Loading...
Agenda 04/08/2014 Item # 9B Proposed Agenda Changes Board of County Commissioners Meeting April 8,2014 Withdraw Item 9A: This item has been continued from the February 11,2014 BCC meeting: Recommendation to consider approving the Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict small-scale amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan [Companion to Petition PUDZA-PL20120002357,agenda item 9B1 (Petitioner's request) Withdraw Item 9B: This item has been continued from the February 11, 2014 BCC meeting: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2005-63, as amended, the Cirrus Pointe Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). [Companion to Petition PL20120002382/CPSS-2013-1, agenda item 9A1 (Petitioner's request) Continue Item 16D7 Indefinitely: Recommendation to recognize a portion of Rock Road,from Immokalee Road to Mingo Road within the Rock Road Municipal Service Taxing Unit(MSTU),which the County has regularly maintained for more than the immediate past seven years,as having been dedicated and deeded to the County as a public road,to approve a Resolution in support thereof and to authorize the Board's Chairman and the Ex Officio Clerk to the Board to file a map with the Clerk of Court certifying ownership has vested with the County; and authorize a short-term loan in an amount up to$130,000 to the Rock Road MSTU for the purpose of paving of a portion of Rock Road,from Immokalee Road to Mingo Road and approve all necessary budget amendments. (Commissioner Nance's request) Note: Item 11A: Section 14H of the Interlocal Agreement is revised to include the following additional language: H. This Agreement is solely for the benefit of the Parties to this Agreement and no third party shall be entitled to claim or enforce any rights under this Agreement. The parties may not assign this agreement or any right or obligation of this agreement without the written consent of the other party, except that in the event that the Ochopee Fire Control and Rescue District is merged or consolidated into another Fire District, the County may assign the Agreement to the merged or consolidated Fire District with advance notice to the Department. Item 16A16: Additional language has been added to the Developer Contribution Agreement regarding Mockingbird Crossing which reads: Developer shall maintain the portion of Massey Road from Vanderbilt Beach Road to the Development's entrance until the earlier of the completion of Tree Farm Road or three years from the date of the issuance of the first building permit for the Development. Maintenance shall include cutting the grass along the roadway. Developer shall place an overlay layer of asphalt on Massey Road from Vanderbilt Beach Road to the Development entrance as part of its maintenance of Massey Road. (Staff's request) Time Certain Items: Item 4B to be heard at 10:45 a.m. Item 11C to be heard at 11:00 a.m. 4/16/2014 4:01 PM 4/8/2014 9.B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance 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 -11 OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) review staff s findings and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) regarding the above referenced petition and render a decision regarding this PUD 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 Board of County Commissioners 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 405 -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 [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 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 -58- 4/8/2014 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 pennit 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 Board of County Commissioners and Packet Page -59- 4/8/2014 9. B. 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, Tom and 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 -60- 4/8/2014 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 (COME): 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 Clzrzanowski, the CCPC recommended forwarding this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval subject to the following changes to the PUD document: I . 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 11. the footnote shall be revised to provide sidewalk clearance from the entry portion of the parking space Packet Page -61- 4/8/2014 9. B. 12. the developer shall provide a right -of -way deed prior to 1 st 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 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 tenninated , 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. 2005 -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. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. 2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained Packet Page -62- 4/8/2014 9. B . 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 volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety? Packet Page -63- 4/8/2014 93. 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) RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendations of the CCPC and further recommends that the Board of County Commissioners (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. Packet Page -64- 4/8/2014 9.B. 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: littp: / /www.col l i er2ov. net /ftp /A !ZendaJan 1414 /GrowthM amt /Appl icati onforCirrusPointePUD.Pdf 3) Ordinance 4) Termination Agreement Packet Page -65- COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.9.B. 4/8/2014 93. Item Summary: This item has been continued from the February 11, 2014 BCC meeting: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance 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: 3/11/2014 Prepared By Name: DeselemKay Title: Planner, Principal, Zoning & Land Development Review 3/3/2014 2:07:39 PM Approved By Name: BosiMichael Title: Director - Planning and Zoning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 3/3/2014 3:16:04 PM Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, Community Development & Environmental Services Date: 3/3/2014 3:16:10 PM Name: MarcellaJeanne Title: Executive Secretary, Transportation Planning Date: 3/3/2014 4:10:35 PM Packet Page -66- 4/8/2014 9.B. Name: AshtonHeidi Title: Managing Assistant County Attorney, CAO Land Use/Transportation Date: 3/4/2014 8:30:28 AM Name: FinnEd Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior, Transportation Engineering & Construction Management Date: 3/4/2014 8:53:53 AM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 3/4/2014 9:08:30 AM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager, County Managers Office Date: 3/4/2014 9:36:19 AM Packet Page -67- 4/8/2014 93. AGENDA @TEN! 9 -13 M, _ y TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES - -LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION -- PLANNING & REGULATION HEADING DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2013 SUBJECT: PUDZA- PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD (AKA SOLSTICE RPUD) [COMPANION TO PL- 20120002382/CPSS- 2013 -11 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 REOUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is asking the Collier application for an amendment to the Residential Planned Unit Development "Purpose/Description of Project." County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an existing PUD zoned project known as the Cirrus Pointe (RPUD). For details about the project proposal, refer to The subject property, consisting of 9.92± acres, is located at the northeast corner of Bayshore Drive and Thornasson Drive, in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the following page) 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 405- PUDZA- PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 1 of 14 December 19, 2013 CCPC Revised: 12/2/13 Packet Page -68- 4/8/2014 9.B. gm- , _� w z a s :5 s8o m ofH xm �aow n h w F Z r d ca 5�y W O I - -- -- v ' Q - - -- -- - -- ° o u IS LJ `a5 �� � � /� 3nroo 3aotasnve � e j gm €S nl VJ GULF OF MEXICO Packet Page -69- nvm of io W n � n D g I I n II I. <C 75 z z O N I a N J d N d W IL 8 I a Kp 2 O� z� w � O II I III Lr---j h II I Da < I i' ~W ' OI 1 Y I f 4 p w 6 I W ¢ I a W I I I I i W � I w I � I = I z I I w� I I I I I I / I I , I I li I I II 44❑ �~ s 4 a p 4 �w aY ww � Y LL .0 N O m m � V d {n W 7 G 0 � I I F I Z rcw i 1iW i' o N I aW R' gIIII� >Dtt I wli w44 � NI i I I I! I , , \ I W I aW - I > tl K � w44 2 i I H a I �� a I ��-- ---- a----- -- - -- -- — .- ____: :: —_ —_ ___ -_s -es . -___ ___: ____ _______ ._ __ _.____- _____(n�� ,0011 ------ __ - Fz�o Q = O Z (OV06f A 773N 3AIHO 3aOHSA VS t o UU Z> °o ¢ ND z ? wm 0�.Mc I asc -i v C LL j p�W mD °yw 5w C, O Wog °mow WSp C, O w N O W C U 0 2 N n � W U Ee Z Wm W ,z OJZ � O j U o w m U U U U o Q¢QQ M o o w Z w w 4 r�Q ¢ww C WOOQ D r w wF ' v) am❑ N x z o a W O W > ¢ Z U Q ¢U >�o Wa> W O � W K t L a 4/8/2014 9.B. a5 �a W m � w F X N w O M h Zy �g E L © 's wl 'wl a @i S ❑ Fz�o Q = O Z w N Y U z ? wm N W LL W w C = Q 0 U C _ ,60Z� 0 j ,SOW z o m w ° n ~ KQU� U p j w N 2 O o WO v 0 L) Q > Z ¢ w w I,: F N F w y � , 7 U w U W w z 0 O � K O ° W aa¢a O a ~ ¢ W O. 2 z z U N °o LL Y O W Z a�a> DI N W 2 z Q x N J H O a z 0-.0 OI- ¢ z z Z' WU �W� K= �wW U W r w__ W oZ z Q O Q WW J z O ? Q m 004c\10 ? Oz U W Z W vow w0Z�6 Uzi= a Q Y U N O O N O O a Q U r rn 2 w WI) W >.W-,n wfr0a N W p Z 5w_ Z ZQ¢IU g_w W �rOnWQ¢ �zWF =d =r Q J0N❑ 00 > ~ W W ❑ W 0 °n F0 F z! m U U U U o Q¢QQ M o o w Z w w 4 r�Q ¢ww C WOOQ D r w wF ' v) am❑ N x z o a W O W > ¢ Z U Q ¢U >�o Wa> W O � W K t L a 4/8/2014 9.B. a5 �a W m � w F X N w O M h Zy �g E L © 's wl 'wl a @i S 4/8/2014 9.B. 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 c TOUS: ) T_% TT.