Ex Parte - McDaniel 01/24/2017 Ex parte Items - Commissioner William L. McDaniel, Jr.
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA
01/24/2017
ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
9.A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing
be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an
Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended,the Collier County Land Development Code,
which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County,
Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the
herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit
Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project known as Hamilton Place RPUD to allow development of
up to 66 single-family and/or multi-family dwelling units on property located east of Livingston Road and
south of Pine Ridge Road in Section 18,Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting
of 9.75+/-acres; and by providing an effective date. [PUDZ-PL20160001255]
NO DISCL
SEE FILE
®Meetings: Rich Yovanovich and Wayne Arnold
®Correspondence - staff report from agenda
®e-mails — Dianna Quintanilla requesting meeting for Rich and Wayne
fCa11s
CONSENT AGENDA
16.A.3.This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a
hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation
to approve for recording the minor final plat of Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples
Benvenuto Court Replat,Application Number P120160002720.
— , - s - ITEM-
SEE FILE
(Meetings
®Correspondence - Back-up from agenda
❑e-mails
❑Calls
SUMMARY AGENDA - NO ITEMS
NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM
SEE FILE
❑Meetings
❑Correspondence
e-mails
(Calls
FilsonSue
From: Dianna Quintanilla <DQuintanilla@cyklawfirm.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 8:19 AM
To: FilsonSue
Subject: RE: Meeting Request: Hamilton PUD
Perfect,thank you.
Dianna Quintanilla
COLEMAN Ljj
Legal Assistant to Richard D.
Yovanovich, Esq. OVA N OV I C H
Coleman Yovanovich & Koester,P.A. E TE R
4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite
300
Naples,Florida 34103
(239) 435-3535
(239) 435-1218(1)
This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,confidential and exempt from disclosure
under applicable law.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,you
are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication in error,please notify us
immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above email address.Thank you.
From: FilsonSue [mailto:SueFilson@colliergov.net]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 6:08 PM
To: Dianna Quintanilla
Subject: RE: Meeting Request: Hamilton PUD
Hi Dianna,
I'll put them in on Friday January 20th from 10:30 - 11:00.
Please let me know if this is acceptable.
Sue Filson, Aide to
William L. McDaniel,Jr.
Commissioner, District 5
3299 Tamiami Trail, East
Naples, FL 34112
239-252-8605
www.colliergov.net/CommissionerMcDaniel
From: Dianna Quintanilla [mailto:DQuintanilla@cyklawfirm.com]
Sent: Friday,January 13, 2017 4:38 PM
1
To: FilsonSue<SueFilson@colliergov.net>
Subject: Meeting Request: Hamilton PUD
Good afternoon,
Rich would like to meet with you, along with Wayne Arnold,regarding the upcoming agenda item, Hamilton
PUD. Would you be available any of the following times below:
Wednesday January 18th
Friday January 20th, after 9:30
Monday January 23rd
Thank you.
Dianna Quintana-Ca
COLEMAN
Legal Assistant to Richard D.
Yovanovich, Esq. yov,AN I H
Coleman Yovanovich &Koester,P.A. KESTER
�'""1�
4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite jj
300
Naples,Florida 34103
(239) 435-3535
(239) 435-1218 (f)
This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged,confidential and exempt from disclosure
under applicable law.If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient,you
are hereby notified that any dissemination,distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication in error,please notify us
immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at the above email address.Thank you.
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a
public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
2
9.A.1
Collier County
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 15, 2016
SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20160001255 HAMILTON PLACE RPUD
a
PROPERTY OWNERS/APPLICANT/AGENT: a
Owners: Applicant (Contract Purchaser):
E
�a
Maria Santos Edmund and Betty Poore WCI Communities, LLC
2316 Andrew Drive 7025 Nighthawk Drive 24301 Walden Center Drive
Naples, FL 34112 Naples, FL 34105 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 N
Elfrieda H Sutherland Trust Agent: c.
do Gayle Ann Durrancecc
2076 Sagebrush Circle D. Wayne Arnold, AICP
Naples, FL 34120 Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. co
3800 Via Del Ray
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
E
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an
application to rezone property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential
Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is located east of Livingston Road and south of Pine Ridge Road in Section
18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
This petition seeks to rezone the property to RPUD to allow for the development of up to sixty-six
(66) single-family and/or multi-family dwelling units on 9.75± acres.
