The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 06/10/2014 Item # 9B 6/10/2014 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 amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code,which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a project previously known as the Buckley Mixed Use Planned Unit Development(MPUD)to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development(MPUD)which will continue to be known as the Buckley PUD,to allow a maximum of 239 residential units, with no requirement for workforce housing units and up to a maximum of 162,750 square feet of gross floor space of retail,office and services uses,including permissible and conditional uses in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 zoning districts. The subject property is located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road (CR 31)and Orange Blossom Drive in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 21.7+/- acres; providing for the repeal of Ordinance Number 05-05, the former Buckley MPUD; and by providing an effective date (PUDZ-A-PL20120002906) (Companion to Petition PL2012-2909 CP 2013-3). 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 (BCC)to approve an amendment to the existing PUD zoned project to allow numerous.changes in conjunction with a proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment as noted above.For details about the project proposal, refer to "Purpose/Description of Project"in the staff report prepared for the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC). FISCAL IMPACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan as needed to maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP)IMPACT: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): Staff found the proposed Planned Unit Development amendment to be deemed consistent with Packet Page-75- 6/10/2014 9.B. the Future Land Use Element contingent upon Board approval of the companion Growth /Th Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20120002909/CP-2013-3, that proposed to allow changes to development standards, uses and intensities, and design guidelines for the site. See the Collier County Planning Commission staff report for further analysis. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this amendment within the 5 year planning period. Therefore, the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). Roadway Impacts: Airport Road and Orange Blossom Drive Link 2.1, Airport Road between Orange Blossom Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road, is the first concurrency link impacted by this zoning amendment. The project generates a net total of 42 total, additional, PM Peak hour two-way trips. 40 of those trips result in a peak direction, peak hour directional impact resulting in a 1.33%impact. The project impacts links located within the Northwest TCMA,but the development does not seek exception from concurrency at this time. 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 fmding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as indicated previously in the GMP discussion. 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 contingent upon Board approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, PL20120002909/CP-2013-3, including the adoption of the above referenced GMPA text change. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC/EAC heard this petition on May 1, 2014, and continued the petition until May 15, 2014. The CCPC 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 vote of 5 to 1 (Commission Ebert did not support the motion,and Commissioner Doyle was absent), with the motion made by Commissioner Chrzanowski and seconded by Commissioner Homiak,the CCPC recommended forwarding this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval subject to the following changes to the PUD document: 1. Amend the Master Plan to include language that would potentially allow both pedestrian Packet Page-76- 6/10/2014 9.B. and vehicular interconnections to the north and south; 2. Revise Table II in Exhibit B footnotes to remove Item #3; 3. Revise Table II in Exhibit B footnotes Item #7 (now#6)to allow 45 feet actual height; 4. Revise Exhibit F, General Item #2 to add the following at the end, "and subject to safety concerns of the public." These revisions have been incorporated into the PUD document that is included in the draft ordinance. No opposition to this petition was been received. The CCPC vote was unanimous; however Comprehensive Planning staff is not supporting the companion GMPA petition. That petition needs to be heard on the regular agenda; therefore the petition can be placed on the Summary Agenda. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is a site specific rezone from an MPUD Zoning District to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District for a project which will continue to be known as the Buckley MPUD. The burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent with all the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), should it consider denying the rezone, to determine that such denial would not be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the proposal does not meet one or more of the listed criteria below. Criteria for MPUD Rezones Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval or not. 1. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. 2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. 3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed MPUD 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. Packet Page-77- 6/10/2014 9.B. 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 MPUD 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 MPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? 11. Would the requested MPUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? 12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. 13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. 14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? 15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety? 16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? 17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas? 18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? 19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations? Packet Page-78- 6/10/2014 9.B. 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 MPUD 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 MPUD rezone request that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare? The BCC must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the BCC hearing as these items relate to these criteria. The proposed Ordinance was prepared by the County Attorney's Office. This item has been approved as to form and legality, and requires an affirmative vote of four for Board approval. (HFAC) RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendations of the CCPC and further recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the requested PUD amendment subject to the attached PUD Ordinance that includes both the staff's revised recommendation and the CCPC recommendation, if the companion GMPA amendment is approved. Prepared by: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner, Planning & Zoning Department, Growth Management Division, Planning and Regulation Attachments: 1) CCPC Staff Report 2) Application Backup Information due to the size of the document it is accessible at: http://www.colliergov.net/ftp/AaendaJuneIO/GrowthMgmt/Application for Buckley.pdf 3) Ordinance Packet Page-79- 6/10/2014 9.B. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.9.B. Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended,the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a project previously known as the Buckley Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD)to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) which will continue to be known as the Buckley PUD,to allow a maximum of 239 residential units, with no requirement for workforce housing units and up to a maximum of 162,750 square feet of gross floor space of retail, office and services uses, including permissible and conditional uses in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 zoning districts.The subject property is located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road (CR 31) and Orange Blossom Drive in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 21.7+/- acres; providing for the repeal of Ordinance Number 05-05, the former Buckley MPUD; and by providing an effective date (PUDZ-A-PL20120002906) (Companion to Petition PL2012-2909 CP-2013-3). Meeting Date: 6/10/2014 Prepared By Name: DeselemKay Title: Planner, Principal,Zoning&Land Development Review 5/21/2014 9:31:14 AM Approved By Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, Community Development&Environmental Services Date: 5/21/2014 9:57:42 AM Name: BosiMichael Title: Director-Planning and Zoning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 5/21/2014 12:13:22 PM Packet Page-80- 6/10/2014 9.B. Name: BellowsRay Title: Manager-Planning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 5/22/2014 2:29:06 PM Name: AshtonHeidi Title: Managing Assistant County Attorney, CAO Land Use/Transportation Date: 5/27/2014 10:20:39 AM Name: MarcellaJeanne Title: Executive Secretary, Transportation Planning Date: 5/28/2014 8:00:00 AM Name: AshtonHeidi Title: Managing Assistant County Attorney,CAO Land Use/Transportation Date: 5/28/2014 10:05:25 AM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 5/28/2014 4:02:55 PM Name: IsacksonMark Title: Director-Corp Financial and Mngmt Svs, Office of Management&Budget Date: 5/28/2014 5:16:37 PM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager, County Managers Office Date: 5/29/2014 4:05:50 PM Packet Page-81- 6/10/2014 9.B. AGENDA ITEM 9-C Cot r er Caunty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES—PLANNING &ZONING DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION--PLANNING&REGULATION HEARING DATE: MAY 1, 2014 SUBJECT: PETITION: PUDZ-A-PL20120002906, BUCKLEY PUD (COMPANION TO PETITION: PL2012-2909/CP-2013-3) ^ OWNER: APPLICANT: Airport Pulling Orange Blossom. LLC McQuire Development Company 560 Delaware Avenue 560 Delaware Avenue Buffalo,NY 14202 Buffalo NY 14202 AGENTS: Mr. Tim Hancock, AICP, Senior Planner Mr. Bruce Anderson, Esquire Stantec. 850 Park Shore Drive 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite200 Trianon Center,Third Floor Naples,FL 34105 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for an amendment to the existing PUD zoned project to allow numerous changes in conjunction with a proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment as noted above. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located at 7501 Airport-Pulling Road, in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road (CR 31) and Orange Blossom Drive, north of the Collier County Regional Library, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (see location map on the following page) PUDZ-A-PL20120002906,BUCKLEY PUD Page 1 of 17 May 1, 2014CCPC Revised: 4/7/14 Packet Page-82- 6/10/2014 9.B. / • y x \1\11111r iii, z j"1111.1111.1111.11m11111111 ,� �� O El W ;` ,S J i ° P HE 3 • a 11111111111.11111.11 WING ‘111 1YHRG (L£ .a.o) VON oNmnd-180de V C\1 w : u.. r Cz-Al L 1e', c 0 ` ©111161531 :�a e . „ Idd,,�0„,a ' •!.,;*v;,?,01,,. ,T.,\ �uric , aND �..L�rwF A G _ N �9�o0EER1 A ILaREGALD CIRCLE N CL n 3tt05 01 LON N n EL 4t T5 e” p 0 <� 714 a k W 1 CL Nu.~GNn, o J ° 9/-31VLSa31NI am num=v nom 11 MOOR Ms3Ydln V i 3 N @.. ._ a ..o b _ tl ,„ u-3lvasa3lNf E _ W --°` °e 8 . a a _ U d'J' (�) LMNGSTON ROAD o d J 1� I1• yy OTOS NOLSSNIAfl , C ,,-E NsNM NYOfPd P O ib .6 5 G �{ G „fU� a 1 t s €E 0 3o a 1—_ 3 r ° 11[�a) > - � � d d g� . wed) `° 6"~" mom 9NI11 d-nodMro ” 1..�' tl 1unlIMJ A CVOS 9NOlnd-1210dRIV . �rql gS Q gig _ e ■y i- W°s 9m It= V/ N�' gds°�m1 t 5 iii 03 N+ 6 y]... �. i bi gE�a �kaP r ag \ \ - J _ gig X— eta and Gr'N a,3IG°no 3°",�M. sli 5 (,2,-3) I . ` ` avoa 3,I.�,__ �55rYi "4.� rA--- —�q�2 11��nt 111.1 SORRIOp1 I. gl Q 5 g Lit as h E; 3f use If91 OVOR N1Nd33L310009 ws u o � s S a>snl i I ° 1}T . isa hN IWMWVL r -�- 8X :ix I c 1/ ^ ° IRSS'n)'1IV11 IWMYiV1 a Packet Page-83- 6/10/2014 9.B. vo.......,- . NVId 1dE3NCY0 tf3.1,2W4 4,41130,,, .■': ACK 40 0 rf 3.31R 3..1.181HX3 ,.-.M.,leoto..,..., ft,f 310,- anan A,31XOtle .71M312, 1.1■C ; e. .■.. LU 0 2 u) U 0„,,,., C) n 9 w<It o.0 u_ w LL D 2 0 rs 0 rr D p EL w 4 41 EL g 0 D b Z 03 > .i w eq 44t ....-- -.1 w ‘ _._ -1111. 61.--•*-0, •••-••-•-,.., • -z z — t 1 <0 ._, .. I el n-0 :7_,'"u) ,■: 4- , ()Dir. w 0 , ■ -JW0,.., , 2 *It g i§ ''' I, LI: Z■,&. IL al 2 In ..... 1 e" .^ , 0 .e, Ia.CO.-.;n■----...------- I MI ,-------, 1 °, ; 1 Z LII<ui- at s2- -.:f■ -, 11.1 , b 4,.,0 M 1' ( 1. __,i CV....,- 1 , i zz f, i- i 0 D --; t r, - f II.' "r, CC . . E 111 1 2 < ; 216 , *?, E o ,--i a_444 I • -t 1 t 1 H 1 0 Et ..k.'Sg-,6‘ , , \ I 1 Ur, R 1, f 1 :4 i , .( If ' t.L., =086* ,-; 4 "ii. I 7.. t#, 'I t 0 t . I. '.. j,i t, ._ 1 i k 1.,i ,- , 6 i I I , i III •. cr t.',. <cr 1-.. 21 113. [8 ,:-, ; i '' ai y ,_, ;',3 'E, t. 1 z' -:15 P z ''' ..7.•. ' ,o ,.... ...■ I ; i ' 61 t:::., --. Q 01 o • 1 I.. i 0 — . 6 u, 6 -.1 g 1,D ' ■5 . -- ' , , 1. 1 If I ; >. r.:',*."'"' ty,- ,-,LU r .6 i 2. 2 1'2 ± Id 1• I 1 i I Lir,.,4c,. ‘41,3 yo.<, 12, ...,, __L..-4....-,....-..-.1-,.......-i ■ il.1 ' ' cr. 1 .1 i • m CA ni 1 1.1 1 AVM,JO.J.He o. r tti as 11 -i Lil c <,r I ! _,, , D o,. .. ...._____ _I, ____...,111 0 < th III' 1 I.'L 1 ! IM 41 U.I Z Iu nt lig, i cr i z .. . .,,:c 1. i z Z 11 7:-. fr- -rt.- z• Fi Cl. u 1 t 1 LaJ x 77-, : , ' 14' w ' - -1 i-• I . i. - ' W 2 4.- ' ,b / < , i y, I 0 11.0.b, t< ' . W I tyj I.IV LI, i I et,... ., ■ w. IL I 6- :Lk. u- I--. Zr,'..... - . . . 01 tu !..8 .'., 1- ? i • 11 it. o 1 1 i i m± It i I i 1 1 1 Cf LW° .,.. : - ,_ ii- ,,... rf so i :...: -'- w , 1 Lu .ull ;7C <,a s o t u .. i ,u. Ls,a, 1 0.i.-0 ''7' 1 ) I i . , 'i / u) 2 CO Ilk' t 1 ooi I LU . e I . Ili II < 1 a_1.0 14.4 ■ it.0 5 1 ,,,, 1 1 -<a. a ; 'C .., . 0 1 I 5, 8 ,0 i t„4°.1-f5 I 2 Ilit toto 'g' 5 , ,-- 0 8. Er_ ; ,— .5 1 ,,, ....,21 1 I, 1 , z =. D = , .F.. I to ... 2 gg i ' I i &x t r, ,i 4 E. 1 I , 0 t.- W - - '' 1.2.`u cr t I < 1 i co.: t 1 IY-,J u 1 1 1 , , ,e4 I II 1 k ) . • 5t g 1 , , J : 1 ,I `, IL' --—— I - C.7 . I . atoin 'I ..... , Z l•" i 0 C.) if ...!< 1 1 . 0 0 CC 1 - D al 111 "--i 1 (...) ]s ■ ... 7>- %5"..•'= :. ;. i. 1,i . 8M 11 : ' I V * - 0 1 ht ..„..t.".1 :1,`: dr' ,- I -- -, _b...,u ji r' ii jou ic 0,...oc_<Z-o_oZ L 1 ., -0 I/ , , m M>at ___________ . - -.1..-.. -... +.-.■. ..-- ....- ..j , c:6 %11111 -6"41 ' " wil aff air ME UM MB NB j . .Lii i vE tx I • ...,. LIJ ci , P.I. 016 z z it. , WI 0 NI z CO, i< Pr ' LIS tr 1 LE, tu _, Packet Page-84- , . - 6/10/2014 9.B. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject site is currently undeveloped. Prior use was a commercial plant nursery, consisting of landscape cloth areas used for container plants, greenhouses and mobile office buildings. The site is devoid of native vegetation. Access is currently gained from one access point on Airport-Pulling Road. The PUD was approved on January 25, 2005, to allow a mixed used project with a maximum of 251 dwelling units, 74,230 square feet of retail space and 97,070 square feet of office space. As depicted on the approved Master Plan, letter designations reflect the uses proposed for the areas of the site. This includes building footprint details for each tract with specific square footage use detail for each structure. Along the north perimeter boundary,the "A" section shows two, 2-story (over parking) structures to house 30 residential units. To the south is the "B" section that shows 76,270 square feet of office space within four 2- or 3-story structures (over parking). West of the "B" section is the "C" section showing five buildings to be developed with a combination of medical office space, a restaurant, and 40 dwelling units. Section "D" is located along the Airport Road frontage, and proposed 34,000 square feet of retail space within six buildings, with 48 dwelling units placed above the retail space. Section "E", located between Section "D" and the western perimeter property boundary proposes seven buildings that are to be developed with 5,000 square feet of restaurant space, 34,000 square feet of retail space and 56 dwelling units. Section "F" consists of two buildings (two stories over parking) that will house 30 dwelling units. Three access points along Airport-Pulling Road are shown to serve this project. The north and south access points are limited to right in/right out only, and the middle access point is shown as a full access point. The developer will be required to provide right turn lanes at the primary access point and at the southerly entrance. The agent provided a comprehensive list of proposed changes as shown below: Below are the key changes to the Buckley PUDA, mostly resulting from the Growth Management Plan Amendment that is pending final adoption: 1. Residential density reduced from 251 dwelling units to 239 dwelling units as a maximum. 