The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 06/26/2012 Item #17A6/26/2012 Item 17.A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to consider PUDZ-PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD -- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida mending Ordinance No. 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Naples View RPUD to allow construction of a maximum of sixty -six residential dwelling units on property located at 6900 Airport Road North in Section 01, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 11 +/- acres; and by providing an effective date. 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 rezone 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 requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development District (RPUD) Zoning District to allow development of a maximum of 66 dwelling units, that could be comprised of single- family detached, zero -lot line, two- family, duplex and townhome units along with customary residential development accessory uses. The petitioner proposes to use Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) allowances to increase density over the 3 units per acre base density. Please refer to the GMP discussion for more details about the TCMA. The Master Plan shows one access point onto Airport Pulling Road, a vehicular/bicycle /pedestrian access to the north, two different residential tracts —Tract R1 and Tract R2, along with areas depicting a lake, rights -of -way, buffers, and optional recreation areas. Tract R1 proposes single - family detached, zero lot line, and two- family /duplex dwelling units. Tract R2 allows the uses in R1 and townhouse units also. There is no preserve requirement for this site. The petitioner is seeking approval of five deviations for this petition. These are discussed in the 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 PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Revised: 5/11/12 BCC Hearing Date June 26, 2012 Packet Page -1796- Page 1 of 6 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. needed to maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT• Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is located within the Urban designated area (Urban — Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) and is within the Traffic Congestion Boundary, as identified on the countywide Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Also, the property is located within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) as identified in the Transportation Element. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of 4 DU /A. This district is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non - residential uses, including mixed -use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. The Subdistrict also provides for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. Review of the Density Rating System deems this project eligible for a base density of 4 DU /A, and a density reduction of 1 DU /A, because it is located within the Traffic Congestion Area. The applicant has proposed to use the Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) Density Bonus units, which allow for up to 3 additional DUs /A. The resulting eligible density of 6 DU /A yields a total of 68 DUs. Pursuant to FLUE Policy 6.3, the subject property qualifies for the TCMA density bonus of 3 additional DUs /A. Comprehensive Planning staff concludes the proposed development may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and the applicable Policy of the Economic Element as noted above. 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). Airport- Pulling Road Impacts: The first concurrency link that is impacted by this project is Link 2.2, Airport- Pulling Road between Orange Blossom Drive and Pine Ridge Road. The project generates 29 net new p.m. peak hour, peak direction trips, which represents a 0.70% impact (1.13% coincide with the `off -peak' network direction). This segment of Airport- Pulling Road currently has a remaining capacity of 1,880 trips, and is currently at LOS "C" as reflected by the PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Revised: 5/11/12 BCC Hearing Date June 26, 2012 Packet Page -1797- Page 2 of 6 6/26/2012 Item W.A. 2011 AUIR. No subsequent links beyond this segment of Airport- Pulling Road are significantly impacted by this project. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (COME): Environmental staff has evaluated the application and has determined that the proposed PUD document complies with all applicable GMP and LDC provisions regarding conservation, native vegetation preservation and potential listed species impacts. GMP Conclusion: Staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. For additional details, please refer to the Collier County Planning Commission staff report. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard this petition on May 3, 2012. By a unanimous vote (9 to 0) 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) In Exhibit A, Permitted Uses, moved the recreational uses language from accessory uses (B) to principal uses (A) categories under both Tracts RI and R2; and 2) In Exhibit C, Revise Note 5 in General Notes Table, the PUD Master Plan to read: "Recreational facilities may only be located in areas shown on the PUD Master Plan. Recreational facilities are optional and not required;" and 3) In Exhibit F, removed Utilities Commitments 2.5, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 and re -label the other commitments so the former commitment 2.9 is now 2.5. These revisions have been incorporated into the PUD document that is included in the draft ordinance. No correspondence in opposition to this petition has been submitted for the current proposal; no one spoke at the CCPC hearing voicing opposition to the project and the CCPC vote was unanimous. Therefore, this petition can be placed on the Summary Agenda. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: [Quasi-judicial, Four -fifths vote for approval] This is a site specific rezone from a Rural Agricultural Zoning District to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Naples View RPUD. The burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent with all the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), should it consider denying the rezone, to determine that such denial would not be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the proposal does not meet one or more of the listed criteria below. PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Revised: 5/11/12 BCC Hearing Date June 26, 2012 Packet Page -1798- Page 3 of 6 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. Criteria for RPUD Rezones Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval or not. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. 2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. 3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed RPUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. 4. Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. 5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development? 6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. 7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 8. Consider: Conformity with RPUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. 9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan? 10. Will the proposed RPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? 11. Would the requested RPUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Revised: 5/11/12 BCC Hearing Date June 26, 2012 Packet Page -1799- Page 4 of 6 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. 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? 20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ( "reasonably ") be used in accordance with existing zoning? (a "core" question...) 22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county? 23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. 24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. 25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed RPUD rezone on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch.106, art.Il], as amended. PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Revised: 5/11/12 BCC Hearing Date June 26, 2012 Packet Page -1800- Page 5 of 6 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. 26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the RPUD rezone request that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare? The BCC must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the BCC hearing as these items relate to these criteria. The proposed Ordinance was prepared by the County Attorney's Office. This item has been reviewed for legal sufficiency and is legally sufficient for Board action. An affirmative vote of four is necessary 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, Zoning Services Section, Land Development Services Department, Growth Management Division, Planning and Regulation Attachments: 1) Staff Report 2) Back -up information 3) Ordinance PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Revised: 5111/12 BCC Hearing Date June 26, 2012 Packet Page -1801- Page 6 of 6 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 17.A. 6/26/2012 Item 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 consider PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD -- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Naples View RPUD to allow construction of a maximum of sixty -six residential dwelling units on property located at 6900 Airport Road North in Section 01, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 11 +/- acres; and by providing an effective date. Meeting Date: 6/26/2012 Prepared By Name: DeselemKay Title: Planner, Principal,Engineering & Environmental Ser 5/10/2012 4:44:10 PM Approved By Name: BellowsRay Title: Manager - Planning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 5/22/2012 12:29:05 PM Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, GMD P &R Date: 5/22/2012 4:20:54 PM Name: LorenzWilliam Title: Director - CDES Engineering Services,Comprehensive Date: 5/30/2012 12:35:31 PM Name: AshtonHeidi Packet Page -1802- Title: Section Chief/Land Use- Transportation,County Attor Date: 5/30/2012 1:27:11 PM Name: MarcellaJeanne Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning Date: 6/13/2012 8:02:31 AM Name: AshtonHeidi Title: Section Chief/Land Use- Transportation,County Attor Date: 6/18/2012 1:08:50 PM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney Date: 6/18/2012 2:20:41 PM Name: FinnEd Title: Senior Budget Analyst, OMB Date: 6/18/2012 2:39:44 PM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager Date: 6/18/2012 4:45:41 PM Packet Page -1803- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. TO: FROM: STAFF REPORT 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. AGENDA ITEM 9 -A COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ZONING SERVICES - -LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION -- PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: MAY 3, 2012 SUBJECT: PUDZ- PL20110001519: NAPLES VIEW RPUD PROPERTY OWNER & APPLICANT /AGENT: Owner /Applicant: W. Stephen Hagenbuckle, Managing Member for Naples View LLC 1314 Cape Coral Parkway, Suite 320 Cape Coral, FL 33904 REOUESTED ACTION: Agent: Alexis Crespo, AICP Waldrop Engineering, P.A. 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Suite 305 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for a rezone from the Rural Agricultural Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit Development District (RPUD) Zoning District to allow development of a maximum of 66 dwelling units. For details about the project proposal, refer to "Purpose/Description of Project." GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 11.3± acres, is located on the east side of Airport- Pulling Road, approximately 800 feet south of the intersection of Airport- Pulling Road (County Road 31) and Orange Blossom Drive, in Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the following page) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner is requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural zoning district to the RPUD zoning district to allow development of a maximum of 66 dwelling units, that could be PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD May 3, 2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 Packet Page -1804- Page 1 of 20 3 sx � a� 1 0 � di. a - ,�y�"wN ll/mill��Wm nVO8 O1 ION / 7 (t[ 'tl7) woa DNmnd -LvDdw otror3moe wveave v viars e is sc- 3lvisa3lw 33 _ _ p nVO8 O1 ION / 7 uaa - a - V L 11 Z �OZ /9Z /. cQ G V Z Z O N LL Q Z O I— U O I J d N d *k rmQ Gavnsxroa NvooT o otror3moe wveave v viars sc- 3lvisa3lw 33 _ _ p pp 'O � o aurm2e ' Z Q a e � Q o < N o NO � NO L LNWGBTON NORD C 6 =Y n �! O OtlOa NDI8ONINl $ NANN N „ = c i i a ac trot 4 c � a a�� N NoTwva owa �NnTntlaodnry . � �.31zm 5.1 W W WW oma 3UMODW ov-a HNVitii0000 r r a _ � � n � � N7� u usaxol o oeon HNwf3l13ia000 gg a IwBTU -Ov wmnv1 l l�r sN �vai N'ltllwrl V L 11 Z �OZ /9Z /. cQ G V Z Z O N LL Q Z O I— U O I J d N d *k rmQ 'STN :S"1VOS_ U m my�o_O O�y0L0 1�oluz} w } W W m LL =' LL J ❑ 000 —w m T� `Q wQmtai, o >a(J7¢a�Q F -m0�M¢ Y 0 w ❑ 2a2 U G J g cti Z 0 LU gOam oz�j y 0 LL- W N Z Z m y W 7 � LL Z 0 z F N x w F- W N Z u� F c g D a W❑ J xaQ UCiW �?It y O y N C O ❑ gW 0 O Z Z 0 O LL w LL m 0 m J mQ J O 2 OLL w w D m m w IL a21ed japed NY'Id Nall 'D77 `MHIA SH'1ddN •.Lr4:dl ld ALMA sazaVN z z w m {F- Z O ❑F.OZa Q j a Q2 JW Q OV =L0 LL-Zo o.COFQFp 5u._Y IL Z� m ZJZ O ❑d 1 m N xx W Z m l w z J z I J I �' I Io: I J U w ' g c U c; F- I J I Q z� LLI LLI 1 I i I iI I I w w ------------ ------ LL LL 1 Z m �W� m owLL yay .M. Ml U F ~ 1 i Q z J N I F- z wv I 3LL F m ❑ p y I C } w w I x 1 ❑ � ( Q I° LL w 00 w V W J 0Q w 0 aF Z ' I W¢ w H Z 1 ' J m Q { Z F I p l I Z J I Q ❑d 1 fL LU m l Z mQa i OU w I , a O I °ALL W ' z� w� a I w ❑ Cl! N - ❑ ° lu J O LL J � mi U Q }LL m� o° LL !o � - I I +1 \ CO ----- TJN d0 OV02i laOd2iIV_ g� -H z U pKilifl4 llo 2 w > a. LL M•O -a .00Z O UJ atl02! oNff) d 100daltl8 0 Co LL B: I V L � Wall Z [OZ /9Z/9 Y O z W U d m U F• LL V) ❑ �oT CL¢ zda ❑ Z > W 0 CL 0=N0 Z Z Q 0 O J � LL Ill D ZQ❑ J z W 81-N3WW °° A1Nf1°O aid 03SIA3a 1 ZIIW1 2 ........ f100 aid 03SIA3a ZL /L0/ED 3 w¢ � � Q Q a F-Z Z= w Q Z W ZO W, yQ Ip,j aOZ J ?UZ QQ W j0 W ~Q J-- gZ O Qp� 5z 5) z W U —Q�Q Z HOB OQO Z KN VOZ —� Upa r aLLa z z� Odz q z ❑Q Q oQ Q LC 0wz wRoo ¢w z�m❑w W zm(w7 d0Oy x Ofw GQW- Z ZDQ W ~� w> Qy�O byLL �F-o g V) UWwp a�0 QU�a w WF- OJ Jj� 1!'❑w Jmd o w(jF Fx-¢F- <0')O -j z0 HUQ r CV M a L6 LL w 00 w V W J 0Q w 0 aF a e N r - w { 00 o J U a a J z w0 y W a ❑ it a 0 Ci LU II tJ , a O I ' W Cry cn N s- q a Cl! N ❑ o x - cQ G +1 +I -H z a ao pKilifl4 llo �_:I —l� F- 1 .. IS _..,I co .....� ___ _._...... �.... .. I ® Q - w¢ � � Q Q a F-Z Z= w Q Z W ZO W, yQ Ip,j aOZ J ?UZ QQ W j0 W ~Q J-- gZ O Qp� 5z 5) z W U —Q�Q Z HOB OQO Z KN VOZ —� Upa r aLLa z z� Odz q z ❑Q Q oQ Q LC 0wz wRoo ¢w z�m❑w W zm(w7 d0Oy x Ofw GQW- Z ZDQ W ~� w> Qy�O byLL �F-o g V) UWwp a�0 QU�a w WF- OJ Jj� 1!'❑w Jmd o w(jF Fx-¢F- <0')O -j z0 HUQ r CV M a L6 i 0 Og W w nvw -s •u�uuusn DmD•ltzj?gowt0597.jcwH ovy 16 u-"Z 1VDOJ"v s"deN W-99M LL w 00 w V W J 0Q w 0 aF a e N r - w { o J U a a J z w0 y W a ❑ it a 0 Ci W Cry cn N s- q a Cl! N ❑ o x cQ G +1 +I -H z C f) co m G Q (o � m i LLI Q W Q J Z J LLI (.) o Q Q Q F- 0 p y C7 Z LU Q � z a U z Z O U to (7 W <a 0 NN ❑ O 0 y z LL w 0j CL I O ma ¢ wog p O w z w LL U LL ❑ i 0 Og W w nvw -s •u�uuusn DmD•ltzj?gowt0597.jcwH ovy 16 u-"Z 1VDOJ"v s"deN W-99M 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. comprised of single - family detached, zero -lot line, two - family, duplex and townhome units along"" with customary residential development accessory uses. The petitioner proposes to use Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) allowances to increase density over the 3 units per acre base density if additional units above the base density are constructed. Please refer to the GMP discussion for more details about the TCMA. The Master Plan shows one access point onto Airport Pulling Road, a vehicular/bicycle /pedestrian access to the north, two different residential tracts —Tract Rl and Tract R2, along with areas depicting a lake, rights -of -way, buffers, and optional recreation areas. Tract Rl proposes single - family detached, zero lot line, and two - family /duplex dwelling units. Tract R2 allows the uses in RI and townhouse units also. There is no preserve requirement for this site. The petitioner is seeking approval of five deviations for this petition. These are discussed later in this report. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: A nine± acre tract developed as a landscape nursery, with a sunsetted PUD zoning designation (Longview Center PUD, a mixed use project -- Ordinance # 03 -41); and a portion of Walden Oaks residential subdivision, with a zoning designation of PUD (Lone Oak) that was approved at a density of 6.32 units per acre with structures up to three stories in height (last amended in Ordinance # 89 -30) East: A residential portion of Walden Oaks subdivision, with a zoning designation of PUD (Lone Oak) that was approved at a density of 6.32 units per acre with structures up to three stories in height (last amended in Ordinance # 89 -30) South: office uses within the Walden Oaks Professional Center subdivision, with a zoning designation of PUD (Lone Oak) that was last amended in Ordinance # 89 -30 West: Airport- Pulling Road; then an undeveloped 10± acre tract with a Rural Agriculture zoning designation and The Carlisle at Naples, a retirement facility with a zoning designation of Rural Agriculture with a Conditional Use for a group care facility (Resolution 96 -405) PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD May 3, 2012 CCPC Revised 4/12112 Packet Page -1807- Page 2 of 20 6/26/2012 Item W.A. Aerial Photo (subject site depiction is approximate) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is located within the Urban designated area (Urban — Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) and is within the Traffic Congestion Boundary, as identified on the countywide Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Also, the property is located within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) as identified in the Transportation Element. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of 4 DU /A. This district is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non - residential uses, including mixed -use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. The Subdistrict also provides for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. Review of the Density Rating System deems this project eligible for a base density of 4 DU /A, and a density reduction of 1 DU /A, because it is located within the Traffic Congestion Area. The applicant has proposed to use the Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) Density Bonus units, which allow for up to 3 additional DUs /A. The resulting eligible density of 6 DU /A yields a total of 68 DUs. PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD May 3, 2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 Packet Page -1808- Page 3 of 20 6/26/2012 Item W.A. Pursuant to FLUE Policy 6.3, the subject property may only qualify for the TCNIA density bonus of 3 additional DUs /A provided that at least 2 of the 5 criteria below are met. The criteria are stated in italics; followed by staff comment in bold. a) Include neighborhood commercial uses within a residential project. [This criterion is not proposed by this application.] b) Providing transit shelters within the development (must be coordinated with Collier County Transit). [This criterion is not proposed by this application.] c) Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connections to abutting commercial properties. [The applicant is proposing bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the project and an interconnection with the Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict, located north of the subject property.] d) Including affordable housing (minimum of 25% of the units) within the development. [This criterion is not proposed by this application.] e) Vehicular access to abutting commercial properties. [The applicant is proposing a vehicular interconnection with the Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict, located north of the subject property.] FLUE Objective 7 and relevant policies are stated below (in italics); each policy is followed by staff analysis (in bold). 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's entrance is provided from Airport - Pulling Road, an arterial roadway.) Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. (The RPUD Conceptual Master Plan does not depict a loop road within the project and contains only one entrance. The subject site is a small infill property with all future development accessing the internal road. However, the applicant has proposed, through the TCMA density bonus provision, a vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle access to the Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict, located north of the subject site.) Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. (The subject site is a small infill property with limited interconnection/access potential to neighboring properties. However, the applicant has proposed, through the TCMA density bonus provision, a vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle access to the Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict, located north of the subject site.) 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 RPUD will be developed with an internal sidewalk system that connects to the existing sidewalk along Airport Pulling Road. Additionally, the RPUD is proposed to PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD May 3, 2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 Packet Page -1809- Page 4 of 20 6/26/2012 Item W.A. include various housing types, including single family, patio homes, and townhome dwellings; potential recreational facilities; and a vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle access to the mixed use subdistrict north of the subject site.) Economic Element: Policy 1.9: Collier County, in response to the current and projected needs of its residents, will encourage a diverse mix of housing types, sizes, prices, and rents. (The subject rezone proposes the development of various housing types, including single family, and townhome dwellings, etc.; housing prices and/or rents have not been disclosed.) Comprehensive Planning staff concludes the proposed development may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and the applicable Policy of the Economic Element as noted above. 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 (GNP). Airport- Pulling Road Impacts: The first concurrency link that is impacted by this project is Link 2.2, Airport- Pulling Road between Orange Blossom Drive and Pine Ridge. Road. The project generates 29 net new p.m. peak hour, peak direction trips, which represents a 0.70% impact (1.13% coincide with the `off - peak' network direction). This segment of Airport- Pulling Road currently has a remaining capacity of 1,880 trips, and is currently at LOS "C" as reflected by the 2011 AUIR. No subsequent links beyond this segment of Airport- Pulling Road are significantly impacted by this project. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (COME): Environmental staff has evaluated the application has determined that the proposed PUD document complies with all applicable GMP and LDC provisions regarding conservation, native vegetation preservation and potential listed species impacts. 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. PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD May 3, 2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 Packet Page -1810- Page 5 of 20 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. 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. There are no outstanding environmental issues. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right -of -way and access issues. The PUD document contains the mitigation discussed in the Transportation Element section of this staff report. Utility Review: This project is located within Collier County Water and Sewer District and Utility staff has requested the petitioner place specific commitments in the PUD; the petitioner has included those commitments as requested. 