Loading...
Agenda 12/10/2013 Item #17A • 12/10/2013 17.A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance 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 for a project previously known as the Bradford Square Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to a new MPUD which will continue to be known as the Bradford Square MPUD, to allow construction of either 100,000 square feet of gross leasable office or retail with up to 10 residential dwelling units or to allow construction of group housing for seniors for up to 130 units with a floor area ratio of 0.50 on property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Livingston Road in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 9.18+/- acres; providing for the repeal of Ordinance Number 07-41, the former Bradford Square MPUD; and by providing an effective date. (PUDZ-A-PL20130000266) OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) review staffs 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, Everbank, is asking the BCC to consider an application for an amendment to the existing PUD zoned project known as the Bradford Square Commercial Planned Unit Development(CPUD). The undeveloped subject property is currently zoned PUD by virtue of Ordinance Number 07-41. That ordinance approved a mixed use development that could have a maximum of 10 residential units and up to 100,000 square feet of commercial uses. The commercial uses could be a mix of retail and office development of the developer's choosing. Some uses were prohibited in compliance with the special subdistrict for the subject property, which is the Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict(Parcel 1). The applicant in this current request seeks to add group housing for seniors including assisted living and independent living facilities as a permitted use. The applicant also is proposing an alternative building configuration (Figure 1) to accommodate this new use. Property development regulations are also proposed for that use. The applicant is seeking approval of two deviations, which are discussed in the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) Staff Report. 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 Packet Page-2441- 12/10/2013 17.A. development order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use District, Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict), as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition,this designation allows: community facility uses, such as group housing. The applicant proposes up to 130 senior group housing units. Additionally, staff reviewed the list of uses and development standards within the PUD and compared those uses and standards with the approved 2011 Growth Management Plan amendment revisions, and found those uses and standards to be consistent. 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 G, Figure 1, Alternative Building Configuration for Group Housing depicts direct access to Livingston Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road — both classified as arterial roads in the Transportation Element.] Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [Exhibit G, Figure 1, Alternative Building Configuration for Group Housing Plan does not depict internal accesses or loop roads. However, the proposed group housing project is a single-use, low intensity development that is expected to generate limited vehicular trips onto the adjacent arterial roadways.] 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 Packet Page-2442- 12/10/2013 17.A. of land use type. [Exhibit G, Figure 1, Alternative Building Configuration for Housing Plan does not depict interconnections with any abutting properties. The surrounding lands located north (golf course) and east (veterinarian services) of the subject site are developed. Further, the eastern portion of the subject site is presently reserved for a water management area and preserve, and the northern portion is also preserve. A required interconnection to these sites would likely provide minimal benefit and appears not to be feasible.] Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The proposed project includes outdoor recreational areas and other common open spaces, as depicted in Exhibit G, Figure 1, Alternative Building Configuration for Group Housing.] Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5 year planning period. Therefore, the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). This project was not required to go before the Environmental Advisory Council Board (EAC) since this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. The project site consists of 8.33 acres of native vegetation; a minimum of 1.25 (15%) acres of the existing native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE 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. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard this petition on October 4, 2013 and found that the criteria of Section 10.03.05.I and 10.02.13B.5 were met. By a unanimous vote (7 to 0) with the motion made by Commissioner Rosen and seconded by Commissioner Ebert, the CCPC recommended forwarding this petition Packet Page-2443- 12/10/2013 17.A. to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval subject to the following changes to the PUD document: 1) Exhibit A, Permitted Uses. The Floor Area Ration (FAR) shall be revised to indicate 0.5 instead of 0.6; and 2) Exhibit A, Item A. Principal Uses, item 36 and B. Accessory Uses, item 9: References to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) shall be revised to indicate the Hearing Examiner; and 3) Exhibit B, Maximum zoned building height shall be revised to remove "not to exceed 3 stories,"thus 43 feet remains the maximum building height; and 4) Exhibit B, Minimum Floor Area for Group Housing: Replace "1,000 square feet" with "N/A;"and 5) Exhibit B, Minimum Distance Between Structures: Replace "10 feet" with Same as Principal Structure (SPS);" and 6) Exhibit E, Deviation #2. The Floor Area Ration (FAR) shall be revised to indicate 0.5 instead of 0.6; and 7) Exhibit F, 4. Water Management: Remove this section. oak These revisions have been incorporated into the PUD document that is included in the draft ordinance. Additionally, the CCPC voted to waive the need for a consent hearing for this petition. 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. Therefore,this 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 Bradford Square 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. Packet Page-2444- 12/10/2013 17.A. 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. 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. Packet Page -2445- 12/10/2013 17.A. 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? 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? Awook Packet Page-2446- 12/10/2013 17.A. 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 request subject to the attached PUD Ordinance that includes both the staff recommendation and the CCPC recommendation. Prepared by: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner, Planning & Zoning Department, Growth Management Division,Planning and Regulation Attachments: 1) CCPC Staff Report 2) Letter Received 3) Application Backup Information—due to size of the application, it is accessible at: http://www.colli ergov.net/ftp/AgendaDec 1013BradfordSquarePUDApplicati on91313.pdf 4) Ordinance Packet Page-2447- 12/10/2013 17.A. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 17.17.A. Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance 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 for a project previously known as the Bradford Square Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD)to a new MPUD which will continue to be known as the Bradford Square MPUD, to allow construction of either 100,000 square feet of gross leasable office or retail with up to 10 residential dwelling units or to allow construction of group housing for seniors for up to 130 units with a floor area ratio of 0.50 on property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Livingston Road in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 9.18+/- acres; providing for the repeal of Ordinance Number 07-41, the former Bradford Square MPUD; and by providing an effective date. (PUDZ-A-PL20130000266) ,_ Meeting Date: 12/10/2013 Prepared By Name: DeselemKay Title:Planner, Principal,Engineering&Environmental Ser 10/15/2013 4:33:43 PM Approved By Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst,GMD P&R Date: 10/18/2013 4:32:43 PM Name: BosiMichael Title: Manager-Planning,Comprehensive Planning Date: 11/6/2013 7:51:19 AM Name: BellowsRay Packet Page-2448- 12/10/2013 17.A. Title: Manager-Planning,Comprehensive Planning Date: 11/14/2013 10:42:39 AM Name:MarcellaJeanne Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning Date: 11/15/2013 8:55:42 AM Name: AshtonHeidi Title: Section Chief/Land Use-Transportation,County Attor Date: 11/19/2013 12:14:59 PM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney Date: 11/19/2013 2:08:19 PM Name:FinnEd Title: Senior Budget Analyst, OMB Date: 11/25/2013 6:14:54 PM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager Date: 11/26/2013 10:41:58 AM Packet Page-2449- 12/10/2013 17.A. AGENDA ITEM 9-B Go er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES—PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION--PLANNING&REGULATION HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 3, 2013 SUBJECT: PUDZ-A-PL20130000266–BRADFORD SQUARE PUD PROPERTY OWNER& APPLICANT/AGENT/CONTRACT PURCHASER: Applicant/Owner: Agent: Contract Purchaser: Everbank D. Wayne Arnold,AICP Cameron General Contractors Inc. c/o Douglas Nelson Q. Grady Minor&Assoc. 8040 Eiger Drive 1185 Immokalee Road 3800 Via Del Rey Lincoln,NE 68516 Naples,FL 34110 Bonita Springs,FL 34134 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for an amendment to the existing PUD zoned project to allow development of an additional use. The additional use is group housing for seniors including assisted living and independent living facilities. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The 9.18 acre Bradford Square PUD is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach and Livingston Roads, in Section 31, Township 48S, Range 256, Collier County, Florida. (See the map on next page for details.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The undeveloped subject property is currently zoned PUD by virtue of Ordinance Number 07-41. That ordinance approved a mixed use development that could have a maximum of 10 residential units and up to 100,000 square feet of commercial uses. The commercial uses could be a mix of retail and office development of the developer's choosing. Some uses were prohibited in compliance with the special subdistrict for the subject property, which is the Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict(Parcel 1). Amok PUDZ-A-PL20130000266—BRADFORD SQUARE PUD Page 1 of 13 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/4/13 Packet Page-2450- 12/10/2013 17.A. Ell' Ea Ell NB .�o s JkL1tIllHH t \ ;P. Ufl : ,. ® s c yx s c y g p x a IMO=ISA CO U m V $ B H§M 0 am —1 t � 0 ffJ ' 0 '-' , MB ISA I CCMg® ER ail !AIM > yo = wir Ay fir D_ TTh4 kb:11 8 = g . s m $ i 0. n m A OYOa NOt50NMn O m.�— --°^G 1 3 Aid!300 ALL .. N --- -` ♦y mn. —_—_— 1N3N35Y3'MO 10M Alt :C El 4 a `�ILI 46,,,, _ Irk,„a„...,,, ,A, . ffil . �®sRFi®.®M®©�®` 2 VA CL 3S Dl,o., o M = CL 4t 4 ,- gn5\ ti u it "^ E `1,g ° 6g g I -g6'i g a w i OaVA31n08 4,z°,ONVA3MiDB NVOOI ___ 'O lE MOTA VB'CMS h O ?i° gm g n� A ^^ at; -gg Ti- la g h d 2 1 toisilNnN 1 St-3,1.31M ilaiii! 1 g 111%1 °7 f S1.31YLSU31N1 11111kly i g �? a i r 8 xit i1I/�.. .mbk b 110:11 `- r'"" ila� A— OVOa NOIR3NWl UM LINNOSTON ROAD $g Sg i H Si i I. 8 = $ t6tlVN NYlfL3d a € t F 0 L� El k6 i 1 1 li rg� ,,6 d 1g, P` ' g w v w °�oea �! a ] O fig§ r _- 3S � M I{ C d 1..1111110=1191 It .its,, in ,.,@P I -- ucym avoN DNmnd-laodan 1 gg DVOa a mnd-laodNro g J.- VA r a L g V' l' ' I — 4 i 'Mr . — 1. 1: IL : rs; ° egg aRa §"i lag n g a i' os Yap t= IlL�i'� 3u3>aooD n ` ...; ....3r.,,. ^ -tj�l� ' � ' Packet Page-2451- ° 12/10/2013 17.A. — .1t66 i I I N,N s a:.. Y t;f fC "1 k • p0 N 0 i s o s1e i°l Ivs — u ZNN I '--E-0– L a s f �I a�•E 3 ° - f1 a I �l B >N bit$ t}(li( I Q and ' L '6 [, 0 I ;8 -0 w alik" Oil__Iii4.__„1._f_i_...4....1 hi C f di 1 a O i— '�i�ei !Mail – mg azc= I a W_ r i 0 re Co I f Z I z a EI W 4.W • m 15 0 IC-I a ZF-� W a3 zr , N M F zR d li ini F5 R 5 W W b Q g 9 NILI agy l f ma I - g "` - g0 1 ced g .. 436" I E O. a OI O _gala ��- 5• I i W; 3 I € (O /�-- 111 03 &p°f --'---J'-�--r-ri�--I i4 i gq�.. I. �. L a, iif 19 i i i IIgi-- ..---_ O �' 1 f --- --�! 11 11 .-aniitagii a =aPv 4— _7 W + 'E r , 2 `= It I n . • - -� 3. r\v CC III Z tji u C i Ut o - I o z n ------, u. r • cr I o ! C 1 0" ► a t2i2P —^ k k k W m � _21 a ---- . Z ~ w, W i m { O NI c+ I zt�s`d� s- < I) P\ J LjJ 1 1111 - L—J I a: <t 4 In 0 g i :ei1 itg i' 'i. O I O C1' i /I LOLao I.5! hIl licl' ' 12'-V a 1 . 1 (.„._ (� I G -- — i , . ii- ,..,1 i r. 1 ‘\ i...„ ,„, 41 , ,,,,. . i 11 k1M E5(..v.i.ci G m ,/,r N 4 ! ) .I �� a I lr� � _ - - -I - - -avo 1 HoiSJ�NM - - - — 11 1 ?; I L- P PI E Packet Page-2452-ERCIAL MIXED USE MASTER PLAN 12/10/2013 17.A. R¢ f 2,� FR nOs�2 ZS nc w C¢ EE . �O cr /i 511i ay r -, W0 gg iYi r z ¢ wzs-2 -w.YimW 0.,-3 lolSy,—, 0 tRa. 3-s F-N ~pt C §ff >N Fo 6 r = w' OU ..;;_, E O =Z __,w w Z"' ¢C C w"0 O mE . U 0_42„90 w rJ i 2 0J OQ glZ Wn0 RwE §Z aE Lia < 11 wox O� c°�E°ao p3�QaW WSO 0 LLmU Np gC Aa¢ NN —'i0'VADE 1"TPE'irL 1D .A OFFER'———71 w¢' o°,,, ,.LL Ct. FO 0g0¢_UW 3 Sg cq K I �ww ���- W o .T.L oa°o3§ w I I w r ii 1 3 � rJ ! ss" Z e> I 1 0 Lai e ; 6111 I J I `s 2I e .• I C_ ea ••�1 I N b . G 5 (7)° .= :-E. 2 I Cu, _ ®4D B gg -W w om c7 �dy, mow¢ °4U' m0 Q y 2 >CO s " e co O `p A'�•� W W W 2. 1 mm Q J W m�J J p -1� 31 I'. Za ~ O �¢a a y• b 4 ® A Qg al >V to r a � s gw �I w- o o aW I: , g1 w N p m i K U Z zi ` ( 2 W J f I�< I O yo ill5.:.5 ow< 1 F-.b a s i 1 wz w , 1 r00 Aga P.€1•• o : • I Nd :O a § • ❑w a I r, a 3 I I H w`w I 1 IL . 1 1 1 z • SCARE BUFFER — — J Z C w U 1—P4—TYPED'LANG - -- D W amp L. — -- ,— a¢ arw � � O Wfl r 2 p p �O O am" - -- aw ¢op LIVINGSTON ROAD (150'PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY) Z '• Packet Page-2453- 12/10/2013 17.A. As noted on page 1, the applicant in this current request seeks to add group housing for seniors including assisted living and independent living facilities as a permitted use. The applicant also is proposing an alternative building configuration (Figure 1) to accommodate this new use. Property development regulations are also proposed for that use. The applicant is seeking approval of two deviations,which are discussed later in this report. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Pelican Marsh developed as a golf course and residential units (2.16 units/acre) with zoning designations of PUD/DRI East: Animal Safari Pet Hospital and Bobbin Hollow Equestrian Center, with a zoning designation of Rural Agriculture South: Vanderbilt Beach Boulevard, then the Bermuda Isle apartments and to the east of that, Village Walk a residential development with a zoning designation of Vineyards PUD/DRI West: a 30-foot wide drainage easement, then Livingston Road, then Pelican Marsh developed as a golf course and residential units(2.16 units/acre)with zoning designations of PUD/DRI i { Ill . ` t I I- t , :„.' . i i11 - , Subject ; i Properly i y .