Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Agenda 02/11/2014 Item # 9B
2/11/2014 9.B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2005-63, as amended, the Cirrus Pointe Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) which allows a maximum number of 108 residential dwelling units; by changing the name of the RPUD to Solstice RPUD; by revising the Master Plan; by deleting Exhibit B, the Water Management/Utility Plan; by deleting Exhibit C, the Location Map; by removing Statement of Compliance and Project Development Requirements; by adding a parking deviation; and by deleting and terminating the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement. The subject property is located northeast of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 9.92+/- acres; and by providing an effective date. (PUDZA-PL20120002357) [Companion to Petition PL20120002382/CPSS-2013-1] OBJECTIVE: To have the Board or County Commissioners (BCC) review staff's findings and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) regarding the above referenced petition and render a decision regarding this PUD amendment petition; and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner is asking the BCC to consider an application for an amendment to the existing PUD zoned project known as the Cirrus Pointe Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). The subject property is undeveloped. It was originally rezoned from Residential Multi-family-6 (RMF-6) and Bayshore Mixed Use District-Residential-2 (BMUD-R-2) to RPUD in Ordinance #05-63 on November 15, 2005. That ordinance allowed a maximum of 108 multi-family dwelling units, and approval of an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement authorizing the developer to utilize 78 affordable Housing Bonus Density Units (at 7.89 Bonus Density Units per acre), to allow a maximum of 32 units designated as Low-Income Affordable Housing Units. Subsequent to that approval, the Board approved Ordinance No. 08-38 on July 22, 2008 that increased the maximum number of Affordable Housing Units to 44 Workforce Housing Units. The proposed changes are summarized below(taken from the application material): • Maintain 108 residential dwelling units changing the type of units from 64 market rate units and 44 workforce units, to 108 market rate units (utilizing a concurrently running small-scale comprehensive plan amendment (GMPA) to create the Bayshore Drive/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict that will include language addressing use of a portion of the Bayshore/Gateway density bonus pool available from the Botanical Garden site in order to achieve the 108 proposed units--petition number PL-20120002382/CPSS-2013- 1)while eliminating the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement as noted below; Packet Page-45- 2/11/2014 9.B. • Delete and terminate the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement; and • Change the PUD name from Cirrus Pointe RPUD to Solstice RPUD; and • Add a deviation to allow a reduction in the number of parking spaces for the recreational amenity; and • Revise the Master Plan to show additional detail; and • Delete Exhibit B,the Water Management/Utility Plan; and • Delete Exhibit C,the Location Map; and • Remove the Statement of Compliance and Project Development Requirements. FISCAL IMPACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan as needed to maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject site is designated Urban (Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict ) on the Future Land Use Map of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), and is located within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and within the Coastal High Hazard Area. Residential development is limited on the subject site to a density of up to 10.89 dwelling units per acre (DU/A), achieved through the Affordable-Workforce Housing Bonus provision of the FLUE. The subject PUD amendment request proposes to eliminate the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement within the existing PUD Ordinance, but retain the approved residential density of 10.89 DU/A. Because the proposed PUD amendment request does not comply with the density provisions of the FLUE, the property owner submitted a Growth Management Plan amendment (GMPA) application (Petition PL20120002382/CPSS-2013-1) that, if approved,will allow the proposed density on the site. The petition for the requested PUD amendment may only be found consistent with the FLUE, contingent upon the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20120002382/CPSS-2013-1, being approved by the BCC and subsequently becoming in effect. Changes to the GMP amendment as it proceeds through the hearing process may Packet Page-46- 2/11/2014 9.B. necessitate changes to the subject PUD amendment petition. The Adoption hearings for both the Growth Management Plan amendment to the FLUE and the PUD amendment have been scheduled concurrently for public hearings. 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. In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold text]. Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [Exhibit A, PUD Master Plan, depicts direct access to Thomasson Drive—a collector roadway.] 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 internal accesses or a loop road are proposed due to the limited site acreage. However, the PUD Master Plan identifies that the project will have an internal roadway system that will permit vehicles to safely move throughout the site.] Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. [Exhibit A, PUD Master Plan, does not depict interconnections with any abutting properties. The southern and western property boundaries are adjacent to public roadways; the northern property boundary abuts a multi-family residential development and a portion of that development's preserve area/buffer (Pinebrook Lake PUD); and the eastern boundary abuts a utility easement and canal. No interconnections to adjacent properties are proposed and staff does not believe it is practicable to provide interconnections.] Based on the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed PUDZA application consistent with the Future Land Use Element contingent upon Board approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20120002382/CPSS-2013-1, to establish the Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict. Packet Page-47- 2/11/2014 9.B. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5 year planning period. Staff recommends that the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Bayshore Road and Thomasson Road Impacts: Link 7.0, Bayshore Road, and Link 108.0, Thomasson Drive, are the first concurrency links that are impacted by this zoning amendment. Both concurrency links are located within the TCEA, however the petitioner is not requesting concurrency exemption at this time. The applicant has demonstrated that the project will have a net decrease in PM peak hour two-way trips. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE contingent upon Board approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20120002382/CPSS-2013- 1, to establish the Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff also recommends that the petition be found consistent with the CCME. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard this petition on December 19, 2013, and found that the criteria of Section 10.02.08.F (formerly 10.03.05.1) and 10.02.13.B.5 were met. By a unanimous vote (6 to 0) with the motion made by Commissioner Rosen and seconded by Commissioner Chrzanowski, the CCPC recommended forwarding this petition to the BCC with a recommendation of approval subject to the following changes to the PUD document: 1. 1,000 square-foot minimum for the housing units 2. at least one parking space below each building shall be provided for each unit 3. the developer shall provide a gated entry 4. the developer shall provide security cameras 5. parking in back of the northern units is prohibited 6. construction shall be of concrete block and precast concrete 7. the developer shall completely fence the project 8. the developer shall provide a community pool built by 50% of units constructed 9. no blasting shall be allowed 10. any fence fronting on either street shall be of an architectural design Packet Page-48- 2/11/2014 9.B. 1 1. the footnote shall be revised to provide sidewalk clearance from the entry portion of the parking space 12. the developer shall provide a right-of-way deed prior to 1st building permit 13. the property development regulations table shall be revised to provide a northern 30' setback. 14. the dumpster shown at the southwest project boundary shall be allowed a 5' setback 15. the majority of units shall be greater than 1,200 square feet 16. housing fund money shall be paid back within 5 years at 50% of total or 100% in 10 years of approval of this rezone 17. principal uses shall be limited to residential condo/townhouses; rental apartments are prohibited 18. the density bonus shall be reviewed after 5-years from date of approval of rezoning for continued applicability unless an SDP is issued and remains valid, (use similar language as provided for bonus used in MUP process). 19. the master plan shall be revised to reflect the east buffer to be a 15' type B buffer which will match the currently approval master plan 20. the Affordable bonus agreement shall be terminated These revisions have been incorporated into the PUD document that is included in the draft ordinance. No correspondence in opposition to this petition has been submitted for the current proposal; no one spoke at the CCPC hearing voicing opposition to the project and the CCPC vote was unanimous. However this petition is a companion petition to a GMP amendment that must be formally heard by the BCC, therefore, this petition cannot be placed on the Summary Agenda. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is an amendment to the existing Cirrus Pointe Residential Planned Unit Development (Ordinance No. 200.5-63, as amended). The burden falls upon the applicant for the amendment to prove that the proposal is consistent with all of the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), should it consider denial, that such denial is not arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the amendment does not meet one or more of the listed criteria. Criteria for PUD Amendments 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-49- 2/11/2014 9.B. 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 PUD 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 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. 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 PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? 11. Would the requested PUD 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-50- 2/11/2014 9.B. 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 PUD 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 PUD 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. This item has been approved as to form and legality, and requires an affirmative vote of four for Board approval (HFAC) COUNTY ATTORNEY NOTE: There has been an ongoing issue with this development with respect to non-repayment of certain HUD moneys. To resolve this issue, the following provision has been added to the PUD, which has the force and effect of an ordinance: Packet Page-51- 2/11/2014 9.B. Within seven (7) days of the closing for each unit, the Developer or successors, shall remit $2,962.96 to Collier County. However, within 5 years from the date of approval of this PUD, a minimum of 50 percent of the $320,000 grant shall be repaid to Collier County. and no later than 10 years from the date of approval of this PUD 100 percent of the $320.000 grant shall be repaid to Collier County, unless re-payment occurs sooner through the per unit sale. This payment shall fully satisfy the repayment of the former $320.000 grant which was issued for acquisition of the subject property for development of affordable housing. Should the Developer fail to pay a minimum of $160,000 to the County within the first five years, or otherwise is in breach of this provision, it is the opinion of the County Attorney that staff may put a freeze on all further development permits. -JAK RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendations of the CCPC and further recommends that the BCC (1) approve the request subject to the attached PUD Ordinance that includes both the staff recommendation and the CCPC recommendation; (2) approve the Termination Agreement and authorize the Chairman to execute the Agreement. Prepared by: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner, Planning & Zoning Department, Growth Management Division, Planning and Regulation Attachments: 1) CCPC Staff Report 2) Application Backup Information due to the size of the document it is accessible at: http://www.colli ergov.net/ftp/AgendaJan1414/GrowthMe mt/Appli cationforCirrusPointePUD.pdf 3) Ordinance 4) Termination Agreement Packet Page-52- 2/11/2014 9.B. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.9.B. Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendatin to approve an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2005-63, as amended,the Cirrus Pointe Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) which allows a maximum number of 108 residential dwelling units; by changing the name of the RPUD to Solstice RPUD; by revising the Master Plan; by deleting Exhibit B, the Water Management/Utility Plan; by deleting Exhibit C, the Location Map; by removing Statement of Compliance and Project Development Requirements; by adding a parking deviation; and by deleting and terminating the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement. The subject property is located northeast of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive in Section 14,Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 9.92+/- acres; and by providing an effective date. (PUDZA-PL20120002357) [Companion to Petition PL20120002382/CPSS-2013-1] Meeting Date: 2/11/2014 Prepared By Name: DeselemKay Title: Planner,Principal,Engineering&Environmental Ser 1/8/2014 2:32:31 PM Approved By Name: BellowsRay Title: Manager-Planning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 1/10/2014 10:51:01 AM Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, GMD P&R Date: 1/15/2014 4:00:31 PM Name: BosiMichael Title: Manager-Planning,Comprehensive Planning Date: 1/16/2014 9:17:22 AM Packet Page-53- 2/11/2014 9.B. Name:AshtonHeidi Title: Section Chief/Land Use-Transportation,County Attor Date: 1/27/2014 1:55:26 PM Name: MarcellaJeanne Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning Date: 1/30/2014 3:13:14 PM Name:AshtonHeidi Title: Managing Assistant County Attorney, CAO Land Use/Transportation Date: 1/31/2014 9:25:34 AM Name: StanleyTherese Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior, Grants Management Office Date: 1/31/2014 10:13:01 AM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 1/31/2014 1:24:40 PM Name: FinnEd Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior, Transportation Engineering&Construction Management Date: 1/31/2014 5:13:28 PM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager, County Managers Office Date: 2/4/2014 10:04:28 AM Packet Page-54- 2/11/2014 9.B. AGENDA ITEM 9-B r County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES--LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION--PLANNING& REGULATION HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 19,2013 SUBJECT: PUDZA-PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD (AKA SOLSTICE RPUD) [COMPANION TO PL-20120002382/CPSS-2013-1] PROPERTY OWNER & APPLICANT/AGENT: Owner/Applicant: Agent: Cirrus Pointe Partners LLC Wayne Arnold, AICP 516 Cooper Commerce Drive Suite 200 Q. Grady Minor&Assoc. P.A. 24301 Walden Center Dr 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for an amendment to the existing PUD zoned project known as the Cirrus Pointe Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). For details about the project proposal, refer to "Purpose/Description of Project." GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 9.92± acres, is located at the northeast corner of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive, in Section 14, Township 50 South,Range 25 East. Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the following page) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject property is undeveloped. It was originally rezoned from Residential Multi-family-6 (RMF-6) and Bayshore Mixed Use District-Residential-2 (BMUD-R-2)to RPUD in Ordinance #05- PUDZA-PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 1 of 14 December 19,2013 CCPC Revised: 12/2/13 Packet Page-55- 2/11/2014 9.B. V oe111a 3NY1 4.110/, =p17111 II 0 IA F f 3NV1 VI0VW i "/u .6e81 80H= 3AI a N0141100 !., 2 c i' ' : ::::: MAW =I IM3 rZri ,..., — ,, H;:::: i WE 2111•1 IMI _ R W 8 a V w z -�4 ' q 0 ®d� _ mi_ " 1 z w .F r1.30/ < . n -- 1 , Cavo An ) 3A1lW 3N0H6.A193 ._'. 3NN0 3801.1SAVB i W w - MI :i N N a. N 31V3S 01 LON Q. DI 1 787 4t I m n �.j egg d (NMI NaY9 A1NM0 F C< ~1 APiallOill ill I . A 52 SIXYI 0001GV31 .a3 n g Ga0'y E' 0ooA31$01 5^ m O ZO �I k i Q U �O 1 zx 8 =11 ', 11 a s �� b N a I 1 K mroa aNmno-taoaniY g'\ Jig ►g �-�- �1 3 , . -, —� ,� � $� 6 L — l wag per. H _p yy a V 1 ` I� iii p gE W 1.1 3Na0 3HOHSAVO § g ! L MI h I- i✓ . 1 i 1.A CD (LSB Tl01 OYJa MNVa A m n' is.• 111 r - M - w GULF OF MEXICO Packet Page-56- , 2/11/2014 9.B. 8 _.....-z--..... IaR � v w t¢w p 26 =�J a Z5 O H O K W wOY C H U WLL k D L L � K _ m Pe _kZ zm D 8:',4 J O¢ m a K � K r_LL J N Y 0 m § l� 1 ¢ y W a B� 1 >K — LL ❑ _ - I V0C W ILL a in I �_< 1, I Lo W ,- I _ 11 _¢ o 0 I I• � wpg¢mo v�. 11 WQyQW YO�Y Z m W W Q I 2J¢ Ql ti t¢ w [. x a Z 1 "1'` W \ , P (I I NOp a, K W O U V W Q . (• �/ W I o 1 c4?Z U N O 'ax W I 1 1sa % 1 L„' 6,LLW Z v, c5 I WZi a5ao mow 00 o Wa I zi.lE mJ= N� 3 I 4/� I, I °oz�o Zoo W o --Y w,-Z2. a=z�-o I I W3w� .'-Nw .. II 1 r;mxz Fi= w f wI- 5= J �1-LLE �Ua¢ R 1 v I z O a Z z 0 0 : ^ y R W W J i E w 1 z - °oa�z <cczz §gc ay l .. 1 U J F� �U= 1 I ,_«,,-,_«,,-1,1 g i W W i i n s / r4 W 0 0 Q CC ,'I F I U N u Z w� _ Z W - w V 1111 1 °-U5 '1; or WO=z A � , i I iW ojj mw2p z W g 0w 5(....)m Z Z O a s aw .5 I I 4K g oa fnW H R sp N L1-I W > aIan 2 J � a L o a z fua4¢C >�' I O �c W W o N L; of z f c 0 I 3' I cry ,/ I Z 1 ill _� a I ¢E 1 w ill Fr =g II _I ~a 1 Q ��w m. .R Q ¢mp CI 1 ��� 1 Z �5rc 3 = it y N>W I j pl, W,_ I r N g 1 1 a yzj 4 I L Li. S __ 1E% 0 I 1 W n R« ¢O¢ 1 w 1 EP LL 1 a i J -----27-'" b1 I k R' 1 � -...,2 ¢ \j if 1 i I e g 8 i, p` Ii x '...1 'a Y ■ 1 I li l I' z NO m l� ' 1I II'� f6.2,0' ii ,T i I !Ili w (� o�inC' i I ¢ �1rr E. N 1 III II .W Q W 3 W 1 1 I ILgZ m W 1 �1 m W ZhZ _ ".I '� p Z ya�W ��i' i I 1 '! �n I 2�W — Q y1W. e • f; lh 1 9 N¢z X ¢a Q I 14-:"'1 I III I I7 U 0 n W 2 i i iI_ 0 11! M - 3 Wf j I lil I 'A UOQO m UU a a d l ¢a a a << 111 .4:3-,14' +1444441 m *H E,S' .___.. w W N r z (M%,00) - z (OVOE!A773N SAWS 3d0HSAVO o n[ d z Qm0 IL<K J 00 Q W>- < f000 U Q U m < 1 W a N 2 J K a pQ 13¢ 0 KooJ m ce75 W J 1 26 W~W m woo Zp Wm 1 W �_U'1O Q KKaa NI, ■ V), a K O m a Packet Page-57- 2/11/2014 9.B. 63 on November 15, 2005. That ordinance allowed a maximum of 108 multi-family dwelling units, fi and approval of an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement authorizing the developer to utilize 78 affordable Housing Bonus Density Units (at 7.89 Bonus Density Units per acre), to allow a maximum of 32 units designated as Low-Income Affordable Housing Units. Subsequent to that approval, the Board approved Ordinance No. 08-38 on July 22, 2008 that increased the maximum number of Affordable Housing Units to 44 Workforce Housing Units. The proposed changes are summarized below(taken from the application material): • Maintain 108 residential dwelling units [Change the type of units from 64 market rate units and 44 workforce units, to 108 market rate units (utilizing a concurrently running small-scale comprehensive plan amendment (GMPA) to create the Bayshore Drive/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict that will include language addressing use of a portion of the bonus pool density available from the Botanical Garden site in order to achieve the 108 proposed units--petition number PL- 20120002382/CPSS-2013-1) while eliminating the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement as noted below]; • Delete and terminate the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement; and • Change the PUD name from Cirrus Pointe RPUD to Solstice RPUD; and • Add a deviation to allow a reduction in the number of parking spaces for the recreational amenity; and • Revise the Master Plan to show additional detail; and • Delete Exhibit B, the Water Management/Utility Plan; and • Delete Exhibit C,the Location Map; and • Remove the Statement of Compliance and Project Development Requirements. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Pinebrook Lakes PUD, developed as Abaco Bay, an existing 160-unit, multi-family 10-acre project developed at 16 units per acre East: Single-family homes along Dominion Drive that are within the Avalon Estates Unit 1 subdivision,with a zoning designation of RMF-6 South: Thomasson Drive, then Del's Convenience Store with a C-5 zoning designation and scattered multi-family residences on lots within the Jonesville subdivision, with a zoning designation of RMF-6-BMUD-T2 West: Bayshore Drive,then a cleared but undeveloped C-3 zoned tract. PUDZA-PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 2 of 14 December 19,2013 CCPC Revised: 12/2/13 Packet Page-58- �J .i 2/11/2014 9.B.• ` f�.7 yr{ .,a yr� s <8' itt K xr '-E �q� TANk..'A-Pa.'cCEi } i t IT'-',-_,. i. 11 6 s -'ta� :.ri r-� _'k'P*'*� fr"i'.^ ,, .. t ^.;.. *Y2"¢-£+ 3 .. �1 . �I v{'< <r ice'' _ r ; "' r i '' 4 ± S by ,,,-,,r,...---..---, 4SY.... `4 i ! �'l�'. r v'� s S� gg a -, ,. �'k a � .:,raw ,,.,� a aw ` .� ..z- '+a7. ,,.b} lx+ros,+, rte. 2'. } •l' 9 rwy°4'•-, t S _+ 5 '.a` . , tt ,N . qt, 7�QstAJ'1 a m y'7� �' 4....-` � ',-1'..:'"�`Y a.."�. ..» ,,,,a R .rev X� 7.1', .. 1 °v .+1a a .—.a.. .... 7 �' - •'t to a . -.I. * a T-----° COTTAG .r'2Q'v AVz_" z h feri, !� R � � �•, 4•'"� r:4`x�`Ee, f ee��tf j e As_ � ��.,,.... -"F Y_ 1i�-, • ii;";*.11,*.,..4 L, 'S iry a3:... F '�"""!R' ,, ^a L't$ att v..A.' .. 5ry b�, }7., „'' p ,- - "Sj �',y'�,i( alr{ai ... . f ;Y�.a* ra. all „ ,:21 „ Aerial Photo (the subject site, shown in yellow, is approximate) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject site is designated Urban (Mixed Use District. Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict ) on the Future Land Use Map of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), and is located within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and within the Coastal High Hazard Area. Residential development is limited on the subject site to a density of up to 10.89 dwelling units per acre (DU/A), achieved through the Affordable-Workforce Housing Bonus provision.of the FLUE. The subject PUD amendment request proposes to eliminate the Affordable Housng Density Bonus Agreement within the existing PUD Ordinance, but retain the approved residential density of 10.89 DU/A. Because the proposed PUD amendment request does not comply with the density provisions of the FLUE, the property owner submitted a Growth Management Plan amendment (GMPA) application (Petition PL20120002382/CPSS-2013-1) that, if approved, will allow the proposed density on the site. The petition for the requested PUD amendment may only be found consistent with the FLUE, contingent upon the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PUDZA-PL20120002357,CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 3 of 14 December 19,2013 CCPC Revised: 12/2/13 Packet Page -59- 2/11/2014 9.B. PL20120002382/CPSS-2013-1, 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 amendment petition. The Adoption hearings for both the Growth Management Plan amendment to the FLUE and the PUD amendment have been scheduled concurrently for public hearings. 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. In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold text]. Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [Exhibit A, PUD Master Plan, depicts direct access to Thomasson Drive—a collector roadway.] 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 internal accesses or a loop road are proposed due to the limited site acreage. However,the PUD Master Plan identifies that the project will have an internal roadway system that will permit vehicles to safely move throughout the site.] Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. [Exhibit A, PUD Master Plan, does not depict interconnections with any abutting properties. The southern and western property boundaries are adjacent to public roadways; the northern property boundary abuts a multi-family residential development and a portion of that development's preserve area/buffer (Pinebrook Lake PUD); and the eastern boundary abuts a utility easement and canal. No interconnections to adjacent properties are proposed and staff does not believe it is practicable to provide interconnections.] Based on the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed PUDZA application consistent with the Future Land Use Element contingent upon Board approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20120002382/CPSS-2013-1, to establish the Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient PUDZA-PL20120002357,CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 4 of 14 December 19,2013 CCPC Revised: 12/2/13 Packet Page-60- 2/11/2014 9.B. capacity to accommodate this project within the 5 year planning period. Staff recommends that the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). Bayshore Road and Thomasson Road Impacts: Link 7.0, Bayshore Road, and Link 108.0, Thomasson Drive, are the first concurrency links that are impacted by this zoning amendment. Both concurrency links are located within the TCEA, however the petitioner is not requesting concurrency exemption at this time. The applicant has demonstrated that the project will have a net decrease in PM peak hour two-way trips. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation&Coastal Management Element (CCME). GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A fmding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall fmding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE contingent upon Board approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20120002382/CPSS-2013-1, to establish the Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff also recommends that the petition be found consistent with the CCME. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.02.08.F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the bases for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading"Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. This project does not require an Environmental Advisory Council Board (EAC) review since this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Chapter 2, Article VII.,Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues as well as roadway capacity, and recommends approval subject to the Developer/owner commitments as provided in the PUD ordinance. PUDZA-PL20120002357,CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 5 of 14 December 19,2013 CCPC Revised: 12/2/13 Packet Page-61- 2/11/2014 9.B. Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to,the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site,the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. Zoning staff is of the opinion that this project will be compatible with and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. To support that opinion staff offers the following analysis of this project. The petitioner is not actually increasing the number of total units that would be allowable on site, because the currently controlling ordinances, Ordinances No. 05-63 and 08-38, allow development of 108 units. However in those ordinances, the developer was granted 78 bonus units, but he must provide 44 affordable housing units to achieve that density, otherwise; he is limited to 30 base housing dwelling units. In this current proposal, the petitioner is seeking to amend the Growth Management Plan (GMP) (via a companion GMP amendment) to create the Bayshore Drive/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict that will include language addressing use of a portion of the bonus pool density available from the Botanical Garden site in order to achieve the 108 proposed units. Since no increase in density is proposed, staff believes the density and intensity of the uses proposed in this amendment is consistent with FLUE Policy 5.4 that requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. Because the petitioner is eliminating the Affordable Housing Density Bonus as part of this PUD, the document that was attached to Ordinance No. 05-63 must be officially terminated. The proposed termination agreement is attached to this staff report (See Attachment 1). That agreement must be executed concurrent with any approval of this amendment petition. The area to the north is developed with the Pinebrook Lakes PUD, developed as Abaco Bay, an existing 160-unit, multi-family 10-acre project developed at 16 units per acre. The buildings are two story structures, however the PUD does allow three story structures. To the east, are mix of one- and two-story single-family homes along Dominion Drive that are within the Avalon Estates Unit 1 subdivision, with a zoning designation of RMF-6. To the south, is Thomasson Drive, then Del's Convenience Store with a C-5 zoning designation and scattered single- and multi-family residences on lots within the Jonesville subdivision along Cottage Grove Avenue, with a zoning designation of RMF-6-BMUD-T2. To the west is Bayshore Drive, then a cleared but undeveloped C-3 zoned tract. The development standards contained in the PUD document reflect a design approach that will provide multi-family housing opportunities. The PUD indicates and a minimum front-yard setback of 15 feet and side setbacks of 7.5-feet for a one-story structure, 10-feet for a two-story structure, and 11.25 feet for a taller structure. A perimeter boundary setback of 15 feet would be provided for one- or two-story structure and a 25-foot setback for anything higher. A 50-foot wide setback will be provided for any buildings with three habitable stories along the eastern RPUD boundary. The minimum rear setback is 20 feet. The project boundary setback that is dependent upon the number of stories is an important consideration when determining compatibility. PUDZA-PL20120002357,CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 6 of 14 December 19, 2013 CCPC Revised: 12/2/13 Packet Page-62- 2/11/2014 9.B. The petitioner is amending the height to reflect both zoned height and actual building height as is now required. The buffer along the eastern property has been reduced from a 15 foot wide type B buffer to a 10 foot wide type A buffer. When questioned about the change, the applicant's agent stated that he was reducing the buffer to the minimum required by the LDC. This 10 foot wide A buffer, combined with the existing utility easement, and the project boundary setback should provide adequate separation between the taller structures in this development and the structures in Avalon Estates. Based upon the analysis above, staff believes the intensity of the uses proposed in this amendment is consistent with FLUE Policy 5.4 that requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking approval of one deviation from the requirements of the LDC. The deviation is listed in the PUD document in Exhibit D. Deviations are a normal derivative of the PUD zoning process following the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC Section 2.03.06 which says in part: It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs . . . . may depart from the strict application of setback, height, and minimum lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the public interest. . . . Deviation 1 seeks relief from Section 4.05.04.H of the LDC, Parking space Requirements, which requires that small-scale recreational amenities within multi-family project where a majority of the units are within 300' to provide parking at 25% of the normal parking requirements for recreational facilities, to allow the small scale recreational amenity to provide one parking space for short term drop off/pick-up and one ADA compliant space. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation is warranted given the central location of the recreational amenity to all of the dwelling units. The buildings have been arranged so that all buildings are within 400 feet of the amenity which will consist of a swimming pool with restrooms. No clubhouse or other recreational amenity will be provided at the centralized amenity. Providing one parking space for short term use of residents to drop off items at the pool will be sufficient parking for this small-scale amenity given the close proximity to all units within the complex. Sidewalks are provided throughout the project which provides safe and convenient pedestrian access to the recreational amenity. PUDZA-PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 7 of 14 December 19,2013 CCPC Revised: 12/2/13 Packet Page-63- 2/11/2014 9.B. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is 4 , approved, noting that the LDC requires a minimum of 2 parking places and the developer will be providing two spaces albeit the spaces are somewhat atypical. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." FINDINGS OF FACT: LDC Subsection 10.03.05.I.2 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 fmdings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below. [Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold, non-italicized font]: PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" (Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and believes the uses and property development regulations are compatible with the development approved in the area. The commitments made by the applicant should provide adequate assurances that the proposed change should not adversely affect living conditions in the area. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion and the zoning analysis of this staff report. Based on those staff analyses, planning zoning staff is of the opinion that this petition PUDZA-P120120002357,CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 8 of 14 December 19,2013 CCPC Revised: 12/2/13 Packet Page-64- 2/11/2014 9.B. may be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element contingent upon Board approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20120002382/CPSS- 2013-1,to establish the Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Staff has provided a review of the proposed uses and believes that the project will be compatible with the surrounding area. The uses are not changing as part of this amendment and the uses approved in the original PUD rezone were determined to be compatible. The petitioner is revising some property development regulations, but staff believes uses remain compatible given the proposed development standards and project commitments. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of native preserve aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6 The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. The project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. Additionally, the PUD document contains additional developer commitments that should help ensure there are adequate facilities available to serve this project. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as road capacity, wastewater disposal system, and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The petitioner is seeking approval of one deviation 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 PUDZA-PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 9 of 14 December 19,2013 CCPC Revised: 12/2/13 Packet Page-65- 2/11/2014 9.B. standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff has provided an analysis of the deviation in the Deviation Discussion portion of this staff report, and is recommending approval of the deviation. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, &policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The zoning analysis provides an in-depth review of the proposed amendment. Staff is of the opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with neighborhood development. Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed PUDZA application consistent with the Future Land Use Element contingent upon Board approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20120002382/CPSS-2013-1, to establish the Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict. The petition can be deemed consistent with the CCME and the Transportation Element. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP contingent upon Board approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20120002382/CPSS-2013-1, to establish the Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict. 2. The existing land use pattern; Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed it at length in the zoning review analysis. Staff believes the proposed amendment is appropriate given the existing land use pattern, and development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The proposed PUD amendment would not create an isolated zoning district because the subject site is already zoned PUD. No land is being added to the PUD as part of this amendment. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Staff is of the opinion that the district boundaries are logically drawn given the current property ownership boundaries and the existing PUD zoning. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed amendment is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with PUDZA-PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 10 of 14 December 19,2013 CCPC Revised: 12/2/13 Packet Page-66- 2/11/2014 9.B. the LDC provisions to seek such the amendment to allow the owner the opportunity to develop the land with uses other than what the existing zoning district would allow. Without this amendment, the property could be developed in compliance with the existing PUD ordinance regulations. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendment, with the commitments made by the applicant, can been deemed consistent County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. The project includes numerous restrictions and standards that are designed to address compatibility of the project. Development in compliance with the proposed PUB amendment should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project with the mitigation that will be provided by the developer (Developer Commitments). Staff believes the petition can be deemed consistent with the Transportation Element of the GMP. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed amendment should not create drainage or surface water problems. The developer of the project will be required to adhere to a surface water management permit from the SFWMD in conjunction with any local site development plan approvals and ultimate construction on site. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this amendment petition is approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. The setbacks and project buffers will help insure that light and air to adjacent areas will not be substantially reduced. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market conditions. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; The proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. PUDZA-PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 11 of 14 December 19,2013 CCPC Revised: 12/2/13 Packet Page-67- 2/11/2014 9.B. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; If the proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan through the proposed amendment, then that constitutes is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning designations; however, the petitioner is seeking this amendment in compliance with LDC provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed amendment meets the intent of the PUD district, if staff s conditions of approval are adopted, and further, believes the public interest will be maintained. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; As noted previously, the majority of the subject property already has a zoning designation of PUD; the PUD rezoning was evaluated at the rezoning stage and was deemed consistent with the GMP. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMP as it is proposed to be amended as discussed in other portions of the staff report. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Additional development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration. This project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as PUDZA-PL20120002357,CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 12 of 14 December 19,2013 CCPC Revised: 12/2/13 Packet Page-68- 2/11/2014 9.B. defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD document. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): See Attachment 2. BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMETN AGENCY(CRA): See Attachment 3. HOUSING,HUMAN AND VETERANS SERVICES (HHVS): The owner received a Housing and Urban Development (HUD) loan that has not been repaid by the owner to date. HHVS has no objections to the developer's repayment plan as outlined in Section 5.6.D (Development Commitments) of the Solstice PUD Ordinance. These funds will be utilized to support affordable housing projects in the future. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on November 19,2013. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZA-PL20120002357 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval subject to the following stipulation: 1. The Termination Agreement for the Affordable Housing Density Bonus allowance must be executed prior to or concurrent with any approval. PUDZA-PL20120002357,CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 13 of 14 December 19,2013 CCPC Revised: 12/2/13 Packet Page-69- 2/11/2014 9.B. PREPARED BY: 43,2 / r- l F g r,t � /3 KAY I t SELEM,AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEP ' MENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEWED BY: RA et�ND V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE DEP •TMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVED BY: / 2-,NICK CASALA14GfUI , MIN TOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the February 11, 2014 Board of County Commissioners Meeting Attachments: 1. Termination Agreement 2. Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis PUDZA-PL20120002357,CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 14 of 14 December 19,2013 CCPC Revised: 11/18/13 Packet Page-70- 2/11/2014 9.B. Cirrus Pointe PUD Petition PUDA-PL2012-2357 and Petition CP2013-1 Neighborhood Information Meeting March 25, 2013, 6:00 p.m. Wayne Arnold, agent for the applicant opened the meeting at 6:10 p.m. and introduced himself and Sharon Umpenhour with Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., Richard Yovanovich with Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A., representing the owner/developer, Jim Fields representing the property owner/developer, Kay Deselem and Michele Mosca representing Collier County Zoning and Growth Management Departments. There were approximately twenty members from the public in attendance. A sign-in sheet was provided. Mr. Arnold began the information meeting explaining the project as it exists and then proceeded to explain the proposed petition requests. He explained the project would increase from 108 units to 144 units and that a new subdistrict in the Comprehensive Plan had been filed to permit the 144 units on the property. He also indicated that the project was to become a rental apartment community. An aerial exhibit and existing and proposed Master Plans were displayed. Wayne showed the existing Master Plan and then the proposed plan and explained that the footprints have been revised slightly. He explained the building height had not increased but was now listed as 50 feet zoned and 60 feet actual rather than the previously approved 40 feet or 3 stories over parking and the reduction in the southern landscape buffer request was due to the 60 foot right-of-way width for Thomasson Drive. Wayne showed a color rendering of the building elevation and explained that the project name would be changing to Solstice RPUD. Rich Yovanovich mentioned that the project would be a market rate rental community and that 44 units would be rented to residents meeting the GAP housing standards for Collier County. He was asked to explain market rate rental and GAP housing and proceeded to explain that the project was not low income but geared towards people who could not afford high rent but didn't qualify for low income. GAP was the term used for people having incomes between 80% and 150%of the median income. Mr. Arnold concluded his presentation and asked for comments or questions from the meeting attendees. Attendees asked several questions regarding the project which included areas such as project and building security. Jim Fields indicated that the project would have a gated entry and security fencing. He further explained that the parking garage below each building would have a secure entrance for vehicles and that the elevators and stairwells would also have secured entrance doors. Page 1 of 4 Attachment 2 Packet Page-71- 2/11/2014 9.B. Other areas of questions related to project timing, landscape buffers, term of rental length, and project building materials. Mr. Arnold, Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Fields addressed the attendee's questions. Mr. Arnold reminded the audience that no hearing dates have been scheduled and offered to provide any additional information if requested and to contact, Kay Deselem, Michele Mosca, Sharon Umpenhour or himself if anyone had further questions. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:05 p.m. More specifically questions asked are as follows: How many buildings are there? A total of six buildings are proposed. Will the affordable housing be in each building? No, not specific to a building. So could you please explain what is market rental and instead of doing affordable you are doing GAP?But it's not affordable housing? Rich Yovanovich explained the difference of the two and further explained how GAP work and what the requirements are. He also explained the median income. How big are the units? The units are from 830sf to 1300sf Is there a covenant that runs with it that says you could never rent it, you could always rent it, no one will ever be able to buy it,you can buy it in the future,what's the plan? We do not have a commitment that prohibits from condo conversion. How many parking spaces assigned to each unit? 1 or 2 depending on apartment size. Every unit will have a secured parking stall below building. Who is the owner who will be renting these? Cirrus Point Partners. Do you have a track record of owning other properties like this? Yes,mostly assisted living. Are there a maximum number of occupants per unit or per square feet? There is a County code requirement. What would happen if you didn't add the additional units but kept it at 108,would they be larger units, possibly more appealing? The infrastructure cost determines the units and the bank wanted more units. Page 2 of 4 Packet Page-72- 2/11/2014 9.B. Is this going to be a gated community? We are proposing a gated entry. How do you define gated? You will have to be a resident to enter. You will need a fob to enter the unmanned gate. How sturdy will the gate be because people would still get in? Garages would be secured so only the resident could enter with a code. Are there ground level entrances? Secure stairwells on each end with stairs and elevators.No living units on ground floor. Are you planning on installing peep holes in the doors? Yes and there will be security cameras. What sort of buffer between project to the north? Most of the northern buffer is preserve and there will be an LDC required buffer where there is no preserve. How about lighting? Will there be lights behind the buildings? There is not a need for excessive lighting except for security because there is a preserve and no vehicle access behind the buildings. You said the rent is $900 to $1200 is that$ 900 for affordable units or will they be lower than that? Base rent is$900 a month and those would meet the GAP criteria. Could you talk more about the income qualifications to be able to afford the $900 unit what's that income level. The median income was $72,000 for a family of 4 that would be $100,000 a year. A family of one would be $60,000 for a family of one would qualify for GAP housing. They sign a lease for $900 a month and then you make up the difference because you have the grant money? There is no difference, there is no grant money, there has to be 44 occupants that have to meet the GAP guidelines if not then after 5 years the money has to