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. PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD May 3, 2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 Packet Page -1811- Page 6 of 20 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. The development standards contained in Exhibit B of the PUD document show the following: TABLE I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS") PERMITTED USES Single Family Zero Lot Two Townhome Recreation AND STANDARDS Detached Line Family, Duplex Min. Lot Area 5,000 SF 4,000 SF 3,500 SF 1,400 SF N/A Min. Lot Width 50' 40' 35' 16' N/A SETBACKS Front 15' 15' 15 15' 20' Side 5' 51/0' 5'/0' 51/0' 20' Rear (Principal) 15' 10' 10' 10' 10' Rear (Accessory) 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' Water body 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' Airport Pulling Rd. 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' Min. Distance Between Principal 10' 10'/0'5) 10'/0'(5) 10'/0'5) Sum of Y2 BH Structures Max. Building Height Zoned 35' 35' 35' 35' 35' Actual 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' No. of Stories 2 2 2 2 2 The neighboring PUD, Lone Oak, was last amended over 20 years ago and approved more than 25 years ago and it does not contain a similar development standards table. However that PUD contains development standards where standards were provided, such as a 30 foot setback from internal rights -of -way, a maximum residential building height of 3 habitable stories, and a minimum distance between principal structures of '/2 the sum of the building heights. Lone Oak PUD has been developed with a mixture of single - family and multi - family units as well as cluster and patio housing. Although the project was approved for 604 units, the project has been built out at 322 units and 24,000 square feet of commercial use. As shown in the aerial photograph located on page 2 of the staff report, the surrounding land use and zoning discussion. of this staff report, and the Master Plan, the site is bounded to the east and south by the Lone Oak PUD that has developed as the Walden Oak project. To the north is a sunsetted PUD that is currently used as a landscape nursery. Across Airport Pulling Road to the west, is The Carlisle retirement center and a 10 acre undeveloped tract. Both of those tracts are zoned Agriculture. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed maximum zoned building height of 35 feet (zoned) and 40 feet (actual) limited to two stories is comparable to the maximum height limits approved for the abutting property. PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD May 3, 2012 CCPC Revised 4/12112 Packet Page -1812- Page 7 of 20 6/26/2012 Item W.A. A pedestrian/bicycle and vehicular interconnection has been provided on the site plan to the north. Because the PUD to the north is sunsetted, an amendment would be required to allow additional development on that site. At that time, the interconnection could be made if it remains warranted. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking five deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviation is listed in PUD Exhibit E. Deviation 1: Deviation seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.0 that requires a 15 -foot wide Type "B" buffer where proposed residential uses abut existing commercial uses, to allow for a 10 -foot wide Type `B" buffer where the property abuts the commercial use to the north. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The proposed deviation will allow for design flexibility for this infill parcel, while meeting the intent of the LDC by providing appropriate buffering between the proposed residential use and the existing commercial use to the north. The requested deviation is only to reduce the overall width of the buffer yard, not the number or type of proposed plantings. Thus, the opacity of the required buffer will not change as a result of this deviation. The required plantings can be accommodated within the proposed 10' buffer yard; therefore approval of this deviation will not negatively impact the survival rate or appearance of the buffer plantings. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: A Type B buffer is described below: Fifteen-foot-wide, 80 percent opaque within one year landscape buffer six feet in height, which may include a wall, fence, hedge, berm or combination thereof, including trees spaced no more than 25 feet on center. When planting a hedge, it shall be a minimum of ten gallon plants five feet in height, three feet in spread and spaced a maximum four feet on center at planting. The petitioner has the less intense proposed land use, i.e., proposed residential vs. mixed use to the north. Any commercial uses that are ultimately developed on the adjacent tract could have more impact on the subject property's residential project. Thus if the petitioner wishes to be permitted to provide a narrower buffer, it seems appropriate to allow the reduction. However staff does have a concern. As previously noted, the PUD to the north needs to be amended prior to commencement of any new development to rectify the sunsetted status of the PUD. Staff does not want to create a situation wherein the subject property owner could ask that the PUD be required to provide enhanced or wider buffers to address what could be considered to be self - created incompatibility between the two projects. It would have to be noted if this situation occurs that the Naples View petitioner voluntarily reduced the required buffer on the property. PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD May 3, 2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 Packet Page -1813- Page 8 of 20 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. Zoning and Land Development Review staff would recommend 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 "iustified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e which allows temporary signs on residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height, to allow a temporary sign or banner up to a maximum of 32 square feet in area and a maximum of 8 feet in height. Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation: The requested deviation will allow for a banner sign which has been previously approved for other residential communities within the County. The subject property is not located in an area of new construction/emerging residential growth within the County, such as Immokalee Road east of I -75, which compels the need for additional signage to adequately market the property. Additionally, the Property's limited frontage along Airport Road, coupled with the significant setback created by the Airport Road canal, are existing hardships that reduces the visibility of the project. The sign will be temporary, and will undergo the requisite temporary sign permit process in accordance with Section 5.0.06. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. However the applicant did not state a time limit for the temporary sign. Staff recommends that the temporary banner sign be approved for no longer than 28 days per calendar year based upon LDC Section 5.04.05.A.3.a. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the stipulation that the temporary banner sign be approved for no longer than 28 days per calendar year, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3 the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01, which requires a minimum width of 60 feet for cul -de -sac and local street rights -of -way, to allow for a minimum 45 -foot right -of -way internal to the proposed development. Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation: The proposed deviation will allow for design flexibility within this infill parcel. As indicated above, the proposed project is a true infill development with existing site constraints, including a large stormwater management pond. The reduced right -of -way PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD May 3, 2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 Packet Page -1814- Page 9 of 20 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. width will allow the Applicant to achieve a higher percentage of on -site, useable open space and will maintain sidewalks along both sides of the roadways, as required by Section 6.06 02 of the LDC. Additionally, the right -of -way will be privately maintained by the future Homeowners Association (HOA) and will be constructed per the typical cross section included on the Master RPUD Plan. Studies have determined that reduced right -of -way widths act as a traffic calming feature and will assist in maintaining public health, safety and welfare within the community. For these reasons, the Applicant respectfully submits that the proposed deviation will not negatively impact public health, safety or welfare. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: LDC Section 6.06.01.0 allows developers of any type (zoned) project to seek alternatives pursuant to LDC Section 6.06.01.0 at the time of platting. Those requests must be accompanied by "documentation and justification for the alternate section based on sound engineering principals and practices." These alternative designs are often sought as part of the zoning process so the developer can have some assurances that the proposed Master Concept Plan is viable if the Master Plan siting was calculated using an alternative design. The PUD deviation process provides a way for the petitioner to acquire that assurance without being required to submit the alternative design in compliance with LDC Section 6.06.01.0. 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 10.02.13.13.5.11, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public puiposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 4 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.7 which prohibits dead -end streets, to allow the dead end street shown on the RPUD Master Plan. Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation: Per the attached RPUD Master Plan, the Applicant is requesting a 140 foot long dead - end street to service approximately three (3) future dwelling units within the project. The proposed dead end street is in compliance with state and local fire safety standards, as the Collier County Fire Code permits dead -end streets up to a length of 150 feet. Therefore, the requested deviation will not negatively impact public health, safety or welfare. 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 10.02.133.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD May 3, 2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 Packet Page -1815- Page 10 of 20 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.2, which permits a maximum wall height of six (6) feet in residential zoning districts, to allow for a maximum height of eight (8) feet for a combination wall and berm the property lines. Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation: The proposed deviation will allow for additional visual screening and mitigation of noise pollution resulting from traffic along Airport Road, a 4 -lane divided arterial roadway, as well as the surrounding properties. Approval of this deviation will serve to promote public health, safety and welfare, as well as enhance the proposed RPUD. 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 10.02.13.13.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." FINDINGS OF FACT: LDC Subsection 10.03.0512 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 10.02.13.13.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed uses are compatible with the approved uses and existing development in the area. In addition, the proposed property development regulations provide adequate assurances that the proposed project will be suitable to the type and pattern of development in the area. PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD May 3, 2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 Packet Page -1816- Page 11 of 20 6/26/2012 Item W.A. 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 obtain 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). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP. A copy of the Comprehensive Planning Staff s complete GMP analysis has been attached. 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. As described in the Analysis Section of this staff report, staff is of the opinion that the proposed uses, development standards and developer commitments will help ensure that this project is compatible with the surrounding area. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6 The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project as noted in the GMP FLUE and Transportation Element consistency review, if the mitigation proposed by the petitioner is included in any approval recommendation. In addition, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal systems and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Page 12 of 20 May 3, 2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 Packet Page -1817- 6/26/2012 Item W.A. the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. & 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 five deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06.A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes the deviations can be supported, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.13.5.11, 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." Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report for a more extensive examination of the deviations. Rezone Findines: 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. Staff is recommending that this project be found consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with neighborhood development and with all other applicable policies of 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 rezoning 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 rezone would not create an isolated zoning district because the abutting lands are also zoned PUD. Additionally, the project is required to provide pedestrian and vehicular interconnection to the adjacent (north) commercial development. PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD May 3, 2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 Packet Page -1818- Page 13 of 20 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. 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 proposed district boundaries are..logically drawn since the zoning boundary mirrors the existing property boundary. S. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary, per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes and the project's consistency with the GMP. However the site is currently zoned Rural Agricultural while located in an urban GMP land use designation, Urban Residential Subdistrict. The previous agricultural use, Wizard Nursery, has ceased operation at this site, thus it seems appropriate to rezone the property to a zoning district that will allow a more urban list of uses. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change, subject to the proposed list of uses and property development regulations and the proposed Development Commitments detailed in Exhibit F, is consistent with the County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Therefore, the proposed change 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 at this time subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in Exhibit F of the RPUD ordinance. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have other specific regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new developments. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this petition were approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. This project's property development regulations provide adequate setbacks and distances between structures; therefore the project should not significantly reduce light and air to adjacent areas. PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD May 3, 2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 Packet Page -1819- Page 14 of 20 6/26/2012 Item W.A. 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 value. There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; Properties to the north of this property are zoned PUD but remain undeveloped with the uses that would be allowed by that zoning. Rezoning this property to a PUD district seems appropriate and allows for the interconnection shown on the PUD Master PIan. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as 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 property already has been and could still be developed within the parameters of the existing agricultural zoning; however, the proposed zoning more correctly reflects the intent of development allowed in the GMP. In any case, however, the petitioner is seeking this rezone in compliance with LDC provisions for such action to seek the highest and best use of the land. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed rezone 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; As noted previously, the proposed rezone boundary follows the existing property ownership boundary. 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 PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD May 3, 2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 Packet Page -1820- Page 15 of 20 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. 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. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a particular zoning petition. 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 rezone is consistent with the GMP 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. Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration and 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. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities and the project will need to be consistent with an applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as it may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD document. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant, Steve Hagenbuckle, representing Naples View, LLC, in conjunction with Waldrop Engineering, P.A. and Collier County Staff, conducted a duly noticed NIM on Thursday, January 12, 2012 at the Collier County Library at 2385 Orange Blossom Drive. In addition to the applicant's team and Collier County staff persons, approximately 50 persons attended. PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD May 3, 2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 Packet Page -1821- Page 16 of 20 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. Steve Hagenbuckle began the meeting with providing introductions and a brief overview of the project. The applicant's team presentation included an overview of the project location and history, demonstration of the proposed RPUD master plan, proposed uses, and density, and information about the application process and up- coming public hearings. Following the Agent's presentation, the meeting was opened up to attendees for comments and questions. The following is a summarized list of the questions asked and responses given. Question /Comment 1: When will development begin - what is the anticipated development timeframe? Response: The developer would like to break ground in later summer /early fall 2012 for infrastructure such as roads. Question /Comment 2: How much flexibility does the developer have to develop single family units versus multi - family units? Response: The intent is to develop single family dwellings, and unless there is a significant change in market demand only single family will be constructed. The application requests the flexibility to construct a variety of units due to the state of the real estate market and changing demand. The Applicant also noted that the PUD master plan layout is for approximately 33 single family units and does not lend itself to multi - family uses. Question /Comment 3: As part of the zoning process does the Applicant have to specify the proposed residential dwelling. types. Response: Yes, the application includes a schedule of uses that includes a variety of product types: single family detached, twin villa/single family attached, and multi- family. Steve reiterated that there is very little market for multi - family and the intent is to develop single family uses. Question /Comment 4: There is concern with broadness of request/ability to develop multi - family uses. Also asked what the traffic impact of the development will be. Response: Applicant advised that a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) was completed and there were no negative traffic impacts to Airport Road due to the low trip generation of the proposed development. The Applicant also noted that the developer will be responsible for a proportionate fair share of the Orange Blossom/Airport Road intersection based upon the project's impact to that intersection. Also noted, the TIS is based upon the maximum attainable density of 66 units. Question /Comment 5: There is concern with ability of Walden Oaks residents to make right turn onto Airport Road to head northbound. Response: So noted. Question /Comment 6: What is the status of Staff's comment to provide a hardened separator to prevent future Naples View residents from accessing the southbound turn lane in front of the Property. Response: The Applicant is working on addressing this comment with Staff. Question /Comment 7: Is the Applicant contributing to the Orange Blossom /Airport Road intersection improvements? Response: Yes. PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Page 17 of 20 May 3, 2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 Packet Page -1822- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. Question 8: Where will the transit shelter be located? Please explain the bonus density request. Response: The Applicant is proposing to upgrade the existing bus stop just north of the Property to a transit shelter. There are provisions in the Growth Management Plan to allow for bonus density where efforts are. made to reduce the project's trip generation and encourage alternative forms of transportation. Question /Comment 9: You may want to have a meeting with just the Walden Oaks community to address issues regarding the proposed multi - family uses and the traffic concerns. Response: Applicant noted that the flexibility in the PUD document is the key source of concern and that the Applicant can meet again with the residents to re -visit the issues. Question /Comment 10: Will the lake be protected? There are birds that use the lake. Response: The existing lake is shown on the PUD master plan to be preserved as an amenity. Passarella and Associated conducted a protect species survey to address any on -site wildlife. Question /Comment 11: Will affordable housing be provided? Response: No. Question /Comment 12: The property is in a state of disrepair since Tree Wizard left. The proposal for single family units will be a benefit to Walden Oaks. Noting that the multi - family product can be up to 3 stories tall /45 feet in height. I do not believe the project can be supported if the request for 3- story multi - family uses is not removed from the PUD. Response: So noted. We will revisit the proposal and come back for second meeting. [Note from staff. additional meetings were held with various neighbors.] Question /Comment 13: Does the Applicant intend to change the current traffic flow along Airport and prevent U -turns where currently permitted? Response: No. Question /Comment 14: Will the community be gated/walled? Response: The PUD master plan shows a 6' -8' tall wall around the Property perimeter. Question /Comment 15: There are birds that nest in the trees. Response: The existing vegetation will be utilized to create the required buffers to the extent possible. Question /Comment 16: Will the existing right turn lane into the Naples View property be extended per this request? Response: No. There is no intent to extend the turn lane north to landscape nursery to the north. The meeting concluded with further discussion on the multi- family product type. Following this question and answer period, the Agent and Applicant indicated they would take the comments and consider revisions to the rezoning request. The Agent stated they would coordinate updates with the community through the specified community leaders. PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD May 3, 2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 Packet Page -1823- Page 18 of 20 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE'REVIEW: The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on April 12, 2012. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ- PL20110001519 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval subject to staff's recommended action on the deviations as shown below: Approval of Deviations 1, 3, 4, and 5; and Approval of Deviation 2 with the stipulation that the temporary banner sign be approved for a maximum of 28 days per calendar year. PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD May 3, 2012 CC PC Revised 4112/12 Packet Page -1824- Page 19 of 20 PREPARI&D BY: 4E---R DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEWED BY: RAYM D V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. �//z— � DATE 3LbATE LIAM D. LORE , JR., ,DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPROVED BY: GROWTH MANA DIVISION I1-8 -1z DATE Tentatively scheduled for the July 24, 2012 Board of County Commissioners Meeting PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD May 3, 2012 CCPC Revised 4/5/12 Packet Page -1825- Page 20 of 20 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. a rely county COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 www.collieMov.net APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR- E1 AMENDMENT TO PUD (PUDA) PUD REZONE (PUDZ) PUD TO PUD REZONE (PUDZ-A) PETITION NO PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED I APPLICANT INFORMATION' I NAME OF APPLICANT(S) Naples View, LLC ADDRESS 1314 Cape Coral Parkway, Suite 320 CITY Cape Coral —STATE FL ZIP 33904 TELEPHONE # (239) 540-2002 CELL # (239) 633-4480 FAX # (239) 542-9975 . E-MAIL ADDRESS: steve@terracapmgmt-com MAmr. nr At-.rfJT Waldrop Engineering, P.A. c/o Alexis Crespo, AICP ADDRESS 28100 Bonita Grande Dr., Suite 305 CITY Bonita Springs STATE FL TELEPHONE # (239) 405-7777 CELL # (239) 850-8525 - FAX # (239) 405-7899 E-MAIL ADDRESS: alexisc@waIdropengineering.com ZIP 34135 BE AIA'ARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBSY15-T REGULAIr!ONS. IGUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND '=N5UR'= TAAT YOU ARE IN CONIPLIANCE WITH THESE REG.WL4TIONS. February 4, 2011 Packet Page -1826- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. + o C7er COunty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 - www.colliergov.net ASSOCIATIONS Complete the following for all registered Association(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner's website at http: f /www.colliergov.net /Index.aspx ?pope =774 NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: Walden Oaks Homeowners Association MAILING ADDRESS 7098 Lone Oak Blvd. CITY Naples STATE FL ZIP 34109 NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CITY STATE ZIP CITY _ STATE ZIP February 4, 2011 Packet Page -1827- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. CEO Cier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.collieEgov.net Disclosure of Interest Informotion a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address % of Ownership N/A b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address I % of Ownership I K Stephen Hagenbuckle, Managing Member 100% C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address I % of Ownership N/A February 4, 2011 Packet Page -1828- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. COCeT COUnty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE .. GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.colliergoy.net d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and /or limited partners. Name and Address % of Ownership N/A e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address % of Ownership N/A Date of Contract: f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address N/A February 4, 2011 Packet Page -1829- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. o ffer County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.colliernov.net g. Date subject property acquired ® 5/19/2010 leased ❑ Term of lease yrs. /mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Date of option: Date option terminates: , or Anticipated closing date h. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: (IF space is inadequate, attach on separate page.) If request involves change to more than one zoning district, include separate legal description for property involved in each district. Applicant shall submit four (4) copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale) if required to do so at the pre - application meeting. NOTE: The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section /Township /Range 01 /49S / 25E Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. #: 00236120000 Metes & Bounds Description: SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION - EXHIBIT D Size of property: 395 + /- ft X 1247 + /- ft. = Total Sq. Ft. 492,565 Acres 11.32 Addressigeneral location of subject property: 6900 Airport Rd. N., Naples, FL 34109 PUD District (LDC 2.03.06): * Residential ❑ Community Facilities ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial February 4, 2011 Packet Page -1830- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. Goff ier GOHXt y 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.colliergov.net ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Does the owner of the subject property own property contiguous to the subject property? If so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page). Section /Township /Range / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page #: Property I.D. #: Metes & Bounds Description: REZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district(s) to the RPUD zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: VACANT Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: RESIDENTIAL Original PUD Name: N/A Ordinance No.: N/A February 4, 2011 Packet Page -1831- Zoning Land Use N PUD RETAIL PLANT NURSERY; SF RESIDENTIAL (WALDEN OAKS) S PUD PRIVATE AMENITY FACILITY (WALDEN OAKS) E PUD MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (WALDEN OAKS) W ROW PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY (AIRPORT PULLING ROAD) Does the owner of the subject property own property contiguous to the subject property? If so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page). Section /Township /Range / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page #: Property I.D. #: Metes & Bounds Description: REZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district(s) to the RPUD zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: VACANT Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: RESIDENTIAL Original PUD Name: N/A Ordinance No.: N/A February 4, 2011 Packet Page -1831- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. Co he-r County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.colliergov.net EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code, staff's analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria noted below. Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. PUD Rezone Considerations (LDC Section 10.02.13.13) 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. SEE ATTACHED EVALUATION CRITERIA 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. SEE ATTACHED EVALUATION CRITERIA 3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth management plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub - district, policy or other provision allows the requested uses /density, and fully explaining /addressing all criteria or conditions of that Sub - district, policy or other provision.) SEE ATTACHED EVALUATION CRITERIA 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. SEE ATTACHED EVALUATION CRTERIA 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. SEE ATTACHED EVALUATION CRITERIA 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. SEE ATTACHED EVALUATION CRITERIA 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. SEE ATTACHED EVALUATION CRITERIA 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. SEE ATTACHED EVALUATION CRITERIA February 4, 2011 Packet Page -1832- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. C04 G014ftty 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.colliergov.net Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions, however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. Previous land use petitions on the subiect property To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? ❑ Yes Q No If so, what was the nature of that hearing? Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? ❑ Yes ❑■ No If so, please provide copies. lwx lCE- hi3 c,.zk iica ion will be "open" w1hen file deie n;onofivn C4 �'Sunfici nc' " l ?a- been .. de and the pplic fl n is S d a petifion processv-fg nunnber. he appiicutior. will, be ons d� -red "closed" e pg '€ er t' r p1 gdo .I � � notice -.r �: �a4fz "t:Yk tl� t�"#a,�r`x ?�tf "E ;�d '�iit;a tl'3 �",: .i... '& "c �r.a�«�s °�"°r #s�i»`xi�"`a x ses rea _` o Sul l s necessary i� nfo - not ;$: co c onflnt tr . actively _ . re ?oln;nv for t f�£d # &it s$x An application E1e4erne "closed" will not receive ri%,r+,ar processing and an q.3'pl; tion a clo,,e d" 41hrough in ciivity Oi ll be d er -ne;il witlidta rn. An swam? call+ e t -n. " l e �� ° n � re-opened g . :.�a s fl e a a..e�<.,,,«,m� G°< ws. �:�-`«l � �s l�E< l"a s-'.,»"�,:�B3xa9€"a�. '. CIS °'11 .�Ixc a'S. �' ��2:t ilent of wi i €- svb e< i to iile then u, Yn:tae codl !-:DC °. on 10.03z 05-0») February 4, 2011 Packet Page -1833- EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES NAPLES VIEW RPUD PERMITTED USES: 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. 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: A. Principal Uses and Structures: "Ri" Residential Tracts 1. Single- family detached dwelling units 2. Zero lot line units 3. Two - family, duplex dwelling units "112" Residential Tracts 1. Single family detached dwelling units 4. Zero lot line units 5. Two - family, duplex dwelling units 6. Townhouse dwelling units Any other principal and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). B. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses customarily associated with Permitted Principle Uses including but not limited to: 1. Customary accessory uses and structures including carports, garages, and utility buildings. 2. Recreational uses and facilities that serve the residents, including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, fishing docks, walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings, and basketball /shuffle board courts. 3. Temporary sales trailers and model units. 4. Entry Gates & Gatehouse. 5. Essential services, including interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities. 6. Water management facilities. Any other accessory use and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals, pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). C. Development Density A maximum of 66 dwelling units shall be constructed within the RPUD per the Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) bonus density provisions set forth in Exhibit F, Section 5. The gross project area is 11.3 ± acres and the residential density maximum shall be 5.84 units per acre. Naples View RPUD — PUDZ- PL2011 -1519 Last Revised: April 5, 2012 Packet Page -1834- Page 1 of 7 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS NAPLES VIEW RPUD Development of the Naples View RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to, final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit, and preliminary work authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district shall apply. Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Naples View RPUD. 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. TABLE I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS(') PERMITTED USES AND Single Family Zero Lot Two Townhome Recreation STANDARDS Detached Line Family, Duplex Min. Lot Area 5,000 SF 4,000 SF 3,500 SF 1,400 SF N/A Min. Lot Width z 50' 40' 35' 16' N/A SETBACKS Front 4 15' 15' 15' 15' 20' Side 5' 51/0' S'/0' 5'/0' 20' Rear (Principal) 15' 10' 10' 10' 10' Rear (Accessory) 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' Water body 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' Airport Pulling Rd. 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' Min. Distance Between 10' �s) 10'/0' to /0' (s) (s1 10'/0' , Sum of /: BH Principal Structures Max. Building Height Zoned 35' 35' 35' 35' 35' Actual 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' No. of Stories 2 2 2 2 2 (1) Each half of a duplex unit requires a lot area allocation of 3,500 SF for a total minimum lot area of 7,000 SF. (2) Minimum lot width may be reduced by 25% for cul -de -sac lots provided the minimum lot area requirement is maintained. (3) The minimum 15' front yard setback may be reduced to 10' where the residence has a recessed, side entry, or rear entry garage. In no case shall there be less than a clear area of 23 feet between the back of the sidewalk and the face of the garage door for front entry garages. (4) For corner lots, only one (1) front yard setback shah be required. The yard that does not contain the driveway /vehicular access to the residence shall provide 10' setback. (5) Distance between buildings may be reduced at garages to a minimum of 0' where attached garages are provided, and a 10' minimum, if detached. Naples View RPUD — PUDZ- PL2011 -1519 Last Revised: April 5, 2012 Packet Page -1835- Page 2 of 7 J:M5-01 Naples VkvA WC:ADl255 -01 -01 MCP\R -G 1255010101Ax11.dwg O n gO a H °z VI A W N o AIR_ PORT PULLING ROAD - _ z Z -n -1 O z r O Cn D -i D -I ODDS Z �: -nCr RZ2 --� 200'R.O.W. Hlnm 6-0 in vm moa, m v m Z �mD-i L)C m Cn 0G) M- j-n E mozmz �-4 K -0055 nnp >� -n. DZ v0D D z v-icZj DO O -I -v 550-0 i Z0;0 ZN z ODA HOC DXm rn� D <_i0 Z m >A XO n 'ZM 2 r- C) Dim OC m D Zp- >' I 0 I H Rm� -jm T m ��z m M Cn _iZp 0 m SD pD 1 D '- D m HO Dm R o m m Z o m o < M� �l z I � m 0 O N o D O 1 (n D z Z- m m Cn rn � z o m { Z v p c N D M c w W ul A z w I+ m D Croa m �w �) IV Of N W O n ; �m p m Z - rn D n M C c o 0 P o rm 0 C D nO ro 'COO � O o a o o m „ VI A W N o AIR_ PORT PULLING ROAD - _ z Z -n -1 O z r O Cn D -i D -I ODDS Z �: -nCr RZ2 --� 200'R.O.W. Hlnm 6-0 in vm moa, m Dmm0 mm ll 01� m�D Z �mD-i L)C m Cn 0G) M- j-n E mozmz �-4 K -0055 nnp >� -n. DZ v0D D z v-icZj DO O -I -v 550-0 i Z0;0 ZN z ODA HOC DXm rn� D <_i0 Z m >A XO n 'ZM 2 r- C) Dim OC m D Zp- >' I 0 I H Rm� -jm T m ��z m M Cn _iZp 0 m SD pD 1 D '- D m HO Dm R �� X r- z 1 M m 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. m rn o o AIR_ PORT PULLING ROAD - _ � 4 - - --� 200'R.O.W. m z T mm r - - - - ; - -- - - -- ROAD E Z Om. E I �> i rz p �m I z� mr- N I 0 I H mi 1 1 M �� r � 1 M� �l z I � m i 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. m rn o o AIR_ PORT PULLING ROAD - _ � 4 - - --� 200'R.O.W. m z T mm r - - - - ; - -- - - -- ROAD �n M M r � � c � c m D LL Z 0m z0 m j p z �ca r c ! v i m M y Z rD- I L-i 0 R.O.W. I I 2 X i 'n R0 mp HX 8z F>o �o E Z Om. I �> i rz p �m I z� mr- N I 0 I H mi 1 1 M �� r � 1 r z I � m �n M M r � � c � c m D LL Z 0m z0 m j p z �ca r c ! v i m M y Z rD- I L-i 0 R.O.W. I I r � r m �b �o r I z ,\ m M 0 / O M r z Z m> 2 X i U D � cnz Tp MIT 0 I v I m ' D InrD�On�C v� Om. D I ' �? r 00 v m z z D Or I 0 I H O � 1 M_ r � r m �b �o r I z ,\ m M 0 / O M r z Z m> 1=7111 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS VIEW 03/01/12 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS � NAPLES VI �z/ 04105/12 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS /lT TL^XTT. XT A DLES VIEW, YY , LLC. Packet Page - 1836- .sTFRPLAN txmmrr I.C. M S r- c z G O p cm zM -0 m CN 0C” z -0 M oc C; c m -n M X mp Z 1_ m_p z r >(3) rco 0 pz -n 55 0 � c z z c� O S m Z 0 r Ch N Cn mz0 D 0 X Foo C m z H CO C o Cn 1 X .�I z O F> 0 m c c m z CA 03 z D Z M N rtMo O rn z Kzm FPZ Mcr pc v m m o 1 r A D � r O M Z 0 DK�oE2� aF -)I rd m�y,mm 2��07rr-Dm m�COKC w n —n rZ�0ZX 0 Z ibulft._. SCALE: N.T.S. . , r ENGINEERING r..s®e.na.mrana. 2 X En C m x 0�� mc� D � cnz Tp MIT 0 Oz r- z >QTXMM i D InrD�On�C v� Om. ��C Zz �? r 00 v m z z D Or 1=7111 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS VIEW 03/01/12 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS � NAPLES VI �z/ 04105/12 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS /lT TL^XTT. XT A DLES VIEW, YY , LLC. Packet Page - 1836- .sTFRPLAN txmmrr I.C. M S r- c z G O p cm zM -0 m CN 0C” z -0 M oc C; c m -n M X mp Z 1_ m_p z r >(3) rco 0 pz -n 55 0 � c z z c� O S m Z 0 r Ch N Cn mz0 D 0 X Foo C m z H CO C o Cn 1 X .�I z O F> 0 m c c m z CA 03 z D Z M N rtMo O rn z Kzm FPZ Mcr pc v m m o 1 r A D � r O M Z 0 DK�oE2� aF -)I rd m�y,mm 2��07rr-Dm m�COKC w n —n rZ�0ZX 0 Z ibulft._. SCALE: N.T.S. . , r ENGINEERING r..s®e.na.mrana. 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION NAPLES VIEW RPUD NORTH Yz OF THE NORTH %2 OF THE SOUTHWEST % OF THE SOUTHWEST % OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE WEST 100 FEET THEREOF FOR STATE RIGHT -OF -WAY. Naples View RPUD — PUDZ- PL2011 -1519 Last Revised: April 5, 2012 Packet Page -1837- Page 4 of 7 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. EXHIBIT E LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC NAPLES VIEW RPUD Deviation 1: Deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.0 which requires a 15 -foot wide Type "B" buffer where proposed residential uses abut existing commercial uses, to allow for a 10 -foot wide Type "B" buffer where the property abuts the commercial use to the north. Deviation No. 2: Deviation from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e which allows temporary signs on residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height, to allow a temporary sign or banner up to a maximum of 32 square feet in area and a maximum of 8 feet in height. Deviation No. 3: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01, which requires a minimum width of 60 feet for cul -de -sac and local street rights -of -way, to allow for a minimum 45 -foot right -of -way internal to the proposed development. Deviation 4: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01) which prohibits dead -end streets, to allow the dead end street shown on the RPUD Master Plan. Deviation 5: Deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.2, which permits a maximum wall height of six (6) feet in residential zoning districts, to allow for a maximum height of eight (8) feet for a combination wall and berm along the property lines. Naples View RPUD — PUDZ- PL2011 -1519 Last Revised: April 5, 2012 Packet Page -1838- Page 5 of 7 EXHIBIT F DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS NAPLES VIEW RPUD 1. PURPOSE 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. The purpose of this Section is to set forth the general development commitments for the project. 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 Naples View, LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed -out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. 2. UTILITIES 2.1 The project shall connect to the Collier County Water Sewer District (CCWSD) potable water system at a location determined by CCWSD when capacity is available. 2.2 The project shall connect to the CCWSD wastewater collection and conveyance system at a location determined by CCWSD when capacity is available. 2.3 The project shall connect to the CCWSD Irrigation Quality water system at a location determined by CCWSD when capacity is available. 2.4 Should the Collier County Water Sewer District determine that it does not have sufficient capacity to serve the project; the Developer shall either construct interim potable water, wastewater treatment and /or non - potable water facilities, or shall postpone development until such time as the Collier County Water- Sewer District service capacity is available to service the project. Any interim facilities constructed by the Developer shall be constructed to Collier County Utilities Division Standards, and shall be dismantled, at the Developer's expense, upon connection to the Collier County Water -Sewer District facilities. Whether potable water, wastewater treatment and /or non - potable water facilities are provided on -site or off -site, the Developer shall demonstrate to Collier County that adequate capacity is available at the time of final utilities plan submittal. 2.5 All utility facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Ordinance 2004 -31, and any amendments or successors thereto. Prior to commencement of construction all design and construction documents pertaining to utility facilities shall be reviewed and approved by the CCWSD. Naples View RPUD — PUDZ- PL2011 -1519 Last Revised: April 5, 2012 Packet Page -1839- Page 6 of 7 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. 2.6 The utility facility shall include but not be limited to: all construction plans, technical specifications and proposed plats, as applicable, for the proposed water distribution systems, wastewater collection and conveyance systems, irrigation quality distribution systems and any possible onsite treatment facilities. 2.7 All potable water infrastructures shall be conveyed to the CCWSD. 2.8 All wastewater collection and conveyance infrastructure shall be conveyed to the CCWSD 2.9 All customers shall be customers of the CCWSD. 3. TRANSPORTATION A. The project shall maintain a minimum of 100' throat distance between the Airport Pulling right -of -way and the face of the entrance gates. B. The developer shall pay a proportionate fair share for improvements to the Orange Blossom Drive and Airport Pulling Road intersection. The proportionate fair share of the project's impacts to the intersection shall be determined at the time of construction plan approval based upon the project's trips as percentage of capacity improvements for the turning /through movements utilized by this site. Payment shall be made to Collier County within 90 days of the County's request. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL No preservation area is required as all existing, on -site vegetation is exotic. 5. PLANNING The RPUD shall be developed with up to 66 units per Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) bonus density, as defined in Policy 6.3 of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. The developer shall provide the two (2) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) criteria as follows: 1. Provide vehicular access to the future mixed use subdistrict to the north as shown on the PUD Master Plan, in the form of a non - exclusive access easement to the adjacent property owner /developer to the North, conveyed prior to issuance of the first building permit. 2. Provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the project and a bicycle /pedestrian interconnection to the future mixed use subdistrict to the north shown on the PUD Master Plan. Naples View RPUD — PUDZ-PL2011-1519 Last Revised: April 5, 2012 Packet Page -1840- Page 7 of 7 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. EVALUATION CRITERIA PUD REZONE CONSIDERATIONS (LDC SECTION 10.02.13.13) NAPLES VIEW RPUD 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The Naples View RPUD ( "Property ") is located in an area of existing and planned urban development. The Applicant is proposing a mix of residential uses that are similar in character and density to the Walden Oaks Community to the north, east and south. The Property is also bound by Crawford Landscaping, a retail plant nursery, to the north and Airport Pulling Road, a six -laned arterial roadway, to the west. Based on the nature of the adjacent uses, the proposed Naples View project will be compatible with, and will further complement the existing development pattern. In terms of traffic and access, the subject property has an an existing right -in, right out access to Airport Pulling Road. Per the attached TIS there is sufficient capacity along this roadway, and surrounding roadways, to service the proposed RPUD. Additionally, there are existing power, telephone and cable available at the project boundary to service the project. Potable watgr.and. sanitary sewer services will be provided by Collier County Utilities and are available at the projecct boundary. Available drainage facilities and other infrastructure can also readily accommodate the proposed infill development. Based upon the nature of surrounding uses, the established development pattern along Airport Pulling Road, and the existing levels of public infrastrcture to service the proposed RPUD, the Property is suitable for the development of a residential community as proposed through this application. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not toe be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. The subject property is under Unified Control by Naples View, LLC as demonstrated by the Statement of Unified Control included in the Rezoning Application. 