+rGC o QC l 1 1« �oiuS �sl�� uiw (at %.8O Bonus DaacaTuull /O ouaLl � j 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 December 19, 2013 CCPC Revised: 12/2/13 Packet Page -71- Page 2 of 14 4/8/2014 9.B. 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 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 PUDZA- PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 3 of 14 December 19, 2013 CCPC Revised: 12/2/13 Packet Page -72- 4/8/2014 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 charges to the Subject PUD amendmant 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: 12/2113 Packet Page -73- 4/8/2014 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 Grote u Management Plan (G?:^p). 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. 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 -74- 4/8/2014 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 iilteiisliy on the subject Site, the colTipatibiiit'y 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 FLLTE 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 l 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 R NI F- 6- BML''D -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 arld 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 December 19, 2013 CCPC Revised: 1212113 Packet Page -75- Page 6 of 14 4/8/2014 9. B. The petitioner is amending the height to reflect both zoned height and actual building height as is a ' b F - t Ih rt " been reduced from a 15 foot wide type B i10w required. lice viiuci aiviig tie eaSLe property ��as 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 4.05.04.14 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 Pationale: 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 -76- 4/8/2014 9.B. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved, noting that the LDC requires a minimum of 2 parking places and the developer will be providing ivJv spaces albeit the spaces are somewhat atypical. Zoning and Land Develo meat 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 10.02.13.13.51 the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a dep-Tee 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 findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below. [Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold, non - italicized font] : Pt?D 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" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. 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 atpublic 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- PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 8 of 14 December 19, 2013 CCPC Revised: 12/2/13 Packet Page -77- 4/8/2014 93. may be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element contingent upon Board approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20120002382 /CPSS- on-O � + i._Ll_..L ai. Dc.�• i...�.../Tl. Drive Subdistrict. i Gu 1J-1, to esCillJlisu iue tray suul G! l uomasson i.riv. 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 December 19, 2013 CCPC Revised: 12/2/13 Packet Page -78- Page 9 of 14 4/8/2014 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 Cominissioners ... 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 pro -ided in bold font): 1. 147zether 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 coltingent 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 .rroposed 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 salr Ject site is already zoned PUD. No land is being added to the PUD as part of this amendment. 4. T17-,cther 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. 13'hether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The Y reposed 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 -79- 4/8/2014 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 proper ty could be developed in compliance ith the existing PvTD ordinance regulations. 6. Tf7hether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendment, with the commitments made by the applicant, can been deemed consistent County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. The project includes numerous restrictions and standards that are designed to address compatibility of the project. Development in compliance with the proposed PUD amendment should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project with the mitigation that will be provided by the developer (Developer Commitments). Staff believes the petition can be deemed consistent with the Transportation Element of the GMP. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed amendment should not create drainage or surface water problems. The developer of the project will be required to adhere to a surface water management permit from the SFWMD in conjunction with any local site development plan approvals and ultimate construction on site. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this amendment petition is approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. The setbacks and project buffers will help insure that light and air to adjacent areas will not be substantially reduced. 10. Tf'hether 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 -80- 4/8/2014 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. Rhether 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. yT�h.ether 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. Tf,hc1her is it impossiNC, ro./Ind 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 - -vith the GMP as it is proposed to be amended as discussed in other portions of the staff report. 16. The p4vsical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to n,,al e the propero� usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed _-•oning ciassificaticrr. 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 dcveloprnent on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent frith the lerrels 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 -81- 4/8/2014 93. 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. H1 VS 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 December 19, 2013 CCPC Revised: 12/2/13 Packet Page -82- Page 13 of 14 PREPARED B 1-17: KAY LESELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DEPAR�I TENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEWED BY: RAYM ND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING NICK CASALANGUIDA:, ADMINIS�T�TOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION DATE DATE DATE DATE Tentatively scheduled for the February 11, 2014 Board of County Commissioners Meeting Attaclunents: 1. Termination Agreement 2. Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis PUDZA- PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD December 19, 2013 CCPC Revised: 11/18/13 Packet Page -83- 4/8/2014 9.B. Page 14 of 14 4/8/2014 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. Pagel of 4 Attachment 2 Packet Page -84- 4/8/2014 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? Citrus 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 -85- 4/8/2014 93. 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 mouth 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 -86- 4/8/2014 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? Pian 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 naN,e 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 -87- 4/8/2014 SIR THE BAYSHORE /GATEWAY TPIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY _Z01VIMUNITY = a_EDEVELOPMENT �_GENCY 4069 BAYSHORE DRIVE, NAPLES, FL 34112 PHONE 239.643.1115 PAX 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 Manager, 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 15t'. 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. a- 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 Atf;:1i -h g =nt 3 Packet Page -88- Page 1 4/8/2014 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 Proiect Updates: 1- Landscape Updates include a repair by Ground Zero who repaired an irrigation line break and replaced the shrubs in front of La Pinata. 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 Pinata. 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. Adiournment: 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 -89- 4/8/2014 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 S'T'ATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS; BY ADDING A PARKING DEVIATION; AND BY DELETING AND TERMINATING THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS AGREEIMENT, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTHEAST OF BA17SHOIZE DRIVE AND THOMASSON DRIVE IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAS'T', COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 9.92 + /- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [I'UDZA- PL20120002357[ %�'i- IEREAS, Cirrus Pointe Partners LLC, represented by '\Wayne Arnold. AICP of Q. Grade Minor and Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich ��. I <ocstcr, P.A.. petitioned the Board of Count\- Commissioners to amend the RPUD. NO\V', TIJi -REI;ORE, 13E IT ORDAINI =D 13Y THE 130AIZD OF COUI TY (-,vylNI1SSI()tiF:RS OI COL.LIL-'R COUN'I'Y. I'l- ORIDA. that: SECTION ONE: Amendment to RPUD Document. "'lie RPUD Document. attached as Exhibit "A.. to Ordinance No_ 2005 -63, as amended. is hcrebN- amended and replaced with the RI)[TI) Document attached bercto as Exhibit "A" and incOrporated herein L-)v reference. SECTION TNNVO: Effective Date, Thl,, Ordinance shall become effective upon filing xvith the Delpartment of State. REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Soi tics RIIIA) PUDZ;A- 1)I.201200021 P"tLe 1 ()1,2 Rey. 1'6 14 Packet Page -90- 4/8/2014 9.B. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super - majority vote of the Board of Count), Commissioners of Collier County. Florida, this day of 2014. ATTEST: D)WIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: I 1cldi Ashton-Clcko Managing Assistant Count), Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: TOM HEN'-\,71NG, Chairman Attachment: Exhlbjt,� - RPUID Document including revised lMaster Plan CP 13-CPS-01205,46 Soistice RPUD 1 PUDZA-PL20120002357 Paget of 2 R,.:\. 1;6 14 Packet Page -91- 4/8/2014 9.B. : A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNING THE C4RPIUS P P-DINT-T-SOLSTICE RESIDENTIAL PUD, A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVIL-9SIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED FOR: Cirrus Pointe Partners LLC 516 CommerceDrive, `­Suite 200 Apopka, Florida, 32703 PREPARED BY: &UI T --EE r _l_G5 D. WAYNE ARNOLD, AICP Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIA7ES, P.A. 3800 VIA DEL REY BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34134 and RICHARD D. 'I OVANOVICH O-LE7' —T-E-COLEMAN. YOVANOVICH &J0FiNSQNK0ESTF=R, P.A. 4001 TAMIAMI TRAIL N., SUITE 300 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34103 DATE FILED DATE REVISED DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC December 19. 2013 DATE APPROVED BY BCC ORDINANCE NUMBER Packet Page -92- TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES 4/8/2014 9.B. PAGE ii SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 3 SECTION 11 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 5 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN SECTION IV PRESERVE AREAS PLAN SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS ii Solsticc, RPUD \Vords sifoeh44feogh are deleted: words underlined are added. Revision 6 1 -2-20 14 Packet Page -93- 10.1 13 14 4/8/2014 93. LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT "A" PUD MASTER PLAN EXHI TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS iii Words strueli ilifough are deJeted., words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page -94- 4/8/2014 9.B. STATIE-WENT-0-F—C,= RWANCE -ARed URit DeVeiapR.� ,q aS th will b e iR qGajE; and 4tY aS Set fG;4h iR the COUnty GF9Wth N4aRaqeFpe4#-z4a-R, The 1hp. S PE)iRte 44, I P-31iG;eG, laR the S —f-.� :aa 1 .9 IRS eGmplem- e�RjaT'� .q-S-k�F!"°Guf�E £ Rd ;.T-hc- He 7- 4C- PS4� 4:4' �,-'T yL Words 4-Fuek-rlifott, w Solstice RPUD +are deleted: words underlined are added. Revision 6 1- 2-?014 Packet Page -95- 4/8/2014 9.B. , 7 Gil ities RequiFe qeRts r County La eVe49pM--++I' �,-, Words mrbiek thfzough are deleted: words underlined are added. Solstice RPLJID Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page -96- 4/8/2014 9.B. SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION The -)ur-pq-- x e lasat4 P-F 1.2-1 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, "All 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." PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is owned by K,!.r, , -, , , - I r x Dr 1399 Th FleFida 34492. The ­JaFR&z-,-4':je1ds, 45544 MGWe'�" c;gi �1 1 G.Cirrus Pointe Partners LLC, 516 Commerce. Drive, Suite 200, Apo 'pka Florida, 32703 A '_D -ES S,'E :_7 ai;.4,5- #qa4--R - 4-g- S-typ4sa#y Solstice RPM Words are deleted. words underlined are added. Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page -97- 4/8/2014 9.B. 1 �71 peFm &R±__SySte n Will SF-1414p--w +F!— — Rep C3,allier the sai4ype f9und 17 dyFtle, 4. 4 0 YI i e —a V,,, u 4; -R - —m + T 4 v, U,-a L y are deleted: words underlined are added. Solstice RPLI'D Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page -98- SECTION ii PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 4/8/2014 9.B. Y the rid' v .`._..C'ii':; ^,�- `�_'•P"_.CYTL� '�J'- }Yy7h7'a r? #� Tt'�.�{'ttJ'E� Of th9 GiFFUG f av3�fi °f? -#Si Five n ^- Fvfi�3 i f� s ?t� @t�`c -t" 4 3r{ —izr i,4e-`a tG ° i- n'c—v; qv � Vic-- V rfv�'tLYhrti a --`k ��-° -._ __.._vi .� Wit• - �,},�a ^.-! .4� -.i-. � y,,,� c; cti ir-�tC r.•eJ'-�u�: °'t7� 4 �"' c ^ �z m iv fin r t r r-h irl t�'+L1� °7tisrr' -+� : - _ - -,^r -tai ✓ "k.ss f"+r ^i- S_'.- #''i��'0'� °� --r"3. ='- iGt'._ ��. rzxi3�- ii6---- rs= t::t'�fct�— �;F��t}'ta„�!�%i�{�` M R"tD �;�,.•,, i' °C;'e F-,jta, +erj?.�a i_'•!,`" �' , "�_tJ�•::*,:- +._"f'sva."°it'Yti a' C' YY' G" �' �yra', �'.""..'-:' �';.--C7t_"'c.Fa.`,^'.— :C��},,, 4 �;�' , t?-4ed--by the Ci�4a�--S- -?•rat F y as e -P-u- fib- r i✓cSS a t r t ; F 1 Words .1-•� are deleted; words underlined are added. Solstice RPli[7 Revision 6 1 -2-2014 Packet Page -99- 4/8/2014 9.B. A. The Pf9j--Gt--M-aSteF Plan, inn 44d#ig layout off stFeets and use sf land fGF the v s-- FFciizt s, is illustpated gFF@PhiGaPy by Exhibit "A", PUD 'MiestaT-Pla-R 4-; 14, , III and the wate+-i�na Rag eFRe44t-and U--i 1-y9Ht is illUBtFated- graphiGally SR PlaR. T-heFe Shall be a4esideRtia4 Iand use tFaGt, a pFeseFve apea-tr-acnt, plus nesessap y vi 4k-es-,—S,' 4ts-G4` -way, the geRe-r-a�, ;4--stFale-d by Exhibit "AL AFeas illustFated as lakes by Exhibit shall be seRstFusted as lakes OF, iiRG4:1-ap, 9val, parts theFe,Gf wet and dp, , depFess-Lans fGF wateF —SLAGh aFea, '-I, Or), aFeas GeRAguFatignsandGGritaiRth-a—, diViSiGR plat 9F Plan appFE)va4 -R-s-of —11 Gf the CG!Iie,- QGuPty La �-r SU•h easemeRts as -9-mpFisedl of th 4 as a-rtd 2.:'l 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 Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict of the Future Land Use of the Collier County Growth Management Word, 4fu&44+K,�i � are deleted; words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page -100- 9. 4 -AG7----s 2.:'l 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 Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict of the Future Land Use of the Collier County Growth Management Word, 4fu&44+K,�i � are deleted; words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page -100- A 7'r-- 4/8/2014 9.B. Ilk URI -11-IM *191-m-11-fam RRUD, MasteF Riar, Rpug Viate m �ti+� vthe Fequ*Fed IUD DeVeIG to c)p RGuFFellt kvith-P,,Q4JD appFaval, a subdivis at-,4 ier, the eAti Apy-j+Vl-.-,+qn 01, th i and L-a ty Land DevelopmeRt Code, and t I 4e-pla," Site Deve!GpmeAt Riaps @f the LaP4 .-G, �,- as PF@vidad ip, said G r ;-a-buik4nj-peFm it G G at, e - e �fz, dev p -W=4*ia "Mit' and --GeAle--a :7 S G I" I I - -, e R t AL a tpaile,,s aR � �4a-, 4�tsl�' G# n 7 Solstice RPUD Words mf0ek-44fett,+ are deleted; words underlined are added. Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page -101- 4/8/2014 9.B. Am-_4dmeaic ts­m_ made of the Landl Dev--1--ipment Gode. • 10 - ff e!eGts tIG sFeatte iand aFea andiE)F FeGFe ameRitie_- �GSC- GWReFS�ip and ma;RteRaRGe FeGpGRE;ibP4y-iS�l:RPRGR jRteFe&t-to ff -�f ,elepF:nent 'R wh4;a#—t4-_ GOR;MeR ;Rterest is IGGated, t�at' devel9pe;: e:4tity shall pFGvide appFGffate4eja4 i;;stFumeRts feF the establishmeRt G-, a pFE)pe SSGGiatian whose fURC-tiGR Shall ;RGlude PFGvisiGRG fGF the PeFp` aR.' ;;;aiRteRaRGe al all Gammon fasilit�es and GpeR spaees. Solstice RPUD Words stfueli tbfati�!h are deleted; words underlined are added. Packet Page -102- Revision 6 1-2-2014 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN 3.1 PURPOSE 4/8/2014 9.B. 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 Manaoement ;#'" .e,Gt W- deP-Sity Gf, e�e thaR 6 -/fy W4` - -- --- 19ved- - - - - - - - - - - 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: 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 oard of ZcninqArpea!s ("BZA") by the process outlined in the Land Develor,) ment ("ode, (LDC). B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: Customary accessory uses and structures including-­a garages, gazebos and utility buildings. 2. Recreational uses and facilities including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings, and basketball/shuffle board courts. Temporary sales trailer and model units. Words stFuel, flifewA are deleted; words underlined are added. Solstice RIM Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page -103- 4/8/2014 9.B. 4. Gate#ia4seGatehouses, and access control structures. 5. Interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities necessary to service this RPUD. 3-4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Table I sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Qff.u-&-P-o-4teSolstice RPUD. 10 Words struch thfaut!h are deleted; words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1 -? -2014 Packet Page -104- 4/8/2014 9.B. 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 -Story 75' 2 -Story 10' 3 -Story 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' f 3-Story -Homes 25' (s) 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' Accesson v Structures 10' Maximum Height: Principal Building Zoned 491 -50' or 3 habitable stories over parking not to ex ^�ed 50' Accessory Building 4 -25' f.��irnlun� Fl: n.r :r�rw 52 r x^1.000 Sq. Ft, (G) (1) Buildings, structures and pavements shall not encroach into required landscaped buffers. (._ ) � . >r , -; :...� -r: ,�+»»� �?z:rx�. , ^!_t_. - srr-- f =�:,� � ^.,_...;.- 1�•- �i�'rc�'-a,,tE_ 4r a r c: 5 10 G� bt d Slg4 -D_ t4: E� 'f ttc a-ci i zav e? c a so that they do not encroach into or li':'rri�,^.� etl'a' Inter I'n ^! �iGBVJaik (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. -??- _Du_ ' `r, ' ri to the ROW dedication area may be setback 5 feet from the I ts) 'i -' . C "...5 ae�i shall t d is 3 �JB 200 souar� leer or more in size 11 1 'ords 4. aw--,- , .. are deleted: words underlined are added, S<7lsiiec RY1 �D Revision 6 1- 2-2014 Packet Page -105- 4/8/2014 9.B. a F'- � F42 a R. qad�RG by Secstioq 4.':,,--. La— DevelopmeM t at4h - a� -S--414a'. 'Fal U- 1 � --- I � el Area t r) 7 ri 1) r7� F k- 1 d I-Od 11--l- -- " --F- - e, sh a p to d - - --- , t - re E�Fa � t a p F C 4 2k - acres c4 pFavid--d empthasiziRgj the -4* ueu-s a---.