Agenda 07/10/2018 Item #9A07/10/2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item requires ex parte disclosure be provided by the Commission members. Should a hearing
be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an
Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code which includes 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 within the ST/W-4 Overlay to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD)
zoning district within the ST/W-4 Overlay, to allow for development of up to 148 single family, two
family and/or multi-family dwelling units for a project to be known as 951 Villas RPUD; and
providing an effective date. The subject property consisting of 37.5 acres is located on the east side
of Collier Boulevard approximately ½ mile north of the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and
Collier Boulevard, in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
[PL20170003535]
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (Board) review staff’s findings and
recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC)
regarding the above referenced petition, render a decision regarding this rezoning 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 subject property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard,
approximately one-half mile north of the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard, in
Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 37.5+/- acres. The
petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to
rezone property from the Rural Agriculture (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development
(RPUD) zoning district. The subject property is comprised of five parcels owned by Naples Jewish
Community Fund, Inc. This petition seeks to rezone the property to RPUD to allow for the development
of up to 148 residential dwelling units at four dwelling units per acre (DU/AC).
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 (CIE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) as
needed to maintain an 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 CCPC to analyze this petition.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The subject property is currently designated Urban-Mixed Use
District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, as identified on Future Land Use Map of the GMP. Relevant to
this petition, the Urban Residential Subdistrict provisions allows a maximum density of 4 dwelling units
per acre. Staff identified the FLUE policies relevant to this project and determined that the proposed
RPUD may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. (Please, see Attachment B - FLUE
Consistency Review.)
9.A
Packet Pg. 101
07/10/2018
Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s Traffic Impact
Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP using the 2017
Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR).
Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states,
“The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications,
conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE)
affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with
consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve
any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in
the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the
current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment
that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service
Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating st ipulations are
also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement
reveals that any of the following occur:
a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or
exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume;
b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or
exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and
c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is
equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume.
Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and
submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts
on all roadways.”
The proposed PUD petition on the subject property was reviewed based on the applicable 2017 AUIR
Inventory Report and the 10th edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual. The TIS
submitted in the application indicates that the proposed residential development will generate
approximately 148 PM peak hour two-way trips. The proposed development will impact the following
roadway segments with the listed capacities:
Roadway Link 2017
AUIR
Existing
LOS
Current Peak Hour
Peak Direction
Service
Volume/Peak
Direction
2017 AUIR
Remaining
Capacity
Collier Boulevard
(CR 951)
Immokalee Road to
Vanderbilt Beach Road
C 3,000/North 1,033
Collier Boulevard
(CR 951)
Vanderbilt Beach Road
to Golden Gate
Boulevard
B 3,000/North 1,694
Immokalee Road (CR
846)
Collier Boulevard to
Logan Boulevard
D 3,200/East 635
Vanderbilt Beach
Road (CR 862)
Collier Boulevard to
Logan Boulevard
C 3,000/East 1,208
9.A
Packet Pg. 102
07/10/2018
Based on the 2017 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the
proposed new trips for the proposed development within the 5-year planning period. Therefore, the
subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP.
Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat).
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff has found this
project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site
consists of 29.1 acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 7.3 acres (25%) of the existing native
vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County.
GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions, such as this
proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or
inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with
conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. This petition is consistent with the GMP.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC
heard petition PUDZ-PL20170003535 on June 7, 2018, and by a vote of 7 to 0 recommended to forward
this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval with stipulations The CCPC approval
recommendation was unanimous. Moreover, there was one letter of opposition with this petition. As such,
this petition will be placed on Advertised Public Hearings.
The CCPC stipulations include required changes and additions to be added to the PUD and one condition:
Exhibit B - Development Standards
Revising Footnote #3 Corner lots shall provide one (1) front yard setback within the yard that
contains the driveway/vehicular access to the dwelling unit. The secondary front yard that
does not contain the driveway/vehicular access to the dwelling unit shall provide a minimum
10-foot setback to the edge of pavement or back of curb measured from the right-of-way and
will have no overhang into the utility easement if there are any buildings adjacent to that side
setback.
Exhibit C - Master Plan
Deleting the reference of the third boundary marker sign near the optional gated entry.
Exhibit E - Deviations
Correcting references in Deviation 4 “Deviation 4 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 temporary signs or banners up to a maximum of 32
square feet in combined sign area and a maximum of 8 feet in height, subject to approval
under temporary sign permit procedures in the LDC. This deviation will remain valid for a
period of four (4) years from the date of issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a
model home within the community. At such time, the deviation will be void.”. The temporary
banner signs shall be limited to a maximum of 90 days during season defined as November 1
to April 30 per calendar year for a maximum of 3 years.”
Correcting references in Deviation 6 “Deviation 6 seeks relief from LDC Section
5.06.02.B.14, which permits one (1) boundary marker sign or monument structure at each
property corner with a maximum height of 8 feet, to allow for three two (32) boundary
marker signs as shown on the PUD Master Plan, and a maximum height of 16 10 feet.”
9.A
Packet Pg. 103
07/10/2018
Exhibit F - Developer Commitments
Adding Developer Commitment D under Section 2. Transportation “Bridges providing
pedestrian or vehicular traffic to the project will be brought to Collier County Standards by
the petitioner or its successor at time of SDP.”
Condition to be resolved before the BCC hearing: The applicant will address the future ownership and
maintenance of those bridges by the time of the BCC meeting.”
After the CCPC meeting, the applicant provided the following language to the above condition on June
18, 2018 which was incorporated into the PUD: “Unless County establishes a funding mechanism or
County otherwise agrees, owner as shown on the right-of-way permit shall own and maintain the bridges
that provide vehicular and pedestrian access to the RPUD.”
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is a site specific rezone from a Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning
District within the ST/W-4 Overlay to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District
within the ST/W-4 Overlay for a project to be known as the 951 Villas 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.
Criteria for RPUD Rezones
Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval
or not.
1. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in
relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage,
sewer, water, and other utilities.
2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or
other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to
arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such
areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense? Findings and
recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney.
3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed 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.
9.A
Packet Pg. 104
07/10/2018
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?
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.
9.A
Packet Pg. 105
07/10/2018
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.II], as
amended.
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 approved as to form and legality, and requires an affirmative vote of four for Board approval
(HFAC)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendation of the CCPC, which is reflected in the
attached Ordinance and recommends that the Board approve the applicant’s request to rezone to the
RPUD zoning district.
Prepared by: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Division
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Staff Report-PUDZ-PL20170003535-951 Villas RPUD (PDF)
2. Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061818 - Attachment A (PDF)
3. FLUE Consistency Memo - Attachment B (PDF)
4. NIM Materials - Attachment C (PDF)
5. [Linked] Back Up Material 951 Villas RPUD (PDF)
6. Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (PDF)
7. Legal Ad - Agenda ID #5602 (PDF)
9.A
Packet Pg. 106
07/10/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 9.A
Doc ID: 5602
Item Summary: This item requires ex parte disclosure be provided by the Commission members.
Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code which includes 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 within the
ST/W-4 Overlay to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district within the ST/W -4
Overlay, to allow for development of up to 148 single family, two family and/or multi-family dwelling
units for a project to be known as 951 Villas RPUD; and providing an effective date. The subject property
consisting of 37.5 acres is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard approximately ½ mile north of the
intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard, in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range
26 East, Collier County, Florida. [PL20170003535]
Meeting Date: 07/10/2018
Prepared by:
Title: – Zoning
Name: Tim Finn
06/12/2018 1:16 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning
Name: Michael Bosi
06/12/2018 1:16 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Reviewer Completed 06/12/2018 4:07 PM
Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 06/13/2018 10:53 AM
Zoning Michael Bosi Additional Reviewer Completed 06/15/2018 9:08 AM
County Attorney's Office Heidi Ashton-Cicko Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 06/18/2018 1:39 PM
Growth Management Department Thaddeus Cohen Department Head Review Completed 06/18/2018 2:18 PM
Growth Management Department James C French Deputy Department Head Review Completed 06/19/2018 4:31 PM
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 06/19/2018 4:51 PM
Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 06/20/2018 3:50 PM
Budget and Management Office Mark Isackson Additional Reviewer Completed 06/27/2018 9:42 AM
County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 06/30/2018 11:20 AM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 07/10/2018 9:00 AM
9.A
Packet Pg. 107
AGENDA ITEM 9-D
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDZ-PL20170003535-951 Villas RPUD (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.1Packet Pg. 109Attachment: Staff Report-PUDZ-PL20170003535-951 Villas RPUD (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDZ-PL20170003535-951 Villas RPUD (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDZ-PL20170003535-951 Villas RPUD (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDZ-PL20170003535-951 Villas RPUD (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDZ-PL20170003535-951 Villas RPUD (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDZ-PL20170003535-951 Villas RPUD (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDZ-PL20170003535-951 Villas RPUD (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDZ-PL20170003535-951 Villas RPUD (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDZ-PL20170003535-951 Villas RPUD (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDZ-PL20170003535-951 Villas RPUD (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDZ-PL20170003535-951 Villas RPUD (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDZ-PL20170003535-951 Villas RPUD (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDZ-PL20170003535-951 Villas RPUD (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDZ-PL20170003535-951 Villas RPUD (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDZ-PL20170003535-951 Villas RPUD (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDZ-PL20170003535-951 Villas RPUD (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDZ-PL20170003535-951 Villas RPUD (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDZ-PL20170003535-951 Villas RPUD (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDZ-PL20170003535-951 Villas RPUD (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.1
Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDZ-PL20170003535-951 Villas RPUD (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061818 - Attachment A (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061818 - Attachment A (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061818 - Attachment A (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061818 - Attachment A (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061818 - Attachment A (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061818 - Attachment A (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061818 - Attachment A (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061818 - Attachment A (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061818 - Attachment A (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061818 - Attachment A (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061818 - Attachment A (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.2
Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061818 - Attachment A (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.3
Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: FLUE Consistency Memo - Attachment B (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.3
Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: FLUE Consistency Memo - Attachment B (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4Packet Pg. 151Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4Packet Pg. 152Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.4
Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: NIM Materials - Attachment C (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
Dear Collier County Planning Commission
As concerned citizens of Collier County and representatives of the Bristol Pines
Community we oppose the rezoning of PL20170003535. We respectfully ask that the
zoning classification remain Rural Agricultural for what we hope you will find to be
compelling reasons outlined below.
DENSITY
North Naples, the Urban Estates, and the Rural Estates have experienced rapid growth
as evidenced by the multitude of ongoing developments. (Source: Collier County
Commercial and Industrial Inventory 2014) Not only are these areas some of the
densest areas in the county, they are projected to each have double the population of
the City of Naples by 2029 (Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section
May 26, 2017) This increased density is particularly pronounced along the Collier Blvd
corridor, in-between Vanderbilt Beach Rd and Immokalee Rd, with many lots already
under development.
COMMUNITIES OBJECTION
Many of the people who will be directly impacted by the planned Toll Brothers
development do no support the rezoning. We have collected signatures in person an
online to illustrate to this Commission the degree of discontent. Concerns include noise
pollution, damages to existing structures from planned blasting, displacement of wildlife,
traffic congestion, etc. (See attached signatures, 168 hand written and another 165
collected online through change.org)
POTENTIAL PARK
We ask that this change be rejected, not because we are anti-growth but because we
are enthusiastic supporters of smart, planned city development. It is our belief that what
our community really needs is a large park within a reasonable walking or biking
distance from the densest areas of Urban Estates, and the Rural Estates, which would
also help alleviate congestion from North Naples Regional Park.
We understand that declining the RPUD application does not guarantee a park,
however we have reached out to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and they
agree with our belief that this land is ideal for a new park. The advisory board has
explicitly tasked the Parks and Recreation Department with approaching the owner of
this land. For reference we have also include the documents we prepared for the
PARAB to demonstrate that the land in question would be well suited for a park.