2. Max commercial square footage is being reduced from 171,300 sq.ft. to 162,750 sq.ft. with no increase in land uses (C-1 to C-3). 3. Distinction between Office and Retail square footage is eliminated. 4. The PUD creates a linkage between residential density & commercial square footage. For each 7,500 sq. ft. of commercial development constructed, 11 dwelling units are subtracted from the maximum and vice versa. 5. Where the prior PUD promoted multi-tenant commercial development, the proposed PUD limits multi-tenant space to 50% in accordance with the proposed GMPA language. PUDZ-A-PL20120002906,BUCKLEY PUD Page 2 of 17 May 1,2014CCPC Revised: 4/7/14 Packet Page-85- 6/10/2014 9.B. 6. The GMPA encourages physical [pedestrian] integration of commercial and residential uses, but the PUD does not require it. 7. Live/ Work design is being replaced with the flexibility to provide residential or commercial in a manner more consistent with the market demands. 8. Dumpsters were required to be 60'from Emerald Lakes and that is now 100'. 9. The buffer between Emerald Lakes and the project was an 8' wall and berm with vegetation reaching 80% opacity within one year. New language allows for a 6' wall but requires 50%more trees. 10. Maximum building footprint is being increaseelfrom 15,000 sq.ft. to 100,000 sq. ft. 11. Drive through establishments were limited to banks, with no limit on the number. The GMPA language permits up to 4 drive through establishments, with no more than one being for a fast food restaurant. 12. The current PUD allows under building parking, but it is prohibited in the proposed PUD in accordance with the GMPA language. 13. Development within the project is further limited to a maximum of 687 PM Peak Hour, two way trips. The changes listed below are considered more minor in nature but are listed here in an attempt to be comprehensive. 1. Size reduced from 22.84 ac to 21.7 ac due to prior takings for ROW. 2. Commercial and residential uses can no longer be co-located in the same buildings. 3. Requirement for 5% of the residential units to include work force housing has been removed. 4. Max floor area ratio of.518 has been removed and is no longer practical due to changes in the water management design. 5. Language for Model Sales Facilities has been removed(Section 2.06). 6. Section 2.9 (Open Space) has been removed and will be governed by the LDC. 7. Section 2.11 (Off-Site Removal of Earthen Material) has been removed. PUDZ-A-PL20120002906,BUCKLEY PUD Page 3 of 17 May 1,2014CCPC Revised: 4/7/14 Packet Page-86- 6/10/2014 9.B. 8. Potential pedestrian access to Emerald Lakes has been removed based on meeting with the homeowners. 9. C-1 and C-3 uses remain with the same commercial land use exclusions contained in the existing PUD 10. Band Shells and Stages have been removed from the PUD as common elements. 11. Perimeter Setbacks: 12. Location Old Setback New Residential New Commercial Airport Rd 20' 30' 25' South PL 20' 20' 40' West PL 100' 100' 100' North PL 20' 20' 40' Between Bldgs 20' 10'or 1/2 SBH 2-' Height(zoned) 3 stories/45' 3 stories/45' 3 stories/45' 13. Under Building Parking is currently allowed. The PUDA does not allow parking under the buildings. 14. Residential Parking was required at 1.5 spaces/unit. This is now subject to LDC requirements. 15. The internal buffer deviation has been removed 16. The perimeter buffer to the South has been amended to reflect current LDC requirements. 17. The buffer along Airport Rd has been changed from a 20' Type `C' to 20' Type `D' 18. A 25%cap on single story buildings has been removed. 19. Requirement for access to all commercial buildings being "internal" has been removed 20. Screening of parking areas from Airport Rd is being replaced with an LDC required Type `D'buffer. 21. Building specific references are being removed and the project will be required to comply with the LDC. 22. Minimum ROW width is being increased from 40'to 50'. PUDZ-A-PL20120002906,BUCKLEY PUD Page 4 of 17 May 1,2014CCPC Revised: 4/7/14 Packet Page-87- 6/10/2014 9.B. 23. Deviation for minimum turn radius of 20'is being removed. 24. Connection to Orange Blossom Drive via the Collier County Library site is being eliminated at the direction of BCC. 25. Section 4.11 requiring an on-site polling location is being removed. 26. The Master Concept Plan has been amended to reflect the above changes as appropriate. 27. References to the HEX and HEX process have been added. 28. Development Standards for residential and commercial uses have been broken out separately. 29. The requirement that all four sides of each building reflect a common architectural theme is eliminated, and instead building sides will be subject to LDC design standards. 30. A deviation has been added for maximum F.A.R.for ALFs to permit a.65 F.A.R. 31. Standards for outdoor lighting that are more restrictive than the LDC have been added to the PUD. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Brighton Gardens PUD, a 5± acre tract approved for.a maximum of 117 assisted living units and a 40-bed nursing home, which is developed as Harbor Chase Assisted Living Facility East: Airport Pulling Road, then Lakeside of Naples at Citrus Gardens, zoned PUD as Citrus Gardens, approved for four units per acre, developed with multi-family residential development South: County regional library, zoned Agricultural with a Conditional Use to allow the library West: Emerald Lakes, a single-family home subdivision, zoned PUD, approved for a density of 3.5 units per acre PUDZ-A-PL20120002906, BUCKLEY PUD Page 5 of 17 May 1,2014CCPC Revised: 4/7/14 Packet Page-88- 6/10/2014 9.B.WI :5t'Y m —a T `' — .,1" '' ^5ifs 4; I. " J! s: `r ' -4 9E .- , $. v . J=—'—',.....^ L �. rV r" • , ,2-''''*t).' ' : ',7----' '''-:■--: ,.... ,:-.'''is.; .,:ti "`' ' ' ' - ' •*'..0'-..4'''.4''''''-V*•=1.4kti. L C.,v m. ., , T y E A r `4 , ..J 'A`5 'S ? Y b y H-Z'r ' - — "'. R,, $ 9 ' , �v ... J "4'ttf �K 6 'tir'''i Emerald Lakes iwi. „ ,� x , " .:f'roe 4 1%, x ? s ' te &a* .' , ' ..cr �. li[ .i , � '.s ' I 'S - " "a r, .,,,.r: a '- [i . , ,•1 J . c. ..+ � '''r „..o:....r,�, ,,K1 V ar..;a ice.,. > -. x .w..- } n war a ey a '"6lXf K "�" ?may is"k"` " C '3 r .-•-.• z Aerial Photo (subject site depiction is approximate) GR:OWTI MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject site is designated Urban (Mixed Use District, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). The Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict limits development on the subject site to specific commercial square feet caps per acre, development standards, and design guidelines enumerated within the Subdistrict. The subject PUD amendment request would allow the site to be developed contrary to the existing FLUE provisions. Because the proposed PUD amendment request does not comply with the existing Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict of the FLUE, the property owner submitted a Growth Management Plan amendment (GMPA) application (Petition PL20120002909/CP-2013-3) that, if approved, will allow the proposed changes to development standards,uses and intensities, and design guidelines for the site. PUDZ-A-PL20120002906,BUCKLEY PUD Page 6 of 17 May 1,2014CCPC Revised: 4/7/14 Packet Page-89- 6/10/2014 9.B. The rezoning petition may only be found consistent with the FLUE, contingent upon the companion Growth Management Plan amendment being approved by the Board of County Commissioners and subsequently becoming in effect. Changes to the GMP amendment as it proceeds through the hearing process may necessitate changes to the subject PUD amendment petition. The Adoption hearings for both the Growth Management Plan amendment to the FLUE and the MPUD 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. [The project has frontage on Airport-Pulling Road, an arterial roadway and has access to that road.] 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. [The proposed PUDA conceptual master plan identifies that the project will have internal roadways that will permit vehicles to safely move throughout the site. However, due to the limited site acreage, property shape, and type of development contemplated, no loop roads are proposed.] 