be paid back to the County. Will there be any restrictions so that people don't rent out by the month or week? There will be restrictive covenants to prevent that. All leases will be for 12 month minimum. You said you are decreasing buffers? Only on Thomasson Drive,because of the sidewalk that was built on the property. Page 3 of 4 Packet Page-73- 2/11/2014 9.B. If you found the market demanded a higher price point would you stay with the 108 instead of the 144 proposed? With the cost to build it is more cost effective to build the 144 units. Did I not read you could not get the financing from the bank unless you did the 144 units? That is correct. What's going to make your project different from other rental projects? Will be an annual lease, income levels are not low it will be a quality rental program. Each unit will have a secure entry and the community will be gated. Will the quality of construction be better than Botanical Gardens? This will be concrete block and precast concrete. If everything goes as planned when will you be ready to construct and when will the units be ready for rental? Plan to start construction by end of the year and the units will be finished within 18 to 24 months. All infrastructure will be built at the same time. Are the elevators going to require a card to go up? Yes entry card will also be keyed to the elevator Are you fencing all the way around? Yes. During construction will you be blasting? No blasting. Who is going to be your general contractor? Working with Don Garrett right now Do you have a management company in mind? Not at this time. Will there be a gated entrance on Bayshore? No,there is no access on Bayshore only Thomasson. Will there be a pool? Yes,there are plans for a community pool. Is there going to be an updated website? Yes,it will be updated. Page 4 of 4 Packet Page-74- 2/11/2014 9.B. THE BAYSHORE / GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OMMUNITY EDEVELOPMENT `_,_ GENCY 4069 BAYSHORE DRIVE, NAPLES, FL 34112 PHONE 239.643.1115 FAX 239.775.4456 BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES OF THE JUNE 4, 2013 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Advisory Board was called to order by Steve Main 6:00 p.m. at the CRA Office Meeting Room 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Board Members: Larry Ingram, Steve Main, Maurice Gutierrez, Karen Beatty, Peter Dvorak, Chuck Gunther and Mike Sherman, Shane Shadis, Michael Corradi (excused). CRA Staff Present: Jean Jourdan, Interim Executive Director, Ashley Caserta, Project Manage , and Ekna Guevara, Operations Coordinator. 2. Adoption of Agenda: Mr. Main asked if there were any additions or corrections to the published agenda. Hearing none, he asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Motion by: Peter Dvorak. Second: Maurice Gutierrez. Approved 7-0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Main asked for a motion to approve the May 7, 2013 meeting minutes. Larry made a correction to item 6.d. should read "Approved 6 to 1 with Larry dissenting". A motion was made to adopt the minutes with changes. Motion by: Peter Dvorak. Second: Chuck Gunther. Approved 7-0. 4. Executive Director's Report: a. CRA Project Updates. 1- CAPA 17 acre: Staff reported we have received the appraisal and has been submitted to CAPA for review. A representative of CAPA, Chick Heithaus, was present and mentioned that CAPA may not have enough time to review the 100+ page appraisal before the last BCC meeting before the summer break. 2- Growth Management Plan Amendment: Staff reported that the GMPA was approved by the BCC on May 28, 2013 and should go into effect in July. 3- Residential Lots: Staff reported that the Developer has submitted plans for the lots on Linda Drive lots and will begin construction June 15th. Also, the Van Buren lots are planned to be constructed early next year. 4- Gateway Triangle Stormwater Improvements Construction Update: Staff is working with consultants to address any repairs or corrections needed. 5-Mini Triangle RFP: On hold until further notice. 6-Andrew Drive (FP&L Lights): Ekna has been assigned to this project. 7- Cirrus Point n/k/a Solstice: Ms. Jourdan informed the CRA-AB that the item would be discussed under new business. June 4,2013 CRA-AB Minutes Page 1 At r'hment 3 Packet Page-75- 2/11/2014 9.B. 8- CRA/MSTU Offices: The documents have been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office and is scheduled for the June 25, 2013 Board meeting. b. MSTU Project Updates: 1- Landscape Updates include a repair by Ground Zero who repaired an irrigation line break and replaced the shrubs in front of La Piñata. 2-The Bayview and Lunar project is continuing their process. 3- Ashley will be a member of the selection committee for the Thomasson Drive project which will last about 12 to 18 months. 4- On Danford Street volunteers continue to get the required responses. 5- There was a streetlight which was hit by car in front of La Piñata. This has since been replaced. 6- Lights on Collee Court, Gordon Street and Peters Street are on their way. 5. Requests for Payments: Motion to pay bill made by: Karen Beatty. Second: Maurice Gutierrez. 6. New Business: a. Welcome New Advisory Board Members: Shane Shadis and Michael Corradi. Jim Fields (Question &Answer): Present was Richard Yovanovich who made a presentation on the 10acre parcel off Thomasson/Bayshore. The project is allowed 29 dwelling units. They are requesting the CRA support their request for 79 units from the density bonus pool which will be added to the project totaling 108 units. These units would range from 1,400 to 2,000 sq. ft. and sell for mid $200,000 to mid $300,000. They also mentioned they will return the $320,000 which was granted to them for an Affordable Housing project which they no longer will build. They will pay a portion from every unit sold until full payment is received. Motion to support the project & their request for the 79 units from the density bonus pool. Motion by: Karen Beatty. Second: Steve Main. Approved 6-1 with Larry dissenting. b. Grant Application (Fire Suppression Upgrades): Staff informed the CRA-AB they had submitted the grant application prior to the submittal deadline and hopes to have a response within a few months. c. Community Garden: Staff presented the idea of a community garden in the Bayshore Community. Motion to conduct all necessary steps and plans gearing towards a community garden in the Bayshore CRA. Motion by: Chuck Gunther. Second: Karen Beatty. Approved 7-0. d. Next Meeting: September 3, 2013 7. Advisory Board General Communications. None. 8. Citizen Comments. None. 9. Adjournment: Mr. Main adjourned the meeting at 7:03. Approved and forwarded by Steve Main, CRA-AB Chairman. June 4, 2013 CRA-AB Minutes 2 Packet Page-76- 2/11/2014 9.B. TERMINATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, as entered into on the day of 2014, between CIRRUS POINTE PARTNERS LLC (hereinafter referred to as the "OWNER"), and the COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY"). WHEREAS, James J. Fields and the COUNTY entered into an Agreement authorizing Affordable Housing Density Bonus and Imposing Covenants and Restrictions on Real Property in 2005 (hereinafter "Agreement"); and WHEREAS, CIRRUS POINTE PARTNERS LLC, as successor to James J. Fields, has petitioned the County to reduce the residential density on its property and terminate the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: The Agreement is hereby terminated upon the effective date of the Solstice Residential Planned Unit Development IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed the date and year last written below. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Deputy Clerk TOM HENNING, Chairman CIRRUS POINTE PARTNERS LLC WITNESSES: (1) By: Signature Signature Printed/Typed Name Printed/Typed Name (2) Printed/Typed Title Signature Printed/Typed Name 1 oft Packet Page-77- 2/11/2014 9.B. Approved as to form and legality: Oil L., Heidi Ashton-Cicko ,I j Managing Assistant County Attorney 13-CPS-01205\24 2 oft Packet Page-78- 2/11/2014 9.B. ORDINANCE NO. 14- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2005-63, AS AMENDED, THE CIRRUS POINTE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) WHICH ALLOWS A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF 108 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS; BY CHANGING THE NAME OF THE RPUD TO SOLSTICE RPUD; BY REVISING THE MASTER PLAN; BY DELETING EXHIBIT B, THE WATER MANAGEMENT/UTILITY PLAN; BY DELETING EXHIBIT C, THE LOCATION MAP; BY REMOVING STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS; BY ADDING A PARKING DEVIATION; AND BY DELETING AND TERMINATING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTHEAST OF BAYSHORE DRIVE AND THOMASSON DRIVE IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 9.92+1- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. f PUDZA-PL20120002357] WHEREAS, Cirrus Pointe Partners LLC, represented by Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich. Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester. P.A.. petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the RPUD. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. that: SECTION ONE: Amendment to RPUD Document. The RPUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 2005-63. as amended. is hereby amended and replaced with the RPUD Document attached hereto as Exhibit -A- and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION TWO: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK t., Solstice RPM PUDZA-PL20120002357 Page I of 2 Rev, I/6'I4 Packet Page-79- A 2/11/2014 9.B. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of Count■, 0.011, Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. this day of 2014. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK. CLERK COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk TOM HENNING, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A - RPUD Document including revised Master Plan CP,13-CPS-01205‘46 #4*44,t Solstice RPUD PUDZA-PL20120002357 Page 2 of 2 Rel.. 1,614 Packet Page -80- 2/11/2014 9.B. CIARLIS'ISOLSTICE RESIDENTIAL PUD A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNING THE Q-R.RI.J.S FLOINTESOLSTICE RESIDENTIAL PUD, A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVIEUSIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED FOR: JAMES4--RELDS NAPLES, FLORIDA 31110 Cirrus Pointe Partners LLC 516 Commerce Drive, Suite 200 Apopka, Florida. 32703 PREPARED BY: D. WAYNE ARNOLD, AICP Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, PA. 3800 VIA DEL REY BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34134 and RICHARD D. YOVANOVICH GOODLETTE. COLEMAN. YOVANOVICH &.1QP4N-SONKOESTER, P.A. 4001 TAMIAMI TRAIL N., SUITE 300 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34103 DATE FILED December-2,2404 DATE REVISED Qr.:tette-F-24,4046 October 2013 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC December 19. 2013 DATE APPROVED BY BCC ORDINANCE NUMBER Packet Page-81- I 2/11/2014 9.B. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS ii LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES iii STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE 1 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 3 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 5 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN 9 SECTION IV PRESERVE AREAS PLAN 13 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 14 ii Words 5trtiek-thr-eugli are deleted:words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page-82- A 2/11/2014 9.B. LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT"A" PUD MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT "B" PUD WATER MANAGEMENT/UTILITY PLAN EXHIBIT"C" LOCATION MAP TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Words sruek�are deleted: words underlined are added. Solstice RAUi7 Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page-83- 2/11/2014 9.B. The development of approximately 9.82± acres of property in Collier County, as a Collier County Crowth Management Plan. The residential-facilities of the CirFUS Pointe regulations, and applicable comprehensive planninc- objcstives for the following reasons: • _ _ __ _. a - - _ - _ __ -: :mmunityi facilities of the Future-Land Use Element. 2.The project developmen` _ _ _ --- _ 3.improvements arc planned to be in compliance with applicable sections of the Collier - •- - - Code ac act forth in Objective 3 of the Future Land Use Element. of the Drainage Sub Element of the Public Facilities Element. 6.The projec4 is located within the Urban Mixed Use District, Ur-ban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, on the Future Land Us- 2. - - - - . -S T _ Within the Jrban Coastal Subdistrict � dwelling unite/acro dwcllina unitslaero Affordable Housing Density Bonus - -F:Fritted Density dwelling units/acre _ Requested densit y i- 1-0.8 we 9 dllinc units/acre Maximum permitted un-its - 8.82 acres x '1 r.eJ4.n-g urrits/acrc - 109 units Requested dwelling units - 108 1 Words stride4,411r.stit4 are deleted:words underlined are added. Solstice RPL•'D Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page-84- 2/11/2014 9.B. 4 - -; z- 'z' : - . "• z , • . •z 9- * -; 2 Words 5tr-wek-tkfeueh are deleted;words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 I-2-2014 Packet Page-85- 2/11/2014 9.B. E SECTION 1 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the developed under the project name of the Cirrus Pointe Residential PUD. 1.21 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being 9.92± acres, is located in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East and is fully described as, "Ali of Lot 103 of Naples Groves and Truck Company's Little Farms No. 2, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 1, at Page 27-A, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida." 1.22 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is owned by Y;.L.C., ins., a Florida Corporation, 1300 Third Street, Suit.: 300, Naples, Florida 31102. The property is under pursha se contract by James Fields, 15544 Monterocco Lone #2, Naples, Florida 21110.Cirrus Pointe Partners LLC, 516 Commerce Drive. Suite 200, Apopka. Florida, 32703 A. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of tine intcrsoction County;, Florida n _ - - _ "� -- -- `=- 'ie•r - _ .0 _'- R2 Overlay. `.5 PHYSICAL DE.SCRiPTION - -_ ,w -• ' • • The ditch•outfalis to the south into a cwaie that _ t . e 1 Words siroek El are deleted;words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page-86- 2/11/2014 9.B. The water management ..ysterr, for the project proposes the construction of a property boundary. - .. _ _ - _ -, V---- - - -- . _* .. :_. - • SFVVPdlD will be imposed upon this project including but not limited-to: storm elevations, water quality pre treatment. and wetland hydrology maintenance. r- _e ws. _. .. -- ._ sea _-I - limitsoft#- - se - -_. _ .._ - __ ' _ . _-, - _ The site vegetation consists primarily of slash, pin, with scattered cabbage palm. - } - -- mid story The cite wa - ' - ` . : 1.r PROJECT DESCRIPT4ON units. These units arc intended for development as a multi family project. conjunction wit h t 0-w _ _ - _- - ___. - - - • . - . ticingg cornrno,. - - . - -. - whenever feasible. '--+ _ 1.7 SHORT TITLE. This * _ ' - - < _ +- ". :7, 7)- wt _ • ■ 4 Words stt rough are deleted:words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page-87- 2/11/2014 9.B. SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2." PURPOSE {o4ationships. 2.2 GENERAL A. Regulations for -development of the Dirruc Pointe RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Document, PUD Planned Unit Development District, Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District, and developmental standards, then the-provisions of the mo - C. All conditions imposed and graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the cteveiepment of the vim us Pointe RPUD shall bccomo provisions of the Land Dcvel nt Code, wh..rc applicable, remain in full o is s-th-i - _ 7.