Loading...
Agenda 01/13/2015 Item #17A 1/13/2015 17.A. n EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district forr a project known as Collier 36 RPUD to allow development of up to 40 single family and/or multi-family dwelling units on property located on the east side of Collier Boulevard(CR 951)and north of Bucks Run Drive in Section 35,Township 48 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida,consisting of 10t acres; and by providing an effective date [PUDZ-PL20140000340]: OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) review staff's findings and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) regarding the above referenced petition and render a decision regarding this PUD rezone petition; and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner is asking the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)to consider an application for a rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a n Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project known as Collier 36 RPUD to allow development of up to 40 single family and/or multi-family dwelling units. For details about the project proposal, refer to "Purpose/Description of Project" in the staff report prepared for the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC). FISCAL IMPACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan as needed to maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the improvements.Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP)IMPACT: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, the Urban Residential Subdistrict permits residential uses, including accessory recreational and open space uses. Development within this Subdistrict is allowed at a base density of four(4)dwelling units per acre, subject to the Density Rating System provisions: Packet Page-2370- 1/13/2015 17.A. Eligible density for proposed PUD: 10.15 acres x 4 Dwelling Units per Acre(DU/A)=40 DU/A The proposed PUD seeks the maximum amount of eligible dwelling units,or 40 DU/A. FLUE Objective 7 and relevant policies are stated below; each policy is followed by staff analysis. Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. (Exhibit C, the Conceptual Master Plan of the PUD document depicts direct access to Tuscany Pointe Trail, which has direct access to Collier Boulevard, an arterial road as identified in the Transportation Element.) Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. (Exhibit C, the Conceptual Master Plan of the PUD document proposes a shared access between Tuscany Pointe RPUD along the south and the subject site onto Collier Boulevard.) Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. (Exhibit C, the Conceptual Master Plan of the PUD document proposes a shared access between the development along the south of the subject site (Tuscany Pointe RPUD) onto Collier Boulevard, but there is no proposed interconnections from the project's internal road onto adjoining properties. However, likely development of individual lots along the south of the property; a water management feature along the east of the site; and enclosed private vehicle storage along the north, makes interconnection to said properties not feasible or appropriate.) Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. (The PUD proposes a variety of dwelling unit types, and open spaces are provided as required by the LDC. Sidewalks must be provided as required by the LDC as no deviations are requested.) Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed rezone consistent with the FLUE. Packet Page-2371- 1/13/2015 17.A. .-� Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this amendment within the 5 year planning period. Therefore, the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site consists of 8.98 acres of native vegetation; a minimum of 1.35 (25%) acres of the existing native vegetation shall be preserved. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff also recommends that the petition be found consistent with the CCME. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC/EAC heard this petition on November 6, 2014, and found that the criteria of Section 10.02.08.F and 10.02.13.B.5 were met. By a vote of 7 to 0, with the motion made by Commissioner Chrzanowski and seconded by Commissioner Homiak, the CCPC recommended forwarding this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval subject to the following final changes to the PUD document: 1. Correct deviation #1 about dead end streets to eliminate fire code references — deny staff recommendation#1; 2. Change deviation #5 reference about window location on the zero lot line product to remove "in a contiguous wall;" 3. Add language to require Maintenance Easements and Landscape Buffer Easements to be platted separately; 4. Support staff recommendation#2; 5. Remove "including recreational facilities" from accessory language in Exhibit A.1.B.1; 6. Change standards table to eliminate lines about lake setbacks and add footnote allowing zero setback when against platted Maintenance Easements and Landscape Buffer Easements; 7. Clarify what happens when utility easements are greater than setback requirements 8. Provide easement requirement for future connectors to utility stub out and for co-use of sewer facilities for this project with Tuscany. 9. Remove reference section in PUD about fire codes. These revisions have been incorporated into the PUD document that is included in the draft ordinance. Packet Page -2372- 1/13/2015 17.A. No opposition to this petition,per se, has been received. Opposition was voiced at the CCPC '1 hearing to the proposed Benfield Roadway Corridor, but not to the petition itself. The CCPC vote was unanimous;therefore the petition can be placed on the Summary Agenda. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is a site specific rezone from a Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Collier 36 RPUD. The burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent with all the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), should it consider denying the rezone,to determine that such denial would not be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the proposal does not meet one or more of the listed criteria below. Criteria for RPUD Rezones Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval or not 1. Consider: 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. 2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of 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? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. 3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed RPUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. 4. Consider: 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. 5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development? 6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. 7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 8. Consider: Conformity with RPUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications Packet Page -2373- 1/13/2015 17.A. are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. 9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan? 10. Will the proposed RPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? 11. Would the requested RPUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? 12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. 13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. 14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? 15. Will the proposed change 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? 16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? 