Thank you for your consideration,
Yadira Jerez & Michael Garito
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
GOODLETTE RD NVANDERBILT DRLIVINGSTON RD AIRPORT PULLING RD NPINE RIDG E RDOLD US 41LIVINGSTON RD SLIVINGSTON RDGULF SHORE DR111TH AVE N
BONITA BEACH RD
WIGGINS PASS RD
BLUEBILL AVE
SEAGATE DR
VANDERBILT BEACH RD RAMPIMMOKALEE RD
VANDERBILT BEACH RD
TAMIAMI TRAIL NVANDERBILT DRBONITA BEACH RD
£¤
£¤
£¤AIRPORT PULLING RD NGOODLETTERD8982
88 87
172
115
94
84
79
77
113
96
139
169
163
73
116
170
78
114
117
129
76
171
86
90
98
164
99
81
131
53
144
95
121
125148
128
147
376
161
141
377
159
136
375
123
135
44 122
93
143 112
85
151
132
91
140
158
41
157
42138
43
130
175
119
109 105
120
168
160137142
40 39162108 104
107 103
101
158.1127
97
12675
52106
1 0 0
119.1
3817674102
11837168.1
16592133
80
83
134
C O M M E R C I A L A N D I N D U S T R I A L I N V E N T O R Y 2 0 1 4COMMERCIAL A N D I N D U S T R I A L I N V E N T O R Y 2 0 1 4
(N O R T H N A P L E S P L A N N I N G C O M M U N I T Y )(N O R T H N A P L E S P L A N N I N G C O M M U N I T Y )
0 1 20.5
Miles
GIS MAPPING: BETH YANG, AICP
OPERATIONS DEPT. /GMD
sGULFOFMEXICO LEE COUNTY
41
41
41
§¨¦75
LEGEND
ZONING CATEGORY
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
INDUSTRIAL
ESTATES
RESIDENTIAL
PLANNING COMMUNITY
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE
PAO LAND USE
CITY
PUDs
CONSERVATION
AGRICULTURAL
GOLF COURSE
COMMUNITY FACILITY
MOBILE HOME
PUBLIC USE
COMMERCIAL CONDO
IMPROVED COMMERCIAL
IMPROVED INDUSTRIAL
VACANT COMMERCIAL
VACANT INDUSTRIAL
INDUSTRIAL CONDO
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
IMMOKALEE RD
LIVINGSTON RD VANDERBILT BEACH RD
GREEN BLVD
GOLDEN GATE BLVD W
PINE RIDGE RD EXTLOGAN BLVD NLOGAN BLVD SLIVINGSTON RDI 75COLLIER BLVDPINE RIDGE RD
§¨¦
§¨¦
§¨¦COLLIER BLVD403.1
220 219
191
372
373
403.2
177
183
182
185
181
221
241
368 403
178
366
240
370
369
367
186
195
180
365
158
218
238
184
157
159
187 179
188
239
371
161
376
375
229
377
232194
160
374
190
172
170
171
158.1
94
168163 199
86
206
169 19785189190.1168.1 402.287
207
205
203402162200
204
195.1
241.1
202
238.2
2 0 0 .1
205.1
217
C O M M E R C I A L A N D I N D U S T R I A L I N V E N T O R Y 2 0 1 4COMMERCIAL A N D I N D U S T R I A L I N V E N T O R Y 2 0 1 4
(U R B A N E S T A T E S P L A N N I N G C O M M U N I T Y )(U R B A N E S T A T E S P L A N N I N G C O M M U N I T Y )
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
GIS MAPPING: BETH YANG, AICP
OPERATIONS DEPT. /GMD
s
LEE COUNTY
41
75
75
75
LEGEND
ZONING CATEGORY
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
INDUSTRIAL
ESTATES
RESIDENTIAL
PLANNING COMMUNITY
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE
PAO LAND USE
CITY
PUDs
CONSERVATION
AGRICULTURAL
GOLF COURSE
COMMUNITY FACIL ITY
MOBILE HOME
PUBLIC USE
COMMERCIAL CONDO
IMPROVED COMMERCIAL
IMPROVED INDUSTRIAL
VACANT COMMERCIAL
VACANT INDUSTRIAL
INDUSTRIAL CONDO
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
VANDERBILT BEACH RD
GOLDEN GATE BLVD W WILSON BLVD NWILSON BLVD NCR 858
COLLIER BLVDCOLLIER BLVDCOLLIER BLVDI-75 EVERGLADES BLVDDESOTO BLVDIMMO KALEE RD
IMMOKALEE RD§¨¦
222
401
356
223
390
354
391
397
400
396
394
386.3
392
217
225
402
393
215
216
237
402.2
389
398
403.1
399
234
220 219
213
390.2
214
395
401.1
236
388.2
224
400.1
227.2
245
235
403.2
212221
360
228
241
403
358
240
229
238
218
232
218.1
238.1
231
227
392.1
239
230
223.2
177
228.1
390.1
229.1
230.1
360.1
392.3
358.1
178
179
191
366
227.1
180
367
365
386.2208
392.2
223.1
252
251
402.1
224.1
233 400.22042032092 0 6 225.1391.1393.1
241.1
205
238.2
205.1
C O M M E R C I A L A N D I N D U S T R I A L I N V E N T O R Y 2 0 1 4COMMERCIAL A N D I N D U S T R I A L I N V E N T O R Y 2 0 1 4
(R U R A L E S T A T E S P L A N N I N G C O M M U N I T Y )(R U R A L E S T A T E S P L A N N I N G C O M M U N I T Y )
0 1 20.5
Miles
GIS MAPPING: BETH YANG, AICP
OPERATIONS DEPT. /GMDs
LEE COUNTY
75
75
LEGEND
ZONING CATEGORY
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
INDUSTRIAL
ESTATES
RESIDENTIAL
PLANNING COMMUNITY
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONE
PAO LAND USE
CITY
PUDs
CONSERVATION
AGRICULTURAL
GOLF COURSE
COMMUNITY FACILITY
MOBILE HOME
PUBLIC USE
COMMERCIAL CONDO
IMPROVED COMMERCIAL
IMPROVED INDUSTRIAL
VACANT COMMERCIAL
VACANT INDUSTRIAL
INDUSTRIAL CONDO
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
Planning Community October
COLLIER COUNTY PERMANENT POPULATION ESTIMATES and PROJECTIONS October 1st 2000 & 2010 - 2029 By Planning Community and City
estimates estimates estimates estimates estimates estimates estimates projections projections projections projections projections projections projections projections projections projections projections projections projections projections
Planning Community 2000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
NN - North Naples 48,857 55,105 55,442 55,934 56,257 56,561 57,052 57,710 58,451 59,208 59,981 60,708 61,388 62,081 62,786 63,505 64,155 64,736 65,325 65,923 66,530
SN - South Naples 22,020 28,859 29,490 30,269 30,829 32,037 33,318 33,840 34,262 34,693 35,132 35,546 35,933 36,328 36,729 37,138 37,508 37,839 38,174 38,514 38,860
CN - Central Naples 18,604 18,856 18,917 18,994 19,059 19,146 19,253 19,421 19,647 19,877 20,113 20,334 20,541 20,752 20,967 21,185 21,383 21,560 21,739 21,921 22,106
EN - East Naples 24,472 22,322 22,340 22,370 22,390 22,540 22,818 23,074 23,317 23,566 23,819 24,058 24,281 24,508 24,739 24,975 25,188 25,379 25,572 25,768 25,967
GG - Golden Gate 36,590 44,963 45,142 45,351 45,454 45,498 45,523 45,557 45,592 45,629 45,666 45,701 45,734 45,767 45,801 45,836 45,867 45,895 45,924 45,953 45,982
UE - Urban Estates 17,854 38,744 39,157 39,784 40,480 41,594 43,058 44,463 45,795 47,155 48,544 49,852 51,074 52,319 53,587 54,878 56,047 57,091 58,151 59,226 60,316
RE - Rural Estates 19,917 34,760 34,861 35,015 35,141 35,337 35,753 36,680 38,005 39,358 40,740 42,040 43,256 44,494 45,755 47,039 48,203 49,241 50,294 51,364 52,449
M - Marco 1,358 1,221 1,223 1,226 1,263 1,319 1,476 1,774 2,100 2,434 2,774 3,095 3,394 3,699 4,010 4,326 4,613 4,869 5,128 5,392 5,659
RF - Royal Fakapalm 8,127 12,001 12,667 13,494 14,126 14,859 15,741 16,502 17,203 17,918 18,649 19,336 19,979 20,634 21,301 21,980 22,595 23,144 23,701 24,266 24,840
C - Corkscrew 1,114 4,962 6,372 7,804 8,614 9,679 10,927 12,075 13,266 14,483 15,726 16,895 17,988 19,102 20,236 21,391 22,437 23,370 24,318 25,279 26,255
I - Im m o k a l e e 22,032 24,303 24,569 24,745 24,819 24,868 24,954 25,082 25,242 25,406 25,574 25,731 25,878 26,028 26,181 26,336 26,477 26,603 26,731 26,860 26,992
BC - Big Cypress 194 233 235 238 239 240 241 242 243 243 244 245 246 246 247 248 249 249 250 251 251
Unincorporated SUM 221,139 286,328 290,414 295,223 298,670 303,679 310,112 316,420 323,124 329,970 336,961 343,541 349,692 355,957 362,338 368,836 374,722 379,976 385,307 390,717 396,207
estimates estimates estimates estimates estimates estimates estimates projections projections projections projections projections projections projections projections projections projections projections projections projections projections
Cities 2000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029
Everglades City 484 403 404 405 409 418 430 434 437 440 443 447 450 454 457 460 464 467 471 474 478
Marco Island 14,973 16,428 16,482 16,539 16,582 16,668 16,829 16,963 17,028 17,093 17,158 17,239 17,338 17,436 17,534 17,633 17,728 17,819 17,910 18,001 18,092
Naples 21,332 19,494 19,518 19,590 19,563 19,529 19,632 19,903 20,237 20,571 20,905 21,239 21,573 21,906 22,240 22,574 22,908 23,242 23,576 23,910 24,244
Incorporated SUM 36,788 36,325 36,403 36,533 36,553 36,614 36,890 37,299 37,701 38,103 38,506 38,925 39,360 39,796 40,232 40,667 41,100 41,528 41,957 42,385 42,814
COUNTYWIDE TOTAL 257,926 322,653 326,817 331,756 335,223 340,293 347,002 353,719 360,825 368,073 375,467 382,465 389,053 395,753 402,569 409,503 415,822 421,504 427,264 433,102 439,021
notes:
1) These estimates and projections are based upon the spreadsheet of permanent population prepared for April 1, 2000 and 2010-2030.
2) Estimates and projections are derived from data obtained from: 2000 Census and 2010 Census; Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) population bulletins; Collier County Comprehensive Planning staff; and, Planning staff from Naples and Marco Island.
3) Some of the Totals may not equal the sum of the individual figures due to rounding.
Prepared by Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section May 26, 2017.
F:\Marcia's Memos & Documents\WEB Updates\POP\website 2017 pop E&P Oct. PC by-dw/5-2017
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas
9.A.6Packet Pg. 188Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas
9.A.6Packet Pg. 189Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas
Change.org signatories
Name City State Postal Code Country Signed On
Michael Garito Naples FL US 2018-03-15
Yadira Jerez Naples FL 34120 US 2018-03-15
Darren Moore Naples FL 34109 US 2018-03-15
Jose Perez Pompano Beach FL 33068 US 2018-03-15
Dan Bradford Tampa FL 33622 US 2018-03-15
Maxcie Diaz Brooklyn NY 11237 US 2018-03-15
Susan John Naples FL 34119 US 2018-03-15
Cole Singler Naples FL 33860 US 2018-03-15
Rosmarie Strother Naples FL 34119 US 2018-03-15
Jan Hughes Naples FL 34119 US 2018-03-15
angela Matragrano Naples FL 34120 US 2018-03-15
Dianne Haaga Naples FL 29626 US 2018-03-15
Paul Caricato Naples FL 34119 US 2018-03-15
bob Sanchez Houston FL 77002 US 2018-03-15
Mandy Smith US 2018-03-15
Rosemarie Washeim Omaha NE 68144 US 2018-03-15
Kristin Peras Naples FL 34119 US 2018-03-16
Carolyn Ferraro Naples FL 34119 US 2018-03-16
Carole Aurilio Naples FL 34109 US 2018-03-16
Danielle Byers Naples FL 34119 US 2018-03-16
Susan Bischoff Naples FL 34120 US 2018-03-16
Kate Clinton Naples FL 34120 US 2018-03-16
Carol Goldberg Naples FL 34120 US 2018-03-16
Lisa Hoppensteadt Naples FL 34108 US 2018-03-16
Naida Kent Hollywood FL 33025 US 2018-03-16
Mary Nocera Naples FL 34104 US 2018-03-16
Jim Filiberto Naples FL 34109 US 2018-03-17
Kelley Simone Wayne NJ 7470 US 2018-03-17
Carrie Strickland Naples FL 34116 US 2018-03-17
Jane Dean Naples FL 34120 US 2018-03-17
George Messeha Naples FL 34109 US 2018-03-17
Richard Portno Naples FL 34119 US 2018-03-17
Cassie Bliss Naples FL 34120 US 2018-03-17
1
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
Maricela Chacon Naples FL 34120 US 2018-03-18
Belinda Maldonado Naples FL 34117 US 2018-03-18
Nadiuska Agramonte Naples FL 34117 US 2018-03-18
Cary Rojas Naples FL 34120 US 2018-03-18
Jayliz Duran Brooklyn NY 11233 US 2018-03-18
Riham Saleeb Naples FL 34109 US 2018-03-18
Eddie Bliss Naples FL 34120 US 2018-03-18
Caterina Vega Naples FL 34119 US 2018-03-18
milady lozano Fort Lauderdale FL 33323 US 2018-03-18
Luis Soto Naples FL 34105 US 2018-03-18
WILLIAM GARCIA Naples FL 34120 US 2018-03-18
Juan Garcia Naples FL 34120 US 2018-03-18
Brandy Rosado Naples FL 34116 US 2018-03-18
Amy Levitre Naples FL 34117 US 2018-03-18
Loei Schena Cupertino CA 95014 US 2018-03-18
Michele D'Anniballe Naples FL 34120 US 2018-03-18
Jo-Anne Silva Naples FL 34119 US 2018-03-18
Diane Burkett Naples FL 34119 US 2018-03-18
Kerry Hutchinson Naples FL 34119 US 2018-03-18
Judy Burris Naples FL 34119 US 2018-03-18
Mikhail Mikhailidi Naples MA 34119 US 2018-03-18
Dawn Osterweil Naples FL 34119 US 2018-03-18
Gina Ardezzone Naples FL 34120 US 2018-03-18
Daniel Bush Naples FL 34119 US 2018-03-19
Judith Perna US 2018-03-19
Michelle Nowak Naples FL 34119 US 2018-03-19
Matthew Collins Naples FL 34117 US 2018-03-19
Taylor Collins Gainesville FL 32601 US 2018-03-20
Laurie Zimmer Naples FL 34119 US 2018-03-20
McKenzie Kirby Naples FL 34114 US 2018-03-20
Eunice Bennett Bartow FL 33830 US 2018-03-20
Anthony Ferraro Naples FL 34119 US 2018-03-21
Kristy Wright Lakeland FL 33803 US 2018-03-21
Lorene Odonnell Miami FL 33142 US 2018-03-21
Spencer Rigsby Bonita Springs FL 34134 US 2018-03-21
2
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
Mark Simmons Naples FL 34119 US 2018-03-22
Shadi Burke Clearwater FL 33755 US 2018-03-23
Jacob Gallman Bartow FL 33830 US 2018-03-23
Gabrielle Healey Lakeland 33804 US 2018-03-23
Anslee Healey Decatur GA 30032 US 2018-03-23
Mistie Healey Bartow FL 33830 US 2018-03-23
Fara Singer Naples FL 34119 US 2018-03-23
Rose E Naples FL 34109 US 2018-03-23
Cathy Jones Naples FL 34112 US 2018-03-24
Barbara Chiarizia Naples FL 34120 US 2018-03-25
janet chow Naples FL 34105 US 2018-03-26
Rich Grove Naples FL 34109 US 2018-03-26
frank Tirico Naples FL 34109 US 2018-03-27
wesley brockman US 2018-03-27
Stephen Cronin Naples FL 34120 US 2018-03-28
Todd Johnston Naples FL 34119 US 2018-03-29
Eric Fleetham Naples FL 34119 US 2018-03-29
Donna Stovall US 2018-04-01
Tamberly Schultz Naples FL 34119 US 2018-04-03
Ben puglise Naples FL 34119 US 2018-04-07
Marc Strzodka Naples FL 34119 US 2018-04-25
Jason Lawrence Indianapolis IN 46236 US 2018-04-25
Jeffrey Ferguson Zionsville IN 46077 US 2018-04-25
Jonathan Russo Naples FL 34119 US 2018-04-25
Neale Bedrock Naples FL 341119 US 2018-04-25
Natalie Marsala North Fort Myers FL 33903 US 2018-04-25
Jenny Torres Naples FL 34119 US 2018-04-25
George Ring Naples FL 34117 US 2018-04-25
Kimberly Haskins Naples FL 34119 US 2018-04-25
Esther Garfield Naples FL 34119 US 2018-04-25
Michele Klauber Naples FL 34119 US 2018-04-25
Victoria Vavricka Naples FL 34104 US 2018-04-25
Thomas Dulay Riverview FL 33578 US 2018-04-25
Jennifer Gross Naples FL 34105 US 2018-04-25
Judy Christenson Naples FL 34119 US 2018-04-25
3
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
Elaine Petrella Naples FL 34120 US 2018-04-25
Robert Loperfido Naples FL 34104 US 2018-04-25
Scott Riddle Bonita Springs FL 34135 US 2018-04-25
Steve Jacky Bonita Springs FL 34135 US 2018-04-25
Donna Charbonneau Naples FL 34119 US 2018-04-25
Stacey Kaplon Naples FL 34119 US 2018-04-25
Melissa Ramos Raynham MA 2767 US 2018-04-25
Gaile Loperfido Lake Worth FL 33463 US 2018-04-25
Daniela Russo Naples FL 34105 US 2018-04-25
Kim Durston Naples FL 34119 US 2018-04-25
Adam May Estero FL 33928 US 2018-04-25
Gunnar Myhre Naples FL 34109 US 2018-04-26
Brooke Peyton Naples FL 34110 US 2018-04-26
Janae Zaks Riverview FL 33578 US 2018-04-26
Megan Mulholland US 2018-04-26
Jesus Luna Naples FL 34120 US 2018-04-26
Cyndi Dentinger Elgin IL 60120 US 2018-04-26
Jasminet Pathak Naples FL 34119 US 2018-04-26
Ross Moes Holland MI 49424 US 2018-04-26
Tom Herbert Naples FL 34109 US 2018-04-26
Denisse Nenninger Naples FL 34117 US 2018-04-26
Maristella Gallicchio Naples FL 34119 US 2018-04-26
Anabel Rodriguez Naples FL 34109 US 2018-04-26
Dorothy Whipple Naples FL 34119 US 2018-04-26
Suzanne Charbonneau Arbedo Switzerland2018-04-26
Patricia Marinari Naples FL 34104 US 2018-04-26
Sandra Birner Naples FL 34119 US 2018-04-26
Scott Boxwell Naples FL 34109 US 2018-04-26
Susan McLean Naples FL 34119 US 2018-04-26
Lisa Prasad Naples FL 34119 US 2018-04-26
Lis voce long beach NY 11561 US 2018-04-26
Peter Everts Naples FL 34116 US 2018-04-26
Michael King Naples FL 34101 US 2018-04-26
Katie Yeager High Point NC 27265 US 2018-04-26
Ann Usherwood Fort Myers FL 33907 US 2018-04-26
4
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
Carol Menendez Naples FL 34116 US 2018-04-26
Laura Westbrook Naples FL 34119 US 2018-04-26
Shawn Avirett Naples FL 34116 US 2018-04-26
Riane Ridge Naples FL 34117 US 2018-04-26
Hanna Kallstrom Naples FL 34119 US 2018-04-26
Jennifer Wolf Naples FL 34116 US 2018-04-26
Renee Nesbit Naples FL 34119 US 2018-04-26
Max Guerra Naples FL 34117 US 2018-04-27
Keriann Pereira Naples FL 34119 US 2018-04-28
Tracie Dombrowski Naples FL 34109 US 2018-04-29
Teresa Bogan Naples FL 34109 US 2018-04-30
Charles Santana Naples FL 34119 US 2018-04-30
joe thompson US 2018-05-09
Liam Slivka US 2018-05-14
Taylor Town US 2018-05-15
Jorge Reyes Naples FL 34120 US 2018-05-20
Marcos Blanco Naples FL 34119 US 2018-05-20
Vanessa Reyes Blanco Naples FL 34120 US 2018-05-20
Iris Reyes Naples FL 34116 US 2018-05-20
Fallon Nelson Queens NY 11361 US 2018-05-20
Kaleena Figaro North Naples FL 34119 US 2018-05-21
Olga Blanco Naples FL 34119 US 2018-05-23
ERIKA White US 2018-05-25
Penny Donnelly US 2018-05-25
Kent Long US 2018-05-27
David Archibald US 2018-05-27
Deborah Craft Naples FL 34105 US 2018-05-30
5
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas
9.A.6
Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Opposition Letter with Signatures from Bristol Pines Community - 6-7-18 (5602 : 951 Villas
9.A.7
Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Legal Ad - Agenda ID #5602 (5602 : 951 Villas RPUD (PUDZ))
951 Villas
PUDZ-PL2017-0003535
CCPC Package
PUD REZONE APPLICATION
WITH EVALUATION CRITERIA
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
10/15/2017 Page 1 of 14
Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone, Amendment to PUD or
PUD to PUD Rezone
PETITION NO
PROJECT NAME
DATE PROCESSED
PUD Rezone (PUDZ): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F., Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code
Amendment to PUD (PUDA): LDC subsection 10.02.13 E. and Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative
Code
PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDR): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F.
APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION
Name of Property Owner(s)______________________________________________________
Address: _____________________________ City: ___________ State: ________ ZIP: _______
Telephone: ___________________ Cell: ____________________ Fax: ____________________
E-Mail Address: ________________________________________________________________
Name of Applicant/Agent: _______________________________________________________
Firm: _________________________________________________________________________
Address: _____________________________ City: ___________ State: ________ ZIP: _______
Telephone: __________________ Cell: _____________________ Fax: ____________________
E-Mail Address: ________________________________________________________________
Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that
you are in compliance with these regulations.
To be completed by staff
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
10/15/2017 Page 2 of 14
REZONE REQUEST
This application is requesting a rezone from: _________________________ Zoning district(s) to the
________________________________ zoning district(s).
Present Use of the Property: _________________________________________________________
Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: _________________________________________
Original PUD Name: ________________________________________________________________
Ordinance No.: ____________________________________________________________________
PROPERTY INFORMATION
On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a detailed legal description of the property
covered by the application:
If the request involves changes to more than one zoning district, the applicant shall include a
separate legal description for property involved in each district;
The applicant shall submit 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; and
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: / /
Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________
Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________
Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________
Size of Property: _______ ft. x _______ ft. = ________ Total Sq. Ft. Acres: _________
Address/ General Location of Subject Property: __________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________
PUD District (refer to LDC subsection 2.03.06 C):
Commercial Residential Community Facilities Industrial
Mixed Use Other: ________________
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
10/15/2017 Page 3 of 14
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE
Zoning Land Use
N
S
E
W
If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal
description of the entire contiguous property on a separate sheet attached to the application.
Section/Township/Range: / /
Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________
Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________
Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________
ASSOCIATIONS
Required: List all registered Home Owner 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://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=774.
Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______
Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______
Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______
Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______
Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________
Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
10/15/2017 Page 4 of 14
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 B, 10.02.08 F and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative 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. On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a narrative statement
describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria below. Include any backup
materials and documentation in support of the request.
a. 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.
b. 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 pu blic expense. Findings and
recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney.
c. 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.)
d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which c onditions may include
restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening
requirements.
e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available
improvements and facilities, both public and private.
g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
h. 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.
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 asce rtain whether or not the
request is affected by existing deed restrictions.
951 Villas RPUD PL20170003535
Evaluation Criteria
Page 1 of 5
951 VILLAS RPUD
EVALUATION CRITERIA
PUD REZONE CONSIDERATIONS (LDC SECTION 10.02.13.B)
REVISED FEBRUARY 2018
a. 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 951 Villas RPUD (“Property”) is located in an area of existing and planned urban
development within the County’s Urban-designated area. The Property is an infill development
ideally located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict. 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 Growth Management Plan, the base density for the
subject property is four (4) dwelling units per acre. Therefore, the proposed density of 4 du/acre
in entirely consistent with the intended use of the Property.
The Vanderbilt Country Club RPUD abuts the property to the south and east, and is approved for
a mix of single-family and multi-family residential uses at a density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre.
To the north of the Property is Bristol Pines RPUD, which has a base density of four (4) dwelling
units per acre and an additional three (3) bonus density units per acre per their Affordable
Housing Density Bonus Agreement, for a total density of 7 du/acre. The proposed density of the
Property at four (4) dwelling units per acre is entirely comptaible with surrounding densities.
From a design standpoint, the portion of the Vanderbilt Countyr Club RPUD abutting the
Property’s eastern boundary consists of multi-family dwelling units, thereby providing for a
transition of density from the the denser Collier Boulevard frontage to the lower densities in the
eastern portions of the Vanderbilt Country Club RPUD. The preserve area is also located along
the southern and eastern boundaries to ensure compatibility with surrounding lands. The
residential uses, along with the proferred development standards and perimeter buffers, will
ensure compatibility and screening between projects.
Necessary educational facilities exist in the immediate area, and include: Laurel Oak Elementary,
Oakridge Middle School, and Gulf Coast High School. Bus transportation is proved by Collier
Area Transit (CAT) via Route 27, with a bus stop located approximately one (1) mile north of the
property at the intersection of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951.).
The Greater Naples Fire Rescue Headquarters and Greater Naples Fire Rescue Station #73
are located less than 0.5 of a mile south of the Property, to the west of Collier Boulevard. The
Naples Community Hospital Healthcare Emergency Department is located approximately 1.5
miles to the north of the Property.
In terms of traffic, the subject property will be accessed via Collier Boulevard, as depicted on the
RPUD Master Plan in the PUD document. As outlined in the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS)
951 Villas RPUD PL20170003535
Evaluation Criteria
Page 2 of 5
prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, Collier Boulevard is shown to have adequate
capacity under the projected traffic conditions to serve the project.
The Property is located within the Collier County Water-Sewer District’s (CCWSD) service
area and water and wastewater service are readily available via existing facilities. Water
service is available via an existing 24” water main running along the west side of Collier
Boulevard. Wastewater service is available via an existing 16” force main running along the
east side of Collier Boulevard. A statement of availability from the Collier County Public
Utilities Departments is enclosed as part of this application.
Based upon the nature of surrounding uses, the established development pattern along Collier
Boulevard, and the existing levels of public infrastructure to service the proposed RPUD, the
Property is suitable for the development of a residential community as proposed through this
application. Moreover, the density proposed by the project will ensure the existing land area
within the County’s Urban-designated is not underutilized from a public infrastructure standpoint,
thereby upholding sound planning principles.
b. 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 Jewish Community Fund, Inc., who has
authorized Toll Brothers, Inc. to file this application, as demonstrated by the Covenant of Unified
Control included in the PUDZ application.
c. 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.)
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
Policy 5.2: All applications and petitions for proposed development shall be consistent with
this Growth Management Plan, as determined by the Board of County Commissioners.
The RPUD is consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth
Management Plan (GMP) as follows:
Policy 5.3: Discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl in order to minimize the cost of
community facilities by: confining urban intensity development to areas designated as Urban on
the Future Land Use Map; requiring that any additions to the Urban Designated Areas be
contiguous to an existing Urban Area boundary; and, encouraging the use of creative land use
planning techniques and innovative approaches to development in the County’s
Agricultural/Rural designated area, which will better serve to protect environmentally sensitive
areas, maintain the economic viability of agriculture and other predominantly rural land uses, and
provide for cost efficient delivery of public facilities and services.
951 Villas RPUD PL20170003535
Evaluation Criteria
Page 3 of 5
The RPUD is located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map, which
permits a maximum allowable density of 4 dwelling units per acre per the Growth Management
Plan. The proposed RPUD represents a compact, infill development project, located in an urban
area of the County, and in proximity to existing and available public infrastructure. The site is
contiguous with existing urban development and an arterial level roadway to the north, south,
east and west. The proposed residential uses and design standards will be compatible with
existing and approved uses surrounding the project, while efficiently utilizing available urban
lands with adequate public infrastructure to supply the demand for new housing stock in Collier
County. The proposed density of 4 du/acre is consistent with the allowable density per the GMP.
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 RPUD will be accessed via Collier Boulevard, an arterial level roadway, which is in direct
compliance with this policy.
Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce
vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals.
The proposed PUD Master Plan proposes an internal loop road connecting the site to Collier
Blvd. The enclosed TIS demonstrates a traffic signal is not warranted by the project.
Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets
and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of
land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in
Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element.
The RPUD will provide 5’ wide sidewalks along internal rights-of-way that provides a pedestrian
connection to the 10’ wide multi-use pathway system on Collier Blvd. The northern-most bridge
will be converted to a pedestrian promenade following construction and provide pedestrian
access to the Collier Boulevard travel lanes. Due to the build-out of all adjacent communities to
the north, south and east, a direct interconnection to adjoining neighborhoods is not possible.
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.
This RPUD proposes sidewalks on both sides of internal road in order to provide residents with a
walkable community. The sidewalk system will connect to internal amenities and the sidewalk
system along Collier Blvd.
CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
The RPUD is consistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of
the Growth Management Plan (GMP) as follows:
951 Villas RPUD PL20170003535
Evaluation Criteria
Page 4 of 5
Policy 6.1.1.: Native Preservation
The site contains 29.1 acres of native vegetation; therefore, the native vegetation requirement is
7.3 acres, or 25% of the site per LDC Section 3.05.07. 7.3 acres of on-site preserve area is
provided in the project along the southern and eastern portions of the site, in full compliance
with the GMP and LDC.
In accordance with LDC 3.05.07.A.3, the 7.3-acre preserve is a large contiguous area, and is
adjacent to a Conservation Easement within the Vanderbilt Pines Community to the south, as
well as open space/preserve in the Bristol Pines Community to the east. The proposed preserve
meets the intent of the GMP and LDC to create large, contiguous tracts of native habitat that can
connect to off-site native areas.
d. 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.
The RPUD proposes a range of residential uses as described in this application. These uses are
compatible with the proposed townhouse dwelling units in Bristol Pines to the north and east; as
well as the multi-family buildings adjacent to the site in Vanderbilt Country Club. The proposed
design standards, setbacks, and building height limitations ensure the proposed development
will be conisstent with the surrounding development pattern.
The recreational area has been located internal the community, and away from the perimeter of
the project to ensure compatibility with neighboring developments.
Additionally, preserve areas have been carefully located to provide separation and screening
between proposed dwellings internal to the RPUD, and the existing homes and golf course area
in Vanderbilt Country Club. Where native vegetation does not abut the property boundaries,
buffers are provided in accordance with the LDC requirements.
e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The 951 Villas RPUD will provide 60% on-site open space in accordance with LDC
requirements. Open space will be satisfied via the recreation area, lakes, preserve area,
buffers, and other areas of pervious open space placed throughout the development.
f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available
improvements and facilities, both public and private.
As outlined in the enclosed application, all required public infrastructure is available and
adequate to service the proposed RPUD.
g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
The Property can accommodate the 148 dwelling units, as shown on the attached RPUD Master
Plan, and represents a compact infill project on the Collier Blvd. corridor. The application
demonstrates there is available public infrastructure to support the development as proposed.
The project is within the Urban designated portion of the County per the Future Land Use Map.
951 Villas RPUD PL20170003535
Evaluation Criteria
Page 5 of 5
Therefore, the project represents a logical expansion of the existing development pattern to
accommodate future growth within Collier County with the urban-designated area.
h. 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 deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC) in order to
support the infill development project. Development of the property in accordance with these
deviations will uphold the intent of the RPUD regulations and ensure design consistency,
walkability/connectivity, appropriate vehicular circulation, and the protection of public health,
safety and welfare. Further explanation and justification of the deviations are provided in Exhibit
“E”.
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
10/15/2017 Page 5 of 14
Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been
held on this property within the last year? 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.
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
This land use petition requires a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), pursuant to Chapter 3 E.
of the Administrative Code and LDC section 10.03.06. Following the NIM, the applicant will submit a
written summary and any commitments that have been made at the meeting. Refer to Chapter 8 B.
of the Administrative Code for the NIM procedural requirements.
Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing
advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the
Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately.
RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance, the owner or developer (specify name) at their 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 provided
to the Collier County Planned Unit Development Monitoring staff within 15 days of recording of said
Memorandum or Notice.
LDC subsection 10.02.08 D
This application will be considered “open” when the determination of “sufficiency” has been made
and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The application will be considered
“closed” when the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to supply
necessary information to continue processing or otherwise actively pursue the rezoning,
amendment or change, for a period of 6 months. An application deemed “closed” will not receive
further processing and an applicati on “closed” through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An
application deemed “closed” may be re-opened by submission of a new application, repayment of
all application fees and the grant of a determination of “sufficiency”. Further review of the request
will be subject to the then current code.
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
10/15/2017 Page 9 of 14
Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for:
PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code
Amendment to PUD- Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code
PUD to PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code
The following Submittal Requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting and at time
of application submittal. At final submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application
packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each
section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted.
REQUIREMENTS # OF
COPIES REQUIRED NOT
REQUIRED
Cover Letter with Narrative Statement including a detailed description of
why amendment is necessary
Completed Application with required attachments 1
Pre-application meeting notes 1
Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 1
Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1
Notarized and completed Covenant of Unified Control 1
Completed Addressing Checklist 1
Warranty Deed(s) 1
List Identifying Owner and all parties of corporation 1
Signed and sealed Boundary Survey 1
Architectural Rendering of proposed structures 1
Current Aerial Photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with
project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included
on aerial.
1
Statement of Utility Provisions 1
Environmental Data Requirements pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 1
Environmental Data Requirements collated into a single Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) packet at time of public hearings. Coordinate with
project planner at time of public hearings.
Listed or Protected Species survey, less than 12 months old. Include
copies of previous surveys. 1
Traffic Impact Study 1
Historical Survey 1
School Impact Analysis Application, if applicable 1
Electronic copy of all required documents 1
Completed Exhibits A-F (see below for additional information)+
List of requested deviations from the LDC with justification for each (this
document is separate from Exhibit E)
Revised Conceptual Master Site Plan 24” x 36”and One 8 ½” x 11” copy
Original PUD document/ordinance, and Master Plan 24” x 36” – Only if
Amending the PUD
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358
10/15/2017 Page 10 of 14
Checklist continues on this page
Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru & underlined 1
Copy of Official Interpretation and/or Zoning Verification 1
*If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing, include an additional set of each submittal
requirement
+The following exhibits are to be completed on a separate document and attached to the application packet:
Exhibit C: Master Plan- See Chapter 3 E. 1. of the Administrative Code
Exhibit D: Legal Description
Exhibit E: List of Requested LDC Deviations and justification for each
Exhibit F: List of Development Commitments
If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas
Pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.2.(b.)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239-
690-3500 for information regarding “Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan.”
PLANNERS – INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS:
School District (Residential Components): Amy
Lockheart Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Johnson
Utilities Engineering: Eric Fey Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams & David Berra
Emergency Management: Dan Summers Immokalee Water/Sewer District:
City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director Other:
ASSOCIATED FEES FOR APPLICATION
Pre-Application Meeting: $500.00
PUD Rezone: $10,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre
PUD to PUD Rezone: $8,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre
PUD Amendment: $6,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre
Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $2,250.00
Environmental Data Requirements-EIS Packet (submittal determined at pre-application
meeting): $2,500.00
Listed or Protected Species Review (when an EIS is not required): $1,000.00
Transportation Review Fees:
o Methodology Review: $500.00, to be paid directly to Transportation at the
Methodology Meeting*
*Additional fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting.
o Minor Study Review: $750.00
o Major Study Review $1,500.00
951 Villas
PUDZ-PL2017-0003535
CCPC Package
COVER LETTER/
NARRATIVE STATEMENT
951 Villas RPUD PL20170003535
Cover Letter/Request Statement
Page 1 of 4
December 8, 2017
Revised February 8, 2018
Mr. Timothy Finn, AICP
Zoning & Land Development Review Department
Community Development & Environmental Services
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
RE: 951 Villas RPUD Rezone Application
PL20170003535
Dear Mr. Finn:
Enclosed for your review is the Application for PUD rezone for the 951 Villas RPUD (“Property”), a
37.5+/- acre project located at the southwest corner of Immokalee Road and Woodcrest Drive in
unincorporated Collier County, Florida. The Property is within Section 35, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East, is zoned Rural Agricultural (“A”), and is designated within the Urban Residential
Subdistrict per the Collier County Future Land Use Map.
BACKGROUND/EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The proposed RPUD is comprised of five (5) parcels, totaling 37.5 acres. The subject property is
vacant and partially vegetated. There are two (2) existing bridges across the Henderson Creek Canal
that provide direct access from the property to Collier Boulevard. A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway
exists along the property frontage on the east side of the canal.