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 eastern property boundary is adjacent to a public roadway; the northern property boundary abuts a preserve area/buffer within the developed Brighton Gardens PUD (ALF); the western boundary abuts the existing residential single family portion of a residential development (Emerald Lakes PUD); and southern boundary abuts the developed Collier County Headquarters Library site. Though staff believes it would be beneficial to provide interconnections to the northern, western and southern properties, thus potentially reducing vehicle trips on adjacent roadways, it is acknowledged that the PUDZ-A-PL20120002906,BUCKLEY PUD Page 7 of 17 May 1,2014CCPC Revised: 4/7/14 Packet Page-90- 6/10/2014 9.B. developments to the north and west are built-out, and the originally proposed southerly vehicular interconnection was eliminated by the Board at the GMPA Transmittal hearing.] Based on the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed PUDZA application consistent with the Growth Management Plan amendment proposed for adoption, including a change to the GMPA text transmitted by the Board, as requested by the Applicant, which would prohibit residential dwelling units from being integrated into commercial buildings. Project consistency with the Future Land Use Element is contingent upon Board approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20120002909/CP-2013-3, including the adoption of the above referenced GMPA text change. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation& Coastal Management Element(CCME). Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this amendment within the 5 year planning period. Therefore, the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). Roadway Impacts: Airport Road and Orange Blossom Drive Link 2.1, Airport Road between Orange Blossom Drive and Vanderbilt Beach Road, is the first concurrency link impacted by this zoning amendment. The project generates a net total of 42 total, additional, PM Peak hour two-way trips. 40 of those trips result in a peak direction, peak hour directional impact resulting in a 1.33%impact. The project impacts links located within the Northwest TCMA, but the development does not seek exception from concurrency at this time. 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 Environmental Advisory Council (EAC)review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and PUDZ-A-PL20120002906,BUCKLEY PUD Page 8 of 17 May 1,2014CCPC Revised: 4/7/14 Packet Page-91- 6/10/2014 9.B. Ordinances. There is no Preserve requirement as the site was cleared prior to 1975 and has remained cleared. The site was in agricultural use since at least 1975 until 2007 (according to Property Appraiser aerial). Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues as well as roadway capacity, and recommends approval subject to the Developer/owner commitments as provided in the PUD ordinance. Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. Zoning staff has concerns about this project. Staff believes in its present form, it will not be compatible with and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. To support that opinion staff offers the following analysis of this project. The original PUD approval was designed to be a true mixed use project with a "live/work design" and a workforce housing component of residential and commercial uses that would be complementary to the nearby residential uses of Emerald Lakes, Lakeside of Naples, and the quasi-residential uses of Brighton Gardens. The original PUD not only allowed for the mixture of uses, it required that a certain portion of residential uses be established before commercial development. The original PUD has a very specific site plan showing proposed building layouts; the current amendment is a"bubble" plan, with no building footprint detail being shown. The current proposed amendment would allow the entire site to be developed with commercial uses. Given that, staff believes it is appropriate to incorporate additional safeguards for the commercial uses. Relationship to Existing and Future Land Uses: A discussion of this relationship, as it applies specifically to Collier County's legal basis for land use planning, refers to the relationship of the uses that would be permitted if the proposed zoning action is approved, to the requirement or limitations set forth in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The proposed uses, as limited in the staffs PUD document, are consistent with the GMP, as previously noted. The actual uses proposed, as limited in the PUD document, should be compatible with the land uses that have been developed on adjacent tracts if additional safeguards are put in place to restrict hours of operation, e.g., no 24 hour operations, limiting individual commercial users to no more than 50,000 square feet, and prohibit fast food restaurants. The Master Plan show a 6 foot high masonry wall running from the northwestern property line to the east for a distance for 80 feet, and a 10 foot wide type A buffer to the south, a 20-foot wide type D buffer to the east along Airport-Pulling Road, and a twenty-foot wide type C buffer to the west, that is augmented with a 6 foot high masonry wall and berm or combination. PUDZ-A-PL20120002906,BUCKLEY PUD Page 9 of 17 May 1,2014CCPC Revised: 4/7/14 Packet Page-92- 6/10/2014 9.B. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking two deviations. The petitioner has provided justification in support of the deviations. 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. . . Staff has analyzed the deviation requests and has provided the analyses and recommendations below. Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.0 which establishes the minimum right-of- way width of 60 feet be utilized, to instead establish that all internal roadways, if platted, shall be subject to a 50-foot right-of-way configuration. Petitioner's Rationale: This deviation seeks to provide a sufficient private right-of-way network in a 50 foot width. The LDC required width of 60 feet is not necessary in this case to provide an adequate right- of-way width. The deviation would provide area for a 24 foot drive with an additional 26 feet set aside for drainage and utility easements and pedestrian walkways. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting publicpurposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04 D.1 which establishes the maximum floor area ratio of 0.45,to instead establish that the maximum floor area ratio be 0.65. Petitioner's Rationale: This deviation seeks to specifically address the development of assisted living facilities (ALF) the current standard of care and facilities. The ALF industry has seen an increase in the common and social areas provided residents to be viable in today's marketplace. The provision of the increased F.A.R seeks to keep potential development viable and current with today's industry standards. PUDZ-A-PL20120002906,BUCKLEY PUD Page 10 of 17 May 1,2014CCPC Revised: 4/7/14 Packet Page-93- 6/10/2014 9.B. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." FINDINGS OF FACT: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below. [Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold, non-italicized font]: PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" (Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and believes the uses and property development regulations are compatible with the development approved in the area if staff's recommended stipulations are included in any approval recommendation. The commitments made by the applicant and staff's recommended stipulations should provide adequate assurances that the proposed change should not adversely affect living conditions in the area. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application,which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion and the zoning analysis of this staff PUDZ-A-PL20120002906,BUCKLEY PUD Page 11 of 17 May 1,2014CCPC Revised: 4/7/14 Packet Page-94- 6/10/2014 9.B. report. Based on those staff analyses, planning zoning staff is of the opinion that this petition may be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element contingent upon Board approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20120002909/CP-2013-3,to amend the Subdistrict language. 