The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 01/27/2015 Item #17B 1/27/2015 17.B. 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 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 to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to a RPUD for a project to be known as the Warm Springs RPUD to allow construction of a maximum of 400 residential dwelling units on property located east of Collier Boulevard (C.R 951) and approximately one mile south of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) in Section 26, Township 48 South,Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 114±acres; providing for the repeal of Ordinance Number 05-21, formerly the Warm Springs RPUD; and by providing an effective date [Petition PUDZ-A-PL20140000156] (Companion to Agenda Item 16.A.13). 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. This petition is a companion petition to the Developer's Contribution Agreement contained in Agenda Item 16.A.13. That agreement must be approved to allow implementation of this PUD amendment. CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner is asking the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to consider an application for a rezone from the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district to the RPUD zoning district for a project known as Warm Springs RPUD to allow development of up to 400 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), and a portion of the site is located within a residential density band, as depicted on Packet Page-1054- 1/27/2015 17.B. the Future Land Use Map of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, this designation allows a variety of residential unit types and customary accessory uses, subject to the Density Rating System. Review of the Density Rating System yields the portion of the subject project located outside of the residential density band eligible for a base density of 4 DU/A and the portion of the subject project located within the residential density band eligible for the base density of 4 DU/A and a density bonus of up to 3 residential units per gross acre. Accordingly, the project has an eligible density of 4+ DU/A or greater than 456 units. However, the petitioner is not requesting any bonus density for that portion of the project located within the residential density band. The applicant proposes 400 DUs,yielding 3.52 DU/A(400 units/±l 13.67 acres). Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold text]. Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [Exhibit C, PUD Master Plan, depicts access to Tree Farm Road — a local roadway that connects to Collier Boulevard. No direct access is provided to Collier Boulevard, classified as an arterial road in the Transportation Element.] Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [Exhibit C,RPUD Master Plan, depicts a roadway that will run through the project to allow access onto Collier Boulevard and future Massey/Woodcrest Road extension, via Tree Farm Road.] 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, RPUD Master Plan, does not depict interconnections with abutting properties to the north of the site. The northern property boundary abuts the preservation area within the developed Crystal Lake PUD site; and, undeveloped and developed, Agricultural zoned tracts. Also, the subject site's preserve extends along the Packet Page -1055- 1/27/2015 17.B. north property line. Interconnections to these properties north of the subject site do not appear to be feasible. The other three property boundaries abut roads.] Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The PUD allows for a variety of dwelling unit types; and, provides for open space and preservation areas, consistent with the Land Development Code (LDC). The existing PUD is approved with a deviation allowing sidewalks on one side of the street only and no sidewalks on cul-de-sacs.] Based upon the above analysis, the proposed RPUD is consistent with the Future Land Use Element. 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 84.26 acres of native vegetation; a minimum of 21.07 (25%) acres of the existing native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall 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 December 4, 2014, and found that the criteria of Section 10.02.08.F and 10.02.13.B.5 were met. By a vote of 6 to 0, (Commissioner Rosen was absent) 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. Exhibit A: Residential A.1, remove single family attached; 2. Exhibit A: Residential B.4, remove "and recreational facilities all designed to serve the residents and their guests;" Packet Page-1056- 1/27/2015 17.B. 3. Exhibit B: Add footnote#7 to "Standards"; 4. Exhibit B: change townhouse minimum lot area from 1,000 to 1,600 square feet; 5. Exhibit B: change minimum lot depth from 50 to 80 feet; 6. Exhibit B: revise minimum Distance Between Structures to 10 feet for single family detached,townhouse and two family and duplex units; 7. Exhibit C: Revise Note #1 to mention Deviation#6; 8. Exhibit C: Add deviation#7; 9. Exhibit E: Note in those deviations that apply to the overall PUD,#1, #2, #5; 10. Exhibit E: Add deviation#7; 11. Exhibit E: Add the canopy tree requirement of staff's stipulation to deviation#1. These revisions have been incorporated into the PUD document that is included in the draft ordinance. No opposition to this petition has been received. The CCPC vote was unanimous; therefore the petition can be placed on the Summary Agenda. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is a site specific rezone to a residential planned unit development. 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. Packet Page-1057- 1/27/2015 17.B. 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 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? Packet Page -1058- 1/27/2015 17.B. 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. 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 Packet Page-1059- 1/27/2015 17.B. 2) Developer's Contribution Agreement 3) Application Backup Information due to the size of the document it is accessible at: http://www.colliergov.net/ftp/AgendaJan2715/GrowthMgmt/Application for Warm Springs P UD.pdf 4) Ordinance Packet Page-1060- 1/27/2015 17.B. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 17.17.B. 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 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 to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD)to a RPUD for a project to be known as the Warm Springs RPUD to allow construction of a maximum of 400 residential dwelling units on property located east of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) and approximately one mile south of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) in Section 26,Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 114±acres; providing for the repeal of Ordinance Number 05-21,formerly the Warm Springs RPUD; and by providing an effective date [Petition PUDZ-A-PL20140000156] (Companion to Agenda Item 16.A.13). Meeting Date: 1/27/2015 Prepared By Name: DeselemKay Title: Planner,Principal,Zoning&Land Development Review 12/30/2014 2:26:58 PM Approved By Name: BosiMichael Title: Director-Planning and Zoning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 1/5/2015 3:15:26 PM Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst,Community Development&Environmental Services Date: 1/6/2015 1:56:30 PM Name: BellowsRay Title: Manager-Planning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 1/7/2015 2:32:17 PM Packet Page-1061- 1/27/2015 17.B. Name: MarcellaJeanne Title:Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning Date: 1/14/2015 10:00:17 AM Name: StoneScott Title:Assistant County Attorney, CAO Land Use/Transportation Date: 1/20/2015 10:19:26 AM Name: IsacksonMark Title: Director-Corp Financial and Mngmt Svs, Office of Management&Budget Date: 1/20/2015 10:39:37 AM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 1/21/2015 1:10:45 PM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager, County Managers Office Date: 1/21/2015 1:38:26 PM Packet Page-1062- 1/27/2015 17.B. AGENDA ITEM 9-A Calker County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES--LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION--PLANNING 8c REGULATION HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 4,2014 SUBJECT: PUDZ-A-PL20140000156, WARM SPRINGS RPUD PROPERTY OWNER&APPLICANT/AGENT: Agents: D. Wayne Arnold,AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Q. Grady Minor&Associates,Inc. Coleman, Yovanovich&Koester,P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey - Northern Trust Bank Building Bonita Springs,FL 34134 4001 Tamiami Trail North,Suite 300 Naples,FL 34103 Owner/Applicant: Argo Warm Springs LLLP 21 141 Bella Terra Boulevard Estero,FL 33928 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for an amendment to the existing PUD zoned project known as the Warm Springs Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to allow construction of a maximum of 400 residential dwelling units. For details about the project proposal, refer to "Purpose/Description of Project." GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 114± acres, is located east of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) and approximately one mile south of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida(See location map on the following page) PUDZ-A-PL20140000156,WARM SPRINGS RPUD Page 1 of 16 December 4,2014 CCPC Revised: 11/10/14 Packet Page-1063- 1/27/2015 17.B. — a 4 " €y o >, I __Ili_1i ll w . .