In terms of adjacent uses, the Vanderbilt Country Club PUD abuts the property to the south and east
and is approved for 800 units, at a gross density of 2.5 du/acre; Collier Boulevard, a 6-lane arterial
roadway, abuts the property to the east; and to the north and east of the property is the Bristol Pines
PUD, approved for 298 units, at a gross density of 7 du/acre. Summit Place is located on the west
side of Collier Boulevard, directly across from the subject property, and is developed with 394 multi-
family dwelling units at a gross density of 4 du/acre.
REQUEST:
Toll Brothers, Inc. (“Applicant”) is requesting approval of a Residential Planned Unit Development
(RPUD) rezoning to allow for the development of a residential community with associated accessory
uses. The RPUD requests a maximum of 148 dwelling units, at a density of 4 du/acre.
The Property is located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict, which allows for a range of
residential dwelling types at a base density of 4 du/acre. The Applicant is not requesting any
951 Villas RPUD PL20170003535
Cover Letter/Request Statement
Page 2 of 4
additional density via the bonus density provisions, and the application is entirely compliant with the
intent of the underlying future land use category.
The proposed density will allow for a compact and contiguous development footprint within the
County’s urbanized area, where public services and infrastructure are available to support the
project. The density is also appropriate in consideration of the surrounding residential communities,
and will be complimentary to the established neighborhoods.
The Applicant is requesting single-family, two-family, townhouse and multi-family dwelling types to
allow for flexibility to respond to changes in market demand. The proposed range of dwelling types
are appropriate as surrounding developments are predominantly multi-family, including Bristol Pines,
Summit Place, and the portion of Vanderbilt Country Club that abuts the property.
The application proposes a logical transition of land use from the slightly lower densities in the
Vanderbilt Country Club to the east and the higher density, multi-family usage along the Collier
Boulevard Road frontage. Compatibility is addressed via required perimeter buffers, the clustering of
units in the interior of the site to the extent possible, and the proposed development standards. The
preserve areas have also been sensitively located on the PUD Master Plan to screen views of the
project from the adjacent golf course lands to the south.
The requested uses and proposed development standards are attached within the proposed PUD
document. The Applicant is also requesting deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC)
requirements to allow for the requisite design flexibility for an infill site of this nature. The detailed
listing of deviations and associated justifications are included in the PUD Document as Exhibit “E”.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
Per the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by DexBender Environmental Consulting, no
state or federal listed species were observed on-site or within the Project’s vicinity. The site contains
29.1 acres of native vegetation; therefore, the on-site native vegetation requirement is 7.3 acres, or
25% of the site per LDC Section 3.05.07. Pursuant Commitment 3.A in the enclosed PUD document
and the PUD Master Plan, the Applicant is proposing on-site preserve in accordance with the LDC
requirements.
INFRASTRUCTURE:
The subject property will be accessed via Collier Boulevard, as depicted on Exhibit “C” RPUD Master
Plan in the PUD document. The northern-most existing bridge will be converted to a pedestrian-only
access point to the community, and vehicles will enter the community from the southern-most existing
bridge. During site development, the northern-most bridge will accommodate temporary construction
access to the site.
As outlined in the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, Collier
Boulevard is shown to have adequate capacity under the projected traffic conditions to serve the
951 Villas RPUD PL20170003535
Cover Letter/Request Statement
Page 3 of 4
project. The transportation commitment in Exhibit “F” of the PUD document sets forth a maximum of
148 two-way, peak hour trips for the project.
Potable water and sanitary sewer for this project will be provided by Collier County Utilities (CCU).
Utility services are available from an existing water main and force main running along Collier
Boulevard. A statement of availability from CCU is enclosed as part of this application.
CONCLUSION:
In summary, the 951 Villas RPUD is a compact, infill development project located in an urban area
of the County, and in close proximity to existing and available public infrastructure. The proposed
residential uses and design standards will be compatible with existing neighborhoods surrounding
the Project and serve as a logical extension of the development pattern along Collier Boulevard.
The proposed deviations will allow for enhanced design flexibility to develop an infill community,
while protecting public health, safety and welfare. As outlined in the attached application, the RPUD
is consistent with the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) and will serve as an overall
enhancement to the area.
Per the Pre-Application Meeting Notes, the following items are enclosed for your review:
1. A check in the amount of $17,450.00 for the PUD Rezone Application Fees;
2. A check in the amount of $1,500.00 for the Major Scale Study Transportation Fee;
3. Submittal cover letter detailing the purpose of the rezoning request;
4. Completed PUD Rezone Application including Evaluation Criteria;
5. Pre-application meeting notes;
6. Owner Affidavit;
7. Covenant of Unified Control;
8. Approved Addressing Checklist;
9. Warranty Deeds;
10. List Identifying Parties of the Corporation;
11. Boundary Survey (signed and sealed);
12. Project Aerial;
13. Utility Provisions Statement (no sketches required) and Utilities Availability Letter;
14. Environmental Report and FLUCCS Map;
15. Traffic Impact Statement (TIS);
16. School Impact Analysis Application;
17. Proposed PUD Document, Exhibits A-E;
18. List of Requested Deviations and Justifications;
19. PUD Conceptual Site Plan (24”x36”and 8.5”x11”); and
20. Entire submittal documents on CD-ROM.
951 Villas RPUD PL20170003535
Cover Letter/Request Statement
Page 4 of 4
Should you require additional information or have any questions, please feel free to contact me
directly at (239) 405-7777, extension 2207, or alexis.crespo@waldropengineering.com.
Sincerely,
WALDROP ENGINEERING, P.A.
Alexis V. Crespo, AICP, LEED AP
Vice President of Planning
Enclosures
cc: James Hepler, Toll Brothers, Inc.
Kami Corbett, Foley & Lardner, LLP
Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, P.E.
Tyler King, DexBender Environmental Consulting
951 Villas
PUDZ-PL2017-0003535
CCPC Package
DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST
951 Villas
PUDZ-PL2017-0003535
CCPC Package
EXECUTED COVENANT OF
UNIFIED CONTROL
951 Villas
PUDZ-PL2017-0003535
CCPC Package
AFFIDAVIT OF
AUTHORIZATION
951 Villas
PUDZ-PL2017-0003535
CCPC Package
NIM INFORMATION
Page 1 of 8
Memorandum
To: Timothy Finn, AICP
From: Lindsay F. Robin
cc: Jim Hepler, Chad Peterson, Kami Corbett, Norm Trebilcock & Alexis Crespo
Date: February 16, 2018
Subject: 951 Villas RPUD (FKA “Naples Villas”) - PL20170003535
Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Synopsis
Waldrop Engineering, P.A., on behalf of Toll FL XIII Limited Partnership and Collier
County Staff, conducted a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) on Monday,
February 12, 2018. The meeting was held at 5:30 p.m. at the Greater Naples Fire
Rescue at 14575 Collier Boulevard.
The sign-in sheet is attached as Exhibit “A”, and demonstrates fourteen (14) residents
were in attendance, not including the consultant team, Applicants and Staff. A
handout was distributed providing the project overview, proposed uses, and
development regulations. The handout is attached as Exhibit “B”.
Alexis Crespo (Agent) conducted the meeting with introductions of the consultant
team and Staff, and an overview of the proposed RPUD rezoning application,
including the requested residential uses, maximum allowable height, location of
preserve areas, and access. She also outlined the rezoning process and opportunities
to provide input at public hearings.
Following the Consultant’s presentation, the meeting was opened up to attendees
to make comments and ask the consultant team questions regarding the proposed
development. The following is a summarized list of the questions asked and responses
given.
Question/Comment 1: Will you be blasting or digging for the lake?
Response: Both. Blasting will be limited to central portions of the lake and will comply
with LDC blasting requirements in terms of distance of blasting from existing structures.
Question/Comment 2: What portion of this (site) is abutting Vanderbilt Country Club?
Response: (Demonstrates abutting property lines on the PUD Master Plan). The areas
shown as preserve along the southern and eastern boundary.
Page 2 of 8
Question/Comment 3: How wide is the narrowest portion of the preserve (abutting
Vanderbilt)?
Response: Approximately 120 feet (pointing to the southern boundary).
Question/Comment 4: Why is the fence optional? A fence built along the preserve
would defeat the object of connecting (habitat).
Response: The fencing is for security purposes. The preserve is connected from a
habitat standpoint.
Question/Comment 5 and 6: I spotted a bald eagle that lives here (pointing near
project site). His name is Eddie. All of this preserve space is adjacent to existing
(preserve), but why isn’t more preserve located adjacent to the existing preserve
(near Bristol Pines)?
Response: We looked at where the highest quality vegetation was, and other site
design elements as far as buffering along Collier Blvd., etc. This site plan worked best
with the county regulations (for native preserve) and what the Applicant is requesting.
Question/Comment 7: You noted it was a 25% preserve requirement by the county,
how much are you preserving?
Response: 25% of existing native vegetation is provided.
Question/Comment 8: What are these notches occurring (pointing to roadways on
PUD Master Plan)?
Response: Those are streets to units, providing access to future homes.
Question/Comment 9: You said you were considering multiple story building types,
where would the different types of dwelling types be located?
Response: They can be located on any of the “R” residential tracts.
Question/Comment 10: What is the highest the homes will be?
Response: 35 feet.
Question/Comment 11: How many stories is that?
Response: That could be a maximum of 3 stories, or more likely 2.
Question/Comment 12: Are those homes behind the roads?
Response: Yes, those will be dwelling units along the roadways.
Question/Comment 13: How many homes?
Response: 148.
Question/Comment 14: [148] individual buildings?
Response: 148 units.
Page 3 of 8
Question/Comment 15: [pointing to preserve area on map] This will be 120 feet?
Response: Correct. Certain areas will be different dimensions. We can get you the
additional dimensions.
Question/Comment 16: You are going to convert the construction access to the north
to a pedestrian access after construction, correct?
Response: That is correct.
Question/Comment 17: Are there any other investments that will be made around the
bikepath? Lighting? Trash cans? Anything?
Response: There aren’t any planned as part of this application.
Question/Comment 18: Will you be doing anything to enhance the pedestrian access
so that it can be used?
Response: We will have to get right-of-way permits, so we will work with the county
on any required updates to (pavement) markings.
Question/Comment 19: Will you be adding any street lights to the south bridge where
you plan on having your main access?
Response: There is a street light there now. The county does require lighting at the
entrance.
Question/Comment 20: Are there any construction time limits? Not before 9am? Etc.?
Response: Collier County limits that. I don’t have the code in front of me, but I believe
it is 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday, with no work permitted on Sunday.
Question/Comment 21: Do you have a date when you plan on getting started with
the construction?
Response: We do not yet. We have not submitted the construction plans yet. Typically,
(the county has a) 6 to 8 month permitting window.
Question/Comment 22: When do you expect the zoning to be completed?
Response: We submitted the application to the county, we have received one round
of comments back and we resubmitted. We still have to go back and work with staff
on any other questions, and then (public hearings before the) Collier County Planning
Commission and then the Board of County Commissioners, who are the ultimate
decision makers. If you got a notice for this meeting, you will be noticed for those
meetings as well.
Question/Comment 23: When are you thinking you are going to start breaking
ground?
Response: We don’t have a date set yet. We are working toward county approvals,
and the goal would be to start construction by the end of the year.
Page 4 of 8
Question/Comment 24: Is it going to be single-family homes? Apartments? Or?
Response: Similar to Vanderbilt and Bristol Pines, we are asking for a full range of
dwelling types. Single-family detached, single-family attached, a villa product,
townhome and multi-family.
Question/Comment 25: And the price points?
Response: We don’t establish price points through the zoning process. This is not an
affordable housing project, so it will be market rate pricing.
Question/Comment 26: Will there be any ownership? Or can an investor come and
buy half a dozen sites and rent them out? Like an Air BNB.
Response: (By Jim Hepler at Toll Brothers) We sell to owners, that is our business intent.
Question/Comment 27: You must have a price point?
Response: We are still evaluating what kind of product to use. We are running all kinds
of scenarios.
Question/Comment 28: If it was a single-family home, what would the price be?
Response: It’s tough to say at this point, it is based on the market.
Question/Comment 29: Is it a set 148 homes? Is that a fixed number?
Response: It is a maximum of 148 homes.
Question/Comment 30: Is that the number of doorways when you say units?
Response: Yes. That is a good way to explain it.
Question/Comment 31: Does the county require any environmental studies?
Endangered species? Is it normal to change zoning from Agricultural?
Response: Yes, at every stage of the process we have to provide environmental
reports to the county on wetlands, vegetation, “bugs and bunnies”, what kind of
species live on the site. We submitted that as part of our application. We also have to
get an environmental permit through the South Florida Water Management District.
And lastly, when we submit for construction plans, we will have to submit an updated
protected species report. No eagles were found on the site, but if at any point an
eagle decides to make this site its home, we will have to make the county aware and
provide for any protections.
Question/Comment 32: Is it typical to rezone a property from Agricultural to
Residential?
Response: Yes. When most of the county was zoned originally, it was all mostly
Agricultural, especially in areas east of Collier Blvd. Vanderbilt (Country Club) was
probably Agricultural and had to be rezoned to allow that community to be
developed.
Page 5 of 8
Question/Comment 33: Are traffic studies required?
Response: Yes.
Question/Comment 34: What else is planned in there? Club? Playground?
Response: There’s a central lake area, we are locating an optional recreational
amenity at the front of the site. The rest would be houses and open space.
Question/Comment 35: Does the water treatment plant need to expand to
accommodate this?
Response: We have to get letters of availability for potable water and sanitary sewer,
which we get from Collier County Utilities. They have capacity to service the project,
and we will tie into existing pipes along the roadway.
Question/Comment 36: Is there a wall between the proposed residential and the
existing residential to the north?
Response: We have proposed an optional wall, but it is not required by the code. We
are showing it as a development option along all property lines.
Question/Comment 37: Is there a wall proposed along any other boundary?
Response: We are also proposing an optional wall along CR 951. Toll Brothers typically
does a nice entry with a nice hardscape and landscape plan in their communities,
and that could include a wall.
Question/Comment 38: Is there a berm where the residential area is separated from
the preserve area?
Response: There will be a water management berm built in to the residential tracts,
so there will be no impacts to the preserve.
Question/Comment 39: Is there berm anywhere else?
Response: Along the northern property line.
Question/Comment 40: Will your conservation zone (preserve area) be subject to
South Florida Water Management District?
Response: No, it is not a jurisdictional wetland.
Question/Comment 41: The conservation land in Vanderbilt adjacent to the preserve
on your plan is subject to the South Florida Water Management District.
Response: We walked it with the district, and we have a letter saying we do not have
any jurisdictional wetlands.
Question/Comment 42: The road to the south, will that be a right out and a right in if
there is no traffic light?
Response: We are not proposing any modifications to how the traffic flows there. There
will be no light. There will be a right in, and right out.
Page 6 of 8
Question/Comment 43: Is it just one entrance?
Response: There’s a secondary entrance for construction (pointing to the northern
access bridge) that will be converted to a pedestrian access after construction is
completed.
Question/Comment 44: Will it be gated?
Response: The intent is to gate.
Question/Comment 45: When you say optional fence or wall, what does that mean?
Response: If it is not required, we label it as optional at our discretion as we move
through the process.
Question/Comment 46: Will you be removing dead trees from the preserve that were
left by the hurricane?
Response: We are required to remove exotic vegetation to make it a true preserve.
Certain areas will require replanting to meet county minimum preserve requirements.
Question/Comment 47: Our concern from Vanderbilt is that we will see the housing.
Response: Understood. You have an intervening roadway, and buffer, and once you
get into our property you have expansive preserve areas. Our units can be no taller
than yours.
Question/Comment 48: Other than filling in the bald spots, do you have any other
plans to replant?
Response: We do have to comply with a general tree count.
Question/Comment 49: Not necessarily where you are taking them out?
Response: No, those areas will be developed with homes (pointing to residential
tracts). The homes will have trees on the lots, and in open space areas there will be
additional general trees requirements.
Question/Comment 50: Is the plan to clear cut the entire lot and drop in 1-year old
saplings? Or build around the existing mature trees?
Response: The site has to be filled to meet floodplain requirements. To save trees you
have to be at a zero elevation, so it is almost impossible to save trees in development
areas. We do replace trees per the county requirements. We put them in buffers,
around the lakes, common areas. More than likely it will be clear cut to get to the
elevation. We will be sensitive to the plantings. We cannot just put in a baby sapling,
they would have to be planted to the county requirements.
Question/Comment 51: Will your fill be extracted from the lake, or will you be bringing
it in?
Response: Both.
Page 7 of 8
Question/Comment 52: Where is that coming from?
Response: A number of sources, which are driven by the market. Could be from
Collier or Lee Counties.
Question/Comment 53: What will be the base elevation?
Response: Approximately 15.5 feet based on our current research.