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 if the stipulations of zoning staff are imposed. The uses are changing as part of this amendment and the uses approved in the original PUD rezone were determined to be compatible, however staff has concerns about the potential intensity of the proposed project. The petitioner is revising some property development regulations, but staff believes uses remain compatible given the proposed development standards and project commitments if staffs stipulations are imposed. S. 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 two deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section PUDZ-A-PL20120002906,BUCKLEY PUD Page 12 of 17 May 1,2014CCPC Revised: 4/7114 Packet Page-95- 6/10/2014 9.B. 2.03.06.A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff has provided an analysis of the deviations in the Deviation Discussion portion of this staff report, and is recommending approval of the deviations. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, &policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The zoning analysis provides moo-depth review of the proposed amendment. Staff is of the opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with neighborhood development. Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed PUDZA application consistent with the Future Land Use Element contingent upon Board approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20120002909/CP-2013-3, to amend the Subdistrict language. 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 if staff's stipulations are adopted. 2. The existing land use pattern; Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the"Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed it at length in the zoning review analysis. Staff believes the proposed amendment is appropriate given the existing land use pattern if limitations are imposed to keep the project more in scale with a neighborhood center commercial development, and development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The proposed PUD amendment would not create an isolated zoning district because the subject site is already zoned PUD. No land is being added to the PUD as part of this amendment. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Staff is of the opinion that the district boundaries are logically drawn given the current property ownership boundaries and the existing PUD zoning. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. PUDZ-A-PL20120002906,BUCKLEY PUD Page 13 of 17 May 1,2014CCPC Revised: 4/7/14 Packet Page-96- 6/10/2014 9.B. The proposed amendment is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such the amendment to allow the owner the opportunity to develop the land with uses other than what the existing zoning district would allow. Without this amendment, the property could be developed in compliance with the existing PUD ordinance regulations. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendment, with the commitments made by the applicant and the stipulations offered by staff, can been deemed consistent County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. The project includes numerous restrictions and standards that are designed to address compatibility of the project. Development in compliance with the proposed PUD amendment should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project with the mitigation that will be provided by the developer (Developer Commitments). Staff believes the petition can be deemed consistent with the Transportation Element of the GMP. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed amendment should not create drainage or surface water problems. The developer of the project will be required to adhere to a surface water management permit from the SFWMD in conjunction with any local site development plan approvals and ultimate construction on site. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this amendment petition is approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. The setbacks and project buffers will help insure that light and air to adjacent areas will not be substantially reduced. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results,which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market conditions. PUDZ-A-PL20120002906,BUCKLEY PUD Page 14 of 17 May 1,2014CCPC Revised: 4/7/14 Packet Page-97- 6/10/2014 9.B. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; The proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; If the proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan through the proposed amendment, then that constitutes is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning,. The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning designations; however, the petitioner is seeking this amendment in compliance with LDC provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed amendment meets the intent of the PUD district, if staff's conditions of approval are adopted, and further, believes the public interest will be maintained. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; As noted previously,the subject property already has a zoning designation of PUD; the PUD rezoning was evaluated at the rezoning stage and was deemed consistent with the GMP. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMP as it is proposed to be amended as discussed in other portions of the staff report. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. PUDZ-A-PL20120002906,BUCKLEY PUD Page 15 of 17 May 1,2014CCPC Revised: 4/7/14 Packet Page-98- 6/10/2014 9.B. Additional development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration. This project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the 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: The applicant's agents conducted a duly noticed NIM on March 24, 2014, at Collier County Library Headquarters on Orange Blossom Drive. Please see the attached NIM synopsis and Question and Answer sheets provided by the agent. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on April 7, 2014. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZA-PL20120002906 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval subject to the approval of the proposed Growth Management Plan amendment companion petition and the following stipulations: 1. Hours of operation of any use shall be limited to only the hours of 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.; and 2. No individual retail commercial users may exceed 50,000 gross square feet; and 3. Fast food restaurants are prohibited. PUDZ-A-PL20120002906, BUCKLEY PUD Page 16 of 17 May 1,2014CCPC Revised: 4/7/14 Packet Page-99- 6/10/2014 9.B. PREPARED BY: KA � a4. �` ��1 SELEM,AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DA'Z'E 1 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEWED BY: r-,-.vir- di-- 77) 4- q I 4- RAYMO7b V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DA'T'E DEPAR NT OF PLANNING AND ZONING MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVED BY: r , 7,----77,,,,, , ,-.7 y i( -iu c _____--- /z. --2,- , „/ ,,,, -. ,,, , , NICK CA.S'ALANGUIDA„AIDN fSTiliATOR DA"1'E GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the June 10, 2014 Board of County Commissioners Meeting PUDZ-A-PL20120002906,BUCKLEY PUD Page 17 of 17 May 1,2014CCPC Revised: 4/4/14 Packet Page -100- 6/10/2014 9.B. ORDINANCE NO. 14- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A PROJECT PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS THE BUCKLEY MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) WHICH WILL CONTINUE TO BE KNOWN AS THE BUCKLEY MID, TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF 239 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, WITH NO REQUIREMENT FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS AND UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 162,750 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR SPACE OF RETAIL, OFFICE AND SERVICES USES, INCLUDING PERMISSIBLE AND CONDITIONAL USES IN THE C-1, C-2 AND C-3 ZONING DISTRICTS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF,AIRPORT PULLING ROAD (CR 31) AND ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER /1 COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 21.7+/- ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 05-05, THE FORMER BUCKLEY MPUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PUD Z-A-PL20120002906) WHEREAS, on January, 25, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance Number 05-05 which established the Buckley Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning classification:and WHEREAS, Tim Hancock of Davidson Engineering and R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire of Roetzel & Andress representing McGuire Development Company. LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the Buckley MPUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Mixed Use r-Nsi Buckley MPUD CPUDZ-A-PL2o120002906 Rev. 5/15/14 1 of 2 Packet Page-101- 6/10/2014 9.B. Planned Unit Development (MPUD)Zoning District to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) for a project to be known as the Buckley MPUD to allow a maximum of 326 residential units, with no requirement for workforce housing units and up to a maximum of 162,750 square feet of gross floor area of retail, office and services uses, including permissible and conditional uses in the C-I, C-2 and C-3 zoning districts,in accordance with the MPUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibits "A" through "F", and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code,is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Ordinance Number 05-05, known as the Buckley MPUD adopted on January 5, 2005 by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida, is hereby repealed in its entirety_ SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,this day of , 2014, ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E.BROCIC, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk TOM HENNING, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko 6' Managing Assistant County attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Permitted Uses Exhibit B—Development Standards Exhibit C—Commercial Mixed Use Master Plan Exhibit D—Legal Description Exhibit E—List of Requested Deviations Exhibit F List of Developer Commitments CPk13-CPS-01.247\\43 Buckley MPUD\PUDZ-A-PL20120002906 Rev 5/15/14 2 of 2 Packet Page -102- 6/10/2014 9.B. EXHIBIT A PERMITTED USES: The Buckley MPUD is planned for up to 239 residential dwelling units; or, 162,750 square feet of limited commercial uses or non-residential uses consisting of retail, service and/or office uses; or,a combination of the two as provided for below. The gross project density will be a maximum of 11 residential units per acre. The Master Concept Plan shall be designed to ensure the harmonious placement of all of the uses in a manner that achieves a unified and integrated land use plan, and one that incorporates a uniform plan of development enhanced by complimentary landscape improvements. Residential (R) The maximum number of residential units shall not exceed 239 units. For each acre of land utilized for residential purposes, 7,500 square feet of non-residential square footage will be eliminated from the total square footage allowable identified in the Commercial section of this MPUD. Note:See page 3 for reduction of residential units when commercial square footage is built. If a fractional acreage is built, the corresponding units of commercial shall be reduced and rounded up to the nearest whole number i.e. 0.5 =1, .4 = 0. Residential development will be designed to accommodate a full range of residential multi family dwelling types, compatible recreational facilities, essential services and customary accessory uses. Should the site develop fully as a residential project, no commercial facilities will be constructed. No building or structure, or part thereof shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following primary uses: A. Principal Uses The maximum number of residential dwelling units is 239. 1. Townhouse dwellings 2. Multi-family dwellings 3.Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the LDC. B. Temporary Uses(per the LDC) 1. Model units 2. Project information and Sales centers liuckI Mt ID Pi.I)/- 2012911029°6. Page 1 of 13 t'W)Doc Lunt,nt'(Rtlutsccl May lb,2014). . Packet Page -103- 6/10/2014 9.B. 3. Construction administrative offices for the developer and authorized contractors and consultants, including temporary access ways and parking areas. 4. Sales and administrative offices for the developer, project management or managing development association, including temporary access ways and parking areas. C. Accessory Uses and Structures 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted in this. District, including neighborhood community recreational facilities and property management and maintenance structures intended to serve the residents and guests of the proposed development. 2. Garages and carports. 3. Administration facilities intended to serve the residents and guests of the proposed development. 4. Swimming Pools, Tennis courts and other similar recreational facilities and buildings to serve residents and their guests. 5. Guardhouses and Gatehouses 6. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted accessory uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the LDC. ktt t lc� PL,1)1'1.,131_A-1 1...2u012(41(17,44,,i Page 2 of 11 1'LID Document(Revised May 16.2014) Packet Page-104- 6/10/2014 9.B. Commercial (C) The maximum gross square footage of all non-residential uses, except group housing uses, shall not exceed 162,750 square feet. For each acre of non-residential square footage built, 11 residential dwelling units will be eliminated from the maximum allowable number of residential units in this MPUD. Should the site develop fully as a non-residential project, no residential dwelling units will be constructed. Note:See page 1 for reduction of commercial floor space when residential is built. If a fractional acreage is built, the corresponding units of residential shall be reduced and rounded up to the nearest whole number i.e. 0.5= 1, .4 = 0. For the purpose of this section all uses are those allowed as either permitted or conditional uses in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 Zoning Districts of the LDC in effect as the date of adoption of this MPUD except as limited below.All such conditional uses shall be deemed permitted uses under this MPUD without the necessity of a separate conditional use application. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used. in whole or in part, for other than the following primary uses: A. Principal Uses,permitted by right Unless otherwise provided for in this Section, all permitted and conditional uses of the following districts: • 1. C-1, Commercial Professional and General Office District in effect as of the date of adoption of this MPUD Ordinance except: • Homeless Shelters • Soup Kitchens • Residential dwelling units 2. C-2, Commercial Convenience District, in effect as of the date of adoption of this MPUD Ordinance except: • Gasoline Service Stations(SIC Group 5541) • Homeless Shelters • Soup Kitchens • Residential dwelling units • SIC Group 5411,Convenience Stores with fuel pumps only 3. C-3, Commercial Intermediate District, in effect as of the adoption of this MPUD Ordinance except: • Marinas(SIC Group 4493) • Automotive Services(SIC Group 7549) • Homeless Shelters • Hospitals(SIC Groups 8062-8069) €Swale+MP-11D I't>!7/ 1-I'1,2012t u029t4i: Paoe 3 of 13 PIM fThctt m at (Revised May 1(3,2014) Packet Page-105- 6/10/2014 9.B. • Soup Kitchens « Residential dwelling units • SIC Group 5411, Convenience Stores with fuel pumps_only • Gasoline Service Stations (SIC Group 5541) 4. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the LDC. B. Accessory Uses 1. Kiosks which may be used for retail purposes or provide site related services within the square footage allowance for commercial purposes and otherwise subject to integrated parking requirements for all commercial space. 2. Sales and lease offices to serve this project only. C. Prohibited Uses 1. Residential uses shall not be integrated with commercial uses in the same building. 