17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas? 18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? 19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations? 20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ("reasonably") be used in accordance with existing zoning? (a"core" question...) 22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county? 23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Packet Page-2374- 1/13/2015 17.A. 24. Consider: 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. 25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed RPUD rezone 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 [Code ch.106, art. II], as amended. 26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the RPUD rezone request that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare? The BCC must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the BCC hearing as these items relate to these criteria. The proposed Ordinance was prepared by the County Attorney's Office. This item has been approved as to form and legality, and requires an affirmative vote of four for Board approval (SAS) RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendations of the CCPC and further recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approves the request subject to the attached PUD Ordinance that includes both the staff's revised recommendation and the CCPC recommendation. Prepared by: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner, Planning & Zoning Department, Growth Management Division Attachments: 1) CCPC Staff Report 2) Neighborhood Information Synopsis 3) Application Backup Information due to the size of the document it is accessible at: http://www.colliergov.net/ftp/AaendaJanl315/GrowthMgmt/Application for Collier 36 RPUD .pdf 4) Ordinance Packet Page -2375- 1/13/2015 17.A. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 17.17.A. Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended,the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project known as Collier 36 RPUD to allow development of up to 40 single family and/or multi-family dwelling units on property located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and north of Bucks Run Drive in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 10±acres; and by providing an effective date [PUDZ- P L20140000340]. Meeting Date: 1/13/2015 Prepared By Name: DeselemKay Title: Planner,Principal,Zoning&Land Development Review 12/4/2014 5:33:04 PM Approved By Name: BosiMichael Title: Director-Planning and Zoning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 12/17/2014 8:14:27 AM Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, Community Development&Environmental Services Date: 12/22/2014 4:59:47 PM Name: BellowsRay Title: Manager-Planning,Comprehensive Planning Date: 12/22/2014 5:11:46 PM Name: MarcellaJeanne Packet Page-2376- 1/13/2015 17.A. Title: Executive Secretary, Transportation Planning Date: 12/29/2014 8:37:55 AM Name: AshtonHeidi Title: Managing Assistant County Attorney, CAO Land Use/Transportation Date: 12/29/2014 9:19:18 AM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 12/29/2014 11:21:02 AM Name: FinnEd Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior, Transportation Engineering& Construction Management Date: 12/31/2014 11:20:27 AM Name: UsherSusan Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior, Office of Management&Budget Date: 1/5/2015 9:00:30 AM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager, County Managers Office Date: 1/5/2015 3:25:38 PM Packet Page-2377- 1/13/2015 17.A. AGENDA ITEM 9-B CAke* r County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES—ZONING DEPARTMENT; GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 6,2014 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20140000340; COLLIER 36 RPUD PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT/AGENT & CONTRACT PURCHASER: Owner/Applicant: Agent: Contract Purchaser: Collier 36, LLC Robert J. Mulhere,FAICP DR Horton, Inc. 6524 Paul Mar Drive Hole Montes, Inc. 10541 Ben C Pratt/Six Mile Cypress Pkwy. Lantana,FL 33462 950 Encore Way Fort Myers, FL 33966 Naples,FL 34110 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for a rezone from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project known as Collier 36 RPUD to allow development of up to 40 single family and/or multi-family dwelling units. For details about the project proposal,refer to "Purpose/Description of Project." GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 10± acres, is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and north of Bucks Run Drive in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida(See location map on the following page.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject property is an undeveloped, heavily vegetated tract of land with 350± feet of frontage on Collier Boulevard, approximately 1600 feet north of Vanderbilt Beach Road. The Master Plan shows no access onto Collier Boulevard but does show one access point onto Tuscany Pointe PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 1 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 Packet Page -2378- 1/13/2015 17.A. I.".ti.4•.;....33.t.it E OEM NM NMI gm 1131M i.... i — , IMMI WIN lamp t1- ° �d©,S ......_ _ E i A%.4:0il.i -1 '.:....::,.e:'!,:..:...:.;:..1..:..:i:":::,';:::l,....:1.1!:i.:.1'.:i!;.1.1i1:i.1.Ii„1.il:1.il11'.i.1' i a .o X10 r,I.:.,.4,,,,, eaeooa®o J 9 q g I 1 7 1 6 MR pi Z 4 MN ii z ION (146 '8'0) 08 A3lf1Q9 0[1103 1 o c 1 o a » 1I) III 4 N li IIAI 1111 1 1 _ a T..., o. ft Z 5.. 8. Ex 0 nil 51e N e & til, 1g g I, r i ' \igl ge ii 111 §§ En i. 3 Z P I _ 'i1 ��U31T00 ill 0 MOM 33m m p i - j ---- ! g" I- $8 V C-) 1 g ggN kg. N g 5g1 — -, °_` kEa Woo aka 11= I. sit Packet Page-2379- „ i- m it 1/13/2015 17.A.CD/4[ i r ✓ 1 I 1 1 g g $ m t. �^ I 1 j d I I I i i r4 i W �u O. I �,*�, 'KK KM xK i •• i .xK^Kn mi< 'nmm.v loo C �� �•• �� ! I II l't �n r n""��{ /1 ~N^ 4 >0N 1 F N 1 1 I <.-. i•I Z ♦ O• ,_� 1 1 I It C7 'd�C�'fiO .—. —.. I 1 < .I...in•]Op q@W@': N a^ I ° I- G I ii I l 0 !, $ ng �▪�¢ J o r., ! ° I1 I I I 1< , xw za z • Cl.0 © O I I ff-i I I II ,^ 1 V J I Q 1 I j j 8 .-g wo-t Cr) I' `�� I s ,-x :6 1.11 I , ° < I3I j Yr _ o .� UQ � fl--j .+ 0 1 I yyyyr.,,,� '�_ M 4• R ! a I ° I a 1 1 d PI P. 'E m l I C I '� 1 C I 11 TT-- C N W p d w I u v Um6 i I 1 N §W gi /w1 g I ray a� I an I 0- u rc 0 N I r 1 Q/ I f" I 1I— u a U ti S z 'b 1 1 V 1 ! .r N „� I I I I �1 o �° 0 � 1 f ., ri U •• I 1Qi �/�'�) j 4- �a C ' ; I 1 Y '.i I 7 C II ' N 1 1 I 11 1 1 F Z w3lwunw._o min oz� zv mJ • 1 H O= ri Yu<l fig 4Z O F.- ;i 11 11 � o WNW ' 3 HF E�i t La% I I I I I I a .� 1,�g�FZ 'n'g I I I ! ire , , i r1 4; li;!;1 im 888m.t Lo Pz°z."/1 w<< 3 !:7'.. o i tEi !a 1 L_ 1 .,--„,..--- ,,,,...---- < Og <F'YAOg jKW h „,IRS IZS 1 oC j ti( ii 1vJ $ b w' .91 I F- N m ;3g a Oa<sw:- r›- = '2° i°°o Diu g<Gg Z. I p20lig U V,°§ 1 °gym i,1 t l t It l l , 1 �� !( y= < ;,°>:UZw <'.'m `d,..ZF E. $ gp I I 1i.i ! 1' 511.. ?i� !r 1g ° W<[<iFpma C4r g°V cr''aa aiFmp i ,. }1 .., ;� I I� <- r L`W1nF'G mu o vJ Lei~ x•11- t,t p ., �'I a oyam• �I -�i k"'cOi ^ 1ri 5- a 1 WY J99- gl 6pS IiT I y V{+D. y, �•rc' i �! 0 , c'- 'te,1 < ud,,0 '"4n -!tp F�w¢_�i I Il }t2 UI IIt WY 1 I I 1 < 5� x�.II i N - o --W - C1 ?1 }�<mt 1 1 ...� i IiJ) I l s� yw "'aWno6�- `.oak'' '44 o4E �°.z < ,V 1.1 R1 : I 1 itot.I V \1\ �.._- 'o 00 12 amOi oGiK O g€ } " ii 1ii;t , T-LI„ r ° rc� ink, o� i 66 O In Owl 1 �. l/ _._.. 0J YI1 FJ ♦°'- ri W arms ff10 4P Egg - - - - «- -- - q. n marm< ° �° I"os 4H >nm ! o l cc6s -�-'- -'--.-_._-•-_-----'-__._ _- EL' E EmmsO3 E°r3osi E�i .t.