Question/Comment 54: Did the environmentalist find any Big Cypress Fox Squirrels on
the site?
Response: No.
Question/Comment 55: How long ago was the Environmental Report prepared?
Response: We submitted the application in December 2017. Dex Bender started
conducting site visits in 2nd quarter 2017 through 4th quarter 2017.
Question/Comment 56: Was it done pre-Irma, or post-Irma? A lot of critters may not
have been home.
Response: We do not have the report tonight, we will send it to you, so I don’t want to
mis-quote the date of the report. Often after zoning there can be a 5-year gap before
the site is constructed. When the construction plans go in, they will have to do another
environmental report that will be updated.
Question/Comment 57: Will you be using the same company for every environmental
report?
Response: Yes, as long as they continue to do a good job.
Question/Comment 58: Toll Brothers is the developer and the owner?
Response: Yes, they are the developer. They do not own the property yet, but that is
the intent.
Question/Comment 59: How long for construction? How long will construction of the
units take?
Response: It is all market drive. We typically do not build until they sell.
Question/Comment 60: What if you sell them all in a single day, then how long?
Response: Typical build time for a single-family house is 6-8 months, multi-family a
little quicker at 5-7 months. Best case scenario, would be 4 years to build out the
entire community.
Question/Comment 61: Where will the multi-family housing be located?
Response: Not sure at this point.
Question/Comment 62: When will you know?
Response: Approximately 3 to 4 months. Until we get further along in this process, it
is hard to say. If we don’t get through the zoning process, all bets are off.
Page 8 of 8
Question/Comment 63: Is there any possibility that something could happen to stop
this project?
Response: Yes, a lot of things could happen.
Question/Comment 64: Is a 6 a.m. start time necessary? That is early.
Response: I have found the requirement in the county code. The code says
(construction can occur) 6:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, no work
on Sundays or holidays. It will be stipulated on our permit.
Question/Comment 65: That is early. Can you consider working between 8 a.m. and
5 p.m.?
Response: We understand your concern and will document it in the summary.
There were no further questions or comments. Ms. Crespo thanked the attendees for
coming and noted that their contact information is available for those who wished
to reach out with any further questions. The meeting concluded at approximately
6:15 p.m. The meeting was recorded per the audio file attached as Exhibit “C”.
951 Villas RPUD (FKA Naples Villas RPUD) - PL-PL20170003535
Neighborhood Information Meeting
Monday, February 12, 2018
5:30 p.m.
PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET
Project Size: 37.5+/- Acres
Future Land Use: Urban Residential Subdistrict
Current Zoning: Rural Agricultural
Proposed Zoning: Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD)
Approved Density/Uses: Currently Vacant
Proposed Density/Uses: A maximum of 148 dwelling units, recreational
amenities, and supportive infrastructure.
951 Villas RPUD (FKA Naples Villas RPUD) - PL-PL20170003535
PROPOSED USES
I. RESIDENTIAL TRACTS
A. Principal Uses:
1. Single-family detached dwelling units.
2. Two-family dwelling units.
3. Townhouses.
4. Multi-family dwelling units.
B. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses customarily associated with Permitted Principal Uses,
including but not limited to:
1. Customary accessory uses and structures including carports, garages, and utility
buildings.
2. Temporary sales trailers and model units.
3. Essential services, including interim and permanent utility and maintenance
facilities.
4. Water management facilities.
5. Walls, berms and signs.
6. Passive open space uses and structures, including, but not limited to landscaped
areas, gazebos, park benches, and walking trails.
Any other accessory use and related use that is determined to be comparable to the
foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals, or Hearing Examiner, pursuant to the
process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC).
II. RECREATION TRACT
A. Principal Uses and Structures:
1. Recreational uses and facilities including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball
courts, fishing docks, walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings, and
basketball/shuffle board courts.
2. Passive open space uses and structures, including, but not limited to landscaped
areas, gazebos, park benches, and walking trails.
B. Accessory Uses and Structures:
Accessory uses customarily associated with Permitted Principal Uses, and any other
accessory use and related use that is determined to be comparable to customary
accessory uses by the Board of Zoning Appeals or Hearing Examiner pursuant to the
process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC).
III. PRESERVE TRACT
A. Principal Use: Preserves.
B. Accessory Uses: Allowable uses only as allowed by LDC section “Allowable uses within
County required preserves”.
951 Villas RPUD (FKA Naples Villas RPUD) - PL-PL20170003535
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PERMITTED USES
AND STANDARDS
Single-
Family
Detached
Two-Family Townhouse
Multi-Family Clubhouse
/
Recreation
Buildings
Min. Lot Area 3,500 SF 2,500 SF 2,000 SF N/A N/A
Min. Lot Width 35’ 25’ 20’ N/A N/A
Min. Lot Depth 100’ 100’ 100’ N/A N/A
SETBACKS
Front Yard(1) 15’(2)(3) 15’(2)(3) 15’(2) 15’(2) 15’(2)
Side Yard 5’ 0’/5’ 0’/5’ 10’ 10’
Rear Yard
(Principal)(4)
Rear Yard
(Accessory) (4)
7.5’
5’
7.5’
5’
7.5’
5’
10’
5’
10’
5’
Preserve
(Principal)
Preserve
(Accessory)
25’
10’
25’
10’
25’
10’
25’
10’
25’
10’
Min. Distance
Between
Principal
Structures
10’ 10’ 10’ 15’ 10’
Maximum Height
Actual
Zoned
45’
35’
45’
35’
45’
35’
45’
35’
55’
45’
(1) Front setback is measured from the edge of pavement or back of curb.
(2) Front-loading/front-entry garages shall be setback a minimum of 23’ from the back of
sidewalk.
(3) Corner lots shall provide one (1) front yard setback within the yard that contains the
driveway/vehicular access to the dwelling unit. The secondary front yard that does not
contain the driveway/vehicular access to the dwelling unit shall provide a minimum 10’
setback to the edge of pavement or back of curb.
(4) 0’ principal and accessory setbacks are permitted from lake maintenance easements and
landscape buffer easements, which shall be separate platted tracts or tracts on the
PPL/SDP.
GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth below shall be understood to be in
relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures. Condominium, and/or
homeowners’ association boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development
standards.
Landscape buffers and lake maintenance easements shall be platted as separate tracts at time
of subdivision plat approval.
Note: Nothing in this PUD document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC
unless it is expressly stated in a list of deviations.
951 Villas
PUDZ-PL2017-0003535
CCPC Package
TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT
Traffic Impact Statement
Naples Villas
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rezone
Collier County, FL
11/29/2017
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Waldrop Engineering Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA
28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Suite 305 1205 Piper Boulevard, Suite 202
Naples, FL 34135 Naples, FL 34110
Phone: 239‐405‐7777 Phone: 239‐566‐9551
Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz
Collier County Transportation Methodology Fee – $500.00
Collier County Transportation Review Fee – Major Scale Study – $1,500.00
Naples Villas – PUD Rezone – TIS – November 2017
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 2
Statement of Certification
I certify that this Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared by me or under my immediate
supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation
Engineering.
Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, P.E.
FL Registration No. 47116
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA
1205 Piper Boulevard, Suite 202
Naples, FL 34110
Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796
Naples Villas – PUD Rezone – TIS – November 2017
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 3
Table of Contents
Project Description ......................................................................................................................... 4
Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................... 5
Trip Distribution and Assignment ................................................................................................... 7
Background Traffic .......................................................................................................................... 9
Existing and Future Roadway Network ......................................................................................... 10
Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network‐Link Analysis ............................................................ 10
Improvement Analysis .................................................................................................................. 12
Mitigation of Impact ..................................................................................................................... 12
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan .......................................................................................... 13
Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) .................................................. 15
Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations – ITE Trip Generation Manual .................................. 21
Naples Villas – PUD Rezone – TIS – November 2017
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 4
Project Description
The Naples Villas project is a proposed residential development located on the east side of
Collier Boulevard (CR 951), just north of Vanderbilt Country Club development and
approximately 1.2 miles south of Immokalee Road, in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26
East, in Collier County Florida.
Refer to Fig. 1 – Project Location Map, which follows and Appendix A: Project Master Site
Plan.
Fig. 1 – Project Location Map
The subject parcel is currently vacant land and has a gross area of approximately 37 acres. The
developer proposes to rezone the existing site from Agricultural district (A) to Planned Unit
Development (PUD) and to allow the development of up to 148 residential dwelling units.
For purposes of this evaluation, the project build‐out year is assumed to be consistent with the
Collier County 2023 planning horizon.
Naples Villas – PUD Rezone – TIS – November 2017
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 5
As illustrated in the attached Master Site Plan, the proposed PUD zoning application proposes
attached twin villas (duplexes) dwelling units and amenity center for residents.
The project’s site trip generation is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Trip Generation Manual. The project provides the highest and best use scenario with respect to
the project’s proposed trip generation. To allow for development flexibility, the proposed
residential dwelling units are analyzed as single‐family detached units for trip generation
purposes. The associated common recreation amenities are considered passive incidental to
the residential land use and are not considered in the trip generation analysis.
The potential development program is illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1
Development Program
Development ITE Land Use
ITE Land Use
Code
Total Size
(dwelling units)
Proposed PUD Single‐Family
Detached Housing 210 148
A methodology meeting was held with the Collier County Transportation Planning staff on
November 24, 2017, via email (refer to Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist).
Connection to the subject site is proposed to be provided via a right‐in/right‐out main single
access onto northbound Collier Boulevard.
There is an existing bridge located at the northern area of the property. This connection is
proposed to remain to service public Collier Area Transit (CAT) public transportation, pedestrian
and bicyclist activity and future construction activities in relation to this project.
Trip Generation
A trip generation comparison between ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9
th Edition versus 10th
Edition is provided. Based on the results of this comparison, there are no significant
discrepancies between the two editions. As a conservative approach and since this is a zoning
application it is our recommendation to use the most current ITE 10th Edition guidelines.
The software program OTISS (Online Traffic Impact Study Software, most current version is
used to create the raw unadjusted trip generation for the project. The ITE equations are used
for the trip generation calculations.
Naples Villas – PUD Rezone – TIS – November 2017
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 6
The ITE – OTISS trip generation calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix C: Trip
Generation Calculations – ITE Trip Generation Manual.
Based on ITE recommendations and consistent with Collier County TIS Guidelines and
Procedures, the internal capture and pass‐by trips are not considered for this project.
The estimated project weekday trip generation is illustrated in Table 2.
Table 2
Trip Generation (Proposed Conditions) – Average Weekday
Note(s): (1)du – dwelling units.
In agreement with the Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures, significantly impacted
roadways are identified based on the proposed project highest peak hour trip generation (net
new external traffic) and consistent with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. Based on
the information contained in Collier County 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR),
the peak hour for adjacent roadway network is PM.
For the purpose of this analysis, the surrounding roadway network concurrency analysis is
analyzed based on projected PM peak hour traffic as illustrated in Table 2. The site access
operational analysis is not part of this analysis.
Proposed Development 24 Hour Two‐
Way Volume AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
ITE Land Use Size Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total
Single‐Family
Detached Housing 148du(1) 1,491 28 82 110 93 55 148
Naples Villas – PUD Rezone – TIS – November 2017
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 7
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The traffic generated by the development is assigned to the adjacent roadway network using
the knowledge of the area and as coordinated with Collier County Transportation Planning
staff.
The site‐generated trip distribution is shown in Table 3, Project Traffic Distribution for Peak
Hour and is graphically depicted in Fig. 2 – Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak
Hour.
Table 3
Project Traffic Distribution for Peak Hour
Roadway Link
Collier
County
Link No.
Roadway Link Location
Distribution
of Project
Traffic
PM Peak Hour Project
Traffic Volume (1)
Enter Exit
Immokalee Rd. 43.2 Logan Blvd. to Collier
Blvd. 20% EB – 19 WB – 11
Collier Blvd. 30.1 Immokalee Rd. to
Project Access 40% SB – 37 NB – 22
Collier Blvd. 30.1 Project Access to
Vanderbilt Beach Rd. 60% NB – 56 SB – 33
Collier Blvd. 30.2 Vanderbilt Beach Rd.
to Golden Gate Blvd. 20% NB – 19 SB – 11
Vanderbilt Beach
Rd. 112.0 Logan Blvd. to Collier
Blvd. 30% EB – 28 WB – 16
Note(s): (1) Peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes are underlined and bold to be used in Roadway Link Level of
Service calculations.
Naples Villas – PUD Rezone – TIS – November 2017
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 8
Fig. 2 – Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hour
Naples Villas – PUD Rezone – TIS – November 2017
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 9
Background Traffic
Average background traffic growth rates are estimated for the segments of the roadway
network in the study area using the Collier County Transportation Planning Staff guidance of a
minimum 2% growth rate, or the historical growth rate from annual peak hour, peak direction
traffic volume (estimated from 2008 through 2016), whichever is greater. The peak hour, peak
direction traffic volumes associated with the analyzed roadway segments are provided annually
in Collier County Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR).
Another way to derive the background traffic is to use the 2017 AUIR volume plus the trip bank
volume. Table 4, Background Traffic without Project, illustrates the application of projected
growth rates to generate the projected background (without project) peak hour peak direction
traffic volume for the future horizon year 2023.
Table 4
Background Traffic without Project (2017 ‐ 2023)
Roadway
Link
CC
AUIR
Link
ID #
Roadway Link
Location
2017 AUIR
Pk Hr, Pk
Dir
Background
Traffic Vol
(trips/hr)
Projected
Traffic
Annual
Growth
Rate
(%/yr)*
Growth
Factor
2023 Pk Hr,
Pk Dir
Background
Traffic Vol
w/out Project
(trips/hr)
Growth
Factor**
Trip
Bank
2023 Pk Hr,
Pk Dir
Background
Traffic Vol
w/out
Project
(trips/hr)
Trip Bank***
Immokalee
Rd. 43.2 Logan Blvd. to
Collier Blvd. 1,980 4.00% 1.2653 2,506 585 2,565
Collier
Blvd. 30.1 Immokalee Rd. to
Project Access 1,520 3.28% 1.2137 1,845 447 1,967
Collier
Blvd. 30.1
Project Access to
Vanderbilt Beach
Rd.
1,520 3.28% 1.2137 1,845 447 1,967
Collier
Blvd. 30.2
Vanderbilt Beach
Rd. to Golden
Gate Blvd.
1,220 2.00% 1.1262 1,374 86 1,306
Vanderbilt
Beach Rd. 112.0 Logan Blvd. to
Collier Blvd. 1,530 4.00% 1.2653 1,936 262 1,792
Note(s): * Annual Growth Rate ‐ from 2008 to 2016 AUIR peak hour, peak direction volume, 2% minimum.
** Growth Factor = (1+Annual Growth Rate)6. 2023 Projected Volume = 2017 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor.
*** 2023 Projected Volume = 2017 AUIR Volume + Trip Bank.
The projected 2023 Peak Hour – Peak Direction Background Traffic is the greater of the Growth Factor or Trip Bank calculation, which is
underlined and bold as applicable.
Naples Villas – PUD Rezone – TIS – November 2017
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 10
Existing and Future Roadway Network
The existing roadway conditions are extracted from the 2017 AUIR and the project build‐out
roadway conditions are based on the current Collier County 5‐Year Work Program. Roadway
improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled to be constructed within
the five year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or Capital Improvement program (CIP) are
considered to be committed improvements. As no future capacity enhancement roadway
projects are identified in the Collier County 2017 AUIR coincident with the project 2023
planning horizon year, the evaluated roadways are anticipated to remain as such through
project build‐out.
The existing and future roadway conditions are illustrated in Table 5.
Table 5
Existing and Future Roadway Conditions
Roadway Link CC AUIR
Link ID #
Roadway Link
Location
Exist
Roadway
Min.
Standard
LOS
Exist Peak Dir,
Peak Hr
Capacity
Volume
Future
Project
Build out
Roadway
Immokalee
Rd. 43.2 Logan Blvd. to
Collier Blvd. 6D E 3,200 (EB) 6D
Collier Blvd. 30.1
Immokalee Rd.
to Project
Access
6D E 3,000 (NB) 6D
Collier Blvd. 30.1
Project Access
to Vanderbilt
Beach Rd.
6D E 3,000 (NB) 6D
Collier Blvd. 30.2
Vanderbilt
Beach Rd. to
Golden Gate
Blvd.