2. The following C-3 Conditional Uses shall be prohibited: a.Ancillary Plants b. Bowling Centers (7933) c. Coin operated amusement devices(7993) d. Drinking Places (5813). All establishments engaged in the retail sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption are subject to the locational requirements of section 5.05.01. e. Homeless Shelters f. Social Services (8322, offender rehabilitation agencies, offender self-help agencies, parole offices, probation offices, public welfare centers, refugee services, and settlements houses,only) g. Soup Kitchens 13t:ck'1�� MFt 171'M/-A-111.20120002906. Page 4 of 13 1't1t7Document(Reused v1av t( 2014) Packet Page-106- 6/10/2014 9.B. EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Table I below sets forth the development standards for Multi-Family Residential land uses within the proposed Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD). Standards not specifically set forth within this application shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or Subdivision plat. TABLE I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RECREATION TOWNHOUSE MULTI-FAMILY FACILITIES& DWELLINGS MAINTENANCE STRUCTURES MINIMUM LOT AREA 3,000 square feet N/A N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 30 feet N/A N/A MINIMUM FLOOR AREA OF UNITS 1.200 square feet 1,000 square feet N/A PUD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK (FROM AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD) 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK n (FROM NORTH BOUNDARY&SOUTH 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet BOUNDARY) MLNIMUM BUILDING SETBACK (FROM NEST BOUNDARY) 100 feet ]00 feet 100 feet LAKES 0 feet from the LME 0 feet from the LME 0 feet from the LME MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS Front: Principal Structure 20 feet i 20 feet N/A Accessory Structure 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Side:. Principal Structure 20 feet 'A of the SBH N/A Accessory Structure 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Rear: Principal Structure 10 feet '12 of the BH N/A Accessory Structure 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet ■ Minimum Distance Between Structures: Principal Structure 10 feet Accessory Structure 10 feet Y2 of the SBH N/A 10 feet 0 feet MAXIMUM HEIGHT Zoned: Principal Structure 3-stories not to 3-stories not to exceed Accessory Structure exceed 45 feet 45 feet N/A 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Actual: Principal Structure 50 feet 50 feet NA Accessory Structure 32 feet 32 feet 32 feet Ill ci, MPUD.3 yt t)r- i,t.?tfi l),$xtil is Pane 5 of 13 PE tD Document f Revised khly I fit.20141 Packet Page-107- 6/10/2014 9.B. 1. Dumpsters and dumpster enclosures shall not encroach into the 100 foot setback from the Western MPUD boundary. 2. Garages and carports shall be 10 feet from principal structures if detached. There will be a minimum of a 23 foot setback from the back of a sidewalk to front load garages. 3. Setback from a lake for all principal and accessory uses may be zero feet (0') provided architectural bank treatment is incorporated into the design. Architectural bank treatments shall include any structural materials used to retain earth such as concrete stone or wood placed to LDC requirements. 4. If the parcel is directly accessed by a public or private road right-of-way, setback is measured from the adjacent right of way line per the LDC. Sidewalks shall be located in the right-of-way. 5. If the parcel is directly accessed by a private driveway, setback is measured from the back of curb (if curbed)or edge-of-pavement (if not curbed). This would apply to multi- family development tracts that do not have platted rights-of-way. 6. Residential buildings within 150' of the west property line shall not have west facing balconies. 7. No building shall exceed three stories in height and 45 feet(actual height) and under building parking is prohibited. BH= Building Height SBH =Sum of Building Heights LME=Lake Maintenance Easement liu,.ta,{ %£P 1)i't !3%_,1-!':3u 12otto29 f; ;'agt. 6 o! 13 PUT)itncunnent(Revised May 16,20141 Packet Page-108- 6/10/2014 9.B. TABLE II COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Table II below sets forth the development standards for commercial land uses within the proposed Mixed Use PUD (MPUD). Standards not specifically set forth within this application shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or Subdivision plat. consistent with C-3 zoning. PRINCIPAL USE ACCESSORY USE MINIMUM LOT AREA 10.000 square feet NA MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 100 feet NA MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 700 square feet(ground floor) NA MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO 0.65 for Assisted Living Facilities PUD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK (FROM AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD) 25 feet 25 feet MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK (FROM NORTH BOUNDARY&SOUTH 40 feet 40 feet BOUNDARY) MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK (FROM WEST BOUNDARY) 100 feet 100 feet MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN 0 feet(principal to STRUCTURES 20 tact accessory)P LAKES 0 feet from the LME 0 feet from the LME MAXIMUM.HEIGHT • Zoned: 3-stories not to exceed 45 feet' 35 feet. • Actual: 50 feet 42 feet I. Dumpsters and dumpster enclosures shall not encroach into the 100 foot setback from the Western MPUD boundary. 2. Setback from a lake for all principal and accessory uses may be zero feet (0') provided architectural bank treatment is incorporated into the design.Architectural bank treatments shall include any structural materials used to retain earth such as concrete stone or wood placed to LDC requirements. 3. Individual commercial users shall be limited to a maximum gross floor area of 100,000 square feet. BLit -.f /VI;.0 't.Di-a-I'L2t t2ftuu29110' n3^,q 7 of 13 Pr ID Docuroeft (Revised 14 sv 1(. Est 41 Packet Page-109- 6/10/2014 9.B. 4. No building shall exceed three stories in height and under building parking is prohibited. 5. Drive-through establishments shall be limited to a maximum of four. Only one of these drive-through establishments shall be allowed for a fast-food restaurant and it must be located within 300 feet of the Airport Road right-of-way.No drive-through establishment shall have more than three drive-through lanes and all drive-throughs must be architecturally integrated into the main building. 6. Stand-alone retail buildings larger than 50,000 square feet shall be limited to two stories and 35 feet zoned height,45 feet actual height. SPS = Same as Principal Structure LME= Landscape Maintenance Easement liu: lv� %INVV)!>tiI /-A•P1:2t312000290(; Page£;of 13 P(1t/t)ocument(Revised May 16,2014) Packet Page-110- C. .... ,��,�b.,�rt*.,.�,W OP...�. 6/10/2014 9.B. ?c)c f > -ma y 0Tn m mXI10 ji1 mW � C 1I Z�'poD . " >F- Z Z r 0 O f TZ iI 5 it z y. ti ii_ . m m . Z I. � ® �I l � �i_ O O zm A m > A TJ t Z r q rm— —=i C m m Z ` � o d �I {1 v cn ° m C ,I `r'' + � m z a m U)C b I' u' m m m C "" I X I R ' . X rr µ µ Cm0 0 �� ,c D 0 no m O L. O r '� ��I 't I 0 K a a s n a m z , 0 r__i_�-+ - X R1 0 P P P P +' o T 1•�Mr•RIO NT Of WAY . I. .� Z g. (n co',7, I ' If I M K K T(° • ` µ e C m O (!1 ii >m �� p TO I� z I r =Z � 11 ..0� -� z o nm I Om ZzmM I Z m m 0 f A T n M N=—I T II 1 mD "*....---" ""'"".""m•-...-ml �,. ZZ9.r i. .1 i N C7z 0 co, -n C: x r v co v C n m v It y o �0 .rte t ■r ., ' Wt., BUCKLEY MPUD ma°o•• r't♦17e1JAUr t L REVIBIOM !GEVELOpMeNT rt_ L JJ • :ap.4:0 .. a MUACLMWE AVENUE r7=}{LJiTI • J4, �� •��- �.w,rr men re .iLUilr a •, r�• -� mo EXHIBIT C weo w+x s��ia�xt s .,� , MAS r t1.5 CONCEPT PLAN ......,q ►tJaJ6U ■-y r Packet Page-111- 6/10/2014 9.B. EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THAT PART OF THE EAST 1/2 OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 2; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE SOUTH 2° 13' 05" EAST 1,589.69 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 59' 01" WEST 100.08 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 31 (AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD) AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE ALONG THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 31, SOUTH 2° 13' 05" EAST 1,989.05 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 51' 40" WEST 500.33 FEET; THENCE NORTH 2° 13' 05" WEST 1,990.41 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 59' 01"EAST 500.38 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, LESS AND EXCEPTING THE WEST 10 FEET OF THE EAST 25 FEET THEREOF AND THE EAST 15 FEET THEREOF AS DESCRIBED IN ORDER OF TAKING RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2445 PAGE 3258, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. • n } uU.lc 'ti'tDP1.131-4-P1.2012oet3290F: Page 10of;13 1 1:1 D Document(Revised May 1.6.,2014 Packet Page-112- 6/10/2014 9.B. EXHIBIT E DEVIATIONS: Nothing in this PUD Document shall approve a deviation to the LDC unless it is listed in this Exhibit E. 1. A deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01.N which establishes the minimum right-of-way width of 60 feet be utilized, to instead establish that all internal roadways, if platted, shall be subject to a 50-foot right-of-way configuration. 