- p-as-sibi-e. a----, God& T�e Feed 119 pravide -- tetal G" 2.24 aGFeSi of These shal; -f 1,43, aG,---- Of veaet--�-' qf -a , Z, -1, - -' r:-, , � , -; P, G —;--R+ - a o- and 'GHRit p-,GviJed All 'ar ' I , If r� Z�I S -' kecl anci ��� h b-I—P-a-a &l'� 34 ` 4P44-i� F, Deviations: Solstice RPUD 12 N, ords stfaek iliFeLi0i are deleted: words underlined are added. Packet Page -106- Revision 6 1-21-2014 4/8/2014 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 maioritv 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 ameoity to provide one parking space for short term drop off/pick-up and one ADA compliant space. 13 Solmice RPUD NVOrds 4—fffe4'4hfo*-,4 are deleted: words underlined are added. Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page -107- SECTION IV PRESERVE AREAS PLAN 4.1 PURPOSE 4/$/2014 9.B. 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 StRiek are deleted; words underlined are added. Solstice R13UD Revision 6 1 -2 -2014 Packet Page -108- SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 4/8/2014 9.B. =� =- �== p✓�- :r --��rt `mss- Ce�,���- is -=€�•= �t-- ��o�- ts��-- t�- �e-��� -+ems - -^ . iirrrc: r ti�:-r�i- -�?e- •- .=- ;7':7i= at-c.a + '�-• 's ti r^.^-t°._'jt+ ..: "— ri- I'(-rr*{''-%,'; :. r-{- f.- {T*.�,ti�- ^�.'.'^^'- fc.'`Y!^-:S iL •'h1. C4.•i }... .•..n�T r ,l- i --a `3..f w.r'+; -R. -PeGifiGati@R6---Gf the -A ffiA r, "5...: �': ,� ..t..' t. w�^ Cil- J' s'..— R°-;' 7��J"{' i7""' Vl�� ;"��"�,)' ±- �M- r�'.:�L'�'L..'n. - 'r.Fr. r7 nr r +.- .fr•w -4 4n +Fsi .•r.' r- .,,The de'Vel&fy...t nir S .+nnr. OF LaRGI �_ �. -i�.. - ,r y ; , . + , .. =�,:s`� r r� f- �iC- �ciF- ='.= t*i-•c'."- r',•'--�-r`�' --r ':a- ',i- r'r`•.., n; T ' rmi~r�-�,'-��.�`tzr�r',..i."�.. n . -rc .�.i , :., :. "� ,��lu_..._�}.ltr��r- ^�`nr[j {'y. �..,�. rT�ys'.. i•... 11 n!y, g,�1�[.�._�^.�y�� � }i�L"�ir��_TGTn�� .. 4. ,.. .J .'^�" 4: t� S("- :."[:��.' <1"t "C•1'_.. ,.....'��f'::':: �7i'.��t'ilT"�Y i�"��.'[•I"iC� v:5 "[ in.TT'CtVi r�T t-r�t'd�r.,'.'ttiv'v�n"'C't�..' s•-'-r:-yt'E:P .. F .. w ri' 15't' i�YtT1T ."t��"tT7�'F'ki't�'T'�'2'�i'CJ• 5-1 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 o= 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 10.02.1:E. of the Collier County Land Development Code, amendments may be made from time to time. Ali nee- essary 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. ri SCHEDULE Dt DEVELOPMENT /MONITORING REPORT AND SUNSET PROVISION ;i.-. ��s .� ��. {J.�.t k,.::: ��z= l<.;- c, �?-°-»- s"3�•�- �t�- vaE- #r�xfYc�Ci -��r+ etc -�-r�r- y-r=��- �J-r- -t`i�c�@ 15 Nk ords stFilek thFout!h are deleted: words underlined are added. solsli;: A. The landowners shall proceed and be governed according to the time limits pursuant to Section 10.02.13D. of the Land Development Code. Monitoring Report: An annual monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Sect imn 10.02.15F. of the Collier County Lend Development Code. C. One entity (hereinafter the Ulanaoino Entity) shall be resDonsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be resoonsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval. the Manacling EntitV_is Cirrus Pointe Partners LLC. Should the Manaaina Entity desire to transfer the monitorino and commitments to a successor entity, then it must r)rovide a copy of a lepally binding document that needs to be approved for ieoal sufficiency by the-County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its oblioations upon written awroval of the transfer by CounIty- staff, and the successor entity shall become the Nflanacina Entitv. As Owner and DeveloQer sell off tracts. 'the Manaoing Entitv shall nrovide written notice to Co includes @n acknowledgement of the commitments reguired by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Manaoino Entity, but the Managing Entitv shall not be relieved of its responsibility_ under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the N11anaginq EntitV. is no longer responsible for the monitoring and luffillment of PUD commitments, VVATER MANAGEMENT Solstice RPUD /6 x'o,ds+**ek4#*,*t-4 are deleted; words uosecb8e� are added. Packet Page -110- Revision 6 1-2-2014 4/8/2014 9.B. -E4 A. 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 blastino shall be permitted. E--- Ste, - w.a —cmfFt la eig and sealed r P. sfia. ; re r at the ti ms e � + �Iat� -sty n •� n 5, -- µ 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 County Ordinance No. 04 -31, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. f F!- r - DiGar;Gt n..'_d vi- nrt- ��c7T-,- a;�?e`rrcrY= w�— c:sr��rr- c�rcrrm S <(� �.�, v_�^� + r�r-1TG�' `j'....�"� i:.: ,. �'� FT +.�J; '°�G'+i� Two -'D A Ithouoh the site is entirely within the Collier County Water /Sewer District, potable water is served by the City of Naples. Even though the site contai ns 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.u5; TRAFFIC rr _, ,' ,_ »'-'- �- °- �c�-.� :.. � , �:=rpt -- w?t{r� r' ^,- t=- riy�i=�v' �-'�'� ,� p � 1? � it --i-• - -T-�ir �°�°tt�tt^�T '-�_j . �r _, .-r_ <.! �. �-E�'!t^� '-^:may-- 4-b�'- -'- lir`z- r:+t'�': `,...'^.*�..�.° aa�t°:- �• -^t-t' F E 4. "�'�, --G:.r �t..-- �= ;,�-i=— �-t.,,:= ?-:.r_, 17 Words sirtiek gh are deleted; m-ords underlined are added. Solstice RPL -D Recision 6 1=2-2014 Packet Page -111- 4/8/2014 9.B. U'QDI, GuFieRt ed-11—. m -11— eRts Fhall. be vvitl, and as requiFed by LaR-d evelopmeRt 9 de. Af-teFial ie -st"eet i;ght,;Rg shall be pr-Gvisled at all nrnvn4 nitro G�Rtn- Aases"ghltiRg shall be ip. place pr-iep to 'he i&5i4a-,---- of 'he .4st Wic-ate GI aGcauponr-�. ppepesed stFeeis, slhE9-?,W-,-q the Rp-wi asteF Plan; --Fe Nothing depisted GR--aRy suGh-RPUD Master P4ap-sh-a4-Ah-ast aRy Fight of a-cess atw-� .Y &P,eC A a!GRc,; ary FG;;Itage. Ad", sLieh acGess paint��— r' appf-��-ap-4--�R4ed A-pl-�,h A - s I n' 5tt.+-' vTr. T -o4i-sy 1 1 24:7), as it -may be ame ded fill"I'll I time to time, a.,- N;th the l4re, G/ouRty LaRg RapGge G4 r-,_ im #Imp-�ov -F-44 -S n 7 :-, :Cs g den,L -44 A hre �a, A" The sole point of in ' a ' ressilearess to the RPUD shall be onto Thomasson Drive. No access shall be allowed on Blayshore Driver Solstice RPUD I's Words are deleted; "ords underlined are added, Packet Page -112- Revision 6 1-2-2014 4/8/2014 9.B. ves-4, a Fight of aE;se&&�esre -^,f --GR s; h-qll the e*iste,p�ee-af a pai Gf iRgFeSS a 'r fir f, be the baci —f&,--aRY G@WSe Gf aGtiG:; f9F -ag---s F assigRe—e. Sidewalks, a -, —d 4av y em. by side I, B TI developer has provided Copier County M", a r'ght-of-way easement 81ong a of..Thor�asson Drive for Intersection improvements. This c;--nvevance is recorded ;n Official Records Book 1090 Page 1697. Prior to the issugnce of the residential building the owner shall 114L&-&d-G,—,----convev the area of the right -of-wav easement to Collier County in fee sirnDle free and clear of all anqumbrances and - at no cost to the County. LThe right-of-way easement is located at the southwest corner of the subject property—� 5.�6 PLANNING 19 NVords 4Wuek-4*o**,--4 are deicied-. words underlined are added. RM,'D Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Pape -113- 4/8/2014 9.B. QC)de� 4-1 du'r;Rg aN - ve_4�meRt W4-;R ReGessa�y te p-alve eveFy shall b-- -=— — stopl-ed and" the Q_Allir�p 11- S E3 rst ,e identia unit ;, ­1 aecupaFfey, as -by the gaysh,&r-e type aFshiteotwal stFee 'Esc ape.".'t!iin + I 'he RoFthe�-R half E)f the Thamassen DFI;v,- ,;gk+,+t+t pFej;--G--", _G,ajj A. All buildings lighting, sionage, 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 buildinas sians and fences/walls to be erected on all of the subject parcels. Landscapina and streetscaDe materials shall also be similar in design throughout the subject site. Ail roofs, except for ca[ports, shall be peaked and finished in tile, metal. or arch itectu rally-designed shingles such as Timberline). The residential buildinas shall be concrete or orecast concrete construction. B. A homeowner's association or similar entity will be established and will be responsible for maintenance of coma -ion elements. C. The nroieClt shall be gated and flenced, and the developer will provide each building with secured vehicular and pedestrian entrances. A minimum of one space per unit shall be provided below the units in the secured oarkina area. D. NO parking sr)aces shall be permitted on the north side of buildinas adiacent to the northern ^UD boundary. - E. Outdoor security cameras shall be provided within the Droject. F. The o,,.)ol amenity shall be comrdeted no later than the issuance of the 55' certificate of occupancy. Anv vvall or fence facing ;,,2vshore Rcad or Thoma_-,son Drive snail be required to have architectural features and finish, H. The Afiffordable Housina Bonus Densitv Agreement shall be terminated -gon !he effecf;v,­ dater of this PLJD, Solstice RPUD 20 Wordsti�e are deleted; words underlined are added. Packet Page -114- Revision 6 1-2-2014 4/8/2014 9.B. The 79 residential -bonus pool units shall be null and void and returned to ang remains active for the development by the 5 "' year of this PUD or the .BCC approves an extension of the residential density bonus units to a certain date. J. Within seven (71, days of the - closing for each unit, the Deveior)er or successors. shall remit S2.962.96 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 S320,000 grant shall be repaid to Collier Countv unless re-payment occurs sooner through the per unit sale. This nament shall fully satisfy the repayment of the former $320,000 grant which was issued for acquisition of the subiect property for development of affordable housing, 5. -7 I ENVIRONMENTAtr 4 E-47 4r-G,R -,Ie-Fq- ap,�t,y the -4 P &i'-, 21 Words are deleted. words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page -115- - G , t - 4a -,,i sIi e - - -a S — p F-- S e r v 'e & --- -4 P &i'-, 21 Words are deleted. words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1-2-2014 Packet Page -115- 4/8/2014 9.B. 9, AR Fenmeval, oniteFiRg, and maiRlenallGe (exot""SfFee) plaR fe� the site, with emphasis an ahe Gans& shall be submitted to ERViFonmental SepAses to ::eview and appFo�—.l This plan site development p shall ;RG!ude 'the methodology and a tiMe GGhedUle fbr Ferneval of ex e vegetaANn the GRSePIati 'I,FSeFvatioR G . e aFeas. to F-RviFonmeRtal SeFViGes pFa W'Rg m&thods to addFess ti;eatmeRt--G�---if F as ive eX_-t;G_ ­Gies, fiFe maiRteRaRGe-. Ad PF;GF o AP—a-gepey peFFnits sh e t all be submit. I p4n a-pp-r­o-va-1--o,r sit-- develep-IeRt plan apprrG�. his RP shall Gomp"ith the 4,o-ns of the 99!Iie ty Lza-FIF�-_-�'�—_,t QDde @nid @ppF9pFia*_- en.Vii-o-MeRtall &eGtiG9S of the G-FavA41,44.,�a -n3 -e-maRt Plan in effeeat-alt the ti,,, - if f4Ral develo�&WG4:�_ appFava4-. H. Inc RP-1-19 shall Gomply- th the nrriPeaiinnn ^'I the USPV-VS and F=FWQQ-fo,- 'i ­at manag-ear,49Rt plan IoF those �;-! -SItat"f-fril f@F devel-_ I - p �_`14bask, of 2157 f-e-at fFE)m the Gi aR�' PPeSeFVe� AGGeSSGry GtFUGt"_'__ othep site -a I & �'_ I �11 �__ �__ I a-G-k-7 I ,^;;c V__ 14,11 'Qlate@, i iRvasivea­&x� pIaRts.