6D E 3,000 (SB) 6D
Vanderbilt
Beach Rd. 112.0 Logan Blvd. to
Collier Blvd. 6D E 3,000 (EB) 6D
Note(s):
2U = 2‐lane undivided roadway; 4D, 6D, 8D =4‐lane, 6‐lane, 8‐lane divided roadway, respectively; LOS = Level of
Service
Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network‐Link Analysis
The Collier County Transportation Planning Services developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes
for the roadway links impacted by the project, which were evaluated to determine the project
impacts to the area roadway network in the future. The Collier County Transportation Planning
Services guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to have a significant and
Naples Villas – PUD Rezone – TIS – November 2017
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 11
adverse impact if both the percentage volume capacity exceeds 2% of the capacity for the link
directly accessed by the project and for the link adjacent to the link directly accessed by the
project; 3% for other subsequent links and if the roadway is projected to operate below the
adopted LOS standard.
Based on these criteria, this project does not create any significant and adverse impacts to the
area roadway network. None of the analyzed links are projected to exceed the adopted LOS
standard with or without the project at 2023 future build‐out conditions. Table 6, Roadway
Link Level of Service illustrates the LOS impacts of the project on the roadway network closest
to the project.
Table 6
Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS) – With Project in the Year 2023
Roadway Link
CC
AUIR
Link
ID #
Roadway Link
Location
2017 Peak
Dir, Peak
Hr
Capacity
Volume
Roadway
Link, Peak
Dir, Peak
Hr (Project
Vol
Added)*
2023
Peak Dir,
Peak Hr
Volume
w/Project
**
% Vol
Capacity
Impact
By
Project
Min LOS
exceeded
without
Project?
Yes/No
Min LOS
exceeded
with
Project?
Yes/No
Immokalee
Rd. 43.2 Logan Blvd. to
Collier Blvd. 3,200 (EB) EB – 19 2,584 0.6% No No
Collier Blvd. 30.1
Immokalee Rd.
to Project
Access
3,000 (NB) NB – 22 1,989 0.7% No No
Collier Blvd. 30.1
Project Access
to Vanderbilt
Beach Rd.
3,000 (NB) NB – 56 2,023 1.9% No No
Collier Blvd. 30.2
Vanderbilt
Beach Rd. to
Golden Gate
Blvd.
3,000 (SB) SB – 11 1,385 0.4% No No
Vanderbilt
Beach Rd. 112.0 Logan Blvd. to
Collier Blvd. 3,000 (EB) EB – 28 1,964 0.9% No No
Note(s): *Refer to Table 3 from this report; **2023 Projected Volume= 2023 background (refer to Table 4) + Project Volume added.
As illustrated in Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Chapter 6.02.02 – M.2., once
traffic from a development has been shown to be less than significant on any segment using
Collier County TIS criterion, the development’s impact is not required to be analyzed further on
any additional segments.
Consistent with the information contained within the 2017 AUIR – Attachment H – Projected
Collier County Deficient Roads FY 2017 – FY 2027, there are two County scheduled capacity
Naples Villas – PUD Rezone – TIS – November 2017
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 12
improvement roadway projects in the vicinity of proposed project as follows: 1. Tree Farm
Rd./Woodcrest Dr. connection; and 2. Vanderbilt Beach Rd. extension, east of Collier Blvd. –
new 3‐lane (of future 6‐lane) roadway facility with design work scheduled for FY 2018 and
construction scheduled for FY 2021. In addition, Immokalee Rd. and Collier Blvd. intersection
improvements are currently under design.
A detailed evaluation of applicable access points – turn lane requirements will be performed at
the time of future development order applications, when more specific development
parameters will be made available.
Improvement Analysis
Based on the link analysis and trip distribution, this project does not create any significant and
adverse impacts to the area roadway network. None of the analyzed roadway segments are
projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard with or without the project at 2023 future build‐
out conditions. There is adequate and sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate the
proposed development without adversely affecting adjacent roadway network level of service.
Based on the results of this analysis, the development shall be limited to 148 two‐way PM
weekday peak hour unadjusted trips, allowing for unforeseen impacts on the adjacent roadway
network. Please note that for the purposes of calculation of the weekday PM peak hour trip
generation of this project, the most current adopted ITE Trip Generation Manual shall be
utilized.
Mitigation of Impact
The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee as building
permits are issued for the project.
Naples Villas – PUD Rezone – TIS – November 2017
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 13
Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan
(1 Sheet)
Naples Villas – PUD Rezone – TIS – November 2017
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 14
Naples Villas – PUD Rezone – TIS – November 2017
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 15
Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist
(Methodology Meeting)
(5 Sheets)
Naples Villas – PUD Rezone – TIS – November 2017
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 16
Naples Villas – PUD Rezone – TIS – November 2017
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 17
Naples Villas – PUD Rezone – TIS – November 2017
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 18
Naples Villas – PUD Rezone – TIS – November 2017
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 19
Naples Villas – PUD Rezone – TIS – November 2017
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 20
Naples Villas – PUD Rezone – TIS – November 2017
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 21
Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations –
ITE Trip Generation Manual
(3 Sheets)
Naples Villas – PUD Rezone – TIS – November 2017
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 22
ITE – Trip Generation Manual – 9th Edition
Naples Villas – PUD Rezone – TIS – November 2017
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 23
ITE – Trip Generation Manual – 10th Edition
Naples Villas – PUD Rezone – TIS – November 2017
Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 24
951 Villas
PUDZ-PL2017-0003535
CCPC Package
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
951 Villas
Rezoning Environmental Information
(January 2018)
The 951 Villas is composed of five (5) parcels and is located east of Collier Blvd., south of Immokalee
Road, and north of Vanderbilt Beach Road. The property totals 37.5 acres in size and contains 7.3 acres
of native upland preserves. The pre-development acreage of “native vegetation” (as currently defined
by Collier County LDC Section 3.05.07.A.1) on the property is 29.1 acres. Based on the use of several
Florida Land Use, Cover, and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) codes used to delineate the
vegetative communities on-site (i.e. FLUCCS Code 422 - Brazilian pepper, 740-Disturbed Land, and 742
Borrow Areas) it is likely that a portion of the property was not “native vegetation”.
In accordance with LDC 3.05.07.A.3, the 7.3 acre preserve is a large contiguous area located in the
southeast portion of the site. It is adjacent to a Conservation Easement within the Vanderbilt Pines
Community to the south and open space/preserve of the Bristol Pines Community to the east.
Please see the attached Vegetation Map and Collier County Native Vegetation Summary Map for the
vegetative communities within the property. The attached Protected Species Assessment contains a
discussion of the current conditions within the property.
Tyler C. King, President of DexBender prepared the Protected Species Assessment. Mr. King has been
employed as a full time environmental consultant in southwest Florida since 1988. A copy of his
credentials is attached.
951 Villas RPUD
Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East
Collier County, Florida
Protected Species Assessment
December 2017
(Revised January 2018)
Prepared for:
Toll Brothers, Inc.
24201 Walden Center Drive, Ste 204
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Prepared by:
DexBender
4470 Camino Real Way, Suite 101
Fort Myers, FL 33966
(239) 334-3680
1
INTRODUCTION
The 37.54± acre parcel is located within a portion of Section 35, Township 45 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (Figure 1). The site is bordered to the north,
south, and east by existing residential development. Collier Boulevard and a large
drainage ditch border the site to the west.
SITE CONDITIONS
The property is currently undeveloped and consists of uplands and wetlands with
varying densities of exotics. There are several fallen trees on the property due to winds
produced by Hurricane Irma on September 10, 2017.
VEGETATIVE CLASSIFICATIONS
The predominant upland and wetland vegetation associations were mapped in the field
on 2017 digital color 1” = 200’ scale aerial photography. The approximate property
boundary was obtained from Stantec and inserted into the digital aerial. Nine
vegetation associations were identified using the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms
Classification System (FLUCCS). Figure 1 depicts the approximate location and
configuration of these vegetation associations and Table 1 summarizes the acreages by
FLUCCS Code. A brief description of each FLUCCS Code is provided below. In order
to minimize redundancy only the base FLUCCS Codes are described (i.e. description
provided for FLUCCS Code 624D but not for FLUCCS Codes 624DE1 or 624DE2). In
general, as the density of exotics increases the density and diversity of native plants in
the canopy, midstory, and ground cover strata decreases. Habitats containing more
than 75 percent cover by exotics contain only scattered native plant species.
Table 1. Acreage Summary by FLUCCS Code
FLUCCS
CODE DESCRIPTION Native
Vegetation ACREAGE
411 Pine Flatwoods Yes 1.97
411DE Disturbed Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics (5-9%) Yes 3.57
411DE1 Disturbed Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics (10-25%) Yes 2.35
422 Brazilian Pepper No 1.42
624DE1 Drained Cypress – Pine Invaded by Exotics (10-25%) Yes 5.81
624DE2 Drained Cypress – Pine Invaded by Exotics (26-50%) Yes 15.33
624E3 Cypress – Pine Invaded by Exotics (51-75%) Yes 0.02
740 Disturbed Land No 7.05
742 Borrow Areas No 0.02
Total 29.05 37.54
FLUCCS Code 411, Pine Flatwoods
An area of undisturbed upland pine flatwoods is located in the north-central portion of
the subject parcel. This area is characterized by an understory dominated by saw
palmetto (Serenoa repens) and a canopy dominated by slash pine (Pinus elliottii).
3
Grapevine (Vitis sp.), scattered dahoon holly (Illex cassine), widely scattered cabbage
palm (Sabal palmetto), and carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides) are also present.
FLUCCS Code 411D, Disturbed Pine Flatwoods
These upland areas are similar in vegetative composition to the areas mapped as
FLUCCS Code 411 but show evidence of historic clearing and include greater coverage
of exotic vegetation. As a result of the disturbance, groundcover includes only scattered
saw palmetto but the canopy is still dominated by slash pine. Additional vegetative
species include Bahia grass (Paspalum notatum), smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus),
caesarweed (Urena lobata), guineagrass (Panicum maximum), false buttonweed
(Spermacoce sp.), and grapevine. These areas have been invaded to varying degrees
by exotic vegetation including Brazilian pepper, carrotwood, downy rose-myrtle
(Rhodomyrtus tomentosa), earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis), and various
ornamental landscape species.
FLUCCS Code 422, Brazilian Pepper
Brazilian pepper is the dominant vegetative species in these uplands. Widely scattered
earleaf acacia and slash pine are present in the midstory. Groundcover consists of
scattered Bahia grass, smutgrass, and false buttonweed.
FLUCCS Code 624D, Drained Cypress - Pine
Areas mapped as this FLUCCS Code appear to have been historically wetlands but
have been severely drained by the adjacent Collier Boulevard ditch and no longer
function as wetlands. Remnant small cypress are present along with widely scattered
swamp fern. Slash pine, cabbage palm, grapevine, myrsine (Rapanea punctata),
scattered cocoplum (Chrysobalanus icaco), caesarweed, and very widely scattered saw
palmetto are also present. These areas have been invaded by exotic vegetation which
includes Brazilian pepper, melaleuca, air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera), and earleaf
acacia.
FLUCCS Code 624E3, Cypress – Pine Invaded by Exotics (51-75%)
Two very small SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands are present of the subject parcel.
Vegetation in these areas consists of melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), earleaf
acacia, scattered swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), very widely scattered cypress
(Taxodium sp.), and slash pine.
FLUCCS Code 740, Disturbed Land
This FLUCCS Code was used to describe those upland areas on the subject parcel
which appear have been previously used for agriculture and residences. Remnant
house pads and access roads are present in portions of these areas. Vegetation
includes Bahia grass, smutgrass, false buttonweed, scattered Brazilian pepper,
sandspur (Cenchrus sp.), torpedo grass (Panicum repens), guineagrass, carrotwood,
pusley (Richardia grandiflora), widely scattered laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), live oak
(Quercus virginiana), cypress, and various ornamental exotics.
4
FLUCCS Code 742, Borrow Areas
Two very small SFWMD jurisdictional other surface waters are present on the subject
parcel. These small excavated areas are mostly unvegetated.
SURVEY METHOD
Based on the general habitat types (FLUCCS Codes) identified on-site there is a
potential for a limited number of species listed as endangered, threatened, or species of
special concern by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) or the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to potentially occur on the subject parcel.
These species include gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), eastern indigo snake
(Drymarchon corais couperi), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), a variety of
wading birds, Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia), Florida bonneted-bat
(Eumops floridanus), and Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi). The bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which has been delisted by the FWC and FWS, is still
protected by other regulations and was therefore included in the survey. The Florida
black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), delisted in 2012, is still protected by the
Florida Black Bear Management Plan and was therefore included in the survey. Please
see Table 2 for additional listed species included in the survey. In addition, per Collier
County regulations three species of orchids (Cyrtopodium punctatum, Encyclia
cochleata, and E. tampensis) and four species of wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata, T.
utriculata, T. balbisiana, and T. flexuosa) which could potentially occur on-site were
included in the survey.
5
Table 2. Protected Species That Could Potentially Occur On-site
FLUCCS
CODE
Percent
Survey
Coverage
Species Name Present Absent
411
411DE
411DE1
80 Gopher Frog (Rana areolata)
Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais
couperi)
Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus)
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides
borealis)
Southeastern American Kestrel (Falco
sparverius paulus)
Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger
avicennia)
Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanus
floridanus)
Florida Panther (Felis concolor coryi)
Beautiful Pawpaw (Deeringothamnus
pulchellus)
Fakahatchee Burmannia (Burmannia flava)
Florida Coontie (Zamia floridana)
Satinleaf (Chrysophyllum olivaeforme)
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
422 80 None
624DE1
624DE2
624E3
80 Gopher Frog (Rana areolata)
Arctic Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus
tundrius)
Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea)
Snowy Egret (Egretta thula)
Tricolored Heron (Egretta tricolor)
Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger
avicennia)
Everglades Mink (Mustela vison
evergladensis)
Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanus
floridanus)
Florida Panther (Felis concolor coryi)
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
√
740 80 None
742 80 None
In order to comply with FWC/FWS survey methodology guidelines, each habitat type
was surveyed for the occurrence of the species listed above using meandering
pedestrian belt transects. The meandering pedestrian belt transects were spaced
approximately 75 feet apart. The approximate location of direct sighting or sign (such
as tracks, nests, and droppings) of a listed species, when observed, was denoted on
the aerial photography. The 1" = 200’ scale aerial Protected Species Assessment map
6
(Figure 1) depicts the approximate location of the survey transects and the results of the
survey. The listed species survey was conducted on December 4, 2017. The weather
at the time of the survey was warm and sunny.
Prior to conducting the protected species survey, a search of the FWC listed species
database (updated June 2017) was conducted to determine the known occurrence of
listed species in the project area. The database indicated that Florida black bear have
been recorded adjacent to the property (Figure 2). The property is located within a
wood stork core foraging area. This search revealed no other known protected species
occurring on or immediately adjacent to the site. In addition, the property is not within
panther Priority 1 or 2 zones.
Perm it Use Only - N ot For ConstructionProperty b oun dary is approximate.Map b ased o n dat a o bt ain ed fro m th e F lorida Fish and WildlifeConservation Commission.
951 Villas
Section: 24Township: 45Range: 24 ³
Fig ure 2. Nui sa nc e Bear Calls M ap
nmnm nmnm nm nmnm
nmnmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnm
nmnmnmnmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm
nmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnm
nm nm nmnmnm
nm nm
nmnmnmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnm
nmnmnmnmnm
nmnmnmnmnm
nmnmnmnmnmnm nm
nm
nmnm
nmnmnmnm nm
nmnm
nm nm
nmnm nm
nmnmnmnmnm
nmnmnm
nmnmnmnmnm nmnm
nmnm
nm
nm nm
nm nmnmnmnmnm nmnm
nmnm nm nmnmnmnm
nm
nmnm nmnmnm nm nmnmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm
nm
nm
nmnm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nmnm nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nmnm
nm
nmnm
nm
nmnm
nm
nmnm
nm
nmnmnm nm
nm
nmnmnm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nm nmnm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nmnm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nmnmnm
nm
nm
nm
nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm
nm
nm nm
nm
nmnm nm
nm
nmnm
nm
nm
nmnmnm
nm
nm nmnm nmnm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nmnm
nm
nm
nmnmnm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm
nm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm
nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nmnm nm
nmnmnmnmnmnm
nmnm nmnm nm
nm
nmnmnmnmnmnm nmnm nm
nmnm nm
nmnm nm nmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnm nm
nm
nm nmnm nmnmnmnm
nmnmnm nmnm nmnm nmnmnm nm nm nmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm
nmnm nm
nm nmnmnmnmnmnm
nmnm nmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm
nmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm
nmnm nm nmnmnmnm nm
nmnm nm nm
nm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm
Tree Farm Rd
Collier BlvdWolfe Rd
Sour ce: Esr i, Dig it alG lobe , G eoE ye, Eart hs ta r G eog raphics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Ge tm a pping, Aer ogr id, I G N, I G P, swiss to po, and the GIS User Community
2/1 /2 018 10 :0 5:25 AM Y:\TO LLBRO-1\GIS_GPS\BearMap.mxd
Fort My er s (23 9) 334-3680
-
0 0.25 0.50.1 25 Mi les6Legend
nm Bla ck Be a r Nu is ance Calls
Su bje c t Parcel
8
SURVEY RESULTS
Collier County Plants
No listed orchids or wild-pines were observed on the site.
