with left turns? Because everyone there is going to have to U-turn at the sign to go back. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: We're concerned about it as well. We want to talk with the Mediterra Association. We want to talk with the Talis Park Association. We'd love to -- you're going to have to make a right turn. Like what we would like to try to do on Livingston is put a left turn lane at where Talis Park's entrance is so you have a nice controlled U-turn. So that's what we're working on. MR. ARNOLD: But that's really subject to the county. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Correct. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And there's a lot of approvals for that. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. So the question is -- yeah, we have the same concern. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Because we have -- as we were discussing here, is the two lane headed south, that right where we can turn left, it becomes three. And it's kind of like you hope that people don't swerve into that (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) try to cross to go from one side of Mediterra to the other, he'd take a right turn and head south to go to one of those (indiscernible) and turn back. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. And so for us -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: In his Corvette. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It is during season just -- and so I wondered about that, because it is real difficult just for us getting across the street. We're making a left-hand turn because people just do this as opposed to waiting like you're supposed to until it's clear and then everyone making their turns. So I am concerned with the increased traffic. I really am. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Our people -- there's no way, where our entrance is, that it's anywhere near the Mediterra east entrance. We're all concerned about Livingston and (indiscernible) and everything else, you know. We want to make it as easy as we can for everybody. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I guess long-term county -wise, is there any way, because it just continues to get more and more dangerous, and it becomes -- it's a 65 -mile -an -hour average that they UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Posted 45. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And it's a 45 -mile -an -hour zone (indiscernible). MR. ARNOLD: Well, the county guarantees every property to at least get a right in, right out access point. And then they control access pretty thoroughly on Livingston Road. It was considered to be a controlled access road. So they want it to be a higher volume movement, which is why you have the special access control ordinance that affects the property -- or not the property, but all of that road. So that's just a challenge working with the county, because they're trying to maintain capacity, and we would all like to, you know, have easier turns, but every time somebody has to slow down to get into a turn lane, it reduces the capacity on the road. Anything else? I think I caught -- please let Sharon know if you'd like a copy of everything we have, and we'll e-mail it to you. It's not a large document. And you can read all of it and ask any other questions you may have. Anything else, anybody? Adjourn? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Going once. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It's exciting. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Twice. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Thanks. Nancy, I'm sorry. Did you want to say anything? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Good luck. MR. ARNOLD: Can we go back on the record? Can we go back on? There's -- (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) MR. ARNOLD: Let me just say one thing. Before we all break up, let me say that we don't have hearing dates scheduled yet with a hearing examiner or the Planning Commission, whichever it's going to be, but if you're within 500 feet, you're going to get a mail notice of that, correct, Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. MR. ARNOLD: And then the signage will go up in advance of the hearing, or call Sharon or me anytime and we'll keep you posted. All right. Thank you all. Good night. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Thank you. (Recording concluded.) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER I, Joyce B. Howell, do hereby certify that: 1. The foregoing contains a full, true and correct transcript of proceedings in the above -entitled matter, transcribed by me to the best of my knowledge and ability from the digital recording. 2. I am not counsel for, related to, or employed by any of the parties in the above -entitled cause. 3. I am not financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of this case. SIGNED AND CERTIFIED: Date: November 6, 2017 Joyce B. Howell Salvatori Law Office, PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW Newgate Center 5150 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 344 Naples, F1, 34103 Leo J. Salvarori Ditem 239.552.4106 F -ma i 1: lis@s a lvator i.lega 1 August 18, 2017 VIA E-MAIL AND COURIER Mr. D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Grady Minor 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Tel: 239.308.9191 eFax: 239.552.4193 Web. www,salvatori.legal Re: Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston, LLC - Development of Livingston Subdivision — Mediterra Community Association, Inc Revisions to PUD document and master plan. Our File No. 12785-00002 Dear Wayne: Pursuant to our exchange of emails, I am pieased to enclose the original consent letter from the Mediterria Community Association for the changes to the Pezzentino De Cielo PUD document and master plan, which has been executed by the President of the Mediterra Community Association. Should you need anything further, please do not hesitate to call. ly, S41.VAnRI LAW OFFICE, PLLC LJSlclm CC Mr. Michael I. Delate. P.E., Grady Minor - milelatsiri' rad n inor.coi via email Mr. Steven C. I'iterman - sliterman it7 ii in ivecnmm Rnitics.cumm- (via email } Mr. Matthew Fiterman - iitermanla)aol.com (via email) Mr. David Sturdyvin - d�tetrtivvin+rr•distinctiv��rnnmuni[ic .cunt (via email) Prolaw: 1808480 Attachment G August 14, 2017 Collier County Permitting 2800 Horseshoe Dr N Naples, FL 34104 Re: Pezzetino Di Cielo PUD Insubstantial Change To Whom It May Concern, We have reviewed the proposed revisions to the Pezzentino Di Cielo PUD document and master plan. We have no objection to the proposed relocation of the required perimeter landscape buffers to the previously recorded landscape buffer easement. We understand that the existing landscape material located within the buffer easement will be supplemented with vegetation meeting the requirements for the otherwise required landscape buffers for the Pezzetino Di Cielo PUD. Sincerely, Robert Greenberg Board President Mediterra Community Association, Inc. (239)254-3040 /� Niediterra 4 L7111111YIT1it� Al. , Chitbn, lnC, IF , _;; coi'S_' li leil if.:l'riY �I f•_ lC Naples: FL J -V 10 August 15, 2017 Leo J. Salvatori Salvatori Law Office, PLLC 5150 Tamiami Trail North Suite 304 Naples, FL 34103 Re: Enclave of Distinction Dear Mr. Salvatori, Enclosed is the letter to Collier County Permitting that you requested. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tanya Douglass Executive Assistant Mediterra Community Association, Inc. (239)254-3043 Enc. Medite3rra Comniunit► Association. Inc, �.:�JirelT:i t.ii I -z May 9, 2017 Collier County Permitting 2800 Horseshoe Dr N Naples, FL 34104 Re: Pezzetino Di Cielo PUD Insubstantial Change To Whom It May Concern, We have reviewed the proposed revisions to the Pezzentino Di Cielo PUD document and master plan. We have no objection to the proposed relocation of the required perimeter landscape buffers to the previously recorded landscape buffer easement. We understand that the existing landscape material located within the buffer easement will be supplemented with vegetation meeting the requirements for the otherwise required landscape buffers for the Pezzetino Di Cielo PUD. G ergP'k, CAM, CCM, CCE General Manager Mediterra Community Association, Inc. (239)254-3040 Mediterm Community Association, Inc. 15735 Corso Mediteaa Circle Naples, FL 34110 (239) 154-3040 LONDON BAY HOMES June 9, 2017 Collier County Permitting 2800 Horseshoe Drive North Naples, FL 34104 RE: Pezzettino Di Cielo PUD Insubstantial Change To Whom It May Concern, We have reviewed the proposed revisions to the Pezzettino Di Cielo PUD document and master plan. We have no objection to the proposed relocation of the required perimeter landscape buffers to the previously recorded landscape buffer easement. We understand that the existing landscape material located within the buffer easement will be supplemented with vegetation meeting the requirements for the otherwise required landscape buffers for the Pezzettino Di Cielo PUD. Sincerely, Stephen G. Wilson Manager, LB Mediterra, LLC PRIVATE LABEL LIVING ?210 Vin•1erf+iIt Beach Rd Suitt 1300 Maples i'L 34109 ■ (?39J 592 1400 • Lon rionBay cam J he* r County Growth Management Department — Planning & Regulation Zoning Services Division July 14, 2415 D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor and Associate 3800 Via Del Rey Naples, FL 34134 Re: Minor Change to PUD Master Plan or Minor Text Changes PMC-PL20150001293, regarding the Pefzetino Di Cielo Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Dear Mr. Arnold: This letter is in response to your application of June 3, 2015 requesting an administrative approval to make minor text changes to remove affordable dousing commitments to pay an affordable housing contribution in PUDs, Development Agreements, and Settlement Agreements. Pursuant to Section 10.02.13, Planned Unit Development Procedures, E Changes and amendments, 3 Minor changes, c Affordable housing commitments, if the applicant notices property owners in writing and no objection is received within 30 days of mailing a notice, the request to remove commitments is deemed approved. Thus from the completed applicant application and tate no -objection of property owners within 30 days of the property owner letter mailing, it is deemed by staff that the affordable housing contribution commitment wording within the Pezzetino Di Cielo RPUD under Section IV, 4-5 Affordable Housing, A, is deemed approved for removal by staff. You may wish to have this letter recorded in the official records of Collier County as a permanent record of the variance approval. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mike Bosi, AICP Director, Zoning Division cc: Raymond Bellows, Zoning Manager Lori Beard, Correspondence File Attachment H Pezzettino Di Cielo (PL20160003482) • Application and Supporting :7 Documents January 11,, 2018 HEX Hearing Prepared December 14, 2017 0 Grady1tinor Ctiil Enw[twer" • Land survvy(I's • lllanncrs • hand"rapx= lrrhilert" WGradyMinor • Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects January 18, 2017 Raymond V. Bellows Zoning Manager Zoning Services, Planning & Zoning Department Collier County Growth Management Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD Amendment — PL20160003482 Dear Mr. Bellows: On behalf of our client, Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston LLC, we are submitting an application for an Insubstantial Change to a PUD (PDI) for the above referenced project. The proposed amendment to the Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD is being requested in order to modify the Conceptual PUD Master Plan in order to deviate from the LDC buffer requirements in order to relocate the required landscape buffers on the north, south and east PUD boundary off-site within a previously • approved landscape buffer easement. The recorded landscape buffer easement is included, as well as photographs of the existing landscape buffer which was previously installed in this joint buffer area. Relocation of the buffers off-site is due to the presence of a 30' roadway easement located on the north property line. The developer intends to supplement the existing buffers with required landscape plantings. We are also rectifying what we believe was a scriveners error. The adopted conceptual Master Plan identified a 20' wide landscape buffer along the eastern property line although our submittal documents to Collier County for the project depicted the correct 10' wide buffer. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, ILD D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Enclosures Cc: Steven Fiterman GradyMinor File • Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com Co Y County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO A PUD (PDI) LDC subsection 10.02.13 E & Code of Laws section 2-83 —2-90 Ch. 3 G:3 of the Administrative Code Pursuant to LDC subsection 10.02.13 E.2, a PUD insubstantial change includes any change that is not considered a substantial or a minor change. A PUD insubstantial change to an approved PUD ordinance shall be based upon an evaluation of LDC subsection 10.02.13 E.1 and shall require the review and approval of the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner's approval shall be based on the findings and criteria used for the original application. PETITION NO PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED 0 APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s) : Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston LLC • Address: 1845 Trade Center Way city: Naples State: FL ZIP: 34109 Telephone: 612-207-8830 Cell: Fax: E -Mail Address: sfiterman@distinctivecommunities.com Name of Agent: D. Wayne Arnold Folio #: 00147240008 and 00147840000 Section: 122 Firm: Q• Grady Minor and Associates, P.A Twp: 48 Address: 3800 Via Del Rey City: Bonita Springs State: FL Telephone: 239.947.1144 Cell: E -Mail Address: warnold@gradyminor.com Fax: Range: 25 ZIP: 34134 • 6/17/2015 Page 1 of 5 0 • GOAT C014ftty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST INFORMATION Is the applicant the owner of the subject property? ■0 Yes ❑ No ❑ 1. If applicant is a land trust, so indicate and name the beneficiaries below. x❑ 2. If applicant is corporation other than a public corporation, so indicate and name officers and major stockholders below. ❑ 3. If applicant is a partnership, limited partnership or other business entity, so indicate and name principals below. ❑ 4. If applicant is an owner, indicate exactly as recorded, and list all other owners, if any. ❑ 5. If applicant is a lessee, attach copy of lease, and indicate actual owners if not indicated on the lease. ❑ 6. If applicant is a contract purchaser, attach copy of contract, and indicate actual owner(s) name and address below: (if space is inadequate, attach on separate page) DETAIL OF REQUEST On a separate sheet, attached to the application, describe the insubstantial change request. Identify how the request does not meet the PUD substantial change criteria established in LDC subsection 10.02.13 E.1. PUD NAME: Pezzettino Di Cielo PROPERTY O. O ORDINANCE NUMBER: 08-06 FOLIO NUMBER(S): 00147240008 and 00147840000 Provide a legal (if PUD is recorded) or graphic description of area of amendment (this may be graphically illustrated on Amended PUD Master Plan). If applying for a portion of the PUD, provide a legal description for subject portion. Attach on a separate sheet, a written description of the map or text change. • Does amendment comply with the Growth Management Plan? ■❑ Yes ❑ No 6/17/2015 Page 2 of 5 Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 If no, please explain: Has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? ❑ Yes ❑■ No If yes, in whose name? Has any portion of the PUD been ❑ SOLD and/or ❑ DEVELOPED? NO Are any changes proposed for the area sold and/or developed? If yes, please describe on an attached separate sheet. ❑ Yes ❑ No • • 6/17/2015 Page 3 of 5 Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Pre -Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: PUD Insubstantial Change Chapter 3 G.3 of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre -Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At final submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accented. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW # OF COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Completed Application (download current form from County website) 16 Q ❑ Pre -Application Meeting notes 1 17 ❑ Project Narrative, including a detailed description of proposed changes and why amendment is necessary 16 Q ❑ Detail of request El x Current Master Plan & 1 Reduced Copy ❑ ❑ ❑ Revised Master Plan & 1 Reduced Copy ❑ ❑ ❑ Revised Text and any exhibits ❑ ❑ ❑ PUD document with changes crossed through & underlined ❑ Q 1:1PUD document as revised with amended Title Page with Ordinance # El ❑ Warranty Deed x Legal Description x ❑ Boundary survey, if boundary of original PUD is amended ❑ ❑ ❑ If PUD is platted, include plat book pages ❑ ❑ ❑ List identifying Owner & all parties of corporation 2 ❑ ❑ Affidavit of Authorization, signed & notarized 2 ❑ ❑ Completed Addressing Checklist 1 x ❑ Copy of 8'/: in. x 11 in. graphic location map of site 1 El ❑ Electronic copy of all documents and plans *Please advise: The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all materials to be submitted electronically in PDF format. ❑ ❑ ❑ *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing, include an additional set of each submittal requirement. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: • Following the completion of the review process by County Review staff, the applicant shall submit all materials electronically to the designated project manager. • Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required. 6/17/2015 Page 4 of 5 CO)*er caunty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 PLANNERS — INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: ❑ School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart ❑ -Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: Executive Director Utilities Engineering: Kris VanLengen ❑ Parks and Recreation: Vicky Ahmad ❑ Emergency Management: Dan Summers Naples Airport Authority: Ted Soliday ❑ Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Ryan ❑ Other: ❑ City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director Other: FEE REQUIREMENTS I PUD Amendment Insubstantial (PDI): $1,500.00 1_Pre-Application Meeting: $500.00 Estimated Legal Advertising fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner: $925.00 The completed application, all required submittal materials, and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department/Planning and Regulation ATTN Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 1Z 1 L-01 Applicant/Owner Signature Date �s t �e". ..a ` u 5 - ,LLQ Applicant/Owner Name (please print) 6/17/2015 Page 5 of 5 0 � • • • Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD Insubstantial Change to a PUD Disclosure of Interest Information 2. If applicant is corporation other than a public corporation, so indicate and name officers and major stockholders below. Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston LLC 1845 Trade Center Way Naples, FL 34109 Officers and major stockholders: Steve Fiterman, Manage Matthew Fiterman, Secretary December 12, 2016 UraPage 1 of 1 0 cfv`�tinnr GM1 FJig nwm, • i.and Sunes ans • Planners; • (.and,eaTw -krt wieris Sharon Umpenhour From: Wayne Arnold Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 11:07 AM To: Sharon Umpenhour Subject: FW: Pre -app Waiver Attachments: Ord. 15-25.pdf From: BellowsRay[ma iIto: RayBellowsO)colliergov.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2015 6:41 PM To: Wayne Arnold Cc: GundlachNancy; AshtonHeidi Subject: Pre -app Waiver Hi Wayne, I agree that a pre -application meeting is not required for a proposed PDI to allow for a minor change to one development standard. Since Nancy was the planner for the Hibiscus PUD, she will be assigned to this PDI. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to ask. Ra# Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Zoning Division - Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department - Planning & Regulation Telephone: 239.252.2463; Fax: 239.252.6350 4C'o er minty Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses Yare public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a~public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. • 0 Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD Insubstantial Change to a PUD • Project Narrative and Detail of Request Proiect Narrative The Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD was approved in 2008 as Ordinance 08-06. The RPUD is currently undeveloped. The applicant is proposing insubstantial changes to the Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD. The primary purpose of the amendment is to amend the Conceptual PUD Master Plan in order to deviate from the LDC buffer requirements in order to relocate the required landscape buffers on the north, south and east PUD boundary off-site within a previously approved landscape buffer easement. Recent review of tittle opinion by the owner's attorney revealed that Hardesty Road was located on the subject property and due to chain of title, the attorney has advised that vacating the existing roadway easement would be extremely difficult. The client redesigned their development plans to incorporate the Hardesty Road easement into their plans. The modifications resulted in the necessity to shift the proposed lots. Prior to the original zoning approval the owner worked with their then neighbor Long Bay Partners to create a shared buffer easement on Long Bay's south, wet and north • property boundary. The intent was to create a shared larger buffer between the Pezzettino Di Cielo PUD and the Mediterra PUD. This buffer area has been planted (see photos) and includes a ???' high berm, hedge and trees. The displacement of the landscape buffers to the area immediately adjacent off-site within the joint landscape buffer is consistent with the intent of the LDC to provide appropriate buffers between land uses. The property to the north of the Pezzettino Di Cielo project is undeveloped but scheduled to be developed by London Bay Homes. London Bay Homes has provided a letter of no objection to the proposed landscape buffer deviation. A small portion of the property to the east and south of Pezzettino Di Cielo PUD is developed with single family homes; however they are separated from the Pezzettino Di Cielo PUD by the mature joint bermed buffer and an internal roadway and additional landscape buffer, resulting in a separation from the Pezzettino Di Cielo PUD boundary of approximately 100'. The area east of Pezzettino Di Cielo has also been developed with a community maintenance facility for the Mediterra community. The resulting joint buffer will be supplemented with vegetative material consistent with the LDC buffer requirement that would normally be required to be planted within the Pezzettino Di Cielo PUD. Minor changes are also proposed to modify the rear and front yard building setbacks to reflect the existence of the Hardesty Road easement and new off-site buffer. The property owner is also removing an affordable housing commitment, which was previously extinguished through the administrative process outlined in the LDC. The • December 19, 2016 Page 1 of 4 10 f.Gr��d��'lirtur 001 Engine gra • lAnd 5ttrcryars . Manners • Landscaj tt^Ititrr^,+ Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD Insubstantial Change to a PUD Project Narrative and Detail of Request • removal from the PUD as part of this PDI is an attempt to clean up the PUD language for the owner. Detail of Request On a separate sheet, attached to the application, describe the insubstantial change request. Identify how the request does not meet the PUD substantial change criteria established in LDC subsection 10.02.13 E.1. Insubstantial Change Criteria LDC Subsection 10.02.13 E.1 E. Changes and amendments. There are three types of changes to a PUD Ordinance: Substantial, Insubstantial, and Minor. Language changes to a previously approved PUD document shall require the same procedure as for amending the official zoning atlas, except for the removal of a commitment for payment towards affordable housing which is considered to be a minor change as described in Section 10.02.13 E.3.c. 1. Substantial changes. Any substantial change(s) to an approved PUD Ordinance shall require the review and recommendation of the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of County Commissioners as a PUD amendment prior to implementation. • Applicants shall be required to submit and process a new application complete with pertinent supporting data, as set forth in sections 10.02.13 A and B. For the purpose of this section, a substantial change shall be deemed to exist where: a. There is a proposed change in the boundary of the PUD; or IID b. There is a proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development; M c. There is a proposed decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation or open space areas within the development not to exceed 5 percent of the total acreage previously designated as such, or 5 acres in area; No net change in preserve, recreation or open space results from this amendment. • December 19, 2016 Page 2 of 4 t�i'adv\linen CWH Engin€xa.. Land Surw°r ears • Manners - LantKwatr AnIVIrr Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD Insubstantial Change to a PUD • Project Narrative and Detail of Request d. There is a proposed increase in the size of areas used for nonresidential uses, to include institutional, commercial and industrial land uses (excluding preservation, conservation or open spaces), or a proposed relocation of nonresidential land uses; No increase in non-residential uses or areas for non-residential uses are proposed. e. There is 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 additional traffic or public facility impacts will result from the request regarding accessory structures. f. The change will 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 additional dwelling units are proposed; therefore, there are no additional traffic impacts. • g. The change will result in a requirement for increased stormwater retention, or will otherwise increase stormwater discharges; Adequate area exists on-site for stormwater retention, and no change to the approved discharge rate is proposed. No additional stormwater retention areas will be required. h. The change will bring about a relationship to an abutting land use that would be incompatible with an adjacent land use; The proposed revisions will have no impact to abutting residential land uses due to the presence of the existing shared landscape buffer easement. i. Any modification 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 element of the growth management plan or which modification would increase the density or intensity of the permitted land uses; The PUD and proposed changes are consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. • December 19, 2016 Page 3 of 4 Crad��3linor (Jul E.ngirwvrs - "and Sur vmort . Plannem, • L.andsrape :An-hiler9;., Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD Insubstantial Change to a PUD Project Narrative and Detail of Request • j. The proposed change is to a PUD district designated as a development of regional impact (DRI) and approved pursuant to F.S. § 380.06, where such change requires a determination and public hearing by Collier County pursuant to F.S. § 380.06(19). Any change that meets the criterion of F.S. § 38O.O6(19)(e)2, and any changes to a DRI/PUD master plan that clearly do not create a substantial deviation shall be reviewed and approved by Collier County under this section 10.02.13 of this Code; or The project is not a DRI. k. Any modification in 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 this section 10.02.13 The proposed changes do not meet the standards for a substantial modification and creates