2. A deviation from LDC Section 5.05.04 D.1 which establishes the maximum floor area ratio of 0.45, to instead establish that the maximum floor area ratio be 0.65 for assisted living facilities. Ell«Ck VIPt'I)fff fb;/.t-P1 2,i4211fp,'uo,. P';it racurnt ,4 iir e;1+€d Ma} ..€,. Pare1I cif 13 Packet Page-113- 6/10/2014 9.B. EXHIBIT F DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS: GENERAL 1. Maximum lot coverage for all buildings is capped at 35%for the total project. 2. Pedestrian connections at the time of development order shall be provided to adjacent properties immediately north and south of the subject property, subject to permission being provided by adjacent property owners to allow for these connections, subject to safety concerns for the public. 3. All buildings shall be connected with pedestrian pathways. 4. The PUD shall be developed with a common theme for architecture, signage, lighting and landscaping. ENVIRONMENTAL The development of the land within this PUD shall not be subject to the Native Preservation Standards found in Section 3.05.06 of the LDC due to the absence of native vegetation on the /--N subject property. LANDSCAPE BUFFERS 1. The west landscape buffer adjacent to the Emerald Lakes Development shall be a 20 foot Type `C° buffer and contain a finished masonry wall and berm,or combination thereof, at least 6 feet in height and vegetation that is opaque within one (1) year of installation of any site related buildings. The minimum number of trees within the buffer shall be increased by 50%, inclusive of palm trees or similar varieties. 2. Within the Type `C' landscape buffer along the north property line, a six(6) foot finished masonry wall shall be constructed at the northwest corner for a distance of 80 feet along the northern boundary line within the landscape buffer. OUTDOOR LIGHTING I. All pole lighting will be flat panel fixtures. 2. Lighting within 30 feet of the perimeter of the project will utilize full cut off shields. 3. Any lighting within 50 feet of a residential property line outside the MPUD will be limited to 15 feet in height. 'tutu. '111)PtJI) -A-P i.20121na)29ui{, Pagt.12 of 13 PW)Docurneat (Revised May 1(,2014) Packet Page-114- 6/10/2014 9.B. OUTDOOR MUSIC Outdoor Music or amplified outdoor entertainment shall be prohibited between the hours of 10 pm and 10am. TRANSPORTATION The development of the land within this PUD shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: 1. The maximum trip generation allowed by the proposed uses (both primary and ancillary) may not exceed 687 PM Peak Hour,two way trips. MONITORING REPORT AND SUNSET PROVISION One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD.At the time of this PUD approval,the Managing Entity is Airport Pulling Orange Blossom LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD are closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. tiurkle m Pt.t) -A rst.2 2tfl 29m: Page13 o113 PII D Document(Revised May 16.2014). Packet Page-115- 6/10/2014 9.B. •• NAPLES DAILY NEWS KWednesday,.May 21,2014K19A • • PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND ,` NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCES Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on Tuesday,June 10,2014 in the Board of County Commissioners Chambers,Third Floor,Collier bounty Government Center,3299 Tamlami Trail • East,Naples,FL The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. The purpose of the hearing is to consider recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity(DEO),the transmittal of adoption amendments of the 2013 Cycle 1 Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element and the Future Land Use Map and Map Series(FLUE/FLUM),and to consider a recommendation to adopt changes to the Buckley Mixed Use Planned Unit Development(MPUD).The.ORDINANCE titles are as follows: ORDINANCE NO.14- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.89-05,AS AMENDED,THE COWER COUNTY GROWTH.MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE • LAND USE ELEMENT TO REVISE THE BUCKLEY MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT TO REMOVE THE OFFICE AND RETAIL CAPS AND ALLOW UP TO 7,500 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL USES PER ACRE OR 11 RESIDENTIAL DWEWNG UNITS PER ACRE,TO MAKE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTIONAL,TO PROHIBIT COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL USES ON THE SAME PARCEL,TO LIMIT MULTI-TENANT COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TO NO MORE THAN 50%OF THE COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE,TO . REVISE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDING THE CAP ON THE SIZE OF THE FOOTPRINT OF COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS,AND PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY;PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF AIRPORT ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 330 FEET NORTH OF ORANGE. ' BLOSSOM DRIVE IN SECTION 2,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,CONSISTING OF 21.70 ACRES. [PL20120002909/CP-2013-3] - AND: • ORDINANCE NO.14-_ • AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COWER COUNTY,FLORIDAAMENDING ORDINANCE . NUMBER 2004-41,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,WHICH ESTABLISHED THE • COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION-OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A PROJECT PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS THE BUCKLEY MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(MPUD) TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(MPUD) WHICH WILL • CONTINUE TO BE KNOWN AS THE BUCKLEY PUD,TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF 239 RESIDENTIAL UNITS,WITH NO REQUIREMENT FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS AND UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 162,750 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR SPACE OF RETAIL,OFFICE AND SERVICES USES,INCLUDING PERMISSIBLE AND CONDITIONAL USES IN THE C-1,C-2 AND C-3 ZONING DISTRICTS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD(CR 31)AND ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE IN SECTION 2,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,CONSISTING OF 21.7+/-ACRES;PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 05-05,THE FORMER BUCKLEY MPUD;AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [(PUDZ- A-PL20120002906] Pe1GN & piEEMi - S H aAKs•MARSH ( r) - 31 35 U wµOEEM3 rtursw f rK RAWER LAKE ' a BRA.� is rat,MrA VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD - ___MC ' 11 PROJECT P IG v r veuAsRr O S�oMeEr LOCATION cEuM ,�mus wt ..BRM 2 ID OW MOLLOw TIME O LOME a0,00CM VI.w• 6 1>'1 �A„f- OAK Is) BOA ram AIM • EYSTOME PLACE BILLOW PARK All interested parties are invited to appear end be heard. Copies of the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendments will be made available tor inspection at the Planning&Zoning Department,Comprehensive Planning Section,2800 N.Horseshoe Dr., Naples,between the hours of B:00 A.M.and 5:00 P.M.,Monday through Friday.Furthermore the materials will be made available • • • for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office,Fourth Floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 Tamlami Trail East,Suite • • 401,Naples,FL one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the Comprehensive Planning Section of the Planning&Zoning Department.Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to Tuesday,June 10,2014;wIlt be read and considered at the public hearing. - - • If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners with respect to any": • matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will need a record of that proceeding,and for such purpose he may need to': ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. - h you are a person with a disability who needs any-accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled, at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the•Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiarni Trail East,Suite 101,Naples,FL,34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available In the Board of County Commissioners Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA . TOM HENNING,CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E.BROOK,CLERK • By: Ann Jennejohn Deputy Clerk(SEAL) _ No.402148051 Mav 21 2014 Packet Page-116- • •