• flhII%111 WO AMMO= h a �7� uuuutnwnlmn ma a == 6 _°' o 1;111111:1!1;;:'•iii = 411lflpplfUllf[f∎ r v gm -� _ k i1`1 ' ' F 1; = a�Iii1111111111fI111� _ • g __�� '.:::::::::1:111:::::1,::,:i:! ,�t�m��m�t►i ' 1 Illy =�, �ii 11111!== i Q 1 H ,„,:;,:.*:.::t,,:,: ::1:%!::iii:ilii:• i 13 la y 'g I i...••••.••• r == i,i ; :iiii:i i '`-'/ ( 3111 is ir.. r. _ WOO 2 a (sir i11.E..1 3:i i i; • IIIIIHJ a i„rtrpv i” p+,in iii` i7 I�fff� -.iii. . 1 X011 1111111110a penrrrr,Ti1 �� {i'?tii'jiliS'ii �, 111111- - `,`, =1f-r �dl r4�. ►�� } iiii°'nil:: *J C nmu �p - •i ii yy re G_+c Imo,t, ,rr.�prrn►\ i'.ii`,'31:,,,,,i i@, P _in1111I—.� ��, v'I I"" "'` / uee nr� ,1 :'i ,i,.--_..._ 11!1111►. �• C"� —_ IIIIIIIIIIII� ttttlllt `i o'`':--77-='"'"' °r''h `iilti:iii n� 'i iiiitiiii1 10'•0j i 1111111"-_ [11 -- r 1 r„.....0..... ::::1:,:::100:::::„,,,,,,...„ ..,.= .. _ 1 ,p127. 111110 .uwu..nuneee , i: 'ili' ,, {e; i �� tt e:: wpm ! J et it yr smnnet mm -- -IIIgliiii IIIIIlf,1111111� & �IrrI oi1111- o ` =III• • I tIU i . $ :, fill 1111111 2' "d ; Ir1 1111111 ■ A T r I. Tuw nun nlu ItI ° AIM 1111111111 c N ��11.p. ” =111Nf11111lotil111L11 a. Me of LON / N /f IL Z o r g Oil 1 6 n. UZ O -a I— 0 0 O O Ea g„ is OC $ as i •.?k ag a r- g 4 4 Fil ^ S 11 it 3 — i t 0 7_,_1=1-, gJ aavaxwe aamoo theca „� MN/93111. 1 {r^6 m$ 1 B �13 w r m t aowvmn B � 0 IMOO NI i I Pt�� ' �g ° 151 i� 1 _ — Q —Y0. U ,ry---> advAw os wool OWA31f106 An T II g R r" I" i_ aes q � ESA igt Packet Page-1064- 1v g 1/27/2015 17.B. Ja Z ,1 =tug 222 Oz " Pr /m od; 2 cox- a ao i '11 t ,,, mF a al-� bmw t,64 $egi g C7 � 02 om aw. 1-zlwi o a & Zuca 3W > 0 aoe a- va "�' g. lig Q�>Jd �� aLLao� o E°1 ��UC7U aln LLw wQ�zio Xma } °- ` -Z—� g� Z��W L'.� =N s�N �O C r� 4 U c� N d O � r l - w w $2w w i w o - 21„ m m 41- y �iJ a O mg 1 m `4 + v0-io �a wp Ql1+ulyQ�aG m? • "� Li 1 fn wo W mm LLLLSWtIjz wm _ '�1 11 } a a1- �IN-gym cog �a 4 o I� � I Il I F- =o4g b-' mtiiwEV o li i I i N ¢o wa aw- i-oJaw zo p> I I II d xe 'n� o °aI9�� g y.0 co• W h i f! W fl'li r~nliIbth 2 q gso II ...7 1 I I W =O p Wb �-b3W p.QOb.co z id II ,, 1 au _xg^ �W� wp� �� Qw II II li� { piixm < Somou ce ss w°a I I I I� ao0 � 2,06' wa w mo • II 1, � Ida 5eWw� 1.220we�m -0 U~ Ig• w .. I i IIiQ w�47� z' � �xu�y� o1 z W I I ! I� 5$wYw ao-z zwcwi '4 ��a z •s 00 Ii II I; m0-..V xim4o<Iow 16 i0 iii II II II >1 '-i S w°'w� o wpo ul <Boto to II Ij w9 ..ozwa ,g--I2aot.owa a 1I a + I�� W w.zNw „..oZp.6.` I ' � I I i Oa aw°zz o' m2�o°mE o 1 II p ma�mF �Nn,Z<0 0Wgi- o pub • 1 o W s 1-,., c.) RggE go, a I O 2. ...mgwol-,c z i IF , � -zo'°wy„o�+wo,w�i �'rw h l W z z zOa xowwz II 1 O oa�• zot�ozaWOw 88 It C' d�W Pm�{wgx0po��a�q0 `��__ amz wSwwwvi0o0c0A mwa�Ew3�q �� I re SD ofpzoafflo.yal_m20 01VUIU ®ei _- _ < I I O Z aw of QOF Jw J°w1.. -S..--e li I w o 2 r2z<E9Z,Mr2 "g1-�a Z W 1_ O d'O¢ZOJOO-I�O _w01 : aoto<ao7oROwawmToom 8 0 ? 7 Er.an3ffE �E,Lu=u_xxwaLaw r C © Cil QI ® CI ■ # a ' I Ja I I i ( W0 a U I I oNa z Y III ��-1 gs = , Qqw UW +i W X w¢� � d ? zz maw mw y .. J a a� o J L $oa o5 d M. zitl I Oa M maz sa,' NO n ��/ a.W 5 d w z ° ��« .e .' �� 1- w <mm W w ' / � b w ■ U O U II A ��1 � I zLLI ro a c 7w a 1 O $ °wU_ w¢ ' I N w5m ZO n I am aw °w ❑ Q �_ ©� LJ'© G __L — a� wmd Um zd -I W N lac o L a p Luc r: ~' 2 'ROW} -------- COLLIER BOULEVARD °° o w w a a p Z Q w 6iw w z - in" ur H L. m >m° glwa0 9rz �QO ZONED: PL1D(BRITTANY BAY) o� < m o USE: RESIDENTIAL Packet Page-1065- § d a - z N 1/27/2015 17.B. I 1 is , Immokalee RD I 1 I Ir 51 1 I , 1 .\ I I 1 \ i tlr: Project Location 1 0 Crystal Lai{e rw Resort pm Warm Springs PUD 1 m v Eiitaty Day mcr Ptp j Density:13.16 i r ' , I >r( sitPules Buttonwood Preserve PUD Eaenciiy:U.85 Density:4 00 1 ; I I I 51 I I I I 1 1 I N • I 7,e, 1 w 4 ;.E I S II i , GROSS DENSITY PER ACRE (UPA) 1)___250 SOD 1,000 ,,goo' °-- Feet FOR WARM SPRINGS PUD Gr.Ik l i,r GIS mappin8:Goth Yang,MCP SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ,....._......r_ Gmw,hManagement onislon Packet Page-1066- 1/27/2015 17.B. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The applicant provided the following information regarding the proposed amendment: This application proposes to rezone the subject 114+/- acre property from PUD to PUD. The property is presently zoned Warm Springs PUD, and was approved by Collier County Ordinance 05-21. Due to lack of development activity, the PUD was deemed to have sunset; therefore, the owner has elected to rezone the property to reactivate the PUD. The project was previously approved for a maximum of 450 multi family dwelling units. c' The proposed RPUD application requests a maximum of 400 dwelling units, and proposes to permit single family dwelling units as a development option in addition to the previously approved multi family dwelling units. Appropriate development standards have been established for each residential dwelling unit type. The conceptual RPUD master plan is being revised to identify an increased development envelope compared to that previously approved Access to the project will continue to be from Tree Farm Road. The subject property is undeveloped. It was originally rezoned from the Agricultural zoning district to the PUD zoning district for a project known as the Nicea Academy on August 1, 2014 via Ordinance Number 2000-52. That ordinance allowed for 10 dwelling units on 10 acres and private religious school, education facilities, church, a day care, adult living facilities and a fire station. That ordinance was repealed and replaced with Ordinance Number 03-64 adopted November 18, 2003, which changed the uses to allow 250 dwelling units. Ordinance Number 05-21, adopted April 26, 2005, changed the name of the project to the Warm Springs RPUD, and increased the number of allowable units to 450 dwelling units. Ordinance Number 14-33 amended the LDC to remove the sunsetting provisions for PUD zoned projects. That ordinance was adopted after this petition was submitted. • The Master Plan indicates there are two potential access points onto Tree Farm Road, but no access points are shown to Collier Boulevard. Residential areas, preserve areas, roadways and lake areas are also shown on the Master Plan. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Crystal Lake RV Subdivision Resort PUD, approved for 490 park trailer/recreational vehicle units on 159 acres,and scattered single-family homes along the south side of Acremaker Road,with a zoning designation of Agriculture East: Massey Street, then Calusa Pine Golf and Country Club, with a zoning designation of Agriculture South: Tree Farm Road then Bristol Pines PUD, a mostly developed multi-family project approved for a density of 7 units per acre (using affordable housing bonus density provisions), the Canopy subdivision, zoned as the Buttonwood Preserve PUD, approved at a density of 4 units per acre in PUDZ-A-PL20140000156,WARM SPRINGS RPUD Page 2 of 16 December 4,2014 CCPC Revised: 11/10/14 Packet Page-1067- , 1/27/201517.8. Ordinance #13-18, and an 18 ± acre site that is partially cleared and contains communication towers West: Collier Boulevard, then Brittany Bay Apartments PUD, approved at a density of 8.16 units per acre(using affordable housing bonus density provisions) ,+ - ',174i:7-?,,..'„„,,„;',.? ai 1 r i } -J. � t. _..,..',..t±-?4,4 3 t . J 4 ^yµ.15 '.? ..-. ! V1 yr � "` '4` Ste`1�.�. , V , +, 3"f Y t — >i F , rya �/ 0' w }_ l . ,taa i' _ , „ bR..a AJrb i4. v. Binu� ve- x_72 Z' ' T. t (trt �l.. *, � 7 v,� 1 ".ed nci,,,akit kcl— ----_- , , �,; �: , Subject Property -,_ . r w f 951 fir j n l' • r'''..\, ,. �tfFSF +'aye `9ir `w.w'&+ek F '3 SJ ''.1.' 1 pP , N �'Vn y� µ ' ': L' T °.i :+: w ay -' ,z>�- .. a .v. - s.,;d .r 'IO: I."''i, X634 Ap+4`d1�; 10* ` , ,. , - 4 . r ..- s �,.'C .,,,, 1., sue,�.'. ►.� _`+ � ".r 1 `'�`�„';� r, ,e V:: - - ";, ar.-,' it l.