Other Listed Species
No cavity trees suitable for use by the Florida bonneted bat have been observed on-
site. No other species listed by either the FWS or the FWC were observed on the site
during the protected species survey. This is not unexpected due to the poor habitat on-
site (significant exotic infestation and hydrologic alteration) and surrounding off-site
developments. In addition to the site inspection, a search of the FWC species database
(updated June 2017) revealed no additional known protected species within or
immediately adjacent to the project limits.
Y:\TOLLBRO-1\PSA.Doc
Current Responsibilities
Responsibilities with W. Dexter Bender and Associates, Inc. includes: project
management, oversight and quality control of projects for the firm. Negotiates and
prepares contracts and bid documents. Conducts vegetative and wildlife habitat
analysis, preparation of reports regarding state and federal wetland jurisdictional
determinations, protected species assessments, development suitability reports, and
prepares environmental permit applications to city, county, state, and federal regulatory
agencies. Perform on-site compliance inspections and mitigation monitoring. Serve as
liaison with the various agencies in regards to permitting, compliance, violations and
other aspects of the projects.
Experience
Joined the firm in April 1988. Prior working experience with the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (Permitting Compliance and Enforcement Specialist). Over
29 years of experience providing various types of environmental studies, site analysis
and procuring environmental permits for landowners and public entities. Has extensive
knowledge pertaining to wetland permitting and enforcement policies of federal, state,
and local environmental regulatory agencies. Performed numerous listed species
surveys and obtained incidental take and relocation permits. Qualified as an expert
witness with Lee County Hearing Examiner and the Department of Environmental
Protection regarding dredge and fill legislation. Has over 29 years of experience in
wetland mitigation design (creation, enhancement, restoration and preservation) and
monitoring. Expert in Florida vegetation and wildlife identification.
Education
Bachelor of Science - Major: Biology/Zoology - Northeast Louisiana University, 1981
Affiliations
Coastal Conservation Association
Real Estate Investment Society
Tyler C. King
President/Principal Biologist
951 Villas
PUDZ-PL2017-0003535
CCPC Package
UTILITY LETTER
November 10, 2016 VIA: E-MAIL
Lisa Colburn
Stantec
5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard, Suite 300
Naples, FL 34108-2709
Lisa.Colburn@stantec.com
Subject: Water and Wastewater Service Availability
Project: Naples Jewish Community Center
Parcel #: 00206600000, 00204840008, 00206760005, 00205800005, 00206640002
Dear Lisa:
The subject project is within the Collier County Water-Sewer District’s (CCWSD) service area and
water and wastewater service are readily available via existing facilities. Water service is
available via an existing 24” water main along the west side of Collier Blvd. Wastewater service
is available via an existing 16” force main along the east side of Collier Blvd. The water main is
more than 200 feet from the property line. As such, connection is encouraged but not required.
Connection to the CCWSD’s water distribution and wastewater collection systems will be
permitted only after the GMD Development Review Division’s approval of hydraulic calculations
prepared by the Developer’s Engineer of Record in accordance with the Design Criteria found in
Section 1 of the Collier County Water-Sewer District Utilities Standards Manual. Source pressure
assumptions for water distribution system design are prescribed in the Design Criteria, but force
main connection pressure should be confirmed through pressure monitoring, which can be
requested by contacting Craig Pajer at (239) 252-2554 or CraigPajer@colliergov.net.
Adequate capacity to this project is not guaranteed until the project receives a commitment for
service. Should sewage treatment and disposal capacity not be available, the Developer would
be required to provide an interim means to provide these services until the District's facilities
have adequate capacity to serve the project.
If you have any questions, you may contact me at (239) 252-1037 or EricFey@colliergov.net.
Respectfully,
Eric Fey, P.E., Senior Project Manager
CC: Aaron Cromer, Principal Project Manager, PUD/PPMD
Brett Rosenblum, Senior Engineer, GMD/DRD
951 Villas
PUDZ-PL2017-0003535
CCPC Package
DEVIATION JUSTIFICATION
NARRATIVE
951 Villas RPUD PL20170003535
Schedule of Deviations
Page 1 of 4
951 VILLAS RPUD
LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC
REVISED APRIL 2018
Deviation 1: Deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04.G, which allows parking spaces for recreation
facilities for multi-family dwelling units to be computed at 25 percent of the normal requirements
where a majority of the dwelling units are within 300 feet of the recreation facilities, to allow the
parking spaces for the recreation facilities for multi-family dwelling units to be computed at 25 percent
where the majority of dwelling units are within 1,000 feet of the recreation facilities.
JUSTIFICATION: The majority of the proposed dwelling units are within 1,000 feet of the
recreational facilities, or 1/4 of a mile, which is generally accepted as “within walking
distance”. Due to the relatively small size of the site, clustered development footprint, and
internal sidewalk system, the development has been designed to encourage pedestrian access
to the proposed recreational area. Reducing the number of required parking spaces will allow
more of the site to remain as pervious area and contribute to usable open space.
The project will provide sidewalks on both sides of the internal rights-of-way to connect the
homes to the amenity facility. “Human Transit: How clearer thinking about public transit can
enrich our communities and our lives” (Island Press, 2011), written by Jarrett Walker,
establishes walking distance as “400 meters of ¼ a mile” in the United States, with longer
distances deemed acceptable in European countries. Jarrett Walker is an international
consultant in public transit network design and policy, based in Portland, Oregon. He has
been a full-time consultant since 1991 and has led numerous major planning projects in cities
and towns of all sizes, across North America, Australia, and New Zealand.
Moreover, the project will contain the requisite general trees dispersed throughout the
community to provide a comfortable walking environment.
The deviation will also reduce impervious parking areas within the site, which provides net
benefit in terms of “heat island effect”, stormwater attenuation, and other environmental
factors.
Deviation 2: Deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C, which requires a 15-foot wide Type “B” buffer
between single-family and multi-family dwelling units and amenity centers, to allow for a 7.5-foot-
wide Type “B” buffer between internal dwelling units and the amenity center. The buffer will contain 3-
gallon muhly grass, planted 3-feet off center on the residential side of the buffer, in addition to all
required Type “B’ plant materials.
JUSTIFICATION: The recreation area is intended to serve residents of the community and
uphold a common architectural theme consistent with the development. The facility will be an
extension of the residential uses within development, and will not require extensive buffers that
will segregate residents from these amenities. The Applicant will provide the code minimum
number of required plantings within the 7.5-foot wide buffer strip to ensure the deviation does
951 Villas RPUD PL20170003535
Schedule of Deviations
Page 2 of 4
not result in a net loss of vegetation within the project and provide appropriate screening
between uses.
The Applicant will provide muhly grass in 3-gallon containers, planted 3-feet o.c. to offset the
proposed reduction in buffer width. This proposed planting will provide additional
coverage and screening, as well as visual interest in the buffer area.
Deviation 3: Deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.2, which permits a maximum fence/wall
height of 6 feet in residential zoning districts, to allow for a maximum fence/wall/berm height of
12 feet along Collier Boulevard/CR 951, and 10 feet along the northern PUD perimeter
boundary.
JUSTIFICATION: The proposed wall height will mitigate the noise impact from traffic
traveling along Collier Boulevard, and appropriately screen the site from the adjacent
residential development to the north. The proposed deviation will allow for additional
visual screening between the proposed uses and the adjacent 6-lane arterial roadway,
while ensuring a quality design aesthetic via screening of the wall by required perimeter
plantings. A gate will be provided in the perimeter wall where the pedestrian
interconnection is proposed to Collier Boulevard. The design will serve to enhance public
health, safety and welfare.
Deviation 4: 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 temporary signs or banners
up to a maximum of 32 square feet in combined sign area and a maximum of 8 feet in height, subject
to approval under temporary sign permit procedures in the LDC. This deviation will remain valid for a
period of four (4) years from the date of issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a model
home within the community. At such time, the deviation will be void.
JUSTIFICATION: The requested deviation will allow for a banner sign(s) announcing the
project’s grand opening and/or available unit sales, at a scale that has been previously
approved for other residential communities within Collier County. The deviation will provide
additional signage area to assist in marketing efforts, while protecting viewsheds from Collier
Boulevard. The sign will be temporary in nature, and will undergo the requisite temporary sign
permit process in accordance with Section 5.04.06 of the LDC.
Deviation 5: Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6.b, which permits two (2) ground or wall signs
per entrance to the development with a combined sign area of 64 square feet and 8 feet in height, to
allow for two (2) ground or wall signs at the project entrance with a combined sign area of 80 square
feet and 10 feet in height.
JUSTIFICATION: The proposed deviation will allow for additional design flexibility and ensure
visibility of the community from adjacent roadways. This deviation request is typical of similar
master planned residential communities throughout Collier County. The proposed signage will
undergo the requisite permitting prior to construction.
951 Villas RPUD PL20170003535
Schedule of Deviations
Page 3 of 4
Deviation 6: Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.14, which permits one (1) boundary marker sign
or monument structure at each property corner with a maximum height of 8 feet, to allow for three (3)
boundary marker signs as shown on the PUD master plan, and a maximum height of 16 feet.
JUSTIFICATION: The proposed deviation will allow for additional design flexibility and ensure
visibility of the community from adjacent roadways. The boundary markers will have a
consistent architectural theme consistent with the perimeter wall/fences, entry signage and
general community aesthetic. The proposed signage will serve as a visual asset to the
community, and differentiate the project from other communities along Collier Boulevard. The
proposed signage will also undergo the requisite permitting prior to construction. Please refer
to the Conceptual Boundary Marker Exhibit attached.
Deviation 7: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01.J, which prohibits dead-end streets, to allow two (2)
dead-end streets within the RPUD.
JUSTIFICATION: The Applicant is requesting dead-end stubs at the terminus of two (2)
private, local streets as shown on the PUD Master Plan in order to efficiently utilize the
property’s developable area. The maximum length of the proposed dead-end streets will not
exceed 150 feet. The proposed design is in compliance with state and local fire safety
standards. Therefore, the requested deviation will not negatively impact public health, safety
or welfare and will provide for design flexibility within this infill development parcel.
Deviation 8: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.1, which requires 5-foot wide sidewalks to be
provided on local roads/internal accessways adjacent to the site, to omit sidewalks on the southern-
most entry road/bridge providing the permanent vehicular access to the PUD.
JUSTIFICATION: The southern-most existing bridge intended for vehicular access to the
community is too narrow to accommodate 5-foot wide sidewalks and travel lanes. In lieu of
providing sidewalks along this vehicular access bridge, the developer is proposing to convert
the northern-most bridge to a pedestrian-only access point to provide future residents with
direct access to Collier Boulevard. It is important to note that pedestrian access to the existing
10-foot wide pathway along the CR-951 Canal is provided from both the northern and
southern entrance. This deviation would only omit sidewalks extending across the bridge to the
Collier Boulevard travel lanes.
Deviation 9: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, which requires 5-foot wide sidewalks to be
provided on local roads/internal accessways within the site, to omit the requirement for sidewalks on
single-loaded roadways within the PUD. Safety crossing-markings will be provided at the ends of each
sidewalk (terminal ends) on single loaded streets.
JUSTIFICATION: This deviation is requested in two (2) specific locations within the site where
the road is “single-loaded”, or only has units fronting on one (1) side of the roadway. The
deviation allows for the area to remain pervious/grassed in a location where a sidewalk is not
needed to facilitate pedestrian movement throughout the community. The sidewalk will be
provided on the side of the road where homes have street frontage. As noted, in the request,
safety crossing-markings will be provided at the ends of each sidewalk (terminal ends) on
single loaded streets to protect public health, safety and welfare.
951 Villas RPUD PL20170003535
Schedule of Deviations
Page 4 of 4
Deviation 10: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01.N, which requires a minimum right-of-way width
of 60 feet, to allow for a minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet for private internal roadways.
JUSTIFICATION: The reduced roadway width will provide the necessary infrastructure
requirements, including 5-foot wide internal sidewalks, standard 10-foot wide travel lanes,
and utility easements. Additionally, the right-of-way will be privately maintained by the future
Homeowners Association (HOA). 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.
951 Villas
PUDZ-PL2017-0003535
CCPC Package
BOUNDARY SURVEY
951 Villas
PUDZ-PL2017-0003535
CCPC Package
PUD DOCUMENT
951 Villas RPUD – PUDZ-PL20170003535
Last Revised: May 11, 2018
Page 1 of 10
EXHIBIT “A”
LIST OF PERMITTED USES
951 VILLAS RPUD
Regulations for development of this PUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this document
and all applicable sections of the Growth Management Plan (GMD), the Land Development Code
(LDC), and the Administrative Code in effect at the time of approval of the first Site Development Plan
(SDP) or plat. Where the PUD ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provision
of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply.
PERMITTED USES:
A maximum of 148 dwelling units shall be permitted in this PUD. 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:
I. RESIDENTIAL TRACTS
A. Principal Uses:
1. Single-family detached dwelling units.
2. Two-family dwelling units.
3. Townhouses.
4. Multi-family dwelling units.
B. Accessory Uses:
Accessory uses customarily associated with Permitted Principal Uses, including but not limited
to:
1. Customary accessory uses and structures including carports, garages, and utility
buildings.
2. Temporary sales trailers and model units.
3. Essential services, including interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities.
4. Water management facilities.
5. Walls, berms and signs.
6. Passive open space uses and structures, including, but not limited to landscaped
areas, gazebos, park benches, and walking trails.
Any other accessory use and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing
by the Board of Zoning Appeals, or Hearing Examiner, pursuant to the process outlined in the
Land Development Code (LDC).
II. RECREATION TRACT
A. Principal Uses and Structures:
1. Recreational uses and facilities including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts,
fishing docks, walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings, and basketball/shuffle
board courts.
951 Villas RPUD – PUDZ-PL20170003535
Last Revised: May 11, 2018
Page 2 of 10
2. Passive open space uses and structures, including, but not limited to landscaped areas,
gazebos, park benches, and walking trails.
B. Accessory Uses and Structures:
Accessory uses customarily associated with Permitted Principal Uses, and any other accessory
use and related use that is determined to be comparable to customary accessory uses by the
Board of Zoning Appeals or Hearing Examiner pursuant to the process outlined in the Land
Development Code (LDC).
III. PRESERVE TRACT
A. Principal Use: Preserves.
B. Accessory Uses: Allowable uses only as allowed by LDC section “Allowable uses within County
required preserves”.
951 Villas RPUD – PUDZ-PL20170003535
Last Revised: May 11, 2018
Page 3 of 10
EXHIBIT “B”
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
951 VILLAS RPUD
The standards for land uses within the development shall be as stated in these development standard
tables. 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.
Guardhouses, gatehouses, access control structures, clock towers, columns, decorative hardscaping
or architectural embellishments associated with the project’s entrance are permitted and shall have no
required setbacks; however, such structures cannot be located where they create sight distance issues
for motorists and pedestrians, and cannot exceed 35 feet in actual height.
TABLE I
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PERMITTED USES
AND STANDARDS
Single-Family
Detached
Two-Family Townhouse
Multi-Family Clubhouse/
Recreation
Buildings
Min. Lot Area 3,500 SF 2,500 SF 2,000 SF N/A N/A
Min. Lot Width 35’ 25’ 20’ N/A N/A
Min. Lot Depth 100’ 100’ 100’ N/A N/A
SETBACKS
Front Yard(1) 15’(2)(3) 15’(2)(3) 15’(2) 15’(2) 15’(2)
Side Yard 5’ 0’/5’ 0’/5’ 10’ 10’
Rear Yard
(Principal)(4)
Rear Yard
(Accessory) (4)
7.5’
5’
7.5’
5’
7.5’
5’
10’
5’
10’
5’
Preserve
(Principal)
Preserve
(Accessory)
25’
10’
25’
10’
25’
10’
25’
10’
25’
10’
Min. Distance
Between Principal
Structures
10’ 10’ 10’ 15’ 10’
Maximum Height
Actual
Zoned
45’
35’
45’
35’
45’
35’
45’
35’
55’
45’
(1) Front setback is measured from the edge of pavement or back of curb.