3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth management plan. (This is to include identifying what subdistrict, policy or other provision allows the requested uses /density, and fully explaining /addressing all criteria or conditions of that subdistrict, policy or other provision.) Naples View RPUD — PUDZ- PL2011 -1519 Evaluation Criteria Packet Page -1841- Page 1 of 4 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. The proposed request to rezone the Property from Rural Agricultural (A) to a unified RPUD is consistent with the provisions of the GMP as set forth in the PUD Rezone. The subject property is located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict per the Collier County Future Land Use Map. Per the Growth Management Plan, this Subdistrict is intended for higher density residential developments in areas with existing or planned public infrastructure and limited environmental constraints. As outlined in the Density Rating System, the base density for the subject property is three (3) dwelling units per acre due to its location within the Traffic Congestion Area. The Applicant is seeking an additional 3 du /acre via the Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) bonus outlined below. Therefore, the requested density of 5.83 du /acre is below the maximum permitted density of 6 du /acre provided for in the Density Rating System. In addition to consistency with the Urban Residential Subdistrict, the proposed RPUD is consistent with the following policies of the GMP: Policy 5.3: Limit Urban Sprawl The proposed RPUD represents infill development in a location with available public services. Therefore, approval of the proposed RPUD will directly support Collier County's policy of reducing urban sprawl and directing new development to existing, urbanized areas. Policy 5.4: Compatibility with Surrounding Uses The Naples View RPUD abuts the Walden Oaks residential community to the south, west and partially to the north. The proposed RPUD will consist of residential dwelling units and accessory uses that are similar in nature and density to Walden Oaks. The existing plant nursery to the north will be adequately buffered from the proposed residential community via perimeter buffers. Policy 5.5: Urban Designations The subject property is designated within the Urban District per the Future Land Use Map. Therefore, the proposed rezoning is consistent with this policy and makes appropriate use of existing urban designations for new residential development. Policy 6.3: TCMA Bonus Density The Applicant is proposing to meet the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies as outlined in this policy: vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle connections to the future mixed use activity center to the north. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on desigA, and buffering and screening requirements. The proposed RPUD will contain single - family detached, zero lot line, two - family /duplex, and towhouse residential uses as described in this application. These uses are compatible with the Naples View RPUD — PUDZ- PL2011 -1519 Evaluation Criteria Packet Page -1842- Page 2 of 4 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. existing uses in the Walden Oaks community, which contains single family, zero lot line, two - family attached, and townhouse dwelling units at a density of +/-6 du /acre). The RPUD will be appropriately buffered from the retail plant nursery to the north and Airport Pulling Road to the west. All perimeter buffers are shown on the RPUD Master Plan in accordance with the requirements of the Land Development Code to ensure compatibility. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The Naples View RPUD is a bona fide infill redevelopment project with existing site constraints, including a 2.4 -acre stormwater management pond. As shown on the attached PUD Master Plan, the Naples View RPUD proposes 60% open space within the project boundary. The site does not contain environmentally sensitive lands or native vegetation that would necessitate additional open space or native vegetation preservation. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The subject property is a smaller, infill project with adequate public facilities to service its development. It is anticipated that the project will be built out within 5 years of zoning approval based on the minimal number of residential units proposed. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The Property can accommodate the proposed units, as shown on the attached PUD Master Plan, and represents infill development along the Airport Pulling corridor. The surrounding areas, with the exception of the sunsetted Longview Center PUD to the north, are fully built -out and have the appropriate infrastructure in place to service their respective developments. Therefore, the proposed RPUD represents a logical expansion of the existing development pattern to accommodate future growth within Collier County. 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 proposed development is generally consistent with the PUD regulations contained in the LDC and a determination can be made that the subject development proposes to a degree or at least equivalent to a literal application of such regulations. The Applicant is requesting a total of five (5) deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC) requirements to allow for the requisite design flexibility needed to redevelop an infill site of this nature, including: alternative buffers, additional temporary signage; 45' -wide internal rights -of -way; permission for one (1) dead end street totaling 140' in length; and perimeter walls up to 8' in height. Development of the property in accordance with these deviations will uphold the intent of the PUD regulations and ensure design consistency, Naples View RPUD — PUDZ- PL2011 -1519 Evaluation Criteria Packet Page -1843- Page 3 of 4 6/26/2012 Item W.A. walkability /connectivity, appropriate vehicular circulation, and the protection of public health, safety and welfare. Further explanation and justification of the above referenced deviations are provided in Exhibit "E ". Naples View RPUD - PUDZ- PL2011 -1519 Evaluation Criteria Packet Page -1844- Page 4 of 4 INSTR 4431821 OR 4568 PG 723 RECORDED 5/19/2010 4:08 PM PAGES 2 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. DWIGHT E. BROCK, COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT Doc @.70 $7,707.00 REC $18.50 CONS $1,101,000.00 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION SYNOVUS BANK f /k/a FIRST FLORIDA BANK, Plaintiff, Vs. L & M GBC, APT, L.L.C, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Defendant. CASE NO. 09-4335-CA The undersigned Clerk b;fh`e Court certifies th Certificate of Sale in this cti owmwy -ZQ10, and that no objections t t ae aW objections. �u The following prope Collier County, THE NORTH ONE -H /2) OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE -QU 1/4) OF (1/4) OF SECTION 1, TO S I COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS A FEET THEREOF FOR STATE ROAD RIGH and _1 -OF -WAY. ^3 A. MIRE Filed in Computer`; --0 - or she executed and fled a. th property described herein ,in the time allowed for filing �1' 1 1, 6 -HALF (1/2) OF THE 'HWEST ONE - QUARTER IGE 25 EAST, COLLIER EFROM THE WEST 100 Personal property as set forth on the Rider to UCC -1 attached to the Notice of Lis Pendens filed herein and recorded in O.R. Book 4453, Page 2536, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. was sold to NaQ1tS V icw, LLC., oL F- toricia 6m,4-ra 1►alo+l ,l� com?a"v , t3~;LA Cape, Coral 1p►trv1 +�-32o COAX C.oMl , i=L 33c%0+ Witness my hand and the seal of the Court on . •il "TPI• . 2010. DWIGHT E.-_l R' 4CK; Clerk of Court Deputyk 1 / 4 Packet Page -1845- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. * ** OR 4568 PG 724 * ** Synovus Bank vs. L & M GBC, APT, LLC Case No. 09- 4335 -CA Certificate of Title Page Two The above Certificate of Title was mailed this 2-[)-"' day of May, 2010 to the following: J. Jeffrey Rice, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff P.O. Box 2366 Fort Myers, FL 33902 L &M GBC APT, LLC Attn: Lucy Miller, Registered Agent 223 Dolphin Cove Court Bonita Springs, FL 34134 -7456 /` `� T�CYYGiC.Cc -Q �GlY�ir1CY5 13ROCK, C(erk.of;Court -;° 0-11 Packet Page -1846- 1. ty� J Jerk; 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.colliergov.net AFFIDAVIT We /1, W. Stephen Hagenbuckle being first duly sworn, depose and say that we /I am /are the owners of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of interest information, all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief. We /I understand that the information requested on this application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or County printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this application is deemed complete, and all required information has been submitted. As property owner Well f�Ether authorize Waldrop Engineering, P.A. to act as our /my represen of eii 9'yjma#iers regarding this Petition. Signature of Property Owner Signature of Property Owner W. Stephen Hagenbuckle NAPLES VIE JL.L.e Typed or Printed Name of Owner Typed or Printed Name of Owner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this (� day of U 20 '1 by W - � o is- p'errsonally k on to me or has produced as identification. f 6 State of Florida (Signature of N ary Public — State of County of Collier Florida) (Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public) Packet Page -1847- February 4, 2011 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. Co e�r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.collier-gov.net COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL The undersigned do hereby swear or affirm that we are the fee simple titleholders and owners of record of property commonlyknownas NAPLESVIEW 6900 AIRPORT PULLING ROAD. NAPLES. FL 34109 (Street address and City, State and Zip Code) and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto. The property described herein is the subject of an application for RESIDENTIAL planned unit development ( R PUD) zoning. We hereby designate WALDROP ENGINEERING. PA , legal representative thereof, as the legal representatives of the property and as such, these individuals are authorized to legally bind all owners of the property in the course of seeking the necessary approvals to develop. This authority includes, but is not limited to, the hiring and authorization of agents to assist in the preparation of applications, plans, surveys, and studies necessary to obtain zoning approval on the site. These representatives will remain the only entity to authorize development activity on the property until such time as a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to Collier County. The undersigned recognize the following and will be guided accordingly in the pursuit of development of the project: 1. The property will be developed and used in conformity with the approved master plan including all conditions placed on the development and all commitments agreed to by the applicant in connection with the planned unit development rezoning, 2. The legal representative identified herein is responsible for compliance with all terns, conditions, safeguards, and stipulations made at the time of approval of the master plan, even if the property is subsequently sold in whole or in part, unless and until a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to and recorded by Collier County. A departure fi-om the provisions of the approved plans or a failure to comply with any requirements, conditions, or safeguards provided for in the planned unit development process will constitute a violation of the Land Development Code. 4. All terms and conditions of the planned unit development approval will be incorporated into covenants and restrictions which run with the land so as to provide notice to subsequent owners that all development activity within the planned unit development must be consistent with those terms and conditions. 5. So long as this covenant is in force, Collier County can; upon the discovery of noncompliance with the terms, safeguards, and conditions of the planned unit development, seek equitable relief as necessary to compel compliance. The County will not issue permits, certificates, or licenses to occupy or use any part of the planned unit development and the County rnayAtop Tgoing construction activity until the project is brought into compliance with all terms, connd�tt ns.d r uard f the planned unit development. Owner Owner w. Stephen Hagenbuckle NAPLe-5 VI vJ LL,c_ Printed Name Printed Name M AN 6a%-tcs�., STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) ( and subscribed before me this day of A-0R2 , 201J_ byJ Sworn to of a_ _ry who is p ally knows to me or has produced as identification. ,s Cf Notary Public (Name typed, printed or stamped) Packet Page -1848- February 4, 2011 AUG /16/2011/TUF MOB AM waldrop Ennineering FAX Ne. 239 485 7899 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. Go r County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 253 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -5724 WWW.COLLIE t30V.NET ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and fax to the Operations Department at 239-262-5724 or submit In person to the Addressing Department at the above address. Form must be signed by Addressing personnel-odor to pre- application mesiina, olesae_ailow3 days for aracassina. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required, FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 8 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Department. PETITION TYPE (ticate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type} ❑ BL (Blasting Permit) ❑ BD (Boat Dock Extension) ❑ CamivaKircus Permit ❑ CU (Conditional Use) ❑ DCP (ExcaVation Permit) ❑ FP (Final Plat ❑ LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ PNC (Project Name Change) ❑ PPL (Plans & Plat Review) ❑ PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) m PUD Rezone I� RZ (Standard Rezone) ❑ SDP (Site Development Plan) ❑ SDPA (SDP Amendment) ❑ SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) ❑ SIP (Site Improvement Plan) ❑ StPt (Insubstantial -Change to SIP) ❑ SNR (Street Name Change) CJ SNC (Street Name Change - Unplatted) ❑ TOR (Transfer of Development Rights) ❑ VA (Variance) ❑ VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) ❑ VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) ❑ OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) 1 -49 -25 N 112 OF SW 114 OF SW 114 LESS RIW OR 2055 PG B15 -- Q FOLIO (Property Io) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, /egret description if mom than one) 00236120000 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, If already assigned) 6900 AIRPORT ROAD N., NAPLES, FL 34109 • LOCAYION MAP must be attached showing exact location of projecVsite In relation to nearest public read right- Of-way • SURVEY (copy - needed only for unplatted properties) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (If applbabte) NAPLES VIEW PUDZ Piro NNcLrn,e- l\s 04 St-2o\le- Q-A 4�,-5 tA- . e . PROPOSED STREET NAMES (f applicable) N/A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projectslsites only) SQP or AR or PL # NIA Packet Page -1849- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. AUC /16 /20i1 /TUR 08:08 AM waldrop Engineering FAX No. 239 408 7899 r. UU3 c6 e-r C-Minty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 2412-2400 FAX (239) 252 -8724 WWW.COLL[ERGCV.NET_ Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) NIA Please Check One: ® Checklist is to be Faxed back 0 Personally Picked Up APPLICANT NAME: ALEXIS CRESPO PHONE (239) 405 -7777 FAX. (239),405 -7899 Signature on Addressing Cheoklist does not constitute Project and /or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Department. FOR STAFF USE ONLY FLN Number (Primary) d a Z Ca I ZQ p0 Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved by, Dater — Updated by= Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED Packet Page -1850- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. Cov County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.colliergov.net, t PREwA I0 t1 METIN G t'aT .1 _�i -e •M� � y - t 4 ,. •!_t11.. '.r tw ; 1- ..h. _Lt '�'.� .i y.`al�y�� U to'PUD Rez�n.e (pUDZ A .3 K* [] RUD Amend -m* ont (PUDA) PI.# 42-01 T Date: j i Time: Firm:_tf� -�� Project Name: - `�! I r'V� Size of Project Site: acres Applicant Name: Phone: - 10� f l ` q Owner Name: MLA �j LUL Phone: Owner Address: city State ZIP Existing PUD Name and Number _ N /A �,� 3 + U P CL- ` N�a.�� u Assigned Planner r _ C_'- X11 k-� y� (fCkaS� CLQ.,<, S 0�4 Meeting Attendees: (attach Sign -in sheet) Nl�ting Nptes \RA -ham one' ; of rov; , l=L Idc U 7Ws No ..l , ,�,z re iqrvlz.- r 6 TI S �'► t 1, cs+ �1.Y1 � C 1 ,41E 7� � T, �sv,4- �� 1,- 04Zr_- CJP,4Ac;_- Cv�scGTrO.A ; �Z�i ZSZ'�j�,fc) JUNE 2011 Packet Page -1851- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. Cor County 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.coliiergov.net SCHOOL CONCURRENCY - For information regarding the school concurrency application process, please contact the School District of Collier county - Students, Staff Projections, Allocations and Reporting Department at 239 - 377 -0254. THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBNHTTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET 1N THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW W /COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION. NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUM 3ITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. REQUIREMENTS # OF REQUIRED NOT COPIES REQUIRE . 1 w_, • T`lM� SAl'f 24. :. R.1 k3..r',F 1:- J..+Y, 7.r �1 Additional set if located in the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area Copies of detailed description of why amendment is necessary Completed Application (download from website for current form PUD Document & Conceptual Site Plan 24" x 36" and One 8 1 /2" x (� 11" copy Revised Conceptual Site Plan 24" x 36 "and One 81/2" x 11" coy ✓ Original PUD document and Master Plan 24" x 36" ONLY IF AMENDING THE PUD Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru & underlined Revised PUD document w /amended Title page w lord #'s, LDC 10.02.13.A.2 Deeds/Le al's & Survey if boundary of original PUD is amended) 3 List identifying Owner & all parties of corporation 2 Owner /Affidavit signed & notarized 2 Covenant of Unified Control 2 Completed Addressing checklist 2 Environmental impact Statement IS * or exemption justification 2 Digital/electronic copy of EIS (copy for Planner & Environmental ) 2 Historical Survey or waiver request - 4 Utility Provisions Statement-wkk-,4sl1Gs- 4 Architectural rendering of proposed structures 4 ✓ Survey, signed & sealed 4 ✓ Traffic Impact Statement (TIS ) or waiver with applicable fees 7 Copy of Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) on- CDROM 3 Aerial photographs (taken within the previous 12 months min. scaled 1" =200' ), showing FLUCCS Codes, Legend, and p ro'ect boundary 5 JUNt LU "1l Packet Page -1852- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. CAT C014nty, . COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.colliergov.net Electronic copy of all documents in Word format and plans (CDRom or Diskette)-3 Justification/Rationale for the Deviations (must be on a separate sheet within the application material; DO NOT include it in the PUD documents 2 Copies of Official Interpretations and/or Zoning Verifications School Impact Analysis Application residential components) 2 1 set for School District residential components) 0 \,*� schedule a meeting before the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee by 1 Check here if there are any Settlement Agreements associated with this property. Indicate type of agreement and agreement number. Agreement # ❑ Deltona ❑ Lely Barefoot Beach ❑ Port of the Islands Interlocal Route package to: The Conservancy, Attn: Nichole Ryan 1450 Menihue Dr., Naples, FL 34102 ( If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas WApplicant must contact Mr. Gerry J. Lacavera, State of Florida Division of Forestry @ 239 -690 -3500 for information regarding "Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan", LDC Section 2.03.08.A.2.a.(b)i.c. If located within %Z mile of Cily of Naples, send copy of submittal package to: Robin Singer, Planning Director City of Naples, 295 Riverside Circle, Naples, FL 34102 JUNE 2011 Packet Page -1853- EDC "Fast Track" must submit approved copy of official application 2 []Affordable Housing "Expedited" must submit copy of signed Certificate of Agreement. * *If project includes an Affordable Housing component, you are required to schedule a meeting before the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee by contacting the Collier County Housing and Human Services Department at 239 - 252 -2273. 1 Check here if there are any Settlement Agreements associated with this property. Indicate type of agreement and agreement number. Agreement # ❑ Deltona ❑ Lely Barefoot Beach ❑ Port of the Islands Interlocal Route package to: The Conservancy, Attn: Nichole Ryan 1450 Menihue Dr., Naples, FL 34102 ( If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas WApplicant must contact Mr. Gerry J. Lacavera, State of Florida Division of Forestry @ 239 -690 -3500 for information regarding "Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan", LDC Section 2.03.08.A.2.a.(b)i.c. If located within %Z mile of Cily of Naples, send copy of submittal package to: Robin Singer, Planning Director City of Naples, 295 Riverside Circle, Naples, FL 34102 JUNE 2011 Packet Page -1853- CAT COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT . GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.collieraov.net PLANNER, CHECK MARK BELOW FOR ADDITIONAL REVIEWS: SCHOOL DISTRICT (residential components) Amy Taylor PARKS & REC — VICKY AHMAD 01 SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS IMMOKALEE WATER/SEWER DISTRICT DRIEM1 — EMER. MGMT — Dan V Summers UTILITIES ENGINEERING: PAULO MARTINS CITY OF NAPLES, Robin Singer, A(A_ Planning Director BAYSHOREIGATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT Executive Director N CONSERVANCY, Nichole Ryan FIRE REVIEW: RICCO LONGO EMS — ARTIE BAY L,/'l ENGINEERING: JACK MCKENNA V TRANS. PATHWAYS: ALISON BRADFORD COMP PLANNING: (SEE SIGN -IN SHEET FROM PRE -APP MEETING ENVIRONMENTAL: SEE SIGN -IN SHEET FROM PRE -APP MEETING Fees Application Fee: $10,000 (PUD Rezone) + $25 per acre (or fraction of thereof) ❑ $8,000 (PUD to PUD) + $25 per acre (or fraction thereof) ❑ $6,000 (PUD Amendment) + $25 per acre (or fraction of an acre) ® Fire Code Review — New PUD Rezone $150, PUD to PUD Rezone $125, PUD Amendment $125 ® $2,250.00 Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review ® $500.00 Pre - application fee (Applications submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last pre -app meeting shall not be credited towards application fees and a new pre - application meeting will be required. ® $925.00 Legal Advertising Fee for CCPC meeting ® $500.00 Legal Advertising Fee for BCC meeting (advertising costs are to be reconciled upon receipt of Invoice from Naples Daily News). t� ❑ $2500.00 Environmental Impact Statement review fee N/A Sa"" $1000.00 Listed or Protected Species survey review fee (when an EIS is not required) XProperty Owner Notification fees. Property Owner Notifications $1.50 Non-certified; $3.00 Certified return receipt mail (to be paid after receipt of invoice from Dept. of Zoning & Development Review) Attach a Separate Check for Transportation Fees, (Refer to Exhibit A): tZ $500.00 Methodology Review Fee, if required *Additional Fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting. y I S Mee r — F —BE Watv6�D i3= }''IETNc�7()LGl% Fee Total $ .404'7D A- Lea,. 0I A �MFI I JUNE 2011 Packet Page -1854- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ PLANNING AND REGULATION Co*er County 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.colliergov.net = � ' nnBL W. P ' t Applicant must conduct at least one Neighborhood Informational Meeting (NIM) after initial staff review and comment on the application and before the Public Hearing is scheduled with the Planning Commission. Written notice of the meeting shall be sent to all property owners who are required to receive legal notification from the County pursuant to Section 10.03.05.6.8. Notification shall also be sent to property owners, condominium and civic associations whose members are impacted by the proposed land use change and who have formally requested the County to be notified. A copy of the list of all parties noticed, and the date, time, and location of the meeting, must be furnished to the Land Development Services Department and the Office of the Board of County Commissioners no less than ten (10) days prior to the scheduled date of the NIM. The applicant must make arrangements for the location of the meeting. The location must be reasonably convenient to those property owners who are required to receive notice and the facilities must be of sufficient size to accommodate expected attendance. The applicant must place an advertisement of the meeting in that portion of the newspaper where legal notices and classified advertisements appear stating the purpose, location, time of the meeting and legible site location map of the property for which the zoning change is being requested. The display advertisement must be one - fourth page, in type no smaller than 12 point and must be placed within a newspaper of general circulation in the County at least seven (7) days prior to, but no sooner than five (5) days before, the NIM. The Collier County staff planner assigned to the project must attend the NIM and shall serve as the facilitator of the meeting; however, the applicant is expected to make a presentation of how it intends to develop the subject property. The applicant is required to audio or video tape the proceedings of the meeting and provide a copy to the Land Development Services Department. As a result of mandated meetings with the public, any commitments made by the applicant shall be reduced to writing and made a part of the record of the proceedings provided to the Land Development Services Department. These written commitments will be made a part of the staff report of the County's review and approval bodies and made a part of the consideration for inclusion in the conditions of approval. RCOICDIiGI': DGCL ©P�R-c�tycit�T- .ent7r. _ Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance, the owner or developer (specify name) at its expense shall record in the Public Records of Collier County a Memorandum of Understanding of Developer Commitments or Notice of Developer Commitments that contains the legal description of the property that is the subject of the land use petition and contains each and every commitment of the owner or developer specified in the Ordinance. The Memorandum or Notice shall be in form acceptable to the County and shall comply with the recording requirements of Chapter 695, FS. A recorded copy of the Memorandum or Notice shall be to the Collier County Planned Unit Development Monitoring staff within 15 days of recording of said Memorandum or Notice. JUNE 2011 Packet Page -1855- 6/26/2012 Item W.A. NOTES 21 a ens _ bc�k d*�,5� '.'