Agenda 09/25/2018 Item #17A09/25/2018
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 No. 2008-28, as amended, the Esperanza Place RPUD, to reduce
the maximum number of residential dwelling units, from 262 to 159 units, to allow a maximum of
45 group housing units, to add single family dwelling units, child day care services, and group
housing as permitted uses in Tract A, to add new development standards for group housing, to add
a new deviation relating to fence and wall standards, to amend a developer commitment relating to
affordable housing, and to amend the Master Plan. The subject property is located on the north
side of Immokalee Drive, approximately one quarter mile east of Carson Road in Immokalee, in
Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 31.6± acres;
and by providing an effective date. [PL20170001326]. (This is a companion to Agenda Item 16.D.1)
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 consists of 31.6 +/- acres and is located on the north side of
Immokalee Drive, approximately one-quarter mile east of Carson Road in Immokalee, in Section 32,
Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County. The petitioner is requesting that the Board consider
an application to amend Ordinance Number 08-28, the Esperanza Place Residential Planned Unit
Development (RPUD) to reduce the maximum number of residential dwelling units, from 262 to 159
units, to allow a maximum of 45 group housing units, to add single-family dwelling units, child day care
services, and group housing as permitted uses in Tract A. Also, to add and approve new development
standards for group housing, to add a new deviation related to fence and wall standards, to amend a
developer commitment relating to affordable housing, and to amend the Master Plan. The petitioner is
also requesting approval of an Amended Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement, which will be a
separate companion agenda item.
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 ±31.63-acre subject property is designated Urban, Mixed-
Use District, Low Residential Subdistrict as depicted on the Immokalee Future Land Use Map in the
Immokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP). According to the IAMP, “the purpose of this designation is to
provide a Subdistrict for low-density residential development. Residential dwellings shall be limited to
single-family structures and Duplexes. Multi-Family dwellings shall be permitted provided they are
within a Planned Unit Development... A density less than or equal to four (4) dwelling units per gross
17.A
Packet Pg. 2668
09/25/2018
acre is permitted.” A variety of non-residential uses are also allowed, including daycare and group
housing.
The IAMP states, “To encourage the provision of affordable-workforce housing within certain
Subdistricts in the Urban Designated Area, a maximum of up to eight (8) residential units per gross acre
may be added to the base density if the project meets the definition and requirements of the Affordable-
workforce Housing Density Bonus Ordinance (Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code,
Ordinance 04-41, as amended, adopted June 22, 2004, and effective October 19, 2004). This bonus may
be applied to an entire project or portions of a project provided that the project is located within … any
residential sub-district.”
The Esperanza Place RPUD site is eligible for up to 12 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) with a base
density of 4 DU/A + 8 DU/A for affordable-workforce housing yielding a total of 380 DUs (12 DU/A *
31.63A = 379.56 DUs = 380 DUs). The existing affordable-workforce housing agreement and PUD were
approved for 262 DUs at a density of 8.28 DU/A. The proposed reduction in the maximum number of
dwelling units from 262 to 159, at a density of 5.03 DU/A, is consistent with the Density Rating System
of the IAMP.
This RPUD has an existing approved companion Affordable-Workforce Housing Density Bonus
Agreement for a maximum of 262 DUs with a density of 8.28 DU/A, which is more than double the
density allowed in the Low Residential Subdistrict without such an agreement. The petition includes a
revised “Agreement” that would limit the RPUD to a maximum of 159 DUs or 5.03 DU/A (159
DUs/31.63A = 5.03 DU/A). The Agreement will be a separate companion agenda item.
Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUDA may be deemed consistent with the Future
Land Use Element.
Transportation Element (TE):
The project is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth M anagement Plan,
which 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
stipulations 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.”
17.A
Packet Pg. 2669
09/25/2018
The proposed residential development will generate a projected total reduction of +/-18 PM peak hour, 2-
way trips on the adjacent local roadway when compared to the existing-approved residential development.
The proposed amendment is reducing the number of single-family and multi-family units to a maximum
of 159 units while adding 45 new group housing units for a total of 204 units. The new development will
have a trip limit cap of 168 PM peak hour 2-way trips which is included as a developer commitment. The
adjacent roadway is Immokalee Drive, and the closest AUIR tracked road segment is SR-29 which has
adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development. Therefore, the subject Conditional Use
can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan,
and as noted above the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) indicates that the adjacent roadway network has
sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5-year planning period.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME):
Environmental review staff has found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal
Management Element (CCME). A minimum of 0.31 (25%) acres of preservation has been provided by
monetary donation to Conservation Collier and South Florida Water Management District.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC
heard petition PUDA-PL20170001326 on August 16, 2018, and by a vote of 6 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 no opposition with this petition. As such,
this petition will be placed on Summary Agenda.
The CCPC stipulations include required deletions to the PUD document:
Exhibit A - I Tract A:
Revising permitted uses by removing the word “detached” from single-family dwellings
units.
Exhibit A - III Tract C:
Revising permitted uses by removing the word “detached” from single -family dwellings
units.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This is an amendment to the existing Esperanza Place PUD (Ordinance No. 08-28, as amended). The
burden falls upon the applicant for the amendment to prove that the proposal is consistent with all of the
criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), should it
consider denial, that such denial is not arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be
accomplished by finding that the amendment does not meet one or more of the listed criteria.
Criteria for PUD Amendments
Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval
or not.
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
17.A
Packet Pg. 2670
09/25/2018
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 PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the
Growth Management Plan.
4. Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may
include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and
screening requirements.
5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development?
6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring
the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
8. Consider: Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such
regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified
as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such
regulations.
9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future
land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan?
10. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern?