(2) Front-loading/front-entry garages shall be setback a minimum of 23’ from the back of sidewalk.
(3) Corner lots shall provide one (1) front yard setback within the yard that contains the
driveway/vehicular access to the dwelling unit. The secondary front yard that does not contain the
driveway/vehicular access to the dwelling unit shall provide a minimum 10’ setback to the edge of
pavement or back of curb.
(4) 0’ principal and accessory setbacks are permitted from lake maintenance easements and
landscape buffer easements, which shall be separate platted tracts or tracts on the PPL/SDP.
951 Villas RPUD – PUDZ-PL20170003535
Last Revised: May 11, 2018
Page 4 of 10
GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth below shall be understood to be in
relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures. Condominium, and/or
homeowners’ association boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development standards.
Landscape buffers and lake maintenance easements shall be platted as separate tracts at time of
subdivision plat approval.
Note: Nothing in this PUD document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is
expressly stated in a list of deviations.
PRESERVE
(7.3 AC)
LAKE
(4.0 AC)
50.0'
ROW
50.0'
ROW
50.0'
ROW
50.0'
ROW
2
0
.
0
'LME2
0
.
0
'
L
M
E
COLLIER BLVD / CR 951R / REC
R
R
R
R
RR
FLU: URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUB-DISTRICT
ZONING: PUD
EXISTING LAND USE: GOLF COURSE
(VANDERBILT COUNTRY CLUB)
FLU: URBAN RESIDENTIAL
SUB-DISTRICT
ZONING: PUD
EXISTING LAND USE:
RIGHT-OF-WAY AND
MULTI-FAMILY
(VANDERBILT COUNTRY
CLUB)
FLU: URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUB-DISTRICT
ZONING: PUD
EXISTING LAND USE: TOWNHOUSE
(BRISTOL PINES)
SEE NOTES 4 & 5
OPTIONAL FENCE SEE NOTES 4 & 5OPTIONAL FENCEFLU: URBAN RESIDENTIAL
SUB-DISTRICT
ZONING: PUD
EXISTING LAND USE:
PRESERVE AND
TOWNHOUSE (BRISTOL
PINES)
10' TYPE "A" BUFFER
OPTIONAL 10' FENCE / WALL / BERM
20' TYPE "D" BUFFEROPTIONAL 12' FENCE / WALL / BERMOPTIONAL
GATED ENTRY
TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION
ACCESS/
PERMANENT
BICYCLE /
PEDESTRIAN
CONNECTION
BOUNDARY
MARKER
SIGN
FLU: URBAN
RESIDENTIAL
SUB-DISTRICT
ZONING: PUD
EXISTING LAND
USE:MULTI-FAMILY
(SUMMIT PLACE)CR-951 CANALEXISTING 10'
PATHWAY
BOUNDARY
MARKER
SIGN BUFFER PERLDCPEDESTRIAN
ACCESS
P
PERMANENT
VEHICULAR
ACCESS
10.0' FPL EASEMENT
(OR 684 PG 67)B:\Projects\741-02 Naples Villas (fka JCC Site) Rezoning\Drawings-Exhibits\741-02-E01 Master Concept Plan\Current Plans\74102E0104.dwgNORTH
SCALE: 1" = 300'
LEGEND
RIGHT-OF-WAY
LAKE
RESIDENTIAL
DEVIATION
RECREATIONREC
INGRESS / EGRESS
R
PRESERVE
#SET NUMBER:SHEET :PLAN REVISIONSFLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION #8636WALDROP
ENGINEERING
LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS
28100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE - SUITE 305 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135
P: 239-405-7777 F: 239-405-7899 EMAIL: info@waldropengineering.com1 OF 2741-02-E011 02/05/18 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS
2
2
5
7
9
9
1
6
3
3
7
10
10
10
10
8
6
951 VILLAS RPUD
PUD MASTER PLAN NOTES
REV00 SUBMITTED 12/05/17
PRESERVEP
2 04/02/18 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS CLIENT: TOLL FL XIII LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
B:\Projects\741-02 Naples Villas (fka JCC Site) Rezoning\Drawings-Exhibits\741-02-E01 Master Concept Plan\Current Plans\74102E0104.dwgGENERAL NOTES
1.7.3 ACRES OF REQUIRED PRESERVE WILL BE PROVIDED ON-SITE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SEC. 3.05.07 (29.1 AC x 25% = 7.3 AC).
2.A MAXIMUM OF 148 DU, GROSS DENSITY OF 4 DU/ACRE IS
PERMITTED
3.LME = LAKE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT
4.PRESERVES MAY BE USED TO SATISFY THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER
REQUIREMENTS AFTER EXOTIC VEGETATION REMOVAL IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTIONS 4.06.02 AND 4.06.05.E.1.
SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGS WITH NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS SHALL
BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTION 3.05.07.
5.FENCES ARE PERMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTION
3.05.07.H
SET NUMBER:SHEET :2 OF 2741-02-E01FLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION #8636WALDROP
ENGINEERING
LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS
28100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE - SUITE 305 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135
P: 239-405-7777 F: 239-405-7899 EMAIL: info@waldropengineering.com
951 VILLAS RPUD
PUD MASTER PLAN NOTES
PLAN REVISIONS
02/05/18 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS
REV00 SUBMITTED 12/05/17
1
LAND USE SUMMARY
RESIDENTIAL
RIGHT-OF-WAY
TOTAL AREA
13.4
4.1
37.5
ACREAGE PERCENT OF TOTAL
ACREAGE
35%
11%
100%
OPEN SPACE SUMMARY
OPEN SPACE REQUIRED
RECREATION/
RIGHT-OF-WAY
LAKE
22.5
4.0
4.0
ACREAGE PERCENT OF TOTAL
ACREAGE
60%
10%
10%
OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 22.5 60%
0.9 3%
LAKE 4.0 10%
PRESERVE 7.3 20%
RECREATION 1.5 4%
PRESERVE 7.3 20%
BUFFERS 0.9 3%
RESIDENTIAL - OPEN SPACE 6.3 17%
BUFFERS
6.3 17%RESIDENTIAL - OPEN SPACE
CLIENT: TOLL FL XIII LIMITED PARTNERSHIP04/02/18 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS2
951 Villas RPUD – PUDZ-PL20170003535
Last Revised: May 11, 2018
Page 7 of 10
EXHIBIT “D”
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
951 VILLAS RPUD
DESCRIPTION PARCEL ONE (OR 3935 PG 1717)
THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF
SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; LESS AND
EXCEPT THE WEST 100 FEET THEREOF.
DESCRIPTION PARCEL TWO (OR 3936 PG 0123)
THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF
SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; LESS THE
WEST 100 FEET THEREOF;
AND
THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF
THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
DESCRIPTION PARCEL THREE (OR 3936 PG 0084)
THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4
AND THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4
OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 AND THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST
1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
DESCRIPTION PARCEL FOUR (OR 3936 PG 0033)
THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4
OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
A/K/A
THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF
SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
LESS AND EXCEPTING COLLIER BLVD. RIGHT OF WAY
951 Villas RPUD – PUDZ-PL20170003535
Last Revised: May 11, 2018
Page 8 of 10
EXHIBIT “E”
LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC
951 VILLAS RPUD
Deviation 1: Deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04.G, which allows parking spaces for recreation
facilities for multi-family dwelling units to be computed at 25 percent of the normal requirements
where a majority of the dwelling units are within 300 feet of the recreation facilities, to allow the
parking spaces for the recreation facilities for multi-family dwelling units to be computed at 25 percent
where the majority of dwelling units are within 1,000 feet of the recreation facilities.
Deviation 2: Deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C, which requires a 15-foot wide Type “B” buffer
between single-family and multi-family dwelling units and amenity centers, to allow for a 7.5-foot-
wide Type “B” buffer between internal dwelling units and the amenity center. The buffer will contain
3-gallon muhly grass, planted 3-feet off center on the residential side of the buffer, in addition to
all required Type “B’ plant materials.
Deviation 3: Deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.2, which permits a maximum fence/wall
height of 6 feet in residential zoning districts, to allow for a maximum fence/wall/berm height of
12 feet along Collier Boulevard/CR 951, and 10 feet along the northern PUD perimeter boundary.
Deviation 4: 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 temporary signs or banners
up to a maximum of 32 square feet in combined sign area and a maximum of 8 feet in height, subject
to approval under temporary sign permit procedures in the LDC. This deviation will remain valid for a
period of four (4) years from the date of issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for a model
home within the community. At such time, the deviation will be void.
Deviation 5: Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6.b, which permits two (2) ground or wall signs
per entrance to the development with a combined sign area of 64 square feet and 8 feet in height, to
allow for two (2) ground or wall signs at the project entrance with a combined sign area of 80 square
feet and 10 feet in height.
Deviation 6: Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.14, which permits one (1) boundary marker sign
or monument structure at each property corner with a maximum height of 8 feet, to allow for three (3)
boundary marker signs as shown on the PUD master plan, and a maximum height of 16 feet.
Deviation 7: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01.J, which prohibits dead-end streets, to allow two (2)
dead-end streets within the RPUD.
Deviation 8: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.1, which requires 5-foot wide sidewalks to be
provided on local roads/internal accessways adjacent to the site, to omit sidewalks on the southern-
most entry road/bridge providing the permanent vehicular access to the PUD.
Deviation 9: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, which requires 5-foot wide sidewalks to be
provided on local roads/internal accessways within the site, to omit the requirement for sidewalks on
single-loaded roadways within the PUD. Safety crossing-markings will be provided at the ends of
each sidewalk (terminal ends) on single loaded streets.
Deviation 10: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01.N, which requires a minimum right-of-way width
of 60 feet, to allow for a minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet for private internal roadways.
951 Villas RPUD – PUDZ-PL20170003535
Last Revised: May 11, 2018
Page 9 of 10
EXHIBIT “F”
DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS
951 VILLAS RPUD
1. GENERAL
A. 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 the Toll FL XIII Limited Partnership. 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.
B. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not
in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or
federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the
permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a
state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law.
C. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the
development.
2. TRANSPORTATION
A. The development shall be limited to a maximum of 148 two-way unadjusted PM Peak Hour
Trips.
B. The owner, or their successors or assigns, shall provide a bicycle/pedestrian connection to
Collier Boulevard along the northern-most bridge crossing the CR-951 Canal, as shown on
Exhibit C, the PUD Master Plan.
C. Construction access via the existing northern-most bridge will be permitted for a period of 4
years from the date of SDP/PPL approval, with a one-time, one-year extension. Upon
termination of the construction access, the northern-most bridge will be utilized for bicycle and
pedestrian access.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL
A. The subject site contains approximately 29.1 acres of native vegetation, of which 25% (7.3
acres) is required to be preserve. The native vegetation preservation requirement will be
satisfied on-site in accordance with the Land Development Code. Any replanting of native
vegetation to meet preserve standards shall comply with all requirements set forth in LDC
Section 3.05.07.H.
951 Villas RPUD – PUDZ-PL20170003535
Last Revised: May 11, 2018
Page 10 of 10
B. Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements after exotic vegetation
removal in accordance with LDC Sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E.1. Supplemental plantings
with native plant materials shall be in accordance with LDC Section 3.05.07.
C. A Black Bear Management Plan shall be submitted at the time of PPL/SDP.
951 Villas
PUDZ-PL2017-0003535
CCPC Package
PUD MASTER PLAN
8.5”x11”
PRESERVE
(7.3 AC)
LAKE
(4.0 AC)
50.0'
ROW
50.0'
ROW
50.0'
ROW
50.0'
ROW
2
0
.
0
'LME2
0
.
0
'
L
M
E
COLLIER BLVD / CR 951R / REC
R
R
R
R
RR
FLU: URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUB-DISTRICT
ZONING: PUD
EXISTING LAND USE: GOLF COURSE
(VANDERBILT COUNTRY CLUB)
FLU: URBAN RESIDENTIAL
SUB-DISTRICT
ZONING: PUD
EXISTING LAND USE:
RIGHT-OF-WAY AND
MULTI-FAMILY
(VANDERBILT COUNTRY
CLUB)
FLU: URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUB-DISTRICT
ZONING: PUD
EXISTING LAND USE: TOWNHOUSE
(BRISTOL PINES)
SEE NOTES 4 & 5
OPTIONAL FENCE SEE NOTES 4 & 5OPTIONAL FENCEFLU: URBAN RESIDENTIAL
SUB-DISTRICT
ZONING: PUD
EXISTING LAND USE:
PRESERVE AND
TOWNHOUSE (BRISTOL
PINES)
10' TYPE "A" BUFFER
OPTIONAL 10' FENCE / WALL / BERM
20' TYPE "D" BUFFEROPTIONAL 12' FENCE / WALL / BERMOPTIONAL
GATED ENTRY
TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION
ACCESS/
PERMANENT
BICYCLE /
PEDESTRIAN
CONNECTION
BOUNDARY
MARKER
SIGN
FLU: URBAN
RESIDENTIAL
SUB-DISTRICT
ZONING: PUD
EXISTING LAND
USE:MULTI-FAMILY
(SUMMIT PLACE)CR-951 CANALEXISTING 10'
PATHWAY
BOUNDARY
MARKER
SIGN BUFFER PERLDCPEDESTRIAN
ACCESS
P
PERMANENT
VEHICULAR
ACCESS
10.0' FPL EASEMENT
(OR 684 PG 67)B:\Projects\741-02 Naples Villas (fka JCC Site) Rezoning\Drawings-Exhibits\741-02-E01 Master Concept Plan\Current Plans\74102E0104.dwgNORTH
SCALE: 1" = 300'
LEGEND
RIGHT-OF-WAY
LAKE
RESIDENTIAL
DEVIATION
RECREATIONREC
INGRESS / EGRESS
R
PRESERVE
#SET NUMBER:SHEET :PLAN REVISIONSFLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION #8636WALDROP
ENGINEERING
LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS
28100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE - SUITE 305 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135
P: 239-405-7777 F: 239-405-7899 EMAIL: info@waldropengineering.com1 OF 2741-02-E011 02/05/18 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS
2
2
5
7
9
9
1
6
3
3
7
10
10
10
10
8
6
951 VILLAS RPUD
PUD MASTER PLAN NOTES
REV00 SUBMITTED 12/05/17
PRESERVEP
2 04/02/18 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS CLIENT: TOLL FL XIII LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
B:\Projects\741-02 Naples Villas (fka JCC Site) Rezoning\Drawings-Exhibits\741-02-E01 Master Concept Plan\Current Plans\74102E0104.dwgGENERAL NOTES
1.7.3 ACRES OF REQUIRED PRESERVE WILL BE PROVIDED ON-SITE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SEC. 3.05.07 (29.1 AC x 25% = 7.3 AC).
2.A MAXIMUM OF 148 DU, GROSS DENSITY OF 4 DU/ACRE IS
PERMITTED
3.LME = LAKE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT
4.PRESERVES MAY BE USED TO SATISFY THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER
REQUIREMENTS AFTER EXOTIC VEGETATION REMOVAL IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTIONS 4.06.02 AND 4.06.05.E.1.
SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGS WITH NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS SHALL
BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTION 3.05.07.
5.FENCES ARE PERMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTION
3.05.07.H
SET NUMBER:SHEET :2 OF 2741-02-E01FLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION #8636WALDROP
ENGINEERING
LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS
28100 BONITA GRANDE DRIVE - SUITE 305 BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135
P: 239-405-7777 F: 239-405-7899 EMAIL: info@waldropengineering.com
951 VILLAS RPUD
PUD MASTER PLAN NOTES
PLAN REVISIONS
02/05/18 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS
REV00 SUBMITTED 12/05/17
1
LAND USE SUMMARY
RESIDENTIAL
RIGHT-OF-WAY
TOTAL AREA
13.4
4.1
37.5
ACREAGE PERCENT OF TOTAL
ACREAGE
35%
11%
100%
OPEN SPACE SUMMARY
OPEN SPACE REQUIRED
RECREATION/
RIGHT-OF-WAY
LAKE
22.5
4.0
4.0
ACREAGE PERCENT OF TOTAL
ACREAGE
60%
10%
10%
OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 22.5 60%
0.9 3%
LAKE 4.0 10%
PRESERVE 7.3 20%
RECREATION 1.5 4%
PRESERVE 7.3 20%
BUFFERS 0.9 3%
RESIDENTIAL - OPEN SPACE 6.3 17%
BUFFERS
6.3 17%RESIDENTIAL - OPEN SPACE
CLIENT: TOLL FL XIII LIMITED PARTNERSHIP04/02/18 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS2