The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 04/14/2015 Item #17A 4/14/2015 17.A. 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 of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Community Facility zoning district and Golf Course zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project known as the Hibiscus RPUD to allow construction of up to 64 residential dwelling units on property located on the south side of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road at the intersection of Hibiscus Drive in Section 19, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 7.9± acres; and by providing an effective date. [Petition PUDZ-PL20140000179. This is a companion item to the Small Scale GMPA for Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict, PL20140000193/CPSS-2014-1). 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 the petition; and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: The subject 7.9± acre site consists of a property located on the south side of Rattlesnake Hammock Road that is bisected by Hibiscus Drive, a public right-of-way. On the west side of Hibiscus Drive the subject property is zoned Community Facility (CF) and on the east side the subject property is zoned Golf Course (GC). The CF portion of the property was previously rezoned from GC to CF and approved for a Church by Ordinance number 04-02. (See Attachment.) This petition seeks to rezone 7.9±acres of vacant,undeveloped land from CF and GC to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). A companion small scale Growth Management Plan Amendment has also been filed which proposes to establish the Hibiscus Infill Residential Infill Subdistrict to authorize a maximum of 64 dwelling units within the subdistrict. The petitioner originally proposed a development of no more than 84 units with a density of 10.63 dwelling units per acre. The density has been reduced per CCPC recommendation to 64 dwelling units (with a density of 8.7 units per acre). The PUD document proposes the development of no more than 64 multi-family, single-family detached, townhouse and single- family zero lot line residential dwelling units. The companion small scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) will also allow 64 dwelling units at 8.10 dwelling units per acre. (Please note: the GMPA density and Zoning density are calculated differently. The GMPA density calculation includes Hibiscus Drive, a public right-of-way;the zoning density calculation does not.) The buildings will have a zoned height of 30-45 feet and an actual height of 35-50 feet. According to information provided by the petitioner, ingress/egress will be provided primarily from Hibiscus Drive and secondarily from Doral Circle. Packet Page-1597- 4/14/2015 17.A. The Master Plan depicts the area of proposed residential development. The subject site is bisected by Hibiscus Drive and is bound by Rattlesnake Hammock Drive to the north, a residential multi-family development to the east, a 100-foot wide canal easement to the south, and Doral Circle to the west. Landscape buffering requirements are met by a 15-foot wide Type D right-of-way Landscape Buffer adjacent to Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Doral Circle and a 10-foot wide Type D Landscape Buffer along Hibiscus Drive. Along the drainage easement/canal, a modified 15-foot wide Type B Landscape Buffer has been provided. FISCAL IMPACT: The PUD amendment by and of itself will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no guarantee that the project, at build out,will maximize its authorized level of development. However, if the PUD amendment is approved, a portion of the land could be developed and the new development will result in an impact on Collier County public facilities (excluding potable water and wastewater services, which are to be provided by the City of Naples). 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): Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed rezone consistent with the Future Land Use Element contingent upon the companion GMP amendment application first being approved/adopted. A more detailed description of the GMP consistency is contained in the Staff Report. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard petition PUDZ-PL20140000179, Hibiscus Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) on February 19, 2015, and by a vote of 6 to 0 recommended to forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval subject to the following stipulations which have been incorporated into the PUD document: 1. Accept the staff recommendation to provide a landscape buffer along the canal and to allow the landscape buffer material to be planted between the building setback area and the canal. Packet Page-1598- 4/14/2015 17.A. 2. Doral Circle shall be limited to emergency access only until such time as a traffic light is installed at Doral Circle and Rattlesnake Hammock Road. 3. There will be no construction access allowed from Doral Circle to the site. 4. Prior to the next development order, an area comparable in size to the density increase shall be restricted on the golf course property in order to avoid the double counting of the density. 5. The density shall be reduced to 64 units. 6. The language in Exhibit A, B.l.b. shall be modified to state the actual height for an accessory use. 7. A recommendation shall be made to the BCC to instruct staff to allow a full median opening at Hibiscus Drive and Rattle-Snake Hammock Road that is to be completed at the developer's expense. 8. The landscape buffer along the eastern property line shall be 15 feet wide and the existing vegetation shall be left intact. 9. Due to the decrease in density, the requirement for CAT tickets shall be removed and the $25,000 contribution for a CAT station/facility shall remain as previously stated in Exhibit F. Additionally, the reduction in density has resulted in a reduction in the number of evacuation shelter cots from 55 to 40 cots and this revision has been incorporated into Exhibit F: List of Developer Commitments. There were several letters of concern received along with one letter of objection. The issues were resolved at the CCPC hearing and the author of the letter of objection provided a letter of acknowledgement. (See attachment.) Therefore, this petition has been placed on the Summary Agenda. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is a site specific rezone from a Community Facility Zoning District and Golf Course Zoning District to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Hibiscus RPUD. The burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent with all the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), should it consider denying the rezone, to determine that such denial would not be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the proposal does not meet one or more of the listed criteria below. Criteria for RPUD Rezones Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval or not 1. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. 2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation Packet Page -1599- 4/14/2015 17.A. and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. 3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed RPUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. 4. Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. 5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development? 6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. 7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 8. Consider: Conformity with RPUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications 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 Packet Page-1600- 4/14/2015 17.A. volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development,or otherwise affect public safety? 16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? 17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas? 18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? 19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations? 20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ("reasonably") be used in accordance with existing zoning? (a"core"question...) 22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county? 23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. 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) Packet Page-1601- 4/14/2015 17.A. RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendation of the CCPC and further recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approves the request for PUDZ- PL20140000179, Hibiscus Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), subject to the CCPC stipulations and contingent upon the companion GMP amendment application first being approved/adopted. Prepared by: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA Planning& Zoning Attachments: 1) Staff Report 2) RPUD Ordinance 3) Ordinance 04-02 3) Location Map 4) Master Plan 5) Application/Environmental Documents/TIS- go to: http://www.colliergov.net/ftp/AgendaApri 11415/GrowthMgmt/Applica tion 3-18-15.pdf 6) Letters of Concern/Letter of Objection Packet Page-1602- 4/14/2015 17.A. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 17.17.A. Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended,the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Community Facility zoning district and Golf Course zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project known as the Hibiscus RPUD to allow construction of up to 64 residential dwelling units on property located on the south side of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road at the intersection of Hibiscus Drive in Section 19,Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 7.9± acres; and by providing an effective date. [Petition PUDZ-PL20140000179. This is a companion item to the Small Scale GMPA for Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict, PL20140000193/CPSS-2014-1). Meeting Date: 4/14/2015 Prepared By Name: GundlachNancy Title:Planner, Principal, Comprehensive Planning 3/18/2015 8:47:09 AM Approved By Name: BellowsRay Title: Manager-Planning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 3/18/2015 2:44:46 PM Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, Community Development&Environmental Services Date: 3/18/2015 3:41:09 PM Name: BosiMichael Title:Division Director-Planning and Zoning, Comprehensive Planning Packet Page-1603- 4/14/2015 17.A. Date: 3/23/2015 8:59:37 AM Name: MarcellaJeanne Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning Date: 3/23/2015 10:34:26 AM Name: StoneScott Title: Assistant County Attorney,CAO Land Use/Transportation Date: 3/31/2015 3:41:41 PM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 3/31/2015 3:47:13 PM Name: IsacksonMark Title:Division Director-Corp Fin&Mgmt Svc, Office of Management&Budget Date: 4/6/2015 11:02:09 AM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager, County Managers Office Date: 4/6/2015 1:28:03 PM Packet Page-1604- 4/14/2015 17.A. AGENDA ITEM 9-C Co'firer County STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION, PLANNING AND REGULATION HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 19, 2015 SUBJECT: PETITION PUDZ-PL20140000179, HIBISCUS RPUD (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT). (COMPANION ITEM TO HIBISCUS RESIDENTIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT, PL20140000193/CPSS-2014-1) APPLICANT/OWNER: Nassif Golf Ventures, LLC 225Banyan Boulevard, Suite 240 Naples, FL 34102 AGENTS: Mr. D. Wayne Arnold Mr. Richard D. Yovanovich,Esquire Q. Grady Minor&Associates Coleman,Yovanovich and Koester,P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Naples,FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC) consider changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Community Facility zoning district and Golf Course zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project known as the Hibiscus RPUD to allow construction of up to 84 residential dwelling units on the subject property. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The 7.91 acre subject property is located on the south side of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road at the intersection of Hibiscus Drive in Section 19, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the Location Map on the following page.) HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 1 of 21 Packet Page-1605- } 4/14/2015 17.A. 1r iir wow-lop 1,,,,7111131 latt"....1..wg 91 11 s ill 40■• 4144* $ ! rjr 01111■1 #4: 141411.4.11.11011111tHi a g 4* kr 44 ,S$ a*g I Ill e vair VAry., 4 © 1wa 1 a© ea doa a0 ppt� ��G op hi e� ♦p a. I/ kil cc iiii ° iii Pi "$ N VP) vl � it 02191EMPFM.= *Elf 4 EMT '... ., .:: i FtimiiiiERN Beet ov ts s �© #4 e� ooa©oNEEN EN111 � •�s1 1 0 44. 4674 z -, 04 Pa 1oO�vOB MI:PM Pg��di 4*� ado © mis-Qmi �= 414 .44 111 `WE v Ell IC :5211911:17� pi ;3a©cede koP,,or �'' RAVIEOP ail ! ` - C 2 ® P� a�"3 t Pl�� , p a D ass _0 1 � it E sa p , g 1 5' i 1 g n 6y . w , 3NYZYS ' 11112 Soo co go 1—z milk- 'IiU vw° e DNrG—� w O G y „ g g e I1<1g � gad° 1 �� 11 p n o P '1 rro.e ur�nm ; g� to g6 S' - -9 L a ii cm 01011113.1104% .Nod .011004 " ; 1 x .4 e es „ g O i NS�� i n - i 1 %-- Ilp bi J.,„,-" 0 x G35 r '� S C a3SN O i gag Igo tiI\ . I r I -'a, evyl gI )/ a fi _h ? 11 � a ° : 3ven aaonsave „-„---. Sc Z < • I ✓�. .7 nNUwonos 7 mw;", 1 L _" . ``---$ 1 w - r4 �y — " � -- 1 " —' Packet Page-1606- " 1 a wog mein,mmlyaMm m mumAmommAJona rms._mnoNmewne_m 4/14/2015 17.A. x I . Yo w u- o Y e e w o ° �£ 0- z , o ''''''''■ - II O F Q w w z-ice F g ii o ¢ ¢ o- 0 Z Z_ U w CU U O-1 O w Fw a S w m Q Al j 0 1- `>� o� tiz 0) Wi m� CO G.) CC a ' I w N S 8 C u7 L.J J w - (� Z (q W ''s qw Ww , 0 ¢F CI U o g O= I O ca O ¢W fl dui� 1N3W3 I � �I �y 3oVNlvo °W± r ,Obl Q � a WF... " : .5 Y O w u_ r m LL. >_ 0 g g N C#S Z Z a, _ 0 Iam ° 1 h o Q a 0 °� w 1- E ¢cn 0 ©�/ / 5; . .:L Rte/ F- 0 Q� I,. CO a Z ttrY�, �," Ow W� - Z Q - _ / I m CC m W U S D " k 11.1 1 ICO _(,,, ._n 0 -1 0 w = 0 Z j am I Ow0 wJ Z W a N +. � a a R ti oc) I T¢ P fi i x3 da �z° - N A k Our °- w I ®'S co Z O Q Q BcZl Q LL NN j n 30Vd OLE, I D m z o >1008 'a'0 - ti e0 V 13 .I IN3W3SV3 I 8k W I - 30VNIVaO H iss O0 ❑ ow w° -. .00I D as a I S y� m 0 I Z W rim Wa o co Q J S o � °Q Z u_p_. CC W �g `g 3 ¢ M t I Et° V� El- (I) 'n m , O uJ d }i11 D W o iii ¢ I f I " � o 2 11111. r, j g DORAL CIRCLE I col t a O L._z H � w Q ° 3 ww w Lll za 0 ow N U) Packet Page-1607- 4/14/2015 17.A. { t PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: '�' i The subject 7.9± acre site consists of a property located on the south side of Rattlesnake Hammock i Road that is bisected by Hibiscus Drive, a public right-of—way. On the west side of Hibiscus Drive the subject property is zoned Community Facility (CF) and on the east side the subject property is zoned Golf Course (GC). The CF portion of the property was previously rezoned from GC to CF and approved for a Church by Ordinance number 04-02. (See Attachment B.) This petition seeks to rezone 7.9± acres of vacant, undeveloped land from CF and GC to Residential Planned Unit F Development (RPUD). A companion small scale Growth Management Plan Amendment has also been filed which proposes to establish the Hibiscus Infill Residential Sub-district to authorize a maximum of 84 dwelling units within the sub-district. The PUD proposes the development of no more than 84 multi-family, single-family detached, i townhouse and single-family zero lot line residential dwelling units with a density of 10.63 dwelling units per acre. The companion small scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) will allow 10.63 dwelling units per acre or 84 dwelling units. The buildings will have a zoned height of 30-45 feet and an actual height of 35-50 feet. According to information provided by the petitioner, ingress/egress will be provided primarily from Hibiscus Drive and secondarily from Doral Circle. 1. 1 t The Master Plan provided on the previous page of this Staff Report depicts the area of proposed residential development. As previously stated, the subject site is bisected by Hibiscus Drive and is bound by Rattlesnake Hammock Drive to the north, a residential multi-family development to the east,a 100-foot wide canal easement to the south, and Doral Circle to the west. Landscape buffering requirements are met by a 15-foot wide Type D right-of-way Landscape Buffer 1 adjacent to Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Doral Circle and a 10-foot wide Type D Landscape Buffer along Hibiscus Drive. Along the drainage easement/canal, a 15-foot wide Type B Landscape i Buffer has been provided for a short distance where the subject property directly abuts the existing t RSF-3 residences. Where the proposed development abuts the existing golf course, no landscape buffer has been provided, as the Landscape Code does not require a buffer along a golf course. Along the canal a deviation is requested from the landscape buffer that mitigates the impact of the proposed residences from the existing residences and golf maintenance facility across the canal. The minimum landscape code requires a 15-foot wide Type B Landscape Buffer with trees 25 feet on k center; the deviation request is to allow for no landscaping. (For more information, please refer to the Deviations section of this Staff Report.) e SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: 1 I North: Rattlesnake Hammock Road, a 4-lane divided minor arterial road; then Riviera Colony Y Mobile Home Park with a zoning designation of MH (Mobile Home); and a strip shopping center with a zoning designation of C-3 (Commercial Intermediate) I, East: Country Club Manor Condominiums, multi-family residences with a zoning designation of RMF-16, at 16 dwelling units per acre ...---„,3 HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 z Page 4 of 21 3 Packet Page-1608- i 4/14/2015 17.A. South: single-family residences with a zoning designation of RSF-3; then a golf course; then a golf maintenance facility; and then a golf clubhouse parking lot with a zoning designation of GC (Golf Course) West: Doral Circle, a entrance roadway that has MSTU landscape improvements; and then Doral single-family residences with a zoning designation of RSF-3 (Residential Single-family), at 3 dwelling units per acre `. '''',',114.15401111.?IT, ,r ;#0,';j, fit -7,,;. ;-iiti - -~,, ii; Jr '1,Will ' -"'"4`', ,,, J . , , I, r,,,..;:.- ' Vie' Y "41 Am�!! , _ :cNARLq*4-AceVa , `,�" 4 1 I Subject Site ,, E� s j r F I.,1 , ; 4.1.f• - f," Diu R{ -4 • I 77,41:0, n a f Y.+.�w# .,�., RATlLC4+1M E*1 MOCK RD t. + 1 � r ��,y„pia---P-F; _ _.... -_ � .,.,. .`.._ y , . �I�to i i k a,( w L.oic a ',' i ' r if 1 1 ''}tom , 4: = E k �� '' µ L HHaa �.� fay • tl le; 1� ... ..;,...'.2,' ., ,,,., _ .. , ,,,,,,4-- ,ifix ;.F "4 F ._,..,_ . , v g gXp 4 , - , ,,,,„. ,j ..,4.4 , ,.. , 1 .., ,rolm.,, , „„f,,,,,.....,le .:0,. _ s ”, lit r N Coat CoundpMmpwnp Amara.,N.i .fl - a'; "`A.AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The subject+7.90 acre site is designated Urban(Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), and a portion of the site (+3.58 acres) is located within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). Relevant to the subject petition, the Urban designation allows residential and associated accessory uses at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre (DU/A). HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 5 of 21 Packet Page-1609- 4/14/2015 17.A. Review of the Density Rating System deems this project eligible for a base density of 4 DU/A, and a density reduction of 1 DU/A for that portion of the site located within the Coastal High Hazard Area. Base Density 4 =31.60 units Density Reduction for acreage(3.58 ac.)within the CHHA -1 = 3.58 units Total Eligible Units=28.02=28 Because the proposed density request of 10.63 DU/A or 84 dwelling units does not comply with the density provisions of the FLUE, the property owner submitted a Growth Management Plan amendment (GMPA) application (Petition PL20140000193/CPSS-2014-1, Hibiscus Residential lnftll Subdistrict) that,if approved,will allow the proposed density on the site. The Coastal High Hazard Area is identified on the Future Land Use Map. This line is based on the storm Category 1 SLOSH area (potential for salt water flooding from 1 storm in 12 years) and evacuation planning areas. Within the Coastal High Hazard Area maximum permissible residential density is limited in recognition of the level of risk, the existing deficiency of evacuation shelter space and existing patterns of density. To address the increased residential density proposed by the subject application, the Bureau of Emergency Services has requested that the applicant prepare a hurricane awareness program and evacuation plan as well as contribute 55 cots for use at emergency shelters. Comprehensive Planning staff supports these requests and they are listed in PUD document Exhibit F, item 5.A and B. The requested rezoning for the proposed residential density may only be found consistent with the FLUE contingent upon the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20140000193/CPSS-2014-1, being approved by the Board of County Commissioners and subsequently becoming in effect. Changes to the GMP amendment as it proceeds through the hearing process may necessitate changes to the subject PUD petition. The Adoption hearings for the Growth Management Plan amendment to the FLUE and public hearings for the PUD rezone will be scheduled concurrently. Future Land Use Element(FLUE)Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. Please refer to the appropriate Staff Report sections for this information. 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. ,^ HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 6 of 21 Packet Page-1610- 4/14/2015 17.A. I 1 I a -- 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 t intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [Exhibit C, RPUD Master I Plan, depicts access onto Rattlesnake-Hammock Road — a collector roadway as identified in the Transportation Element.] Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [No loop road is proposed due to the limited site acreage and project type. The subject project is bifurcated by Hibiscus Drive, which is likely to serve as the project's primary access onto Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Additional project access onto Rattlesnake Hammock Road is I provided from the site through the adjacent local road, Doral Circle, on the western portion of the site. The project's internal road and westerly access onto the adjacent local road will permit vehicles to safely move throughout the site.] 1 i Policy 7.3: 1 All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use P type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [Exhibit C, RPUD Master Plan, depicts an interconnection with the golf course acreage and clubhouse to the south (via the existing Hibiscus Drive); and a I connection to the adjacent local road to the west. The northern property boundary is adjacent to a public roadway; and, the eastern property boundary abuts a multi-family ; residential development and a portion of that development's buffer (Country Club Manor). No interconnection to the easterly property is proposed and staff does not believe it is practicable to provide an interconnection.] Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of t densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The PUD allows for multi-family, single-family, townhouse, and single-family zero lot line; provides for open space and preservation area, consistent with the Land Development Code (LDC); allows a clubhouse, which is sometimes used for civic uses, e.g. polling place; and, sidewalks will be provided as required by the LDC since no deviation was sought.] , Based on the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed PUDZ application for the residential density of 10.63 DU/A or 84 dwelling units not consistent with the Future Land Use Element. However, contingent upon Board approval of the companion Growth Management `� Plan amendment, Petition PL20140000193/CPSS-2014-1, to establish the Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict,the petition could be found consistent with the FLUE. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the Hibiscus PUD rezone /---, petition and companion Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict Growth Management Plan (GMP) a HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 7 of 21 Packet Page-1611- 4/14/2015 17.A. amendment petition for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element ('FE) in the Growth Management Plan. That policy is listed below,followed by staff analysis. Policy 5.1: The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3%of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways. The subject rezone and FLUE amendment petitions do increase residential density and the proposed project does access a deficient roadway segment per the 2014 AUIR, Annual Update and Inventory Report on public facilities. Transportation Planning staff recognizes a current failure of the existing roadway network (Link 72.0 Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, from Tamiami Trail to Charlemagne Blvd., which exceeds capacity by 5 trips). This four-lane roadway is constrained by a lack of expandable right-of-way, and is not slated for any capital improvements as a result of the recognized failure, which was identified in the 2014 AUIR process. As a result of the capacity failure on Rattlesnake-Hammock Road, staff cannot find these petitions consistent with'1'E Policy 5.1, thus cannot recommend approval,unless acceptable mitigation measures are proposed. The applicant has proposed multiple mitigation measures (see PUD Exhibit F, List of Developer Commitments, Section 3.a.-d.), summarized below: << • Contribution of $25,000 toward the construction of Collier Area Transit (CAT) facilities along Rattlesnake-Hammock Road. • Purchase 5 monthly CAT passes, covering the months of November through May, for 5 consecutive seasons after the date that the first Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a residential unit. HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 8 of 21 Packet Page-1612- 4/14/201517.A. i • Interconnection to the adjacent golf course and clubhouse/restaurant facilities — via the existing Hibiscus Drive. • Provision of on-site bicycle racks. Conclusion: Staff endorses the petitioner's proposed mitigation measures. Concurrency Comments: Transportation Planning staff does not review projects for transportation concurrency at time of I GMP amendment or rezone. However, since staff is aware of the current failure of the existing roadway network adjacent to the subject site, staff offers some comments and a recommendation not specific to these petitions. If the GMPA and PUD petitions are approved,then the project would be subject to concurrency at the time of Site Development Plan or Plat submittal. Per TE Policy 5.2, a project may be approved if the traffic impacts proposed at that time are "de minimis" (i.e. less than 1% of the directional roadway capacity) — which could potentially restrict development order approval to a density less than the maximum approved(less than the proposed 84 units). t Additionally, an alternative that could potentially be beneficial to this project, based upon TE Policies 5.4 and 5.5, would be to incorporate the property into an approved Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) boundary. One current staff recommendation, outlined in t ,...--, the 2014 AUIR recommendations, is to promote inclusion of Link 72.0, and surrounding properties, in the nearby TCEA (the boundary presently ends at the Rattlesnake-Hammock Road/Tamiami Trail East intersection). [Note: The staff recommendation in the 2014 AUIR for TCEA expansion was not based upon these two particular petitions, and the proposed expansion would include properties other than just the subject site.] In order for staff to pursue a GMP i amendment to expand the existing TCEA boundary, explicit BCC direction must be provided. a Such a GMP amendment would need to include a transportation study to support the expansion, which would be included in the submittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity f (DEO) and Florida Department of Transportation(FDOT)for their review and acceptance. 1 Aside from this PUD rezone petition and companion GMP amendment petition, Transportation Planning staff is requesting the BCC authorize and direct staff to: initiate the GMP amendment process to expand the TCEA, and to allow that amendment to be processed outside of the established three annual GMP amendment cycles. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). 1 Based on the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed PUDZ application for the residential density of 10.63 DU/A or 84 dwelling units not consistent with the Future Land Use Element. However, contingent upon Board approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20140000193/CPSS-2014-1, to establish the Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict,the petition could be found consistent with the FLUE. HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 , Page 9 of 21 Packet Page-1613- 4/14/2015 17.A. ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 10.02.13 B.S., Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.02.08 F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC,who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. Aerials available on the Internet from the Property Appraiser show that some form of golf course maintenance, storage or operation activities occurred in a portion of the proposed development area. An adequate assessment of the soils in this area that may include additional soil sampling for organochlorine pesticides and the 8 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act metals is warranted. Soil and/or ground water sampling in accordance with the requirements of LDC section 3.08.00 will occur at time of Site Development Plan (SDP) or Plat/construction plans (PPL) review. The requirement for sampling is included in the List of Developer Commitments in Exhibit F of the PUD document. The project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, since it does not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews identified in Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Transportation Review: Please refer to the Transportation Element review on the previous pages. Utility Review: The Utilities Department staff has reviewed the petition and the RPUD is located within the Collier County Water Sewer District. The District has adequate capacity to serve the project at this time. Emergency Management Review: The Emergency Management staff has reviewed the petition and as previously stated has requested that the applicant prepare a hurricane awareness program and evacuation plan as well as contribute 55 cots for use at emergency shelters. These requests are listed in PUD document Exhibit F, item 5.A and B. !I: Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) District Review: CCPS staff has reviewed the petition and has stated that there is sufficient capacity for the proposed development within the middle and high school concurrency service areas. There is not sufficient capacity within the elementary school concurrency service area. This fmding is for planning and informational purposes only and does not constitute either a determination of capacity or concurrency for the proposed project. At the time of site development plan or plat, the development will be reviewed for concurrency. This is to ensure that there is capacity either within the concurrency service area that the development is located in or HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 10 of 21 Packet Page-1614- 4/14/2015 17.A. 1 1 f 1 .--`' within adjacent concurrency service areas such that the level of service standards are not exceeded. It At this time,there is capacity in an adjacent concurrency service area at the elementary level. i Zoning and Land Development Review: As depicted on the PUD Master Plan, aerial photograph, i and the surrounding zoning discussion, the subject site will be separated from the existing single- family residences,a golf course, and golf maintenance facility to the south by an approximately 100- foot wide canal. To the north, the subject site is separated from a mobile home park and a strip t. shopping center by Rattlesnake Hammock Road, a 6-lane divided roadway. To the east of the subject site is a multi-family residential building. To the west of the site is Doral Circle, an entry I road into a single-family development which has received landscape, bridge and decorative f pavement beautification through a MSTU(Master Special Taxing Unit). i As previously stated, 84 multi-family, single-family detached, townhouse and single-family zero lot line residential dwelling units along with accessory uses such as a clubhouse are proposed on the subject property. The PUD Development Standards (Exhibit B) proposes minimum external setbacks for principal structures from the PUD boundary of 20 feet, except for the Drainage Easement which is 0 feet. The t minimum external setbacks for accessory structures from the PUD boundary is 15 feet. ft The proposed minimum principal structure front yard setbacks are 25 feet along Rattlesnake 1 Hammock Road and 20 to 50 feet along Doral Circle. The proposed minimum front yard setback t internal to the PUD is 20 feet, with an allowance of 23 feet for driveway parking and 15 feet for " porches, entry features and courtyards. The proposed minimum side yard setbacks are 0 to 10 feet, with a building separation distance of 0 to 10 feet. The proposed minimum rear yard setback is 10 to ' 15 feet. The proposed maximum zoned height is 30 to 45 feet and the actual height is 35 to 50 feet. 1 9 The PUD Development Standards (Exhibit B) also propose a 15-foot front yard accessory setback t that is less than the 20-foot principal setback to allow for carports and gazebos. 1 Accessory uses such as community administrative facilities maintenance buildings and garages, ! carports and swimming pools propose a 15-foot front yard setback , a 0 to 10-foot side yard setback and a 5 to 10 foot rear yard setback. The proposed maximum zoned height is 20 feet and the actual height is 25 feet. a In addition, there are specific accessory standards for community wide recreational facilities that are located on a parcel exceeding 30 feet from the PUD boundary. The front yard setback is 30 feet and the side and rear yard setbacks are 15 feet. The maximum building height is 25 feet. i 4 Since the site was previously occupied by a golf course use, the site may have been impacted by w chemicals. Soil and/or ground water testing will be required at a subsequent development order,this ,, requirement has been made a commitment in Exhibit F,Developer Commitments. _ i The petitioner is seeking 4 Deviations related to landscape buffers, environmental data requirements 1 signage and cluster residential design requirements. For further discussion of the Deviations, see the Deviation section of the Staff Report. t 1 HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 r r: Page 11 of 21 Packet Page-1615- 4/14/2015 17.A. REZONE FINDINGS: i. 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: Rezone findings are designated as RZ and PUD findings are designated as PUD. (S aff's responses to these criteria are provided in non-bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the GMP. The Comprehensive Planning Section has indicated that the proposed PUD rezone is not consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). However, if the companion GMP amendment, Petition PL20140000193/CPSS-2014-1, establishing the Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict is approved, then the petition could be found consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed in the zoning review analysis, the neighborhood's existing land use pattern can be characterized as residential, mobile home, commercial and golf course lands. There is residential zoning to the east, �{ south and west. The land uses proposed in this PUD petition should not create incompatibility issues. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The subject parcel is of sufficient size that it will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The district boundaries are logically drawn as discussed in Items 2 and 3 above. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The growth and development trends, changing market conditions, specifically the development of the site with residences, and the development of the surrounding area, support the proposed PUD. This site is located within an area of development with a mixture of residential and other uses. The proposed PUD rezoning is appropriate, as limited in the PUD document and the PUB Master Plan based on its compatibility with adjacent land uses. HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 12 of 21 Packet Page-1616- 1 4/14/2015 17.A. 1 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change will have an impact on traffic conditions on Rattlesnake Hammock Road and will have an impact on the residents along the canal. However, if the Staff recommendation listed below is followed, combined with the applicant's mitigation measures contained in PUD Exhibit F, number 3, the influence on living conditions could be minimized: 1. A continuous 15-wide Type B Landscape Buffer shall be provided along the canal. 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. As previously stated, the proposed change will create additional traffic on a failing and constrained roadway segment. However,the petitioner has provided adequate commitments in PUD Exhibit F to mitigate for traffic congestion impacts. S. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed development will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore,the project is subject to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed change will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Staff is of the opinion this PUD amendment will not adversely impact property values. However, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The property surrounding the subject site is already developed. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the Land Development Code is that their sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 13 of 21 Packet Page-1617- 4/14/2015 17.A. �qqz f The proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. However, the petitioner has provided adequate commitments in PUD Exhibit F to mitigate for traffic congestion impacts. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. 1 The subject property can be developed within existing zoning. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The change suggested is slightly out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. However, as previously stated, the petitioner has provided adequate commitments in PUD Exhibit F 1 to mitigate for traffic congestion impacts. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. z There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review 1 other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require site alteration and these residential sites will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance. The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and that staff has concluded that the developer has provided appropriate commitments so that the impacts of the Level of Service will be minimized. I 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall 4 I deem important in the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. HIBISCUS RPUD, PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 14 of 21 Packet Page-1618- 3 4/14/2015 17.A. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the Planning Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria:" 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water,and other utilities. The nearby area is developed or is approved for development of a similar nature. The petitioner will be required to comply with all county regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities. In addition, the commitments included in PUD Exhibit F adequately address the impacts from the proposed development. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. 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 plan approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can not be found consistent with the overall GMP. However,if the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20140000193/CPSS-2014-1, establishing the Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict is approved, then the petition could be found consistent with the GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The proposed development landscape buffering is adequate along the north, east and west sides of the development. However, staff is of the opinion that the deviation to allow no landscape buffer along the south side of the proposed development is inadequate for the following reasons: HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 15 of 21 Packet Page-1619- 4/14/201517.A. a is - The new homeowners have no control over what happens to the landscaping on an adjacent property (i.e. the landscaping along the golf maintenance facility and parking lot that directly abuts the south side of the canal). - The proposed multi-family development will produce lighting and glare along the canal that will adversely affect the existing single-family residents along the canal and within view of the proposed multi-family development. However, if a Type B Landscape Buffer is proposed where there is currently no buffer proposed, the lighting and glare along the canal could be minimized and compatibility maximized. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. • 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities,both public and private. The proposed development must seek concurrency at the time of next Development Order (Site Development Plan and/or Plat) submittal. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. If "ability" implies supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal system, potable water supplies, characteristics of the property relative to hazards, and capacity of roads, then the subject property does have the ability to support expansion. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The petitioner is seeking 4 deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06 A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes that the 3 of the 4 deviations proposed can be supported, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h., the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviations are "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report below for a more extensive examination of the deviations. HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Pace 16 of 21 Packet Page-1620- 4/14/2015 17.A. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking 4 deviations from general LDC requirements and has provided justification in support of the deviations. Staff has analyzed the deviation requests and provides the analysis and recommendations below: Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C, "Landscaping, Buffering, and Vegetation Retention," which requires a multi-family residential development to provide a 15-foot wide type `B' landscape buffer between the residential use and a golf course clubhouse tract to provide no landscape buffer on the southern project boundary adjacent to the clubhouse tract. Justification: Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states that the justification for this deviation is due to the i presence of an existing landscape buffer located south of the subject site on the golf course clubhouse tract. The applicant owns the golf course and subject property. The clubhouse does have a buffer and the owner is of the opinion it is sufficient and a second buffer is unnecessary. Further,the applicant wishes to provide views of the canal and golf course to residents of the PUD. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review has evaluated this request and has found that the existing landscape buffer and golf course is located over 100 feet away on the south side of the canal on the opposite side of the proposed development. According to information provided at the NIM, the future owners of the proposed residential development units will be individual home owners (as opposed to the current golf course owner across the canal). Furthermore, the lack of provision of a landscape buffer along the south side of the canal where the proposed development is fails to meet the purpose and intent of the landscape code to: a. Promote the health, safety, and welfare of residents of Collier County by establishing minimum uniform standards for the installation and maintenance of landscaping; b. Improve the aesthetic appearance of residential developments through the requirement of fi minimum landscaping in ways that harmonize the natural and built environment; c. Promote planting of native plants and plant communities; d. Provide physical and psychological benefits to persons through landscaping by reducing noise and glare; e. Screen and buffer the harsher visual aspects of urban development; f. Improve environmental quality by reducing and reversing air,noise, and heat, and pollution through the preservation of canopy trees and the creation of shade and microclimate; g. Reduce heat gain in or on buildings or paved areas through the filtering capacity of trees and vegetation; and h. Reduce the potential incompatibility of adjacent land uses; i. Conserve and maintain open space; j. Protect established residential neighborhoods, and enhance community identity; k. Improve the aesthetic appearance of residential developments through the requirement of minimum landscaping in ways that harmonize the natural and built environment; HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 17 of 21 Packet Page-1621- t 4/14/201517.A. } 1. In order to minimize negative effects between adjacent land uses,this section promotes the use of landscape buffers and screens to eliminate or minimize potential nuisances such as unsightly buildings and structures,and off-street parking and loading areas. Staff recommends denial finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has not demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h., the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Furthermore, as previously stated, the light and glare produced by a multi-family development will have an adverse impact on the existing single-family neighbors. Staff recommends that the LDC prescribed lake front Type B landscape buffer provisions be applied along the proposed development side of the canal. In addition, the provision of the landscape buffer will benefit the new home owners by providing shade and beauty along the canal. Deviation # 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.08.A.4.d.ii, "Environmental Data Requirements," which requires properties that are occupied by a golf course to provide soil and/or groundwater sampling at the time of first Development Order to permit the soil and/or water quality test to be provided at the time of Site Development Plan or Plat review. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states that the justification for this deviation is that the subject property has had recent Phase One Environmental audits completed, which have indicated no need 1' for further analysis on the site. The owner will complete the required soil and water testing in conjunction with Site Development Plan or Plat review. A condition to this effect has been included in Exhibit F of the PUD document. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h., the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation # 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.G, Off-premises directional signs, which prohibits off-premises signs in residential districts, to permit two existing si•ns to remain in the current location at the project entrance on each side of Hibiscus Drive and to permit an increase in their square footage of approximately 42.5 square feet to 64 square feet for each sign to allow for inclusion of signage for the residential dwellings. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states that the justification for this deviation is that the exist- ing Hibiscus Country Club and restaurant sign needs to remain in the current location in order to provide patrons of the country club appropriate signage. The rezoning of a portion of the project from golf course to a residential PUD technically creates an off-site sign for the golf club/restaurant. HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Pace 18 of 21 Packet Page-1622- 4/14/2015 17.A. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that"the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h., the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." 3i Deviation # 4 seeks relief 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. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states that the justification for this deviation is that all or portions of the principal building may be located at the zero setback with the PUD requiring a minimum 10-foot building separation. The developer desires to have flexibility to allow for window openings on the principal building on the zero setback line provided a 10-foot principal building separation is maintained. This type of development scenario is visually and functionally equivalent to a conventional single-family detached residence. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that"the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h., the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on September 24, 2014. For further information,please see Attachment C: "Neighborhood Information Meeting Notes." COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for Petition PUDZ-PL20140000179, revised on February 4, 2015. RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-PL20140000179 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the approval of the companion small scale GMPA, and the following condition: 1. A continuous 15-wide Type B Landscape Buffer shall be provided along the canal. HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 19 of 21 Packet Page-1623- 4/14/2015 17.A. I Attachments: 1 Attachment A: Proposed PUD Ordinance Attachment B: Ordinance number 04-02 Attachment C: Transcript of the Neighborhood Information Meeting Attachment D: Hibiscus Density Map Attachment E: Letter of Objection • 1 • i I fi HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, February 9,2015 Page 20 of 21 Packet Page-1624- s. 7 4/14/2015 17.A. PREPARED BY: wV 60)11, 2720(5 NANCY G �t LA AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE GROWTH 1 AG. DIVISION REVIEWED BY: RAYMO I) V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION it -off 9- I MICHAEL BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION APPROVE I BY: '2 -s"- 1 s NICK 11‘' S ,OG-/ PA, 7f TRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT D ISION HIBISCUS RPUD,PUDZ-PL20140000179, January 27,2015 Paae 21 of 21 Packet Page -1625- 4/14/2015 17.A. ORDINANCE NO. 15- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A COMMUNITY FACILITY ZONING DISTRICT AND GOLF COURSE ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE HIBISCUS RPUD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 64 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF HIBISCUS DRIVE IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 7.9± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PETITION PUDZ-PL20140000179] 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 Nassif Golf Ventures, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described property. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: Zoning Classification. The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 19, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from a Community Facility zoning district and Golf Course zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the Hibiscus RPUD to allow construction of up to 64 residential dwelling units in accordance with Exhibits "A" through "F" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. [14-CPS-01349/1162720/1]88 Hibiscus RPUD\PUDZ-PL20140000179 Rev. 3/19/15 1 of 2 Packet Page -1626- 4/14/2015 17.A. SECTION TWO: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State and on the date that the Growth Management Plan Amendment in Ordinance No. 2015- becomes effective. 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 TIM NANCE, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: 7--' 4,-co. rac. 3/i1/t, 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—List of Deviations Exhibit F—Developer Commitments [14-CPS-01349/1162720/1]88 Hibiscus RPUD\PUDZ-PL20140000179 Rev. 3/19/15 2 of 2 Packet Page-1627- i 4/14/2015 17.A. EXHIBIT A FOR ^ HIBISCUS RPUD Regulations for development of the Hibiscus 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 64 residential 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 and single family zero lot line. 2. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") or the Hearing Examiner. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Clubhouses, Community administrative facilities, Community maintenance areas, maintenance buildings, essential services, irrigation water and effluent storage tanks and ponds, utility pumping facilities and pump buildings, utility and maintenance staff offices. Community wide recreational facilities shall be required to have a 15-foot wide landscape buffer and wall and to have a minimum building setback of 30 feet from the external PUD boundary where not adjacent to golf course zoned property. a. For community recreational facilities exceeding the 30' PUD boundary setback or adjacent to golf course zoned property, no wall shall be required and the following setbacks shall apply: Front: 30 feet Side: 15 feet Rear: 15 feet b. Maximum actual building heightshall be 25'. 2. Model homes and model home centers including sales trailers and offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing. Hibiscus RPUD PL20140000179 Page 1 of 8 Revised 03/16/2015 Packet Page -1628- 4/14/2015 17.A. 3. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, gazebos and picnic areas. 4. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the principal uses permitted in this RPUD, including but not limited to garages, carports, 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 the Hearing Examiner. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Exhibit B sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Hibiscus RPUD Subdistrict. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. Hibiscus RPUD PL20140000179 Page 2 of 8 Revised 03/16/2015 Packet Page -1629- 4/14/2015 17.A. EXHIBIT B FOR ^' HIBISCUS RPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOUSE SINGLE FAMILY MULTI-FAMILY DETACHED ZERO LOT LINE Minimum Lot Area 3,000 SF 1,400 SF 2,250 SF N/A Minimum Lot Width 40 feet 18 feet 30 feet N/A Minimum Lot Depth 75 feet 80 feet 75 feet N/A Minimum Front Yard Setbacks1, *3 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Rattlesnake Hammock 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Doral Circle 20 feet 50 feet 20 feet 50 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 feet 0 feet internal 0 feet*2 10 feet 10 feet external Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 feet 15 feet 10 feet 15 feet Minimum Drainage Easement Setback 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet Maximum Building Height Zoned 30 feet 45 feet 30 feet 45 feet Actual 35 feet 50 feet 35 feet 50 feet Minimum Distance Between Buildings 10 feet 20 feet 10 feet I 20 feet Floor Area Min. (S.F.),per unit 1,500 SF 750 SF 1,500 SF 1 750 SF Minimum PUD Boundary Setback 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet ( 20 feet Minimum Preserve Setback N/A N/A N/A N/A ACCESSORY STRUCTURES I, Minimum Front Yard Setback 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet I Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 feet 0 feet internal 0 feet 10 feet. 10 feet external Minimum Rear Yard Setback 5 feet 10 feet 1 10 feet 10 feet • Minimum Drainage Easement Setback I 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet • Minimum PUD Boundary Setback 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Distance Between Buildings 10 feet 0/10 feet 0/10 feet 0/10 feet Maximum Height Zoned 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Actual 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 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 entry garages must be a minimum of 23'from back of sidewalk. Porches, entry features and roofed courtyards may be reduced to 15'.All parking areas must remain clear of sidewalks. *2—Minimum separation between adjacent dwelling units,if detached,shall be 10'. *3—Front yards shall be measured from back of curb for private streets or drives,and from ROW line for any public roadway. 4—The Landscape Buffer Easements shall be located within open space tracts and Lake Maintenance Easements shall be located within lake tracts and not be located 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 accessory structure setback on the platted residential lot may be reduced to zero(0)feet where it abuts the easement. Note:nothing in this RPUD Document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDS unless it is expressly stated in a list of deviations. Hibiscus RPUD PL201400001 79 Page 3 of 8 Revised 03/16/2015 Packet Page-1630- i . .. w . 4/14/2015 0 15 17.A. ...,i,t,,,.wag..4.., ... rrn,it; , ..•x.. xv.,,W..., N .,. . O IB W U. 4 t ' 3! e Q o w o 2 Q ¢ °r5I R � �.. ii !, 8 LT I- ¢ pe < �.wJCC 2 z 0 C rr o Z _4 I O Q t> }J y _z }a 0o ow W U ...J ¢0H C O wz J r-W �OZ C' mg m r-2. w=D C (. �W z of 'x Ow= - ma m ' !� tiff �, i ° I W W'Y!� wN 3Q O w i j Zvj w ~HZ W n� wx ' O ¢F- at) 2z0 .., '�—,iti�!-++ ^o O ui - I x W 2 Z 2 W O �. Z N CO w / I U j 0 2 w Q m=Z QUZ Z � ¢0 QQ� wja ZC7 XU xQ¢ l' I zUa W ¢ (qWO ... ..,: O W o. J O z w.-= w 1 Ili wr w0 032 ∎,-I UO I . .i1N3W3SY3I z� cc cc �� k, € WW°¢ IA w p 4 30dNld80 . 0 W (n d 0 4C . t 2 0L I-JLL am LL - .001 ya L7F 0ZY� ; c g c. NCr I OO �a - ZO �� O�a0 Iw r0z _ j pj}m o I I a� Up 01—0-6 �p € f. O II!0 g _ ! N¢ < W1.. Q o W', i 1 w " , iN,,j,5;;;I:) ..,. _____.AW!".41A D 0. - o w � i I a g i l t U O x il 7 L. O ® 5Z H I U �Q W , j J Z W g a Q U i I tw I O( 0 ' t :g n 1 Z i r W Q Y 1 W - , co w q S . I (A W Z O �I� ¢ r 1 8�Z 1 Ox ,, W 1L N N ''! Z {.008 oa0 ! w ro ; ii ;.! —J j Iw 5 I NJW3SV3 W ! a m = 3OVNIVao I I �_' p I ° i ,001 I z ; I1 , fit' I Z W >_w - J 0 i ! �Ibx W fl I� am Wo ¢ Z =161''''''• m 1 Q W ow I LLZ W J I ' 0 I1 I , L.,a --W yW x to , r4s '1- °J '_� �___i I Q Q. W 0 i ...4 l R tT( 3 m .�� w w a „ -,- , ( i In Z X ¢ fn Q , ■ I ! i I � > w o Ti L iI IA. 1...._,...., , �' i DORAL CIRCLE■ °OI __._ 1 V_ J Z c, Q w O LLZ j Q IL W ZC 0 O l•• N U M Packet Page -1631- 4/14/2015 17.A. EXHIBIT D FOR HIBISCUS RPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 1, LOT 2, AND TRACT "R", HIBISCUS GOLF COURSE, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 49 PAGES 3 & 4 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 7.9 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Hibiscus RPUD PL20140000179 Page 5 of 8 Revised 03/16/2015 Packet Page -1632- 4/14/2015 17.A. EXHIBIT E FOR HIBISCUS RPUD LIST OF DEVIATIONS 1. From LDC Section 4.06.02.C, Landscaping, Buffering, and Vegetation Retention, which requires a multi-family residential development to provide a 15' wide type 'B' buffer between the residential use and a golf course clubhouse tract to permit the development to install the Type B buffer as if it were adjacent to a lake in order to cluster the required landscaping within the building setback area between the canal and the proposed residential buildings. 2. From LDC Section 3.08.00.A.4.d.ii, Environmental Data Requirements, which requires properties that are occupied by a golf course to provide soil and/or groundwater sampling at the time of first Development Order to permit the soil and/or water quality test to be provided at the time of Site Development Plan or Plat review. 