-as-4ef4ed�'. �_-Il Fida E.—in O--s+ i -_ - a4.�,t QGURGil, Shall be FeMOVed W4";- -p.Fe'_e4mve areas ad subseq+it�i , A minimum of 25% of the on-site native vecietation must be retained. 7.25± acres of native vegetation exists reguiring preservation of 1.31± acres of native veget_,atign. -A minimum of 1.81 acres of preserve areas are required to be provided on-sife. emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible, as described in Section 3.05,07 of the Land Development Code. 22 Words s4we-k� are deleted: words underlined are added. Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1 -2-210 14 Packet Page -116- 4/8/2014 9.B 5 i R iW C3 Es :w Lo In z z af u amo ct (OVOY A? ahl 3AIh(O RHOHSA V's LU rdt -Kt:-L r ci g t:- '11!' 4/8/2014 93. This space for recording AMENDED AND RESTATED ADREEMENT AUTHORIZING AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSLM& DENSITY BONUS ANDIMP—WING COVENANTS ANUOr' RESTR jgT �PROPERTY THIS AM ED A4TDiT - EL)-AGREWEN is as of the day of 08 b a e —q k S ds (the "Developer") and the Collier Cjunty Board un y Commissioners mission "), collectively, the "Parties," and replaces the D iainal Aaree.. t i s" iretv. A. The Developer owns io(Fact of reakr pperty described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated h n (The "Property")IN 4s the Developer's intent to construct I/ e _ e id t a maximum of 108 sidenti2l units (the "Units") a density of 10.89 units per Property. rtv. The 9.92 acres. The gross acre on 10 Property. The gross acreage of Prop is number ofel�ffordable-workforce housing units constructed Developer shall be representing 39 forty (40) percent of the total number residential Units roved in the development. or 56.4 percent of the approved bonus Page 1 of 31 4!S 2106 underlined text is added, text is deleted 6 , � A Packet .Page -118- C:> CC> C--" lei C=> C-1> 4/8/2014 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 0 1, as Land Develop nt Code (LDC) § 2.06.00 of seq., which density bonus n only be granted by the Co mission and utilized by the Developer in accordanc ith the strict limitations and applic ility of said provisions. C. The Cam ssion is willing to grant a density bo s to the Developer authorizing the constructlo of 78 bonus Units on the P perty, if the Developer agrees to construct affordable orkforce and gap Units as ecified in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in r p oval and grant of the density bonus of 7.89 units per ac " / sted by the De r and the benefits conferred thereby on the Property, a d for o uabi co srderatlon, the receipt and sufficiency of which are er Cal n eloper and the Commission hereby covenant and agr e^a - (� 1. Recitals. Th ove Recitals are '��n, rrect and are incorporated c� ✓^ ? herein by reference. ��' 2. Developer AgreemsTe rOeYlt3w; .hereby agrees that #�e it shall w I i, -- h «> construct up to _32 44 a able units, not to e ed 40 % of the approved residential density as affordable- workforce housing units, which Units shall be sold in o accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and as specified by the attached Appendicep A & B, Exhibits A, B, & C, and Appendix C, Miich Appendices are incorporated by reference herein and which constitute a part of this Agreement. tk a.e following provisions shatl be applicable to the affordbie_ workfnrr_P and aap Units: Defined terms: In the event of a conflict between terms as defined in the en LDCr in Ordinance No, 90 -89, Section 4, the definitions of the LDC will control' applying or interpreting this Agreement. In addition to these defined terms and t inderlined text is added, s cf:-t# e�rgh text is deleted Page 2 of 31 Packet Page -119- i 4/8/2014 9.B. N. 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 whey hased constructs is not depicted on a PUD master plan, subdivision master n or site development Jan, the construction of buildings or structures in a clearly efined series of starts and fint 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 define by the U.S. Department of Housing d Urban Development (HUD) shall be the then rent median income for the Na es Metropolitan Statistical Area, established periodical' b;ir{cC 194e n the Federal Register, as adjusted for family size ass ,o n the tables atta ereto as Appendix A, Exhibit C, which Exhibit shall be a juste ti n ac or nce with any adjustments that are authorized by HUD d es o age I e vent that HUD ceases to publish an established m di a 1. sai t Pa ies hereto shall mutually agree to another reason t nd co m ra t o computing adjustments in median income. .^ C 3 Eligibility and Q1 ficdtiorr -oiPZ er. Family income eligibility is a three -step process: 1) submittal of an application''., by a prospective Owner, 2) - - verification of family housing `unit provided under the aff'grdable, workforce, and gap housing density bonus program prior to being qualified althe appropriate level of income (very low, lows modem te workforce, or aap income) in accordance with this Section; 3) certification of eligible Owner by the F- i fiGia Housing 4., and Human Services Department. The I6veloper shall be responsible for qualifying Owners accepting applications, verifying income and obtaining income certification for all rdabiej workforce, and clap units In the subject development. All applications, forms an,pther do c fnentation required by this Agreement shall be provided to v. rh cd text is added, stf l tw# text is deleted Page 3 of 31 Packet Page -120- 4/8/2014 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 nnce with the monitoring and enforcement program in LDC §§ 2.06 and 2.06.06,spectively. (a) Anplication. w manager, or agent to qualif owning and occupying an workforce housing densit /bc workforce housing unit sh�atf; af4- Housing and Human t attached to this Agreement at (b) Income Verifici MNAJ e,10,O'�I a 'ly to the developer, owner, , low- workforce $ vi'Mo e family for the purpose of 4 or 'din\nit ursuant to the affordabie- pr S ary pplication for affordable- ices De rti" nj' s h P'R I in Appendix B, Exhibit A, fixp...W r rated by` -efe erein. tior;; a d-)G- er#ific a a', to affordable - workforce housing unit in the development shall t sold whose househ�ia y income has not been verified and certified in accordance fh this Agreement and LDC-` 2.06.05. (c) Income Verification. The Developer shall obtain written verification from the potential occupan e (including the entire household) to verify all regular sources of Pvi income (including,he entire household). The most recent year's,federal income tax � e return for the potential occupants (including the entire household) ma�,be used for the purpose of income verification, attached to the affordable - workforce housjng applicant Income Verification form, including a statement to release information, occupant verification of the return, and a signature block with the date of applicati6h, The vefification shall be valid for up to one hundred eighty (180) days prior to occupy 4� derlined teat is added, stove -thfough text is deleted Page 4 of 31 Packet Page -121- C> 4/8/2014 9.B. \compl on of the 180 day period, the information may be verbally updated fro urces for an additional 30 days, provided it has been documented he ving the original verification. After this time, a new verification f must . The affordable- workforce housing Applicant Income Venfi .tion form wed to the iiaf- Adminis#fatfo- Housing and H an Services Department as `uhown in Appendix B, Exhibit B, attached to thi Agreement and incorporated by ref nce herein. (d) Income _, ertification. Upon receipt of the Preli Mary Application for an affordable- workforce hou''ng unit and Applicant Inco `Verification form, the Developer shall require that i i ec� 1J e�U � hr be executed by the potential occupant (including the en t r usehold) prior -o upancy of the affordable_ workforce housing unit bye thf o n . Zcert -fic ion shall assure that the ate � / p ntral occupant has an ap r p ' e r c �e which 1 h�ch qualifies the potential occupant as an eligible fa g "g ab - ice housing unit under the •7r' - affordable- workforce hou i density 'Soniis� o �ra he affordable- workforce Housing Applicant Income e c '1 ' anon form halt provided by the F4RaPG4 Ad" attend- Housin g and afijeieCD artment as shown in Appendix B, u Exhibit C, is attached to this A Bement and is incorporated by reference herein. Random inspection of filQq Mnrf�ininn ron occupancy in accordance with this Agreement and LDC § 2.000, may be conducted by the €inafQHousing and Human Services Department upon reasonable notice.;:' {4} Annual Progress and Monitoring Report The Developer shall provide the x a r ai- Y +raistratie9 -4te- Housing and Human Services Departmen6>.,an annual progress and monitoring report regarding the delivery of affordable- workforcea,housing units ,throughout the period of their construction and occupancy. The annual progress a d' monitoring report shall, at a minimum, provide any information reasonably requir6o dcrhJ text is added, sttae4t4xe *gh text is deleted Page 5 of 31 Packet Page -122- 0 w CK> 0 4/8/2014 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 re/nu be submi by the Developer to the F4Ra -n ' Housing an Services artment. Failure to complete and submit the monitoring he F4Raprc4al-A Housing and Human Services Departmen within sixty (60) days from the ddate 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 .p ed prior to expiration ?