11. Would the requested PUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district
unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?
12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed
amendment necessary.
14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?
15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of
traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or
projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the
development, or otherwise affect public safety?
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?
17.A
Packet Pg. 2671
09/25/2018
19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent
property in accordance with existing regulations?
20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot (“reasonably”) be used in accordance
with existing zoning? (a “core” question…)
22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county?
23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the
proposed use in districts already permitting such use.
24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which
would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the
proposed zoning classification.
25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed PUD rezone on the
availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service
adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented
through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch.106, art.II], as
amended.
26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the PUD rezone request that the
Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health,
safety, and welfare?
The BCC must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence p resented by the written
materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies,
letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the BCC hearing as these items relate
to these criteria. This item has been approved as to form and legality, and requires an affirmative vote of
four for Board approval (SAS)
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 amend the PUD.
Prepared by: C. James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Division
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Staff Report - PUDA - PL20170001326 - Esperanza Place (PDF)
2. FLUE Consistency Review - Attachment B (PDF)
3. Revised Proposed Ordinance - 082218 - Attachment A (PDF)
4. [Linked] Backup Material Esperanza (PDF)
5. Legal Ad - Agenda ID #6474 (PDF)
17.A
Packet Pg. 2672
09/25/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 17.A
Doc ID: 6474
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 No. 2008-28, as amended, the Esperanza Place RPUD, to
reduce the maximum number of residential dwelling units, from 262 to 159 units, to allow a maximum of
45 group housing units, to add single family dwelling units, child day care services, and group housing as
permitted uses in Tract A, to add new development standards for group housing, to add a new deviation
relating to fence and wall standards, to amend a developer commitment relating to affordable housing,
and to amend the Master Plan. The subject property is located on the north side of Immokalee Drive,
approximately one quarter mile east of Carson Road in Immokalee, in Section 32, Township 46 South,
Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 31.6± acres; and by providing an effective date.
[PL20170001326]. (This is a companion to Agenda Item 16.D.1)
Meeting Date: 09/25/2018
Prepared by:
Title: – Zoning
Name: James Sabo
08/21/2018 3:07 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning
Name: Michael Bosi
08/21/2018 3:07 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Zoning Michael Bosi Additional Reviewer Completed 08/22/2018 8:11 AM
Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Reviewer Completed 08/22/2018 9:03 AM
Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 08/23/2018 5:16 PM
Growth Management Department James C French Deputy Department Head Review Completed 08/23/2018 6:24 PM
Growth Management Department Thaddeus Cohen Department Head Review Completed 08/24/2018 9:18 AM
County Attorney's Office Scott Stone Level 2 Attorney Review Completed 08/30/2018 12:22 PM
Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 08/30/2018 1:47 PM
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 08/30/2018 3:13 PM
Budget and Management Office Mark Isackson Additional Reviewer Completed 09/06/2018 9:52 AM
County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 09/16/2018 6:35 PM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 09/25/2018 9:00 AM
17.A
Packet Pg. 2673
PUDA-PL20170001326; Esperanza Place Page 1 of 13
Revised: July 29, 2018
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING DATE: AUGUST 16, 2018
SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20170001326 ESPERANZA PLACE
______________________________________________________________________________
PROPERTY OWNERS/APPLICANT/AGENT:
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an
application to amend Ordinance Number 08-28, the Esperanza Place Residential Planned Unit
Development (RPUD) to reduce the maximum number of residential dwelling units, from 262 to
159 units, to allow a maximum of 45 group housing units, to add single-family detached dwelling
units, child day care services, and group housing as permitted uses in Tract A. Also, to add and
approve new development standards for group housing, to add a new deviation related to fence
and wall standards, to amend a developer commitment relating to affordable housing, and to amend
the Master Plan. The petitioner is also requesting approval of an Amended Affordable Housing
Density Bonus Agreement.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property consists of 31.6 +/- acres and is located on the north side of Immokalee Drive,
approximately one quarter mile east of Carson Road in Immokalee, in Section 32, Township 46
South, Range 29 East, Collier County (see location map, page 2).
Owner/Applicant: Agent:
Brookwood Residential, LLC D. Wayne Arnold, AICP
P.O. Box 343529
Florida City, FL 33034
Q. Grady Minor Associates, P.A.
3800 Via Del Rey
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
AGENDA ITEM 9-B
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 2674 Attachment: Staff Report - PUDA - PL20170001326 - Esperanza Place (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
PUDA-PL20170001326; Esperanza Place Page 2 of 13
Revised: July 29, 2018
17.A.1Packet Pg. 2675Attachment: Staff Report - PUDA - PL20170001326 - Esperanza Place (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326
PUDA-PL20170001326; Esperanza Place Page 3 of 13
Revised: July 29, 2018
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The Esperanza Place PUD was originally approved by Ordinance Number 08-28. There have been
no subsequent amendments. The current ordinance was approved on June 10, 2008. (Please see
back-up material, Ordinance Number 008-28). The proposal is to amend the ordinance to reduce
the total number of residential dwelling units by 103, changing from 262 units to 159 units. Also,
they propose to add up to 45 group housing units.
They propose to change Tract “A” and reduce the total allowable dwelling units by 80 units,
reducing from 176 units to 96 dwelling units. Tract “A” is 15.83 acres. New principal permitted
uses are proposed on Tract “A,” which include single-family detached dwelling units, child care
services, and group housing. The proposed Group Housing is specific and includes care units and
transitional and emergency shelters not to exceed a maximum of 45 units. The group housing will
be located in the area designated R/GH on the PUD Master Plan.
The applicant proposes to change Tract B and reduce the total allowable dwelling units by 23 units,
reducing from 85 units to 62 dwelling units. Tract B is 13.8 acres. Changes to the Development
Standards are proposed as well by adding Group Housing and Child Care to the Development
Standards table for principal and accessory structures. The proposed changes to the ordinance is
included as strikethrough and underline in Attachment A. The proposed Master Plan is included
as Attachment B.
The requested deviation is discussed later in this staff report. The applicant is also proposing to
amend the Affordable Housing Agreement that was approved as a companion item to the original
PUD on June 10, 2008.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: Developed residential, with a current zoning designation of Residential Single-
Family (RS-4) (4.0 DU/AC) and Mobile Home (MH) (7.26 DU/AC) and is
approved for single family and mobile homes.
South: Immokalee Drive, a two-lane roadway, and then undeveloped land, with a current
zoning designation of Rural Agricultural Mobile Home Overlay District (A-MHO)
(7.26 DU/AC).
East: Developed residential, with a current zoning designation of Rural Agricultural
Mobile Home Overlay District (A-MHO) (7.26 DU/AC) and is approved for mobile
homes.
West: Developed residential, with a current zoning designation of Mobile Home (MH)
(7.26 DU/AC) and is approved for mobile homes.
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 2676 Attachment: Staff Report - PUDA - PL20170001326 - Esperanza Place (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
PUDA-PL20170001326; Esperanza Place Page 4 of 13
Revised: July 29, 2018
Aerial Map (County GIS)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The ±31.63-acre subject property is designated Urban,
Mixed-Use District, Low Residential Sub district as depicted on the Immokalee Future Land Use
Map in the Immokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP). According to the IAMP, “the purpose of this
designation is to provide a Sub district for low density residential development. Residential
dwellings shall be limited to single-family structures and Duplexes. Multi-Family dwellings shall
be permitted provided they are within a Planned Unit Development... A density less than or equal
to four (4) dwelling units per gross acre is permitted.” A variety of non-residential uses are also
allowed, including day care and group housing.
The IAMP states, “To encourage the provision of affordable-workforce housing within certain Sub
districts in the Urban Designated Area, a maximum of up to eight (8) residential units per gross
acre may be added to the base density if the project meets the definition and requirements of the
Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus Ordinance (Section 2.06.00 of the Land
Development Code, Ordinance 04-41, as amended, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October
19, 2004). This bonus may be applied to an entire project or portions of a project provided that
the project is located within … any residential sub district.”
The Esperanza Place RPUD site is eligible for up to 12 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) with a base
density of 4 DU/A + 8 DU/A for affordable-workforce housing yielding a total of 380 DUs (12
DU/A * 31.63A = 379.56 DUs = 380 DUs). The existing affordable-workforce housing agreement
and PUD were approved for 262 DUs at a density of 8.28 DU/A. The proposed reduction in the
maximum number of dwelling units from 262 to 159, at a density of 5.03 DU/A, is consistent with
the Density Rating System of the IAMP.
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 2677 Attachment: Staff Report - PUDA - PL20170001326 - Esperanza Place (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
PUDA-PL20170001326; Esperanza Place Page 5 of 13
Revised: July 29, 2018
This RPUD has an existing approved Affordable-Workforce Housing Density Bonus Agreement
for a maximum of 262 DUs with a density of 8.28 DU/A, which is more than double the density
allowed in the Low Residential Sub district without such an agreement. The petition includes a
revised “Agreement” that would limit the RPUD to a maximum of 159 DUs or 5.03 DU/A (159
DUs/31.63A = 5.03 DU/A). The FLUE Consistency Review is included as Attachment C.
Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUDA may be deemed consistent with the
Future Land Use Element.
Transportation Element (TE):
The project is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management
Plan, which 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 stipulations 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 residential development will generate a projected total reduction of +/-18 PM peak
hour, 2-way trips on the adjacent local roadway when compared to the existing-approved
residential development. The proposed amendment is reducing the number of single-family and
multi-family units to a maximum of 159 units while adding 45 new group housing units for a total
of 204 units. The new development will have a trip limit cap of 168 PM peak hour 2-way trips
which in included as a developer commitment. The adjacent roadway is Immokalee Drive and the
closest AUIR tracked road segment is SR-29 which has adequate capacity to accommodate the
proposed development. Therefore, the subject Conditional Use can be found consistent with
Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan, and as noted above the
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 2678 Attachment: Staff Report - PUDA - PL20170001326 - Esperanza Place (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
PUDA-PL20170001326; Esperanza Place Page 6 of 13
Revised: July 29, 2018
Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) indicates that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity
to accommodate this project within the 5-year planning period.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME):
Environmental review staff has found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal
Management Element (CCME). A minimum of 0.31 (25%) acres of preservation has been
provided by monetary donation to Conservation Collier and South Florida Water Management
District.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria
upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5,
Planning Commission Recommendation (referred to as the “PUD Findings”), and Section
10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as “Rezone
Findings”), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC’s recommendation.
Housing Element Review: Community and Human Services staff has reviewed this petition's
Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement, which is an attachment to the Ordinance and the
PUD document to ensure both documents contain the appropriate language to address this project’s
proposal to provide affordable housing, and finds the proposed development to be consistent with
Section 2.06.00 of the LDC and the Housing Element of the GM. This existing development will
have a total of 96 rental units and 63 homeownership units all earmarked for very low and low-
income households for a gross density of 5.03 units per acre. The 46 existing 1, 2, and 3-bedroom
affordable, rental apartments presently rent in the $434 to $684 range per month.