°< E R8 - 0 8 8 8 8 0 0 (LS6'1f7) OW B X03 Si Packet Page-2380- 1/13/2015 17.A. 1 Trail. The Master Plan also shows rights-of--way, a 1.6 acre lake, and four residential tracts. The applicant is seeking approval of seven deviations(see deviation disc ussion for more detail.) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: i North: A plant nursery on 14 acres East: Tuscany Pointe RPUD, a 30-acre developing residential community approved for 1 120 dwelling units South: Tuscany Pointe RPUD, a 30-acre developing residential community approved for 120 dwelling units West: Collier Boulevard then, an undeveloped Mixed Use PUD named Sonoma Oaks, approved for commercial uses along the Collier Boulevard frontage %; t.1 ��w .' • + ±?'" x . fib, s...,44. ' '7�'0R+t"a,_. ". . #` -.* s `y-. �1 `.—„.. '',..„'-,,e,...,--„,t -4t.„,..1 .,,,, 1, ‘,'.,,„4„,..;'-;,.-,,,,,,‘:',r'..-17.r.,i C*9- •-41 • .‘”- tt� `"`tt ^ **' °, 4 1 t om' - ..._, � k �� '� n � �-x a A � 'gym r.. ��,1! �^ � a�` ��,�� �,'„,m� ihti. .,—••>. '°' ., °It}•••, ,' ° .. . . ° ° •■■.....'"7'. —,-,""7,1 ,,,- --t.i iti- P 'Y*,°< , .frea*1111** -' '~ � �`',t �`n� , .b 0 e* z..., t w„ --a i s„a" " r F{ , A rw� 1 i ,s . uk'� � .+ . ? 4 • 1 t i ' r a.yge °' s a � � t w 1n b.€ � s^s ecJ — ▪" - .� ' t. f r 'k ,, fi ° ek, e,S '.r - F � l ,s,,.:.!, ' 4 K. ? i R, m d "i 4 y q Vi.#r k f :1::"4:. , f _P.. 4 PoZ14 rt,, •"' j t'A tsp 04 ;�,.'R t P t , • , °R!} ; ' s � `s.1" ,�*;r a + .'� .x. '7 �&` . a✓ N .y * ,: ea 4 ,a" ,� 4 M s^ i }�n . t IR t _., . #1%" ' , � 1 m a-ww + wwb-A "y! � +;ra.. ' r r:.4.te- t � s'So' M , imate)' .., . approxAerial Photo (subject site depiction is it.PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 2 of 17 November 6 ,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 Packet Page -2381- 1/13/2015 17.A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, the Urban Residential Subdistrict permits residential uses, including accessory recreational and open space uses. Development within this Subdistrict is allowed at a base density of four (4) dwelling units per acre, subject to the Density Rating System provisions: Eligible density for proposed PUD: 10.15 acres x 4 Dwelling Units per Acre (DU/A)=40 DU/A The proposed PUD seeks the maximum amount of eligible dwelling units, or 40 DU/A. FLUE Objective 7 and relevant policies are stated below; each policy is followed by staff analysis. Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. (Exhibit C, the Conceptual Master Plan of the PUD document depicts direct access to Tuscany Pointe Trail, which has direct access to Collier Boulevard, an arterial road as identified in the Transportation Element.) Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. (Exhibit C, the Conceptual Master Plan of the PUD document proposes a shared access between Tuscany Pointe RPUD along the south and the subject site onto Collier Boulevard.) Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. (Exhibit C, the Conceptual Master Plan of the PUD document proposes a shared access between the development along the south of the subject site (Tuscany Pointe RPUD) onto Collier Boulevard, but there is no proposed interconnections from the project's internal road onto adjoining properties. However, likely development of individual lots along the south of the property; a water management feature along the east of the site; and enclosed private vehicle storage along the north, makes interconnection to said properties not feasible or appropriate.) 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. PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 3 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10!15/14 Packet Page-2382- 1/13/2015 17.A. 1$ (The PUD proposes a variety of dwelling unit types, and open spaces are provided as required by the LDC. Sidewalks must be provided as required by the LDC as no deviations are requested.) Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed rezone consistent with the FLUE. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this amendment within the 5 year planning period. Therefore, the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation& Coastal Management Element(CCME). The project site consists of 8.98 acres of native vegetation; a minimum of 1.35 (25%) acres of the existing native vegetation shall be preserved. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A fording of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff also recommends that the petition be found consistent with the CCME. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the bases for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. The PUD provides for the 1.35 acre preserve requirement to be fulfilled offsite under 3.05.07 HI.f.i.d Off-site vegetation retention. See deviation #6 justification and staff recommendation for approval in this report. This project does require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project meets the EAC scope of PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 4 of 17 November 6, 2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 Packet Page-2383- 1/13/2015 17.A. land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Specifically, a deviation is being requested. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues as well as roadway capacity, and recommends approval subject to the Developer/owner commitments as provided in the PUD ordinance. Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. As noted earlier in the staff report, the area to the north is developed as a plant nursery, with agricultural zoning. To the east and south the area is being developed as a single-family residential project known as Tuscany Pointe. That development has a zoning designation of PUD. To the west is Collier Boulevard then the undeveloped commercial portion of Sonoma Oaks, a PUD zoned project. The PUD document proposes several residential housing types, such as single-family detached, single-family attached, two-family patio, two-family zero lot line, and townhouse units. The proposed density is four units per acre. The Tuscany Pointe PUD allows the same uses at the same density. Staff is of the opinion that the two projects are compatible but does have some concerns if this project were to be developed with the townhouse use as that could place a multi-family structure within 15 feet of the shared boundary of this project and Tuscany Pointe's single-family homes. Should multi-family structures, i.e. townhomes, be developed on the subject tract, staff would want to see massing and orientation addressed to minimize the impacts. For example, staff recommends that no more than four units be included in any building, and the buildings should be oriented such that the smallest building side would abut Tuscany Pointe. Zoning staff is of the opinion that this project will be compatible with and complementary to,the surrounding land uses. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking approval of seven deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are listed in PUD Exhibit E. Deviations are a normal derivative of the PUD zoning process following the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC Section 2.03.06 which says in part: It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs. . . . may depart from the strict application of setback height, and minimum PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 5 of 17 November 6, 2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 Packet Page-2384- 1/13/2015 17.A. lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the public interest. . . . Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N,requiring a minimum right-of-way width of 60 feet for local private street rights-of-way, to allow for a minimum 42 foot right-of-way width internal to the proposed development. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The justification is a 42 foot right-of-way will be sufficient for the scale of the proposed development and will provide an adequate cross-section to meet ingress/egress, drainage, and utilities requirements while maintaining public safety. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the_petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J, which prohibits dead-end streets, to allow the dead end street shown on the RPUD Master Plan,Exhibit C. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: A T-turnaround, sufficient for the turn radius of fire trucks, is provided, without providing a cul-de-sac. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved with the stipulation that hammer head turn grounds shall comply with CCFCO / Collier County requirements of 25' radius inside, 49' radius outside and 150 ft max length of the dead end. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3. the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h. the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C, Table of Buffer Yards, which requires a ten-foot-wide landscape buffer between adjacent properties developed as single-family residential, to allow for no landscape buffer between Collier 36 RPUD and Tuscany Pointe RPUD, along the south and east property lines of the subject site, provided the properties have a shared access and are developed by the same developer as one, single-family detached community. The developer shall plant the equivalent number of trees (38), as would have been required if the 10' landscape PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 6 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/16/14 Packet Page-2385- 1/13/2015 17.A. I buffer were provided, elsewhere on the site, and shall identify the location of such additional trees at time of platting. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The justification for this deviation is that if Collier 36 and Tuscany Pointe RPUD are developed as part of one continuous development, both with single-family homes, there is no potential incompatibility between the sites; rather, they will be part of one, unified development. Additionally, there will be no net loss in the amount of landscaping, as required trees will be planted elsewhere on-site. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Deviation believing that retention of the trees that would be provided in the buffer is adequate mitigation for the loss of the buffer. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 4 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2 Sidewalks, Bike Paths, and Pathway Requirements, which requires sidewalks to be constructed on both sides of the street within public and private rights-of-way or easements internal to the site, to allow sidewalks to be constructed on one side of the private street where shown on Exhibit C,Master Plan. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The justification is that pedestrian access to all lots can be adequately accommodated with a sidewalk on one side of the street (the side of the street fronting the lots) without loss of connectivity. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved because if this site is developed for Single-Family Detached dwellings, the deviation will only affect three lots as shown on the next page: PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 7 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10115/14 Packet Page-2386- 1/13/2015 17.A. i _ , ...._ ; .....-1 WOW"WSW I L ' i ! iT ttt ; 4 a T �;E A" { I lAj1 1 P i ...__. .. ie t �_ : . i I I Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation for only those areas described above, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A..3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h,the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.04.D.1 Standards for Cluster Residential Design, which requires the zero lot line portion of a dwelling unit to be void of doors or windows where such wall is contiguous to an adjoining lot line,to allow windows in a contiguous wall. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The justification is that privacy between units can be maintained while still providing windows along the contiguous wall, given the minimum separation between structures is ten CO)feet. This deviation is routinely granted. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation for only those areas described above, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 8 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 Packet Page -2387- 1/13/2015 17.A. E i 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05.07 H1.f.i.d Off-site vegetation retention, which allows on-site native vegetation preservation retention requirement be satisfied off-site for preserves less than one acre in size,to allow for a preserve 1.35 acres in size. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: Collier 36 is a relatively small project (10± acres) within the Urban Area, located immediately adjacent to CR 951/Collier Blvd. Based on existing native vegetation, approximately 1.35 acres is required to be preserved. Per LDC Section 3.05.07 H 1.f off-site preserves less than one acre in size can be approved administratively. There are no areas of native vegetation or preserves on adjacent properties. Property to the south (Tuscany Pointe RPUD) was cleared and met the native vegetation retention requirement by donating an off-site parcel, in lieu of an on-site preserve. Property to the north is developed with an agricultural use and does not contain undeveloped/vegetated areas. Land to the north and east is the Vanderbilt Country Club PUD, with the portion adjacent to Collier 36 developed as a utility site for the golf course. There are no opportunities to provide interconnection with other areas of native vegetation. In addition to the fact that an on-site preserve could not connect with other preserves, and therefore would be isolated within a developed area, the small size of the subject site means the preserve area would likewise be relatively small. The site is also almost four times as deep as it is wide, which would result in a very narrow preserve width. On July 16, 2014, a SFWMD site visit was conducted to examine the site for Jurisdictional Wetlands. The site was deemed to be Non-Jurisdictional (UPLAND). In addition, the USACOE concluded that NO PERMIT was required because the site was not Jurisdictional. As such, the site has no wetlands and no Functional Value or Compensation is required. A monetary payment,for the County to acquire suitable property, or a land donation, in an area designated by the County for preservation, is consistent with CCME Policy 6.1.1 (10). Such property will contain native vegetative communities equal to or of a higher priority than those on the land being impacted, consistent with Policy 6.1.1.(10). Off-site preserve areas shall be protected by a permanent conservation easement (Policy 6.1.1.(3)). Consistent with Policy 6.2.4., the County relies on the wetland jurisdictional determination issued by the applicable agency, and that agency has determined that no jurisdictional wetlands exist on-site. Given the above, an off-site preserve, located in an area the County has designated as important for habitat preservation in a regional context, would have significantly more value than a small, isolated on-site preserve. PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 9 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 Packet Page -2388- 1/13/2015 17.A. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Collier County GMP CCME Policy 6.1.1. (13) states, "The County may grant a deviation to the native vegetation retention requirements of CCME Policy 6.1.1 (10). Environmental Planning staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation given that the preserve requirement of 1.35 is close to one acre, any onsite preserve would be isolated, and there are no listed species. Further, staff agrees with the applicant's statement that "An off- site preserve, located in an area the County has designated as important for habitat preservation in a regional context,would have significantly more value than a small, isolated on-site preserve." Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community, and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h,the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 7 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C, Table of Buffer Yards, which requires a fifteen-foot-wide Alternative B landscape buffer between adjacent properties developed as single- family residential and commercial, to allow for a ten-foot wide Alternative B landscape buffer along the northern boundary, between Collier 36 RPUD and the agriculturally zoned property, where shown on Exhibit C, Master Plan. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The required Type B landscaping will be provided within the reduced 10-foot width, so that there will be no loss in buffering and landscaping. The subject site is relatively narrow, almost four times as deep as it is wide, and within Tract L, there is not sufficient width to accommodate the 15' landscape buffer and the 20' lake maintenance easement north of the required water management area. On the eastern portion of the site, there is not sufficient width to accommodate a 15' landscape buffer along with necessary utilities. Additionally, the property to the north is zoned A, Rural Agriculture, which is generally considered to be a "holding" zoning designation in an urban area, pending a timely zoning change, most likely to a residential designation, in which case only a 10'Type A buffer would be required. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: While staff supports this deviation request, staff notes that buffering requirements are determined by the present use not a potential future use. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3. the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h,the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 10 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 Packet Page -2389- 1/13/2015 17.A. FINDINGS OF FACT: . LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below. [Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold, non-italicized font]: PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" (Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed uses are compatible with the approved uses and existing development in the area. In addition, the proposed property development regulations provide adequate assurances that the proposed project will be suitable to the type and pattern of development in the area. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to obtain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP. • 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 11 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 Packet Page-2390- • 1/13/2015 17.A. As described in the Analysis Section of this staff report, staff is of the opinion that the proposed uses, development standards and developer commitments will help ensure that this project is compatible with the surrounding area. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project as noted in the GMP FLUE and Transportation Element consistency review, if the mitigation proposed by the petitioner is included in any approval recommendation. In addition, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal systems and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The petitioner is seeking several deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06.A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes the deviations can be supported, some with stipulations, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report for a more extensive examination of the deviations. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 12 of 17 November 6, 2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 Packet Page-2391- 1/13/2015 17.A. 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, &policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Staff is recommending that this project be found consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with neighborhood development and with all other applicable policies of the GMP if the companion GMPA is adopted. 2. The existing land use pattern; Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the"Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed it in the zoning review analysis. Staff believes the proposed rezoning is appropriate given the existing land use pattern, and development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The proposed PUD rezone would not create an isolated zoning district. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed district boundaries are logically drawn since the zoning boundary mirrors the existing property boundary for the contract purchaser. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes, and the proposed rezoning is being requested in concert with a request to amend the GMP. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change, subject to the proposed list of uses and property development regulations and the proposed Development Commitments detailed in Exhibit F, is consistent with the County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Therefore, the proposed change should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in Exhibit F of the RPUD ordinance. PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 13 of 17 November 6, 2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 Packet Page-2392- 1/13/2015 17.A. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The P roposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have other specific regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new developments. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this petition were approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. This project's property development regulations provide adequate setbacks and distances between structures; therefore the project should not significantly reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; Rezoning this property to a PUD district seems appropriate and allows for the interconnection shown on the PUD Master Plan. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan, if the proposed amendment is adopted, which is a public policy statement supporting Zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning designations; however, the petitioner is seeking this amendment in compliance with LDC provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed amendment meets the intent of the PUD district, and further, believes the public interest will be maintained. PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 14 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 Packet Page -2393- 1/13/2015 17.A. 1 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; As noted previously, the proposed rezone boundary follows the existing property ownership boundary. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, staff has evaluated the appropriateness of this particular zoning petition. There are other sites in Collier County that would allow the proposed uses; however the proposed uses are also appropriate at this location as well. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP as discussed in other portions of the staff report. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as it may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD document. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board. of County Commissioners (BCC) shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 15 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 Packet Page-2394- 1/13/2015 17.A. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): The agents conducted a duly noticed NIM on September 3,2013. Please see attached copy of notes. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on October 15, 2014. At the time of staff report review, there is no legal access to the site. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-PL20140000340 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval subject to the following stipulations: 1. Deviation#2 is recommended for approval subject to the stipulation that the hammer head turn around complies with CCFCO / Collier County requirements of 25' radius inside, 49' radius outside and 150 ft max length of the dead end. 2. Should multi-family structures, i.e. townhomes, be developed on the subject tract, staff recommends that the owner use massing and orientation to minimize the impacts. For example, staff reconunends that no more than four units be included in any building, and the buildings should be oriented such that the smallest building side would abut Tuscany Pointe. PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLDER 36 RPUD Page 16 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/15/14 Packet Page-2395- 1/13/2015 17.A. PREPARED BY: 4C 0 is/iq f KAY DELEM,AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEWED BY: f C} •RAYMO V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING MIKE BOSI, AICP,DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVED BY: / 0 -17 -iy CASALANG 115F-A,AD .a "r'S TOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Attachment: NIM transcript This petition will has been tentatively scheduled for a January 13,2015 BCC hearing PUDZ-PL20140000340;COLLIER 36 RPUD Page 17 of 17 November 6,2014 CCPC Revised: 10/14/14 Packet Page-2396- 1/13/2015 17.A. NIM Summary Collier 36 RPUD PUD Rezone(PL-2014-0000340) September 3,2014 St. Agnes Catholic Church, Meeting Room#5 Note: This is a summary of the NIM. A recording is also provided. Attendees: On behalf of Applicant: George Hermanson, Paula McMichael, Steve Liller, Wayne Everett County Staff: Kay Deselem 2 members of the public attended. Mr. Hermanson started the presentation by introducing himself, the other consultants, the applicant, and County staff. Ms. McMichael explained the NIM process, provided an overview of the project, and also went over the proposed PUD master plan, include location for development, stormwater lake,preserve, and project access. The two members of the public who attended identified themselves as from Vanderbilt County Club. The following questions were asked: At 10 acres and 40 units,these lots would be less than a quarter-acre. Yes, if developed as a single-family homes, the site would not fit 40 lots. Probably more in the range of 34-38 lots,depending on whether an on-site preserve is provided. What is the potential for multifamily high-rise development? The height limitation is 35' or two stories. The request does allow townhouse/attached dwelling units, as does Tuscany Pointe,and it would probably be a similar style of development. When do you expect to go before the CCPC? We would hope by November, and before the BCC by January. Is Hole Montes still doing work for Tuscany Pointe? Page 1 G:\CDES Planning Services\Current\DESELEM\PUD Rezones\Collier 36 RPUD, PUDZ-PL20140000340\NIM Summary 9-3-14.docx Packet Page -2397- 1 1/13/2015 17.A. Yes. [There was discussion regarding a suggestion to possibly increase buffering from the golf maintenance facility, not because of any concern on the part of Vanderbilt Country Club, but for the benefit of future homeowners in this development, due to noise and odors from the maintenance facility] Where are the water and sewer lines? Along the northern boundary. They will connect with facilities within Tuscany Pointe. There is a 15' utility easement and a 10' landscape buffer. Will there be a berm in the landscape buffer? Yes,there will be a change in elevation. Do you have a landscape plan? Not at this time,it is not required until time of platting. When will the plat be filed? Not earlier than October. The meeting concluded at approximately 6 PM Page 2 G:\CDES Planning Services\Current\DESELEM\PUD Rezones\Collier 36 RPUD, PUDZ-PL20140000340\NIM Summary 9-3-14.docx Packet Page -2398- 1/13/2015 17.A. I 1 51 I 4 1 1 In 10 1` Buttonwood Preserve PUD Density:4.00 Palermo Cove PUD Bristol Pines PUD Density:2.06 Summit Place PUD Density:6.85 Density:4.00 1 - \\ Palermo Cove PUD I Density:2.06 Vanderbilt Country Club PUD f Density:2.48 I Sonoma Oaks PUD ��� Density:4.00 :.� I _____ ': Tuscany Pointe RPUD Wolf Creek PUD Density:3.94 Density:3.99 Bucks Run PUD Density:3.99 i i Mission Church PUD Vanderbilt Beach RD Density:NIA Project Location: ; �� I Collier 36 PUD 1 I 1 I I I I 51 N W'iP/\'E S I 0 1,000 GROSS DENSITY PER ACRE (UPA) 500 2,000 3.707 Feet FOR COLLIER 36 PUD c�...., Catoat G,S mapping.Beth Yang,AICP SURROUNDING PROPERTIES "- Growlh Man�9ement D1V1S1on Packet Page -2399- 1/13/2015 17.A. ORDINANCE NO. 15- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS COLLIER 36 RPUD TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 40 SINGLE FAMILY AND/OR MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) AND NORTH OF BUCKS RUN DRIVE IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 10±ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PUDZ-PL20140000340) WHEREAS, Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, of Hole Montes, Inc. representing Collier 36 LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described property. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: Zoning Classification. The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a 10 ± acre project to be known as the Collier 36 RPUD to allow up to 40 residential dwelling units in accordance with the RPUD Documents attached hereto as Exhibits "A" through "F" and incorporated herein by reference. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. [14-CPS-01338/1133179/1] 100 1 oft Collier 36 RPUD\PUDZ-PL20140000340 Rev. 12/16/14 Packet Page -2400- CI) 1/13/2015 17.A. SECTION TWO: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2015. ATTEST BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk , Chairman Approved as to form and legality: 14/I6/14 Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Permitted Uses Exhibit B —Development Standards Exhibit C—Master Plan Exhibit C-1 —Right of Way Section and Details Exhibit C-2—T-Turnaround Right of Way Section and Details Exhibit C-3 —Deviation 3 Typical Lot Layout Exhibit D—Legal Description Exhibit E—Deviations Exhibit F—Developer Commitments [14-CPS-0133811133179/1] 100 2 of Collier 36 RPUD\PUDZ-PL20140000340 Rev. 12/16/14 ; Packet Page -2401- 1/13/2015 17.A. EXHIBIT A COLLIER 36 RPUD PERMITTED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: 1. RESIDENTIAL–TRACT R A. Principal Uses: 1. Single-family detached dwellings. 2. Single-family attached dwellings. 3. Two-family patio and two-family zero lot line. 4. Townhouse. 5. Any other principal use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, determined by the Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the Land Development Code. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal residential uses permitted in this RPUD, such as swimming pools and screen enclosures, and facilities for lawn care and maintenance. 2. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures. 3. Temporary construction, sales and administrative offices for the developer and developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas, and related uses, subject to the procedures for a temporary use permit provided in the Land Development Code. 2. LAKE—TRACT L Storm water management treatment, conveyance facilities, and structures, such as berms, swales, and outfall structures. 3. MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS The maximum number of dwelling units shall be forty(40). 4. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Exhibit B Table 1 sets forth the development standards for land uses within the RPUD Residential Subdistrict. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the Land Development Code in effect as of the date of approval of the Site Development Plan or Subdivision plat. Page 1 of 10 H.1201412014001\WP\Rezone\Post CCPC\Collier 36 RPUD Rezone(PUDZ-PL-20140000340)(11-12-2014)docx Packet Page-2402- CA 1/13/2015 17.A. • EXHIBIT B COLLIER 36 RPUD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE 1 DEVELOPMENT SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY TWO-FAMILY PATIO STANDARDS DETACHED ATTACHED& &TWO-FAMILY TOWNHOUSE ZERO LOT LINE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES;' MINIMUM LOT AREA 5,500 S.F.PER UNIT 1,800 4,500 S.F.PER UNIT S.F.PER UNIT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 50 FEET 30 FEET 40 FEET MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 1,200 S.F 1,200 S.F PER UNIT 1,200 S.F.PER UNIT MIN.FRONT YARD ` 20 FEET 20 FEET 20 FEET MIN.SIDE YARD 5 FEET 0 OR 5 FEET' 0 OR 5 FEET? MIN. REAR YARDS 10 FEET 10 FEET 10 FEET MIN.DISTANCE IO FEET 10 FEET 10 FEET BETWEEN STRUCTURES4 MAX.BUILDING HEIGHT- 2 STORIES NTE 25 2 STORIES NTE 25 2 STORIES NTE 25 ZONED FEET FEET FEET MAXIMUM BUILDING 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET HEIGHT-ACTUAL ACCESSORYSTRUCTURES MIN.FRONT YARD SPS SPS SPS MIN.SIDE YARD SPS SPS SPS MIN.REAR YARD' 5 FEET 5 FLEE 5 FEET MAX.HEIGHT SPS SPS SPS ZONED&ACTUAL S.P.S.=Same as Principal Structures:NTE=Not to Exceed;S.F.=Square Feet General: Except as provided for herein,all criteria set forth in Exhibit B shall be understood to he in relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines or between structures. Condominium and/or homeowners' association boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development standards. Footnotes: Lots fronting on two streets shall provide a front yard setback along the street on which the entrance is located,and a side yard setback along the other street frontage. Front entry garages shall be at least 23 feet from back of sidewalk. Where side entry garages are provided, the driveway shall be designed in such a manner so that a parked vehicle shall not conflict with the sidewalk, however. in no case shall the front setback be less than 10' for the side-entry garage. or as may be required to accommodate utility easements.Porches,entry features,and roofed courtyards may be reduced to 15'. '5' minimum side setbacks for single-family attached. two-family, patio, and zero lot line must be accompanied by another 5' minimum side setback on adjoining lot to achieve minimum 10'separation. 3 Zero feet if adjacent to a landscape buffer or lake maintenance easement, which shall he platted as separate tracts at time of subdivision plat approval. Building distance may be reduced at garages to a minimum of 0'where attached garages are provided. 5 Where a utility easement encroaches farther into a yard than the allowable setback,the minimum required setback shall be increased to the extent of the utility easement encroachment, Page 2 of 10 H:\201412014001\WP\Rezone\Post CCPC\Collier 36 RPUD Rezone(PUDZ-PL-20140000340)(11-12-2014)docx Packet Page -2403- • 1/13/2015 17.A. �� I1 pre i! evi v >. , 1 a ` �( 1' -KK KKK MNN 1CKKKK I J 1 ,1 P= M1 ! m2 .—._._._.__. U. �_', — �)1 Iii, �fRa WW; r o II ualt b i J , ,! r fib a h 1 1 ;,l 1 Ig en � V I el @ e,,,2 s4 ! i ■WI E , t 1 Ii,! Nit.. d` t li ' Ia a i .J.� L _ Ii �� ! � ^ 4 4 L ....i I- 7, t i I ,,■ i . o ONTO K w� U N m W O re , 1: ° ig Sg Z N nc 1 �-.• I uar'i ' S F NO JW < ` g i 1 €z NE V > (�` Cb (vI F, ( i ; . � a t 11°1 i i .�. 1 — t g * >`" I 52 " X51' g ;} a6 1- g;(---- , g. N 45 ,, if ,4 1 1 _ / C *g,o �mK � o 'Ti's $ r. f — , : 3 I) I 4 ''' i; 4q16 5!. ;b. :4 ifr,B ,k N 2 aaQ CI.'t yl>g II ., a. Ihi � �_�—_�,,� jw f z ,,,,-W ;y,� 6FR toiw fl s: 4 Lcz m 'MS u " n i{ r _ ` ,'` _ o t CWa W� �pi�yy t] CaZX a. J-r, ',/ t g "'4b..4 1i: 'II ".ts'z w' 6COti�- G d SI 1 (il T g §0fg11,° II t € pp_ GMs 3 yz€ a� ,o i '4 I"^ - !I / j +` zo� 'j1 uty1��+ ¢i5¢k � j puo p obs il � y P_ _ _ — - R; abWU gx Po O Rea X49 r. Nn v W i o ozo Iiii. Pmz � ¢ K G 66 ° Dm W W 049 JCONZ J; ii3TiO7 .-.� 2i; w �--�, (L%"SD) aNA3Y1O8 w c F 1 ti t Packet Page -2404- CAC 1/13/2015 17.A. N V — --- — t 2 g 35 ul * d, 1 \; ; O 4. O 7' O � w 0 Z N ci o ' Ct>‘1%,1 ` ;y ti 3 d Z rte' U) � v 0,- fi ~- Zr wc,_ ... t� `� 35c o b f © © F— a Dow 0 8 u cd c F o 0 O .,. ;'% F- W 14 '.1� A o c a n 11- T CCCC y � a p < O Q t � D o �N V 8 a Z O �LL3 .N w li U W Z 0 E t • =r + 0 Z ' a • \ ; .... k Y v t r u is P t rS _ i# .......\ Page 4 of 10 H:\2014\2014001\WP\Rezone\Post CCPC\Collier 36 RPUD Rezone(PUDZ-PL-20140000340)(11-12-2014)docx Packet Page -2405- 1/13/2015 17.A. 1n N N �j /""*.• Y_..—__ l: a fz B t .? , m 5i ES g In Li i $ y' V 1 * 1,;;:,:k;;; t ,. o X. ':�f 0 to W[ Et Z 7rl� d5 = V •• Nr fi W; , = 0 J X ts � N i g z . 8 Cl a CD 0 % w W y 0�c ''; , , 0 $ r D � ,,,,./N. FS) 8 ir W t,,C.U — LI Ci z a) ro o !3 � Z w 4:C 3 1 of M ict 0 >— Z °' NI H wm: ,,,,,, 1 o o Jk Qpt , , : cn K to *'/kf~ Z UUN11 ! <: }yyj l Y Q^� 5 k !< 0 `%��� :r N +* 4 14 54 tigx -- ■ a 6. Page 5 of 10 H'\201412014001\WP\Rezone\Post CCPC\Collier 36 RPUD Rezone(PUDZ-PL-20140000340)(11-12-2014)docx Packet Page-2406- „A 1/13/2015 17.A. I I I COLLIER 36 I SIDEWALK \„,./ 0 50 TUSCANY POINTE COVE \ SCALE IN FEET 23' MIN. FOR FRONT—ENTRY GARAGE 1 MAY BE REDUCED FOR SIDE ENTRY I I R.O.W. UNE N GARAGE IF DESIGNED SO TT A I PARKED VEHICLE WILL NOT at ENCROACH UPON THE SIDEWALK. IN NO CASE SHALL THE FRONT SETBACK OF A SIDE ENTRY GARAGE BE LESS THAN 10'. LOT I LOT la I LOT LOT I InT I 8 1 9 - 10 5' MIN. FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 5' IDE YARD— 5' MIN. SIDE YARD SETBACK MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY ANOTHER 5' MIN. ACK SETBACK ON ADJOINING LOT TO ACHIEVE MINIMUM 10' SEPARATION. 10' REAR YARD ETBACK I ACCESSORY I 1 1 (5' MIN. •R I STRUCTURE I PR ERTY UNEI ACCESSORY S -, CTURE) I--- J # II ---- 1 1 - '1 "10' ---\ - I50'. . 