- ' r rho. aR� - sP _ .r£ rderb��t II. .. .. �A1it� t 6 mia�&ulsIE C 1 _. -€, ''1 1 �` .,YS J , 'w,, z -� , 1 , - . vii. • Aerial Photo (subject site depiction is approximate) Amok PUDZ-A-PL20130000266—BRADFORD SQUARE PUD Page 2 of 13 ,h October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/4/13 Packet Page-2454- 12/10/2013 17.A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP)CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use District, Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict), as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, this designation allows: community facility uses, such as group housing. The applicant proposes up to 130 senior group housing units. Additionally, staff reviewed the list of uses and development standards within the PUD and compared those uses and standards with the approved 2011 Growth Management Plan amendment revisions, and found those uses and standards to be consistent. 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 G, Figure 1, Alternative Building Configuration for Group Housing depicts direct access to Livingston Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road—both classified as arterial roads in the Transportation Element. Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [Exhibit G, Figure 1,Alternative Building Configuration for Group Housing Plan does not depict internal accesses or loop roads. However, the proposed group housing project is a single-use, low intensity development that is expected to generate limited vehicular trips onto the adjacent arterial roadways.] 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 G, Figure 1, Alternative Building Configuration for Housing Plan does not depict interconnections with any abutting properties. The surrounding lands located north (golf course) and east (veterinarian services) of the subject site are developed. Further, the eastern portion of the subject site is presently reserved for a water management area and preserve, and the northern portion is also preserve. A required interconnection to these sites would likely provide minimal benefit and appears not to be feasible.] Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The PUDZ-A-PL20130000266—BRADFORD SQUARE PUD Page 3 of 13 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/4/13 Packet Page-2455- 12/10/2013 17.A. proposed project includes outdoor recreational areas and other common open spaces, as depicted in Exhibit G,Figure 1,Alternative Building Configuration for Group Housing.] Based upon the above analysis,the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5 year planning period. Therefore, the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). This project was not required to go before the Environmental Advisory Council Board (EAC) since this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. The project site consists of 8.33 acres of native vegetation; a minimum of 1.25 (15%) acres of the existing native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE 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. 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 10.03.05.I, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the bases for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading"Zoning Services Analysis."In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. The project currently provides a Preserve calculation of 1.38 minimum required preserve for the Commercial Master Plan; the Group Housing Master Plan provides ialPak PUDZ-A-PL20130000266—BRADFORD SQUARE PUD Page 4 of 13 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/4/13 Packet Page-2456- 12/10/2013 17.A. a reduced minimum required preserve of 1.25 acres to reflect the reduced native vegetation onsite as a result of more exotic vegetation. 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 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. As noted on Page 2, the land to the north is developed as a residential golf course project known as Pelican Marsh; to the east is the Animal Safari Pet Hospital and Bobbin Hollow Equestrian Center; to the South is Vanderbilt Beach Boulevard then the Bermuda Isle apartments. To the west, across a 30- wide drainage easement is Livingston Road then more of the Pelican Marsh golf course development. When this tract went through Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) process and the rezoning for commercial uses on April 24, 2007 (Ordinance # 07-41), the developer agreed to several special considerations. Outdoor amplified sound and outdoor seating areas for bars were prohibited. Setbacks to the east and north boundaries were increased to 70 feet. In the second GMPA, prohibited uses were further defined. In this proposal, the petitioner is seeking to add group housing for seniors including assisted living and independent living facilities. A supplemental development exhibit has been provided to pictorially indicate building placement (Figure 1), water management areas, access points, buffers and preserved vegetation areas on the site. All previously agreed-upon increased setbacks will be retained for this use. The height proposed from the new uses are proposed to be 43 feet, zoned height, not to exceed 3 stories, with an actual height of 53 feet. Commercial uses are limited to 35 feet zoned height and 50 feet actual height with no limit to the number of stories. Zoning staff recommends that this petition be found compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses,pursuant to the requirement of FLUE Policy 5.4. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking approval of two deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are listed in PUD Exhibit C. 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: PUDZ-A-PL20130000266—BRADFORD SQUARE PUD Page 5 of 13 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/4/13 Packet Page-2457- 12/10/2013 17.A. 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 Subsection 5.03.02 E 2 and 3 of the LDC that requires a wall between commercial and residential uses prescribed in shall be waived along the north and east property lines that are adjacent to residential development. The buffer areas shown on the MPUD Master Plan are presumed to provide sufficient screening and buffering and shall provide the same level of screening as to the LDC requirements after exotic removal. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states that this deviation only applies to the commercial plan, Exhibit C Master Plan, and was previously approved in Ordinance 07-41. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The deviation was approved in Ordinance#07-41. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h,the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is`justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.D.1, Group Housing, which establishes a maximum FAR of 0.45 for group housing to allow a maximum FAR of 0.6. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states that the following in support of the new deviation: Modern senior housing projects provide a significant array of recreational amenities, which when provided within the building increases the total square footage of the structure; therefore, increasing the FAR. Newer senior housing projects also provide more spacious interior living space, necessitating a larger FAR. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated. This interconnection is consistent with what was required in the previous Ordinance for this project. 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." owtok PUDZ-A-PL20130000266-BRADFORD SQUARE PUD Page 6 of 13 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/4/13 Packet Page-2458- 12/10/2013 17.A. 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]: 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 proposed use and property development regulations are compatible with the development approved in the area. The commitments made by the applicant should provide adequate assurances that the proposed change should not adversely affect living conditions in the area. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the undeveloped portions 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 report from Comprehensive Planning staff and the zoning analysis of this staff report. Based on those staff analyses, planning zoning staff is of the opinion that this petition may be found consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. PUDZ-A-PL20130000266-BRADFORD SQUARE PUD Page 7 of 13 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/4/13 Packet Page-2459- 12/10/2013 17.A. Staff has provided a review of the proposed use and believes that the project will be compatible with the surrounding area. The proposed changes in uses should not create any incompatibility issues, 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. (See zoning analysis for more details.) 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space 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. 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 two deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06.A). Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1 states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, &policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The zoning analysis provides an in-depth review of the proposed amendment. Staff is of the opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with neighborhood development. Staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. The petition can also be deemed consistent with PUDZ-A-PL20130000266—BRADFORD SQUARE PUD Page 8 of 13 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/4/13 Packet Page-2460- 12/10/2013 17.A. the CCME and the Transportation Element. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed it at length in the zoning review analysis. Staff believes the proposed amendment is appropriate given the existing land use pattern, and development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The proposed PUD amendment would not create an isolated zoning district because the subject site is already zoned PUD. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Staff is of the opinion that the district boundaries are logically drawn given the current property ownership boundaries and the existing PUD zoning. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed amendment is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with 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 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. Staff believes the petition can be deemed consistent with all elements of the GMP. PUDZ-A-PL20130000266—BRADFORD SQUARE PUD Page 9 of 13 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/4/13 Packet Page-2461- 12/10/2013 17.A. 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 location of the proposed buildings, and the height restrictions and setbacks will help insure that light and air to adjacent areas will not be reduced. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market conditions. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; The proposed PUD amendment should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties since all adjacent property is already developed. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan which 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, 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; AlloP PUDZ-A-PL20130000266—BRADFORD SQUARE PUD Page 10 of 13 #' October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/4/13 Packet Page-2462- 12/10/2013 17.A. 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 will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMP as it is proposed to be amended as discussed in other portions of the staff report. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Additional development anticipated by the PUD document would require 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. 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 (MM): The applicant's agents conducted a duly noticed NIM on August 8, 2013. Wayne Arnold, agent for the applicant opened the meeting at 5:35 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, Josh Thornton with Resort Lifestyle Communities representing the PUDZ-A-PL20130000266—BRADFORD SQUARE PUD Page 11 of 13 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/4/13 Packet Page-2463- 12/10/2013 17.A. contract purchaser and Kay Deselem representing Collier County Growth Management. There were approximately forty members from the public in attendance. A sign-in sheet was provided. Mr. Arnold began the information meeting by introducing and explaining the project as it was previously approved and then proceeded to explain the proposed revision to the PUD. He explained that the principal revision to the PUD was to add group housing for seniors as a permitted use and to establish development standards and a master plan for this use. He indicated there would be two development options included in the PUD, the approved commercial Master Plan and a group housing Master Plan. A maximum 130 senior housing units are proposed. An aerial and color rendering of the proposed group housing site plan were displayed and Mr. Arnold described were the access points would be located and that they would both be right-in/right-out only. Mr. Arnold explained where the project was in the rezone process and that the Collier County Planning Commission hearing would most likely happen in October or November and the Board of County Commission hearing would then be in December or January. Mr. Arnold then turned the presentation over to Mr. Thornton. Mr. Thornton introduced himself and proceeded to show a PowerPoint presentation, which is included with this summary. Mr. Thornton explained that the proposed project layout is the same with all of the company's products, only the exterior features would differ based on the local architectural theme of the surrounding communities. The proposal would include 130 units in an approximately 180,000 square foot three story building. The project would consist of one building that would house one, two, and three bedroom apartments, a movie theatre, fitness center,post office, bank, salon and travel agency. On-site personnel would be available 24 hours a day. Mr. Thornton concluded his presentation and asked for comments or questions from the meeting attendees. Questions asked were regarding the average occupancy, would local contractors be hired, traffic flow, pricing of units, cable service, is the community gated, are the units available for purchase or would they be leased, target date for hearings and construction. Mr. Thornton and Mr. Arnold addressed the attendee's questions and concluded the meeting. Mr. Arnold offered to provide any additional information if requested and to contact, Kay Deselem, or himself if anyone had further questions. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:10 p.m. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on September 4, 2013. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-A-PL20130000266 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval rook PUDZ-A-PL20130000266—BRADFORD SQUARE PUD Page 12 of 13 October 3, 2013 CCPC Revised: 9/4/13 Packet Page-2464- 12/10/2013 17.A. PREPARED BY: ?/(23 /3 KA D ELEM,AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER / 'DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEWED BY: RAYM D V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DA"l'E DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVED BY: - 1 1 l,__,,.•N1C CASALKNGUIEYA,ADMINISTRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the December 10,2013 Board of County Commissioners Meeting PUDZ-A-PL20130000266-BRADFORD SQUARE PUD Page 14 of 14 October 3, 2013 CCPC Revised: 8/12/13 Packet Page-2465- 12/10/2013 17.A. Department of Zoning& Land Development Review 9/15/2013 Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL Gentlemen: I'm very concerned about amending Ordinance 2004-41 For the Bradford Square Mixed Use Unit Development to allow construction of either 100,000S.F. of gross leaseable office or retail with up to 10 residential units, instead of only allowing construction of senior group housing for up to 130 units. I strongly believe the mixed commercial retail use should be deleted from this amendment. WHY?#1 Vanderbilt Beach Road and Livingston Road are vital commuter roads. Retail traffic at that point is unnecessary. #2 Allowing this disruption in essentially a residential corridor is not in keeping with all the other residential communities along these roads. #3 Allowing additional stores/offices here is unfair to the owners of the unoccupied commercial properties along Airport/Pulling and Vanderbilt Beach intersections. This proposed change appears to be an excellent example of spot zoning. Please take the time to carefully review your proposals. There are several areas along Livingston Road which you have granted commercial use and which unfortunately have not been developed or which have closed due competition from Sam's Club, WalMart and Target. From that perspective, more commercialization of this residentially developed area is not needed. Perhaps you could specify only residential construction, not mixed use.Also a large percentage of potentially affected home owners in this area are not here now and are not aware of what you are planning to do. Very truly y rs, Joan Lovello, 902 Tierra Lago Way, Naples, Florida 34119 Tel: 352-9554 oitsk Packet Page-2466- 12/10/2013 17.A. ORDINANCE NO. 13- 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 FOR A PROJECT PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS THE BRADFORD SQUARE MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) TO A NEW MPUD WHICH WILL CONTINUE TO BE KNOWN AS THE BRADFORD SQUARE MPUD, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF EITHER 100,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE OFFICE OR RETAIL WITH UP TO 10 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS OR TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF GROUP HOUSING FOR SENIORS FOR UP TO 130 UNITS WITH A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF .50 ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD AND LIVINGSTON ROAD IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 9.18+I- ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 07-41, THE FORMER BRADFORD SQUARE MPUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PUDZ-A-PL20130000266) WHEREAS, on April 24, 2007,the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance Number 07-41 which established the Bradford Square Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD)zoning classification; and WHEREAS,Everbank,represented by Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor and Associates. P.A., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the Bradford Square 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 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. Collier County. Florida, is changed from a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) for a project to be known as the Bradford Square MPUD to allow construction of either 100,000 square feet of gross leasable office or retail with up to 10 residential dwelling units or to allow construction of group housing for seniors for up to 130 units with a floor area ratio of.50 Bradford Square MPUD\PUDZ-PL20130000266 Rev. 10/08/13 1 of 2 Packet Page-2467- 12/10/2013 17.A. in accordance with the MPUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibits "A" through "G". 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 07-41. known as the Bradford Square MPUD adopted on April 24, 2007 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 , 2013. ATTEST BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk GEORGIA A. HILLER, ESQ. Chairwoman Approved as to form and legality: s- Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Permitted Uses Exhibit B—Development Standards Exhibit C—Commercial Mixed Use Master Plan Exhibit Cl —Sections (Commercial Mixed Use Development) Exhibit C2 —Preserve Area within MPUD Exhibit C3 -Architectural Conceptual Drawing for Commercial Mixed Use Development Exhibit D—Legal Description Exhibit E—List of Requested Deviations Exhibit F—List of Developer Commitments Exhibit G—Figure 1 Alternative Building Configuration for Group Housing CP\13-CPS-01232\42 Bradford Square MPUD\PVDZ-P1.20130000266 Rev. 10/08/13 2 of 2 Packet Page -2468- 12/10/2013 17.A. EXHIBIT A FOR BRADFORD SQUARE MPUD Regulations for development of the Bradford Square MPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this MPUD Document and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate. Where this MPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards,then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise most similar shall apply. PERMITTED USES: A maximum development intensity of (a) 100,000 square feet of gross leasable office or retail area and a maximum of 10 residential dwelling units or (b) 130 units of group housing for seniors shall be permitted within the MPUD. The property may only be developed as commercial mixed-use or as a senior housing facility. Both options cannot be developed on the site. The maximum floor area for any single commercial user shall be 20,000 square feet, except for a grocery/supermarket, physical fitness facility, craft/hobby store, home furniture/furnishing store, or department store use, which shall not exceed a maximum of 50,000 square feet. The group housing for seniors shall be limited by a FAR of .50 (see deviations). No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part,for othe r t h an the following: MIXED USE: A. Principal Uses: ICI 1. Accounting services(group 8721); 2. Apparel and accessory stores(groups 5611—5699); 3. Architectural,engineering and surveying services(groups 0781,8711—8713): 4. Attorney offices and legal services(group 8111); 5. Auto and home supply(5531),except as prohibited in Item C of this Document; 6. Business services (groups 7311 — 7313, 7322 — 7338, 7361 — 7379, 7384, 7389), except as prohibited in Item C of this Document; 7. Child day care services(group 8351); 8. Depository(financial)institutions(groups 6011—6099); 9. Eating places (group 5812 only as outlined as follows: box lunch stands, cafes, coffee shops, dairy bars, diners, eating places), food bars, frozen custard stands, grills, (eating places), Ice cream stands, luncheonettes, oyster bars, pizza parlors, pizzerias, restaurants-carry-out restaurants-sit-down, restaurant with drive-through window (limited to one only) sandwich bars or shops, snack shops, soda fountains, submarine sandwich shops, tea rooms, (except as prohibited in Item C of this Document); No outdoor amplified entertainment shall be permitted for any PL2013-0266,Bradford Square MPUD Page 1 of 15 Rev4 10-16-2013 Packet Page-2469- 12/10/2013 17.A. restaurants (music or television) and no bar areas with outside seating shall be permitted. 