Drainage: The proposed PUD Amendment request is not anticipated to create drainage problems
in the area. Storm water best management practices, treatment, and storage will be addressed
through the environmental resource permitting process with the South Florida Water Management
District. County staff will also evaluate the project’s storm water management system,
calculations, and design criteria at the time of site development plan (SDP) and/or platting (PPL).
Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the RPUD petition to address
environmental concerns. The preservation requirement has been met with a combination of
monetary donation to Conservation Collier for 0.13 acres of uplands and South Florida Water
Management District for 0.18 acres of wetlands in accordance with PUD environmental
commitment B. No listed animal species were observed on the property.
Landscape Review: No landscape deviations are proposed. The proposed landscape buffers are
consistent with the section 4.06.02 of the Land Development Code. Tract ‘B’ is planned for single-
family attached and single-family detached dwelling units. If single-family attached buildings
are proposed within Tract ‘B’ and the buildings have 3 or more dwelling units, a Type ‘B’
buffer will be required along the East side of Tract ‘B’.
Staff recommends approval with the condition that a Type ‘B’ buffer will be required along the
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 2679 Attachment: Staff Report - PUDA - PL20170001326 - Esperanza Place (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
PUDA-PL20170001326; Esperanza Place Page 7 of 13
Revised: July 29, 2018
East side of Tract ‘B’ if single-family attached buildings with 3 or more dwelling units are
proposed.
School District: A Collier County School District review was requested and may be received at a
later date.
Utilities Review: The project lies within the Immokalee Water and Sewer District (IWSD) and as
such, the Collier County Water-Sewer District did not review the project. Coordination with the
IWSD will be required.
Zoning Services Review: The Zoning Division staff evaluated the project related to intensity of
uses and reviewed the development standards. The most significant change proposed to the
Esperanza Place PUD is the reduction of 103 units from the total number of approved residential
dwelling units. As stated, it reduces the number of residential units from 262 to 159. The reduction
is split between Tract A and Tract B. The proposed change represents a reasonably significant
reduction of intensity in the residential use.
The total reduction of residential units on Tract A is proposed at 80 units, which is the majority of
the proposed reduction. The proposed change includes the addition of group housing with a
maximum number of 45 units. The group housing includes transitional and emergency shelter
units. The applicant proposes to add child care facilities as an approved principal use. The addition
of child care appears to be an appropriate use because it is connected to the requested emergency
shelter use. While group housing is proposed at 45 units it is an overall reduction of residential
units and for Tract A represents a reduction in the intensity of use. For Tract B, the total number
of residential dwelling units proposed to be reduced is 23 units. The proposed change represents a
reduction in the intensity of the use.
PUD FINDINGS:
LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that “In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make
findings as to the PUD Master Plan’s compliance with the following criteria in addition to the
findings in LDC Section 10.02.08”: (Zoning Division staff responses in non-bold)
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in
relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access,
drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities.
Zoning Division staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and believes the uses and
property development regulations are compatible with the development approved in the
area. The Public Utilities Division further states that…
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly
as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing
operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 2680 Attachment: Staff Report - PUDA - PL20170001326 - Esperanza Place (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
PUDA-PL20170001326; Esperanza Place Page 8 of 13
Revised: July 29, 2018
maintained at public expense.
Documents submitted with the application were reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office
and demonstrate unified control.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the petition and analyzed it for consistency
with goals, objectives, and policies of the IAMP. They have found the proposed
amendment to be consistent with the IAMP.
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may
include restrictions on the location of improvements, restrictions on design, and
buffering and screening requirements.
The proposed changes to the PUD Document affect the landscaping standards of the
originally approved PUD as they relate to the LDC. The applicant has requested one
deviation and that requested is reviewed in the deviations section of the report.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
There is no deviation from the required usable open space as submitted. Compliance with
approved standards would be demonstrated at the time of SDP.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
Compliance with all other applicable concurrency management regulations is required,
including but not limited to plat plans or site development plans. The Public Utilities
Division further states that Collier County has… The Transportation Division further
states that the roadway infrastructure is… Finally, the project’s development must comply
with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development
approvals are sought, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
There is adequate supporting infrastructure to accommodate this project, including Collier
County Water-Sewer District potable water and wastewater mains. Adequate public
facility requirements will be addressed when future development approvals are sought.
The Public Utilities Division further states that the area… The scope of any system
improvements will be determined at the time of SDP or PPL permit review.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations
in the particular case, based on a determination that such modifications are justified
as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to the literal application of
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 2681 Attachment: Staff Report - PUDA - PL20170001326 - Esperanza Place (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
PUDA-PL20170001326; Esperanza Place Page 9 of 13
Revised: July 29, 2018
such regulations.
A single deviation is in the PUD amendment request. Please see the deviations section of
the report.
REZONE FINDINGS:
LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, “When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and
recommendations to the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners…shall
show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to
the following when applicable.” Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC
requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with
the additional criteria as also noted below: (Zoning Division staff responses in non-bold):
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies
of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the elements of the GMP.
Comprehensive Planning staff has determined the petition is consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the IAMP.
2. The existing land use pattern.
The existing land use pattern related to surrounding properties is described in the
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this report. The proposed uses will not likely
change the existing land use patterns in the area.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
The property is zoned PUD and would remain that way. It would not be an isolated district.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
The application does not include boundary changes to the PUD.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning
necessary.
The proposed change is not necessary. It is a request, however, that complies with the
provisions of the LDC as the applicant seeks changes to the PUD. The changes include
proposed uses and a requested deviation from the LDC for the Esperanza Place PUD.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
The proposed changes are not likely to adversely living conditions in the neighborhood.
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or
create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 2682 Attachment: Staff Report - PUDA - PL20170001326 - Esperanza Place (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
PUDA-PL20170001326; Esperanza Place Page 10 of 13
Revised: July 29, 2018
peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during
construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety.