1 1 TT' i ACCEssoRY 1 LB.E.1 t 1 STRUCTURE J TUSCANY POINTE I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 23' MIN. FOR FRONT—ENTRY GARAGE V MIN. FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DE YARD SETBACK MUST BE MAY BE REDUCED FOR SIDE ENTRY 5' MIN. SIDE G THAT A ACCOMPANIED BY ANOTHER 5' MIN. GARAGE IF DESIGNED SO PARKED VEHICLE WILL NOT SETBACK ADJOINING LOT TO ENCROACH UPON THE SIDEWALK. i ■ i ACHIEVE MINIMUM 10' SEPARATION. IN NO CASE SHALL THE FRONT + 1 ftAL SETBACK OF A SIDE ENTRY GARAGE 1 1 TUSCANY POINTE TRAIL 7_ NOVI COLLIER 36 °�OT: PROJECT No. 950 Encore Way C,K}{, 2014.001 Naples,FL.34110 4 EXHIBIT C-3 LRAM O', °AD NAM Phone:(239)252000 pL) 14001LOT HOLE MONTES Florida Certlficate of DEVIATION 3 naTe: •oorT_rtoi POURS R).l RS'9$4OOS lwthonzabon No 1772 TYPICAL LOT LAYOUT 10/14 1 EX14E4T C-3 ,r- Page 6 of 10 H:\2014\2014001\WP\Rezone1Post CCPC\Collier 36 RPUD Rezone(PUDZ-PL-20140000340)(11-12-2014)docx Packet Page -2407- CA(' 1/13/2015 17.A. EXHIBIT D COLLIER 36 RPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE NORTH HALF (N 1/2) OF THE NORTH HALF (N '/s) OF THE SOUTH HALF (S 1/2) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER(SW 1/4) OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA, AND THE SOUTH HALF (S 1/2) OF THE NORTH HALF (N 1/2) OF THE SOUTH HALF (S 1/2) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. Page 7 of 10 H:12014\2014001\WP\Rezone\Post CCPC1Collier 36 RPUD Rezone(PUDZ-PL-20140000340)(11-12-2014)docx Packet Page-2408- t) 1/13/2015 17.A. EXHIBIT E COLLIER 36 RPUD LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC Deviation 1. From LDC Section 6.06.01.N, requiring a minimum right-of-way width of 60 feet for local private street rights-of-way, to allow for a minimum 42 foot right-of-way width internal to the proposed development. Deviation 2. From LDC Section 6.06.01.J, which prohibits dead-end streets, to allow the dead end street shown on the RPUD Master Plan, Exhibit C. Deviation 3. From LDC Section 4.06.02.C, Table of Buffer Yards, which requires a ten-foot- wide landscape buffer between adjacent properties developed as single-family residential, to allow for no landscape buffer between Collier 36 RPUD and Tuscany Pointe RPUD, along the south and east property lines of the subject site, provided the properties have a shared access and are developed by the same developer as one, single-family detached community. The developer shall plant the equivalent number of trees (38), as would have been required if the 10' landscape buffer were provided, elsewhere on the site, and shall identify the location of such additional trees at time of platting. Deviation 4. From LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2 Sidewalks, Bike Paths, and Pathway Requirements, which requires sidewalks to be constructed on both sides of the street within public and private rights-of-way or easements internal to the site, to allow sidewalks to be constructed on one side of the private street where shown on Exhibit C, Master Plan. Deviation 5. From LDC Section 4.02.04.D.1 Standards for Cluster Residential Design, which requires the zero lot line portion of a dwelling unit to be void of doors or windows where such wall is contiguous to an adjoining lot line, to allow windows on the zero lot line side of the unit. Deviation 6. From LDC Section 3.05.07 Hl.f.i.d Off-site vegetation retention, which allows the on-site native vegetation preservation retention requirement be satisfied off- site for preserves less than one acre in size, to allow for a preserve 1.35 acres in size to be satisfied off-site. Deviation 7. From LDC Section 4.06.02.C, Table of Buffer Yards, which requires a fifteen- foot-wide Alternative B landscape buffer between adjacent properties developed as single-family residential and commercial, to allow for a ten-foot wide Alternative B landscape buffer between Collier 36 RPUD and the agriculturally zoned property to the north where shown on Exhibit C, Master Plan. Page 8 of 10 H\20I4\2014001\WP\Rezone\Post CCPC\Collier 36 RPUD Rezone(PUDZ-PL-20140000340)(11-12-2014)docx Packet Page -2409- Z.AC 1/13/2015 17.A. EXHIBIT F COLLIER 36 RPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 1. TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS If a gate is proposed at any/or all development entrance(s), the gate shall be designed so as not to cause vehicles to be backed up onto any adjacent public roadway. To meet this requirement,the minimum throat depth from the nearest interconnecting roadway edge of pavement shall be no less than 100 feet to the key pad/phone box for the proposed gate. 2. UTILITY REQUIREMENTS A. Potable water service shall connect at the entrance from the Tuscany Pointe RPUD. B. A stub-out and any necessary easements will be provided by owner to the northern property line from the northern reach of the "T" turnaround at the east end of the development. C. The development shall share a pump station with the Tuscany Pointe RPUD. The developer shall provide any necessary easements to accommodate this connection, and shared use of the pump station. 3. PLANNING A. A maximum of 40 dwelling units shall be permitted in the PUD. B. Should multifamily structures, i.e. townhomes, be developed on the subject tract, the owner shall use massing and orientation of buildings to minimize impacts to adjacent properties. No more than four units shall be included in any building, and buildings will be oriented such that the smallest building side shall abut the Tuscany Pointe RPUD. 4. PUD MONITORING One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is Collier 36, LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Page 9 of 10 H:12014\2014001\WP\Rezone\Post CCPC\Collier 36 RPUD Rezone(PUDZ-PL-20140000340)(11-12-2014)docx Packet Page -2410- (rA( 1/13/2015 17.A. Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. 5. NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVATION The subject site contains approximately 8.98 acres of native vegetation, of which 15 percent (1.35 acres) is required to be preserved. The on-site native vegetation preservation will be met off-site in accordance with Section 3.05.07.H.1.f. of the Land Development Code. Page 10 of 10 H.\2014\2014001\WP\Rezone\Post CCPC\Collier 36 RPUD Rezone(PUDZ-PL-20140000340)(11-12-2014)docx Packet Page -2411- 1/13/2015 17.A. • 26D )) Wednesday, Decemb?r24,2014 )) NAPLES DAILY NEWS NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, January 13, 2015, in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room. Third Floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples FL., the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) will consider the enactment of a County Ordinance. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. The title of the proposed Ordinance is as follows: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No.2004-41,as amended,the Collier County Land Develop- ment Code,which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unin- corporated area of Collier County,Florida by amending the appropriate zoning at- las map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural(A)zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD)zoning district for a project known as Collier 36 RPUD to al- low development of up to 40 single family and/or multi-family dwelling units on property located on the east side of Collier Boulevard(CR 951)and north of Bucks Run Drive in Section 35,Township 48 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida consisting of 10+/ acres, and by providing an effective date. [PUDZ= PL20140000340] A copy of the proposed Ordinance is on file with the Clerk to the Board and is available for inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County manager prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. The selection of any individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All materials used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Board 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 based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite #101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. BOARD OF COUNTY,COMMISSIONERS • COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK • By: Teresa Cannon . Deputy Clerk(SEAL) Derember 24 2014 No 2043347 k* Packet Page -2412- .