-- 'e 10.02.07, �ldequet . _- _ , .e -ad Section _- -auirernents of t—Co ; , Land Development :ode. * ° `A 4' `f l 0> a , or, 5 Words s+faek are deleted;words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page-88- A 2/11/2014 9.B. if'" _ ._ ' _ _. .. - • r - . ) . v _€ lakes, street rights of way, the general configuration of which ie also E. ArLas illustrated as lakes- by Exhibit "A' shall be sonstructcd as lakes or, upon approval, parts thereof - _ -- - _ - . - and intermittent wet and dry areas shall be in the same general Wi,hin this RPUD Document. r. Exhibit "A" is anticipated to be comprised of the following areas and applicabic acreages. AREA ACREAGE PRESERVE AREA 1.81 Acres LAKES 0.41 Ac FC s DRAINAGE EASEM ENT 0.36 Acres RIGHT OF- WAY-EASEMENT 0.21 Acres DEVELOPMENT AREA 7.11 Acres TOTAL SITE AREA 0.92 Acre;, 2.41 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DENSITY OR INTENSITY OF LAND USES The maximum of 108 residential dwelling units may be constructed in the total project area. This is based on a gross acreage of 9.92 acres and a maximum of 10.89 dwelling units/per acre, consistent with the BayshoreiThomasson Drive Subdistrict of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Any project with a dansity of more than-3,0 dwelling unksi.per Ocnct =. - -_-.e 6 Words stfueic,-threpuen are deleted;words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page-89- I 2/11/2014 9.B. wi F , M.. • • . - -.. -. • .i - - S. _ • ,R. r' --rules, and the platting laws-of the State of Florida. 6 Exhibit "A'', RP- . - - .* �' ,•_, A i - •w _ - - apment of the and shalt be in compliance with Section 4.03.00 Subdivision Design and - -. _e '• -:. • Development Code, and the platting C. The provisions of Section 1Q.02.G3. Site Development Plans of the Land the Land- Development Co. _ •. _ +-- . . .-` . - . - •• - F. Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time ci infrastructural - : ..t.•••• - . - --- --- - - t 7 facilities. e: - F'a r,- Y • n ♦ . _ 4 , a 1T ... A. in conjunction with t# e pr omotio et : . .. it-,-- - , _ .' _ ' - E a• Y •s •- r''w ' %'^. r site after site development plan approval and prior tc the recording of 2,7 AMENDMENTS TO RPUD DOCUMENT OR RPUC =i X `» i , 7 Words stwuek tglt are deleted:words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page-90- A 2/11/2014 9.B. s. - - -- -o RPUD as providi. - - It •- _.. 2.8 PROPERTY OWNERS. A ef- _ A - `'TE vAN Whenever the devclope, elects to create land arco and/or recreation amenities c •• •• '. - - - .•ity is a common interest ta-a-ll-of the subsequent pure- - - _ __ - _ - an-i- - j- F _r - ''•!:.4 -ar^- as as as�. r' . - � ! - r• function shall include provisions for the perpetual care and ma-intenance of all common facilities and open spaces. S Words&truek throug}t are deleted;words underlined are added, Solstice RPLD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page-91- 2/11/2014 9.B. SECTION III RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for the residential areas as shown on Exhibit "A", RPUD Master Plan. 3.2 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS The maximum of 108 residential dwelling units may be constructed in the total project area equaling 29 base units and 79 units from the Bayshore Gateway density pool. as limited herein. This is based on a gross acreage of 9.92 acres and a maximum of 10.89 dwelling units/per acre, consistent with the Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. - _ _ _ - --e - -- 3.3 PERMITTED USES No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Multi-family dwellings. limited to townhouse and condominiums. No rental apartments shall be permitted. 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") by the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDCL B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: 1. Customary accessory uses and structures including carports, garages, aazebos and utility buildings. 2. Recreational uses and facilities including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, fishing docks, walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings, and basketball/shuffle board courts. 3. Temporary sales trailer and model units, 9 Words str ektlfettif are deleted: words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page-92- 2/11/2014 9.B. 4. G4e-neuseGatehouses, and access control structures. 5. Interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities necessary to service this RPUD. 6. Siqnpge 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Table I sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Cirrus Pointe Solstice RPUD. 10 Words mfuelt4liflauel,are deleted:words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page-93- mow 2/11/2014 9.B. TABLE i RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARDS MULTI-FAMILY Minimum Lot Area (per unit) NA Minimum Lot Width NA Front Yard Setback (1), 15' (2) Side Yard Setback (1) 1-Story 7.5' 2-Story 10' 3-Story and 4 Story Over Parking 11.25' Rear Yard Setback (1) Principal Structure 20' Accessory Structure 10' (5) RPUD Boundary Setback(1) 1-Story and 2-Story Homes 15' 3-Story Over Parking and 4 Stcry Homes 25' (3) Accessory Structure 10' Preserve Area Setback Principal Structure 25' Accessory Structure or infrastructure 10' Lake Setback (4) 20' Distance Between Structures Main/Principal 1-Story 15' 2-Story 20' 3-Story 22.5' Accessory Structures 10' Maximum Height: Principal Building Zoned 40' 50° or 3 habitable stories over parking not to exceed 50' Actual 60' Accessory Building 425' Minimum Floor Area 4-5-'26-4501.000 Sq. Ft. (6) GaragclStoraac Arca (1) Buildings, structures and pavements shall not encroach into required landscaped buffers. (2)T f + ` mini• _ _ _ c - _ ' . _ - 2: -� setback.All parking spaces shall be designed so that they do not encroach into or impede any internal sidewalk. (3) All buildings with 3 habitable stories shall be set back a minimum of fifty feet from the eastern RPUD boundary and 30 feet from the northern property line. (4) Lake setbacks are measured from the control elevation established for the lake. (5) Dumpster enclosure adiacent to the ROW dedication area may be setback 5 feet from the PUD boundary. f6) 51 percent of the residential units shall be 1,200 square feet or more in size. Words s€rtuek-doh are deleted;words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page-94- 2/11/2014 9.B. B. Off Strom Parking and Loading Requirements' Parking shal4 b as required by Section 4.05.00 of the Land Development - 1:4 .4.;• _ -- • C. Open Space/Natural Habitat Preserve Area Requirements: 1. A minimum of sixty (6Q—der.: # et " ' s -sidential project. provided on site, emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible, 't- - Cee The owner/developer has agreed to provide a total of 2.21 acres of far-eserv-=,--area - .-"` - OX tJfl . - - Master Plan, . If landscape buffers are determined to be necessary adjacent to 2-- z. 2. Landscaping and buffering shall be provided per SLotion 4.06.00 af E. Architeeturai Standard •*-tins, signage, landscaping and visible architectural infrastructure shall be architecturally and aeFsthetioally unified. Said unified ..! • fences/walls to be crccted on al! of th subject parcels Landscaping and F. Siam,' Sicmc zha!! -- - craunty Lane Development Code. B. Deviations: 12 Words s.tr+tel are deleted;words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page-95- A 2/11/2014 9.B. Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.G. Parking Space Requirements, which requires that small-scale recreational amenities within multi-family projects where a majority of the units are within 300' to provide parking at 25% of the normal parking requirements for recreational facilities, to allow the small scale recreational amenity to provide one parking space for short term drop off/pick-up and one ADA compliant space. 13 Words str-tkeit-thfout0+are deleted:words underlined are added, Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page-96- 2/11/2014 9.B. SECTION IV PRESERVE AREAS PLAN 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for the Preserve Areas as shown on Exhibit"A", PUD Master Plan. 4.2 PERMITTED USES No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Passive recreational areas. 2. Hiking, and nature trails, and boardwalks. 3. Water management structures. 4. Native preserves and wildlife sanctuaries. 14 Words uck thr oug are deleted:words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page-97- 2/11/2014 9.B. SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the commitments for the development of this project. 5.2 GENERAL otherwise, the standards and specifications of they official- County Land modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, 5.;1 RPUD MASTER PLAN A. Exhibit "A", RPUD Master Plan illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed area, tract, lot or land use boundaries or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as final platting or site development plan approval. Subject to the provisions of Subsection 10.02.13E. of the Collier County Land Development Code, amendments may be made from time to time. B. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities and all common areas in the project. 5.42 SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT/MONITORING REPORT AND SUNSET PROVISION limy o plan submittal The project is pro.. 'e- • 15 Words Meek-Nhrettek are deleted:words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page-98- 2/11/2014 9.B. A. The landowners shall proceed and be governed according to the time limits pursuant to Section 10.02.130. of the Land Development Code, B. Monitoring Report: An annual monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Section 10.02.13F, of the Collier County Land Development Code. C. One entity (hereinafter the Manaaing 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 Cirrus Pointe Partners LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County 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. r's A. This project shalt bc required to meet all Co. B. Design and construction of al improvements shall—ae—sabjeet—ta compliance with appropriate oR>v4si-ons of the :oilier County Land Devc.-Apornent Cods, Section 10.02.0<, Subdivision Design and Layout and Section 10.02.03, Site Development Plans. 5. 3 WATER MANAGEMENT A. If applicabie, existing or proposed casements for Collier County d impede adequate access by B. A copy of the SFWMD Surface- Water PC:FRIiI, permit mod4fieation, or - - zz 16 Words*reek-61feet+are deleted:words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page-99- 2/11/2014 9.B. C. An excavation permit shat! be required for any proposed- lake(s) in SFWMD Rules. -DA. Lake setbacks from the perimeter of the RPUD may be reduced to twenty- five (25) feet where a six (6) foot high fence or suitable substantial barrier is erected. B. No blasting shall be permitted. E. Stormwater calculations signed and scaled by a Florida professional - - . 2- e e _ - - •- - z e- - : - . -n submittal. Ordinance No. 90 10, as-amended. 5.7-4 UTILITIES A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project shall be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier z. County Ordinance No. 04-31, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. B. This RPUD is located within the Collier County Water/Sewer District and is subject to application for andi conditions asvociated with a Sewer shall also be subject to submission a -. _ _ °. Avai'ability Capacity" from the City of Naples. CB. Although the site is entirely within the Collier County Water/Sewer District, potable water is served by the City of Naples. Even though the site contains a 4-inch force main, it shall not be used to provide service unless a hydraulic capacity report has been submitted and approved by the County Public Utilities Division. In lieu of connection to the aforementioned 4-inch force main, connection to either the '12-inch force main on Bayshore Drive or 12-inch force main on Thomasson Drive shall be preferred. 5. 5 TRAFFIC „� sc Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS), current edition. FDOT 17 Words struck thr are deleted:words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page-100- AEI 2/11/2014 9.B. Control Devices (MUTCD). current edition.. AI! other improvements shah be consistent with and as required by the Collier County Land -- - . - .ghting shall be ;; pace prier to the i-osuahriz cf the first '' - s - •_ - - __ approved or denied during the review of required subsequent site plan or amended from time to time, and with the Collier County Long Range Transportation Pl. _- t'• _• lcce than the number depicted on the RPUD Master Plan; however, no add...- —_ - . e* _ 'bored- unlace a subse F.uent-�' amendment is approved. D. Site related improvements de opposed to system related improvements) improvements shall-be-in - _ - 4-e-- 4 --prior =e the E. Road impact f - _ _ • . ___ __ r* Development Code, as amended. ccquirc a right of-wary=-per-r r G. Al; proposed m dian opening:, chaff be in accordance with tF he Collacr „-t to modify or close any media- - - - on, but are not limited to, safety, oplratiornal circulation. and roadway capacity, A. The sole point of ingress/eoress to the RPUD shall be onto Thomasson Drive, No access shall be allowed on Bayshore Drive. 18 Words struek-thredigh are deleted:words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page-101- 2/11/2014 9.B. -"N - existence cf a point of ingress, a point of egn.. All intorno; made, driveways, alley:. pathways, sidewalk:, and interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the clevelopef. Coiec County shall - 1.. - •-- - ." - - of existing County • • . - , :f way shall-be provided . If in the sole opinion of the Collier County Transportation Division, a tree signal. 3:* othe traffic control device, sign c; pavement marking and shall be paid to Collier County before the iz'AJance of tne first certificate of occupancy. Adjacent developments have not been designed to provide shared access ..pment. . .; 2- - 1-.. NB. The developer has provided Collier County with a rioht-of-wav easement alone a portion of Thomasson Drive for intersection improvements. This conveyance is recorded in Official Records Book 1090 Page 1697. Prior to approval the issuance of the ' first residential building permit, the owner shall 4eed-eve4..convey the area of the right-of-way easement to Collier County in fee simple free and clear of all encumbrances and at no cost to the County. The right-of-way easement is located at the southwest corner of the subject property to Collie:- 5...96 PLANNING '446144) 19 Words s+r-ii.el,-threttil are deleted:words underlined are added, Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page-102- 2/11/2014 9.B. f - tr -4 etopped and the Collier-County Code Enforcement Department contacted. B. The idevelo*- - *** -* - C. The developer shall pay 113 of the costs, as determined by the Bayshoro • a ' ca - _ - development plan. A. All buildings, lighting. signage, landscaping and visible architectural infrastructure shall be architecturally and aesthetically unified. Said unified architectural theme shall include: a similar architectural design and use of similar materials and colors throughout all of the buildings, signs, and fences/walls to be erected on all of the subject parcels. Landscaping and streetscape materials shall also be similar in design throughout the subject site. All roofs, except for carports. shall be peaked and finished in tile, metal, or architecturally-designed shingles (such as Timberline). The residential buildings shall be concrete or precast concrete construction. B. A homeowner's association or similar entity will be established and will be responsible for maintenance of common elements. • C. The project shall be gated and fenced, and the developer will provide each buildina with secured vehicular and pedestrian entrances. A minimum of one space per unit shall be provided below the units in the secured parking area. D. No parking spaces shall be permitted on the north side of buildings adjacent to the northern PUD boundary. E. Outdoor security cameras shall be provided within the project. F. The pool amenity shall be completed no later than the issuance of the 55th certificate of occupancy. G. Any wall or fence facing Bayshore Road or Thomasson Drive shall be required to have architectural features and finish H. The Affordable Housing Bonus Density Agreement shall be terminated upon the effective date of this PUD. 20 Words stfuek-flifeut.../4.are deleted:words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page-103- 2/11/2014 9.B. The 79 residential bonus pool units shall be null and void and returned to the density bonus pool unless a Site Development Plan has been issued and remains active for the development by the 5th year of this PUD or the BCC approves an extension of the residential density bonus units to a certain date. J. Within seven 7) days of the closino for each unit, the Developer or successors, shall remit $2.962.96 to Collier County. However. within 5 years from the date of approval of this PUD, a minimum of 50 percent of the $320.000 grant shall be repaid to Collier County, and no later than 10 years from the date of approval of this PUD 100 percent of the $320.000 (want shall be repaid to Collier County. unless re-payment occurs sooner through the per unit sale. This payment shall fully satisfy the repayment of the former $320,000 grant which was issued for acquisition of the subject property for development of affordable housing. 