10. Food stores(groups 5411—5499),except as prohibited in Item C of this Document; 11. General merchandise stores(groups 5311-5399); 12. Governmental offices(groups 9111—9199); 13. Group housing for seniors, described in Section 5.05.04 of the LDC, including assisted living and independent living facilities (See Exhibit A Item D, Operational Requirements for Group Housing); 14. Hardware stores(group 5251); 15. Health services(groups 8011-8049, 8082); 16. Home furniture,furnishings,equipment store(groups 5712—5736); 17. Insurance agencies, brokers,carriers (groups 6311—6399, 6411); 18. Management and public relations(groups 8741—8743,8748); 19. Membership organizations (groups 8611—8699), except as prohibited in Item C of this Document; 20. Miscellaneous repair services (groups 7629—7699), except as prohibited in Item C of this Document; 21. Miscellaneous retail services (groups 5912, 5921, 5941 — 5963), except as prohibited in Item C of this Document; 22. Museums and art galleries(group 8412); 23. Non-depository credit institutions(groups 6111—6163); 24. Office machine repair service (groups 7629—7631), except as prohibited in Item C of this Document; 25. Paint,glass,wallpaper store(group 5231); 26. Personal services (groups 7212, 7216, 7221, 7251, 7291, 7299), except as prohibited in Item C of this Document; 27. Photographic studios(group 7221); 28. Physical fitness facilities(group 7991 ); 29. Residential multi-family-maximum of 10 dwelling units 30. Real estate(groups 6531-6541); 31. Security brokers,dealers, exchanges,services(groups 6211—6289); 32. Shoe repair shops or shoe shine parlors(group 7251); 33. Travel agencies(groups 4724): 34. Veterinarian's office(groups 0742,0752) (except for outdoor kenneling), except as prohibited in Item C of this Document; 35. Videotape rental (group 7841),except as prohibited in Item C of this Document; 36. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses as determined by the BZA or the hearing examiner. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Essential services as set forth under the Land Development Code (LDC) including but not limited to,gas lines,water lines,sewer lines,pump stations and wells. 2. Water management facilities and related structures. PL2013-0266,Bradford Square MPUD Page 2 of 15 Rev4 10-16-2013 Packet Page-2470- 12/10/2013 17.A. 3. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. 4. Garages and/or carports 5. Guardhouses,gatehouses,and access control structures. 6. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the developer and developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas, and related uses, subject to the procedures for a temporary use permit provided in the LDC. 7. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls. 8. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with group housing uses permitted in this MPUD, including recreational facilities, such as swimming pool, clubhouse,fitness center and maintenance facilities. 9. Any other use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, consistent with the permitted uses for this MPUD, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals(BZA) or the hearing examiner. C. Specifically prohibited uses: 1. Automotive service stations; 2. Convenience stores with or without gas pumps; 3. Fast food restaurants; 4. No outdoor amplified entertainment shall be permitted for any restaurants (music or television). 5. No bar areas with outside seating shall be permitted. The following list of uses shall also be prohibited per Ordinance No. 2011-28: 0742 —Veterinary services for Animal Specialties - Horses are prohibited, other animals are allowed. 0752 Animal specialty services, Except Veterinary(dog grooming is allowed) 5261—Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores 5499—Poultry dealers—retail and egg dealers—retail 5531 — Auto and home supply store, except automobile accessory and parts dealers — retail (no on-site installation) 5813—Drinking places(alcoholic beverages) 5921—Liquor stores exceeding 5,000 square feet 5932—Used merchandise stores 5962—Automatic merchandising machine operators 7211—Power laundries,family and commercial 7215—Coin-operated laundries and drycleaning 7216—Drycleaning plants, except rug cleaning 7299—Miscellaneous personal services, not elsewhere classified Coin operated service machine operations Comfort station operation PL2013-0266,Bradford Square MPUD Page 3 of 15 Rev4 10-16-2013 Packet Page-2471- 12/10/2013 17.A. Escort service Locker rental Massage parlors (except those employing licensed therapists) Rest room operation Tattoo parlors Turkish baths Wedding chapels, privately operated 7389—Business services, not elsewhere classified, except Appraisers 7623—Refrigeration and air-conditioning service and repair shops 7629—Electrical and electronic repair shops, not elsewhere classified 7641—Re-upholstery and furniture repair 7692—Welding repair 7694—Armature rewinding shops 7699—Repair shops and related services, not elsewhere classified 7841—Adult oriented video tape rental 7993—Coin operated amusement devices 8641—Civic,social and fraternal associations D. Operational Requirements for Group Housing Group housing for seniors uses shall provide the following services and/or be subject to the following operational standards: The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older. 2. There shall be on-site dining for the residents. 3. Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for the purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportation services may be provided for the residents' individualized needs including but not limited to medical office visits. 4. There shall be an on-site manager/activities coordinator to assist residents with their individual needs.The manager/coordinator shall also be responsible for arranging trips to off-site events as well as planning for lectures, movies, music and other entertainment for the residents at the on-site clubhouse. 5. A wellness center shall be provided on-site. Exercise and other fitness programs shall be provided for the residents. 6. Each unit shall have the option to be equipped to notify the community staff in the event of medical or other emergency. PL2013-0266,Bradford Square MPUD Page 4 of 15 Rev4 10-16-2013 Packet Page-2472- 12/10/2013 17.A. 7. Each unit shall be designed to accommodate residents with physical impairments (handicaps) as required by the applicable building codes and federal law and regulation. PRESERVE A. Principal Uses: 1. Nature trails and boardwalks that do not reduce the amount of required preserve area to be retained. 2. Mitigation areas. 3. Passive Recreation areas. 4. Water management and water management structures. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Exhibits B sets forth the development standards for land uses within the MPUD Residential Subdistrict. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth in Exhibit B, shall be understood to be in relation to individual parcels or lot boundary lines. Condominium and/or residential dwelling unit boundary lines shall not be utilized for determining development standards. Architectural Common Theme: Structures within this MPUD shall have a Mediterranean architectural theme, inclusive of common or compatible use of materials and colors. All buildings will be in the Mediterranean style, and all pitched roofs will be barrel tile or similar material. PL2013-0266,Bradford Square MPUD Page 5 of 15 Rev4 10-16-2013 • Packet Page-2473- 12/10/2013 17.A. EXHIBIT B FOR BRADFORD SQUARE MPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARDS COMMERCIAL MIXED USE GROUP HOUSING* PRINCIPAL STR U CTUR ES Minimum Lot Area 10,000 SF N/A Minimum Lot Width 100 feet N/A Minimum Lot Depth N/A N/A Minimum Front Yard Setback Livingston Road 35 feet 35 feet Vanderbilt Beach Road 35 feet 35 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback East PUD Boundary 70 feet 70 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback North PUD Boundary 70 feet 70 feet Maximum Building Height oak Zoned 35 feet 43 feet f<. Actual 50 feet 53 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures One-half the sum of each One-half the sum of each building height but not less than building height but not less than twenty feet(20 feet) twenty feet (20 feet) Minimum Floor Area 1000 SF N/A Minimum Preserve Setback 25 feet 25 feet ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Minimum Front Yard Setback 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Preserve Setback 10 feet 10 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures SPS 10 feet Maximum Building Height Zoned 15 feet 15 feet Actual 20 feet 20 feet *See Figure 1,Alternative Building Configuration for Group Housing SPS—Same as Principal Structure PL2013-0266,Bradford Square MPUD Page 6 of 15 Revd 10-16-2013 Packet Page-2474- - - - ��-__.__ _-_' _---�__ �� � 12/10/2013 17.A. _ ___ _-__.� __ ! z ° — '-41 l !LC!.!! pp I: :: ..,,;,. ;;;,61:„:,--7„:„„ !ail jI , ',S.. \■ , , ., ;; / 11( 4i4 ) - i/C 0 6"'• 1 7 1 ';\;\/7"- -4-. ' , ■ < u — '‘.7...14), ' , E, 6 CC E t,0 \- I! \ . ' 1 Ci'' ! . ' `'. ‘ /1 5! P.' 0 n'.. illuilj 1 '.i..1 1; . ' I /1' .%",: ''.:2 ,-!' !1 I..L. S ---- -----^ ,= / ' �------- z - ~ O 11 - �� � — — � -~�--------- — -- � ---_ __ ' — _ � V e Packet Page-2475- 12/10/2013 17.A. Y h LLI n N O M v Si, au a1 gg1e vjl En ^{ P It Id k 1 d gw g,-..g l, K ES W�j \I t b,9 gif -SD w :N a _d t4 Y Z c dO-_ 4. O w ' o W ....g di'. CO O I a . F. .e ! L in ow n7 II"e I a Y3 i. 8 $ a a3 i rli T a-R § \\ I� ^- i 6 ill Amok s.' &4W ow ; T,. a a� _ If g , Zi- °`+F ' r"‘VD.,, "fir fi�t' ,, . i ti,f -- tP.; E. � A iti ,, — S i ill &ti I i d<w gg • tEiz �'a '' { c � x ' ,;.1K----- +j ,' r4 : t 1 7 L �I i U ° QW G 1 r,�°'t arc ?''`° I y ;'. i a t3 w fl 4^ 0 --0 =a n RJ d �^ i 4,Jy. n - b ^�6� 86 1 on fr # e96-I EXHIBIT Cl - SE(Packet Page-2476-RCIAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT) • 1 i 12/10/2013 17.A. iat 11 Z—"willing 0 C I Q W p i 8 o y 8 Z�� W u. W I ¢ ca Q. NW W it I gEt I i i i! R Z I i z I- i We�. i i dCC 0 `1'-. , —. I I W Q \f 1 2Oa \ n\ 17 Q0Q iiI' QQ.Q• if 11.1 cc Z! N L- a e7 H r �, cv, W l I a' 1a�� LL '1 � Z '1 0.".. • • • • • • • • • • • • • ■ • • • • • • • • • • • ■■ • I ill Q 1• { } < U 1 aII• .i, .1. 1 W r 1 c d1� W m Z :Z—<: S ii i ��` {: : ' / j W.7. 1.. 7 > � (A! I• 4 W.1. 0.•.��r. f ii _.l_i is S—a-�...,r—•..-.r-v J.' iJ-J1 Q J• --- . . . j 1L—— o = CC i (; a m J , l i _____ ONION NOIS9NIAI'1 c I I PI Packet Page-2477-, --- • G..rIIol i L..2 - PRESERVE AREA WITHIN MPUD EXHIBIT C3 12/10/2013 17.A. ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPTUAL DRAWING (COMMERCIAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT) AiY 4stf #� v ��" , ,t ry, y r u5 x... . :j. r � <rX4.? 's€ : . >i te r:at � ti r u+s"w" 47 .ra 4 : ' { � 1 q,4 J t� :; t. 'r r t` N� a (.1 . t t.-i a i x ` ;n �' ;r, 'y,�: `«it■ „,t 1 a1, ,. x . V,, �'M 4.,,, i t.'i r,.r M k � W 11/1= r at Jr � f 1, i i L.Gd 4 t r'4. .- ' - *— f .... `jam e~ �d 3 ""`°4C �+� I & �. (��p (14r1-,t..'.'.YI` �', to * f , .. 1wwi��P 41,1 It Ti Aomkt, .�.r 4'o'X41 L W E co + r ^" ' w o, :f i f','” d gr, ;,,,,I. !"144 !' ' t Z aU 15-1'44. ..... . vf. .." . ---,,,..... - ,'.-- „,„,'-'''''`,t,-4. 5, tu kJ 7 �""j• ! rc' ' rw-ts� `s s ti' „ , , 4 0" str,.` E O f, , }� ., <° Y,,q„.1[ 4t 3� ' d ira c c co al fi, irkp t >a T" ✓ Cl. ,w t t yAS{ a±:.'`} y., tSf. 'irS,{, ,<�' "4---mow. 4 :•,4'',,t,' 1'2'; .._ _�_ $ �bi 1'9 4. �p fly �. = c ,i,„,,, .1 m . ch .'i ar x .4.. - ' o ca 'C' �.y! EE�.f- fVI �L L i d '4 ; »+ a)-0 ti, 17.{• x V at to .0. h c d o= Packet Page-2478- z 3 12/10/2013 17.A. EXHIBIT D FOR BRADFORD SQUARE MPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 31, NORTH 02°06'26" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 186.64 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED THE SAME BEING A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE LANDS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3022, PAGE 1128, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID WEST LINE AND THE EAST LINE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD, NORTH 02°06'26" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 480.59 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE LANDS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2632, PAGE 1892, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE,SOUTH 89°56'05" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 825.95 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE LANDS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3620, PAGE 1412,PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;THENCE ALONG SAID WEST LINE, SOUTH 02°08'15" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 507.23 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE ORDER OF TAKING AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3599 PAGE, 121, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;THENCE ALONG SAID LANDS FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE (3)CALLS: 1) NORTH 89°55'46"WEST,A DISTANCE OF 113.58 FEET; 2)THENCE NORTH 00°04'14" EAST,A DISTANCE OF 26.50 FEET; 3) THENCE NORTH 89°55'46" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 140.68 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE LANDS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3022,PAGE 1128, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LANDS FOR THE FOLLOWING TWO(2)CALLS:1) NORTH 89°55'46"WEST,A DISTANCE OF 564.79 FEET;2)THENCE NORTH 89°40'20"WEST,A DISTANCE OF 8.19 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 9.18 ACRES,MORE OR LESS. PL2013-0266,Bradford Square MPUD Page 11 of 15 Rev4 10-16-2013 Packet Page -2479- 12/10/2013 17.A. EXHIBIT E FOR BRADFORD SQUARE MPUD LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS 1. Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.03.02 E 2 and 3 which requires a wall between commercial and residential uses to allow no wall along the north and east property lines that are adjacent to residential development. The buffer areas shown on the MPUD Master Plan are presumed to provide sufficient screening and buffering and shall provide the same level of screening as to the LDC requirements after exotic removal. 2. Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.D.1 which establishes a maximum FAR of 0.45 for group housing to permit a maximum FAR of 0.5. PL2013-0266,Bradford Square MPUD • Page 12 of 15 Rev4 10-16-2013 Packet Page-2480- 12/10/2013 17.A. EXHIBIT F FOR BRADFORD SQUARE MPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 1. TRANSPORTATION A. Payment in lieu of construction of sidewalks and bike lanes for Vanderbilt Beach Road frontage shall be required. The amount shall be determined utilizing FDOT's 2004 Transportation Cost Manual estimates, as amended. Payment shall be required within 30 days of the zoning approval by the Board of County Commissioners. B. Payment in lieu of construction in the amount of $25,000 for a bus shelter shall be required prior to the first CO for the commercial mixed-use development option. No payment or obligation to construct a shelter is required for the senior housing development option. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL A. The MPUD shall be required to preserve 15%of native vegetation, 8.33±acres of native vegetation exists on-site requiring a minimum preservation of 1.25± acres (8.33 x .15 = 1.25) of native vegetation to be retained. The preservation plans shall meet or exceed the requirements of the LDC. B. Exhibit C-Commercial Mixed Use Master Plan, identifies a preserve area requirement greater than the minimum required 1.25 acres for the PUD. Exhibit C was previously approved and is not being amended as part of the 2013 PUD amendment. Development of a commercial mixed use project will be in compliance with the preserve requirements as shown on Exhibit C. 3. PLANNING The conceptual plan in Exhibit C depicts a single commercial building; however, multiple buildings may be constructed consistent with use, intensity and development standards contained in this PUD. 4. PUD MONITORING One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is Everbank, 1185 tmmokalee Road, Naples, Florida 34110. 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 PL2013-0266,Bradford Square MPUD Page 13 of 15 Rev4 10-16-2013 Packet Page-2481- 12/10/2013 17.A. Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments A moot P12013-0266,Bradford Square MPUD Page 14 of 15 Rev4 10-16-2013 Packet Page-2482- 1 2/1 ):2_101 3 17.A. . , .........—•,,--.. .,•.• •.,• .,...•, – ,. ,..,..... •.„...••-•.• — - ..,_ 1.i----.7 .-:. c..r, m C- - 0 c •-,c I, , -1.,,,,2, ,.._ L., ■-< . ,7 '-,b ',::-..,, u, (.)w i-. R..' o '6%5'''' .`4'-'■5.,":";-s--).% .1, IT-Z 0 (-- ,--, .‹,-- ''' ,..> .“•; ,,L.,= - , L11 :7 Zo• ct Z, Z ili 7 va n 8 D N 0 CI Cr.5 ce .._.......,,...„ .........\............•III.'...."."'''''''II.•_77 1 0 L.I.1 CZ I . • . . . . ..'''''''''''. I :I. co . ci 1 :- •:•,," '''-' 7 I-; 0, .. IA1 ° ..-.1 j I 11! 0 11 < 2.:.. . c., < 1 '- ■ i ,,...„--...„ , , L,Jl ■--V: ;-4:,-- LI...:'C'5°--C SI, , . , "IC, ,.._,Z j'3•E i!.: 2 . - I : . L_ •:.- _ j ‘J 1 ,.., c..-: < cr. (./1: / :,..E Lt. I k i 41 .%•'' 7.....1_, VI - •. i .........) -••• i ' \ \ \. /''''''•••-.''.:--. •r:' L \ i f 1 . : •\,\ ^...../ --.Z.,,,,, •-....;. ;•,f. IL, I. I 'f• ! • • . ''-',,''') -■".-... , /: • I I f•:1 1 i /I / 1 1 . c.• : : :.:.:(:-......,,,•'-`-^..... ,.',.\ ;Li „ 1.• E :::::) / , ..---- \\, - IT: : z•-. : : .:', (_/ \I 'I ------).---: -, ,----, I r., 2 ....7., ....1 ,. i.,i, : -6,..,,,,,, :•::-.:.:.> ,,,. , „_. 1- .. :=._,,, ..,, ,,,•,=2.c., ›, . , I • .7„ i i ,...,, L_ .), ,i. co..s, , ,-,„?•••••: tr'_• ,/,e , J,, ..C. ' , -,• Z ''''' ‘.-;'.-' ,..,, r-, El •-• ILI Ct" iE 2 O r:- • G...)t., " I I. , --,1 ;,11 -II-,..)"- 9 CA .( 1..., l• x co .1! Lu m ,....., .....■ IIII,-..1 4 ' i O — . • 1 • . LLJ --- ,II .. tr 2 (,, > •I; Lil ILI QI •Ii' i-,-I g :: 5, I! 2 --- , •, , .., -,..,,--) 1 , x • <0 tr .,..... N ..,.. -,..-A) I '.. 4 0 . 2-, ‘ I << ____, ,I ,,i < 7 . 7----- I‘lc, I Z ,Z. ,-.., ... , 2''- i %I■ F ''' E g <5 f / 1 1.,... <1" <,7,t_'-'_ -, PI 4 iI ; 1.. LI'W . ,. I I 1 ,._. .,,, ,,,0 r 1 0 it',—Lrr, 1 tIt'ir,"j;6. I 0-1 Ct.II, . , i i ,•k w i 1 r 1 , It H.' --1 r--' 1 J Z Li i' , d I — r, .,,, ■ 1 HT.1 il 1 1.t -:F,_\ , ' ___, ,pi 1'., :_, --L.., 1•.',:i i . „ . , , ' c,..‘,,,..•, 17),•,., =7",'... ...,. 1 1,..,.= ,,,,,.t, i ,,\ , •.-. I '1"1 c:-,..,LA., 7-' "-if; -'1,'.•IrI ' ,.,....',":".....,.....,„ I'- ' I I ■ tr. .-.../ ry ,.., • I PIg ti t I ' ,1 II-.:---1 I II ''I ■■I''..";'-' ' '. l';'I W .•.', I„, \J 'I'‹I-I.;:::„ 1 "7"I IA-4'1;2 III.II- :;,:- : . :•„--;,...---- 1 - 7,..- ?.• -,.... .... ,....•....3.., qd ..=.-g; - • :.-",-- .,..I Z , I i ■t .,•"- :'-- • 1, :/7 „....''' V- 4-',. t , '-'LA C_--. ' I t .5, ../.. , 1 ..,. I ,2-44., l'i •-•‘-' I 1 ' I U.I Ill --A, II''II------II" ,,,,...„./A- I-...-----..----„-., 7/ ,, . Al V -I ,..., : 1 r I I : I • < i4. -...: _1,— :?..., L... I- E-— —.-—,• --...-7.—..— .,.1,-,--ip'if-i--i.,;r:ti-- .....) 'C.; I 7 I 4,.....,..,--..--..-••."'""'•" :.1; ; ,/.:'/' :•:; -6:;•-. '.:E.:-■- ; ,,,40-' '''-' ':',= ■--'-7.-: F.4 ,,,,,,-- ). ' -,6,L-':,-7-'.'•., El I -'-' • ...'II./<Z---•>'f' tass-eur*I;:sese...e.s.. .:..7-,•I,....-:,-`,,,, ' C''■'..'''a"--:ci' -,, • LIVINGSTON ROAD (r=5_.,7,-,,„,■ ,< 150 PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY) . a:<:.,_, u_■ a: rui -.-1 Packet Page-2483- 12/10/2013 17.A. NAPLES o A I LY NEWS cc Wednesday, November 20,2013 c( 27D • • NOTICE OF MEETING NOTICE OUMEETING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that on TUESDAY, December 10, 2013, in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, the Board of County Commissioners will consider the enactment of a County Ordinance. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. The title of the proposed Ordinance is as follows: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABUSHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLUER COUNTY,FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS FOR A PROJECT PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS THE BRADFORD SQUARE MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) TO A NEW MPUD WHICH WILL CONTINUE TO BE KNOWN AS THE BRADFORD SQUARE MPUD, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF EITHER 100;000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE OFFICE OR RETAIL WITH UP TO 10 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS OR TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF GROUP HOUSING FOR SENIORS FOR UP TO 130 UNITS WITH A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF.50 ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD AND UVINGSTON ROAD IN SECTION 31,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER'COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 9.18 +/- ACRES;.PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 07-41,THE FORMER BRADFORD SQUARE MPUD;AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.(PUDZ-A-PL20130000266) Copies of the proposed Ordinance are on file with the Clerk to the Board and are available for inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County administrator prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed; Individual speakers will be limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of an individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the'Board agenda packets must submit said material`a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the resppeEtive public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered-by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the Board • will become a permanent part of the record. Any person who'decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to . participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the.provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail,East, Building W, Naples, Florida 34112, (239)252-8380. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the County Commissioners'Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS • COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA GEORGIA A.HILLER,ESQ.CHAIRWOMAN • DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK By: Martha Vergara,Deputy Clerk . No ember 20.2013 No.2007239 • Packet Page-2484- •