� . of the sixty (60) day subission deadline. No more than onje such extension may be granted in a single year. (5) Occu ancy Res aciion lsi� }E structure on the Property sha (b T' ccupied by th affiliated with the Develop r/o , by �i mafi 3. Densitv Banusz"WPrh Developer has met all re VMF the base residential densit 3 units per al bonus of 7.39 density bonus y�,s per acre, for r. force unit in any building or er, any person related to or y acknowledges that the �sity bonus, in addition to -�� therefore granted a density r ensity (total = density bonus units per acre X cross acreagg)`'°of� 1` 10— — itslac, pursuant to LDC § 2.06.00 The Commission further agrees that the Developer may; construct thereon, in the aggregate a n taxi: )um n6mber of 108 units on the Property rovided the Developer is able to secure: building permit(s) from Collier County. 4. Commission Agreement. During the term of this" greement, the Commission ac--Lirg through the 4�+T�artn�i�dT�+iai��t� -ate- Housing; and Human Services Department or its successor(s) covenants and agrees to prepare :and make available to the Developer any general information that it possesses regardingcome limitations and restrictions which are applicable to the affordable, workforce or an 5. Violations and Enforcement undcrlina' text is added, strde-k -t � text is deleted Page 5 of 31 Packet Page -123- 0 .sy 00 C-" b ME 4/8/2014 9. B. a. Violations. It shall be a violation of this Agreement and LDC' 2. 00 to sell or occupy, or attempt to sell or occupy, an affordable- workforce h. sing unit vided under the affordable - workforce housing density bonus program ece t as P 9 tY P 9 P specifica permitted by the terms of this Agreement; or to knowingly ,give false or misleading in, ormation with respect to any information required or requested by the l= iRansiat -AdMi tFat;--n aR- Housing and Human Services Department or by any other persons pursuant to the authority which is delegated to them by,LDC § 2.06.00. Collier County or its designed shall have full power to enforce the terms of this Agreement. The method of enforcement for a breach or violation of this Agreement shall be at the t option of the Commission byrimisunt to the provisions of Section 125.69, Florida Statutes, or by b. Notice' of Whenever it is determi 2.06.00, that should be ebfor" J),dfbr t� Violation shall be issued aid ent by receipt requested U.S. Maiil,r , d rcement as 44*,&q by law. is `Agreement or of LDC § Vt Board, then a Notice of ate �rtment by certified retum- elivery to ,the'�br�on or developer in violation. The Notice of Violation shall corn�€y MJIi et tau nts for such Notices. C. Certificate" of Occupancy. In the`" event that the Developer fails to maintain the affordable- workforce units in accordance with this Agreement or LDC § 2.06.00, as amended, at the option of the Commission, building permits or certificates of occupancy, as applicable, may be withheld for any future: planned or otherwise approved unit located or to be located upon the Property until the ,entire project is in full compliance with this Agreement and with LDC § 2.06.00, as amended' =�, 6. Assignment by Commission. The Commission may assign..ali or part of its obligations under this Agreement to any other public agency having jurisdiction over the Property provided that it gives the Developer thirty (30) days advance writte' n notice thereof. The Developer may not assign, delegate or otherwise transfer all or part its s underlined text is added, sii- i44-44tstt- text is deleted Page 7 of 31 Packet Page -124- a w oX> 0 4/8/2014 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 e 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 hoot the express writt consent of the Commission as required by this Section sh be void ab initio. 7. SeveNbility. If any section, phrase, sentence or porti of this Agreement is for any reason held valid or unconstitutional by any court of mpetent jurisdiction, such portion shall be dee ed a separate, distinct, and inde ndent provision, and all other provisions shall remain e i eW'>d',bi&i g the rties. 8. Nofioe. Any notice es +red or required t ti given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall th personall eIiv red or shall be sent by mail, postage prepaid, to the Parti ! y� n' To the Comml Ilier au �y ��' ousing n Services Department s#ee D4vaSuite -14-8 � 301' a� - iami Trail Buiidi— H Suite 211 Nap ; r1orida - 111294 To the Developer. James J. Fields 15544 Monterosso L ne #2 r Naples, Florida 341110 VVith cop o: a Any Party may ch . nge the address to which notices are to be sent 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, a7Rc,ial -Adm}niG#zti(ie d_Housing and Human Services Department its desio 'e shall have the authority d to monitor and enforce the Developer's obligatio u -rlined text is added, w.—A +i etrg#3 text is deleted Page 3 of 31 _ "_ Packet Page -125- 0 w «> 0 a 4/8/2014 9.B. 10. Indemnify. The Developer hereby agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and ho Collier County and its officers, employees, and agents harmless from nn'd against an and all claims, penalties, damages, losses and expenses, prof sional fees, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees and all costs litigation and judgments ar 'ng out of any claim, willful misconduct or neglige act, error or omission, or liability o 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, rests sY� rid can -iiiQ ' whic hall run with the land and c T� shall be binding upon the 1 and agains person then having any ownership nterest at an time n t�time n'1 thi Agreement P Y / � 1 is terminated in accordance with Secttin r ie agree that if Developer transfers or c the conveys Po { c� � Y , _P no so no n Developer shall have no further obligation hereund r'` d any pers se g to once the terms hereof shall mss° look solely to Developer's su in i erest fort armance of said obligations. -� � _w 12. Recording. This g� trsh�atl�k�r or at County's expense in the official records of Collier County, orida. 0 13. Entire Acireem t. The Parties hereto agree that this Agreement 4 r.� constitutes the entire Agre ' ent between the Parties. hereto and s all inure to and be binding upon their resp 'tive heirs, successors, and assigns. 14. Termi tion. Each affordable: workforce, or gap housing nit shall be restricted to rem n and be maintained as the required affordable workforce nd clap housing as pr ided in the LDC §2.06.04. 1 S. Modification. This Agreement shall be modified or amended only by t ",n'+ ten greement of both Parties. 16. Discrimination. U riined text is added, text is deleted Page 9 of 31 Packet Page -126- 4/8/2014 9.B. a. The Developer agrees that neither it nor its agents sh disc ' inate 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 ffordable- workforce ho 'ng unit, it must advertise 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 chasing such affordable - workforce housin nit. C. The eveloper agrees to be responsible 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 r ab orkforce hou ' its shall be intermixed with, and not segregated from, t e . ar a efli units i the development. f. The q 11 1 i d esign of the affordable, workforce, and gap housi . 't I me s t rate dwelling units in the development. All physical Jp, oities i e dw It � described in item number a seven (7) of the Developer A i�c 'n for affordabI orce housing Density Bonus shall be the same for mar%ns�d�ffo able- workforce units. For °n developments where const tion takes place in more th one phase, all physical amenities as described ' ` item number seven (7) of the De , loper Application for o .n Affordable - Workforce ousing Density Bonus shall be the same in th the market rate units and the affor able - workforce units in each phase. Units in a s equent phase may contain di f '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 afford a ble-wo rkfor unit in an ;`phase contain physical amenities less than those described in the Develop A ication. 17. Phasing. The percentage of affordable - workforce housing units to which underlined text is added, straw t}isek text is deleted Page 10 of 31 Packet Page -127- 4/8/2014 93. fNe 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 uni 18. Dis osure. 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 ment are designated as affordable -wa force housing units. 19. Consistency. This Agreement and authori development shall be consistent with the Growth nn g�r FJJ r 8P r an development regulations of Collier County that are in eff igy, he time of de s o Subsequently adopted laws and policies shall apply t thi e A ent and�t' o e� pment to the extent that they are not in conflict wi t e , workforce housing units and the amount of afforda t- r � �ty� -bonus approved for the development. 