{ %Nk.. ,nv s t 'Dy o-L - cia1. c �,.��.� ►�� . `doss , b �. �. g5 � b �..� s � �. a�►d e : r �es ;a�,,�. �.� 'S� �.�\ } '� L� +� �'• �t,.C�. -a�-e. t� � s ..�,� . Addttss F �i7t � v+{ -�XLon �� °p ,es . 0 E:L� Packet Page -1856- AUG /16 /2011 /TUR 08:08 AM taaldrop Engineering FAX No, 239 405 7899 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. cover County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34404 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 2524400 FAX (239) 262.6724 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and fax to the Operations Department at 239 -252 -5724 or submit In person to the Addressing Department at the above address. f=orm must be signed by Addressing personnel odor to ore - amplication meeting. Plea ®e.aIIgw 3 days for nrocasslna. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months wilt require additional review and approval by the Addressing Department, PETITION TYPE (indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Cheoklist for each Petition type) ❑ SL (Blasting Permit) ❑ 130 (Goat Dock Extension) ❑ Camival /Cirrus Permit ❑ CU (Conditional Use) ❑ EXP (EteaV3tion Permit) ❑ FP (Final Plat ❑ LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ PNC (Project Name Change) ❑ PPL (Plans & Plat Review) ❑ PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) 9 PUD Rezone ❑ RZ (Standard Rezone) 0 SDP (Site Development Plan) ❑ SQPA (SDP Amendment) ❑ SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) El SIP (Site Improvement Plan) ❑. SIPr ( Insubstantial -Change to SIP) ❑ SNR (Street Name Change) ❑ SNC (Street Name Change — Unplatted) ❑ TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) ❑ VA (Variance) ❑ VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) [I VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) ❑ OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description maybe attached) 1 -49 -25 N 112 OF SW 114 OF SW 114 LESS RJW OR 2056 PG 815 — PPc -c'l Z- . FOLIO (Property ID) NUMRER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) 00236120000 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) 6900 AIRPORT ROAD N., NAPLES, FL 34109 • LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of projectfsite in relation to nearest public road right - of-way • SURVEY (copy - needed only for unplatted properties) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME CIF appfCable) NAPLES VIEW PUDZ • Pro�GA &504 S,tn\le, 0-4 --kk�Qs PROPOSED MEET NAMES (rf applicable) N/A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (fat• existing projects(sites only) SDP orAR or PL# NIA Packet Page -1857- AUG /16/20i1 /TIDE 08:08 Aid Waldrop Engineering FAX No.239 405 7899 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. CA;r CAM14ty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISIONI NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANKING AND REGULATION (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6724 t",COLLIER 1.LIE_T_ Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if appiicaiion; Indicate whether proposed or existing) N/A Please Check One: N Checklist is to be Faxed back ❑ Personally Picked Up APPLICANT NAME: ALEXIS CR2SPO PHONE (239) 405 -7777 FAx. (239) 405 -7899 Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Department. FOR STAFF USE ONLY FLN Number (Primary) Oa Z 3 I Zo C>o Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved b A Date: Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED Packet Page -1858- f.' ti 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. H M Lu Z n u w Z s _ GL W Z Z N N C 0 Q a -� C \ a- Ch N Z LU _ LU r- U. f �S - - 0 a CL �- b LU G Q � � o O V •� L d v V) z d E -Y w� W t7rf rA O N rI J to W to a S.I YNf J O hja,,p bT"z .a S� a r oil Nl 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. M Lu Z n u w Z s _ GL W Z Z CK a N C 0 Q a 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. Packet Page -1859- u s _ G Q v -� \ a- f �S - - ID V b � L to z N rI J to to r LL L T a 0 O 1 � • � _ �1i V VJ - , C� 2 LU a z. =' .J O 75 CD /) 3 � v Packet Page -1859- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. Details Property Record Sketches Trim Notices Current Ownership Parcel No-11 00236120000 Property Address 6900 AIRPORT RD N Owner Name NAPLES VIEW LLC Addresses 1314 CAPE CORAL PKWY E STE 320 City CAPE CORAL 5ta� FL Zip 33904 -9695 Legal 1 49 25 N1 12 OF N112 OF SW114 OF SW114 LESS RIW OR 2056 PG 815 Section 01 Sub No. NLY 369.65FT, ELY 1246.19FT, *For more than four lines of Lega 49 11 25 n please call the Property p Acres Map No. 11.32 4A01 Office. Suap no. 492501 020.0004A01 100 ACREAGE HEADER " Mill�age�_A —rea Sc�� 0= =i8 21 10 VACANT COMMERCIAL 47 5.6990 6.1239 2011 Preliminary Tax Roll (Subject to Change) If all Values shown below equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll Land Value +) Improved Value $ 678,166.00 $ 0.00 (_) Market Value Other Exemptions $ 678,166.00 $ 0.00 ( -) SOH Exempt Value & Value $ 678,166.00 (_} Assessed ( -) Homestead and other Exempt Value $ 0.00 1( =) Taxable Value $ 678,166.00 ( =) School Taxable Value (Used for School Taxes111 $ 678,166.00 SUtt = "save vur nomCS GACIII}Jl ro,.,� .+.+.......• -r -• � •- �-- ___..._ - -_ increases. Latest Sales History Date ` Book -Page II Amount 0512010 4568 - 723 $1,1011000.0( 0512005 3790-3519 $ 2,387,500.0( 0312002 2999-2088 �— $ 0.0( 0511995 2056- 815 $ 0.0( 0411993 1817-1080 $ 818,600.0( 1211987 1318-29 $ 650,000.0( 0611987 1276-1059 $ 0.0( The Information is Updated Weekly. Packet Page -1860 - http:// www. r,ollierappra. iser. com/ RecordLULL UL.ilSY:lv.Lap- 1 -iucx:FolioID= 0000000236120000 9/6/2011 MN 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. PacketPage -1861- 0 N 0 -c3 U a 0 r r N N s y .0 .N a m Aa fD a a m a� ra LU a r 9 LU m Z LU Z x U ' Qr N Cl. u Z 0� > u_ 0 0 Z M i O nn V �r i `J LU a (A v Z 0 PacketPage -1861- 0 N 0 -c3 U a 0 r r N N s y .0 .N a m Aa fD a a m a� ra .....9....._ s . ills A Y= CCCC�S r ai f 1 - i i zz 00 nn mm an a Z v o onj N a Or Z m mm OD C 0M az A C O rm Z A A a nw-e.a H LLK -9t i t -tl -M PM -95 -1i W'T �5 H -G -9H 144 -8': -E H isH -9e Tw -rn -c c9-n i�.G -49 wo- os -lTn� sr-m ..,y_41 A..Yll19 N -55 g E � o $ y m r `3 b� R� �_ >IO O3 A w n 0 O z oui�IA 8 a Q m °v Z-1�i a m Om0 4 u z On RCR 2 a o a 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. 05025 Packet Page - 1862 - 5 ' a z 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. ¢a o =_ U a BLVD a y m N K W O a H N X r m M ax� < '(]Ali] NYO 3NOl MOn X 6 m U U IB > " � p Z O U 2 m� O Z = ® ®� K W N ^ v Q IIB NVl NNtli -� m I o "yb Y � J O E m � � :O,ow Z ^ � ms 5M EO CL Y- �r 0 d CL a M 3 r J 2 3 a o X 2 O J r 9 1tlNtlO (lC 7!'0) OVON ONmnd -1NOdm SZO96 Packet Page-1863- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. DeselemKay Subject: Pre -App - PL- 2011 -1519 (PUD) ocation: Conference Room "C" Start: Thu 9/8/2011 1:30 PM End: Thu 9/8/20112:30 PM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Accepted Organizer: Required Attendees: CDS -C DeselemKay; Alexis Crespo; AhmadVicky; AshtonHeidi; AuclairClaudine; BeardLaude; BradfordAlison; BrethauerPaula; BrownAraqueSummer; CallisCraig; CascioGeorge; DarcoChristopher; FleishmanPaula; JarrellPeggy; KurtzGerald; LevyMichael; MartinsPaulo; McClammaJoseph; McKennaJack; PattersonAmy; PodczerwinskyJohn; ReischlFred; Ricco Longo (Riongo @ccfco.org); SawyerMichael; ValeraCarolina; WeeksDavid; WileyRobert; WilliamsSteven; 'tayloram @collier.k12.fl.us' When:-Thursday, September 08, 20111:30 PM -2:30 PM (GMT- 05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada), Where: Conference .Room "C" Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. Planned Unit Development ;roject Description: Rezone an 11.32 + / -acre property from Rural Agriculture (A) to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to allow for the development of a residential community. Ea - AN. Meeting Request PL- 2011- 1519.bmp Recelved Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. Packet Page -1864- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. DeselemKay From: GMDPortal lent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 3:26 PM o: BrethauerPaula Subject: Meeting Request Received Paula Brethauer A Portal request has been received for a Meeting. The Hearing Reference Number is: HH2O110000733 To view the full details navigate to the hearings sheet under this reference number to view the details of the request. Folowing is the information privided by the portal user: ---------- - --------- - - - - -- Reference Number: Project Type: Planned Unit Development Project Description: Rezone an 11.32 + / -acre property from Rural Agriculture (A) to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to allow for the development of a residential community. Existing Application Name: None Meeting Type: Pre - Application Meeting Preferred Date: Monday, Sept. 12th or Thursday, Sept. 9th tavailable Dates: Location: Parcel Number: 00236120000 6900 Airport Pulling Rd. Naples FL 34109 Full Name: Alexis Crespo Email: alexisc(@waldropeneineerina.com Company Name: Waldrop Engineering, P.A. 28100 Bonita Grande Dr „ Suite 305 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Representing: Naples View, LLC Contact Number: Work: 239 - 405 -7777 Please follow up with the applicant to schedule the meeing date and time. Under Florida Law, e -mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e -mail (dress released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 Packet Page -1865- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. BrethauerPaula 'rom• Taylor, Amy [TaylorAm @collierschools.coml ant Thursday, September 08, 2011 1:19 PM To: CDS -C; BrethauerPaula Subject: RE: Pre -App - PL- 2011 -1519 (PUD) Pursuant to School Board policy and administrative procedures, this e-mail system is the property of the School District of Collier County and to be used for official business only. In addition, all users are cautioned that messages sent through this system are subject to the Public Records Law of the State of Florida and also to review by the school system. There should be no expectation of privacy, I will not be able to attend this afternoon due to other responsibilities. Please let the applicant know that he /she will be required to submit a School Impact Analysis form along with his application. If the applicant has any questions I may be contacted at 377 -0254 or email tayloramftcollierAl2M.us. Thank you. Amy K. Taylor Long Range Planner CCPS - -- Original Appointment- - From: Pau laBrethauer collieraov. net [ mallto: Pau laBrethauer(abmliieraov.net] On Behalf Of CDS-C Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 20113:13 PM To: CDS -C; DeselemKay; Alexis Crespo; AhmadVicky; AshtonHeidi; AuclairClaudine; Beardl-aurie; BradfordAlison; BrethauerPaula; BrownAraqueSummer; CallisCraig; CascioGeorge; DarcoChristopher; FleishmanPaula; JarrellPeggy; KurtzGerald; LevyMichael; MartinsPaulo; McClammaJoseph; McKennaJack; PattersonAmy; PodczerwinskyJohn; ReischiFred; Ricco Longo (Rlonqo 0ccfco.=); SawyerMichael; ValeraCarolina; WeeksDavid; WileyRobert; WilliamsSteven; ' -iylor, Amy , ubject Pre -App - PL- 2011 -1519 (PUD) When: Thursday, September 08, 2011 1:30 PM -2 :30 PM (GMT- 05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: Conference Room "C' When: Thursday, September 08, 20111:30 PM -2:30 PM (GMT- 05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: Conference Room "C` Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. Planned Unit Development Project Description: Rezone an 11.32 + / -acre property from Rural Agriculture (A) to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to allow for the development of a residential community. << Message: Meeting Request Received >> Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request. do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. File: PL- 2011- 1519.bmp >> Packet Page -1866- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. Planned Use Development Rezone (PUDZ) Route Sheet P/_- Project #: <PLApplication:PermitNumber> Rev: <GNSubmittals:SubmittalNumber> Project Name: <PLApplication:PAName> Date: <Data table= "GNActivities" field= "dateRequested" mask = " %A, %B %d, %Y "/> DUE: <Data table = "GNActivities" field= `dateRequired" mask = " %A, %B %d, %Y"/> RE WER MUST RECORD AMOUNT OF TIME SPENT ON REVIEW: hours ZONING PLANNER: ❑Master Plan ❑Survey ❑PUD Document ❑ TIS ❑Landscape Plan ❑Ord/Reso ❑Letter of Authorization /❑Warranty Deed ❑ EIS ❑ CD Rom ENGINEERING PLANNING: Jack McKenna ❑Master Plan ❑PUD Document ❑Warranty Deed ❑Utility Availability Letters ❑Engineer's Report-copy ❑Stormwater Cale's ❑SFWMD Permit NVIRONMENTAL: ❑Master Plan ❑PUD Document ❑Ord/Resolution ❑SFWMI) Permit ❑Survey ❑USACOE Permit EIS []wildlife survey ❑FLUCFCS map ADDRESSING: Peggy JarrelI ❑ Master Plan ❑Addressing Checklist LANDSCAPE: E] Mike Sawyer ❑Architectural Plans ❑ PUD Doc ❑ PUD Doc ❑ Nancy Gundlach ❑Master Plan ❑ Aerials ❑Architectural Plans ❑ PUD Doc ❑Master Plan ❑ Aerials ❑ Master Plan ❑ TIS ❑ PUD Doc FIRE: Ricco Longo ❑Fire Flow Report ❑Master Plan ❑Landscape Plan ❑ PUD Doc ❑ Fire Hydrant ;/GRAPBlICS: Miriam Ochettree ❑ Survey ❑ Site Map ❑ Master Plan 24x36 ❑ Zoning Map needed ❑ Property owners list within ❑500 ` or ❑ 1000' ❑Internal ®Exfernal TRANSPORTATION PLANNING: John P. Master Plan ❑ Traffic Study ❑Lighting Plan []Master Plan ❑ Traffic Study E]Lighting Plan 44 A69- 6811@ws �S -'—� Iistorical Waiver ❑ Master Plan ❑PIJD Doc CO NSIVE PLANNING: Master Plan ❑PUD Doc OUNTY ATTORNEY: RLS## ❑Master Plan to Sheet arks & Rec— Vicky Ahmad cu isor of rc Utilities —Paulo Martins ❑pHh ing & . n ❑ o eway Triangle S of District ❑ Communication Towers ONLY s uito Co Red opm xec Dir. Amy Taylor ❑ Na Authority (O rf Af%r a Housing) Collier County Airp uthority PLEASE RETURmv ern A QQW -Pmvr 7nNING PLANNER Packet Page -1867- NAPLES VIEW LISTED SPECIES SURVEY September 2011 INTRODUCTION 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. This report documents the results of the listed species survey conducted by Passarella & Associates, Inc. for the 11.30± acre Naples View (Project). The purpose of the survey was to review the property for plant and wildlife species listed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC), the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as endangered, threatened, species of special concern, or commercially exploited. The Project is located in Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County (Figure 1). More specifically, the Project is located between Orange Blossom Road and Willow Park Drive immediately east of Airport Pulling Road. The Project is bound to the north and east by residential development and to the south by residential and commercial development. The Project site consists of a recently abandoned tree nursery and a stormwater management pond (Figure 2). SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS The listed plant and wildlife species survey included an on -site review and literature search for local, state, and federal listed species. The field survey was conducted on August 30, 2011 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. The weather during the survey consisted of drizzling rain with temperatures in the mid 80's. The survey was conducted by a qualified ecologist meandering through the Project area. The results of the on -site survey found one little blue heron (Egretta caerulea) and one snowy egret (Egretta thula) foraging along the edge of the stormwater pond (Figure 3). The little blue heron and the snowy egret are classified as species of special concern by the FWCC. They are not listed at the federal level. No rookeries or nesting behavior was observed by these species during the survey. The literature search involved an examination of available information on protected species in the Project's geographical region. The literature sources reviewed included the FWCC Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Species of Special Concern (2006); Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies (Runde et al. 1991); USFWS Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in the Southast Region (1987); the Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan (Logan et al. 1993); the Landscape Conservation Strategy map (Kautz et al. 2006); and the USFWS database for telemetry locations of the Florida panther (Puma concolor corgi), bald eagle, red- cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW), Florida black bear (Ursus americanus flordus), Florida scrub jay (APheloconur Passarella & Associates, Inc. I of 3 #I1TMC2077 09/13/11 Packet Page -1868- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. coeridescens), and wading bird rookeries in Collier County. The database information for the Florida panther is current to June 2011, the bald eagle information is current to August 2011, wading bird rookeries information is current to 1999, and the RCW infonnation is from 2011. The results of the literature search found no documented occurrences of listed species on -site (Figure 4). The closest document bald eagle nest is located 1.5± miles to the west of the site. This distance is beyond the USFWS and the FWCC recommended 660 -foot buffer protection zone for active and alternate bald eagle nests. The bald eagle is not a listed species, but is protected under the Golden and Bald Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. No RCW colonies or cavity trees have been documented within the Project area (Figure 4). Two historic RCW cavity trees are noted 3f miles to the northeast of the site; however, these cavities are no longer active. Additionally, the USFWS considers suitable habitat for RCW to include any forested community with pines in the canopy that encompasses more than 10.0± acres (i.e., includes both on- and off - site). The subject property does not have suitable canopy pine trees on -site or in the immediate vicinity. The RCW is a state listed species of special concern and a federal listed endangered species. No Florida panther telemetry is located on -site or within a two mile radius of the Project area (Figure 4). The property does not occur within the Florida panther primary or secondary zone (Kautz et al. 2006) and it is not located within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) consultation area or Focus Area (FA), as indicated in the COE Environmental Impact Statement. The Florida panther is a state and federal listed endangered species. No Florida black bear radio- telemetry locations are found on -site or within a two mile radius of the Project area (Figure 4). The subject property's highly developed urban location does not lend itself to suitable habitat for this species. The Florida black bear is a state listed threatened species, but is currently under study for delisting by the FWCC (Barco 2011). The literature search also confirmed that the Project was not located within a Core Foraging Area (CFA) of the wood stork (Alycteria americana). SUMMARY The results of the on -site survey found one little blue heron and one sno 'Ay egret forging along the edge of the storniwater management pond, but no rookeries or nesting behavior were noted. . The little blue heron and snowy egret are classified as species of special concern by the FWCC. No listed plant species were observed on -site. Pursuant to Section 3.04.02 in the Collier County Land Development Code, a management plan is not required for non- resident species such as the wading birds identified on the Project site. The literature search also found no occurrences for state or federal listed species on -site or within the Project's vicinity. Further, it is not located within the designated Florida panther FA or within the CFA of the wood stork. Passarella & Associates, lnc• 2 of 3 411TMC2077 09/13/11 Packet Page -1869- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. REFERENCES Barco, K. 2011. FWC Chairman's column: Florida black bear .... a conservation success story. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2006. Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Species of Special Concern. Official Lists, Bureau of Non -Game Wildlife, Division of Wildlife. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, Florida. Kautz, R., R. KaNA ula, T. Hoctor, J. Comiskey, D. Jansen, D. Jennings, J. Kasbohm, F. Mazzotti, R. McBride, L. Richardson, K. Root. 2006. How much is enough? Landscape -scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation, Volume 130, Issue 1, Pages 118-13' ) Logan, Todd, Andrew C. Eller, Jr., Ross Morrell, Donna Ruffner, and Jim Sewell. 1993. Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan South Florida Population. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Gainesville, Florida. Runde, D.E., J.A. Gore, J.A. Hovis, M.S. Robson, and P.D. Southall. 1991, Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies, Update 1986 - 1989. Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 10. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Enviromnental Impact Statement on Improving the Regulatory Process in Southwest Florida, Lee and Collier Counties, Florida. Passarella & Associates, Inc. 3 of 3 41 1 TMC2077 09/13/11 Packet Page -1870- m� P, Ar Of IM 9 lis �. ' 1E IA R 6V��.. �y -. � �b L a9 O WtRI{RK j,DR CCt��ttt iYfl� mm Ri An�gp %2 RI EsRD "� ''" —AIJIE S RP ) � a°i a:J q r:, HUN7FRS RP" y° fit KTII „�..�.SANDALWPPP'.I;N i � SABLrE RIDL,E LN 6� ° �.. �i �.60TiTlHB ,ASH LNyi,+TmsFe ' LsIVING 11 WOP„ 65 LN '�� a r EXiT fit" 9 —DL � `ice .S7ID 6/26/2012 1 m W.A. |rq fb � �! ! ;s 7■ !{ 3� � ■@ EK pig q f §2 f|( (k§ � e )\ sin c § $£ $\ /) 9\ 2 §� f :! \� )!!\ »[\ e -j )�\ ©� \ j(!&/ % } \ p t \ \ k / ) $ Q/ ad IM 3� \� ƒ \\ 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. Y ' LL < �U IMU Q n I J O J j C�tl L 4"0`...f r •� r v ° e ig i j j < �ay U 4 yl Rqw Wn Q Q p i ++ li li Wu� 4 u h Ow.=. fZ 47g as is _ �'mD 4i'a� aZN arc« w �VU tUi.O yV,- �r V ffZ� 2 QYZ-O u.1 LLt] �GN 1W4 ' LL < �U IMU Q n I ate° AIRPORT P L1 4G RO N Packet Page -1873- L 4"0`...f r •� r i ++ li li ate° AIRPORT P L1 4G RO N Packet Page -1873- o._ i it I 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. 7 >N W rco � pp N wH u N 'uw U d Zj Zj +�N 4r O as qa.: ra� 30 (n u p ��//�� U) p -0u~ WO VJ r w M 4o r LL r p j I u [/�f w w.iT v£tt °z w� mi� ate= as c:. O AIM > k j -1r r � r f. r � v � O � ` uNl W w V • n',, C7 w 7 a (L Q U a s CiCi ;;€�lIT5lld�l.tit'JdE11V r Q... 4 O ,. y m u. L, tL w o._ i it I 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. 7 >N W rco � pp N wH u N 'uw U d Zj Zj +�N 4r O as qa.: ra� 30 (n u p ��//�� U) p -0u~ WO VJ r w M 4o r LL r p j I u [/�f w w.iT v£tt °z w� mi� ate= as c:. O AIM > k j -1r { r _ o._ i it I 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. 7 >N W rco � pp N wH u N 'uw U d Zj Zj +�N 4r O as qa.: ra� 30 (n u p ��//�� U) p -0u~ WO VJ r w M 4o r LL r p j I u [/�f w w.iT v£tt °z w� mi� ate= as c:. O AIM > k j -1r 0 J s tri U ul rc 1 rl- z o' CL t i r+ V � w itiel � • r r r • a • 1 { _ r 0 J s tri U ul rc 1 rl- z o' CL t i r+ V � w itiel � • r r r • a • 1 UJI _ d 0 • n',, a s CiCi ;;€�lIT5lld�l.tit'JdE11V r w � ©ti yr rt+ i 'li 3Ia0i1J � �, ' ?p i µy Co Gul J NU Packet Page -1874- i Cn W U S.z.� in k.i aJ O U W U U 0 Q Q Z it2 Wv T $Y -7t 0 Ilwal /b ' OKN OVW ,.— Vxl Siw4s 4 ffiw iS!''