(See location map on page 2)
PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 1 of 13
December 5, 2016
Packet Pg. 41
(andel eoeld uo;liweH : P6t7Z) Joda2l jqS- I. ;uewyoemf :luawyoe;;d
‘- N
IS'
\�lI = IP >Q.
(-) a •T d
R. 4: I'' Itilliii112711211161 Wag
LL 0®OO 8 8 6 V l
Far 3 ❑ a '.
30100019V30000
s‘,000 mcn 700 °,,,,
04
i §" n° 88888888888886688,i, 6
o
0.
a �J : II%
77- �p 7 E ah
DO.
1/yy5
_ lotkc)
o T F ,' , = E
a. g
® V2 0
o j ) z 3 W 0 `r N
e =Q Cl)a 1— Q ,
3;� — � �
p.... oLi 0 �
= D a N -0
X
d � J U CO oD -x
,
s� C U
s1JOdJJJJ000®8®0®000'O' 0 869fi® = . e . R . cNO
. a,
J
o
Z
-o
\,) ✓ ^
(? N Z
k_ '1 % Q O
, \ f ' ICD
{
1° ---+ N
N
CI-
, a
l ' co
i Q
t
1 , a Q
( I I I J
i, l}
CO o1-2-
,_
5
G
✓ -� N
O
iQ, l 11 0-1i61/./.01.1_t�k ;+-, o
in
__ N v O a
\_• _ � � 0 co
—
r- - N -- --
iY
r
CD
-_--: �
_ i `} . .
t
ailn odai}� _ o-
a2� II d-
D
0
0
9.A.1
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The subject project proposes a density of 6.77 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). This section of
the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding
boundaries of the Hamilton Place RPUD:
North: Single-family residential, zoned Brynwood Preserve PUD (5.47 DU/AC)
East: Residential, zoned Arlington Lakes PUD (6.0 DU/AC)
South: Multi-family residential (condomimums), zoned Arlington Lakes PUD (6.0
DU/AC)
West: Right-of-way for Livingston Road, farther west is vacant commercial, zoned o
M
Hiwasse CPUD (291,000 square feet) a
a,)
�+^r".tyyyy,,¢ v'• "`F«. BALCHIDGE tl (o
c,.. tF4q �RELATEDGROUP ' i ' �y.T BRYNK'
X' o CENTS a
'" (I I wig . t;
:"..1.,--,,,,m—.3 st)v. ne1or- rn r, ,%.- cu Pit: 0
' +il® ,. t^ iExcO a RID, _ Q
_1.-„,41:at. - iFwmNg "^3 CEN
mCr1 ` '
m
\y - ¢s' Ke HIWASSE c r„,,
fAVOWiHO SPICE a - `§
'NA ,..BRYNWOD
1/13161.41.,-ti... .,
aa.nil yt�D�aR E or eg.....47,"..,PRESERVE ,,;�„ ,�
' .1/1 1•.41-ti J �` �y�nfrlaa�twVVnr�� s.
mr
CV
,,., ._.KEN SINGTONBrYn o oB Lrx4 - Ttr e' J4 ^ v
V,l� i � PARK r `n PI otso N > �� Rbc _ ty.•n.o,�CT,i
'`•.�.� eye a.o '�.. �
i ns 1..1,a 0
_m' ro S ARLINGTON - - - -- o-
a 1¢:44, ;44 t rn t� .t elgrit Stf, '`a { i LAKES e_- i_,` O
(.'dim # 6 @ �...._...tu y + q�`�F� 0.
4tu*,,,. ..
ij,� ? .f , .„•,ZOn ii r s T i.T n U>�
jj Siiii ai .J ii Lre
} ♦ CD - r t {Anda) c a #
E{
d+t deo=+c.yw`s t?. i.y N 9nt � ' , . 'WAY r' .. UR
e.;" ao ood LN Pg Ph :;.
aa CTS ti t . J:M- iL;a � r�Y - 11'tq
Zi
. i
Vefir_ EVANS NAPLES e.+ % { fes ,, GIRs''
r,� 1,�r CyT71 J1gQ7�, :?•Ca=..' p r C,FUD i ', J+ + - w> Ma r,post. R,. .L.7 �� ! • "4�iltr yCHURCH OF . .f5.' ♦xr r, .frititlitikim ffaZi r _c
�-'.i+ CHRIST .- S ran• CIR O V
-,:•-nIng MPUD
a
.."•44.'... 'I 1 �'BALMORAL� '� Oicre�l`N "`.." � w
dae pover � lnPt3Dc-� C
—T �i
' t - ,may
' a:'y .j, ;�, .. CT Sinali o_rkA fient„a
V`ti , #r `d. d_�. E N2MWHIPPOOR41%LL WOODS?'"
4,1E
Aerial(County GIS) r
u
co
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Q
Future Land Use Element (FLUE):
The subject property is located within the Urban designated area(Urban Mixed Use District,Urban
Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Countywide Future Land Use Map of the Growth
Management Plan (GMP). The property is also located within a mile of the Pine Ridge Road - I-
75 Mixed Use Activity Center (MUAC#10).
PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 3 of 13
December 5, 2016
Packet Pg. 43
9.A.1
The FLUE provision for the Density Rating System states,
If the project is within one mile of a Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange Activity
Center and located within a residential density band, 3 residential units per gross acre
may be added. The density band around a Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange
Activity Center shall be measured by the radial distance from the center of the intersection
around which the Mixed Use Activity Center or Interchange Activity Center is situated. If
50% or more of a project is within the density band, the additional density applies to the
gross acreage of the entire project. Density bands are designated on the Future Land Use
Map and shall not apply within the Estates Designation or for properties within the Coastal
High Hazard Area.
More than fifty percent (50%) of the project is located within the density band, so the additional
density applies to the gross acreage of the entire project.
a.
The FLUE Consistency Review provides a more comprehensive analysis of how the proposed
project is consistent with the relative objectives and policies of the GMP (see Attachment 3 — ca
FLUE Consistency Review). In short, the proposed RPUD may be deemed consistent with the
FLUE.
E
Transportation Element:
a)
In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement for consistency
with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP using the 2014 and 2015 Annual Update
and Inventory Reports (AUIR). d
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 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
PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 4 of 13
December 5, 2016
Packet Pg. 44
9.A.1
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 rezoning to allow a maximum of sixty-six (66) multi-family units on the subject
property that will generate approximately 43 PM peak hour, peak direction trips on the
immediately adjacent roadway link, Livingston Road. Livingston Road is a six-lane divided
facility and has a current service volume of 3,100 trips,with a remaining capacity of approximately
1,624 trips between Pine Ridge Road/Golden Gate Parkway, and is currently at LOS B as shown
in the 2015 AUIR. Please note at the time of writing this report the 2016 AUIR was not yet adopted
by the Board of County Commissioners (Board); however, staff reviewed this road segment for a.
the CCPC's consideration,finding a remaining capacity of 1,594 trips and the same LOS B. Staff, a)
therefore, finds that the proposed project does not significantly impact the adjacent roadway links,
and there is sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the five (5)-year transportation
planning period. Therefore, the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the
Transportation Element of the GMP.
x
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME):
v
N
Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element (CCME). A minimum of 0.97 acre of native vegetation is required to be °a
retained for the RPUD. ce
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. Q
ANALYSIS:
Applications to rezone to or amend RPUDs shall be in the form of an RPUD Master Plan of r
development, along with a list of permitted and accessory uses and a development standards table. Q
The RPUD application shall also include a list of developer commitments and any proposed
deviations from the LDC. 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 (commonly 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. The CCPC uses the aforementioned criteria as the basis for their
recommendation to the Board, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning
PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 5 of 13
December 5, 2016
Packet Pg. 45
9.A.1
or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the
heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses:
Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
Document to address environmental concerns. The location of the preserve was selected to retain
the highest quality wetlands on-site and to provide connectivity to existing preserves and flowways
on neighboring properties to the east. No listed species of wildlife were observed on the property.
Air plants (Tillandsia) have been observed on cypress trees within the RPUD and will be retained
or relocated in accordance with the requirements LDC Section 3.04.03.
This project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) since the
project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Chapter
2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
Landscape Review: The Master Plan shows that a fifteen (15)-foot wide Type "B" Buffer is o_
proposed along the project's north property line, except in areas depicted as preserve, such as in
the northeast corner of the site as well as along the RPUD's entire eastern boundary.
A thirty (30)-foot wide access easement runs along the entire southern property boundary. As
such, the south landscape buffer, proposed just north of this access easement, is depicted as either
a fifteen (15)-foot wide Type "A" Buffer or a ten (10)-foot wide Type "B" Buffer, depending on
how the subject project is developed.
N_
A twenty (20)-foot wide Type "D" Buffer is proposed along Livingston Road.
°
Each single-family lot is required to provide at least one (1) canopy tree. The proposed right-of-
way will be wide enough to accommodate trees in connection with a street tree program pursuant
to LDC Section 4.06.05.A.1 if it is determined that the lot sizes and building setbacks do not
provide enough room to accommodate the requisite trees. It should be noted, however, that this
type of detailed analysis to ensure compliance with the LDC will appropriately occur during a 5
subsequent development process.
School District: At this time there is sufficient capacity within the elementary and middle
concurrency service areas and in an adjacent high school concurrency service area of the proposed
development. At the time of SDP or platting,the project will be evaluated for school concurrency.
U
Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance Q
with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this project.
Utilities Review: Water and wastewater service will be provided by the Collier County Water-
Sewer District, which has adequate public utility facilities readily available along Livingston Rd.
All water distribution and wastewater collection systems shall be conveyed to the District. County
Utility Easements shall be dedicated for all utility facilities to be owned, operated, and maintained
by the District. Design, construction, and conveyance of the utility facilities shall conform to
current Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures. Applicable system development
charges and connection fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits.
PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 6 of 13
December 5, 2016
Packet Pg. 46
9.A.1
Zoning Services Review: Staff analyzed the proposed uses and associated development standards.
The abutting development to the north, Brynwood Preserve PUD, has been developed with single-
family detached dwellings. The PUD Document for this PUD also allows for two-family dwellings
and multi-family dwellings. To the south and east, the Arlington Lakes PUD allows single-family
detached dwellings, single-family attached dwellings, zero-lot-line, patio dwellings, and multi-
family dwellings. The Arlington Lakes PUD also allows Group Care Facilities (category I and II),
care units, nursing homes, and the like. The uses proposed in the Hamilton Place RPUD (i.e.,
single-family detached, single-family attached, single-family variable lot line, and multi-family
dwellings) are comparable and compatible to the uses approved in the aforementioned PUDs.
With respect to development standards, staff evaluated the standards of the proposed RPUD and
compared them with the standards of the Brynwood Preserve PUD and the Arlington Lakes PUD.
The Brynwood Preserve PUD has been developed with single-family detached homes. The
Arlington Lakes PUD to the south has been developed with condominium buildings. Staff
determined the proposed development standards are comparable and compatible with the
development standards of the aforementioned PUDs. a)
ca
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":
N
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, a
drainage,sewer,water, and other utilities.
ns
The subject site fronts on Livingston Road. Water and wastewater facilities are located N
within the right-of-way, and each has enough capacity to serve the proposed RPUD.