0 20. Affordable -Wor f\ usin Den s Development Agreement. This Agreement is a distinct and afi from "development agreements" as defined by Section 163.322 la. Stat., as amended. c� 21. Prea lication Developer has executed and submitted to the .s' Development Services D - artment the Developer Application Affordable- Workforce Housing Density Bon , a copy of which is attached to this Agre ent as Appendix C and incorporated b reference herein. 22. G - ernin Law. This Agreement shall be governed by an construed in accordance ith the laws of the State of Florida. 23 Further Assurances. The Parties hereto shall execute and d 'ver, in recor le form if necessary, any and all documents, certificates, instruments, nd agr 'ements which may be reasonably required in order to effectuate the intent of th derlined text is added, stfo4_440ugh text is deleted Page 11 of 31 Packet Page -128- \reqsted t. Such documents shall include but not be limited to any c by the Develo per to exhibit that this Agreement has termi e with the provisions of paragraph 14 above. IN WITNESS VVHER;ECJF, ' Agreement to be executed a .4f, day and year f ATTEST: B ARD DW IGHT-E,'ZRQCK,`Cle -p `Jerk B y T Apprc�,ed -as to form and legal sufficiency: Assistant Co�ulnty At,orney f `p 4/8/2014 9.B. 2 used this First Amendment to ve written. COON COMMISSIONERS LORIDA rimed tczt is added, seek t7} zcxt +'s deleted Page 12 of 31 Packet Page -129- C CHAI R a w DEVELOPER: esses: Witness Pri te Na Ty- va Ta U,! By:cc—1 Witness Printed Name L C-P C{ STATE OF FLORIDA R Cotj COUNTY OF COLLIER ) 10 The foregoing First AmeHdm6nf to' e6 n' Gap Housing Density BoRij; -AW im s. g Property was aAkn2v!, 6d' ed 0 W, h rsonall - � 11 a S * 1 ; w& � i WITNESS my hand a .. official sea) th 2003. My Commission E2(pires: 7 RMECCA PARATOFE MY =SSON # DD 417348 text is added, siru A thfoii4 text is deleted Page 13 of 31 Packet Page -130- 4/8/2014 9.B. A -Irin� Affordable, Workforce, and I 1-- ant :And Restrictions On Real o as to me or has produced day odi W ry Public u„c EMM BIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Packet Page -131- 4/8/2014 9.B. c� 0 APPENDIX A, EXHIBIT A NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE - WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITSIMONTHLY BASE RENTS NUMBER OF UNITS BASE RENT Single Multi Single Multi Family Family Family Family GAP INC O E (81 -150% I41 Efficienc 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom �t 4 Bedroom TOTAL WORKFORCE INCOME' (61 -80% MI) ` ✓� Efficiency t� I Bedroom 2 Bedroom Bedroom 4 Bedroom TOTAL 0 LOW INCOME (51%-60% MI) Efficiency 1 Bedr m B Broom 0 44 0 _44 .f r C--i 1 l Bedroom -24 text is added, str�uc text i5 deleted Page 15 of 31 Packet Page -132- 4/8/2014 9.B. W C.r .-X:$ 0 .sa c� oa L 0 BY VERY LOW I 'COME (50% OR LESS CI) Efficiency 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bcd Dorn 4 Bedroo.11 TOTAL (1) Basc residential densi (2) Gross acreage 9.92 (3) Maximum number o de � velopnicat purs"tia, , (4) Grass residential dcna density bonus unite (5) Pcrccntaize of afford perc.crt; tit. total nisi 44 I�J co r t� �I.Jl k -O'rce housin' t5f s in the dove t( text is aided, ;rely t#�r, trxi is deleted Page 16 of 31 Packet Page -133- 4/8/2014 9. B. \3 units/acre. ns y bonus units allowed in this tl* affordable - workforce housing f�ed by the developer (as a /10 40 %, CDI .cam. c� cy, c,C> 4/8/2014 9.B. APPENDIX A, EXHIBIT B AFFORDABLE- WORKFORCE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS RATING SYSTEM LD \andgap 3, provides for calculation of a density bonus for develope pledging to construct workforce units within their development. Included in thi xhibit B are instructionhe tables with which to calculate the density bonus fora cular project. Exhibit C he current median income and acceptable rents for w and very low, workforce, come households in Collier County. T he 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 level, , and percentage of affordable work ce and—L-a si ti units ' the development. To use the affordable- workforce housing den b n te, les A a*443, below, shall be used. Tables A and-F , shall be review pdated if ne n an annual basis by the Board of County Commissioners or its dq i y First, choose the M) of the affordable -N cry low, 19w—, workforce,_ or velopment, and the type of maximum number ofir'esidential units er moss acre that ma added to the base density. These ad 4 tonal residential dwelling units per gross acre are them imum affordable- workforce housin, density bonus (AWHDB) available to that development. D elopments with percentages of�ordable- workforce housing units which fall in between the perce es shown on Table B A shat receive an affordable- workforce housing density bonus equal the to \ole- ff percentage t lies between plus 1 /10th of a residential dwelling unit per gross add 1tiona percentage of affordable- workforce housing rental units in the dever exampl _ , a development which has 24% of its total residential dwelling units - workfbrce housing units, and which has an affordable housing density bonus rating l rec ve an affordable - workforce housing density bonus (AWHDB) of 4.4 reside /nderlincd s per gross acre for the development. text is added, stf4.464 0 text is deleted Page 17 of 31 Packet Page -134- f� tlAAY-'� V -- ate- a�fa�l a�, A, it , i;I }- �z•�4.i.� D ..,,.i �t .e,ifii-%t 1 Y'- tiiat-4ype-f'3 r"C7 From this EtE'iiiiiz3t�6i3; T31}l @F� -iIi£' ria3iic;rrroiiri�ii S4 dtnr; i dwelling units : per u, Next deternti ne he of that ty e of � affordable - workforce hou tin units proposed in the development conNuared to the total number of dwelling units in thf, development. From this determination, Ta A will indicate the maximum number ofir'esidential units er moss acre that ma added to the base density. These ad 4 tonal residential dwelling units per gross acre are them imum affordable- workforce housin, density bonus (AWHDB) available to that development. D elopments with percentages of�ordable- workforce housing units which fall in between the perce es shown on Table B A shat receive an affordable- workforce housing density bonus equal the to \ole- ff percentage t lies between plus 1 /10th of a residential dwelling unit per gross add 1tiona percentage of affordable- workforce housing rental units in the dever exampl _ , a development which has 24% of its total residential dwelling units - workfbrce housing units, and which has an affordable housing density bonus rating l rec ve an affordable - workforce housing density bonus (AWHDB) of 4.4 reside /nderlincd s per gross acre for the development. text is added, stf4.464 0 text is deleted Page 17 of 31 Packet Page -134- 4/8/2014 9.B. !!O.dcrlinn-d text is added, 4w+jc�'—o� text is deleted Page 15 of 31 Packet Page -135- 0 CX> C-" 4/8/2014 93. APPENDIX A, EXHIBIT B AFFORDABLE- WORKFORCE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS RATING SYSTEM Please cafe ate your density bonus in the space provided below. Atta/additional pages if necessary. TABLE A: AFFORDABLE -W HOUSING D 'SITY BONUS RATING rior table delete current table follows MAXIMUM ALL VABLE DENSITY BONUS BY PER NT OF DEVELOPMENT DESIGN ED AS AFFORDABLE -WOR RCE HOUSING I Iousehold / A ' R or Product Income (% median 100, N o , `� ro 40% 0% 70% a 80 /0 o 90 /0 0 100 /o 81 -150% `16 Gap MI* ** (Gad) 1 f ( ✓J 6 I 6 6 n/a 61 -80° o Workforce MI* ? 3 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 51 -60% 41 N Low MI 3 ._6 8 8 8 8 8 Very Low less or 45 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 g ti owner- occuptea omy , * *May only be used in con,'inctton with at least 10% at or bow 80% MI Total Maximum Allo Ale Density = Base Density + Affordably &,'Workforce Housing Density Bonus. In no event shall the maximum gross density allowed exceed 16 u acre. teat is added, Wrack :#rei tgh text is deleted Page 19 of 31 Packet Page -136- O W 4/8/2014 9.B. APPENDIX A, EXHIBIT C COME AND RENT LEVELS FOR _THE _LOW AND MODERATE [NCO Pursuant apter 74, Section 74-402 (a)(1); Collier County Code of Laws and Ordi ces, moderate in me is 61% to 80% of the median income, low income is 51% to 60° ofthe median inco and very low income is less than 50% of the median 150°0 S1,961 MEDIAN INCOME 2007 Z­nt $2,720 $63,300 � 80° 0 Naples, MSA (Collier County) 51,256 NUMBER OF M ?11BERS IN FAMILY rior table deleted le follo ws S1,6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 150 °,'�o 73,3 50 83,700 94,2 9- �,1 121,500 129,900 138,I50 80° 39,100 44 650 , 0 64,750 69,250 73,700 6M,('k 29,340 33,480 90 41,880 48,600 51,960 55,260 50 °Io 24,450 27,900 3 400---- 3L4,900 7,7 40,500 43,300 46,050 35% 17,115 19,530 1, fi'- 2 30 16,390 8,350 30,310 32,235 25% 12,225 13,950 h . = 597 2,,250 21,650 23,025 \. ° �' The Florida Housing Finance Core � FHFC) ' leu Incentive Loan (SAIL) and the Low- � c'019M en rents given below, are based on 20(I data IrZsrr itili County's Section 8 Rental Assist nee Program which is a Housing <ku. ior-ity. ' 1_1OU51 j %OS T S BASED ON 30% F a, prior table deleted, current tab R U' /s /C' // - - sS�is to use in the State Apartment c` 'Tax Credit (LIETC) programs. The �°,, ty costs are provided from the .inistered by the Collier County G?' Q %LY INCOME ru luci,iticu ICM is aaaca, text is deleted Page 20 of 31 Packet Page -137- 0 ONE REDROOM U , 'T TWO BEDROOM UNIT THREE BEDROOM UNIT FOUR BEDROOM NIT 150°0 S1,961 52,355 $2,720 $3, - 4 � 80° 0 51,046 51,256 $1,451 S1,6 6d °,Q _ 57 & 5 594 2 S1,089 $1,215 S785 5907 $1,012 5" , 3 'A CS6511 54 -S S _ 5549 5635 $708 5327 5392 5453 $506 ru luci,iticu ICM is aaaca, text is deleted Page 20 of 31 Packet Page -137- 0 4/8/2014 9.B. underlined text is added, sif*e4-T# foof+ text is deic-ted Page 21 of 31 Packet Page -138- i 4/8/2014 93. APPENDIX B, EXHIBIT A P LIMINARY APPLICATION FOR AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING UN P L"' ""'A y APPLICATION USING UN N' \Dateupancy Desired: Date of Application: Amt. Of Sec. /Deposit- our Your N o Race/National Origin: Handicap: Yes 0 N le es No Co- Tenant N ic Race/National Origin: Handicap: Yes No Address. Present Address. Street City State Zip /Telephone No. Name of Landlord How Long at this ddress: Landlord's Address: Street city `Sta�te T If you have resided at your rese/4 A�PIs : Street city Name of Previous Landlord Street Cityf. St C APPLICANT: Present Employers Name_ I-TLI C1 Address and Telephone No, How long with Present Employe r- Job Title Gross Salary: Hour]), $ Alweekly $ _ Every 2 NVeckss S Social Security Number Birth Date Previous i--rnploycrs ; Number Birth Address and 71'elep one No. Haw long with IeviousErnplovcr JoD Title CO-TEN. Present E plovers Name Addre,s and Telephone No. Ho "!long with Present Employer: Job Title * U e11 inc -d text is added, text is deleted Page 22 of 31 Packet Page -139- I' I "p o. bt; h qON�,� , Yestate previous address: o' Fel - ne Tj h No. Monthly S i- -X::$ cis oss Salary. Hourly $ Weekly $ Soc 1 Security Number Previo Employers Name Address Telephone No. How long wi Previous Employer NAMES OF ALL % O WILI. OCCUPY APART 1. 