- t11 02 DWI, 1001%r 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. 111 11111 ■ ■ ■ ■I■ 111 ■ ■■ ■111■ ■11111 ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■111 ■11111111■ ■ ■11111■ ■11111 ■11111111111111 ■■ ■1■ ■ill■ ■1111 111■ ■111 ■■ ■ ■11111111 ■11111■ ■111 ■■ 111111■ 11111!11■ 111■ 111 ■11111■ ■■ ■ ■1111111■ ■ ■■ ■111■ T49S R25E Section 1 f ■ ■ ■ ■ ■IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII■ 111■ 11111111111 ■ ■111111 ■11 ■111 ■■ ■111 ■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■1111■ ■111■ 11111111■ 111■ 1111111■ ■1111 ■■ • This search area may contain unrecorded archaeological sites, historical structures or other resources even if previously surveyed for cultural resources. • Federal, state and local laws require formal environmental review for most projects. This search DOES NOT constitute such a review. If your project falls under these laves, you should contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at 850 -245 -6333. ■ 111 ■11■ ■■ ■ ■ ■■ ■1111!11111111 ■■ ■111 ■ ■ ■■ 111 ■■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■1111111 ■■ 111■ ■111111■ 111■ 1111 ■11111 ■■ 111111 ■1 ■111 ■ ■' ■111■ ■111111■ ❑®❑ ®❑® ❑® 1 1 f-❑ L' J- rrn ❑ ❑ ETLLE OUT-T] !J❑HTI�� f I i I i rI iTTI [-1 n D ❑ C IiN 1-17 _l D i r! I�TIITTIITf�ITi m>r� LLI11...1 FT 0 - I = ❑ t r rnm T i rr><n><r rlrri Tm n Packet Page -1875- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. Go--LlLier GoH-n.-ty Public Utilities Division Operations Support September 27, 2011 Mr. Alexis V. Crespo Waldrop Engineering 28100 Bonita Grande Dr. # 305 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Subject: Naples View, LLC 6900 Airport Pulling Rd. - Folio # 00236120000 Water and Wastewater Availability Dear Mr. Crespo: Potable water service (for domestic and irrigation purposes) and wastewater service are available for the above referenced project via existing lines along Airport Pulling Road North. A master meter shall be required for such facilities as rental apartments, shopping centers, strip malls, high rise condominiums, recreational vehicle parks, mobile home parks or any other multi - family projects that cannot or do not provide the required CUES paralleling atypical single family street cross - section or any other project that does not comply with or meet the intention of Ordinance 2004 -31, as amended or superseded. If this project is not to provide the required Collier County Utility Easements (CUES), all water and sewer facilities shall be owned and maintained by the owner, his successors or assigns. If this project is to provide the required CUEs, all water and sewer facilities shall be owned and maintained by Collier County Public Utilities. Tie -in to water and sewer lines shall be made after submission and approval of the hydraulic calculations by Engineering Review Services, showing that the downstream systems are adequate to handle the increase in flow. The District will be making phased expansions to the water supply, treatment and transmission facilities and sewage transmission, treatment and disposal facilities servicing the area in question and other areas of the County, based on demands within the system and other binding commitments. These expansions should provide sufficient capacity to supply the referenced property's anticipated potable water and sewage treatment and disposal demands an d the remainder of the District's committed capacity. 3339 Tamiami Trail E. •Suite 305 • Packet Page - 1876 -139- 252 -6237 • FAX 239 - 252 -6789 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. cv�'Lie,- co,�.nty Public Utilities Division Operations Support September 27, 2011 Mr. Crespo 6900 Airport Pulling Rd. - Folio # 00236120000 Page 2 However, no guarantee can be issued that other developments throughout the District will not have an impact on the quantity of potable water and sewage treatment and disposal capacity available to this property until each phase has received a commitment for service. Connections are also subject to the availability of water and sewer capacity at the time formal application is received. Should water supply or sewage treatment and disposal capacity not be available, the Developer would be required to provide an interim means of water supply and treatment and sewage treatment and disposal until the District's facilities have the adequate capacity to serve the project. Please note that any and all improvements that you construct must be in accordance with all applicable ordinances and policies, including the payment of impact fees. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (239) 252 -6237. lyst, Public Utilities Operations i aviennartinezn,colliergov.net cc: Gary Morocco, Customer Service Supervisor Craig Callis, Engineering Review Services Steve Nagy, Wastewater Collections Manager Water Distribution Manager Cheri Rollins, Accounting Technician 3339 Tamiami Trail E. • Suite 305 • Packet Page - 1877 -39- 252 -6237 • FAX 239 - 252 -6789 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. t►CJer bounty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.colliergov.net STATEMENT OF UTILITY PINS FOR PLED REZONE REQUEST APPLICANT INFORMATION NAME OF APPLICANT(S) NAPLES VIEW, LLC ADDRESS 1314 CAPE CORAL PARKWAY, SUITE 320 CITY CAPE CORAL STATE FL ztP 33904 TELEPHONE # (239) 540 -2002 CELL # (239) 633 -4480 FAX # (239) 542 -9975 E -MAIL ADDRESS: steve @terracapmgmt.com ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (IF AVAILABLE): 6900 Airport Road N., Naples, FL 34109 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Section /Township /Range 01 / 49S / 25E Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page #: Property I.D. #: Metes & Bounds Description: SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION - EXHIBIT D TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PRO'V'IDED (Check applicable system): COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM a. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM b. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM ❑ PROVIDE NAME c. PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANT ❑ (GPD capacity) d. SEPTIC SYSTEM ❑ d T PE OF A AT SERVICE TO FE 'PO IDED a. COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM D b. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM ❑ c. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM ❑ PROVIDE NAME d. PRIVATE SYSTEM (WELL) ❑ February 4, 2011 Packet Page -1878- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. Gooier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 252 -6358 www.colliergov.net TOTAL POPULATION TO BE SERVED: MAX. 66 S.F. UNITS /2 PERSONS PER UNIT= 132 PEAK AND AVERAGE DAILY DEMANDS: A. WATER -PEAK 57.9 GPM AVERAGE DAILY 20,328 GPD B. SEWER -PEAK 45.2 GPM AVERAGE DAILY 15,840 GPD IF PROPOSING TO BE CONNECTED TO COLLIER COUNTY REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM, PLEASE PROVIDE THE DATE SERVICE IS EXPECTED TO BE REQUIRED 0112013 NARRATIVE STATEMENT: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. COLLIER COUNTY UTILITY DEDICATION STATEMENT: If the project is located within the services boundaries of Collier County's utility service system, written notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate to Collier County Utilities the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at the at time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. STATEMENT OF AVAILABILITY CAPACITY FROM OTHER PROVIDERS: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre - application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating that there is adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. February 4, 2011 Packet Page -1879- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. M m to Op M 0 0 in ryr. C z DOi z ? C „ fl1 - C ., (D N 4J '+ (D ➢1 rt fD D Q1 0) 3 D) rr n-r O O� 3 S C -r O G. CL (A (aD Cn O O (D (nn t O 7 M :�D �. I 11 I1 C d tv P w A w 3 rj ° NJ -a LM O1 o Cn 0 a7 Q. ° N 3 (A 0 -r y N 3 (A 3 rr 3 (n w+ X rt � X N tz M M M -p v o °r~ M d C c 3 v 0 LA 3 M fD Q. 1=. .-. 13H (D O 9A -1 (D — 3 3 M C (D rr 'y v n V a (O = 3 � t7 � O C O Ln O Gi 00 O O W N v O C C Co vi Cr a N C () r v+ C -1 z ° m D O G 0 O N D Ln rn r : o n <_ N M < C m E5 20 z C N v M m m M 00 Ln w o ; V p v 3 90 4�- H O C 'a 'O O Ln 3 N v l0 'v r Packet Page -1880- �e 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. 2 �s L" �� 9 r.' 114 I 6a8 :a _ j .n rry is ��avni3n I ant ttrm .�w a'� p F A7 .R v - ........ X Ed z„y Y S�.n� ..... _..._.... _.,... U3 i I i � s � I Y oon y �W� � 1 CO �tl G SOW -- T-- � 2�ljW I i NO M� r iar,vs r. . .� �# h4ye BVDN ld'O,itlltl _. y i qo=V 09 � �:?cce`q 34ee :. Packet Page -1881 - 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT FOR NAPLES VIEW PROJECT NO. F1109.04 PREPARED BY: TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. Certificate of Authorization Number: 27003 2726 Oak Ridge Court, Suite 503 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 -9356 (239) 278 -3090 REVISE': February 29, 2012 0 2 eid C. Fell ow , P. . License No. 61673 Packet Page -1882- TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION IL EXISTING CONDITIONS III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IV. TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION V. FUTURETRAFFIC CONDITIONS VI. PROJECTED CONCURRENCY AND IMPROVEMENTS VII. CONCLUSION Packet Page -1883- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. I. INTRODUCTION TR Transportation Consultants, Inc, has conducted a traffic impact statement for the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezoning application for the Naples View development. The subject site is located along the east side of Airport Pulling Road south of its intersection with Orange Blossom Drive in Collier County, Florida. This report has been completed in compliance with the guidelines established by the Collier County Transportation Planning Division for developments seeking PUD rezoning approval. The approximate location of the Naples View development is illustrated on Figure 1. Upon approval of the proposed PUD rezoning application, the subject site will be zoned for the development of up to approximately 66 residential dwelling units. Access to the subject site will be provided to Airport Pulling Road via the existing right - in/right -out only access drive. The methodology for the proposed PUD rezoning application was discussed with County Staff via e -mail in September, 2011. The resulting methodology notes are included in the Appendix of this report for reference. This report examines the impact of the development on the surrounding roadways. Trip generation and assignments to the site access driveways will be completed and analysis conducted to determine the impacts of the development on the surrounding intersections. Page 1 Packet Page -1884- R /7R/7(117 Itom 17 A TRANSPORTATION PROJECT LOCATION MAP Packet Page -1885- CONSULTANTS, INC. ... — --„ VIEW Figure 1 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject site is currently vacant. Airport Pulling Road borders the subject site to the west. To the south of the subject site is an existing commercial development and King Richard's Family Fun Park. To the east of the subject site is an existing residential development. To the north of the subject site is vacant land and existing residential development. Airport Pulling Road is a north/south six -lane divided arterial roadway that borders the subject site to the west. The Level of Service Standard on Airport Pulling Road between Orange Blossom Drive and Pine Ridge Road is LOS "E ", or 3,970 vehicles. Airport Pulling Road has a posted speed limit of 45 mph adjacent to the subject site and is under the jurisdiction of the Collier County Department of Transportation. III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Upon approval of the proposed PUD rezoning application, the subject site will be zoned for the development of up to approximately 66 residential dwelling units. In order to assume a "worst- case" analysis in tenns of trip generation, it was assumed that all 66 residential units would be developed as single- family detached housing. Table 1 summarizes the land uses proposed on the subject site that will be utilized for the trip generation purposes of this analysis. Table I Proposed Land Use Naples View Larid Use,'. Size Single - Family Detached Housing 66 dwelling units (LUC 210) Page 3 Packet Page -1886- 6/26/2012 Item W.A. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Access to the subject site will be provided to Airport Pulling Road via the existing right - in/right -out only access drive. IV. TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION The trip generation for the proposed development was determined by referencing the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) report, titled Trip Generation, 8`h Edition. Land Use Code 210 (Single - Family Detached Housing) was utilized for the trip generation purposes of proposed residential units. The trip generation equations for the aforementioned land use are included in the Appendix of this report for reference. Table 2 outlines the anticipated weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour trip generation of the Naples View development as currently proposed. The daily trip generation is also indicated in the table. Table 2 Trip Generation Naples View Land Use Weekda r.M Peak. $our WeeldaY P 1VI Peak Hour :DarI - y ;<n `out :Total Single- Family Housing 14 42 56 45 27 72 709 (66 dwelling units) The trips the proposed development is anticipated to generate were assigned to the site access drives and the surrounding roadway network. The project traffic distribution was determined in the methodology with staff and is illustrated on Figure 2. Figure 2 also illustrates the assigmnent of the total project trips to the site access drive based upon the project traffic distribution. Page 4 Packet Page -1887- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. "On I LEGEND 4-20% ENTERING PERCENT DISTRIBUTION 4-(20 %) EXITING PERCENT DISTRIBUTION 4- 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 4-(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PROJECT_ TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION TRANSPORTATION Packet Page - 1888 -MENT Figure 2 CONSULTANTS, INC. Iq/-kr°LCJ VIEW Revised December 2011 6/26/2012 Item W.A. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC, V. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS In order to determine which roadway segments surrounding the site will be significantly impacted, Table 1A, contained in the Appendix, was created. This table indicates which, if any, roadway links will accommodate an amount of project traffic greater than the 2 %- 2%-3% Significance Test. Therefore, the net new traffic (after a reduction for pass -by) generated as a result of the proposed development was compared with the Capacity for Peak Hour — Peak Direction traffic conditions as defined by the 2010 Collier County Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR). From Table 1A, no roadway segments are shown to be significantly impacted by the proposed development. In addition to the significant impact criteria, Table IA also includes the concurrency analysis on the Collier County Roadway network. The current remaining capacity and Level of Service Standard for each roadway segment analyzed was obtained from the 2010 Collier County Annual Inventory Update Report (AUIR). In order to estimate the projected 2016 background traffic volumes, the existing 2010 peak hour peak direction traffic volumes from the 2010 AUIR were adjusted by the appropriate growth rate. The growth rates calculated for each roadway link are indicated on Table 2A. 'These projected volumes were then compared with the 2010 existing plus trip bank volumes from the 2010 AUIR. The more conservative of the two volumes was then utilized as the 2016 background traffic volume. The concurrency analysis was performed by subtracting the project traffic volumes from the 2016 background remaining capacity in order to determine whether or not sufficient capacity will be available after the addition of the net new traffic associated with the Naples View development. Based on the infonnation contained within Table lA, there will be sufficient capacity on the surrounding roadway network to serve the net new trips generated as a result of the proposed development. Page 6 Packet Page -1889- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Vl. PROJECTED CONCURRENCY AND IMPROVEMENTS Based upon the information contained within Table IA, Airport Pulling Road adjacent to the subject site is shown to have sufficient capacity based upon the projected 2016 traffic conditions to accommodate the proposed development. Figure 3 illustrates the capacity conditions on all significantly impacted roadway links based upon the existing conditions, the projected 2016 conditions without the proposed development, and the projected 2016 conditions with the proposed development. A northbound right turn lane approximately 175 feet in overall length currently exists at the site access driveway on Airport Pulling Road. This turn lane is constructed to the maximuin length possible due to the proximity of the Airport Pulling Road /Lone Oak Boulevard intersection to the south of the subject site. Therefore, no turn lane improvements are required as a result of the proposed development. Intersection capacity analysis was perfonued at the site access intersection on Airport Pulling Road based on the projected 2016 build -out traffic conditions. The turning volumes utilized in the analysis were obtained from the site traffic assignment illustrated on Figure 2. The projected 2016 peak direction through volume on Airport Pulling Road was obtained from Table IA. The projected 2016 off -peak direction through volume on Airport Pulling Road was then calculated by utilizing the D- factor for FDOT Site #034503 (Airport Pulling Road north of Pine Ridge Road) obtained from the 2010 Florida Traffic Information DVD. Based upon the results of the analysis all movements at the site access intersection on Airport Pulling Road are anticipated to operate at an acceptable Level of Service condition. Therefore, no intersection improvements are warranted as a result of this analysis. Page 7 Packet Page -1890- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. I a- I LEGEND 000 CURRENT REMAINING CAPACITY (000) REMAINING CAPACITY PROJECTED IN 2016 [000] REMAINING CAPACITY PROJECTED IN 2016 WITH PROJECT 0.0% PROJECT IMPACT PERCENTAGE TRANSPORTATION 2016 BUI'Packet Page - 1891 -FFIC CONDITIONS CONSULTANTS, INC. NHrLt5 VIEW Figure 3 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. VII. CONCLUSION The Naples View development is located along the east side of Airport Pulling Road south of its intersection with Orange Blossom Drive in Collier County, Florida. As currently proposed, the subject site will be zoned for the development of up to approximately 66 residential dwelling units. Based on the Concurrency Analysis conducted as a part of this report, Airport Pulling Road is shown to have sufficient capacity under the projected 2016 traffic conditions to accommodate the proposed development. Intersection analysis was perfonned for the site access intersection on Airport Pulling Road based upon the projected 2016 traffic conditions. Based upon the results of the analysis, all movements at the intersection were shown to operate at an acceptable Level of Service condition. Additionally, there is an existing northbound right turn lane approximately 175 feet in overall length that will serve the project. Therefore, no intersection improvements are warranted as a result of this analysis. K:\2011109 Sepcember:04 Naples View.9- 26- 201 1.Repon.doc Page 9 Packet Page -1892- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. Packet Page -1893- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. METHODOLOGY MEETING NOTES Packet Page -1894- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. APPENDIX A INITIAL 1bIEETI1iG CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply. Date: via e -mail Time: N/A Location: via e -mail People Attending: Naive, Organization, and Telephone Numbers 1) David Wheeler, TR Transportation Consultants, Inc., (239) 278-' )090 2) John Podczerwinsky, Collier County Transportation. (239) 252 -5890 3) _ 4) _ 5) Study Prepare r: Preparer's Name and Title: David Wheeler, Project Consultant Organization: TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. Address & Telephone Number: (239) 278 -3090 2726 Oak Ridge Court, Suite 503 Fort Myers, FL 33901 Reviewer(s): Reviewer's Name & Title: John Podczeiwinsky, Development Review Project Manager Collier County Transportation Planning Department Reviewer's Name & Title: Organization &. Telephone Number: Applicant: Applicant's Name: Waldrop Engineering P.A. Address: 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Suite 305. Bonita Smogs. FL 34135 Telephone Number: (239) 405 -7777 Proposed Development: Name: Naples View Location: 6900 Airport Road N, Naples Florida Land Use Type: Single - Family Residential ITE Code M LUC 210 — Single- Family Detached Housing Proposed number of development units: 66 dwelling units Other: Packet Page -1895- 6/26/2012 Item W.A. Description: Zoning: Residential Existing: Comprehensive plan recommendation: N/A Requested: N; A Findings of the Preliminary Study: Project is anticipated to generate less than 100 trips See the attached trip generation table. Study Type: Small Scale TIS ❑ Minor TIS Major TIS ❑ Study Area: Boundaries: AiEport Road between Orange Blossom Drive and Pine Ridge Road. Based upon the Collier County 2 % -2 % -3% Significant Impact Criteria no roadway segments will be significantly irripacted. Additional intersections to be analyzed: None Horizon Year(s): 2016 Analysis Time Period(s): A.itil. and P.M. Peak Hour Future Off -Site Developments: None Source of Trip Generation Rates: ITE Trip Generation 8`1' Edition Reductions in Trip Generation Rates: None: Pass -by trips: N/A Internal trips (PUD): N/A Transmit use: Other: Horizon Year Roadway Network Improvements:. None Packet Page -1896- Methodology & Assumptions: Non -site traffic estimates: 2010 AUIR Site -trip generation: ITE Trip Generation 81h Edition LUC 210 Trip distribution method: By Hand Traffic assignment method: By Hand Traffic growth rate: From comparisons of the 2006 & 2010 AUIR's Special Features: (from preliminary study or prior experience) Accidents locations: Sight distance: Queuing: Access location & configuration: Traffic control: Signal system location & progression needs: On -site parking needs: Data Sources: Base maps: Prior study reports: Access policy and jurisdiction: Review process: Requirements: Miscellaneous: SIGNATURES Study Preparer Reviewers Applicant Packet Page -1897- 6/26/2012 Item W.A. 6/26/2012 Item W.A. Trip Generation Nnnles View Lana iTse �Veelcdnti' A11J Peak FIoui•* tiV.eekda ' pM Peak Hour Daly (2 -ray) Tn. ` "Out.: ., Total :Ins,. Out;` Total. Single- Family Detached Housing 14 42 56 45 27 72 709 (66 dm.,ellin, units) Packet Page -1898- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. Wheeler, David From: PodczerwinskyJohn [JohnPodczerwinsky @colliergov.net] Sent: Friday, September 23, 20112:29 PM Wheeler, David Subject: RE: Naples View TIS Methodology Dave, They represent an additional impact on the intersection; thus exacerbating an identified deficiency That deficiency was experienced during previous years when loading at this intersection was more intense than it is today. As a result, I'll be seeking prop share contribution towards any turning movements that a) they impact, and b) are being improved. I'll be requiring it as a PUD commitment, the same as I have for all other recent zoning actions (and FLUM amendments) that have recently occurred in the immediate vicinity. As you can see, I can't support your position that payment of impact fees will offset impacts caused by increased density. 17,flarzk You, John NI. hocicze r vi risky Development ReviL-w Projt-.ct `-tanager, Growth N-Ianagcme.nr Division. Laud Development Services Department 1nSpt)rCaCIOn I'lztlntnR Sec tion. _,9-252--8192 239 -23-2 -6793 Fax .c r; :!i•:,_... e J c :Ir_n-, Ar : -;11% - ii;a;r.- ;:.• st.. r:gc•_,1 _ > •.r,t , .ai71 .i:...t;i;tQ ��I h._ .:,f•. ia_I�,a i, .,..tar. f � r -- r ;•o��._ ':r y, . 