�at +., .fi m a.Uoo61+.C,GdI hIr - . �w` .c,y, , n 2 _V -,- t ‘U, Aerial Photo (the subject site, shown in yellow, is approximate) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), and a portion of the site is located within a residential density band, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, this designation allows a variety of residential unit types and customary accessory uses,subject to the Density Rating System. Review of the Density Rating System yields the portion of the subject project located outside of the residential density band eligible for a base density of 4 DU/A and the portion of the subject project located within the residential density band eligible for the base density of 4 DU/A and a density bonus of up to 3 residential units per gross acre. Accordingly, the project has an eligible density of 4+DU/A or greater than 456 units. However, the petitioner is not requesting any bonus density for that portion of the project located within the residential density band. The applicant proposes 400 DUs,yielding 3.52 DU/A(400 units/±113.67 acres). PUDZ-A-PL20140000156,WARM SPRINGS RPUD Page 3 of 16 December 4,2014 CCPC Revised: 11/10/14 Packet Page-1068- 1/27/2015 17.B. •, i Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects,where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold text]. Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects,where applicable. Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [Exhibit C, PUD Master Plan, depicts access to Tree Farm Road — a local roadway that connects to Collier Boulevard. No direct access is provided to Collier Boulevard, classified as an arterial road in the Transportation Element.] Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [Exhibit C, RPUD Master Plan, depicts a roadway that will run through the project to allow access onto Collier Boulevard and future Massey/Woodcrest Road extension, via Tree Farm Road.] 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, RPUD Master Plan, does not depict interconnections with abutting properties to the north of the site. The northern property boundary abuts the preservation area within the developed Crystal Lake PUD site; and, undeveloped and developed, Agricultural zoned tracts. Also, the subject site's preserve extends along the north property line. Interconnections to these properties north of the subject site do not appear to be feasible. The other three property boundaries abut roads.] Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The PUD allows for a variety of dwelling unit types; and, provides for open space and preservation areas, consistent with the Land Development Code (LDC). The existing PUD is approved with a deviation allowing sidewalks on one side of the street only and no sidewalks on cul-de-sacs.] Based upon the above analysis, the proposed RPUD is consistent with the Future Land Use Element, 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 PUDZ-A-PL20140000156,WARM SPRINGS RPUD Page 4 of 16 December 4,2014 CCPC Revised: 11/10/14 Packet Page-1069- 1/27/2015 17.B. 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 84.26 acres of native vegetation; a minimum of 21.07 (25%) acres of the existing native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE contingent upon Board approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20120002382/CPSS-2013-1, to establish the Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict. 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 Master Plan provides a 25 acre Preserve, which exceeds the minimum requirement. This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues as well as roadway capacity, and recommends approval subject to the Developer/owner commitments as provided in the PUD ordinance. School Board Review: At this time there is sufficient capacity for the proposed development either within the concurrency service areas the development is located within or the adjacent currency service areas at the elementary, middle and high school levels. This finding is for planning and informational purposes only and does not constitute either a reservation of capacity or a finding of PUDZ-A-PL20140000156,WARM SPRINGS RPUD Page 5 of 16 December 4,2014 CCPC Revised: 11/10/14 Packet Page-1070- 1/27/2015 17.B. concurrency for the proposed project. At the time of site plan or plat the development would be reviewed for concurrency to ensure there is capacity within the concurrency service area the development is located within and adjacent concurrency service areas such that the level of service standards are not exceeded. Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to,the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site,the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation,architectural features,amount and type of open space and location. Zoning staff is of the opinion that this project will be compatible with and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. To support that opinion staff offers the following analysis of this project. To the north in the Crystal Lake development, there is a 20 acre preserve area that will separate the uses in this project from Crystal Lake uses. Also to the north are the agriculturally zoned homes along Acremaker Road. The Master Plan for Warm Springs provides a 30-foot wide preserve area to separate the two projects. To the east, is Massey Street and then the Calusa Pine Golf Course. To the south, is Tree Farm Road, then Bristol Pines PUD and the Buttonwood Preserve PUD which are developing. To the west is Collier Boulevard,then Brittany Bay Apartments PUD. The development standards contained in the PUD document reflect a design approach that will provide multiple housing type opportunities to include single-family detached, townhouse, two family and duplex, zero lot line, and multi-family dwelling units. The PUD indicates and a minimum front-yard setback of 20 feet; and side setbacks of 5-feet for single-family detached units, and 0 or 6 for townhouses, 5 feet for two family and duplexes,0 or 10 feet zero lot line units, and 10 feet for multi-family units. A perimeter boundary setback of 15 feet would be provided for all housing types. All unit types proposed a 25 foot zoned maximum height and a 30 foot actual height. The proposed property development regulations are compatible with those approved for nearby projects. The applicant is reducing the overall number of units that could be built in this project from 450 units to 320 units. Based upon the analysis above, staff believes the intensity of the uses proposed in this amendment is consistent with FLUE Policy 5.4 that requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking approval of six deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are listed in the PUD document in Exhibit D. 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 PUDZ-A-PL20140000156,WARM SPRINGS RPUD Page 6 of 16 December 4, 2014 CCPC Revised: 11/10/14 Packet Page -1071- 1/27/2015 17.B. redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs . . . . may depart from the strict application of setback; height, and minimum lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the public interest. . . . j. Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements,which requires sidewalks which are internal to the development to be constructed on both sides of local streets, to allow sidewalks on one side of the street only and none on a cul-de- sac, as identified on Exhibit E-1. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The proposed Warm Springs project will be a gated community with private streets. A maximum of 320 homes are proposed within the community. A sidewalk on one side of the street is sufficient to serve the community needs and to provide safe pedestrian access throughout the community. Additionally, there are development constraints which limit the installation of sidewalks on both sides of the private streets. The project is providing a minimum 50' wide preserve area along the northern boundary, and approximately 40'of property adjacent to the southern property boundary was taken by eminent domain for the extension of Tree Farm Road. The loss of 90'of usable area to support development prohibits installation of a dual sidewalk while providing the minimum 23'setback required by Collier County. A typical cross-section of the project from north to south has been provided demonstrating that the dual sidewalks cannot be accommodated. The Developer will include traffic calming techniques such as low posted speed signage, speed tables, speed humps and/or raised crosswalks. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff can support this deviation, subject to the stipulation that the developer provide 1 canopy tree (or canopy tree equivalent) per 30 linear feet of sidewalk. Canopy trees located within 10 feet of the sidewalk may count towards a sidewalk canopy tree. This stipulation shall serve to assist in the implementation of LDC Section 4.06.01.A. f and g and B.2. h and i of the landscape and buffering requirements that states: Improve environmental quality by reducing and reversing air, noise, heat and chemical pollution through the preservation of canopy trees and the creation of shade and microclimate; and Reduce heat gain in or on buildings or paved areas through the filtering capacity of trees and vegetation. The trees shall be those identified in 4.06.05.D 1 & 2. These additional trees should provide a needed enhancement for the sidewalk on one side of the road and make using it a more pleasing experience. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the stipulation noted above, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that"the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety. and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated PUDZ-A-PL20140000156,WARM SPRINGS RPUD Page 7 of 16 December 4,2014 CCPC Revised: 11/10/14 Packet Page -1072- 1/27/2015 17.B. 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.N, Street System Requirements and Appendix B, Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way Design Standards, which establishes a 60 foot wide local road,to allow a minimum 40' wide local private road. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: G' The proposed 40' wide private road ROW is sufficiently wide to accommodate the required roadway improvements. Utilities and sidewalks can be placed within easements outside the private ROW The site has some areas where physical constraints will limit the ability to provide a standard 60' ROW for a local road The internal project roads will be private and the standard public ROW is not necessary for internal traffic volumes. 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 6.06.01.J, Street System Requirements, which limits cul-de-sacs to a maximum length of 1,000 feet to permit cul-de-sacs to exceed 1,000 feet in length to a maximum of 2,750 feet with placement of no through traffic signage. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The proposed residential development tracts due to their separation by proposed lake areas and other geographic factors require access via cul-de-sacs. The 1,000' length will need to be exceeded in order to gain adequate vehicular access to all development areas within the PUD. The cul-de-sacs can be identified with appropriate signage indicating that the roads are not through streets. 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 5.06.02.B.6 and 5.06.02.B.6 (b), On-premises Sign Within Residential Districts, which permits signage at each project entrance, to permit a boundary marker sign of up to 64 square feet(per sign face)to be located along the Collier Boulevard frontage of the property and to exceed the maximum sign height of 8' for a maximum of 10 feet in height measured from adjacent roadway centerline elevation. PUDZ-A-PL20140000156,WARM SPRINGS RPUD Page 8 of 16 December 4,2014 CCPC Revised: 11/10/14 Packet Page-1073- 1/27/2015 17.B. $1 Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation is justified due to the project access location on Tree Farm Road, which entrance would not be visible from the arterial roadway serving the project, Collier Boulevard. Providing signage along Collier Boulevard would be permitted if the developer had access directly onto Collier Boulevard Due to arterial spacing criteria, access to Collier Boulevard is not permitted The sign will be designed to primarily face Collier Boulevard; however it will be adjacent to both Tree Farm Road and Collier Boulevard. Sign height is measured from the nearest centerline roadway elevation. The centerline elevation along Collier Boulevard is approximately 16.5 and the Tree Farm Road elevation is approximately 15'average. The proposed sign will be on land filled to establish finished floor elevations for the project, which will require approximately 3'offill. The top of the 8'high sign wall will be at an elevation of 25'or 10' above the Tree Farm Road centerline elevation. The sign will be over 100'from the nearest travel lane of Collier Boulevard and the scale and height are appropriate for this location. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.0 and 5.03.02.F, Fences and Walls, which permits residential fences/walls to be a maximum of 6' in height measured from existing ground levels near the fence/wall, to permit the perimeter wall/fence to be a maximum height of 12' measured. The maximum height of the wall structure would not exceed 8', with the remaining 4 feet being part of a berm. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation is warranted because the existing grade of the property is significantly lower than the required finished grade. Furthermore, Tree Farm Road and Woodcrest/Massey will become collector roadways carrying significant volumes of traffic with increasing noise to the community residents. Collier Boulevard is a major arterial roadway and the developer needs an opportunity to provide some noise attenuation and privacy for residents of the community. The existing grade of the property varies; however, along the Tree Farm Road frontage the average existing grade is approximately 13'. The developer proposes to install a maximum 8' high wall/fence on top of a berm or finished lot which would make the total height of the wall/fence approximately 12'from existing ground elevations. • Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the PUDZ-A-PL20140000156,WARM SPRINGS RPUD Page 9 of 16 December 4,2014 CCPC Revised: 11/10/14 Packet Page -1074- 1/27/2015 17.B. community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "`justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02, Buffer Requirements, which requires a 20' wide type `D' landscape buffer adjacent to any road right-of-way external to the development project, to permit a 10' wide type `D' landscape buffer in the area identified on Exhibit E-5. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation is warranted due to approximately 40' of property adjacent to the southern property utilized for the extension of Tree Farm Road There is adequate area to accommodate the 20' wide landscape buffer if permitted as an easement. Due to recent direction to have buffers as separately platted tracts, the 20' width cannot be accommodated along the entire frontage of Tree Farm Road without negatively impacting the development of the proposed lots along a portion of Tree Farm Road. There are two primary factors which impact this portion of the project. First, the ROW utilized for Tree Farm Road is not consistent across the property and in this Section of the project, Tree Farm Road extends farther north. Second, the SFWMD and U.S.Army Corps of Engineers are requiring a 50'wide preserve area which further restricts the projects ability to shift lots to accommodate the request to have the landscape buffer as a separately platted tract. The 10'width in this section of the project can accommodate the required buffer plantings consistent with those planted in the remaining 20' wide buffer tract. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." FINDINGS OF FACT: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below. [Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold, non-italicized font]: PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make fmdings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. PUDZ-A-PL20140000156,WARM SPRINGS RPUD Page 10 of 16 December 4,2014 CCPC Revised: 11/10/14 Packet Page-1075- 1/27/2015 17.B. Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and believes the uses and property development regulations are compatible with the development approved in the area. The commitments made by the applicant should provide adequate assurances that the proposed change should not adversely affect living conditions in the area. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion and the zoning analysis of this staff report. Based on those staff analyses, planning zoning staff is of the opinion that this petition may be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element. 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. Staff has provided a review of the proposed uses and believes that the project will be compatible with the surrounding area. S. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of native preserve for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review.The project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. Additionally, the PUD document contains additional developer commitments that should help ensure there are adequate facilities available to serve this project. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. PUDZ-A-P120140000156,WARM SPRINGS RPUD Page 11 of 16 December 4,2014 CCPC Revised: 11/10/14 Packet Page -1076- 1/27/2015 17.B. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as road capacity, wastewater disposal system, and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The petitioner is seeking approval of five 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 has provided an analysis of the deviations in the Deviation Discussion portion of this staff report, and is recommending approval of the deviation. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, &policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The zoning analysis provides an in-depth review of the proposed amendment. Staff is of the opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with neighborhood development. Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed PUDZA application consistent with the Future Land Use Element Therefore,staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed it at length in the zoning review analysis. Staff believes the proposed amendment is appropriate given the existing land use pattern, and development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The proposed PUD amendment would not create an isolated zoning district because the subject site is already zoned PUD. No land is being added to the PUD as part of this amendment. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. PUDZ-A-PL20140000156,WARM SPRINGS RPUD Page 12 of 16 December 4,2014 GCPC Revised: 11/10/14 Packet Page-1077- 1/27/2015 17.B. Staff is of the opinion that the district boundaries are logically drawn given the current property ownership boundaries and the existing PUD zoning. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed amendment is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such the amendment to allow the owner the opportunity to develop the land with uses other than what the existing zoning district would allow. Without 1 this amendment, the property could be developed in compliance with the existing PUD ordinance regulations. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendment, with the commitments made by the applicant, can been deemed consistent County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. The project includes numerous restrictions and standards that are designed to address compatibility of the project. Development in compliance with the proposed PUD amendment should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project with the mitigation that will be provided by the developer (Developer Commitments). Staff believes the petition can be deemed consistent with the Transportation Element of the GMP. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed amendment should not create drainage or surface water problems. The developer of the project will be required to adhere to a surface water management permit from the SFWMD in conjunction with any local site development plan approvals and ultimate construction on site. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this amendment petition is approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. The setbacks and project buffers will help insure that light and air to adjacent areas will not be substantially reduced. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market conditions. PUDZ-A-PL20140000156,WARM SPRINGS RPUD Page 13 of 16 December 4,2014 CCPC Revised: 11/10/14 Packet Page-1078- 1/27/2015 17.B. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; The proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; If the proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan through the proposed amendment, then that constitutes 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, if staffs conditions of approval are adopted, and further, believes the public interest will be maintained. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; As noted previously, the subject property already has a zoning designation of PUD; the PUD rezoning was evaluated at the rezoning stage and was deemed consistent with the GMP. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMP as it is proposed to be amended as discussed in other portions of the staff report. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. PUDZ-A-PL20140000156,WARM SPRINGS RPUD Page 14 of 16 December 4,2014 CCPC Revised: 11/10/14 Packet Page-1079- 1/27/2015 17.B. Additional development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration. This project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended, This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMT 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 bearing. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (N1M): The NIM summary is included in the application packets provided by the petitioner's agent. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on November 10,2014. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZA-PL20140000156 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval subject to the following stipulation: 1. The developer shall provide 1 canopy tree (or canopy tree equivalent) per 30 linear feet of sidewalk. Canopy trees located within 10 feet of the sidewalk may count towards a sidewalk canopy tree. PUDZ-A-PL20140000156,WARM SPRINGS RPUD Page 15 of 16 December 4,2014 CCPC Revised: 11/10/14 Packet Page-1080- , 1/27/2015 17.B. PREPARED BY: KA II is SELEM,AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER ATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEWED BY: 1 1 5 ' /4 RAYM r ' D . BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE DEP' " NT OF PLANNING AND ZONING i• /7 G- /`( MIKE BOSI,MCP, DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVED BY: ( / -? SAL' V ' AD1 S a� ID TRA o R DATE G' TH MANAGE ENT ' VISION Tentatively scheduled for the January 27, 2015 Board of County Commissioners Meeting PUDZ-A-PL20140000156,WARM SPRINGS RPUD Page 16 of 16 December 4 CCPC Revised: 11/5/14 Packet Page-1081- 1/27/2015 17.B. ORDINANCE NO. 15- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) TO A RPUD FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE WARM SPRINGS RPUD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF 400 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R. 951)AND APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846) IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 114± ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 05-21, FORMERLY THE WARM SPRINGS RPUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PETITION PUDZ-A-PL20140000156] WHEREAS, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. representing Argo V+'arm Springs, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to rezone the described 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 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) for a project to be known as the Warm Springs RPUD to allow construction of a maximum of 400 residential dwelling units in accordance with Exhibits A through F, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. [14-CPS-01314/1142750/1] 87 Warm Springs RPUD/PUDZ-A-PL20140000156 Rev. 1/5/2014 Page 1 Packet Page -1082- 1/27/2015 17.B. SECTION TWO: Ordinance Number 05-21, known as the Warm Springs Residential Planned Unit Development, is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION THREE: 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 ,Chair Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Permitted Uses Exhibit B—Development Standards Exhibit C —Master Plan Exhibit D—Legal Description Exhibit E—Deviations Exhibit E-1 —Sidewalk Easement Exhibit E-2 —Private Road Cross Section Exhibit E-3 —Boundary Marker Sign Exhibit E-4 -Perimeter Wall/Fence Exhibit E-5 —Landscape Buffer Width Reduction Exhibit F—Developer Commitments [14-CPS-01314/1142750/1]87 Warm Springs RPUD/PUDZ-A-PL20140000156 Rev. 1/5/2014 Page 2 Packet Page-1083- 1/27/2015 17.B. EXHIBIT A FOR WARM SPRINGS RPUD Regulations for development of the Warm Springs RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this RPUD Document and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate. Where this RPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. PERMITTED USES: A maximum of 400 dwelling units shall be permitted within the RPUD. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: RESIDENTIAL A. Principal Uses: 1. Dwelling Units- Multiple-family, single family detached, townhouse, two-family, duplex and zero lot line (single family). 2. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") or Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). B. Accessory Uses: 1. Guardhouses,gatehouses,and access control structures. 2. Model homes and model home centers including offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing. 3. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, bikeways, landscape nurseries, gazebos, boat and canoe docks, fishing piers, picnic areas, fitness trails and shelters to serve residents and their guests. 4. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the principal uses permitted in this District, including but not limited to swimming pools, spas and screen enclosures. 5. Any other accessory use,which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and consistent with the permitted accessory uses of this PUD as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals or Hearing Examiner. Warm Springs RPUD,PL20140000156 Page 1 of 14 Revised 01/05/2015-per CCPC Packet Page -1084- 1/27/2015 17.B. AMENITY AREA A. Principal Uses: 1. Clubhouses with cafes, snack bars and similar uses intended to serve residents and guests. 2. Community administrative and recreation facilities. Outdoor recreation facilities, such as a community swimming pool, tennis and basketball courts, parks, playgrounds, pedestrian/bikeways, and passive and/or active water features (private intended for use by the residents and their guests only). 3. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, bikeways, landscape nurseries, gazebos, boat and canoe docks, fishing piers, picnic areas,fitness trails and shelters to serve residents and their guests. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Tennis clubs, health spas, fitness facilities and other indoor recreational uses (private, intended for use by the residents and their guests only). 2. Any other accessory use,which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and consistent with the permitted accessory uses of this PUD as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals or Hearing Examiner. PRESERVE A. Allowable Uses: 1. Native preserves. 2. Water management,in accordance with the LDC. 3. Mitigation areas. 4. Hiking trails, boardwalks, shelters without walls, or other such facilities constructed for the purposes of passage through or enjoyment of the site's natural attributes, in accordance with the LDC and subject to approval by permitting agencies. 5. Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or Hearing Examiner determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area. Warm Springs RPUD,PL20140000156 Page 2 of 14 Revised 01/05/2015-per CCPC Packet Page -1085- 1/27/2015 17.B. EXHIBIT B FOR WARM SPRINGS RPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Exhibits B 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 LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. STANDARDS*7 SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOUSE TWO FAMILY ZERO LOT LINE MULTI-FAMILY AMENITY AREA DETACHED AND DUPLEX FOR SINGLE FAMILY Minimum Lot Area 4,000 SF 1,600 SF 3,500 SF 4,000 SF N/A 10,000 SF Minimum Lot Width *3 40 feet 20 feet 35 feet 40 feet N/A N/A Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet 80 feet 100 feet 100 feet N/A N/A Min. Front Yard Setback*1 20 feet*2 15 feet*2 20 feet *2 20 feet*2 20 feet*2 N/A Min.Side Yard Setback 5 feet 0 or 5 feet 5 feet 0 or 10 feet*4 10 feet 10 feet Min. Rear Yard Setback 15 feet 20 feet 10 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Maximum Building Height Zoned 30 feet 45 feet 30 feet 30 feet 45 feet 30 feet Actual 35 feet 50 feet 35 feet 35 feet 50 feet 35 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures*5 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet '/z sum of the %sum of the building height building height Floor Area Min. (S.F.) 1,200 SF 750 SF 900 SF 1,000 SF 750 SF N/A Min. PUD Boundary Setback 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 20 feet 20 feet Min.Preserve Setback 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet J ACCESSORY STRUCTURES*6 . x .. -z.. u`} , , .. . Min. Front Yard Setback*1 20 feet 15 feet 15 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Min.Side Yard Setback 5 feet 0/6 feet 6 feet*5 5 feet 0 feet*5 10 feet Min. Rear Yard Setback 10 feet 5 feet 5 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Min. PUD Boundary Setback 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Min.Preserve Setback 10 feet . 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet ' Minimum Distance Between Structures 10 feet 0/10 feet 0/10 feet 0/10 feet 0/10 feet 10 feet Maximum Height Zoned 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet I Actual 30 feet 30 feet ! 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet Minimum lot areas for any unit type may be exceeded. The unit type,and not the minimum lot area,shall define the development standards to be applied by the Growth Management Division during an application for a building permit. *1—Front yards shall be measured as follows: A. If the parcel is served by a private road,setback is measured from the back of curb(if curbed)or edge of pavement(if not curbed). *2—Front entry garages must be a minimum of 20',and a minimum of 23'from a sidewalk. Porches,entry features and roofed courtyards may be reduced to 15'. *3—Minimum lot width may be reduced by 20%for cul-de-sac lots provided the minimum lot area requirement is maintained. *4—Minimum separation between adjacent dwelling units shall be 10'. *5—Building distance may be reduced at garages to a minimum of 0'where attached garages are provided and a 10' minimum separation is maintained,if detached. *6 — Guardhouses, gatehouses, fences, walls, columns, decorative architectural features, streetscape, passive parks and access control structures shall have no required setback,except as listed below,and are permitted throughout the"R"designated areas of the PUD;however Warm Springs RPUD,PL20140000156 Page 3 of 14 Revised 01/05/2015-per CCPC Packet Page -1086- 1/27/2015 17.B. such structures shall be located such that they do not cause vehicular stacking into the road right-of-way or create site distance issues for motorists and pedestrians. Maximum Height Zoned: 25' Actual: 30' Setbacks PUD Boundary: 10',except fences or walls shall have no setback. "7-Landscape Buffer Easements and/or Lake Maintenance Easements shall be located within open space tracts or lake tracts and not be within a platted residential lot. Where a home site is adjacent to a Landscape Buffer Easement or Lake Maintenance Easement within open space tracts or lake tracts,the principal and accessory structure setback on the platted residential lot may be reduced to zero(0)feet where it abuts the easement/tract. Nothing in this RPUD shall diminish the riparian rights nor prohibit a property owner from use of buffer or lake maintenance easements/tracts for recreational purposes,including but not limited to docks,fishing,walking,etc.,which are not inconsistent with the purpose of the tract/easement.Where a bulkhead is constructed,no intervening easement or maintenance tract shall be required by this RPUD. Note:nothing in this RPUD Document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in Exhibit E,Deviations Warm Springs RPUD,PL20140000156 Page 4 of 14 Revised 01/05/2015—per CCPC Packet Page-1087- ..:,,.,._,. �-- ..._r ,. . ...:,.�,.. , 1127/201517.B. „.,.w r ,„ ,h,w,,, oh c,LL „I t 'ow ¢ J Q K 0 W W D= z,„ L!--;1.,I ., t 1 i=,�' 4 a a ud S�+m auxi4 r�iEp gr a > 0 a 0 W 2 LL 2 Z Z' 0 h - 0 � r6 $ O � � Za0 n Um 7a�w <O w0< � OO w< Z .= dam¢ LL-.w OW sa.I �� UC7U :11)<::17-a yW W JW 00tbj h- LL--.t-Z—� 6 w z L ui Y w o w a w 0 5 �`z Z O a <w < -ZaW gDw a- oI �U _- N1A5$EY STREET ` gl-Obed_W L6-659J-2 29 ‹T 08 ¢a z � ∎11 F x'"to Iliaw putt- Ti.--z ha --� la to w m•.2w JTa�°^ .Qa wa �� (- 2w �y g3 1k , I J wZ2=Ofr2J7 mLLm Om N J q, 1 I` �- g0-+xrn- ~N JD wm4-. zw 1 C It g> II D SzDwu�,aU <21-0 a,wu aJ t-rw y LiS am, I II I, w aptcLU 0 00cr 5 J�4 p u,a'p Z ha w "c..cc I ; I I ' CO x<WIW 0 2544 -,8 a= 2T `: ±w na I I clwwh u. u- 'it- mzh •- Q'. I Q U tUIy,, N 6 µ�. u2.-g. W"t -�~ W jr . 'I ,N >4 b w-C.. t.- La j{�--W W�ltl 2"-(5,,pJ Z 1 cc Y I.I vi 0_41.02 <zy� wrnwa.w �'a v<w ]i "� I I �,. '1 w ,--z02 Q a c j a.❑W LL¢z w.K yg<z 2 C r � I 1 , I� ZW w4<4.) - X4-¢-0 Uu.Iw. °no zOq 0. 1 , O to KO�. ySg � w g 2 <$ .Tof0. z _ O I I I If` N 'I-w'LC74` g 2LL1 yr.wh p,b 2Oh 1 0FOwZ ww wO a�S W•-. Wdn- I ICI wwO Itwi.0 xws.mw 0 . x<. U' > ¢ � ( I 1'I I ‹lz00.4<< 't'.-5-o z8 .-1 Ow5 ¢z° I 1 .. ` II i NON 20 •u.Nw y 41wy ccw W 8=.4 D I a ux«< zguwiO�w<Ww UO w`w ZW iIt tr:d P� 1O z H a�m_$�zo !lt z5 O LO i t � t 12 W O L Z w d T<a LL s=i w z v; 11'70 c i ND .c _. zwiDDrx:.� 0<7 Luwmr- �X D �a >r `ate II .IeC�. < <m OJ w Oz2ww x Wa ,m•- - e 61 al I- Wln yO0 1z� iii 0In2M5 g OW la s W Z X a Es�it1 vy z 3 i` 1 II"' ll.l m. Mg WFiaWZ.2W 0w OWff _ ' C _ } cC' W O V, W+- E LL w i CC CC IY C , I �� szWQenp ,7,.210T,,-. 2,,..15.�o 8,,, wO o..2 �€ �� OQWwg wzFgouo-z w� 08h 1 I O O W Ul l- T`_D„,0, ly LLI z 2 G. e Il U .Q ZLL Z..J .m2CWf.)cry} 'O co‹Z '--' .5E I I I I Z W gz00,-tn c+,-tu to w•.-sow °,- g,,.- T - r II O o0WwCD‹ Clo<aZmZ wE< ,u00 = max€ I,-- l , p�w clDw`Ff'r~» $Wgf,.2cW.7or=�Uoz ogz m IL''- 7 O OWZa07-0 O'n .aa'nNLLW,-W c t" n --- .M d Z zm o Z=QZxZ arw<Z,x„OW 0..� Zu-'1.5-- C.J - I< �,� X07 ] OQzd" w0 Odr2-d1-02.Jow GOO ® 2 : e� 0 OW wnWU uwiV N-t,,�Vmi-o0www m< Ujd �_ . 1 O cA z ch 1�r--'< J,,w<avwmzw q o - '« I N p Ewa'<Vg Z025, 112 gra i it W !�I IN; - ! +Wi ` g I o, �J E g I ¢ ; I� a � i HP z O h 1 1 Q -1 I I c >dpw ,_ tip XQ <Z w w U W [r4 111 Z Z W rX W «- a t on,9 <O h V:LZjJ IG 1 i �W r !3 a Quo "La 14 Vu 1 h < C. t ( O Q L') 'r d d w Z O J 1,f I?I•4 LL7 mow a- qW .J t1 i:, « .. I no Z > LL O O¢ Et < al I" D Ri { / m W LLa? W� W 1 t T ' Nj ' I 0_w c-- ? II< z w e z� z I ~I Z : i x w lf ( 0 0 C d 2 N d rV {I.. IY I w .Q O I tr I Lu 4> QZ d I W n j ir udx < O0 9. �� wu Z* wC n Li 1r ND ci w I l I% r ti d O to U In W i. z __--- V ut W J _ _ _ Z ° = 4 t w Nn' oua5dw zc<i 0 w0I-O� - . _-_ _--__ _-_ - _ COLLIER BOULEVARD(200'ROW) ¢ o o ° a`m ti w a 0 >mo °=rnx u)° w wMw _, 2 u,00 23) a;-1-mW I-2 d � ¢ O ZONED: PUD(BRITTANY BAY) w F - 0 w cc W USE: RESIDENTIAL 1- n < cc a 21 - :v Packet Page-1088- - ` 1/27/2015 17.B. EXHIBIT D FOR WARM SPRINGS RPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 02°19'00" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 26, FOR A DISTANCE OF 40.03 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE OF SECTION 26, S 89°58'17" W, FOR A DISTANCE OF 235.19'TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°58'17" WEST, ALONG A LINE 40.0 FEET NORTH OF AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 26, FOR A DISTANCE OF 565.05 FEET TO THE EAST CORNER OF AN ORDER OF TAKING RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4533, PAGE 3116 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID ORDER OF TAKING FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES AND DISTANCES; (1) NORTH 87°09'58" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.25 FEET; (2) SOUTH 89°58'17" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 120.00 FEET; (3)SOUTH 87°06'32" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.25 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE 40.0 FEET NORTH OF AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 26;THENCE RUN ALONG SAID LINE, SOUTH 89°58'17" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,321.94 FEET; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG A LINE 40.0 FEET NORTH OF AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 26, SOUTH 89°58'48" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2,545.32 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE THAT IS 100 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL TO THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG SAID LINE, NORTH 02°15'37" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 964.28 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CRYSTAL LAKE RV RESORT, PHASE ONE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 16, PAGE 61 THROUGH 65 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE, SOUTH 89°59'42" EAST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2,542.51 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CRYSTAL LAKE RV RESORT, PHASE THREE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 20, PAGE 3 THROUGH 5, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 89°57'56" EAST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2,609.05 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF AN ORDER OF TAKING RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4533, PAGE 3116 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID ORDER OF TAKING FOR THE FOLLOWING FOUR (4)COURSES AND DISTANCES;(1) SOUTH 02°19'00" EAST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 798.34 FEET; (2) SOUTH 05°29'04" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 110.51 FEET; (3) SOUTH 53°39'57" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 42.23 FEET; (4) SOUTH 78°34'41" WEST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 151.91 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 113.67 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Worm Springs RPUD,PL20140000156 Page 6 of 14 Revised 01/05/2015-per CCPC Packet Page -1089- 1/27/2015 17.B. EXHIBIT E FOR WARM SPRINGS RPUD LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS 1. From LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements, which requires sidewalks which are internal to the development to be constructed on both sides of local streets,to allow sidewalks on one side of the street for a portion of the project and none on a cul-de-sac.The owner shall provide 1 canopy tree per 30 linear feet of sidewalk. Canopy trees located within 10 feet of the sidewalk may count towards a sidewalk canopy tree. See Exhibit E-1,Sidewalk Exhibit.This deviation applies to the overall PUD. 2. From LDC Section 6.06.01.N,Street System Requirements and Appendix B,Typical Street Sections and Right- of-Way Design Standards, which establishes a 60 foot wide local road, to allow a minimum 40' wide local private road. See Exhibit E-2, Private Road Cross Section. This deviation applies to the overall PUD. 3. From LDC Section 6.06.01.1, Street System Requirements, which limits cul-de-sacs to a maximum length of 1,000 feet,to permit cul-de-sacs to exceed 1,000 feet in length to a maximum of 2,740 feet with placement of no through traffic signage. 4. From LDC Section 5.06.02.8.6 and 5.06.02.B.6 (b), On-premises Sign Within Residential Districts, which permits signage at each project entrance, to permit an additional boundary marker sign of up to 64 square feet (per sign face) to be located along the Collier Boulevard frontage of the property and to exceed the maximum sign height of 8 feet for a maximum of 10 feet in height measured from the adjacent roadway centerline elevation. See Exhibit E-3,Boundary Marker Sign. 5. From LDC Section 5.03.02.0 and 5.03.02.F, Fences and Walls, which permits residential fences/walls to be a maximum of 6' in height measured from existing ground levels near the fence/wall,to permit the perimeter wall/fence to be a maximum height of 12'. The maximum height of the wall structure would not exceed 8 feet,with the remaining 4 feet being part of a berm. See Exhibit E-4, Perimeter Wall/Fence. This deviation applies to the overall PUD. 6. From LDC Section 4.06.02,Buffer Requirements,which requires a 20'wide type'D'landscape buffer adjacent to any road right-of-way external to the development project,to permit a 10'wide type'D' landscape buffer in the area identified on Exhibit E-5. 7. From LDC Section 4.02.04.D,Standards for Cluster Residential Design,which requires the zero lot line portion of the dwelling unit to be void of doors or windows where such wall is contiguous to an adjoining lot line to allow windows along portions of the principal building that is on the zero setback line. This deviation applies to the overall PUD. Warm Springs RPUD,PL20140000156 Page 7 of 14 Revised 01/05/2015-per CCPC Packet Page-1090- 1/27/2015 17.B. COLLIER BOULEVARD(200'ROW) 0 300 600' -NO SIDEWALK SCALE 1'°=600' JO WE-WALK; - � L.A Pe ZONED PUD(CRYSTAL LAKE) USE RESIDENTIAL(RV) LUAU -i`D LLWALK ZONED OPUS(BRISTOL PINES) USE RESIDENTIAL i. ..L. I�,/t 13 C x l IT7 sr-,EWALK i I ;NO 5;7EwAI�C 1_. I t N R H ZONED RPUD UNDEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL USE UNDEVE LOPED RESIDENTIAL ..l ,E DAN D uiit. RESIDENTIAL LAv • SDEWALK ON ONE SIDE OF LOOP ROAD SIDEWALK ON BOTH- SIDES OF LOOP ROAD IJ p N P ZONED. USE CABLE UTILITY SITE R MASSEY STREET REVISED 9/23/2014 WARM SPRINGS RPUD „SLL IJ I�IPJ,NI, 11 Moor,t'.1. le CODE ®G ra dyM i no r A)YIR IN.I RrY Am nn SI ) murl Ju 31131 ATT EXHIBIT E-1 r0.e NAME (1(11 Enginoars • Land Surn'yurs • II nn,TS • Landc.l pe,1 rr.hilyd't,N� DEVIATION 1 — SIDEWALK EXHIBIT r<II ul:liiil�fiH41051il I<I nI:WII,IDIYn NISI HIL+IUew.if.LIN1...+ -_- nnNNaSprinRN 2:1(111(71111 nN Iv I:r.i.1r;Honor row IRIII\hrR, 2111(roll IMO SHEET 1 OF 1 Packet Page -1091- INNIIMINI■11111■■•1111111■111•1i 1/27/2015 17.B. ,77"., m, ,-, 1,,,,'v C. '4-,-."'-'f,,,, 0,t,r. 9,''^1..N1 1 ,iri,,^4,01Y 1,V 2,.1,A;P-.^n.\\ ,■ R I - .. 'N l'''')- 0 cN CN .,..„.....,......... CY, r-- Lfl CD 0 C ..,) c,1 •-• > > > LLJ LJ LLI C.0 CC CC F------ t-- I Y 1— — Lu D(i) LJ LLI CI o cn c7) u_J El, cn tr) _J Z LJ CC N. Ni (._) - z c, – . .4c 6-:-. . 0 r-4 , ,,,, –7,—, Go „ 0. I j , C-3 ■- ,.., , h. 1 CL , 7 ...... o t_L._, Z 4 _., >- , < < --... i_ 1..,._ I .. .: z,-..."-- ■ i 1 L.,.) LA § t • ,_. 1 . H i F 5. (2 g. ,--ii, :, < 1 0 • i ■ L. - ,-,. . , t2 1 I = eg •—• .3 g g. (, C..D • F 1 w 2' I LE.4 ■ LLI 77.t CO C., Y __J (,) < --- I L.,..J I.L1 0 L-7>L17. 0 L --F- b t!" X --_ LJ 0 CO 1 v" -.- _I J ^,, I 1 ...1 v. 0 LI 7,5 in 0 141 1 Iii CC < D u j I c.) LLI CL C‘)0 U-1 L'-'0 •—> ''';. 0 Z(7)g_ Packet Page-1092- 1/27/2015 17.B. !f; .1, mum cifi, lot,um , A 1 n q17,-°--,,,r.77,7.... ..