3. From LDC Section 5.06.04.G, Off-premises directional signs, which prohibits off-premises signs in residential districts, to permit two existing signs to remain in the current location at the project entrance on each side of Hibiscus Drive and to permit an increase in their square footage of approximately 42.5 square feet to 64 square feet for each sign to allow inclusion of signage for the residential dwellings. 4. 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. Hibiscus RPUD PL20140000179 Page 6 of 8 Revised 03/16/2015 Packet Page -1633- 4/14/2015 17.A. EXHIBIT F FOR HIBISCUS RPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 1. PLANNING a. Building massing: No building shall contain more than 12 units, or have a wall length greater than 200 feet. b. In order to achieve the density of 64 units and prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the first residential dwelling unit, the property owner shall record a restriction in the Official Land Records of Collier County on a portion of the Hibiscus Golf Course property equal to 12+/- acres, restricting the use to golf course, open space or preserve uses in perpetuity. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL a. Soil and/or ground water sampling consistent with the requirements of LDC Section 3.08.A.4.d.ii shall be provided at the time of Site Development Plan or Plat review. The Phase One Environmental Site Assessment submitted did not address the properties requirement to comply with LDC section 3.08.00 A.4.d.ii which addresses soil sampling for organochlorine pesticides and the 8 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act metals. It has been identified that some form of golf course maintenance, storage or operation activities occurred in a portion of the proposed development area and an adequate assessment of the soils in this area that may include additional soil sampling for organochlorine pesticides and the 8 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act metals is warranted. In addition to the background and random sampling points across the property, soil samples should be collected in areas of the property where suspected golf course maintenance, storage or operation activities that may have contained drums, chemicals, petroleum products, fuel tanks and chemical mixing areas. b. The landscape buffer on the east perimeter of the PUD shall be a minimum of 15' in width and all non-invasive plant shall be retained. 3. TRANSPORTATION a. The maximum trip generation allowed by the proposed uses (both primary and ancillary) may not exceed 52 PM Peak Hour,two-way':rips. b. The owner shall make a payment of$25,000 to the County within 30 days of PUD approval to be used for a CAT station/facilities along Rattlesnake Hammock Road. c. The owner will provide on-site bicycle racks for resident use to encourage alternatives to motorized vehicular travel. d. Access to Doral Circle shall be limited to emergency vehicles until a traffic signal is installed at the intersection of Doral Circle and Rattlesnake Hammock Road. No construction traffic shall be permitted on Doral Circle. Hibiscus RPUD PL20 1 400001 79 Page 7 of 8 Revised 03/16/2015 Packet Page -1634- 4/14/2015 17.A. n e. If a left-out median opening is permitted from Hibiscus Drive, the owner shall be responsible for costs associated with median improvements for the left out configuration. The County, in its sole discretion, reserves the right to modify or close any median openings at any time for capacity or safety reasons. 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 Nassif Golf Ventures, LLC, 225 Banyan Boulevard, Suite 240, Naples, Florida 34102. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval,the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. 5. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT A. The property owner, prior to the issuance of the first residential certificate of occupancy, must develop a continuing hurricane awareness program and hurricane evacuation plan. The hurricane evacuation plan shall address and include at a minimum the following items: 1. Operational procedures for the dissemination of warning and notification of all residents and visitors during the hurricane watch and warning periods. 2. A public awareness program to address vulnerability, hurricane evacuation, hurricane shelter alternatives including hotels, staying with friends and the location of hurricane shelters and other protective actions which may be specific to the development. 3, Identification of who is responsible for implementing the plan. B. The property owner, prior to the issuance of the first residential certificate of occupancy, shall provide Collier County Emergency Management with funds required to provide 40 evacuation shelter cots, inclusive of 2 cots required for persons with special needs. Hibiscus RPUD PL20140000179 Page 8 of 8 Revised 03/16/2015 Packet Page-1635- 4/14/2015 17.A. ORDINANCE NO.04 02 ti '> c4 I JAN J AN ORDINANCE OF THE BORAD OF COUN �Pl(/ a COMMISSIONERS, COLLIER COUNTY FLORID• II((LIV ce AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 91-102, THE COLLIE 6ftv COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICI-I ots. 111 SLZL81'08. ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE. UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS MAP NUMBERED 0619N BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE r HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE i= ' SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RATTLESNAKE- HAMMOCK `- ROAD CR-864 AND DORAL CIRCLE IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER ' co y COUNTY, FLORIDA, FROM "GC" GOLF COURSE TO "CF" - COMMUNITY FACILITY FOR A CHURCH;PROVIDING FOR STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION STIPULATIONS; ".• AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Jeremy Sterk of Hoover Planning, representing Lennar Partners, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the real property as more particularly described by Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, and located in Section 19, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from "GC" Golf Course to "CF" Community Facility and the Official Zoning Atlas Map numbered 0619N, as described in Ordinance 91-102,the Collier County Land Development Code,is hereby amended accordingly. The herein described real property is the same for which the rezone is hereby approved subject to the conditions on Exhibit"B": SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. n AR-2003-RZ-4080 • Packet Page-1636- 4/14/2015 17.A. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,this 13 day of s nun t , 2004. BOARD OF C LINTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER C TY, . •RIDA BY: % CHAIRM ATTEST: ,,,,,,, DWIGHT E.AR.OG : 'RK - - • i31test as to Chairman's This ordinance filed with the APPRO 1 AAIMP g ,' ta3i9natur'. i;'i' ,.,. ^tary of State's Office thq AND LE&,H 'SUF1tF .0 ,as_day ofV, a •'iYY orr, acknow.ed,ement of that a Olt fi' received this_ _day Marjori .Student r y // Assistant County Attorney �'" '•Clerk RZ-2003-AR-4080/RM/sp • AR-2003-RZ-4080 Packet Page-1637- 4/14/2015 17.A. • • LE_ DESCRIPTION STATE BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT"A"PAGE LELY GO F ESTATES TRACT MAP AS RECORDED y�PLAT RIDA ALSO BEING A POINT ON PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF S.R. S-864 SOD THE NORTH H pyLINE RACT "A" THENCE S89°32'32"E ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY DISTANCE OF 590.31 FEET THENCE LEAVING POINT ON THE NORTH LINE 800°20'32"W A DISTANCE OF 299.5 0 FEET TO A LINE OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT THENCE TO A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT N89°34'57"W A DISTANCE OF 590.70 FEE "E ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF DORAL CIRCLE THENCE E pp�IT80F BEGINNING OF SAID OF WAY A DISTANCE OF 299.84 FEET TO TH HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL CONTAINING 4.06 ACRES MORE OR LESS. F xh4%b`- A"' .� AR-2003-RZ-4080 Packet Page -1638- 4/14/2015 17.A. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (RZ-03-AR-4080) a) The permitted uses on the subject property are limited to church and associated accessory uses. b) Pursuant to Section 2.2.25.8.1 of the Land Development Code, if, during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity an historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. c) Access to the site shall not be allowed from Doral Circle. d) A Type D buffer will be placed along the eastern boundary of the site to protect the single-family neighborhood to the east. e) No daycare operation is permitted on this site. EXHIBIT"B" AR-2003-RZ-4080 Packet Page-1639- 4/14/2015 17.A. STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of : ORDINANCE 2004-02 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 13th day of January, 2004 , during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 14th .� day of January, 2004 . DWIGHT E. BROCK Clerk of Courts ap,d,4,T�erk Ex-officio to 34'0x.;Lp ';' ,, County Commissi:om'rs�''•• By: Linda A; -HgiitZe--_. .; Deputy C`3,hk Packet Page-1640- ar0 vi■�a �I 'I'©�fr &•',��xv© 4/14/2015 17.A. gil �� aa �c��a.�o o ee a©��eo e •_.t i 4ta � ��igita©tig s©wee ��©oxeye O Z Ids 1ui HI 01_ L t t i I a' • \ulo, Id Id . ,s3, . re a istrs aUtiSS'a V's 411 4 �cc lig hi e e�a0000rooao©oo©wo �ooa0000000 0 C �°I l�I=I�tl.,,, �v004 ii' ®u�oBso eo��: X44 z gc,OW�3 p6 YNSAR O�C©;E© �JSRlI x tpx D .�:�S S9cm:■!'I eY bee�bede�bede�'ese��A��eree��eee� o Ada ms ��ilif ��,A6,nom! .: ® iik, ! %4,„„4,!,!.."4,..6.1:00 Ja 0) MI 0,5 yy 1NaD6Y3li'Ce CNI p _'� J a ILL."'". MVOS 01 1O p 0 a It li 05' Z o WI'YRS -' S u s ` A N / \P W L l„L., h� 1 V �A YNYBtlN zls■ wool_ °s�5p Ell umi s ii III"ittI 111W 46 g i 1 0_ a i 9 i S - Neve A1Nnoo F xYiBLill. ��r■ _-'�y= 2 EP_ nu— i 3INM)d Niatp o r,,,s3NVi aoaw.Y3t� ” � � ¢��W b i m 1 $ g g 3 m P �1 P�,"P O /F3 _ I z e „a8 m ri " U / g & F � 350 4P ^7 N ,f, \ E3\ 2 I=x o g IAA'_., o =. as='N^Iv ._. �� II I I�c'arol � < P f�n`�I�j ¢ e 3NLO iIII!! un6 'W/b1,AWIIIIIIII4'IP �� j` "rain Packet Pa e-1641_ "ille ne RI 310321/I- t..)Nrti MIMI-3..32.or., .%WI\_ 4/14/2015 17.A. W W 6 0o p• 0 w watt 1/' /€ m - u O • Q ~ 0 _ f' w � p � a z ; 0 • �Qa .:,-v) E. • CWw O Q J --IM o= 0 Z VU_i 2 O =rx Q O• < ._< >- 0 O D wpm Q U �0 W0- C W I-W 2 z Z � = WHO a. w �Q A D Uf- OI- F C c� tiZ 'F 00 j j m� wm �W cn m- p� f U � °_ x0 / I w p D> NWf- wN CO W H i 3¢ w W ' n co Z Q i_ 0 U 2 Z O x-,001 -� Z � I O Wz zz U = w << W W U NO j / I U =CO D2 w p m ~ O (7w(7 H W F-� J� Z ' a co- Z5 2°2 p Q X Z O x Q cow 0 w � I — — U U I 1N3W3Sb3 U' z(") . < � <-cn2< LU .°5 od r Pw 30b'NIH2lal p 0w � Q OQW� =n6 `g OzW ' LL am r OOl cn } �F pO� QV _ _ �` ,�� ° w zc) ugg I--cnZ -/ o Iw00 ON I � w �� CI)0 o m I ° cn Q <`" W F p s Z �� — I cn F-- � Qupi ¢� �O c Z c_, G S U U N I— w :co _' w W Q �� I Uoj RI dry CL Z C• o O Lo C7 m y O I 0 t Z• Y �1 WSJ © `'''q i Z m I N 0 e ' s � I 0_ Fa rx▪ J U I Q C ffi 2 Q ti I Z di ® l e e a- d � t B i oui °3 I p =nn N = u 30dd 0L6 +1 0° z >1008 Jr• - a I g 1N3W3SV3 I w 30VNlV Q o w ( I mo OOl Z �_cff= o 0_ a- M an J I m Z PAH 65 _ w o� I co MQ Q O '� w W u Z W W _ � W o rx p di n �� m H -g I zct o U' D m8 cn F- J i-, -` - 0 DORAL CIRCLE O=o)I J + Z MF O 1 rx0 Q L w w z Ow i N D Packet Page-1642- 4/14/2015 17.A. GundlachNancy — From: Pat and Jim [patmjims @centurylink.net] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 2:24 PM To: Aaron Asphahani; Alex Kuhn;Amy McGowan; Corrine San Antonio; Denise Pierce; George Barton; Joe Straface; John Hancock; kat tracy; Nancy Wojcik; Ray Friday; Steve Fernandez Cc: GundlachNancy; PodczerwinskyJohn Subject: Hibiscus hearing Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed We feel comfortable that our concerns about the proposed construction at Hibiscus had a fair hearing yesterday and are under consideration by the Collier County Planning Commission, not only for Doral Circle but for our neighbors to the east at Country Club Manor. The Commission examined every issue, every request for exception, and questioned some of the recommendations made by County staff members at length and with skepticism. The developer had seen some of the emails and was aware of the neighbor's concerns. He began by reducing the number of proposed residences from 84 to 72, and agreeing to configure the property along Doral Circle so that access would be limited to emergency vehicles, unless or until a traffic light would be installed at Doral Circle. He also said that Doral Circle access would not be used during the 36-month construction period. We asked for a left turn from Hibiscus Drive, which the traffic planning representative,John Podczerwinsky, agreed was possible. Mark Strain,the chair of the Commission liked that idea and thought Hibiscus should — bear the cost to reconfigure the median strip. Some other issues that were addressed included a closer look at traffic on Rattlesnake Hammock Road, such as the restrictions on u-turns at many intersections and the difficulties of crossing the road on foot for bus passengers. Landscape buffers, an issue for Country Club Manor, were also discussed. Much time was spent on the way the density of residences was justified (with and without the golf course acreage)which seemed to have led to the developer's reduction of 12 units. The Commission noted the community's involvement and I believe that helped our case. Pat McCabe 133 Doral Circle wst!" This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. r. www.avast.com 1 Packet Page -1643- 4/14/2015 17.A. GundlachNancy From: Pat and Jim [patmjims @centurylink.net] Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 12:58 PM To: Amy McGowan; Corrine San Antonio; Denise Pierce; George Barton; Joe Straface; John Hancock; kat tract'; Nancy Wojcik; Ray Friday; Steve Fernandez Cc: GundlachNancy Subject: Hibiscus project Attachments: Transportation Problems with Hibiscus Project.docx; Petition PUDZ.docx Dear Neighbors, We live at 133 Doral Circle and have received the Collier County Planning Commission's report on the hearing scheduled for 2/19/15. In response, we emailed a copy of the attachment, "Petition PUDZ", and asked the county Planning Dept. rep, Nancy Gundlach,to include the document in their package for hearing on the Hibiscus project. Since then,we found there is a concurrent hearing on the density of the project, the report of which we have requested but not yet received or addressed. Our main issue is the traffic increase on Doral Circle for left turns on Rattlesnake Hammock Road. The Transportation Planning dept.'s acceptance of the developer's proposals to mitigate the impact of 84 more families is unacceptable, as outlined in the attachment, "Transportation Problems". If you have any comments on that attachment, please send them, as we haven't sent this out to Transportation yet. (We have a call into John Podczerwinsky, from Transportation.) If any of you want, we can email a copy of the report we did get for the 12/19/15 hearing. Does anybody have any ideas about how to involve our representative, Donna Fiala in this effort? Pat McCabe and Jim Shipalowski tc `lE fat f This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. ae� www.avast.com 1 Packet Page -1644- 4/14/2015 17.A. Petition PUDZ-PL20140000179 GMPA PL20140000193/CPSS-2014-1 Hibiscus RPUD Growth Mgmt. Div. Planning& Regulation Planning&Zoning Dept. Hearing 2/19/2015 We live in Lely Golf Estates, Unit 1, a community of 83 homes with a single entry onto Rattlesnake Hammock Road,which abuts the site of the proposed construction of 84 new homes on the property of Hibiscus Golf Course,the subject of the hearing. Problems: From the drawings available in the lobby of Hibiscus' clubhouse,the site shows access from Doral Circle as well as from Hibiscus Drive. The concern is that the construction phase will primarily use the Doral Circle access, imposing a major mess for the residents of Lely Golf Estates, Unit 1. We can anticipate large machinery,a big laydown area for building material,workers' parking and extra traffic entering and exiting our small street for over a year. The second part of the problem is the difficulty of turning left(west) onto Rattlesnake Hammock Road from both Doral Circle and Hibiscus Drive. The left turn from Doral Circle is legal but tricky due to the speed of Rattlesnake traffic. Left turns from Hibiscus are now prohibited, forcing all traffic to exit east, proceed two long blocks,turn north, make a U-turn, and then proceed west on Rattlesnake. When 84 new residences are added to this area, plus the traffic of the customers of the golf course and Erin's Isle Restaurant, we believe that many of them will choose to make their westward turns onto Rattlesnake from Doral Circle, permanently adding a lot more traffic to an already tricky intersection. Proposed Solutions: Close the access from Doral Circle to the Hibiscus property. Add direct access from Rattlesnake Hammock Rd.to both building sites. Modify the median strip on Rattlesnake to allow left turns out of Hibiscus Drive. Packet Page -1645- 4/14/2015 17.A. Transportation Problems with Hibiscus Project /"1I i A big problem is the difficulty of turning left (west)onto Rattlesnake Hammock Road from both Doral Circle and Hibiscus Drive. The left turn from Doral Circle is legal but tricky due to the speed of Rattlesnake traffic(45 MPH). Left turns from Hibiscus are now prohibited,forcing all traffic to exit east, proceed two long blocks,turn north on Charlemaine, make a U-turn, and then proceed west on Rattlesnake. W hen 84 new residences are added to this area, plus the traffic of the customers of the golf course and Erin's Isle Restaurant, we believe that many of them will choose to make their westward turns onto Rattlesnake from Doral Circle, permanently adding a lot more traffic to an already tricky intersection. Transportation Planning recognizes that Rattlesnake is already overburdened,but is willing to add 84 more families to the load by accepting the developer's promise to construct a bus shelter, pay for 5 people to ride free for 5 years, and include a few bike racks. (The interconnection to the golf course and restaurant already exists.) This is not only ludicrous in expecting people who pay over$200 for a home to use much public transportation, but dangerous because the hapless bus rider who wants to go west on Rattlesnake will first have to hot-foot it across that very busy road with no crosswalk. (The closest crosswalks are at traffic lights at Hawaii Drive to the west and County Barn to the east, a considerable walk from Hibiscus Drive.) Proposed Solutions: Close the access from Doral Circle to the Hibiscus property. Modify the median strip on Rattlesnake to allow left turns out of Hibiscus Drive. Packet Page -1646- 4/14/2015 17.A. GundlachNancy ' From: Kat Tracy [kattracy @naplesonthegulf.net] lent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 2:15 PM To: Pat and Jim Cc: JHNaples @aol.com; Amy McGowan; Corrine San Antonio; Denise Pierce; George Barton; Joe Straface; Nancy Wojcik; Ray Friday; Steve Fernandez; GundlachNancy Subject: Re: Hibiscus project Pat, our Doral neighborhood only has about six seasonal residents. The traffic issue will be all year . Good thought though. Kat Sent from my iPhone On Feb 15, 2015, at 12:13 PM, "Pat and Jim" <patmjims@centurylink.net> wrote: is it possible to get a light to be used only during season? Pat From: JHNaples(aaol.com Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2015 9:15 AM To: patmiimsPcenturylink.net Subject: Re: Hibiscus project Pat, Thanks. The only time we need a light, in my opinion, is in season and with the light at Hawaii Blvd already in place, it could cause a serious backup on Rattlesnake. I will say the existing light at Hawaii Blvd is one of the few well-timed lights in Naples (very quick and efficient). Most Naples lights are examples of how to clog up traffic. If you would add the email below to your contact list, Judith Wooten at 108 Doral says she would appreciate it. judithwootenerocketmail.com John In a message dated 2/15/2015 8:24:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, patmiims@centurylink.net writes: John,thanks for your input. I will pass your comments along. Do you think we need a light at Doral Circle? Pat From: JHNaplesCa>aol.com �-. Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 2:53 PM To: patmjimsPcenturylink.net Cc: katnaples1 @aaLcom ; iudithwootenerocketmail.com i Packet Page-1647- 4/14/2015 17.A. Subject: Re: Hibiscus project Pat, My name is John Hancock and I've lived at 143 Doral Circle since 1978. Thank you for taking the initiative on this. The rezoning idea is a horrid, unworkable idea. Making a left turn from Doral onto Rattlesnake in season is already a nightmare scenario which will eventually result in a very serious,possibly fatal,accident. This morning I waited a full five minutes trying to make make that turn and finally ended up making a right turn and then eventually got turned around but the whole process took seven minutes. Ridiculous. As far as Donna Fiala is concerned, my suggestion is to just call her and tell her Doral Circle is upset about the proposal and ask for her help. John Hancock In a message dated 2/13/2015 1:07:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, patmjims @centurylink.net writes: Dear Neighbors, We live at 133 Doral Circle and have received the Collier County Planning Commission's report on the hearing scheduled for 2/19/15. In response, we emailed a copy of the attachment, "Petition PUDZ", and asked the county Planning Dept. rep, Nancy Gundlach,to include the document in their package for hearing on the Hibiscus project. Since then,we found there is a concurrent hearing on the density of the project, the report of which we have requested but not yet received or addressed. Our main issue is the traffic increase on Doral Circle for left turns on Rattlesnake Hammock Road. The Transportation Planning dept.'s acceptance of the developer's proposals to mitigate the impact of 84 more families is unacceptable, as outlined in the attachment, "Transportation Problems". If you have any comments on that attachment, please send them, as we haven't sent this out to Transportation yet. (We have a call into John Podczerwinsky, from Transportation.) If any of you want, we can email a copy of the report we did get for the 12/19/15 hearing. Does anybody have any ideas about how to involve our representative, Donna Fiala in this effort? Pat McCabe and Jim Shipalowski 2 Packet Page -1648- 4/14/2015 17.A. © - This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. t ku www.avast.com xnavc�st!' This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. bn+• www.avast.com ,'ti.g This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 11.OVOStr at. tw kw www.avast.com 3 Packet Page -1649- 4/14/2015 17.A. GundlachNancy From: Pat and Jim jpatmjims©centurylink.netj Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 10:38 AM To: PodczerwinskyJohn Cc: Aaron Asphahani; Amy McGowan; Corrine San Antonio; Denise Pierce; George Barton; Joe Straface; John Hancock; kat tracy; Nancy Wojcik; Ray Friday; Steve Fernandez; GundlachNancy Subject: Traffic on Rattlesnake Importance: High Dear John, Got your name, phone and address from Nancy Gundlach,with whom we have been working on the Hibiscus project. We are concerned with your department's acceptance of trivial mitigations to the increase of traffic onto Doral Circle as it intersects with Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. at the proposed project site, and feel more needs to be done, such as modifying the traffic median at Hibiscus Drive to allow left turns, and closing the connection between the site and Doral Circle. Some questions about the Rattlesnake corridor: What are the criteria for"no u-turn" and "no left turn" on Rattlesnake between Hawaii Blvd and County Barn Rd? PUDZ PL20140000179 , page 9, discusses expanding the TCEA to include Rattlesnake. How would this change Rattlesnake? This has a short fuse as the hearing is only two days hence. I will call you again after I send this. Pat McCabe 133 Doral Circle 2397326221 4. This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. %k•• www.avast.com 1 Packet Page-1650- 4/14/2015 17.A. GundlachNancy From: Pat and Jim [patmjims @centurylink.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 12:20 PM To: PodczerwinskyJohn Cc: GundlachNancy; Aaron Asphahani;Alex Kuhn; Amy McGowan; Corrine San Antonio; Denise Pierce; George Barton; Joe Straface; John Hancock; kat tracy; Nancy Wojcik; Ray Friday; Steve Fernandez Subject: Fw: Hibiscus Project John, Is Hibiscus a private or a public road? From: alba2018@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 11:48 AM To: patmtims @centurylink.net Cc: dawnmarco@aol.com Subject: Re: Hibiscus Project Hi Pat Thank you for getting back to me. That answered a question I was curious about yesterday-it IS a public road. Can I assume the entrance to Hibiscus is private? If is not, I strongly believe this should be a non-issue and Hibiscus should take responsibility to work on a plan to incorporate an entrance/exit into THEIR development. To summarize my many thoughts on this project which are all against using our entrance for a private project that will not help our home values or entice others to want to buy in our in neighborhood - I strongly believe Hibiscus should focus on their own entrance if they want to build this on THEIR land. Doral is a public road but this is a private project for a developer who already has an entrance/exit onto their land. I will not be able to make it to the hearing tomorrow because I have prior obligations I need to attend Let me know if i can help in any way, Alex -----Original Message---- From: Pat and Jim <patmiims(c>centurilink.net> To: alba2018 <alba2018(c�aol.com> Sent:Wed, Feb 18, 2015 10:57 am Subject: Re: Hibiscus Project Thanks for your response. The project land is part of Hibiscus, not Lely, and owned by Hibiscus, who is the developer. You are right that they should not use Doral Circle, but as it is a public road, we have to work to get them off it, probably by making Hibiscus Drive better able to get onto Rattlesnake. Can you come to the hearing tomorrow? Pat From: alba2018@aol.com Sent:Tuesday, February 17,2015 3:24 PM To: patmjims@centurylink.net ;jhnaoles@aol.com Subject: Hibiscus Project 1 Packet Page-1651- 4/14/2015 17.A. Good afternoon Pat, My name is Alex Kuhn and I live at 145. John has been nice enough to forward me everything that has been going on and I would like to reiterate his comments about the light and possible congestion. if you could, please keep me on the email list moving forward because I am a full time resident and this new project is concerning to me. I'm currently at work and do not have the zoning in front of me, but is the current land they're proposing to build on part of Lely? If it is not, how do they expect to use our community for an entry/exit when it is not part of the community. If the land is currently part of Lely it is, in a sense, it's own community/condominium and should have its own entrance and turn lane like the other buildings do when heading east on Rattlesnake towards our community. I'm born and raised here and my personal opinion is that Naples is already overpopulated and Donna Fiala is obsessed with tearing down and building over anything and everything. Just my two cents. Please let me know if I can help in any way, Alex p avost1 This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. w F•.. www.avast.com �D otmstC This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. w h.. www.avast.com 2 Packet Page-1652- 4/14/2015 17.A. GundlachNancy From: Pat and Jim jpatmjims @centurylink.netj Sent, Afednesday, February ivy, 2015 11:46 Am To: Aaron Asphahani; Alex Kuhn; Amy McGowan; Corrine San Antonio; Denise Pierce; George Barton; Joe Straface; John Hancock; kat tracy; Nancy Wojcik; Ray Friday; Steve Fernandez Cc: GundlachNancy; PodczerwinskyJohn Subject: Hibiscus 1 spoke with John Podczerwinsky yesterday about the concerns and decisions of the Transportation Dept. and came away with the following: The hearing tomorrow will primarily discuss the density of the Hibiscus project, whether single or multi-family homes. Transportation Dept. has no dispute between the two because they find that singles use the roads so much more than multi-families during peak hours. There will be an administrative review later during the Developer's Site Development Plan (or Plat) application, where they will address the specifics of road layout, which is when our concerns with overuse of Doral Circle for left-hand turns may be better addressed. (No schedule for this. Hopefully John and Nancy will keep us in the loop.) Background: Hibiscus project was started in 2013, when Rattlesnake still had some capacity. At that time, it was permitted for a developer to contribute to an ongoing transportation project to mitigate increasing the load on such a road. Increasing bus ridership was such a project, so that was proposed by the developer and accepted by the Transportation Dept. Since then, Rattlesnake has exceeded capacity, and now Transportation is considering making it an "exception area". What this means is that the County would apply to the State to recognize that it cannot widen the overburdened road, but can only make management changes such as improving access spacing. (Denying any additional building does not appear to be an option.) We talked about the reasons for "no u-turns". The four lanes on Rattlesnake do not allow room for some vehicles to make a u-turn without backing up. Areas such as the entrance to Greenwood Circle allow such space. (The intersection at Charlemagne does not, for some reason.) There appears to me to be some inconsistencies in the application of this, such as the u-turn permitted at County Barn,from west to east. The same rational applies to "no left turns", which brought me to ask why the north side of Rattlesnake could not be cut out to allow a left turn, as a more meaningful mitigation on the part of the developer. I think there is adequate room at Hibiscus Drive, so there may be some other factor here. We talked about traffic lights, with or without seasonal use. Such lights are now common at school intersections. However, a light would cost$300k-350k and the cost shared out to the benefiting communities. (As the driving reason for such a light, to me, it would seem appropriate for the developer to pay for this.) In summary, I think our first objective should be to close off Dora! Circle to Hibiscus' property, beginning with the construction phase, and let the developer deal with any problems on Hibiscus Drive. Try to come to the hearing tomorrow. Jim and I will be there. 1 Packet Page -1653- 4/14/2015 17.A. Pat McCabe protrctsLe This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. be fr.6 www.avast.com 2 Packet Page-1654- 4/14/2015 17.A. . / , _ 1 i / ` .�3=i!r•� . lit _ �../ it - - � ady ...cam : era..a.w. Collier County February 12,2015 Planning&Zoning Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Attention: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner Riviera Colony is an established community of 250 homes located on the north side of Rattlesnake- Hammock Road, across from the proposed 84 residential dwelling unit development of Hibiscus RPUD on the south side of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road at the intersection of Hibiscus Drive. The Riviera Community Association is very concerned about the volume of automobile traffic that will occur as a result of this added development. Currently in "season"safe entry(and exit from)to Riviera Boulevard in impacted by the volume of traffic from the residential developments on Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake-Hammock Road. Rattlesnake-Hammock Road is the main east/west artery from Collier Boulevard to Highway 41. In addition, weekend traffic to and from St Peter's Catholic Church requires police direction. The total volume of traffic on Rattlesnake-Hammock is exceedingly heavy. As a result, the Association would like to request the placement of a traffic light at the intersection of Doral Circle and Riviera Boulevard. The Riviera Community Association is aware that traffic studies may have taken place in the past regarding placement of a traffic light, has this occurred during the months of January, February and March? We request that this be done prior to initiation of Hibiscus RPUD development Please take this opportunity to safeguard the pedestrian, bicycle, motorcycle,automobile and truck traffic that occurs in this area. bank y 'u, Robert Pala'ak President Riviera Community Association -- 520 Riviera Blvd. East, Naples, FL 34112 Packet Page -1655- ` 4/14/2015 17.A. PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF _INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCES ____ I Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing commencing at 9:00 a.m.,Tuesday,April 14,2015 in the Board of County Commissioners Chamber,Third Floor, Collier County Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail E.,Naples,FL. The purpose of the hearing is to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES BY ADDING THE HIBISCUS RESIDENTIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF 64 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF HIBISCUS DRIVE IN SECTION 19,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, • CONSISTING OF 7.9 ACRES;AND FURTHERMORE,RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIUTY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20140000193/CPSS-2014.1] Z 8L D AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA r— AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41,AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT m CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE,ZONING 0 ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL D ' • PROPERTY FROM A COMMUNITY FACILITY ZONING DISTRICT AND GOLF COURSE ZONING DISTRICT -< TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT Z KNOWN AS THE HIBISCUS RPUD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 64 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING m. UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RATTLESNAKE-HAMMOCK ROAD AT THE * INTERSECTION OF HIBISCUS DRIVE IN SECTION 19,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER 10 COUNTY,FLORIDA,CONSISTING OF 7.9t ACRES;AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.[PETITION PUDZ-PL20140000179] . % g g 1. a) TCU 1N `SSHADOW- 0.. LAOO HAVEN WATERFORD N000 D VERDE ?_ ',WATERFORD ESTATES "` •co ROYAL WOODS< (S) in- RIKRA G` Cu'! -� — a 18 COLONY `■j j 17 v CDLE • 16 `< ST.PETER'S ESTATES PROJECT r J CAYNCUC K °a"° \ LOCATION "N"-"Y. nAIAY -, I� i i ,I F3 RATr1.ESNruLP 17uenA7oc7c■ ? (C.R 884) LELY N 'Y'ft. LEY PALMS 3j COUNTRY . N r nio O G 79 �Y 20 (C(') 21 /G ARE ' • SARAL BAY d • - LELY,A RESORT COMMUNITY . % 1---- (DR,) N V All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed Ordinances will be made available for inspection at the Zoning Division,Comprehensive Planning Section,2800 N.Horseshoe Dr.,Naples, . between the hours of 8:00 A.M.and 5:00 P.M.,Monday through Friday. Furthermore the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office,Fourth Floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 Tamiami Traii East,Suite 401,Naples,one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the Zoning Division,Comprehensive Planning Section.Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to Tuesday,April 14,2015,will be read and considered at the public hearing. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners with • respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will need a record of that proceeding,and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record includes , • the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. • If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities . Management Division,located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 101,Naples,FL 341 1 2-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA TIM NANCE,CHAIRMAN • DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK By Ann Jennejohn Deputy Clerk(SEAL) • No.231123995 March 25,2015 Packet Page -1656- . . ersz, ,, :