Drainage solutions would be evaluated in connection with SDP/platting and construction
permits.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly
as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing
operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or
maintained at public expense.
Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's
Office, demonstrate unified control of the property.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals,objectives,and
policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of conformity with the
relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion
of this staff report (or within an accompanying memorandum).
PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 7 of 13
December 5, 2016
Packet Pg. 47
9.A.1
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may
include restrictions on location of improvements,restrictions on design,and buffering
and screening requirements.
As described in the Analysis section of this staff report, staff is of the opinion that the
proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area. The Master Plan proposes
the appropriate perimeter landscape buffers.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The RPUD is required to provide at least sixty percent (60%) of the gross area for usable
open space. No deviation from the open space requirement is being requested, and
compliance would be demonstrated at the time of SDP or platting.
a
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time,
i.e.,GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation
Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first
development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project's development must comply
with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development N
approvals are sought.
1`
0
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
ce
expansion.
The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, such as wastewater disposal systems and N
potable water supplies,to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by
the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will continuously be
addressed when development approvals are sought.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations,or as to desirable modifications of such regulations
in the particular case,based on determination that such modifications are justified as c
meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such o
regulations.
No deviations are proposed in connection with this request to rezone to RPUD.
PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 8 of 13
December 5, 2016
Packet Pg. 48
I 9.A.1
Rezone Findings:
LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and
recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show
that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the
following when applicable":
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals,objectives,and policies
of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan.
Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP.
2. The existing land use pattern.
The existing land use pattern (of the abutting properties) is described in the Surrounding
Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report. The proposed use would not change the
existing land use patterns of the surrounding properties.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
There are no other RPUDs located within the immediate vicinity of the subject property;
however, the proposed project relates well to the surrounding projects, particularly those
containing residential land uses. v
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
a,
The rectangular shape boundary of the RPUD logically follows the external boundary of
the parcels assembled for the rezoning.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning
necessary. a,
The proposed change is not necessary, per se; but it is being requested in compliance with co
the LDC provisions to seek such changes.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood. c
The proposed RPUD is not anticipated to adversely influence living conditions in the Q
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
peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during
construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety.
The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time,
i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation
PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 9 of 13
December 5, 2016
Packet Pg. 49
9.A.1
Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first
development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project's development must comply
with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development
approvals are sought.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
The proposed rezoning request for up to sixty-six (66) residential units is not anticipated
to create drainage problems in the area, provided the project's stormwater management
system is designed to discharge into the Whippoorwill Flowway. Stormwater Best
Management Practices, treatment, and storage on this project will be addressed through
Environmental Resource Permitting with the South Florida Water Management District,
and County staff will evaluate the project's stormwater management system, including
stormwater calculations, at time of SDP and/or plat.
cc
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. a)
It is not anticipated this RPUD would reduce light or air to the adjacent areas. a
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent
areas.
This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or
external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including
zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination o.
is driven by market value.
ce11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development
of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
The Hiwasse CPUD is currently vacant and staff does not anticipate this proposed RPUD
would serve as a deterrent to its improvement.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare.
If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment,
then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are
consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does
not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined
to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public
interest.
PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 10 of 13
December 5, 2016
Packet Pg. 50
9.x,.1 I
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
with existing zoning.
The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the
proposed design standards cannot be achieved without rezoning to an RPUD.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or
the County.
It is staff's opinion the proposed uses and associated development standards and developer
commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the
community.
15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed
use in districts already permitting such use. a.
The petition was reviewed for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not
specifically review other sites in conjunction with 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.
N_
Any development anticipated by the RPUD Document would require considerable site
alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, a
and local development regulations during the SDP and/or platting processes, and again Ix
later as part of the building permit process.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and
services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth
Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended.