--(7411.111111111,:';,..',11 „.. . timorm4715°-‘4,.=,F..,4,-1, 74. e 12;17,7,77frk.f,',1.`';--1 r,,P,',1,,-' All ..--,. „,---,t „-`71:f-f:i7'. , 4:„,,,-- - :, ,i -Att,,,',..14 -,,,..,1 ,„ ,, .„,. A .A`s";''''' A'' 'i.°:a4 v 11 ,V-„1,1. '.-''L.'-,-"r` ' '' . ',JTWTE"'I..,.,,,,,,,aw'''''- .1`-'1'1:,q-,' .,7.'' *-er,.. -,.,” ,_°V*ri.-.1;;;7',,i- '. . 4'''',.,.* ''.. e ." t,....,:' '''''.*' 1 in,: 7', i t;'... -,':* -'*"..?1,:-Z, 1 ,.,*, i ,-- , , **;;;,-- ' - !, '1 .;,t-1'„.AA1..41':' '',..' - L-A-I.... " 4- ''''*' . ''i ',. 'A.'‘A''' 41;z0v.1"1"tftk.„,,:ltri ' 6i lil f, ,!e:til, '',:,.. ''';,"1; +'f 1,'';' ' ' 11 .49',.; Vet 0 k;:....-":;14f d f.tri'l•,"'.i-,74,,,;:q1...,,..,,,,s ei,,., _:::.,,,t7-torA ,, -----'s i;,'''/.,*,T,'::4i, ''',,.!j1 ,7.*:!ii,r1"I.'.1: 7-..,,tri.. I',..,01‘ '7,,:i.th # i, ,!**1`-';"5.=-;";3/ 7i i 5:111", ,,, t'tkiiriiiti* tet *citifiel ill ) /5 S flirt **Ais=7;mit- g, , t'.',..,„:,-: ,Afr, ,:tf.,.1,t4t .A. ..c ' '' el: Ve..4 44pr ,..- ',,,,,,,I.,..-,,,--- f-,,,,,i, .5 ,• 4,.,,,.: !=•..: 1 0.44.: ,,-,4,„:."1 , ,',6 4,14116. . * t.4.1g,t k : — •uun '-t-: ,-;:;,,,',,,,,'.4;',1,'-',,it,„ -,:, ,r;t''A,,t'l ■ f",.' ,,,,,,/-;`,:,i'`:`rt Ili ° ; %,,,,, 4',.' ... 4'1 .....,,,,,, ,. - .„ , ,,,,f k1, . - f-- .-.,,, ;„„ ,,,...,,,,teir, •,„ .,. .„ , _t......,„,„,1 .1 A,It ,,T1 .,,,T,, • ,' ''''' ; • 4 itil,3:4, ,til. eft Ar',',..t -fill) ';'".',,t'i'ir,"..212"" [1,-,,,,,*.tA tP :t:'*-..—t—" ■ . -,,,,Roaer,4 .,, l,e Iptle,'"4'4,,,1 4,4,, ,',.i'l ,- N.:----.77.1. nrfft-,,,t5,...i-,k," 441 tc,is rj`r "'...tr 'Alt. :44,...441*I'h,11 VIII. ,4.1 6k.,, ,,. r f.■ f,f 1„L ' , ',..A...■- ,;;`).,-"''' ' '' '"' '.f '':.* f.14').'''' '..r3.; '''''''‘4'r r '' ' 1, ,,,'s l'' ..1"41...4.AM , ,,„4„,,-ja,,,:ii„,:,L,,,,..., ...fa".1.1.4--,,,,. -. ,,,,:„.:,:„,,...tk Farm Road Tree 1.-‘imi ........, ;; /..,,,,.-- ,,. ife00 ---- ... 04 - Aplikt,04... 01/07-ilikr, , a ',.,'' Ili,‘r';.';';,. •'^,0 1 IP , „art--,-Psi'llir,RF"le\ . 11 . 'p.r :,-,,.0.4,,,,,,r, A.1%,„?,,,,,„, ,,,, .•'/''''' 7 :^ A r l' ''te"'" ' ' f 1 1 ' . ' . ..,,jr':,:i'f1;4211-"'", '''''t•:;4 it t*rA.,t7t,t ' , \ 4 - i• . 1 il ill ;:r.r4.41'7,r.0.?1,4°;t0IP-Z--a.l.'-::! ',1-:-,,'4)1.kil- , / ' 1 , -7-7, 1 0A,,. ,., sidsprIttr,, . ,, , , „iii.si.... .", .•-,,,-,...,..,,,-,,k,,,,,...:....1-' -tte 9 , 1 14,,,INFIE"--• ii. ...,.,,„_. „„:'," "-1 ,, ,,,..,,o,.-7.-7-i 1 1 '' , I ft • • Ariiir.”"'" a .,,,a_4.....17;traa..,. ...,..401, , • _,___„ik .- * -,.--.F•t• -4 ' F V .„,-,.. - ampF,...m.F a k 1 1 1 . , . . , ell 141 Springs ri , ..., I .., w arm p ............ * -.• v - ....k....... dtfl„141 ,,..._.,•• M, r *..','-' '':' -1:it 't","! - • " - raw*r4"`s *,--tt ,„?;"-,- -t''.P.'— • pD *,4 ;;1:014.:,,A104.s, .......... tipm.),-.10,,... .„24,./.„,:•..... -ALI -.... ''- SPRI NGS R lI WARM l'.;.:,%4,----ki4;,. -7..r.;,-;",•......„1111111,0::: ---- 'if1,111 II ft .1101' 1.0.1...trrhrw,10..,,,• l'amoi ,„,,,,.., ‘ -1093- GradyMi Packet Page 512R37210se14d 7.7 pac -D4BHOIBUITNDEA-Rs'31. MARKER SIGN •" • i•••I 4'11'1 1:.4.1*■:,1,4,:..14. DEVIATION- 4 . 1/27/2015 17.B. LOT PJD BOUNDARY PEAR „DT “NE -- E' WALL/FENCE r. TOP or OEPsr.—,,_____ _. _ _______, __________ ......___ _ ___ ...A.,. _ TYPICAL PERIMETER BERM WITH WALL/FENCE N.T.S. i. 13' 1 r-, n •F 7 l I WARM SPRINGS RPUD ;`"" =a ` IA G ra dyMi n o r 0 C014 Minor amt 4woclelra.P.,. JOB COBB,rnuc. 31100 rla 1101 kry Paulta 3191190.1 F1urIda 31131 rurc EXHIBIT E-4 ...0a.. Civil Engineers Land Surveyors Planners Landscape Architects it-Lc xulc CEII of 490 Es 0905151 CAN,el 4911)1.50005)51 Bminear w 26000296 DEVIATION 5 — PERIMETER WALL/FENCE ,9.mar _ "E" &.nI1a S9rrnan.2399471144 wa w r:ra4rU/nne elm Fun Myers.2396509380 8116E1 1 OF` 1 3 Packet Page -1094- 1/27/2015 17.B. ir,'I.:t xrk V.T. ,t :"...•C-1 Irf.,..1 14"....,;7,..1,1\$1.1,, Oefff 'rift,V)1,10,1, - ',ter 71,0,t11C..1. - - I - en 8 (v) —........--Z ...) OM ■Of IOW_2111015 it. MIN IMO ■ WM MN, .-.... Cl)— — -- ,__ ....c.,— — --..- ^— 5— --- --- — k ' 1 : ,..- _ \ 1 1 1 i 0 - CD 1 • _„.... 1 2 7' I cc ,: z k., 1 1 , 1 u_1 U D 1 I LUI U) (r)C3 ri) IA C I 1 i CC .5 W CC 1 ,( z I 1 Crl x L., \ '411. Li u_ 12 i Ce ' , -,.. t'''N: > 1 rg u_ '' UJ -q D CO CG UJ kl _ •: ... ,,,,\ !,:••..1 i 5 , , Ito I k, i ; I' r:...s.. L....1 ,11 —g ' : • —r., LI.; ...-. . — 1-1J g 1. : 1 g 1 , I— ■ 1 t /.E • g < 0_ i it ; < 1_U I k '1 l EI:i S I Cil — a Q , t • .., I S , LIJ Z C '••'' c' < I (11 = C) i ^, C 7. :9 SI ■ I— 1 I '••••••••, -,.:'-'7 ....-• .=+ = < i (_) L-1 < II I < I-- 1 I I C., • -; ;11 ; It I I 112 r.El, •'l'' ' i I IlE ' s ' S,.'t, • I t.t t tl t I CC I N• 1 1 ct / 1 t:t / i I r ■ C f i I i :ill 1 ! ■ LT) t. , , -- --A—L. - -- .., ..', 1 , Packet Page-1095- 1/27/2015 17.B. EXHIBIT F FOR WARM SPRINGS RPUD • LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 1. UTILITIES A. Connections will be made to two independent water transmission main locations outside of the project boundary, one along the westerly portion of Tree farm Road and one at or near the intersection of Tree Farm Rd. and Massey Rd. 2. TRANSPORTATION A. The donated 40' right-of-way for Tree Farm Road shall satisfy this requirement for future turn lanes on Tree Farm Road. The developer as outlined in the Developer Contribution Agreement as it relates to the Warm Springs PUD will pay for the turn lane improvements on Tree Farm Road. B. The maximum trip generation allowed by the proposed uses (both primary and ancillary) may not exceed 366 PM Peak Hour, two way trips. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL A. Vegetation shall be retained in accordance with the criteria established in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP and Section 3.05 of the LDC. Total Preserve Required 21.07±AC 84.26±AC Native Vegetation X 25%=21.07±AC Total Preserve Provided 25±AC B. The Bald Eagle nest zone is to be addressed by staff at time of clearing and construction plan review in accordance with Federal, State or local requirements. 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 Argo Warm Springs, LLLP, 21141 Bella Terra Boulevard, Estero, Florida 33928. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity,then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Warm Springs RPUD,PL20140000156 Page 13 of 14 Revised 01/05/2015-per CCPC Packet Page-1096- 1/27/2015 17.B. 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. LANDSCAPE A 20-foot wide type 'D' landscape buffer shall be provided along the western, southern and eastern PUD boundary. A 10-foot wide type 'A' landscape buffer shall be provided along the northern PUD boundary. A 10-foot wide type 'D' landscape buffer shall be provided in the area indicated on Exhibit E-5. Warm Springs RPUD,PL20140000156 Page 14 of 14 Revised 01/05/2015-per CCPC Packet Page-1097- 1/27/2015 17.B. • • • • NAPLES DAILY NEWS (( Wednesday,January 7,2015 (( 27D • NOTICE OF MEETING NOTICE OF MEETING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE • Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, January 27, 2015, in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room, Third Floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, Florida 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 COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA,AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41,AS-AMENDED,THE. COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABUSHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(RPUD)TO A RPUD FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE WARM SPRINGS RPUD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF 400 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF COWER BOULEVARD'. (C.R.951) AND APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE SOUTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R.846) IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 114' ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 05-21, FORMERLY THE WARM SPRINGS RPUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.[PETITION PUDZ-A-PL201400001561 Copies of the proposed Ordinance are on file with the Clerk to the Board and are 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 administrator prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed.. Individual speakers will be limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of an 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 material used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. Any person who decides to appeal a 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, Florida, 34112. (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 Commissioner's Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA TOM HENNING,CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK By:.Ann Jennejohn,Deputy Clerk . •(SEAL) January 7.2015 No.2044342 • Packet Page-1098-