547 ENVIRONMENTAL - z to review 3f+4 approval by the Environmental Services Staff. '4"44 a, Areas -that fulfill the native vegetation retention standards and criteria of the Growth Management Plan shall be set aside as preserves All conservation/preservation areas shall be designated as preserves on all • z- - , -- II-• , -41 be recorded on the plat with protective covenants po or similar to Section 701.06 of the . - - - - • - - a in the event the project does not require platting, all conservation areas shall be recorded as conservation easements t t t a.-- C Buffers shall be provided around any wetlands, extending at least fifteen ( .. . a` --3 a- :4 • Where natura! buffers arc hat possible. structural buffers sha l! be provided a - - . Rules and be subject to review and approval by the Environmental -a - 21 Words stiveli4hcettit are deleted:words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page-104- 2/11/2014 9.B. C. An exotic vegetation removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic free) shall be submitt te Environmental Services Staff for review and approval prior to final site development plan/construction plan approval. This plan E. A Preserve Area Management Plan shall be provided to Environmenta! Servi cc Staff for approve: prior to site/construction plan approval identifying _22 - a 2,1 . .. —axat16—epeGes, fire management, and maintenance. Al; agency permits skali be submitted prior to final piaticonstructien plan ..22 2. — 2.- • -• 22---- .. 22 G. This RPUD shall c2--2 - - '2ns of the Collier County Land Development Code and appropriate environmental sections of the • 4."- - -- -- - ------ approval. - • e - tt 2- 3pe&iCS shall be submitted to Environmental Services Staff for review and approval prior to site development plan approval. All Category invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant annuai removal of these plant; (in perpetuity sha , - • .t." the property owner. A minimum of 25% of the on-site native vegetation must be retained. 7.25± acres of native vegetation exists requiring preservation of 1.81± acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 1.81 acres of preserve areas are required to be provided on-site. emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible, as described in Section 3.05.07 of the Land Development Code. Words stfueli-thr-euen are deleted:words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2O14 Packet Page-105- 2/11/2014 9.B. N W 6w ac> z• F. I�il W ON• NiL r in - .. t'w ¢ NW ¢2"O W Q 7 d < c Ci = u R L• w cc, C¢UT C' O 7 N = _ w• s� y i 1 II 'op Urt�.� LLI : z - 1 1( r ¢ o O " .,.�• I ^-.._._:.__,.: : ' Q m O 2 1 w' ! I 137 m G• w s ''��.= .1..-J �i S 2 o 5 Y z_ :-.• x w L., 1 Wz y I;yy oE �s�z a v <,- w aw C U a o y lc 4 . l I W W 7 _ a joy o r a` f` 00 ; I � [ 4 1';l C4ff N JF• , 4 N I , Ii y z L O W 0 O Q r �� I 14 y� ` = _ x _' Z �i1 ywwoa zaso c 1'4' J + z ,III oaNF ¢azz sz `� I / -O 'OWIU t J/�� , R• '[ W d 0 J W z i S 1 p 0 1:11'.'1 G d .w N 0 N 0 0 W 1 , t 36 v y o¢a�a "jz� W(J W sl W W 8 y. E 7 11 -A, W>„ Et stW i ”- ` 3C` Q, i742:18 N C W r \\! I dQQ S W Y 1 gN00 w rKSm �" r 4 .F :b y : - j , f rz t' W E { .4.25 8a r= , i! � m'c l M Ip . $``'' , 1 .-1 1 1 W i t I - y -j�- t O 4 y 1 VW N;� E' R U) n .al I ws` �'-- �7 3'A 2 w 1 '; 33 LL a W s K 1 Vt W recd w ii ! y o w .:-r 5 ;2.,I I w u 1 _Q22, o 4 N«' ~w 1 1514 O W U q nd w M1 :-.2.4< Q q v a- N« m .�, .-on,s s.z _ c w (M/s,031 a 0 �OvOH A 773)if 3A1HO 3HOHSA V8 W Q 5 O W 4 W J .. __-._-_ __...— .- Q 1 �..._.-_._..__�,......._._._ rte- �M� azW 2i u`� • -.: ch L,`- a wCw f, N V a C C)O-' _ C 55 0< C.0 Ur W .- ,- W W> [r o tU�. ,,,=L...- V:00 ZD� h-' W al li W C G � "� on canes o a Packet Page -106- 2/11/2014 9.B. This space for recording AMENDED AND RESTATED REEMENT AUTHORIZING AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUS DENSITY BONUS 6 i" ,ING COVENANTS AN RESTIM a PROPERTY \\ d THIS AM *ED AI(D Err GRMEN is rn., as of the 22 day of , 108 tQy ar(Sw)- • s J. ds (the "Developer) and the Collier C unty Board y Commissio .-rs " mission"), collectively, the "Parties," and replaces the b'rg idinal Apreep. -, t i its iretv. pz, 0,6 = -4 a • Cr," OC> C.Jr1 b-sof C A The Developer owns - act of rea '..,,,operty described in Exhibit "A" attached -1 <=› hereto and incorporated hr. n (The "Property"). . the Developers intent to construct a maximum of 108 ,°-sidential units (the "Units") a °- density of 10.89 units per gross acre on Property. The gross acreage of Prop4.: 4, is 9.92 acres. The number o 4:ffordable-workforce housing units constructed • Developer shall be 32 • , representing 30 forty (401 percent of the total number \residential Units _to roved in the development. or 56,4 •ercent of the a•.roved bonus u • , Page 1 01 31 4/12/06 underlined text is added,suFeali-thcetigh text is deleted A Packet Page-107- 2/11/2014 9.B. In order to construct the Units, the Developer must obtain a density bon from the . •mmission for the Property as provided for in the Collier County Affor• . .le Housing De ity Bonus Ordinance No. 90-89, now codified by Ordinance I• • 1, as Land Develop '' nt Code (LDC) § 2.06.00 et seq., which density bonus • n only be granted by the Co' ission and utilized by the Developer in accordanc ith the strict limitations and applic-, ility of said provisions. C. The Corn . sion is willing to grant a density bo .s to the Developer authorizing the constructio ._of 78 bonus Units on the Pc,perty, if the Developer agrees to construct affordable' orkforce and •a• Units as :'edified in this Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, in - 1WoC® - - •e .val and grant of the density bonus of 7.89 units per ac - t r ted by the 0-:.': "41-r and the benefits conferred thereby on the Property, a d for o fl .:,-•• - • t , ._ � � uabi- co sideratian, the receipt and AIL sufficiency of which are er:.'} a use, f -low r and the Commission hereby covenant and agr-te"aa. • oor • -4 1. Recitals. Th s.-.ove Reds ar '"i. - :n, • ect and are incorporated c, herein by reference. rlf~ �-' Q . .rte 2. Developer Ag m ree s f • hereby agrees that co. Y 9 fie it shall �,• construct up to _32 44 e units, not to ex -ed 40 % of the approved c residential density as affo able-workforce housing units, .ich Units shall be sold in o accordance with the t s and conditions of this Agreement d as specified by the "' attached Appendice A & B, Exhibits A, B, & C, and Appendix C, ich Appendices are incorporated by Terence herein and which constitute a part of this A .eement. a. a following provisions shall be applicable to the affor dale, workforce and gap U Defined terms: In the event of a conflict between terms as defini in the LD •r in Ordinance No 90-89, Section 4, the definitions of the LDC will control en - 'lying or interpreting this Agreement. In addition to these defined terms and t ndcrlined text is added,smtek-44etigh.text is deleted Page 2 of 31 _ Packet Page-108- . 2/11/2014 9.B. . •plicability of LDC § 2.06.04 "Phasing" shall mean: (a) the phased construction bui , . gs or structures in separate and distinct stages as shown on a PUD master an, subdiv on master plan or site development plan; or (b) in developments wher-..hased constructer • is not depicted on a PUD master plan, subdivision master =n or site developmen -Jan, the construction of buildings or structures in a clean .refined series of starts and fine- w es that are separate and distinct within the develop, -nt. (2) Media= Income. For the purposes of this Agreemen- the median income of the area as defines by the U.S. Department of Housing - ''d Urban Development (HUD) shall be the then rent median income for the Na '°-s Metropolitan Statistical Area, established periodica b -t i Al is . •es , n the Federal Register, as adjusted for family size as s t an the tables atta .,f-. -ereto as Appendix A, Exhibit C, which Exhibit shall be a us e• t��_o ti - j i = n a or once with any adjustments that are authorized by H D o'r - y s • �,➢e event that HUD ceases a es to publish an established m dial •a. .. i:, -,.•zsai•► • - F ies hereto shall mutually agree to another reason .ie, nd comra. - � t o• omputing adjustments in pzi median income. ✓�.J 4 .- 0 p, _ NN GK› (3) Eligibility and Qi ttfi r tiorr R4. .,_r. Family income eligibility is a three-step process: 1) subm teal of an application y a prospective Owner; 2) C") verification of family housin unit provided and ° f� p under the afl'�rdable, workforce, and gap � housing density bonus program prior to being qualified a - he appropriate level of income (very low, low,-meciefate workforce, or nap income) xiNaccordance with this Section; 3) certification of eligible Owner by the - :-- - - - •- Housing and Human Series Department. The veloper shall be responsible for qualifying Owners accepting applicati , verifying income and obtaining income certification for all E .rdablej workfor te, and qap units in the subject development All applications, forms an: ether t doc 'entation required by this Agreement shall be provided to '-- • _ - . err - u mined text is added,struck-t:#ret►git text is deleted Page 3 of 31 Packet Page-109- 2/11/2014 9.B. } Housing and Human Services Department. Qualification by the Developer of a pe ons as an eligible Owner family shall be subject to review and approv in accor nce with the monitoring and enforcement program in LDC §§ 2.06 - and 2.06.06, "°.spectiveiy. - , • - - - - - - - (a) Application. • pat. ?i a °`• y to the developer, owner, manager, or agent to quail G - low7 yvork orcq =e .e family for the purpose of owning and occupying an -ffor:_ 0: - 0. r ing : nit 'pursuant to the affordable- workforce housing densi "b•► R , TAO -- -ry •pplication for affordable- workforce housing .unit s atf; . . : '.'.-�: ;� e _•- - . .• and—Housing and Human S,6, ices De'=rt -n N s :2138-ii in Appendix B, Exhibit A. attached to this Agreement a-`c ip�.* (-.rated b A efe ce' erein. (b) Income Verificatio rdific .is o affordable-workforce housing unit in the development shall - sold whose househ d income has not been verified and certified in accordance ith this Agreement and LDC 2.06.05. o (c) Income V. , ication. The Developer shall ob�i�n written verification from the otential occu a °� P p f (including the entire household) to verifyall regular sources of income (includin• e entire household). The most recent year federal income tax return for the • ential occupants (including the entire household) ma be used for the purpose olicome verification, attached to the affordable-workforce hog applicant Income Verification form, including a statement to release information, ° ccupant verifi.- ion of the return, and a signature block with the date of applicatio The v-,r ication shall be valid for up to one hundred eighty (180) days prior to occupy deriined text is added,stwelc-}xeugh text is deleted Page 4 of 31 Packet Page-110- 2/11/2014 9.B. •on expiration of the 180 day period, the information may be verbally updated fro, the riginal sources for an additional 30 days, provided it has been documented • e perso •repaying the original verification. After this time, a new verification f•, " must be comp -d. The affordable-workforce housing Applicant income Verif tion form shall be pro •ed to the _ - _ - _ - - Housing and H an Services Department as ' own in Appendix B, Exhibit B, attached to thi- Agreement and incorporated by ref- -nce herein. (d) Income f,edification. Upon receipt of the Preli r�'ary Application for an affordable-workforce hou' g unit and Applicant lncoine Verification form, the dff Developer shall require that = i r-a p •florbe executed by the potential occupant (including the en 'r- -,.usehold) prior .411 •• upancy of the affordable: workforce housing unit by th. o -+.n . ce 'tic. ion shall assure that the potential occupant has aa. - . i, ,� c•;re wh ch qualifies the potential occupant as an eligible fa • • i •ab.- ... •roe housing unit under the affordable-workforce hou.'t density/bon : Y on iL ••ra he affordable-workforce Housing Applicant Income ee.i aton form •-' • provided by the €iRansial Admi4istra -aed--Housing and ": 1 JJe ' artment as shown in Appendix B, • Exhibit C, is attached to this pement and is incorpor: .-d by reference herein. -� Random i ``ection of files containing requtned documentation to verify o occupancy in accordanig with this Agreement and LDC § 2.0.00, may be conducted by the '•_ •_'_ e;,. - - ` ° - -= Housing and Human Servi s Department upon reasonable notice ` (4) Annual Progress and Monitoring Report, The Developer doll provide the Housing and Human Services Departmen n annual progresyfind monitoring report regarding the delivery of affordable-workforc thousing units roughout the period of their construction and occupancy. The annual p • ess a monitoring report shall, at a minimum, provide any information reasonably requi del-lined text is added,sokiek-tlipenh text is deleted Page 5 of 31 Packet Page-111- 2/11/2014 9.B. insure compliance with LDC § 2.06.00, or subsequent amendments thereto. T, rep, , shall be filed on or before September 30 of each year and the report s be submi • by the Developer to the a : •_ Housing anc. uman Services la -•artment. Failure to complete and submit the monitoring y,`aort to the - ,- . - - - .- - -: Housing and Human Services Departmen ,ithin sixty(60) days from the d date shall result in a penalty of up to fifty dollars ($50.00) per day unless a written exte .ion not to exceed thirty (30) days is requ ed prior to expiration of the sixty (60) day su,- ission deadline. No more than o such extension may be granted in a single year. Al (5) Occu•anc Res "'. '• a lie rda• - -orkforce unit in any building or Iiii 441' structure on the Property shatl(bt,, cupied by the I er, any person related to or affiliated with the Develop , o by ' ger. 3. Densi B nu• ,,•s -4(7 „ •o . ay acknowledges that the Developer has met all re I p cTlj`-, .��• . � �- '•t all - .}_ - e� sij[,�/� bonus in addition to ♦e d bonus, the base residential densi s, 3 its per S p 6-therefore granted a density o I MI bonus of 7.89 density bon ”s per acre, for .�. • :ensity (total = density bonus .sue c� units per acre X gross acreage yo t _ 0i: i 4- -c, pursuant to LDC § 2.06.00 c°_,; The Commission further agrees that the Developer m construct thereon, in the aggregate a maximum n#Gmber of 108 units on the Properovided the Developer is able to secure building permit(s)from Collier County. 4..x::. 4. -,,Comission Agreement. During the term of this' ►Agreement, the Commission dt:ting through the _ . _ _ _ _ Housing_ and Human Services Department or its successor(s) covenants and agrees to prepareand make available"`to the Developer any general information that it possesses regarding come limit 'tions and restrictions which are applicable to the affordable, workforce, (Nap i it1F 5. Violations and Enforcement underlined text is added,stwekF-through text is deleted Page 6 of 31 Packet Page-112- _, _ 2111/20149.B. a. Violations. It shall be a violation of this Agreement and LD 2.. 00 to sell or occupy, py, or attempt p to sell or occupy, an affordable-workforce Nosing unit p ` ided under the affordable-workforce housing density bonus program 'kept as specifics ` ,. permitted by the terms of this Agreement reement; or to knowingly iv"a false or 9 gy ,9 misleading i . .rmation with respect to any information required or requested by the _ _ . :- - - _ _ -: Housing and Human Services Department or by any other persons pursuant the authority which is delegated to them by!.DC § 2.06.00. Collier County or its designe .shall have full power to enforce the terms of this Agreement. The method of enforcern- ,t for a breach or violation of this Agreement shall be at the option of the Commission by rimi.:t e" tv -A C a- suant to the provisions of Section 125.69, Florida Statutes, orb 3`�-,nforcement as - t'. by law. b. Notic of Vi& Lion . .7;0=R En orc ent Board Proceedings. Whenever it is determin d a 1: S : ;l a."rn s is Agreement or of LDC § 2.06.00, that should be e fort-• a- 4. b.