The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00
regarding Adequate Public Facilities (APF), and the project will need to be consistent with
all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except
as may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by County staff
responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and
those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted
with the commitments contained in the RPUD Document. The concurrency review for
APF is determined at the time of SDP review. The activity proposed by this amendment
will have no impact on public facility adequacy in regard to utilities.
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.
To be determined by the Board during its advertised public hearing.
PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 11 of 13
December 5, 2016
Packet Pg. 51
9.A.1
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) REVIEW:
This project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) since the
project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Chapter
2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The applicant conducted a NIM on September 27, 2016 at the Naples Church of Christ in Naples,
Florida. The meeting commenced at 5:37 p.m. and ended at approximately 6:11 p.m. The NIM
meeting minutes are included in Attachment 2 —Application and Support Material. Many of the
questions dealt with the proposed density, buffering, recreation/amenities, and location of access
point.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
a
cc
The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on November 28, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of 7g
approval.
Attachments:
N
1) Proposed Ordinance
2) Application and Support Material
3) FLUE Consistency Review
4) Density Map
5) Legal Notifications
6) Emails_Letters from Public
m
PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 12 of 13
December 5, 2016
Packet Pg. 52
I91 : .
PREPARED BY:
716
ERIC JOHN . AICP, CFM. PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE
ZONING DIVISION
REVIEWED BY:
//') a.
RAYMON 1V. EL LOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE a)
ZONING DIVISION `°
o.
c
0
MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE
ZONING DIVISION N
t
0
0.
d
cc
APPROVED BY:
_
--/ /4,
J• MES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
c
�►j L•
ILA /16
DAVID S. W KISON DATE
DEPARTMENT HEAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
PUDZ-PL20160001255 Hamilton Place RUPD Page 13 of 13
I Packet Pg. 53
., 16.A.3
01/24/2017
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing
be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for
recording the minor final plat of Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples Benvenuto Court
Replat,Application Number PL20160002720.
OBJECTIVE: To approve for recording the final plat of Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples
Benvenuto Court Replat, a subdivision of lands located in Section 15, Township 48 South,Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida.
CONSIDERATIONS: The Development Review Division of the Growth Management Depaitment has
completed the review of the minor final plat of Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples Benvenuto
Court Replat, and these documents are in compliance with the County Land Development Code (LDC)
and Chapter 177, Florida Statutes. Under LDC Section 10.02.04 D, a minor final plat approval may be
requested as an alternative to the standard construction plans and plat approval where the plat does not
require improvements, a construction and maintenance agreement, a security performance bond, or
phasing.
There are no issues with the PUD that would prevent this plat from being approved at this time. All fees
have been paid. The Development Review Division recommends that the minor final plat of Esplanade
Golf and Country Club of Naples Benvenuto Court Replat be approved for recording.
FISCAL IMPACT: The County will realize revenues as follows:
Fund: Growth Management Fund 131
Agency: County Manager
Cost Center: 138327 -Land Development Services
Revenue generated by this project: Total: $1,030
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The developer must receive a Certificate of Adequate Public
Facilities (COA) prior to the issuance of the construction plan final approval letter and plat recordation,
except when the applicant elects to delay obtaining a COA for non-residential developments that are
required to obtain approval of a site development plan prior to the issuance of a building permit.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been approved as to form and legality, and requires a
majority vote for Board approval. - SAS
RECOMMENDATION: To approve the minor final plat of Esplanade Golf and Country Club of
Naples Benvenuto Court Replat,Application Number PL20160002720 for recording.
Prepared by: John Houldsworth, Senior Site Plan Reviewer, Development Review Division, Growth
Management Department
ATTACHMENT(S)
1.Plat Map (PDF)
2.Location Map (PDF)
Pg. 525
01/24/2017
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 16.A.3
Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.
Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve for recording the minor final plat of Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples Benvenuto
Court Replat,Application Number PL20160002720.