no external impacts. • • December 19, 2016 Page 4 of 4 (Jl°ad��li�lor {,h 1 t and Sunrsoi, - Manners • Wm(Krapu, Archilecis • Prepared by and Return To: David L. Cook, Esq. 3951795 OR: 4160 PG: 1837 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 12/28/2006 at 10:10AN DWIGHT B. BROCB, CLERK CONS 1000000.00 RBC FEE 18.50 DOC -.70 7000.00 Henderson, Franklin, Starnes &Holt, P.A. (Brooks) Retn:BT AL CHBFFY PASSIDONO 9990 Coconut Road Suite 101 821 STH AVE S KO Bonita Springs, FL 34135 1201 239-344-1375 NAPLES FL 34102 File Number: Hardest11424.17 Parcel Identification No. 00147240008 [Space Above This Line For Recording Data] Warranty Deed (STATUTORY FORM - SECTION 689.02, F.S.) i This Indenture made this day of December, 2006 between Long Bay Partners, LLC., a Florida limited liabilty company whose post office address is 9990 Coconut Road, Suite 200, Bonita Springs, FL 34135 of the County of 1-1 Lee, State of Florida, grantor*, and Distinctive it1 ,-elopment at Livingston, LLC., a Florida limited liability company whose post office address is 1845 ade, FL 34109 of the County of Collier, State of Florida, grantee*, Witnesseth that said grantor, for ani in 961Tsitferati of the s good and valuable considerations to said Want ' d paid by has granted, bargained, and sold to to s;i e • situate, lying and being in Lee Count, F' riga,wi : 1 a � PARCEL I Sy All that certain parcel of la u�te lying and being i Collier County, Florida and 4;1r 1pore particularly d of TEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS ($10.00) and other I grantek, the',feceipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, issi6s forever, the following described land, 48 South, Range 25 East, Commencing at the Southwest cohn�".,o t! SQut. homes ft e:Bauthwest 1/. of the Northeast'/, of Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, t e,ialth o a point, thence go East 162 feet to the point of beginning, thence continue east 132 feet to a point; that c South 330 feet, thence West 132 feet, thence North 330 feet to the point of beginning; less the North 30 feet thereof for road right of way. PARCEL 11: All that certain parcel of land situate lying and being in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Southwest %. of the Southwest'/. of the Northeast'/. of Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, thence go North 660 feet to a point, thence go East 162 feet to the point of beginning, thence continue east 132 feet to a point, thence South 30 feet, thence West 132 feet, thence North 30 feet to the point of beginning Subject to reservations, easements and restrictions of record. Subject to taxes for 2007 and subsequent years; covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, reservations and limitations of record, if any. and said grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against lawful claims of all persons • whomsoever. * "Grantor" and "Grantee" are used for singular or plural, as context requires. DoubleTimee *** OR: 4160 PG: 1838 *** In Witness Whereof, grantor has hereunto set grantor's hand and seal the day and year fust above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence: Witness #1 Printed Name N/ Witness #2 Printed Name LONG BAY PARTNERS, LLC., a Florida limited liability company, By: Bonita Bay Properties, Inc., a Florida Corporation, as Managing Member By A eeson Vice President State of Florida County of Lee The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of December, 2006 by John Gleeson, as Vice President of Bonita Bay Properties, Inc., a Florida Corporation, as Managing Member of Long Bay Partners, LLC., a Florida Limited Liability Company, on b c �' He (X ] is personally known to me or [ ]has produced a Florida driver's license as identific ", - — '. (SEAL) Fnntea e: w- • -&- ,tarana .qua..■.v. ' j Y e ° �; >'M arch 220 2008 0 ,OFpjgldrOTrgfyln•�� �OPi�7D1 Nm , 1 r Warranty Deed (Statutory Form) - Page 2 DoubleTimeo 0 • • Prepared by and Return To: David L. Cook, Esq. HENDERSON, FRANKLIN, STARNES & HOLT, P.A. 9990 Coconut Road Suite 101 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 239-344-1375 File Number: Hardest11424.17 Parcel Identification No: 00146680009 3951796 OR: 4160 PG; 1839 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 12/28/2006 at 10:10AN DWIGHT 1. BROCK, CLERK RIC FEE 18.50 DOC -.70 .70 Retn: CHIFFY PASSIDONO IT AL 821 STH AVE S 1201 NAPLES FL 34102 [Space Above This Line For Recording Data] Quit Claim Deed This Quit Claim Deed made this � da3� , ece - c,: 2006 between Long Bay Partners, LLC., a Florida limited liability company whose post office a Suite 200, Bonita Springs, FL 34135 grantor, and Distinctive Residential Developmen -a�, gston LLC.,a ted liability company whose post office address is 1845 Trade Center Way, Na s' 4109 grantee: a y� p� > (Whenever used herein the terms "grantor and "gr +#%}eall the parties -to his instruient ad the heirs, legal representatives, and assigns of individuals, and the successors and assigns of corpora#'ions.trusts andetrusiee3 •t Witnesseth, that said grantor, for a d ir(_co� and valuable consideration to said gr'utiii�A hereby remise, release, and quitclaims ilk s� claim and demand which grantor has 4x&'�o to -wit: The Northern 30 feet of the V� Section 12, Towship 48 South, side ati n qrf`e st TEI' , M NO/100 DOLLARS ($10.00) and other good " d ° tee �th4 regeipt='whereof is hereby acknowledged, does id grantee, and grantee's he' s ,*� U igns forever, all the right, title, interest, the following descri*lanc, sr i,/lying and being in Lee County, Florida i,4the. Southwest 1/4-o` <tb_&Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Subject to taxes for 2007 and subsequent years; covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, reservations and limitations of record, if any. To Have and to Hold, the same together with all and singular the appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest, lien, equity and claim whatsoever of grantors, either in law or equity, for the use, benefit and profit of the said grantee forever. In Witness Whereof, grantor has hereunto set grantor's band and seal the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence: LONG BAY PARTNERS, LLC., a Florida limited liability company, By: Bonita Bay Properties, Inc., a Florida Corporation, as Managing Member --- 7 By /ffam �"Ahqi n Gleeson V. Vice President Doublerime® *** OR: 4160 PG: 1840 *** State of Florida County of Lee The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 151h day of December, 2006 by John M. Gleeson as Vice President of Bonita Bay Properties, Inc., a Florida Corporation, as Managing Member of Long Bay Partners, LLC., a Florida Limited Liability Company, on behalf of the company. He is personally known to me. Notary Pu lic (seal) Printed Name, oA�' % Marsha Stachler My commission expires-. * Commission * DD2W655 Expires March 20, 2008 OF a-, ' ' T aif • Yaarck i, W"W700 0 • 0 Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD Insubstantial Change to a PUD • Legal Description The subject property being +/-17.52 acres is described as: Tax Parcel 22 located in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, described as: The West 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, LESS AND EXCEPT: A perpetual easement to Collier County, Florida for roads, utilities and drainage easement over and across the West 50 feet thereof. AND Tax Parcel 9.1 more particularly described as: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12 Township, 48 South, Range 25 East, thence North 66o feet to a point; thence East 162 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continue East 132 feet to a point; thence South 330 feet; thence West 132 feet; thence North 330 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Subject to a road Right -of -Way over and across the North 30 feet thereof. • AND The East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, less and except the North 30 feet thereof, and The West 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, and The West 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, and The West 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4. AND PARCEL ONE as described in O.R. Book 3103, Pg 2950 The South thirty feet of the North 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 48 S, Range 25 E, Collier County, Florida, LESS AND EXCEPT the East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. All Located in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. • December 16, 2016 Page 1 of 1 {Jradr 1iir�or� Uvil 3 npnfwr • land Su`rv,von� a;*iannem • L.vndscary, rcliizefls AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION • FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) Peaettino Di Cielo-PL20160003482 l Steve Fiterman (print name), as MGR (title, if applicable) of Distinctive Residential Development atLtvingston LLC (company, If applicable), swear or affirm under oath, that 1 am the (choose one) owner0applicantE:Jontract purchaser and that: 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. f have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. Well authorize 0 Grady Mina and Associates, P.A to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. `Notes: • If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the corp. pres. or v. pres. • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's "Managing