Insert Transportation Element here… The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the
proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational
impacts will be addressed at the time of first development order (SDP or Plat), at which
time, a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access
points. Finally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable
concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not
limited to any plats and or site development plans, are sought.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
It is not anticipated that the PUD Amendment request will create drainage problems in the
area. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage for this project will be
addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) with the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD). County environmental staff will evaluate the stormwater
management system and design criteria at the time of SDP or PPL.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
The proposed PUD Amendment for Esperanza Place is not likely to reduce light or air to
adjacent areas.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent
areas.
Property value is affected by many factors. It is driven by market conditions and is
generally a subjective determination. Zoning alone is not likely to adversely affect the
property values. Market conditions usually prevail.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development
of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
Most of the adjacent property is already developed as residential use. The proposed
amendment to the Esperanza Place PUD reduces intensity and is not likely to deter
development activity of surrounding property.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare.
If the proposed PUD Amendment complies with the IAMP and is found consistent, then it
is consistent with public policy and the change does not result in the granting of a special
privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is determined to be consistent with public welfare.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 2683 Attachment: Staff Report - PUDA - PL20170001326 - Esperanza Place (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
PUDA-PL20170001326; Esperanza Place Page 11 of 13
Revised: July 29, 2018
with existing zoning.
The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning, however, the
proposed uses cannot be achieved without amending the PUD.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or
the County.
The Zoning Division staff determination is the proposed uses are not out of scale with the
needs of the community.
15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed
use in districts already permitting such use.
The application was reviewed and found compliant with the IAMP and the LDC. The
Zoning Division staff does not review other sites related to a specific petition.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which
would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses
under the proposed zoning classification.
Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require minimal site alteration
as the site is already cleared and roads for the residential uses are in place now. The
development standards would be applied during the SDP and plat process.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and
services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth
Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended.
The project must comply with the criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding
Adequate Public Facilities (APF) and must be consistent with applicable goals and
objectives of the GMP related to adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed
by Comprehensive Planning staff for consistency with the IAMP as part of the amendment
process, and they find it to be consistent. The concurrency review for APF is determined
at the time of SDP review.
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners
shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
DEVIATION DISCUSSION:
The petitioner is seeking one deviation from the requirements of the LDC. The petitioner’s
rationale and staff analysis/recommendation is outlined below. Note: There are two existing
deviations that are in effect for Ordinance 08-28 they are listed here as well.
Deviation 1 and 2 previously approved by Ordinance 2008-28
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 2684 Attachment: Staff Report - PUDA - PL20170001326 - Esperanza Place (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
PUDA-PL20170001326; Esperanza Place Page 12 of 13
Revised: July 29, 2018
1. A deviation from Section 5.05.08 of the LDC, which requires non-residential
components of any PUD to meet architectural design standards to allow the non-residential
component of Tract A to be exempt from these standards.
2. A deviation from Section 3.05.07 of the LDC, which requires on-site preservation of 25
percent of the native vegetation on the site to allow off-site preservation or payment toward
the Conservation Collier Trust Fund, in accordance with Commitment III.B, described in
Exhibit F of this RPUD.
Deviation #3 Fences and Walls
Seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.1.a, Fences and Walls, which requires residential zoning
districts and designated residential components of PUDs shall be subject to a maximum fence or
wall height of 6 feet for lots greater than 1 acre, to allow a perimeter wall height to be a maximum
of 8 feet for the group housing use on Tract A.
Petitioner’s Justification:
The proposed group housing use is for care units, and temporary emergency and transitional
shelter for women. The proposed shelter will be a gated and secure facility due to the nature of
their operation. The 8-foot high wall will be a key component for the overall security of the shelter
operation. Consistent with the LDC, landscape material will be installed on the external side of
the proposed wall as specified in Section 5.03.02.H.2 of the supplemental standard for
fences/walls. The proposed group housing shelter use is a community facility use and could be
considered non-residential for purposes of the PUD, which otherwise would provide for an 8’ high
wall by right.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The deviation is reasonable as it relates to the needs and
requirements of a shelter use.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The applicant conducted a NIM on February 8, 2018, 5:30 PM, at the Immokalee Branch Library
at 417 N. First Street, Immokalee, FL. For further information, please see the NIM Summary in
the back-up material.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did
not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of
the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney’s Office reviewed this staff report on July 27, 2018.
RECOMMENDATION:
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 2685 Attachment: Staff Report - PUDA - PL20170001326 - Esperanza Place (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
PUDA-PL20170001326; Esperanza Place Page 13 of 13
Revised: July 29, 2018
Zoning Division staff recommends the CCPC forward petition PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza
Place PUD to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to
a Type ‘B’ buffer being required along the East side of Tract ‘B’ if single-family attached buildings
with 3 or more dwelling units are proposed. The CCPC is not being asked for a recommendation
related to the Affordable Housing Agreement.
Attachments:
A) Proposed PUD Ordinance (strikethrough-underline)
B) Proposed Master Plan Esperanza Place
C) FLUE Consistency Review
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 2686 Attachment: Staff Report - PUDA - PL20170001326 - Esperanza Place (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, FL 34104, 239-252-2400 Page - 1 - of 2
Growth Management Department
Zoning Division
Comprehensive Planning Section
MEMORANDUM
To: James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner
Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section
From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner,
Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section
Date: June 8, 2018
Subject: Immokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP) Consistency Review
APPLICATION NUMBER: PUDA-20170001326 Review 4
APPLICATION NAME: Esperanza Place Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Amendment
REQUEST: To amend Esperanza Place RPUD, approved via Ordinance #08-28, to: reduce the maximum number
of residential dwelling units from 262 to 159. This amendment will also add new uses in Tract A: single family,
detached dwelling units, add up to 45 group housing units for transitional and emergency shelter, and add child
day care services, and in Tract C – single family, detached dwelling units. This amendment will also add a
deviation from the Land Development Code (LDC) pertaining to Section 5.03.02.C.1.a, Fences and Walls.
Submittal 3 revised calculations and language in Exhibit F, List of Developer Contributions for: preserves, native
vegetation, and wetlands. Submittal 4 included requested revisions to the PUD documents and Master Plan.
LOCATION: The ±31.63-acre PUD site is located on the north side of Immokalee Drive, ½ mile west of S.R.
29 and ¼ mile east of Carson Road, in Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The ±31.63-acre subject property is designated Urban,
Mixed-Use District, Low Residential Subdistrict as depicted on the Immokalee Future Land Use Map in the
Immokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP). According to the IAMP, “the purpose of this designation is to provide a
Subdistrict for low density residential development. Residential dwellings shall be limited to single -family
structures and Duplexes. Multi-Family dwellings shall be permitted provided they are within a Planned Unit
Development... A density less than or equal to four (4) dwelling units per gross acre is permitted.” A variety of
non-residential uses are also allowed, including day care and group housing.
The IAMP states, “To encourage the provision of affordable-workforce housing within certain Subdistricts in the
Urban Designated Area, a maximum of up to eight (8) residential units per gross acre may be added to the base
density if the project meets the definition and requirements of the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus
Ordinance (Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, Ordinance 04-41, as amended, adopted June 22, 2004
and effective October 19, 2004). This bonus may be applied to an entire project or portions of a project provided
that the project is located within … any residential subdistrict.”
The Esperanza Place RPUD site is eligible for up to 12 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) with a base density of 4
DU/A + 8 DU/A for affordable-workforce housing yielding a total of 380 DUs (12 DU/A * 31.63A = 379.56 DUs
= 380 DUs). The existing affordable-workforce housing agreement and PUD were approved for 262 DUs at a
density of 8.28 DU/A. The proposed reduction in the maximum number of dwelling units from 262 to 159, at a
density of 5.03 DU/A, is consistent with the Density Rating System of the IAMP.
17.A.2
Packet Pg. 2687 Attachment: FLUE Consistency Review - Attachment B (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, FL 34104, 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 2
This RPUD has an existing approved Affordable-Workforce Housing Density Bonus Agreement for a maximum
of 262 DUs with a density of 8.28 DU/A, which is more than double the density allowed in the Low Residential
Subdistrict without such an agreement. The petition includes a revised “Agreement” that would limit the RPUD
to a maximum of 159 DUs or 5.03 DU/A (159 DUs/31.63A = 5.03 DU/A).
Select Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policies are listed below, followed by [bracketed staff analysis].
FLUE Policy 5.6
“New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in
the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as
amended).” [It is the responsibility of the Zoning Services Section staff, as part of their review of the petition
in its entirety, to perf orm the compatibility analysis.]
In reviewing for compliance with FLUE Objective 7 and related Policies (shown in italics), staff provides the
following analysis in [bracketed bold text].
FLUE 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 subject site has two existing access points onto
Immokalee Drive, a collector road; Exhibit ‘C’, Master Plan, shows no new proposed access points.]
FLUE Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle
congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [Exhibit ‘C’, Master
Plan indicates that there will be a future loop road in Tract ‘B’. The Master Plan also shows existing internal
connections between the multi-family residential portion of the site and the single-family portion of the site.]
FLUE Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or
their 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. [Currently there is an existing interconnection with the neighboring properties to the west via an
extension of El Paso Trail. No other interconnections are proposed or shown on Exhibit ‘C’. Staff previously
concurred with the applicant that no other interconnections were feasible.]
FLUE Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend
of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The subject proposal
provides a blend of single and multi-family dwelling units in conjunction with being a development with a
proposed affordable housing component, and 45 group housing units are proposed as a permitted use. The
project allows a clubhouse, includes a recreational tract, and includes the required open space. Civic activities
are often located in clubhouses. The subject site already contains sidewalks where housing has been developed.
Since no deviation is being requested, sidewalks must be provided as required in the LDC].
CONCLUSION:
Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment may
be deemed consistent with the Immokalee Area Master Plan and Future Land Use Element.