2. N _ 3. PERSONAL REFERENCVS (Not Relatives Every 2 Weeks $ Monthly $ Birth Date Job Title BIRTH DATE SEX ACE 1. Name: Address: 2• Name: _ Address: R COO r, r J-1E C1 underlined text is added, sifaet i3is tcxt is deleted Page 23 of 31 Packet Page -140- How Long Known: How Long Known: 4/8/2014 9. B. w m c� 4/8/2014 9. B. APPENDIX B EXHIBIT B AFFORDABLE - WORKFORCE HOUSING APPLICANT INCOME VERIFICA Date. Applicant'_ amc: Co- Tenant's e:: Present Address: Social Security Number Social Security Number Str t City State Zip I hereby make appli lion for a single family unit at I hereby declare and rep al all of my sources of income. I am aware that to leave o t, ornit or fail to report my assets or ft stocks, bonds, real propert rent, sale or ownership is a fra Knowingly fals:f�ing informa non thJ5 -f S or ref I I hereby certify that this will b k, ermanent res] M ,t- d housing. I understand that this infopnat4gn determine my qualification ito b y I a that I am not rec;uired to si -IF—C d -1� capital gains, ctc. t d Wages /Salary Bonuses Tips Commissions InICi est Incor11e , Trust Fund Income , „ain L rlo }-,..crt V orkr,an's Connpcn�atiort Ar ��'elfare Food Stamps Social Secur its' ephone No. of income from pensions, ulent act punishable by law. of occupancy. that I have no other assisted mp ting my annual income to �ktc a _ housing unit. I understand or rr11h or,"14imcd property, pensions or S S- S S S Social Secuy Disability S Suppleme, al SSI $ F am, i]y sista --ice S Child support S Vctorans Rcnu.frts S vlyloxvs Benefits S crlined text is added, sc� thraka text is deleted Paue 24 of 31 Packet Page -141- Co- occupant (y Amount Frequency Received of Pay $ 15141 S $ $ S $ $ $ S S S S S S S S S � S $ S S S S S S $ S S $ $ S S S S S S S S S S w c� nion Pension $ S - Employment Business, sill t PZrtner, etc. S S S Priva surance Pension S $ S TOTAL 'NUAL INCOME S $ THE VERIFI TION HERE REQUESTED MAY TAKE THE FORM OF YEAR'S INCO E TAX RETURN FOR EACH OCCUPANT WHO HA OCCUPY THE ORDABLE, WORKFORCE, OR GAP UNIT. 4/8/2014 93. S S MOST RECENT ED AND WILL THE SAME MUST E EXECUTED FOR EACH OCCUPANT OF HE HOUSEHOLD WHO CONTRIBUTED TO E ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME. AILURE TO REPORT ALL SOURCES OF HOUSE LD INCOME WILL RESULT IN DISQ , LII?ICATION FOR TENANCY IN AFFORDABLE, WORIL RCE, OR GAP HOUSING UNIT. :�510 r„ underlined text is added, text is deleted Page 25 of 31 Packet Page -142- CD w c� 4/8/2014 9.B. APPENDIX B. EXHIBIT C FORDABLE - WORKFORCE HOUSING APPLICANT INCOME CERTIFICA APPLIC T. Present Employ Address: Street I, (APplica on this certification form. STATE OF FLORIDA ) } ss COUNTY OF COLLIER) The foregoing was a c Who is personally known to e identification. ^, t Witness my hand and 7H (notary sea]) My Commission Expires: Job Title: City to Zip hereby authorize the release information requested �' l sea - is _ underlined text is added, text is deleted Page 26 of 31 Packet Page -143- of Applicant as Notary Public Q 2008. P--3 w oa '�IPLOYER CERTIFICATION App ant's Gross Annual Income or Rate or Pay: S Number Hours Worked (Weekly): Frequency of Pay: Amount of muses, Tips, or other Compensation Received: S_ STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER) The foregoing w s ack.now Who is personally know or has prod identification. Witness my hand an (' off' (notary seal) f� My Commission Expires: �� TI-II: CERTIFICATION HERE REQ l INCOME T:'-X RETURN FC)R � AF -)ABLE r. 4/8/2014 9.B. Monthly / Annually Sup as 2008. Notary Public Y Tr1KE T �P�t'1RR4 OF THE MOST RECENT YEAR'S f -H a5 FILED AND WILL OCCUPY THE c s� ca qp N Underlined text is added, s4ace 4Ktjgh text is deleted Page 27 of 31 Packet Page -144- APPENDIX C \to EVELOPER APPLICATION FOR AFFORDABLE -WORE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS PursuDC § 2.06.01 please complete this form and submit it w' documentation t the Community Development & Environmenta/proided Horseshoe Drive, les, Florida 34104. A copy must also be Housing and Human Se ices Department. All items requested must be ,rovided. 1. Please state what zonin, i s e propose j acreage of each: RPUD -9 -.92 2. Has an application fo [rez(� e ` u and San housing Density bonus? !'1 J k Yes No �a{ If yes, state date of application \ 2 -04 a if th qs Ordinance number 05_63_ CA- 3. Gross density of the propos develop ren . 1 9 u Gross ac-, ease of the pro " sed development. 9.92 a 4. Are affordable -work ice housing density bonus units application for a planned development (PUD)? ?X Yes _ If yes, please atc narie and location of the PL"D and any other is Cirrus Pointe RWD, located and a_t the northeast corner of the i Drive and Bav gore Thrive 4/8/2014 9.B. W1 any accompanying Division, 2800 North to the Collier County licant, if any, on the property and the 1 v •, i with the affordable, workforce been approved, state the to conjunction with an ing information. 5. Nae of applicant James J. Fields dameof m land developer if not the sae as applicant. N/A Picase complete the following tables,"', they apply to the proposed development. text is added, c#�k €#�sr��#t text is deletcd Page 28 of 31 Packet Page -145- 0 w ao .sue, N underlined text is added, gpuc-k�,ca text is deleted Page 29 of 31 Packet Page -146- 4/8/2014 9.B. 1BLE I 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 �'�✓1-�'��r TABLE II Number of Affizdabl _" r_ _ ins Units ri: r ab d e ren t h e foll6ws tta urr r f ro,os d 0 for ' ord tsie -IA - ensity on nits fore nits '(= '� -� in\ o opm � t Owner Rental c 1pted CA- mt-al Occupied GAF INCOME � 81 -150% MI - - . ry Efficiency I Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedro Othe TAL 0 In accordance with LDC Section 2.06.03.D_ — . I owner occupied underlined text is added, gpuc-k�,ca text is deleted Page 29 of 31 Packet Page -146- INORKFORCE INCOME I Ot&oci 13-edr 3 Bedroo Other TOTAL LOW I N CO3N1 1', SI-60%,Nll Efficiencv I Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Otter TOTAL 'VE R :500//o OR LESS All Ei-i c 1: -ricv 2 Bedroom/ Beo/00111 4/8/2014 9.B. 44 44 44 In accordance with Me Section 2-06.03.D. — Co C:> C-Jk (D (DC> C1 0 0 cs TOTAL 0 0 derlined text is added, Gtf�c-k44rough text is delctcd Page 30 of 31 Packet Page -147- 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 1 Inclu in your description, for example, the square footage of each type of unit, floor used thro out the unit (carpeting, tile, vinyl flooring); window treatments; appli es 4/8/2014 9.B. provided such as washc ' ryer, dishwasher, stove, refrigerator; bathroom ceiling exhaust fans; and any oth amenities as applicable. Attach additiona"D" if needed. (See attae hem CIRRUS POINTE PUD PHYSICAL DESCRIPTI OF � FOWVJ4I _ WORKF i WTTfi There will be a minimum of 3? I (44DWorkforceZousing Units in the Cirrus Pointe PUD, These -Aff —alb VVo zckfdTe using Units uv ,comprised of 4.9 44 three - bedroom lf� Units. % All Afferdable Workfor e b s s V r �/ as owner - occupied multi - family 1� -. `ACA , `� / units, Each unit will comeY,s�ndard ww11 carpet am, eta s, refrigerator, dishwasher, stove, o ww,asher /dryer, basic lightin c i package, and 6 ours «rill have ceiling exhaust fans. The three- bedroom units will hav f ttione ea of 1526 square feet. Garage 0_% parking will provide 2 parking Calls for each unit and will also hou storage areas for each unit. � The entire community wi consist of up to log multi - family homes d the units that are not ° ry designated A44 -(�• Torkforce Housing Units will be offered as m\ately riced multi -family homes. T community ww�ill have the following amenities open tts of Cirrus Pointe: pool/c. -ana, fountains, sidewalks and gated security. $. Please st .:ply any other information ww,hich would reasonably be needed to address this req zt for an af'� rdable, workforce, and gap housing density bonus for this development. Attach additio p :' es if needed, underlined text is added, 5haK4t_4fou4, text is deleted YRPLES'557212,.1A Page 31 of 31 Packet Page -148- 4/8/2014 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 iNiTNESSES: (1) (2) s gnv ure Signature Printed /Typed Nome Printed /Typed Name Sicna't ],e Printed /Typed Name Printed /Typed Title I of 2 Packet Page -149- Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton -Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney 13- CPS - 01205124 2 of? Packet Page -150- 4/8/2014 9.B.