Member." • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner' of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words "as trustee': • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. • Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated in it ar (L Signature Signature D to STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The f16 foregoing inst ent was sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me on R - (date) by ¢ t C--+��-. e of person providing oath or affirmation), as who is personally known tom r who has pro f (type of identification) as identification. / STAMP/SEAL � " Signatur5Yof Notary anVENESSA STARR �t�U �''. `State of Florida -Notary Public +� Commission 8 GG 42129 d$ My Commission Expires OGrobcr 25, 2020 CPW&COA-00115\155 • REV 3/24/14 AZVO Collier County • COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and email to GMD_Addressing@colliergov.net or fax to the Operations Division at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Section at the above address. Form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to pre -application meeting please allow 3 days for processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Section. PETITION TYPE (Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) ❑ BL (Blasting Permit) ❑ SDP (Site Development Plan) ❑ BD (Boat Dock Extension) ❑ SDPA (SDP Amendment) ❑ Carnival/Circus Permit ❑ SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) ❑ CU (Conditional Use) ❑ SIP (Site Improvement Plan) ❑ EXP (Excavation Permit) ❑ SIPI (Insubstantial Change to SIP) ❑ FP (Final Plat ❑ SNR (Street Name Change) ❑ LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ SNC (Street Name Change — Unplatted) ❑ PNC (Project Name Change) ❑ TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) ❑ PPL (Plans & Plat Review) ❑ VA (Variance) ❑ PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) ❑ PUD Rezone ❑ VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) ❑ RZ (Standard Rezone) OTHER PDI - PUD Insubstantial Chanqe • LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) S12, T48S, R25E - see attached FOLIO (Property ID) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, orassociate with, legal description if more than one) 00147240008,00147840000 and 00146680009 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) • LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right- of-way • SURVEY (copy - needed only for unplatted properties) CURRENT PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Pezzettino Di Cielo PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) • SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projects/sites only) SDP - or AR or PL # cot, County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE • NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) Please Return Approved Checklist By: F Email ❑ Fax ❑ Personally picked up Applicant Name: Sharon Umpenhour Phone: 239.947.1144 Email/Fax: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Division. • FOR STAFF USE ONLY Folio Number 00146680009 Folio Number 00147240008 Folio Number 00147840000 Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved by: Date: 3/24/2017 i Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED P6Map • 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties expressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. Pa*f 1 http://map s. collierapprai ser. comlwebmaplmapprint. aspx?title=&orient=LANDSCAPE&paper=LETTER&minX=40628 8.67328... 3/23/2017 • 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 Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD. —0000 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being +/-17.52 acres is described as: Tax Parcel 22 located in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, descn"bed as: The West 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, LESS AND EXCEPT: A perpetual easement to Collier County, Florida for roads, utilities and drainage easement over and across the West 5o feet thereof. �1, Tax Parcel 9.1 more particularly described as: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 114 of Section 12 Township, 48 South, Range 25 East, thence North 66o feet to a point; thence East 162 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continue East 1,32 feet to a point; thence South 330 feet; thence West 132 feet; thence North 330 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Subject to a road Right -of -Way over and across the North 30 feet thereof. AND The East 1/2 of the East 112 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, less and except the North 30 feet thereof, and The West 1/2 of the East 112 of the SE 114 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, and The West 1/2 of the East 112 of the SW 114 of the SW 114 of the NE 114, and The West 1/2 of the SE 114 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 114. AND PARCEL ONE as described in O.R. Book 3103, Pg 2950 • The South thirty feet of the North % of the SW V/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 48 S, Range 25 E, Collier County, Florida, LESS AND EXCEPT the East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the North V2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East All Located in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. 1.3 PROPERTY O-MWERSHIP The subject property is under the ownership of: Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston, LLC and Long Bay Partners, LLC. Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston, LLC has a contract to purchase the balance of the property not under their ownership from Long Bay Partners, LLC. The lands together make up the t 17.52 acres covered by this RPUD 1.4 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. LAND USE TYPE Single-family, zero lot line 43 Dwelling Units WATER MANAGEMENT +/- 2.2o acres PRESERVE AREA +/- 0.82 acres ROADS/ROW +/-1.99 acres DEVELOPMENT TRAM +/ 12. 1 acres TOTAL: +/-17.52 acres U Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 0- o e'er \d O� 3 Trebbio WAY U- W Q.' W N W 0 U W m Sa�Ona Wq Y MEDT TERp4 BLVD Location ivia FAIRGROVE WAY BRIGHTLING W Y s� Ojn yTALIS PARK DHN Prato 0 O W W m a U CELLINI LN Celebrita CT BUONASERJCT VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD LEARNING LN I WINFIELD LN a C m d 'a d Aberdeen AVE RAVINA WAY Ftre�1.--''� SENEC�CA WAy Y a N J Fairway CT Trophy D� d' Amberwood DR �lr'� LO Ashford 04 GTS Mar�Pt, GradNAlinor 1,100 550 0 1,100 Feet Civil Enginem., • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Arehiteds 0 C7 • Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD Insubstantial Change to a PUD • Deviation Justification Deviation #4 sees relief from LDC Section 4.06.02 Table 2.4, Table of Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classifications, which requires a Type 'A' Landscape Buffer to allow for no landscape buffer on-site but to provide the buffer within a joint landscape buffer easement (OR 4160 PG 1841). Justification: The property owner negotiated with the adjoining property owner in 2006 to create a shared landscape buffer easement between the subject property and the Mediterra PUD. The adopted conceptual PUD Master Pan depicted the buffers on the Pezzettino Di Cielo PUD property. In 2006, the owner believed that zero lot line development was the highest and best use and consequently the displacement of the buffers to the joint easement was unnecessary. In 2017, the owner believes that the market has shifted to larger lot single family. The larger lots make it both practical and necessary to utilize the joint buffer. Due to title issues involving a roadway easement located along the northern Pezzettino Di Cielo property, the owner has had to redesign their proposed plans, resulting in the need to shift the 10 -foot wide buffers to be planted within the shared buffer easement. The existing buffer easement is a vegetated mature buffer that includes a berm, hedge and wall. The existing buffer, far exceeds type 'A' buffer requirements and will be further • supplemented by the additional (new) type 'A' buffer plantings. L_J Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.1.a and 5.03.02.F, Fences and Walls, which permits residential fences/walls to be a maximum of 6' in height from existing ground levels, to permit the perimeter combination berm/wall to be a maximum height of 8' above the Livingston Road average back of sidewalk elevation. Justification: This deviation is warranted because the existing grade of the property is significantly lower than the adjacent Livingston Road requiring several feet of fill to support the proposed residential project. The additional 2 feet is needed in order to place a 6' high wall on the perimeter berm in order to provide security and to buffer the adjacent traffic noise from Livingston Road. March 30, 2017 � GradyNJinor Page 1 of 1 00 3 ngirwvr; • Land ur%R vont • Planners . Lwandsea;x Air, hiirc'is a DEC. 9. 2005 4:52PM3951797 OR: 4160 PG: 1841 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COMT, FL 12/26/2006 at 10:10AR DWIGHT E. BROCE, CLE11 RIC FEE 35.510 DOC -.70 7 'Ibis insttt mmA was prepared witbont examination or opinion of title by and leucon to: William J. Dempsey G'hety Passidorno Wilson & Johnson, LLP 821 Fif1h Avow South Naples, Florida 34102 (239) 261-9300 Retn: CHEFFY PASSIDOMO IT AL 621 57H AVB S 1201 NAPLES FL 34102 THIS LANDSCAM BUFFP.IZ EASEMENT, grunted this day of _ fi, A 4 "�,fi,, 2006, by Long Bay Pariva , LLC, a Florida llMUW 1iabIDty company, sua Mediterra Commawdy Axweiatlon, Inc., a Florida not -for -p vflt eurporationp colleadv* Gondar, to Distinctive Raddeadai Dr►elopa ent at IdvhViten, XAA a Florida lindted lability company, its as Grantee. WTf1tff.SSHI'H: That the dt� ,. sum of ten dollars ($10.00) and odor valuable consideration paid by the raxipt of which is edged, hereby conveys, grants, bargains and sells undo the Crra , ors and assiges, a e and sorbce and sub - without i citation ` f ton x landscaping hated improva�ts ( h ur ea, 4 li 8 `4syahenoe, irrigation syatean, and rrlated utSlfties) ni Ca with erl � wt which approval shall no be unreasonably withheld, c �rf ilowmg described and depicted lands • being loccatedted in Collier � I$ �f raft—clod Bxblbit al �. called TO HAVE AND TO HOLD grnrtdl unto end for be st of Grantee and its assigns, together with s right of it>gcraa and egress to brad to ma' afument, wboich easement and right shall be appu twwt to and rum with the `le i ~" r "l3." attached bereto and incorporated ham by reference, acrd shall be bhftg an end ' aW Grantor's seeecssor(s) in tide to the Easement Area. FROMED, H0W33VBR, that Goatee shell have responsibility far rmmbeaance of dro easement arta sad landscaping improvemenrb msmW or grated th"on or therein; that Grantee covenants and agnea to indenmhly sad bold baanless Grantor front a+4' lou, dm=So, h4ury, 64bt'h'tN or oWm awerwd by any person or entity arising out of Granha's improvement, entry upon, or use of the Easement Area; and that Gnome shall obtain the prior approval of Grantor of any substantial variation in we of the Easerno t Arts prior to such use. IN WITNESS WHBREOF, the Grantor has caused these presents to be executed the date and year fiat above Wntun. Grantor: wn,mSES: Long Bay partners, LLC, a Florida limned liability company Ti �/a J/ o L 0 C • DEC, 9.2005 4:52PM • Landscape Buffer Easement Page 2 wT wwsES: State Of ) Coanty of L ._ ) N0.4715 P. 4/5 OR; 4160 PG: 1842 Meditem Commulty Association, lac., a Fiorida not for-proftt corporation By. Print Tide: The foregoing hptumaot wanacknowledged pgaooeily before this jeday of v ^ i . 2006, by �s A4 -s as Lon= Bay Partners, > a Florida lindted liability compmv. who is wily known to me or who has produced 1.31 & as :A...�....K..� N.Damns - State Notary t• = C.ommMsion 3 7014 My, co= :-i lot Stitt Mondadly Awi �e County pf _ ) 1-7 t The forego is 1 a day sof u st by y`2006, Florida no far- tit co of Association, Inc., a inn a'�ton, who is o ir�ly >cnowp P ; me or who bas produced tion i f 1 Notary �tMMortaf t)C 3b� � �.. XPUU• Cif aQOTr ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF MAMM4ANCE RESPONSIRUJIM The undersigned Grantee hereby wJmwhaigw dart it shall have full rtspowibihty for mirenaace of the Eascount Area granted hereby, and of laadacaPiD& imPwvements, feciti = and equipment installed, operated, or consweted thereupon or therein. Distinctive ResldentM Development at Livingston, LL ds abllity a n" q By. Steven FitenvjA ib Managing Merau DEC. 9.2005 4:53PM N0.4715 P. 5/5 OR: 4160 PG: 1843 Landscape Huffer Basement Page 3 State of ) County ofti YID ) L The k egoiag imovmmt was acla�o4*ed pera n*Uy befoss dais � day of T zm by Statism Fitm� as Maw Member of Dlidnettre Residential Dwelopment at LLC, a Florida- lixrdt ed liability aomPA17, who is perswmtlly kWWn to me. ANNE MARIE STORMS Notary Public Notary Public Minnesota My eom�on e*s' 1 " My C "Issim E)Oms Js Nq 31, 2010 F&I AtllMMbsaeoer.11��.1Lt.i�r..a1 rnKi9Pe+bal4��rFs uw�L�6sµs are�rr+�a • 49 � fry %"' • 49 • • • DEC, 9.2005 4:52PM OR: 4160 PG: 1844 SKETCH OF DESCRIPTION DESOR/P M of o 10 foot wAis Landsaopve MwfAr Earwesnt " h the Southmt 1/4 of the NarMeast f/4 0l Section M Tows" 48 Sbufh. Range 25 Earl h Co9/er CwwN and beteg mora patkeda�ly aGeOrlbed oe /b8ows Comm nco at the North1 4 Corner of Sys 14 Typr, 48 S., Rg& 25 E, Cottkr Countx Aalft thence So0'$f70T, along the Nwth-scutl+ ijSeedon thea for tOMM flet Mww N.AQ'54'MT, Ow* Ow North Lin of the soubiweat 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the AWWAVat 1/4 of NOW SM 42 for MOO Butt VWM AL 0081 MrK dWV the Eastarty Rlot-of-Mtry !ho of Llwhgeton Rood for 3200 1be4 tear a FONT or KMMMCr thwrce Net WWW. dung the North /hr of .i0 het Peserwd liar road Mot-ol ft 110,9 44 f"t;' thence S00'S3'3M a" the root the of the W@Vt IA of the Eoef 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Sautbowt 1/4 of the NwMeoet 1/4 of *old Sao, 12. for 887,34 lift Meoee SDd31'44'w W&V Me south Mw of Me the Southwert 1/4 of the Northeoat 1/4 of saki sea: 1Z lar 110&04 Beet thence SWW'FM aWp the E~yt-ole-Mtrr Me of ~on Rood for 1200 Z04there?* by the ttwe f*Vorhq fins m*oa�xed 1400 het pwp«�arfy shy» the North, Coat and South /hoe (rw�ecEMly) of rfM 'A, AWtOFM Phoee MM raft tM Oft ocoafdhg to Me plot thenal Reoord*d h Pat Book 44 Pager & MMUO 84 of the RAW Recede of COY* Cawfx >Tar/dkr; (L) N.dQ':ff 447E 1br 1119.94 tiet thane* (2) N 003'i'.3S'll: for 707.jj feet thwme (d)_ IM154MPW far 1n&44 (foot; Mw SO0'3110T wrong tf a Footed► t -0 -Way the of Lbe sten Road, tw 1200 last to tt+c Fotat of Be�Ssd Sub)bct to f0wKWom eos*mentr and r*atrkUvn# of rw o CEMEPAI. N07 : _ 1 P.O.C. kw 2 P.O.Y. 7 ee it` Stolon 1 3 Sea 4,! '� itmnFitla r nwrf� F�sr�war off w srafkn 1: 4 TTwpp.. 4 fiornahlp ,!`e wbt &oak Ott Pago 3d -era b 6 AN 3 to c" tact and dea[Me' crnr BM a""t10i+itl rot• 1 4 Saiq. Ar». W- i& A MW bl" �MIM1e W pte 5 Proposed l0' LB.E, Ja'c, t At ? 1 k d� , s of d 1 of --)w low - 1 VA 4\� � w oil a Tor Pwc*l P2sbYtl, Law or s rc 1/4 of N.& 114 !1x',1 S 1'44' w f1t19.t14' s t1om E -KMV44T. 1 f 1 Proposed 10' LB.E. D►! "1` AdWAM ft4W,� P"w Mr Mt NOT A SiIKUY PW fffkA. TRIGO & ASSOCIATES, INC. DATE : Sect.. 01. 2605 PUMM �TR D OMMM A C DRAWN 8Y: _. gQ.K.,__. SCALE. N.T.S. NAPI=. FLORIDA 94109 SHEET 1 OF t FILE NO. 04. 57.1_ IAM SURVBYMG M ONE MAN p M" J 3041060 OR; 3103 PG: 2950 IHCOIDID it 0111CIAL nCO111 of COLLM COW, IL hoped by mid Retum to: 0105/2002 at 01:001 1 DKIM 1. MCI, CLIN 10.11 arb 1.. wits,, wa• nC m 10.50 WFNDELS MARX LANE at Mn-rENDORF, LLP DOC -.70 .70 3461 Bonita Bey BlvdI , Suite 221 IIA Bonita Springs, Flotilla 34134 �UK I? u EASEMENT 3411 10M Ili IND #221 SUM 311110 IL 34134 Tws INDENTuRE, made and executed this 0 *"' day of tllf2 f , 2042 by and between LONG BAY PARTNERS LLC, a Florida limited liabilitycompany (her+einaftec "Gruttor"� and LYNN L. HARDESTY, AS TRUSTEE OF THE LYNN L. HARDESTY INTER VIVOS TRUST dated January 28, 1992 (hereinafter "Grantee") whose address is 3410 Highway 64 West, Hayesville, NC 28904. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the sum of Tel and 00/ 100 Dollars ($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby grants to Grantee, its successors or assigns, a nonexclumiye easement (hereinafter the "Easement") for ingress and egress purposes over the following, . *Ok- tii i' PARCEL ONE The South thirty feet f thdX&M--%,oLft S 1/4 th�,NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 48 S, Range 251, &IfiC , Flo da, L AND EXCEPT the East Va of the East yi of the a /t4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 48 South, e S f l`, ¢ � 4 • PARCE f+P t g C 0 AND`° r Commenc at the Sa corner of the � 4of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, Township Range 25 East, C / I , Florida, thence go North 660 feet to a point, 4>iast lb2-fes f point of beginning, theme continue East 132 feet to a po to a point. thence West 132 feet to a point, thence North 30 feet tothe p int of beginning. This Easement shall be appurtenant to the following described property (known hereivaft as the "Hardesty Property"): The South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, LESS AND EXCEPT the following described parcels: (i) Beginning at the Southwest comer ofthe Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, thence North 660 feet to a point, thence East 162 feet to the point of beginning, thence continue East 132 feet to a point, thence South 330 feet, thence West 132 feet, Page 1 of 2 0 I,* I• I -I *** OR; 3103 PG; 2951 *** North 330 feet to the point of beginning. (ii) The East 1/2 of the East 112 of the Southeast 114 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. This instrument shall be binding on, and inure to the benefit of, the successors and assigns of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has executed this instrument or caused the same to be executed by its representatives, thereunto duly authorized, on the day and year first above written. Witnesses: LONG BAY PARTNERS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company By: BONITA BAY PROPERTIES, INC., its managing member ane: 5�►ss�V�la}s (Signature) its �� rr ode Printed Name: • " "-ia": k.3451 Bonita Bay Blvd. Ste. 202 Z-,012/ /f / - Bonita Springs, FL 34134 (Signature) F " Printed Name STATE OF - n. F4� COUNTY OF . 1_..w. _71 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2002, by -5"tk ., t.A�-- as V ce - Pee- si�,4 of Bonita Bay Properties, Inc., a Florida corporation, man i mber of Long Bay Partners LLC, a Florida limited liability company, who is personal known to me produced as identification. (seat) Notary Public 40, 1 un M Mee PrintedName: t5ct C� �1 oas >t * �l000^ My Commission Expires: ply«� f E�pNn ttown� t 1 20CI SAWMI.&M FILFS%Me4ifem%0ew&nm of Fsummb\Hudrsy%Hndnty eaxmeatwpd Page 2 of 2 ; I Ie= IaN I r . SECTION A xrs. 1 a wm I wu I I19Ia I ! I ! I L /', �I P ePe I ., tLLv. u.Yx 5 TION wo Pr wn � 1 sea.. eM a� owe. wv '�'. rI weo �Pa nv 1 I n. I Rwx er ¢e..ea 114 "L—[. LM AMs. ---� ww WoPwlou e¢n ----t D rn ____-- I IV m SECTION O e1 °P' seal SECTION E (Imllea Imam aea I I I I I » sus an a eP+ SECTION O tlLl - pm----_— —�0.--lin SECTION F "r e. l _ Daanea neem Ball II Ia ewar 1. I—P, ow. R.n ,1- r..e I I I' SECTION H LEGEN m a 1:.,111e wnL mn n IIm11..„, ee. PEZZETTINO DI CIELO GradyMinor moa Clvli Engtneem . LendS—Yom . Plannersdscn . Lanape Al,cblWcle BUFFER CROSS SECTIONS � �rmR1r au�uRamxlrw¢»xryamew.ro. Pwnlen Dale deer'giun ge u' hmlla Fa19ale1: ?:in PAT. 1144 In In ialWP1(i en R,vMlnnr.cnm �nM1 Myam�9Dn.flnp.9,'Ina M 0ermb110111n� 3HM 1 of 1 a 0 0 0 • • AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE Petition PDI-PL201.60003482, Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, of the Collier County Land Development Code, I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an application request for an insubstantial change to a PUD, at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information. Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the county to be notified The said notice contained the laymen"s description of the site property of proposed change and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached letters, property owner's list, and hereby made apart of this Affidavit of Compliance/ (Signature of State of Florida County of Lee of newspaper advertisement which are The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this 6th day of October, 2017 by Sharon Umpenhour, who is personally known to me or- i0io has produeed Signat of Notary Public) Joanne Janes Printed Name of Notary 0 G:1N1M Procedures/PEUDI- davit Of Compliance (N M).Docx (Notary Seal) JOANNE JAMES ox MY COMMISSION f FF 090820 EXPIRES: March 14, 2018 P'4?F���°4 8andsdThNBudpelNo�a�y5=rvice� GradyMinor Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects • October 6, 2017 RE: Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) PL20160003482, Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD Dear Sir or Madam: A formal application has been submitted to Collier County, seeking approval of an Insubstantial Change to a PUD (PDI), by Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston LLC, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., for the following described property: The subject property is comprised of approximately 17.52± acres, located on the east side of Livingston Road approximately 1/2 mile north of Veterans Memorial Boulevard in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston LLC is asking the County to approve this application, which proposes to amend the previously approved Conceptual PUD Master Plan in order to deviate from the LDC buffer requirements in order to relocate the required landscape buffers on the north, south and east PUD boundary off-site within a previously approved landscape buffer easement. Other proposed modifications have been made to development standards for the PUD. • You are invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting (NIM) hosted by the applicant to inform nearby property owners, neighbors and the public of the proposed Insubstantial change to a PUD for the subject property. The NIM is for informational purposes only and is not a public hearing. The meeting will be held on Thursday, October 26, 2017, 5:30 pm at Vanderbilt Presbyterian Church, Harp Hall, 1225 Piper Boulevard, Naples, FL 34110. If you have questions or comments, they can be directed to Sharon Umpenhour: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com, phone 239-947-1144, fax 239-947-0375, Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134. Project information is posted online at www.gradyminor.com/planning. Sincerely, r r Sharon Umpenhour Senior Planning Technician Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 • 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com 0 r� Pezzettino Di Cielo RPU D .• so A'f Il Trebbio WAY W E5 - 0 9 a, y 0 Savona .4Y MED17-ERRA BLVD Vi//or est �VqY Monter osSo LN LUcaLiUn ivia FAIRGROVE WAY BRIGHTLING W Y TpL�g ppRKOR TALIS PARK DI Prato j SUBJECT PROPERTY 0 O w m a v CELLINI LN Celebrita CT BUONASERA CT VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD LEARNING LN i 'INFIELD LN Q c a, a, v Aberdeen AVE RAVINA WAY e14P, SENECA WAY a a U) J Fa - Fairway CT Trophy Amberwood DR 10. � \ GO Ashford LN • I � f � \� Marp\e GTt Gradylxiinor Civil Engineers • Land Survc,,ors • Planners • Landscape :ArchifteC3 1,100 550 0 1,100 Feet 10003482 External500' 10uplieam ma8me addresses removed) 0/30/7017 page 1 al l RfCKEY AME1 xAMF1 NAMES NAME4 NAMES NAME6 LEGAL LO -D SECT -1 RANGE I5115000226 ACOSTA,]ULIOB PATPICIA 22GETTYS&1RGCi NTOwN, N1 08501 1074 CABREO AT MEDITERRA LOT 8 g 12 IS 5996DW 1569 M,IMEPHMevALERIEM SAVONA AlwFl 34126-3701 MEDITERRA PARCEL 102 LOT 9 2 b 25]ISWM43 ARNOLD, LARRY G BSARAH L 1.11'IN MANI RUN LANE N 46077--0000 BIEOAT MEDRERRAIOTA 4 lZ 48 ZS 2111-00 BFN1A43TUARTAUNELIGBEH iRASER%NRA! 16839 GBRED OR NAPES'Fl 134110-0000 GORED AT MEDITERRA LOT 1 7 b 5 25115000129 BUCK, S11 IN I B SHANAOND 310 POSTERITY PL MARION, NI 08053- 5311 CARED AT MEDITERRA LOT 3 3 '3 a 25 25115000061 GRED AT MEDRERRA NEIGNBORHODO ASSN INC I. ENTERPRISE CH STE IW LAKEWOOD RANCH,FL 34202---4111 CABRE. AT MEDITEARATRACTR-I 1 1 IS 700263 CANTOR, RICHARD L B I.AN B 16259 LUCARAO WAY PES1L 31110-0 0 0 0 MEDITERRA PAD TIRRS PFPIAT IOTI 13 IB 25 3 5115 0 0 001 CASTER, DOUGUI MATTHEW LISA MARIE CAST EK 16841 GBRED OR S,FL 31110-HA00 CABAEO AT MEDITERRA tOT l 1 12 " 25 1a801158 C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 333S TAMIAMI TR E, STEM PES, FL 34 NGSTON ROAD RW DESC IN OR 2]08 PG 15N OR 2724 PG 503 AND OR 3801 PG 3029 IS 59960200289 CUSACK,MCHAEL) LIAR .-I. IANE IPS 1" MA 01938--0000 MEOITERRAIPARCEL 125 REPIATLOT5 ; 13 b 25 25115000284 DICK SON, DONALD 19 CARRED DR APLES,FL 31110-3 273 CABRfO AT MIOITEPRALOT II l2 48 15 25115000307 ELDMAN, ROBERTICUNEF 175IF APIUI1"D U2 DERWOOD, MD 20855-1502 CAREO AT MEDRERRA LOT 1'2 Z 12 4� IS 151I500D2R IFAN LTIPTON REV TRUST 16823 CARE. OR NAPLES, FL 3111 "73 CAB REO AT MEDUERRA LOT IO 10 13 25 IS- 0 0018 7 KENNETH STOWS UNING TRUST FARMER LNING TRUST 42 COLONIAL CRESCENT OAKNILE. ON L61aK9 CARfO AT MEDIif PRA lOT6 11 d8 25 59960200205 LATITUDE ATTITUDE LLC 900 RIVER HIGHLAND CWPT p'1 54403-1381 MENTERRA PARCEL 125 REPGT LOT I 1 IB 25 ISI IS 5115000161 LB MFDITERM LLC II]OVANDERBILT BCX RD N131 NAPLES, FI 341.--0000 CASHED AT MEDITERRA LOT 5 5 1 b IS 25190011111 LB MEDITERRA LLC 2210 VANDERBILT BEACH RD STE 1300 NAPLES, FL 341. --DOW CAMINETTO AT MEDRERRA TRACT CA 1 t 11 a 25 LB MEDITERRA LLC 2230 VANDERBILT BEACH PD STf 1300 vLE3. FL 31104-ODW GMINfH0 AT MIITERRATMCT U3 1 115 2512Fl1000047 LB MEDITERRA LLC 2230VANDERBIITeEACH RD STE 1300 PES, FL 311.-0000 CA MINfHD AT MIDIlEIRA TRACT CAS l 11 Alb 2S191UC102 LB MEDITERRA LLC 2110VANDERBILT BEACHI STE 1300 NAPLES, 3411 -1000 MINETTO AT MEDITERRA LOT I 1 13 b 25 251900001I8 BMFDItRPA LIf I210VANDGBIlTBEACH PO STE 1300 PLES, FL 311.--0000 MINETTO AL MEDITERRA l0T2 2 18 IS 251901100111 IB MFDITERM LLC 1210 VANDERBILT BE ACX RD STE 1300 NAPLES, FL 343.--0000 TMEDITEIII LET 3 12 1'5 25/9000011 LB Mf.ITERRA II[ 2210 VANDERBILT BEACH PD STE 1300 NAPLES. FL 34104--0000 CAMINETTO AT MEDRERRA LOT 4 5 12 25 251STEREO 18 6 LB MEDITERRA LLC 2210 VANDERBHT BEACH PD IT f 1300 PLES. FL 341.--0000 GMINETTD AT MEDITERRA LOTS 231%01102. DITERRA UC NDERBILTBGCHR. STE 1300 fL 3111 -DOW AMINETT. AT MEDITERRA LOT B 25 15190000325 iaGCH AD TF 1300 .HOCO MINETTD AT MEgTERRA LOT Z 48 35 25 1BUD— 0 0 0 0111 LB MEDITERRA LLC I210v1ADERBIIT BEACH RD ITL 131 NAPLES, FL 3411H]000 CARMfHO AT MEDITERRA LOTS B 12 b IS 2519000.67 LB MEDITERRA LLC 1210 VANDERBILT BGC' RD STE 1300 NAPLES, FL 341.-001 CAMINETTO ATMFDITFRRALOT9 9 13 25 15190000783 USMEgTERRA LLC 7210VAADEREU BGCHRD STE 1300 PLES, i1' 34104--0000 CA.MINITTD ATMEDITERRALOTIO SO 13 ZS 19000031 bMEgTERAULC 2210 VANDERBILT BEACH PD STE 1300 APLES. iL 34104-0000 CAMINETTO AT MF DRF RRALOTII 11 12' 1 b 25 15190000322 LB MEDITERA LLC 2230 VANDERBILT BEACH RD IT 1300 NAPLES, EL 341.---0000 CAMINETT. AT MFDRGRALOT 3E 31 12 b 251SECCO 48 LB MEDITERRA LLC 2210 VANDERBILT BEACH RD STE 1100 NAPES,FL 3111 -0000 GMINEHOATMEDITERRA LOT 14 3 12 48 IS 25190000361 LB MEDITERRA LLC E2]O VAxDERgITBEACHAD STE I- NAPLES, FL 34. -DOW GMINFTTO AT MEMTERRA LOT ]I 11 '1 d8 25 2519000031 bMEDITERRA LIC 2210VAIDERRILTBGCH RD TE l3W xAvlF3, FL 31 FHO AT MEDITERRA LOT IS IS 8 25 LB M,IT, FALLC AxDFR&IT BEACH STf 1300 AvlE3,FL 34104-0000 MEDITERRA RARCEL 102L. 11 1] 12 5991Z13�D2 LB MEDITERRA ILC 211OVAADF RILT BEACH RD STE 1300 ES. FL 34104-0000 MEDITERRA PARCEL I23 LOT Il LEFT 6 1Z 5 5996030]181 LB MEDITERRA LLC 3710 VANDERBILT BEACH RD STE 131 NAPLES, FL 341.--0000 MEDITERRA PARCEL 125 REPGT LOT SO 50 ZS 59%02012. LB MEDITERRA LLC III -AN DE RBI LT BEACH RD STE 131 NAPLES, FL 31.-0000 1RERRAPARCEL 235REPLATLOT 51 b 2 59960201220 LB MEDURRA LLC 2210 VANDERBIIi BEACH RD STE 1100 NAPES, FL 31.-001 MEDITERRA PARCEL 115 REPGT L.T 52 51 12 IB 15 59960201246 LBMEDITERRALLC 221UVAADERBILT BEACH RD STE 1300 RLES,FL 311. 