PETITION ON CITYVIEW
cc: Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section
Raymond Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Services Section
PUDA-PL2017-1326 Esperanza Place RPUD R4 G:\CDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviews\2018\PUDA saf/6-8--18
17.A.2
Packet Pg. 2688 Attachment: FLUE Consistency Review - Attachment B (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
17.A.3
Packet Pg. 2689 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 082218 - Attachment A (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
17.A.3
Packet Pg. 2690 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 082218 - Attachment A (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
17.A.3
Packet Pg. 2691 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 082218 - Attachment A (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
17.A.3
Packet Pg. 2692 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 082218 - Attachment A (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
17.A.3
Packet Pg. 2693 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 082218 - Attachment A (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
17.A.3
Packet Pg. 2694 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 082218 - Attachment A (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
17.A.3
Packet Pg. 2695 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 082218 - Attachment A (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
17.A.3
Packet Pg. 2696 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 082218 - Attachment A (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
17.A.3
Packet Pg. 2697 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 082218 - Attachment A (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
17.A.3
Packet Pg. 2698 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 082218 - Attachment A (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
17.A.3
Packet Pg. 2699 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 082218 - Attachment A (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
17.A.3
Packet Pg. 2700 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 082218 - Attachment A (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
17.A.3
Packet Pg. 2701 Attachment: Revised Proposed Ordinance - 082218 - Attachment A (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
17.A.5
Packet Pg. 2702 Attachment: Legal Ad - Agenda ID #6474 (6474 : PUDA-PL20170001326 Esperanza Place)
Prepared July 30, 2018
Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375
3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266
Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com
January 5, 2018 Page 1 of 1
Exh A-Legal Description-v1.docx
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,AND ALL OF ESPERANZA PLACE AS RECORDED IN PLAT
BOOK 52 PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE
29 EAST THENCE RUN NORTH 89°15'36" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION
32, ALSO BEING THE CENTERLINE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (60' RIGHT -OF-WAY), FOR A
DISTANCE OF 1323.92 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 00°44'24" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.00
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED, THE
SAME BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF IMMOKALEE DRIVE;
THENCE RUN NORTH 00°51'21" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUT HEAST 1/4 OF
THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 32, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,299.83 FEET; THENCE RUN
NORTH 89°16'27" EAST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,060.74 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°47'35"
EAST, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1299.57 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF IMMOKALEE DRIVE; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°15'35" WEST ALONG SAID
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1059.31 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
CONTAINING 31.63 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
Parcel ID: 31345980207
Name: BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name: 2380 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#: / 5
Parcel ID: 31345980223
Name: BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name: 2376 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#: / 6
Parcel ID: 31345980249
Name: BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name: 2372 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#: / 7
Parcel ID: 31345980265
Name: BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name: 2368 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#: / 8
Parcel ID: 31345980281
Name: BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name: 2364 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#: / 9
Parcel ID: 31345980304
Name: BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name: 2360 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#: / 10
Parcel ID: 31345980320
Name: BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name: 2356 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#: / 11
Parcel ID: 31345980346
Name: BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name: 2352 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#: / 12
Parcel ID: 31345980362
Name: BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name: 2348 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#: / 13
Parcel ID: 31345980388
Name: BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name: 2349 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#: / 14
Parcel ID: 31345980401
Name: BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name: 2353 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#: / 15
Parcel ID: 00076200106
Name: BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name: 2684 AMIGO WAY
Build# / Unit#: 24 / 5
Parcel ID: 00082967006
Name: BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name: 2677 MARIANNA WAY
Build# / Unit#: 289 / 0
Parcel ID: 31345980029
Name: BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name:
Build# / Unit#: A / 1
Parcel ID: 31345980045
Name: BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name: 2350 AMIGO WAY
Build# / Unit#: FD-1 / 1
Parcel ID: 31345980100
Name: BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name:
Build# / Unit#: L-2 / 1
Parcel ID: 31345980126
Name: BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name: 2396 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#: / 1
EXHIBIT A
please allow 3 days for processing.
bold type FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE
PROVIDED.
PETITION TYPE (Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (copy of lengthy description may be attached)
FOLIO (Property ID)NUMBER(s)(attach to,or associate with, legal description if more than one)
(as applicable, if already assigned)
(if applicable)
(for existing projects/sites only)
LOCATION MAP
(if applicable)
(if applicable)
PUD Amendment
See attached
See attached
Esperanza Place
S32 T46 R29
A
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
F Number
Folio Number
Folio Number
Folio Number
Approved by: Date:
Updated by: Date:
IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE
UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED
Esperanza Place
Sharon Umpenhour
sumpenhour@gradyminor.com
See Attached
4/11/2017
Esperanza Place RPUD
Parcel ID List
April 5, 2017 Page 1 of 2
Parcel ID:31345980207
Name:BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name:2380 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#:/ 5
Parcel ID:31345980223
Name:BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name:2376 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#:/ 6
Parcel ID:31345980249
Name:BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name:2372 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#:/ 7
Parcel ID:31345980265
Name:BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name:2368 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#:/ 8
Parcel ID:31345980281
Name:BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name:2364 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#:/ 9
Parcel ID:31345980304
Name:BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name:2360 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#:/ 10
Parcel ID:31345980320
Name:BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name:2356 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#:/ 11
Parcel ID:31345980346
Name:BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name:2352 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#:/ 12
Parcel ID:31345980362
Name:BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name:2348 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#:/ 13
Parcel ID:31345980388
Name:BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name:2349 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#:/ 14
Parcel ID:31345980401
Name:BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name:2353 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#:/ 15
Parcel ID:00076200106
Name:BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name:2684 AMIGO WAY
Build# / Unit#:24 / 5
Parcel ID:00082967006
Name:BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Esperanza Place RPUD
Parcel ID List
April 5, 2017 Page 2 of 2
Street# & Name:2677 MARIANNA WAY
Build# / Unit#:289 / 0
Parcel ID:31345980029
Name:BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name:
Build# / Unit#:A / 1
Parcel ID:31345980045
Name:BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name:2350 AMIGO WAY
Build# / Unit#:FD-1 / 1
Parcel ID:31345980100
Name:BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name:
Build# / Unit#:L-2 / 1
Parcel ID:31345980126
Name:BROOKWOOD RESIDENTIAL LLC
Street# & Name:2396 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#:/ 1
Parcel ID:00076040007
Name:FLORIDA NON-PROFIT SVCS INC
Street# & Name:2693 MARIANNA WAY
Build# / Unit#:024 / 0
Parcel ID:00076160000
Name:CARUTHERS, CAROL A
Street# & Name:2210 IMMOKALEE DR
Build# / Unit#:024 / 3
Parcel ID:00076200009
Name:FLORIDA NON-PROFIT SVCS INC
Street# & Name:2685 AMIGO WAY
Build# / Unit#:024 / 4
Parcel ID:31345980142
Name:ARVIZU JR, PEDRO RITO
Street# & Name:2392 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#:/ 2
Parcel ID:31345980168
Name:BROWN, TOMASSA KNORSHEEKA
Street# & Name:2388 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#:/ 3
Parcel ID:31345980184
Name:GUERRIER, PAULETTE
Street# & Name:2384 ESPERANZA WAY
Build# / Unit#:/ 4
9
9
Memorandum
To: Environmental Advisory Council Members
From: Susan Mason, Principal Environmental Specialist – Engineering and
Environmental Services Department
C: Joseph Schmitt, William Lorenz, Barbara Burgeson, Summer Araque, Melissa
Zone –Community Development and Environmental Services Division
Date: 4/21/2008
Subject: Planned Unit Development Rezone No. PUDZ-2007-AR-12581 –Summary of
minimum required native vegetation preservation
Claudia Piotrowicz, Melissa Zone and I met on site with representatives from the
Empowerment Alliance and Florida Non-Profit Services and Marco Espinar on April 10, 2008.
On this site visit, staff verified and explained to the applicants that a portion of the wetlands
and uplands on site meet the definition of native vegetation.
At a meeting in the office later that same day attended by numerous staff including Joe
Schmitt and William Lorenz, additional representatives from both the applicants and the
agents, it was further agreed that ± 0.73 acre of the wetland and 0.52 acre of the upland
vegetation meet the definition of native vegetation. For this project to be found consistent
with Growth Management Plan (GMP) Conservation and Coastal Management Element
(CCME) Policy 6.1.1, a minimum of 25% (a minimum of 0.31 acre--0.18 acre of wetland and
0.13 acre of upland) of this area must be preserved.
The applicants stated for the upland portion either a 0.13 acre preserve would be created on
site or an off-site alternative preserve consistent with CCME policy 6.1.1 (10) would be
provided. For the wetland preserve, Mr. Schmitt agreed to allow mitigation at an approved
mitigation bank required by South Florida Water Management District as part of the
Environmental Resource Permit can also be used to meet the County’s preservation
requirement. These options are consistent with the GMP requirements for vegetation
retention since the GMP does not expressly prohibit mitigation banks as an off-site option.
The PUD document has been amended to acknowledge the preservation requirement and
detailed that the required preservation will all be met using off-site alternatives to be
accomplished prior to development approvals.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approving Esperanza Place PUDZ AR-12581 with the following
conditions, all of which are included in the current version of the PUD document:
Engineering and Environmental Services Department
Community Development & Environmental Services Division
Engineering and Environmental Services Department
Community Development & Environmental Services Division
Environmental:
A. A Florida Black Bear management plan shall be provided to the County manager or
designee during SDP or plat review process.
B. The site currently contains +/- 1.26 acres of native vegetation (0.52+/- acres of upland
and +/- 0.73 acres of wetland native vegetation onsite); A minimum of 25%, 0.32 acres,
must be preserved. For the 0.13 acre portion of the upland vegetation, the applicant will
donate an equivalent off-site preserve to be accepted by a public agency or contribute a
monetary payment to Conservation Collier equivalent to the average per-acre value found in
an appraisal of the entire site, multiplied by the number of acres to be preserved off-site,
plus 15 percent of that amount as an endowment for management of off-site land. The
appraisal shall be based on the fair market value of the land as if the desired zoning is in
place. Twenty-five percent of the 0.73-acre wetland native vegetation will be preserved and
appropriately managed off-site at an approved mitigation bank. All preservation must be
accomplished prior to SDP/PPL approval. This off-site preservation may be utilized as part
of the required off-site mitigation as part of the Environment Resource Permit.
C. The subject property was used for agricultural purposes and incurred clearing for
which no permit can be located; in order for clearing to be considered legal and re-creation
of vegetation removed not be required an after-the-fact clearing fee will be paid for the
clearing of approximately 23.6 acres prior to approval for the SDP or PPL for relevant
acreage
Call me at 252-2987 if you have any questions. Thank you very much.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
_____________________________________________________________
Environmental Services Department
Community Development & Environmental Services Division
Memorandum
To:, Environmental Specialist, Collier County Engineering and
Environmental Services Dept.
From: Alex Sulecki,Conservation Collier Program Coordinator
Cc: Michael Delate, for Esperanza Place
Bill Lorenz,Director, Collier County Engineering and Environmental
Services Dept.
Roosevelt Leonard, Appraiser, Collier County Real Property management
Department
Date:November 10, 2008
Subject: Offsite Native vegetation preservation mitigation Esperanza Place
PUD 08-28
________________________________________________________________________
Please find attached the following:
Original receipt #178414for payment of funds from the Empowerment Alliance as
mitigation for offsite vegetation preservation through donation to the Collier
Original Review Appraisal Report for Esperanza Place. An appraisal of the
property, originally prepared by Carroll & Carroll Appraisers, was offered for
review to the Collier County staff review appraiser to substantiate the mitigation
payment amount. The appraisal was reviewed and found to be acceptable.
Please call me at 213-2961 if you have questions.
Esperanza Place RPUD
Deviation Justifications
Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375
3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266
Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com
Esperanza Place RPUD NIM PL20170001326 Page 2 of 8
Esperanza Place RPUD NIM PL20170001326 Page 3 of 8
Esperanza Place RPUD NIM PL20170001326 Page 4 of 8
Esperanza Place RPUD NIM PL20170001326 Page 5 of 8
Esperanza Place RPUD NIM PL20170001326 Page 6 of 8
Esperanza Place RPUD NIM PL20170001326 Page 7 of 8
Esperanza Place RPUD NIM PL20170001326 Page 8 of 8