- .e.e Eilf. met Board then Notice a office of o Violation shall be issued 'r.."' ji ent by the y fate o rtment by certified return- 2 receipt requested U.S. Mail, •r • '-delive th: - ':ono .� d'-delivery or developer in violation. c...� - c The Notice of Violation shall con-i® ,, . -nts for such Notices. u, c. Certificate"of Occupancy. In the event that the Developer fails to 'c-' x maintain the affordable-workforce units in accordance Ath this Agreement or LDC § ..s, 2.06.00, as amended, at the option of the Commission, builging permits or certificates .4=3, of occupancy, as applicable, may be withheld for any futu e; planned or otherwise approved unit located or to be located upon the Property until the estire project is in full 4.compliance wi this Agreement and with LDC § 2.06.00, as amended l 6. Assignment by Commission. The Commission may assig to Il or part of its obligations under this Agreement to any other public agency having juris` ction over the Property p rty provided that it gives the Developer thirty (30) days advance writt notice thereof. The Developer may not assign, delegate or otherwise transfer all or part its /underlined text is added,suoel.-thraugh text is deleted Page 7of31 Packet Page-113- 2/11/2014 9.B. uties, obligations, or promises under this Agreement to any successor in interest to th- Pr. •erty without the express written consent of the Commission, which consent ma se withh- • for any reason whatsoever. Any attempt to assign the duties, obligati, S. or promises nder this Agreement to any successor in interest to the Property , hout the express wriff- consent of the Commission as required by this Section s be void ab initio. 7. Seve . If any section, phrase, sentence or portis of this Agreement is for any reason held 'valid or unconstitutional by any court of smpetent jurisdiction, such portion shall be dee sed a separate, distinct, and inde -ndent provision, and all other provisions shall remain e ',e-vr&Rbilibtaigj $ - he " .rties, 8. Notice. Any no '.7-z•tesired or require. - given under this Agreement shall be in writing and sh/all t th- - a- • ; -re. or shall be sent by mail, postage prepaid, to the Part- figt 7rif - cp To the Comm :i• : •*Hier • p:=1 °using . • n Services Department .4=.• f e - e• P - 1133 itia4 OS. iami Trail, Building H, Suite 211 C.-71 , bride .111204 _ To the Develop- . James J. Fields 15544 Monterosso L- e #2 4=› Naples, Florida 34110 With cop a: Any Party may c, .nge the address to which notices are to be sent I notifying the other Party of - ch new address in the manner set forth above. 9. Authority to Monitor. The Parties hereto acknowledge that th Collier County "' • - Housing and Human Services Department $ its desis ee, shall have the authority to monitor and enforce the Developer's obligatio u, eritned text 3s added,struelt-thfeagii text is deleted Page 8 of 31 Packet Page-114- _ _ a __ _ 2/11/2014 9.B. - •reunder. 10. Indemnify. The Developer hereby agrees to protect, defend, indemn' and ho . Collier County and its officers, employees, and agents harmless from :nd r against an and all claims, penalties, damages, losses and expenses, prof:-sional fees, including, ithout limitation, reasonable attorney's fees and all costs litigation and judgments a .ng out of any claim, willful misconduct or neglige act, error or omission, or liability • any kind made by Developer, its agents or - ployees, arising out of or incidental to the -rformance of this Agreement. 11. Covenants. Th Developer agrees that all of i obligations hereunder shall constitute covenants, resin. '..s tfol& a r whicr hall run with the land and shall be binding upon the/et.•- ' and again ' , person then having any ownership interest at any time :n A ♦' - x e ,n 1 th Agreement is terminated in accordance with Sectt n , •_ • • '4 _ Fr- ie agree that if Developer P g �' transfers or conveys the P q -�,,,r• - R ► - '.. so .... Developer shall have no further obligation hereund- .. d any pers., se r' . o j` ' rce the terms hereof shall =. look solely to Developer's su E- e in I' Brest for t ,- ormance of said obligations. .�. c.._. 12. Recording. This Ag :- f sta .r, or.. • at County's expense in the co. official records of Collier County, ' orida. 13. Entire A.seem: 't. The Parties hereto agree hat this Agreement 0 N constitutes the entire Agre ent between the Parties hereto and s -Il inure to and be binding upon their resp=;'tine heirs, successors, and assigns. 14. Termi►. tion. Each affordable, workforce, or gap housing it shall be restricted to rem and be maintained as the required affordable, workforce .nd •a. housing as pr, "ided in the LDC §2.06.04. 16. Modification. This Agreement shall be modified or amended only by - written agreement of both Parties. 16. Discrimination. u lined text is added,snack-through text is deleted Page 9 of 31 Packet Page-115- 2/11/2014 9.B. a. The Developer agrees that neither it nor its agents sh- disc ' mate against any owner or potential owner because of said owners race, *, or, religion, .ex, national origin, familial status, or handicap. b. When the Developer advertises, sells or maintains th- ordable- workforce ho 'ng unit, it must advertises sell, and maintain the s- e in a non- discriminatory ma er and shall make available any relevant inform. an to any person who is interested in p+ hasing such affordable-workforce housin. nit. c. The gleveloper agrees to be responsibi- or payment of any real estate commissions and f- .s for which it is liable in e purchase and sale of affordable-workforce units. CO e. The aff. _ , orkforce hou-s • .its shall be intermixed with, and not segregated from, t' e ,ar'!! • nits th development. f. The q . 1'1* , "j. d\design of the affordable workforce, and gap housi,9� ''t " - 1 +=me�, -� rate dwelling units in the development. All physical ities i e dwell u it. - described in item number Pzi seven (7) of the Developer Aq E : '.n for affordabl - once housing Density Bonus __ shall be the same for mar ai-E a -ffo ,able-workforce units. For o© developments where const ion takes place in more th. ; one phase, all physical +c amenities as described ` ' item number seven (7) of the D- -doper Application for o Affordable-Workforce ousing Density Bonus shall be the same in .,th the market rate units and the affor :ble-workforce units in each phase. Units in a s , equent phase may contain di rent amenities than units in a previous phase so long as ' ; amenities for market r. e units and affordable, workforce, and gap units are the same wi in each phase a provided that in no event may a market rate unit or affordable-workfor unit in an phase contain physical amenities less than those described in the Develop. ' • • ication. 17. Phasing. The percentage of affordable-workforce housing units to which underlined text is added,atfaek-th€o gh text is deleted Page 10 of 31 Packet Page-116- 2/11/2014 9.B. - Developer has committed for the total development shall be maintained in eac pha - and shall be constructed as part of each phase of the development o e Prope Developer commits to 39 40 percent affordable-workforce housing its for this projec. with 39 40 percent of the units in each phase consisting of ordable- workforce un'' 18. Dish •sure. The developer shall not disclose to perso other than the potential buyer or I- *der of the particular affordable-workforce sing unit or units, which units in the level.*meat are designated as affordable-w• once housing units. 19. Consistency. This Agreement and authori • development shall be consistent with the Growth -n. "` �rQ �� an, development regulations of ' Collier County that are in eff- C. e time of develo. . . Subsequently adopted laws and policies shall apply to/hi * • e . • •. e •ev opment to the extent that they are not in conflict wi t r- lifivi!.401• •7--w rkforce housing units and the amount of affords•; -00 - ., > -.*_ +•" + .ty anus approved for the development. `!� J G7 ::, , .._ 20. Affordable-Wo o . .using Den ' ,B s Development Agreement. This Agreement is a distinct and -: o ; + ,�- from "development agreements" as defined by Section 163,3220,-' la. Stat., as amended. 'z' c-) 21. Preapplication '' Developer has executed and submitted to the c= Development Services D- oartment the Developer Application Affordable-Workforce ' Housing Density Ban .., a copy of which is attached to this Agre-`, ent as Appendix C and incorporated b reference herein. 22. G emir)* Law. This Agreement shall be governed by an, construed in accordance th the laws of the State of Florida. 23,`` Further Assurances. The Parties hereto shall execute and tho.ver, in recor• •le form if necessary, any and all documents, certificates, instruments, .nd ag ements which may be reasonably required in order to effectuate the intent of t eriined text is added,stFaelt-tl co4gh text is deleted Page 11 of 31 Packet Page-117- 2/11/2014 9.B. 44) reement. Such documents shall include but not be limited to any docume req ted by the Developer to exhibit that this Agreement has terminat- • in accord- •ce with the provisions of paragraph 14 above. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, -- ri .`used this First Amendment to Agreement to be executed a • ' day and year fir-,ab. e written. ATTEST: Be RD F CO N COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT 1,;. 3OCK,`Cle a ;l 477, sU LORIDA t ...► .�. .,,r.... ' ,..,.t",. t / 4,0$' p By: T 'f CHAIR N x, Bilge App • ed as to -4 rm and legal sufficiency: f t, „.. Assistant!ounty Attorney underlined text is added,sFfue4i-thfougt text is deleted Page 12 of 31 Page-118- .. , . _ - 2/11/2014 9.B. DEVELOPER: I s itnesses: AP ...b 4110 lat. * A AP B 1 t 1 ri II i a i I I I r J 4 • J . • * -s Witness Prilted Na ' I :A" g tokii4 v:' (11U-KA-Ir/v- • , IP rfi-er , ski Att___ . _ a rc , By: A tr it ut 4 1 (1 te... Witness . Printed Name . _ °I■ CC I) I, . Ck R 0 , i.(4-t---- 011111'1/417--1-4-Ci Q -C1- f. Ul CO It-pf-lil STATE OF FLORIDA .1 VER C 0 0- COUNTY OF COLLIER ) The foregoing First Ame dm-n to it".z.F4f,-4 .t -41 Tine! A ordable, Workforce, and Gap Housing Density &wits •nd Im.* ,,g 1. aye ant - d Restrictions On Real \, Property was aknof'01.-d . b 'o - . '.. , - ' 0,,S as ( c`,"-N ,I..A 11 0- 4 ..... n .11- , 1-- ---t...—› whNb, Cii ., .0-rsonall 1 1 to me or has produced ; cc. as e . 'nkfir TglelPIP' L.", •i ein-. 'a , G-1 WITNESS my hand a : official seal thi -.4.1 day o , -- a 64 (=> 2008. , at> 1 16.1...i..: 0 VritiLL N. .ry Public My Commission E;.ires: . REBECCA PARATDRE 1 • f.: am My COMMISSION t D0417346 . -,,,,,'•- &mow Ihru Notary Pubic Unannorin 4 A / r..4nderitned text is added,sifoek.4lifeagii text is deleted $ Page 13 of 31 / Packet Page-119- 2/11/2014 9.B. EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION of Lot 103, NAPLES GROVES AND TRUCK COMPANY'S LITTLE FARMS NO. ...,rding to the plat thereof,as recorded in Nat Book I,at Page 27-A,of the Public Records ,f Coll County,Florida. COo- , 1/4.) • 0 .11' Ter C=1 0 PC, • ytt, ei:u• C‘} OGe C—St C=s, a•r=.• (=> underlined text is added, -- - text is deleted Page 14 of 31 Packet Page-120- . . . ... 2/11/2014 9.B. APPENDIX A, EXHIBIT A NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS/MONTHLY BASE RENTS NUMBER OF UNITS BASE RENT Single Multi Single Multi Family Family Family Family GAP INCO 4E (81-150% M Efficienc 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom -VIER 3 Bedroom V1 4 Bedroom A 11111. TOTAL ft/1"i 0 1p 1 WORKFORCE INCOME — (61-80% MI) c) Efficiency 'eP 1 Bedroom A 0)., aX=.• An& I gC1\ CX> L71 2 Bedroom 0 C) 3 Bedroom 44 4=> cx> 4 Bedroom 0 TOTAL 0 44 LOW INCOME (51%-60% Ml) Efficiency * 1 Bedr,$m 2B room Bedroom 21 underli • text is added.stakek-44feifeii text is deleted Page 15 of 31 Packet Page -121- 2/11/2014 9.B. • :edroom TO L 0 24- VERY LOW I COME (50%OR LESS +I) Efficiency I Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 r 4 Bedroom 1J . CO1 TOTAL Base residential d sit a • - t:.i opine•t 3 units/acre. (2) Gross acreage 4.92 . � l (3) Maximum numb r o . •ra iii . 79111 s' T nsi ty bonus units allowed in this development p ua to LD d ec (r x. .00, 7 nits. (4) Gross residential • :'�tht I' ent(`' •di `d (fordable-workforce housing density bonus unit'`}-'\10.$9 uni : acre. (5) Percentage of affo .. work , rce housin:' its aged by the developer(as a � r; percent of the total n b- is in the deve'. . . -n 30 40 % '" C ' • c=> t' v� underlined text is added,stfuek-ti r—trgit text is deleted Page 16 of 31 Packet Page-122- 2/11/2014 9.B. APPENDIX A,EXHIBIT B AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS RATING SYSTEM LD § 2.06.03, provides for calculation of a density bonus for develope pledging to construct : "•,dable-workforce units within their development. Included in thi , 'bit B are instructions fo . d the tables with which to calculate the density bonus for a , -cular project. Exhibit C cont. the current median income and acceptable rents for w and very low, workforce, and gap ,come households in Collier County. The affordable- `•rkforce housing density bonus rating system all be used to determine the amount of the affor••;.le-workforce housing density bonuses `ich may be granted for a development based on hous..,old income leve , . ; _ : : :-: : _ : -,: ";• ".7,i, + , _ . ... Z. - ----- t . -. , - .. - - - • -. , and percentage of affordable work ce an• :'s. -- : units , the development. To use the ma affordable-workforce housing den ` ,-hor1i : 'I,:'s tie, .les A awl-13, below, shall be used. Tables A a I-8, shall be review i it: t• spdated if ne No f.` ,n an annual basis by the Board of County Commissioners or its d- i . First, choose the household incorn 1:- .e ( :,.4. -, lo , : very low, lew—workforce, or gap) of the affordable-work or or g .T j.p.�e "fir he uevelopment, awe-type-of Z ". r _. . .. •: ° t. -• - - ' Next, determin e .ercent of that type of ti affordable-workforce hou- g unit(s) proposed in the development co `,ared to the total number o of dwelling units in t• s development. From this determination, Tas A will indicate the maximum number o 'esidential dwelling units ner gross acre that may ,- added to the base density. These ad.'Tonal residential dwelling units per gross acre are the m• imum affordable- workforce housi „`density bonus (AWHDB) available to that development. D. elopments with percentages of. ordable-workforce housing units which fall in between the perc- :es shown on Table B A sh receive an affordable-workforce housing density bonus equal the to . of the two percentage y-"i lies between plus l/10th of a residential dwelling unit per gross ac for each additiona '`percentage of affordable-workforce housing rental units in the developm . For example a development which has 24% of its total residential dwelling units as affo °..le_ work rce housing units, and which has an affordable housing density bonus rating of"four' ill k... rec-r.e an affordable-workforce housing density bonus (AWHDB) of 4.4 residential dwell • s per gross acre for the development. derlined text is added,stfiac-ii-tkfeeg1 text is deleted Page 17 of 31 Packet Page-123- 2/11/2014 9.B.•L - - - - . s .. . - . . -. . ..... . . - . .. _ .c.. .. .. - _.. _ .. _ , - . m . . ... _ .._ development, no event shall the affordable-workforce housing density bonus ceed eight (8) dwelling units p. gross acre. ♦ /. 