0000 Mf.RRRAPARCEL125 REPLIT LOT 53 53 11' 25 59960101262 US MEDITERRA LL[ PENT BEACH RD STE 1300 FL 3411-0000 MEDITERRA PARCEl115"PIAT LOT 54 51 33 4B 5 2 519 0 00189 TERRA LLC 1210 VAADEPBIL3 BGCH RD . HOCO ETTO AT MEDITERRA TRACT AD -1 Z b 25 996.1318 IR MEgTERRA LL[ 2210VANDERRILT BEA CH RD X131 NAPLES, FL 34104-0000 MEDITERRA PARCEL 125 REPGT LOT 7 7 13 4b 35 599621 LUCARNO ILIA ASSOCIATION IAC 15275 COLLIE R BLVD N 201/576 VES, FL 34119-750 MEgTERRA PARCEL 125 REPGT TRACT R 9 'I 2 2111=1'42 fFAHRER TRU ST 16817 CABREO DR NAPLES, FL 34110-3273 REO. MEDITERRAL0T9 2 IB IS 60001585 MA LORETTAVMATHISONTR WLUAM A MATHISON EST TRUST LORETTA V MATHISON EST TRUST 158395AVONA WAv APLES FL 311.-2701 EL102 LOT IT 0 12 IS 66001.1 MUxITY A55N IN 5735COR5I MEDUERRA OR APLES FL 31110- 2700 LFCWR11 PHASE TWO THOSE PORTI.NSOF TRACT CO2 MSC IN OR 4561 PG 915 REFERRE D 41 -111L II"e 13 11 25 59%0215067 MFDRE RACOMMUNITY ASSN INC 15735 C. MEDITERRA CH APLES, FL 31110.-0 01 MEDITERFR PHASE THREE EAST UNIT 3 TRACT G3 1 13 b 35 5996010001 EDUERRA [OMBNNITY ASSN INC 15735 CORSO MEDRERRA CIR APES, F134110.-21116 MEDITERRA UNIT ONE THAT PORT ION OF TRACT PLYING IN SFC 12 TWP 48 ANG 25 1 12 b 2 59%0001381 MEDITERRA COMMU N ITY ASSN INC 15735CORSOMFDITERRACIR NAPLESFL 34110.-27% MEDITERRA PARCEL 102 TRACT A ; 'I 48 25 59960310010 MEDRERRA COMMUNITY ASSN Ix[ 15]350.0.50 MFDITERM CIR NAPLES, FL 34ll0-2706 MWITERRAPHASE THREE EAST UNIT..Ell A, LESS MEDITERA PHASETHREE EAST UNITTHREE, IISSTHAT PORTION AS DESC IN 2 IB 15 SIL 91310016 MEDITERRA COMMUNITY A55N INC IS]35 CORSO MEDRERRA OR PLES, iL 31110-27. MEDITERRA PH ASI THREE FASTUNIT.NETRG,LESS MEDITERRA PHASE THREE GST UNIT THREE ] 11 M IS 59960211185 DITERPA COMMUNITY ASSM INC 15735 CoxS0 MEDRERRA CIR PIES FL 3411.37% MEDRERRA PHASE THERE GST UNIT ONE TRACT F ESS THAT PORT NKA TR S MEDITERRA PARCTL 125 REPGT PB 42 PG 5556 1 li 15 91311. MEDITERRA CDMMUAITY A55N C 15735 COR50 MEDITERRA CIR NAPLESFL 31110 3 7 0 6 MEOITFRRA 'PHASE TXRFE EAST UNIT ONE iRACTO 1 12 b 35 5 9 9 6 0 2119 61 MEDITERRA COM MU NI TY ASSN :INCT15735 CORSO MEDITERRA CIR NAPES, FL 31110.-21. MEDITERRA PHASE THREE EAST UNIT ONE TRACT R LESS THAT PORT NKA TR R MEOUll. PARCH 125 REPGT PH 42 PG 55 11' .e ZS 599W211825 MEDITERAAS011THCOMMUNFIYDEV 2300 GLIDES RD N41 5 9 9 6 0 2 11811 MEDRERRA SOUTH COMMUNITY DEV 2300 GLIDES RD N41 59%020031AACYIBARNES LIVING TRUST 16735 LUCARNO WA 59966000043 N EW CLUB AT MEDITERRA INC, THE 15255 COR50 MEOIT 251150003. PUDELSKY, DAVID G B NANCY H 238. C4MPIA COUI 59912101D1 RESOURCE CONSERVATIONS MS LLC 59960211286 RESOURCE CONSERVATION SYST LLC 9990 COCONUT RDS 131386 ROBERTS, TERFRFY GLEN PATRICIA WENDT RC .003 599644 SIT HE, DAVID P B SAN CARLENCOE MANOR 51-ULAM. JAMES M ELISA A 11 LAKFWEW AVE 5996021221 WIL". TERRY G 6 KAREN I 162621UCARNO WA 59%011212 WIDE, CANDRIM PO ROK 829 0 0 0 • • NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING PL20160003482, Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD The public is invited to attend a neighborhood meeting held by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., representing Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston LLC on: Thursday, October 26, 2017, 5:30 pm at Vanderbilt Presbyterian Church, Harp Hall, 1225 Piper Boulevard, Naples, FL 34110 Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston LLC is asking the County to approve an Insubstantial Change to a PUD (PDI) Application, which proposes to amend the previously approved Conceptual PUD Master Plan in order to deviate from the LDC buffer requirements in order to relocate the required landscape buffers on the north, south and east PUD boundary off-site within a previously approved landscape buffer easement. Other proposed modifications have been made to development standards for the PUD. The subject property is comprised of approximately 17.52± acres, located on the east side of Livingston Road approximately 1/2 mile north of Veterans Memorial Boulevard in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Brighbing IVO airgmve :NAY �a z `'s Park DR S q & mn , RD Tr ebb+D z SUBJECT o PROPERTY s�,an VVAY 0 a z Fieer.78'dr'AY A9 ea#C"M 8l✓p J � �, Y Vd A� art � W WA c i &neva a h.9 L ors enys�� C �P Versa .RAY �. t-,gVe'xim T �o� a� CDG O R fe ra emorie �.VA Pinnacle n 0 ti '4 TrD^rhYDRn ar S �BjSe Cry 90 f env Aberde nMS 4b % 4R Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation. The Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) is for informational purposes only; it is not a public hearing. Project information is posted online at www.gradyminor.com/planning. If you have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone, fax or e-mail by October 26, 2017 to: Sharon Umpenhour, Senior Planning Technician Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 Phone: 239.947.1144 Fax: 239.947.0375 sumpenhour@gradyminor.com October 6, 2017 ND -1771801 GradyMinor Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects November 22, 2017 Long Bay Partners, LLC 9990 Coconut Road, Suite 200 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 RE: PL20160003482, Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD Dear Sir or Madam: A formal application has been submitted to Collier County, seeking approval of an Insubstantial Change to a PUD (PDI), by Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston LLC, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., for the following described property: The subject property is comprised of approximately 17.52± acres, located on the east side of Livingston Road approximately 1/2 mile north of Veterans Memorial Boulevard in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston LLC is asking the County to approve this application, which proposes to amend the previously approved Conceptual PUD Master Plan in order to deviate from the LDC buffer requirements in order to relocate the required landscape buffers on the north, south and east PUD boundary off-site within a previously approved landscape buffer easement. Other proposed modifications have been made to development standards for the PUD. Sincerely, Michael Delate, P.E. Enclosures Cc: Steven Fiterman GradyMinor File 0 • Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 • 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com :7 USPSTRAGKNG j 9590 9402` L(14d ��249 4247 02 First -Class Mail Postage & Fees Paid USPS Permit No. G-10 United States • Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIPW it Postai Service ShOLY-On Umptnhou.4z Q. Grady Minor & Assodslo, PA. 3800 Via iet Ray Bonita Springs. FL 34113,1 1(lil�t�tltr�ttltll►l ttl-lthrl,it�t���t;tttllt�tl�Ittlat box* • • A 0 Complete iteffis III Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. 0 Attach this card to the back of the mallpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: 9590 9402 2440 6249 4247 02 A. v- E3 Agmt 11 Addressee B. Received by (Printed Aims)0, Date of Delivery D. Is delivery addre!=I If YES, enter deIiJ57Zb E03 Y- No NOV 3 0 2017 Q. Grady Minor & ASSQCiafP.c P A [3 collect 0 Insured 7015 1520 0002 1747 2161 0 Ins"red Ps Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7$30-02-000-9053 0 9 fps 0 Priority Mall EVcess® me C) RegMmd WOW ure lFlestrJoW Do" 13 Registered Ma Restricted 10 0 Re&kftd Wkvzy Delivery 11p'for XD=% advery silvery Residutid,olvery C! Signature ConfirmationTrA I' Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery . PArstricted Delivery DOmestle Retum Receipt SIGN PUSTING INSTF CT�IONS (CHAPTER 8, COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT) isA zoning sign(s) must be posted by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent on the parcel for a minimum of fifteen (15) calendar days in advance of the first public hearing and said sign(s) must be maintained by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent through the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Below are general guidelines for signs, however these guidelines should not be construed to supersede any requirement of the LDC. For specific sign requirements, please refer to the Administrative Code, Chapter 8 E. • I . The sign(s) must be erected in full view of the public, not more than five (5) feet from the nearest street right-of-way or easement. 2. The sign(s) must be securely affixed by nails, staples, or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened securely to a post, or other structure, The sign may not be affixed to a tree or other foliage. 3. The petitioner or the petitioner's agent must maintain the sign(s) in place, and readable condition until the requested action has been heard and a final decision rendered. If the sign(s) is destroyed, lost, or rendered unreadable, the petitioner or the petitioner's agent must replace the sign(s NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, PERSONALLY APPEARED Sharon Umpenhour WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HEISHE HAS POSTED PROPER NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER PL201 003482, Pezzettino Di Cieio RPUD Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR AGENT STREET OR P.O. BOX Sharon Umpenhour, Senior Planning Technician NAME (TYPED OR PRINTED) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF LEE Bonita Springs, FL 34134 CITY, STATE ZIP The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this 20th day of December, 2017, by Sharon Urnpenhour, personally known to me i and wlodielldid not take an oath. My Commission Expires: (Stamp with serial number) Rev. 3/4/2015 Printed Name of Notary Public �".�r• P ;� JOANNE JANES * * MY COMMISSION r FF DX82U EXPIRES: March 14, 2018 " � RgeQS ank Thru 9vdgd Notary SEIYkke