1 •-�. From: Wheeler, David [mailto:dlw @trtrans.net] Sent: Friday, September 23, 201112:19 PM To: PodczerwinskyJohn Subject: RE: Naples View TIS Methodology John, As the subject site will only have right -in /right -out access to Airport Road, 100% of the project traffic will enter from the south and exit towards the north. Based upon that distribution and the trip generation attached to the methodology document, the subject site will not significantly impact Airport Road either north or south of the subject site. Therefore, the road impact fees paid by the Developer should cover the projects proportionate share of any improvements to the Airport /Orange Blossom intersection. Thanks, David L. Wheeler, E.I. Project Consultant TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. ?6 Oak Ridge Court, Suite 503 art Myers, FL 33901 -9356 (239) 278 -3090 — Office (239) 898 -5273 — Cell diw a.trtrans.net w,ww.trtrans.net Packet Page -1899- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. =rom: PodczerwinskyJohn ( mail to: JohnPodczerwinsky @colliergov.net] tnt: Friday, September 23, 2011 11:02 AM fo: Wheeler, David Subject: RE: Naples View TIS Methodology Dave, No objection to the methodology you proposed. What are you planning for distribution? And how are you addressing the proportionate share requirement at the intersection? ,l"Fiank yov, John N-1. Pocicze'r\&insky Dcvelopmenr. Review Prujcct Nlaaager, Growth tila.nane.ment Division Land Developmear ServicesDeparrnient TranSportatio-n PhLrinin; Section 239 -252 -8192 239.252 -6793 FiL-N a ':(z crom: Wheeler, David [mailto :dlw @trtrans.net] nt: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 11:13 AM ,o: PodczerwinskyJohn Subject: Naples View TIS Methodology John, Please review the attached methodology and let me know if you have any questions or comments. The subject site is located at 6900 Airport Road N in Naples and as currently proposed will be zoned for the development of up to 66 residential dwelling units. As there are no planned restrictions on the number of single - family vs multi - family, all 66 units will be analyzed as single- family dwelling units. The site will access Airport Road via the existing right -in /right -out only access drive. Thanks, David L. Wheeler, E.I. Project Consultant TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2726 Oak Ridge Court, Suite 503 Fort Myers, FL 33901 -9356 (239) 278 -3090 - Office (239) 898 -5273 - Cell diw trtrans.net www.trtrans.net Packet Page -1900- 9/27/2011 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. TABLES IA & 2A Packet Page -1901- 6/26/2012 | m 17.A. to LL E ( § & j F § § I.- b § IL § § ) S § § § @ ) § § § §l e � � Pace Page -1902- 2 K ) § E / a U IL ) % \ / 22§ § k In 2 « $ jm§- W & @ . k§ I § , I,.. C4 m \ \ w \ k § n § § [ 0 2 / G e « \ g R ) 2 In \ 2 § \ § z 2 ] , 0 Q � k e f $ / § j g Z 9 > g R U) vi k ] 0 « < Q i E S§ 2 \ 2 \ N \ U. ( g # J /_ I- § § k # , , K 2 U) o / k ) § o E ~ ` IN i i § ] \ 2 w ) ° § .1 O . § j § 93 to LL E ( § & j F § § 2 } s IL § § ) S § § ;w 0% 2? §l . I P � � Pace Page -1902- 2 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. TABLE 2A ANNUAL GROWTH RATE CALCULATIONS BASED UPON HISTORICAL AUIR DATA 2006 2010 ANNUAL ACTUAL CURRENT AUIR AUIR YRS OF GROWTH GROWTH ROADWAY SEGMENT ID# VOLUME VOLUME GROWTH RATE RATE Airport Pulling Rd. S. of Orange Blossom Dr. 2.2 1,790. 1,734 4 2.00% - 0.79% • All traffic volumes were obtained from the 2006 & 2010 Annual Update Inventory Reports (AUIR) In Instances where the historical data indicates a reduction in traffic or Insufficient data was available to calculate a growth rate due to construction, a minimum annual growth rate of 2.0% was assumed. SAMPLE GROWTH RATE CALCULATION 2010 AUIR "("sofGrowth) Annual Grov�th Rate (AGR) - -1 2006 AUIR 734 AGR (Airport Pulling Rd.) = 1, 1 1,790 AGR (Airport Pulling Rd.) = -0.79% Packet Page -1903- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY SHEETS Packet Page -1904- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. t HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 3: Site Access Drive & Airport Pullin 2 Road 2016 Background + AM Project 9/27/2011 Median storage veh) 0 Movement's U. sfF6. n - ". h... p _am signal Lane Configurations ttt Sign Control Stop Free Free Grade 730 0% 0% Volume (veh/h) 0 42 2015 14, 0 1546 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hoo r.1y flovy rate (vp h) 0 .. 46 2100 15 0 1680 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Media! t- ypp _ Raised Median storage veh) 0 U. sfF6. n - ". h... p _am signal pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume 2756. 730 2205 VC1, stage I conf vol 2190 'q2i stage 2 con f vol 560 vCu, unblocked vol 2750 730 2205 tc, §!ngle (s) 6.8 6.9 4.1 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 tr sy� 3.5 3.3 2.2 pO queue free % 100 87 100 cM capacity (veh/h) 745 366 235 ':-NRil 84,fn B I ?� --, 8,2A; ;,t Volume Total 46 730 730 730 15 560 560 560 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Volume lume Right 46 0 0 0 15 - b 0 o - cSH 365 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volunie to, Capacity 0.13 0.43 0,43 0.43 6.01 o.33 0.33 0,53 Queue Length 95th (ft) 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co-htr'b'l De*,'' ) (s 16.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 o.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lane LOS C Approach ' , Delay (s)- 16.3 0.0 0.0 Approach LOS C Intersection S i - r- - 1, - - urnmary, Average Delay 0.2 I 't n ers 'betion. Capacity Utilization 48.9b/o ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Synchro 6 Report Metro Transportation Page 1 Packet Page -1905- w hi 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 2016 Background + PM Project 3• Site Access Drive & Airport_Pulli22 Road 9127/2011 f- *-- t /0. 1,0. Move n BR N, 13T -Y N B R: --f BL , Lane Configurations Raised 560 ttt 0 ttt Sign Control Stop 730 Free" 0 Free Grade 0% 560.- 0% 1680 0 Volu'm6 (Veh/h 0 27 1546 45 0 2015 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Hourly flow rate (vph) 0 29 1680 49 0 2190 Pedestrians 77 472 0.38 b..3.3 .0.63 La66 Width` (ft) 0.'0 � 0.43 Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 0 Walking Speed (ft/s) P&66 plo'c*ka'de , Right turn flare (veh) Median type . Raised 560 Median storage veh) 0 49 Upstream 'signal 730 730 pX, platoon unblocked 0 0 vC, conflicting Volume 2411. 560.- vC1, stage I conf vol 1680 01 vq2, stage 2 6 61 . c v. 730 .0 ... 'n vCu, unblocked vol 2411 560 f P- single s) 6.8 6.9 tC, 2 stage (s) 5.8 1700 LF 3,5 3.3. po queue free % 100 94 c capacity (veh1h) M p 77 472 Volur . �d Total 29 560 560. 560 49 730 730 730 Volume Left 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 01 Volu me Right 29 .0 0 0 49 0 .0 01- cSH 472 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 1700 Volume to Capacity 0.06 0.33. 0.38 b..3.3 .0.63 0.43 0.'0 � 0.43 Queue Length 95th (ft) 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..0 Co nfrol_ , Delay y (s) 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 Lan; LOS B Approach Delay (s) 13.1 Approach LOS B Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.3% ICU LeVel of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 Metro Transportation Packet Page -1906- Synchro 6 Report Page I 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. D- FACTOR FOR AIRPORT PULLING ROAD FROM THE 2010 FLORIDA TRAFFIC INFORMATION CD Packet Page -1907- 14 a Q e� a a E- 0 a al a k O 0 F a E U w a aE- E, z m W 6. L R F u 14 Q' w M o c H C 0 Q 0 -a O 0 rl U a a 0 U O T L c 0 O U 0. u� : ✓ II • F U a N E, N C n O M a a E o A d N A N ❑ u a J'1 W II � ✓ n ir. A C p m b O II m CO n y r, if a. ❑ •1. A L II N u urn W II u u u o : u.n - ro tl 3 II O Q 3 A O Q F A N u w C n o O 1 rt •.I n rn U n u a -'I n ❑n�: n w p o C A O O II { 11 O ✓ II ^a U II q: p u II •� II n� II � II Co u a n v n � A ❑ n W q n w a ❑ N N N G n N w A z A ri II m n nu q O u a z n F n a no N 2 A n , N N it M II C 0 11 o II ❑ ✓ 11 C a E. A L4 u A O N N tx N II '•1 0 11 Q m a n ✓an .A a a W F N w N m � 3Ln In 4 v 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. J s: al ✓ u O W ❑ Ci w Q a, Q ro m I I I o v w I 30 0 0 ++ n u N 3 C p o o •x L O X V•1 a V v ro o 0 0 W m U 0 O O) ❑ N u V N ro •� a) �C v 3 v Y I - w 3 N T4 M I m a En m H ✓ II N II c� F It u ✓ ro () n) N L•7 ]� N a N ro 0 7 o N •H N G •N a 4 C a O V. u % v •. a U) o II ro � fn �•-� N u ro u u N u C3 C. w n u 0 uw ro \ d u e to \ Al .rl 41 N % Q � n 11 tT ro rn W u u ro v u v w u J U ✓ 1 8 ro u a�nmw a�,vav 0 X • II II > Q 11 II N � d d ✓ .•� rl m 0 ro ro ✓aw❑ y C ✓ ✓ f O O U U N IE II II II c d U Q Q rn N O O O C) d -I ro ro o a .-1 .i '-q N F 1 fa Q) F: ro ✓ O ❑ F E Packet Page -1908- N a x 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. NORTHWEST TCMA Packet Page -1909- 0, �o V 0 O a 1° _` CT �.5 F c� Z 0 :° � Ut+6 � C O > ' m U � Q YI v o d m NO r m b +h m oa °I O M!2 0 m 1 ?o lo'. m rn N rn No o m m m Mf m V' O rotomtotn OI OI i,- m• PI n Ol (V rtor N P Gi 00 Q r N m rtrirri r r (`� y r`Iq r attic m4r r( owt,Mt'?oormaid0.m'^oommwo(grnoo CV m m N ('� nmm� tpr� mci m m m m (O m Pi v 0 N N N g m m N m N N m t0 m 0 m sr m m m 0 0 It S 10 m I•- f0 N N N m N q• l9 I`• m ry N m Oi tr 0 h O (T M h to OI O 4 N Q N O O ti V m Ol (7 01 01 [Y m R 0 !0 O t` fD nl Ol r•- 01 r t- m C, N O r r: P r N' M (] r r [9 N r r r N O r r N r N O O (V N r tV N O m Co Cu !O ti m N d N M r N i VI m SU 7 to Co r to tr t0 < 10 K M >` N Zw (h N c` m M N t m to W t0 N m N In m M 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 O, O G O 0 0 6 O 0 00 00 0 0 00 6 6 6 0 do o o O O tz'rst O N¢ o_ (a ° y a Co o - m a o It m ° ¢ m- o f°s °o fat a m ° L v m ¢ Y� O¢ p E M ¢ x N ¢ O m II m o [[° Lr c¢ m c m cc m~ y¢ to y c U d ooC H U¢OI- d m •- c LL Q O (L�Q:F N N OI . c N �' fn m OI H� o u•1 o> fL m C. O m (p ±:! C o - f m LL 1�I N a¢ °I 0 L E m R � .C°.. ° m fn fit M=cc t0 � a •- N (6 ._ di aIF N � m y oa¢ m v m E 1% ul = m _ o r a o m no CL 0, aU m ct E to Co c c� S, u�rl r E= m -v m Q '> im mpajl- m C B> E E m _C Co r m oUa t C — Q d o_'7 0 > O > o� U 6 c7 m o Cu m C 13 O> N O (L N to O Q j N a° ty ¢ n_ O O Es ° O s Y a =¢ o c ? �v._CC o O La oL c'c' m ° - u( %s C 0 5 rC. d tU t°G rill, O H E T 7 N m L N d¢ m m m m (� ~ E Q V_ (n N m W 'm Q C •� b 1. to O LC,rc LL O N LL O N 3 O' U N o In a$ p E o O' U QL. 2 °i o O a E• o — Q {? v �' E O 'G o o - h m _ E m v m m OI VG-) Di y. m m S r u) rn rn E >> C7 C7 L¢ y p b E E y Q E EC7 m 9 m >F m¢ E E m U F 5 7 o °o Ea _ c J O> C7 Uo iaa 0 o o _ o O 0 2¢ 0 0 I' m N O .'� 0 [t 0 ¢ Z Z 'o. ra a a m m m -p ro •O m y +y v a m (� O O O O Q¢ o S Z -- Z Z Z — Z ' r .0 U L C U60 'c ¢ ro 0 o 0 oa y c s N > m >OC¢ a °° o CC¢2� 0 0? 0 �s 0c a¢ o 4 y¢¢ t= Q m m rm w om e]� ¢¢ CL t m y o Y o C�m m y m m E r y E[[ a o m Ma¢ E' o = z {m ? m E ed E u E Ea d m iii o O c o E E a E E Eov m SFr a m v >y m 3 Cm R r to > T C3 C°7 C7 >> Q O O r q` ttl h O r r O O m 0 0 <Y OI 0 O r r N O 0 to 0 0 ai 0 z tn t N N N O N N (V O r r tLi m 4'i m 0 O O G r N N N N c7 v d< to b M O m (O 0 m Packet Page -1910- N N 0 rn m O N N � m U O: C V � o c F � o c � JN W m c Co J C m N d 6/26/2012 Item W.A. 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS Packet Page -1911- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS NAPLES VIEW ITE TRIP GENERATION REPORT, 8" EDITION Land Use Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Weekday Single- Family Detached Housing LUC 210) T = 0.70 (X) + 9.74 (25% In/75% Out) Ln (T) = 0.90 Ln (X) + 0.51 (63% In/37% Out) Ln (T) = 0.92 Ln (X) + 2.71 T = Number of Trips, X =Number of dwelling units Packet Page -1912- i c 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. aiuo� wa {C:� - Ilpi 'CI ens 81 Packet Page -1913- � N V t7 O Qr C M N p W +I +I +I +I U' d ti ti d aaaaa W Z Z Z 00 R z z �. Qz z Q w Oo> w azw <a 2 O � ZZ O N Z � C F- 0 m tU w y ¢a w U U) cc moo zwCn N LL to U w 0 0 LL U Cq w C W U w U w x �W a w¢ ¢z � w �O N N O U I— O =W W O G O QO w M. s QQ QI— WaU >� mz oa oa W No .a V N ~t7 W eG Q W� C J NQ yZ : H Iw-Q L aZ J yG - z4 C Y N Z Q G Op U Q Ow O O J Q V O O O = J~ [C W Q U U I O W N Z W W w z N V— tr W LL O W=W OO U4 Q >m Oz Q Z F-O J 2 Wd J J LL V W O MZD 3 Q aiuo� wa {C:� - Ilpi 'CI ens 81 Packet Page -1913- � N V t7 O Qr C M N p W +I +I +I +I U' d ti ti d aaaaa W Z Z Z 00 R z z �. Qz z Q w Oo> w azw <a 2 O � ZZ O N Z � C F- 0 m tU w y ¢a w U U) cc moo zwCn N LL to U w 0 0 LL U Cq w C W U w U w x �W a w¢ ¢z 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. JUSTIFICATIONS FOR REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC NAPLES VIEW RPUD Deviation 1: Deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.0 which requires a 15 -foot wide Type "B" buffer where proposed residential uses abut existing commercial uses, to allow for a 10 -foot wide Type B buffer where the property abuts the commercial use to the north. Justification: The proposed deviation will allow for design flexibility for this infill parcel, while meeting the intent of the LDC by providing appropriate buffering between the proposed residential use and the existing commercial use to the north. The requested deviation is only to reduce the overall width of the buffer yard, not the number or type of proposed plantings. Thus, the opacity of the required buffer will not change as a result of this deviation. The required plantings can be accommodated within the proposed 10' buffer yard; therefore approval of this deviation will not negatively impact the survival rate or appearance of the buffer plantings. Approval of the deviation will allow for a cohesive buffer width along the entire northern property line, while facilitating development of this narrow, infill site that is further encumbered by a large existing lake. Deviation No. 2: Deviation from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e which allows temporary signs on residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height, to allow a temporary sign or banner up to a maximum of 32 square feet in area and a maximum of 8 feet in height. Justification: The requested deviation will allow for a banner sign which has been previously approved for other residential communities within the County. The subject property is not located in an area of new construction /emerging residential growth within the County, such as Immokalee Road east of 1 -75, which compels the need for additional signage to adequately market the property. Additionally, the Property's limited frontage along Airport Road, coupled with the significant setback created by the Airport Road canal, are existing hardships that reduces the visibility of the project. The sign will be temporary, and will undergo the requisite temporary sign permit process in accordance with Section 5.04.06. Deviation No. 3: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01, which requires a minimum width of 60 feet for cul- de -sac and local street rights -of -way, to allow for a minimum 45 -foot right -of -way internal to the proposed development. Justification: The proposed deviation will allow for design flexibility within this infill parcel. As indicated above, the proposed project is a true infill development with existing site constraints, including a large stormwater management pond. The reduced right -of -way width will allow the Applicant to achieve a higher percentage of on -site, useable open space and will maintain sidewalks along both sides of the roadways, as required by Section 6.06.02 of the LDC. Additionally, the right - of -way will be privately maintained by the future Homeowners Association (HOA) and will be constructed per the typical cross section included on the Master RPUD Plan. Studies have determined that reduced right -of -way widths act as a traffic calming feature and will assist in Naples View RPUD — PUDZ- PL2011 -1519 Revised April 5, 2012 Page 1 of 2 Packet Page -1914- 6/26/2012 Item W.A. maintaining public health, safety and welfare within the community. For these reasons, the Applicant respectfully submits that the proposed deviation will not negatively impact public health, safety or welfare. Deviation 4: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01.J which prohibits dead -end streets, to allow the dead end street shown on the RPUD Master Plan. Justification: Per the attached RPUD Master Plan, the Applicant is requesting a +/- 140 -foot long dead -end street to service approximately three (3) future dwelling units within the project. The proposed dead end street is in compliance with state and local fire safety standards, as the Collier County Fire Code permits dead -end streets up to a length of 150 feet. Therefore, the requested deviation will not negatively impact public health, safety or welfare. Deviation 5: Deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.2, which permits a maximum wall height of six (6) feet in residential zoning districts, to allow for a maximum height of eight (8) feet for a combination wall and berm along the property lines. Justification: The proposed deviation will allow for additional visual screening and mitigation of noise pollution resulting from traffic along Airport Road, a 4 -lane divided arterial roadway, as well as the surrounding properties. Approval of this deviation will serve to promote public health, safety and welfare, as well as enhance the proposed RPUD. Naples View RPUD — PUDZ- PL2011 -1519 Revised April 5, 2012 Page 2 of 2 Packet Page -1915- . strict School r E'-0 0� du Collier Cau 6/26/2012 Item W.A. Collier County School District School Impact Analysis Application Instructions: Submit one copy of completed application and location map for each new residential project requiring a determination of school impact to the Planning Department of P+ the applicable local government. This application will not be deemed complete until all applicable submittal requirements have been submitted. Please be advised that additional documentation /information may be requested during the review process. For information regarding this application process, please contact the Facilities Management Department at 239 - 377 -0267. Please check [�] type of application request (one only): [X] School Capacity Review [ ] Exemption Letter [ ] Concurrency Determination [ ] Concurrency Determination Amendment For descriptions of the types of review please see page 3, I. Project Information: Project Name: Naples View RPUD Municipality: NIA (unincorporated Collier County Parcel ID #: (attach separate sheet for multiple parcels): 00236120000 Location /Address of subject property: 6900 Airport Pulling Rd. North Naples, FL 34109 (Attach location map) Closest Major Intersection: Airport Pulling Rd /Orange Blossom Drive II. Ownership /Agent Information: •ner /Contract Purchaser Name(s): Naples View LLC — Agent/Contact Person: Alexis V Crespo AICP (Please note that if agent or contact information is completed the District will forward all information to that person) Mailing address: 28100 Bonita Grande Drive Suite 305 Bonita Springs FL 34135 _ Telephone #: (239) 405 -7777 Fax: (239) 405 -7899 Email alexisc(&waldropengineering.com I hereby certify the statements and/or information contained in this application with any attachments submitted herewith are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 09 -23 -2011 Owner or Authorized Agent Signature Date III Develo ment Information Project Data Unit Types defined on page 2 of a plicatio n Current Land Use Designation: Urban Residential Proposed Land Use Designation: N/A Subdistrict Current Zoning: Rural Agriculture (A) Proposed Zoning: Residential Planned Unit Development RPUD Project Acreage: 11.32 + /- acres_., .. ,W Unit Type: SF M MH C G Total Units Currently Allowed by Type: 11 0 0 0 N/A Total Units Proposed by Type: 66 0 0 0 N/A > this a phased project: Yes or No No If yes, please complete page 2 of this application. Datehime stamp: Packet Page -1916- ILA n 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. % A I A ■ E1% r1t1A rlk 1A10L t or— or- r,.■W 1,0-% Memorandum To: Kay Deselem From: Alexis Crespo cc: Steve Hagenbuckle Date: February 10, 2012 Subject: Naples View Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis Naples View, LLC, in conjunction with Waldrop Engineering, P.A. and Collier County Staff, conducted a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM on Thursday, January 12, 2012. The meeting was held at 6 p.m. at the Collier County Library at 2385 Orange Blossom Drive. The sign -in sheet is attached as Exhibit "A ", and demonstrates approximately 50 residents were in attendance. A Handout was distributed, and is attached as Exhibit "B". Steve Hagenbuckle (Applicant) began the meeting with introductions and a brief overview of the project's intent. The Applicant introduced Alexis Crespo (Agent) who gave a PowerPoint presentation. A hard copy of the PowerPoint slides is attached as Exhibit "C ". The presentation included an overview of the project location and history, demonstration of the proposed RPUD master plan, proposed uses, and density, and information on the application process and forthcoming public hearings. Following the Agent's presentation, the meeting was opened up to attendees to make comments and ask the Agent and Applicant questions regarding the proposed development. The following is a summarized list of the questions asked and responses given. Question/Comment 1: When will development begin - what is the anticipated development timeframe? Response: The developer would like to break ground in later summer /early fall 2012 for infrastructure such as roads. Question /Comment 2: How much flexibility does the developer have to develop single family units versus multi- family units? Response: The intent is to develop single family dwellings, and unless there is a significant change in market demand only single family will be constructed. The application requests the flexibility to construct a variety of units due to the state of the real estate market and changing demand. The Do 1 of 1 Packet Page -1917- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. Applicant also noted that the PUD master plan layout is for approximately 33 single family units and does not lend itself to multi - family uses. Question /Comment 3: As part of the zoning process does the Applicant have to specify the proposed residential dwelling types. Response: Yes, the application includes a schedule of uses that includes a variety of product types: single family detached, twin villa/single family attached, and multi - family. Steve reiterated that there is very little market for multi - family and the intent is to develop single family uses. Question /Comment 4: There is concern with broadness of request/ability to develop multi- family uses. Also asked what the traffic impact of the development will be. Response: Applicant advised that a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) was completed and there were no negative traffic impacts to Airport Road due to the low trip generation of the proposed development. The Applicant also noted that the developer will be responsible for a proportionate fair share of the Orange Blossom /Airport Road intersection based upon the project's impact to that intersection. Also noted, the TIS is based upon the maximum attainable density of 66 units. Question /Comment 5: There is concern with ability of Walden Oaks residents to make right turn onto Airport Road to head northbound. Response: So noted. Question /Comment 6: What is the status of Staff's comment to provide a hardened separator to prevent future Naples View residents from accessing turn lane direction in front of the Property. Response: The Applicant is working on addressing this comment with Staff and understanding the specifics of the petition. Question /Comment 7: Is the Applicant contributing to the Orange Blossom/Airport Road intersection improvements? Response: Yes. Question 8: Where will the transit shelter be located? Please explain the bonus density request. Response: Th:e Applicant is proposing to upgrade the existing bus stop just north of the Property to a transit shelter. There are provisions in the Growth Management Plan to allow for bonus density where efforts are made to reduce the project's trip generation and encourage alternative forms of transportation. Question /Comment 9: You may want to have a meeting with just the Walden Oaks community to address issues regarding the proposed multi - family uses and the traffic concerns. Response: Applicant noted that the flexibility in the PUD document is the key source of concern and that the Applicant can meet again with the residents to re -visit the issues. Question /Comment 10: Will the lake be protected? There are birds that use the lake. Response: The existing lake is shown on the PUD master plan to be preserve as an amenity. Passarella and Associated conducted a protect species survey to address any on -site wildlife. Question /Comment 11: Will affordable housing be provided? Response: No. Page 2 of 3 Packet Page -1918- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. Question /Comment 12: The property is in a state of disrepair since Tree Wizzard left, the proposal for single family units will be a benefit to Walden Oaks. Noted that the multi- family product can be up to 3 stories tall /45 feet in height. Believe the project can be supported if the request for 3 -story . multi - family uses can be removed from the PUD. Response: So noted. We will revisit the proposal and come back for second meeting. Question /Comment 13: Does the Applicant intend to change the current traffic flow along Airport and prevent U -turns where currently permitted? Response: No. Question /Comment14: Will the community be gated/walled? Response: The PUD master plan shows a 6' -8' tall wall around the Property perimeter. Question /Comment 15: There are birds that nest in the trees. Response: The existing vegetation will be utilized to create the required buffers to the extent possible. Question /Comment 16: Will the existing right turn lane into the Naples View property be extended per this request? Response: No. There is no intent to extend the turn lane north to landscape nursery to the north. The meeting concluded with further discussion on the multi - family product type. Following this question and answer period, the Agent and Applicant indicated they would take the comments and consider revisions to the rezoning request. The Agent stated they would coordinate updates with the community through the specified community leaders. The meeting concluded at approximately 7:10 p.m. The meeting was recorded per the CD attached as Exhibit "D ". Page 3 of 3 Packet Page -1919- :m 17.A. z H w w z a H o H w r w w a o z w � c� w z w w a P64 z :m 17.A. 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. y Ire 1... � v � .'� e� `.� ,� P� � IU N V� I e. to P;;rkpt P;ipriz -14? 1 - 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. EXHIBIT "B" Naples View RPUD Neighborhood Information Meeting January 12, 2012 — 5:30 p.m. — Collier County Library Headquarters Project Information Sheet I. Project Address: 6900 Airport Pulling Road, Naples, FL 34109 II. Project Size: 11.32 acres III. Future Land Use: Urban Residential Subdistrict IV. Current Zoning: Rural Agricultural (A) V. Current Use: Vacant/Abandoned Tree Nursery (Former Tree Wizzard) VI. Proposed Zoning: Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) VII. Proposed Density: Maximum 66 dwelling units VIII. Contact Information: Alexis Crespo Waldrop Engineering (239) 405- 7777,. ext. 207 OR (239) 850 -8525 lexiset;W.ua�aldro engineering.com Packet Page -1923- EXHIBIT "C" Naples View RPUD Neighborhood Information Meeting PUDZ- PL2011 -1519 January 12, 2012 ENGINEERING 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. J/ J/ GV 1L Packet Page -1924- 1 • Based out of Cape Coral, FL • Track record of quality, high end projects • Custom home builder across Grey i SW Florida, including Oaks • Recent projects include Estero Palms and Palmira Golf & Country Club NN9hbwh••d lnfmm•ti �n, MMeeunq 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. J/ J/ GV 1L Packet Page -1924- 1 PROPERTY HISTORY • Former Wizzard Lake Property -- REQUEST • Zoned Rural Agricultural — • Residential only - no _ • Vacant since 2008 commercial component -- • Seeking redevelopment of the V • Requesting between 3 and 6 property as a residential units per acres community • Maximum of 66 units 1 • Requires RPUD Rezoning requested Nel•hi»rh••tllnlorm•NOnM «flog 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. J/ J/ GV1L Packet Page -1925- • Intended product type is -- - single family detached — -- • In discussions with Neal Communities based in Sarasota • Awarded 2012 America's Best Builder • $400,000 - $450,000 price point Neigh herhood Iniermetien M«tl ig tj • • ` REZONE REQUEST • Residential only - no _ commercial component -- • Requesting between 3 and 6 units per acres • Maximum of 66 units 1 requested • Recreational uses Nel9hbe rho•tl In fermtlnn M«ting Packet Page -1925- • Intended product type is -- - single family detached — -- • In discussions with Neal Communities based in Sarasota • Awarded 2012 America's Best Builder • $400,000 - $450,000 price point Neigh herhood Iniermetien M«tl ig tj Nelghbwheod InbrmHien M.Ning N.ighbarheellnfaemetlonM «ung rre�iw�i 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. J/ J/ LW- PacketPage -1926- Neigh berboed Infonnntlon Meeting Ivw� �1A11 3 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. J ( Jl LV 1 L Packet Page -1927- 4 • 30' -20' landscaped buffer yards along the perimeter _ • Recreational uses located along western /southern boundaries • Density and proposed residential uses are q :" WT, similar to surrounding jcommunities ' NelghNOrh•od Mf•mrWn M.eNng Packet Page -1927- 4 6/26/2012 Item W.A. J /7/ 4U1L Pre - Application Meeting — T--- -- Neighborhood Information - -- September 2012 — -- — _ Meeting _ Submit Application _ Planning Commission Staff Review & Neighborhood Hearing January 2012 Info Meeting " law-'` ` ' Board of County f " S Commissioners April 2012 xnw. 4 p Planning Commission Hearings -,� � • Anytime throughout the H° + process by contacting Alexis ,. May- June2012 Board of County Commi or Kay NNgMMahoadlnforma�bn Maeung I Nal•hbo Mead lnlermatleMaathg ssioners Hearing a ,, Packet Page -1928- 5 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. ILAIAN Memorandum To: Kay Deselem From: Alexis Crespo cc: Steve Hagenbuckle Date: February 10, 2012 Subject: Walden Oaks Follow -Up Meeting Synopsis Naples View, LLC, in conjunction with Waldrop Engineering, P.A. conducted a follow -up meeting with the Walden Oaks community to outline changes made to the zoning petition in response to comments received at the January 12th Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM). The follow -up meeting was held at 7 p.m. on Thursday, February 2, 2012 at the Walden Oaks Clubhouse. The attached letter was distributed at the outset of the meeting and outlines the Applicant's commitment to remove multi - family units from the rezoning request and provide a traffic separator along the turn lane in front of the property. Mr. Michael Johnathan, a resident of Walden Oaks, opened up the meeting with an overview of his recent discussions with the Applicant and Agent. He then introduced Alexis Crespo to outline the changes to the zoning petition at the request of the community. Ms. Crespo outlined the letter and opened the meeting up for further questions. There were additional questions about traffic generation. Residents expressed general consensus that removal of multi- family was an improvement to the zoning request. Ms. Crespo provided more detailed information on peak hour trips entering and leaving the community and noted that Collier County Transportation Staff had reviewed the proposal and found that the trips would not generate improvements along Airport due to the relatively low impact of the project. The meeting concluded at approximately 7:45 p.m. NO,(., 1 of 1 Packet Page -1929- L_ :i L-i February 2, 2012 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. Dear Residents of Walden Oaks, At the Neighborhood Information Meeting held on Thursday, January 12th, the Applicant and consultant team very clearly heard your concerns regarding the proposed multi- family dwelling types and potential traffic impacts of the Naples View Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). We greatly appreciated the open dialogue and ongoing feedback received from the Walden Oaks residents, and the willingness to work with us to ensure the resulting community compliments the surrounding area. As such, the Applicant has committed to removing the multi - family dwelling types from the rezoning request, and limiting the proposal to single family detached, zero lot line, two family units, and townhouses. Townhouses are defined by the Collier County Land Development Code as, "a group of 3 or more dwelling units attached to each other by a common wall or roof wherein each unit has direct exterior access and no unit is located above another ". Similarly, the maximum height for all dwelling types will be limited to 35 feet. Lastly, the RPUD will be conditioned by Staff to ensure a traffic separator is provided at the turn lane directly in front of the property to prevent unsafe weaving along Airport Pulling Road. We are confident these updates to the proposed rezoning will fully address the concerns voiced at the meeting, and we look forward to your support of this proposal. Should you have any further questions or concerns regarding the Naples View community, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (239) 405 -7777 ext. 207, or ale; x.i sc &, -, aldropt ng,i'neerin.g.corn Sincerely, WALDROP ENGINEERING, P.A. (blcqfD Alexis V. Crespo, AICP Principal Planner Cc: W. Stephen Hagenbuckle, Naples View, LLC Kay Deselem, AICP, Collier County Government Packet Page -1930- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. SIGN POSTING INSTRUCTIONS (Section 10.03.00, COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) A zoning sign(s) must be posted by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent on the parcel for a minimum of fifteen (15) calendar days in advance of the first public hearing and said sign(s) must be maintained by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent through the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Below are general guidelines for signs, however these guidelines should not be construed to supercede any requirement of the LDC. For specific sign requirements, please refer to Section 10.03.00 of the LDC. I. The sign(s) must be erected in full view of the public, not more than five (5) feet from the nearest street right -of -way or easement. 2. The sign(s) must be securely affixed by nails, staples, or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened securely to a post, or other structure. The sign may not be affixed to a tree or other foliage. 3. The petitioner or the petitioner's agent must maintain the sign(s) in place, and readable condition until the requested action has been heard and a final decision rendered. If the sign(s) is destroyed, lost, or rendered unreadable, the petitioner or the petitioner's agent must replace the signs NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, PERSONALLY APPEARED Rkck A � CT PO WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE /SHE HAS POSTED PROPER NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER SIGMA OF 4 PPLICANT OR AGENT I J el� c6f 5EP NAME (TYPED OR PRINTED) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER STREET OR P.O. BOX CITY, STATE ZIP The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this day of , 204 -; by personals known to me or who produced as identification and who did/did not take an oath. OUILUANI JONS &, III NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA Comm# EE099159 1 Expires 6/1/2015 My Commission Expires: (Stamp with serial number) Signature of No Public Uc iAn ctes 1� Printed Name of Notary Public C:\ Users \AlexisC\AppData \Local\Microsoft \Windows \Temporary Internet Files\Content. Outlook\LD03CP EU\AFFI DAVIT AND SIGN POSTING INSTRUCTIONS 5- 2- 05.doc Packet Page -1931- 6/26/2012 Item W.A. Packet Page -1932- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. Packet Page -1933- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. ORDINANCE NO. 12- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004 -41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE NAPLES VIEW RPUD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF SIXTY -SIX RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6900 AIRPORT ROAD NORTH IN SECTION 01, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 11 +/- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Alexis Crespo, AICP of Waldrop Engineering, P.A., representing Naples View LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described property. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 01, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the Naples View RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 66 residential dwelling units in accordance with Exhibits A through F, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance No. 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is /are hereby amended accordingly. Naples View RPUD \ PUDZ- PL2011 -1519 Rev. 5/07112 1 of 2 Packet Page -1934- 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. SECTION TWO: 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 , 2012. ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Uzz , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Heidi Ashton -Cicko Section Chief, Land Use /Transportation BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA IN FRED W. COYLE, Chairman Attachments: Exhibit A — List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B — Development Standards Exhibit C - Master Plan Exhibit D — Legal Description Exhibit E — List of Requested Deviations Exhibit F — Development Commitments CP\ I 1 -CP S -01121 \51 Naples View RPUD \ PUDZ- PL2011 -1519 Rev. 5/07/12 2 of 2 Packet Page -1935- EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES NAPLES VIEW RPUD PERMITTED USES: 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. 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: A. Principal Uses and Structures: "111" Residential Tracts 1. Single- family detached dwelling units 2. Zero lot line units 3. Two - family, duplex dwelling units 4. Recreational uses and facilities that serve the residents, including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, fishing docks, walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings, and basketball /shuffle board courts. "112" Residential Tracts 1. Single family detached dwelling units 2. Zero lot line units 3. Two - family, duplex dwelling units 4. Townhouse dwelling units 5. Recreational uses and facilities that serve the residents, including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, fishing docks, walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings, and basketball /shuffle board courts. Any other principal and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). B. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses customarily associated with Permitted Principle Uses including but not limited to: 1. Customary accessory uses and structures including carports, garages, and utility buildings. 2. Recreational uses and facilities that serve the residents, including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, fishing docks, walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings, and basketball /shuffle board courts. 3. Temporary sales trailers and model units. 4. Entry Gates & Gatehouse. 5. Essential services, including interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities. 6. Water management facilities. Any other accessory use and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals, pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). C. Development Density A maximum of 66 dwelling units shall be constructed within the RPUD per the Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) bonus density provisions set forth in Exhibit F, Section 5. The gross project area is 11.3 ± acres and the residential density maximum shall be 5.84 units per acre. Naples View RPUD — PUDZ- PL2011 -1519 Last Revised: May 3, 2012 Packet Page -1936- Page 1 of 7 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS NAPLES VIEW RPUD Development of the Naples View RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to, final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit, and preliminary work authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district shall apply. Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Naples View RPUD. 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. TABLE I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS(') PERMITTED USES AND Single Family Zero Lot Two Townhome Recreation STANDARDS Detached Line Family, Duplex Min. Lot Area 5,000 SF 4,000 SF 3,500 SF 1,400 SF N/A Min. Lot Width 50' 40' 35' 16' N/A SETBACKS Front (3 )(4) 15' 15' 15' 15' 20' Side 5' 51/0' 51/0' 5'/0' 20' Rear (Principal) 15' 10' 10' 10' 10' Rear (Accessory) 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' Water body 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' Airport Pulling Rd. 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' Min. Distance Between 10' 10' /01I5i 10' /01I5l 10' /0'I5l Sum of Y. 1311 Principal Structures Max. Building Height Zoned 35' 35' 35' 3S' 35' Actual 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' No. of Stories 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 (1) Each half of a duplex unit requires a lot area allocation of 3,500 SF for a total minimum lot area of 7,000 SF. (2) Minimum lot width may be reduced by 25% for cul -de -sac lots provided the minimum lot area requirement is maintained. (3) The minimum 15' front yard setback may be reduced to 10' where the residence has a recessed, side entry, or rear entry garage. In no case shall there be less than a clear area of 23 feet between the back of the sidewalk and the face of the garage door for front entry garages. (4) For corner lots, only one (1) front yard setback shall be required. The yard that does not contain the driveway /vehicular access to the residence shall provide 10' setback. (5) Distance between buildings may be reduced at garages to a minimum of 0' where attached garages are provided, and a 10' minimum, if detached. Naples View RPUD— PUDZ- PL2011 -1519 Last Revised: May 3, 2012 Packet Page -1937- Page 2 of 7 J:mffl N VIw�Vrrb0AW760141 MCPWsWloW10101as VftV BIW2lL27!PY v $ o 1 REMED PER COUNTY COMMENTS m 001112 REVISED PER COUNTYCOMMENTS 4 I i QUO602 I REVISED PER COUNTY 00MMENTS N OW08112 RMEDPEROOUNTYCOMMDM W a r � Q G7 A V 2 R.O.W. m v � C CD M Cn K m K K a N K K IV Ir K K ae yeah �+ m mo O >t x 2 Ir m m z0 'or = Goo m +� RA Mz O�N Fn Pz z �o 0 o o m m (n Ica MA c Naples View RPUD — PUDZ- PL2011 -1519 Last Revised: May 3, 2012 Q O W 91 P to rn C C i yO C Z � � pN coo yDm �or rZ �. a n mI m 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. V rn W 1=7111 1 REMED PER COUNTY COMMENTS c M 001112 REVISED PER COUNTYCOMMENTS 4 I i QUO602 I REVISED PER COUNTY 00MMENTS l OW08112 RMEDPEROOUNTYCOMMDM 1 a r � Naples View RPUD — PUDZ- PL2011 -1519 Last Revised: May 3, 2012 Q O W 91 P to rn C C i yO C Z � � pN coo yDm �or rZ �. a n mI m 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. V rn W g, z c c M 4 I i C r. l O a r � rn z M A m�r m p�m F. R.O.W. m y g, z Tp 4 I i C r. l O e % 2 r � rn z f A m�r m p�m F. �--- > � cv mac T � c mr 0�TCiC T C�O � AmmA m rD 6 N C1 m z SCALE: N.T.S. NAPLES VIEW F7,611NEERING CLIENT. NAPLES VIEW, LLC. 11 ' Axmrr "C" ww ni `rswr11MA Packet Page -1938- Page 3 of 7 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION NAPLES VIEW RPUD NORTH %2 OF THE NORTH %: OF THE SOUTHWEST X OF THE SOUTHWEST Y, OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE WEST 100 FEET THEREOF FOR STATE RIGHT - OF -WAY. Naples View RPUD — PUDZ- PL2011 -1519 Last Revised: May 3, 2012 Packet Page -1939- Page 4 of 7 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. EXHIBIT E LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC NAPLES VIEW RPUD Deviation 1: Deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.0 which requires a 15 -foot wide Type "B" buffer where proposed residential uses abut existing commercial uses, to allow for a 10 -foot wide Type B buffer where the property abuts the commercial use to the north. Deviation No. 2: Deviation from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e which allows temporary signs on residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height, to allow a temporary sign or banner up to a maximum of 32 square feet in area and a maximum of 8 feet in height. The temporary sign or banner shall be limited to 28 days per calendar year. Deviation No. 3: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01, which requires a minimum width of 60 feet for cul -de -sac and local street rights -of -way, to allow for a minimum 45 -foot right -of -way internal to the proposed development. Deviation 4: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01.) which prohibits dead -end streets, to allow the dead end street shown on the RPUD Master Plan. Deviation 5: Deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.2, which permits a maximum wall height of six (6) feet in residential zoning districts, to allow for a maximum height of eight (8) feet for a combination wall and berm along the property lines. Naples View RPUD — PUDZ- PL2011 -1519 Last Revised: May 3, 2012 Packet Page -1940- Page 5 of 7 EXHIBIT F DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS NAPLES VIEW RPUD 1. PURPOSE 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. The purpose of this Section is to set forth the general development commitments for the project. 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 Naples View, LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments; required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed -out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. 2. UTILITIES 2.1 The project shall connect to the Collier County Water Sewer District (CCWSD) potable water system at a. location determined by CCWSD when capacity is available. 2.2 The project shall connect to the CCWSD wastewater collection and conveyance system at a location determined by CCWSD when capacity is available. 2.3 The project shall connect to the CCWSD Irrigation Quality water system at a location determined by CCWSD when capacity is available. 2.4 Should the Collier County Water Sewer District determine that it does not have sufficient capacity to serve the project; the Developer shall either construct interim potable water, wastewater treatment and /or non - potable water facilities, or shall postpone development until such time as the Collier County Water - Sewer District service capacity is available to service the project. Any interim facilities constructed by the Developer shall be constructed to Collier County Utilities Division Standards, and shall be dismantled, at the Developer's expense, upon connection to the Collier County Water -Sewer District facilities. Whether potable water, wastewater treatment and /or non - potable water facilities are provided on -site or off -site, the Developer shall demonstrate to Collier County that adequate capacity is available at the time of final utilities plan submittal. 2.5 All customers shall be customers of the CCWSD. 3. TRANSPORTATION A. The project shall maintain a minimum of 100' throat distance between the Airport Pulling right -of -way and the face of the entrance gates. B. The developer shall pay a proportionate fair share for improvements to the Orange Blossom Drive and Airport Pulling Road intersection. The proportionate fair share of the project's impacts to the intersection shall be Naples View RPUD — PUDZ- PL2011 -1519 Last Revised: May 3, 2012 Packet Page -1941- Page 6 of 7 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. determined at the time of construction plan approval based upon the project's trips as percentage of capacity improvements for the turning /through movements utilized by this site. Payment shall be made to Collier County within 90 days of the County's request. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL No preservation area is required as all existing, on -site vegetation is exotic. S. PLANNING The RPUD shall be developed with up to 66 units per Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) bonus density, as defined in Policy 6.3 of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. The developer shall provide the two (2) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) criteria as follows: 1. Provide vehicular access to the future mixed use subdistrict to the north as shown on the PUD Master Plan, in the form of a non - exclusive access easement to the adjacent property owner /developer to the North, conveyed prior to issuance of the first building permit. 2. Provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the project and a bicycle /pedestrian interconnection to the future mixed use subdistrict to the north shown on the PUD Master Plan. Naples View RPUD — PUDZ- PL2011 -1519 Last Revised: May 3, 2012 Packet Page -1942- Page 7 of 7 6/26/2012 Item 17.A. ZGD )) Wednesday, June 6, 2012 )) N A P L E S D A I LY N E W S NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that on. TUESDAY, June 26, 2012, in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trait, 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 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 .RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) 'ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE NAPLES VIEW -RPUD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF SIXTY -SIX RESIDENTIAL .DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6900 AIRPORT ROAD NORTH IN SECTION 01, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY; FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 11 +/- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 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 pprior 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'respective 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 Tarniami 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 FRED COYLE, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: Martha Vergara,' Deputy Clerk ` (SEAL) June 6. 2012 _ No: 1950930. Packet Page -1943-