4 ECO.CILI v„,„ 41E Cg °° a) 0 I. underlined text is added,stfuek—throh text is deleted Page 18 of 31 Packet Page-124- 2/11/2014 9.B. 1 APPENDIX A. EXHIBIT B AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS RATING SYSTEM Please calc i ate your density bonus in the space provided below. Attac- additional pages if necessary. TABLE A: AFFORDABLE-WORKFOR HOUSING D SITY BONUS RATING (prior table delete. current table follows] 1 MAXIMUM ALL S ABLE DENSITY BONUS BY PER r NT OF DEVELOPMENT DESIGN. ED AS AFFORDABLE-WOR ••RCE HOUSING Household R CO, Income 0 40% 0 0, 0 90% Product �%o median) 10% . �j o io 4010 ,,�*� .0% 70 ro 80% 90!o 100% t..) 81-150% ,0 \ Gap MI* ** VP; � 1 6 t 6 6 6 n/a (GaP) 61-80% �"� A- Workforce MI* al 8 8 fti ' 8 8 8 8 p 51-60% -- Low MI 3 4.00- 6 8 8 8 8 8 c__ 50% �' -. ' C LYN Very Low or less 4 :`5 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 2 MI ' -- *Owner-occupied only Q **May only be used in con'unction with at least 10%at or b, .w 80%MI Total Maximum Allow •le Density=Base Density+ Affordabl-.Workforce Housing Density Bonus. In no event shall th.u'" . imum gross density allowed exceed 16 uni •er acre. u •erlined text is added,stfruek-tkfetagh text is deleted Page 19 of 31 Packet Page-125- 2/11/2014 9.B. APPENDIX A,EXHIBIT C COME AND RENT LEVELS FOR THE LOW AND MODERATE INCO■ . Pursuant ► apter 74, Section 74-402 (a)(1); Collier County Code of Laws and Ordi"l: ces, moderate in erne is 61% to 80%of the median income, low income is 51%to 60°. of the median inco and very low income is less than 50% of the median income. j MEDIAN INCOME 2007 $63,300 Naples,MSA(Collier County) NUMBER OF BERS IN FAMILY Jprior table deleted urrent table follows' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 150% 73,350 83,700 94,2 '4 t-- iq,Uti` 104 121,500 129,900 138,150 80% 39,100 44,650 ; -e° r a I I i 64,750 69,250 73,700 60% 29,340 33,480 8`0 41,880 4i8 48,600 51,960 55,260 50% 24,450 27,900 3 e e 4,900 47,711 40,500 43,300 46,050 35% 17,115 19,530 •:i 2• 30 26,390 8,350 30,310 32,235 25% 12,225 13,951 •. ' ��: t 2 ,250 21,650 23,025 fil kahl l' ‘ &'-' • *II 'OE �� ::� � The Florida Housing Finance Co ..t:, 4- FHFC) s lcukt " is to use in the State Apartment 'x'' P w Incentive Loan(SAIL)and the Low- o�i' "..- t.g°Tax Credit(L1HTC)programs_ The rents given below are based on 204' data ., .�. tility costs are provided from the County's Section 8 Rental Assis ,, ce Program which is a. inistered by the Collier County G:' Housing Authority. - HOUSI* COSTS BASED ON 30% F• LY INCOME 1prior table deleted,current table fo 1 wsj ONE TWO THREE FOUR BE• "OOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM U. T UNIT , UNIT NIT 150% $1,961 $2,355 $2,720 $3, = 4 80% $1,046 $1,256 $1,451 $1,6 60% $785 $942 $1,089 $1,215 50% $654 $785 $907 $1,012 f35' . $458 $549 $635 $708 $327 I $392 $453 $506 nderlined text is added,strttek-threatl,text is deleted Page 20 of 31 Packet Page -126- , - 1, , 7 , a■ ,.. ..,... , .64 , ... .,... . _ 2/11120149.B. UTILITY ALLOWANCES ONE B/R TWO B/R THREE B/R FOUR B ' OCATION UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT Naples . d Coastal Collier 4, •unty 71.00 91.00 128.00 6.00 lmmokalee ..,d East of Everglades B d. 67.00 106.00 148.00 173.00 Golden Gate 96.00 144.00 186 'I 211.00 YOU M i .T DEDUCT UTILITIES TO CALCU , TE NET RENTS. ,1z, C Ou .„.t..- 44,71 0 fy ') ,c) ..- .P. C...> r'SC)C- CX> (....ri It C.1-9%-s—' 71.=1 CI '•''' C=> ).---• ). ..8::a. underlined text is added, ruck through text is deleted Page 21 of 31 Packet Page-127- 2/11/2014 9.B. APPENDIX B,EXHIBIT A P LIMINARY APPLICATION FOR AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING UN Dates upancy Desired: Date of Application: Ann. Of Sec. Deposit. Your N. Race/National Origin: Handicap: Yes o— Co-Tenant . e Race/National Origin: Handicap: Yes No Present Address. Street City State Zip Telephone No. Name of Landlord How Long at thi • ddress: Landlord's Address: Street City State Telepho o. If you have resided at your prese *.- - -ss than =r"4 Y . .e state previous address: Street City ►: - ta ---z?i. el ho e No Name of Previous Landlord Street City S e c‘::5-- Telephone No. APPLICANT: ,s,. ° Present Employers Name d ° c_r. Address and Telephone No. ►b G] How long with Present Employ, Job Title c:› Gross Salary: Hourly$ eekly$ Every 2 Weeks$ Monthly$ Social Security Number Birth Date Previous Employers +; e Address and Telep,+ne No. How long with ' evious Employer Job Title CO-TEN• Present r'`ployers Name Addre.: and Telephone No. Ho, long with Present Employer: Job Title u erlined text is added, -t#weugl text is deleted Page 22 of 31 Packet Page-128- _ 2/11/2014 9.B. i .ss Salary: Hourly$ Weekly$ Every 2 Weeks $ Monthly$ i Sac •:1 Security Number Birth Date Previo, . Employers Name Address . I Telephone No. How long w ■ Previous Employer Job Title NAMES OF ALL 0 WILL OCCUPY APARTMENT BIRTH DATE SEX AGE SOLI SECURITY 1. 2. 3. PERSONAL REFERENC (Not Relatives) 1. Name: Address: How Long Known: 2. Name: Address: How Long Known: Alp ant 17 a n. C*ti 0 r OW 'r•.-—i) "'P,4. , ' -4k) ,,,0 f - - f}, ECT CO. CI 0 I underlined text is added,straek-tbre:gix text is deleted Page 23 of 31 Packet Page-129- _ . , 2/11/2014 9.B. APPENDIX B, EXHIBIT B AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING APPLICANT INCOME VERIFICATIO Date: Applicant' ame: Social Security Number Co-Tenant's e: : Social Security Number Present Address: Str,• -t City State Zip elephone No. I hereby make appli••tion for a single family unit at I hereby declare and re al all of my sources of income. I am aware that to leave . , omit or fail to report my assets or fo s of income from pensions, ■ stocks, bonds, real propert rent, sale or ownership is a fra .ulent act punishable by law. Knowingly falsifying informa *n on thi . : .h:: or ref l of occupancy. I hereby certify that this will bl , .ermanent resit .•.d that I have no other assisted housing. I understand that this info at s• '.T---..r e s_. . . . a .mpiting my annual income to determine my qualification o b y .n . f.:..b r: 1 Ta, ... housing unit. I understand that Iamn � of required to p- d, . a kor ri o r :'med property, pensions or capital gains, etc. ,-, �,. �' . - . ,t9 Co-Occupant a`'_ 0 Amoun " e,cy Amount Frequency a:::-� C :r. � �' Received of Pay ,o Wages/Salary $ $ S Bonuses $ $ S __ Tips $ $ $ $ cr Commissions $ $ $ $ „_-.� Interest Income $ S S $ Trust Fund Income S S $ $ Unemployment S $ $ Workman's Compe,:ation S S S Welfare $ $ S`, $ Food Stamps $ $ $ $ Social Secure $ $ $ $ Social Sec :` Disability S S $ $ Suppleme .1 SSI $ $ $ Family sistance $ $ $ $ Child pport $ S $ $ .., Vet. . Benefits $ $ $ $ Wows Benefits S $ $ $ .erlin;. text is added,stnhe�h text is deleted • Page 24 of 31 Packet Page -130- - 2/11/2014 9.B. -- nion Pension $ $ $ $ S• -Employment Business, Sil••t Partner, etc. $ $ $ $ Priva Insurance Pension $ $ $ $ TOTAL - NUAL INCOME $ S THE VERIFII. -TION HERE REQUESTED MAY TAKE THE FORM OF .- MOST RECENT YEAR'S INCO E TAX RETURN FOR EACH OCCUPANT WHO HA FILED AND WILL OCCUPY THE - ' ORDABLE, WORKFORCE,OR GAP UNIT. . . THE SAME MUST `,4 E. EXECUTED FOR EACH OCCUPANT OF HE HOUSEHOLD WHO CONTRIBUTED TO ..E ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME. AILURE TO REPORT ALL SOURCES OF HOUSE .' D INCOME WILL RESULT IN DISQ - IFICATION FOR. TENANCY IN AFFORDABLE,WO' "RCE,OR GAP HOUSING UNIT. , R. COL/ / . kVA' 1910 v .4. I \ F., r) 4, ' ''• C, -- CA.> (...rx e` -- 4:=> ',. • ..s=,. , oc> , underimod text is added,stroelt-tirreegh text is deleted Page 25 of 31 Packet Page -131- 2/11/2014 9.B. APPENDIX B,EXHIBIT C FORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING APPLICANT INCOME CERTIFICATIO APPLIC• T: Present Employ. : Job Title: Address: Street City ,.cte Zip I, ,hereby authorize the release • information requested (Applic on this certification form. � - R C0 � a ature of Applicant STATE OF FLORIDA ) ti k, ) ss COUNTY OF COLLIER) The foregoing was a• o .`>'. �", - 7 Who is personally known to+ e Cr as..od ■, '� I as identification. 0 '...f.. AL .L. Witness my hand and =I sea,,.' 4,)oy f ; ,2008. -. - (notary seal) V* \ w 00 Notary Public Vj My Commission Expires: • - - 0 I--A underlined text is added,stwc e+gki text is deleted Page 26 of 31 Packet Page-132- 2/11/2014 9.B. PLOYER CERTIFICATION App ant's Gross Annual Income or Rate or Pay: S Number Hours Worked (Weekly): . Frequency of Pay: Amount of : uses, Tips, or other Compensation Received: $ Monthly Annually Supervi':r STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER) The foregoing was ackno t t ore me Who is personally known I: • or has produ as identification. / w Witness my hand . .: y an. offi ^ 1� Y � ,2008, (notary seal) n .4°4 Q Notary Public My Commission Expires: THE CERTIFICATION HERE REQ ' ..1 t AY TAKE T ' «• ■ OF THE MOST RECENT YEAR'S (-^'' INCOME TAX RETURN FOR CI imp • • - ••, }` FILED AND WILL OCCUPY THE can AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE Cl. 0 .sa ry 0 underlined text is added.s4-ti f«x+g1t text is deleted Page 27 of 31 Packet Page-133- 2/11/2014 9.B. APPENDIX C DEVELOPER APPLICATION FOR AFFORDABLE-WORKFQRC HOUSING DENSITY BONUS Pursuant to DC § 2.06.01 please complete this form and submit it wi. ` any accompanying documentation the Community Development & Environmental Servi s Division, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, .les, Florida 34104. A copy must also be pr• ded to the Collier County Housing and Human Se'. ices Department. All items requested must be irovided. CO I. Please state what zonin_ • proposes Iicant, if any, on the property and the acreage of each; RPUD-9.92 Has an application fo rez. .e- - . •, • do with the affordable,workforce and gap housing Density bo us? t, X Yes "" No If yes, state date of application .t-�-04 �.. . •.s been approved,state the Ordinance number 05-63. i W cao 3. Gross density of the propos- :`develop - . I :9 units/acre Csa Gross acreage of the pro,•sed development. 9.92 acres c.� 4. Are affordable-work rce housing density bonus units s.: ght in conjunction with an r.s application for a plaint-. it development (PUD)? X Yes No. If yes,please state n. a and location of the PUD and any other identi' g information. Cirrus Pointe BP 4 s, located and at the northeast corner of the intersects , between Thomasson Drive and Ba ore Drive. 5. N.• 'e of applicant James J.Fields 4ame of land developer if not the same as Applicant: N/A Please complete the following tables as they apply to the proposed development. nderlined text is added,std-through text is deleted Page 28 of 31 Packet Page -134- 2/11/2014 9.B. ABLE 1 Total Number of Units in Development Typ. of Owner Unit Rental Occupied Efficienc 0 One Bedroom 0 Two Bedroom 0 Three Bedroom 108 Other Bedroom 0 TOTAL 4 U4r • ' TABLE II Number of Afffprdabl _K. •- • i'- Units •r'Fr ab d-101ritiltiginT e ollbws •t �y:�. ��ter,'' 1 �. 'roa.s-d 5 or ,'s. •. • e- . - '!ensi y :oyit1V nits ©tee nits o in = opm ! C Owner c e• Rental c .•• C : •ntal Occupied 1.-T1 GAP INCOME 81-150% MI '- •F> Efficiency tv 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedro•. Othe,. 4 TAL 0 In accordance with LDC Section 2.06.03.D. t owner occupied underlined text is added,struck-thrsuen text is deleted Page 29 of 31 Packet Page-135- I _ 2/11/2014 9.B. 4••••,* ORKFORCE INCOME 61 '0% M1 fficiency : • oom 2 Bedr•Im 3 Bedroo 44 44 Other TOTAL 44 In accordance with Lb Section 2.06.03.D.-All o ner occupied LOW INCOME CO , 51-60% MI Efficiency I Bedroom \ A11111711-11 2 Bedroom AC - c> 3 Bedroom 0 *Pa. Other -sc\- CC> ."1=1 TOTAL 0 VERY LOW INCOME 50% OR LESS MI Efficiency I Bedroom 2 Bedroo 3 Bel son II er TOTAL 0 0 .erlined text is added,etcuak-thfetigh text is deleted Page 30 of 31 Packet Page-136- 2/11/20149.8. . Please provide a physical description of the affordable-workforce units by type of unit( ::. : . , . very low income, low income, workforce income,gap income) and by number of bedr,.ms. Indus in your description, for example, the square footage of each type of unit, floor .verings used thro . out the unit (carpeting, tile, vinyl flooring); window treatments; appli.• es provided such as washe a ryer, dishwasher, stove,refrigerator;bathroom amenities, such ceiling exhaust fans; and any oth- amenities as applicable. Attach additional pages as E ibit "D" if needed. (Seed) APPENDIX D CIRRUS POINTE PUD PHYSICAL DESCRIPTI4 OF AFFORDABLE W• ',, HOUSING UNITS There will be a minimum of .. :-;;'* • 'o kforce ousing Units in the Cirrus Pointe PUD. These-Affordable W.rdiee *using Units . comprised of 4-9 44 three-bedroom _. ` . . .. . .! . Ise Units. i All { , r ��l"+ le Workfor. .,_'`i�.o,. i..+4=.s - as owner-occupied multi-family units. Each unit will co e Bard wi carpe • a a+. s, refrigerator, dishwasher, stove, zlo washer/dryer, basic li htin• N package,�'}' g •�i�� f acka e an • : .ms will have ceiling exhaust fans. .. The three-bedroom units will hav ''. ifrttT .itione. `" ea of 1526 square feet. Garage parking will provide 2 parkin. -tails for each unit and will also ho storage areas for each unit. C The entire community w' consist of up to 108 multi-family homes •d the units that are not designated •- .. orkforce Housing Units will be offered as ma I ately priced multi- .r family homes. T community will have the following amenities open to the r: 'dents of Cirrus Pointe: pool/c;:ana, fountains, sidewalks and gated security. 8. Please s '.ly any other information which would reasonably be needed to address this req t for an a r;rdable, workforce, and aap housing density bonus for this development. Attach additio p :es if needed. underlined text is added,stwe thpaugh text is deleted NAP ES:SST:1Z∎IA Page 31 of 31 Packet Page-137- 2/11/2014 9.B. NAPLES DAILY NEWS tt Wednesday,January 22;2014 a 23A PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on February 11,2014 in the Board of County Commissioners chamber,Third Floor,Collier County Govern- ment Center,3299 E.Tamiami Trail,Naples,to consider the Adoption of the following County ORDINANCE, for transmittal of the Adoption amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan.The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. The purpose of the hearing Is to consider a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to trans- mit to the Florida Department of Economic'Opportunity(DEO)the Adoption of a small-scale Growth Manage- ment Plan amendment(s)to the Future Land Use Element,Future Land Use Map and Map Series,and to consider a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to adopt changes to the Cirrus Pointe Planned Unit Development Ordinance_The ORDINANCE titles are as follows: 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 of the Growth Management Plan to establish the Bayshore/Thomaason.Drive Sub- district to allow up to a maximum of 108 market rate,multi-family dwelling units through the use of 79 dwelling units from the existing density pool provided for within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay for property located at the northeast corner of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive in Section 14,Township 5d South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida consisting of 9.92*acres; and furthermore recommending transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity;providing for severability and providing for an effective date.[PL20120002382/ CPSS-2013-1] AND An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida amending Ordinance Number 2005-63,as amended,the Cirrus Pointe Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD)which allows a maximum number of 108 residential dwelling units;by changing the name of the RPUD to Solstice RPUD;by revising the Master Plan;by deleting Exhibit B,the Water Management/Utility Plan; by deleting Exhibit C,the Location Map;by removing Statement of Compliance and Project Develop- ment Requirements;by adding a parking deviation;and by deleting and terminating the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement The subject property is located northeast of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive in Section 14,Township 50 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida consisting of 9.92+/-acres;and by providing an effective date.(PUDZA-PL20120002357)[Companion to Petition PL20120002382/CPSS-2013-11 6.d c � wwwA°° • a- b� utwA hu�M' t}y1Jlt, •�, M,wOSTAR Y } MMMA 14 g 13 'R ib OOI.Ow� FIOJECT ' -+«e,.. LO CAT 10 N s...F,,,,•x • s.erne CAITI LM mou.sow MINI MINI +ri k ranntEeww,re ROAD (ORLITO. �� ul,ties e.wl,w:- 24 SALIM PAY SABAL Ill[ wv All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment will be made available for inspection at the Planning&Zoning Department,Comprehensive Plan- ning Section,2800 N.Horseshoe Dr.,Naples,FL.,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,Suite#401,Collier County Government Center,East Naples,one week prior to the sched- uled hearing.Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the Planning&Zoning Depart- ment,Comprehensive Planning Section.Written comments filed with the Clerk to.the Board's Office prior to • February 11,2014,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 Department,located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite#101,Naples,FL 34112-5356, (239)252-8380,at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS*.COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA TOM HENNING-CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK-By: /s/Teresa Cannon-Deputy Clerk(SEAL) No.231150798 January 22.2014 Packet Page-138-