Meeting Date: 01/24/2017
Prepared by:
Title: Site Plans Reviewer, Senior—Growth Management Development Review
Name: John Houldsworth
12/13/2016 2:46 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Project Manager, Principal—Growth Management Department
Name: Matthew McLean
12/13/2016 2:46 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Division Reviewer Completed 12/16/2016 3:35 PM
Growth Management Development Review Brett Rosenblum Additional Reviewer Completed
Growth Management Development Review Chris Scott Additional Reviewer Completed
Growth Management Department Matthew McLean Additional Reviewer Completed 12/27/2016 8:58 AM
Growth Management Department Jeanne Marcella Level 2 Division Administrator Completed 12/27/2016 11:26 AM
Growth Management Department James French Additional Reviewer Completed 12/27/2016 6:27 PM
County Attorneys Office Scott Stone Level 2 Attorney Review Completed 01/03/2017 8:26 AM
Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 01/03/2017 11:39 AM
County Attorneys Office Jeffrey A.Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorneys Office Review Completed 01/04/2017 2:20 PM
Budget and Management Office Mark Isackson Additional Reviewer Completed 01/11/2017 11:22 AM
County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 01/16/2017 10:04 AM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 01/24/2017 9:00 AM
Packet Pg .526."'
Q m K
� � = 0 ›- m
-Q
U Q O Q
IW� Z > K
N N 0 a z I
W —Z W Q
ao CO Q
SWC ~ (j � O
6 U) =CL m < Q OJQ
0 W Imo— O Q N
w cym0 � � Z v W J ,
Lu co Q
N Y N 0 O 0 D I— Z O Q I, Q W
O Z
Lki
— Q Et w — JW = Q
L'Ih < u) EL OH W Q o
Q � � zWwOW C121 V) 0 o Q
O (f) Lk � QZ � �' O � LL
N N K 0 —I Li ° `±' ....., 14,, ,
l•- p ZW � 0F--I O m ZQ
I ON - 0 00 u) Z 00
WF BUJ Ck kc� W W O I
Lu W OU) _i IT
Z Z cO �
CC W U U) < I— m l� Q = > Z
N ao = = UF- = D . , 70
N I— Z ° I— a k m L Li
0 QwQo � w Z W 0 0 -
0 � O � 0 O ~ Oh o c' � im
QLij � UU �= _Z Z Q I0
LONGSHORE 0 W I— = gip W - o (,-) W � W
LAKE N I— U) - UQU) � W Lu J Q ? W u)
N 0 IWOmwO Z Q k -
QUAIL Z f- 0Z0 CCIiLi < N "i _ Q
II
IT'
Ci U v v v U V CO U V Ci Ci c tC) Ci C) Ci
C)
TRACT "P4 "
(PRESERVE AREA, C.E.) ESPLANADE GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES
(P.B. 53, PGS. 1-64)
TRACT "027" :?,7.,.,„
ESPLANADE GOLF AND COU,
)5 E 191.34
çc7Oz TRACT "027" OF NAPLES, BLOCKS "D'; 'i
\ P.B. 59, PGS. 31-
\\ , o OPEN SPACE, D.E., S. W.E.)
w ` �_ ,\ X29 ����
�' `�, X21 141. 2'
�,J �\ S 0026'46" W C35
= W i 0 15328'
O I p \, 121.78'(E) �f-*--i
W o `°�9 W N �� i ,
CI3 sP Io o ,
Nt-
v N 10,Lr)
\\ i co co c0 v O
I
� \ I
V ' ^
\ v SO i
j
� J C) v : Q
\ J Wp
o I Li S V / � I . -i Q V C o)
"� i i i 71 O
\ til kO J ��i
�t \ m QQ � O
'I •;:..,v Iii 1\\J Iii �'
\) 13)
o1 , ' �
\ v \ J1 \
\ � � o
.‘\,1_20 ` \ \ ,
\ \\1 , Q1O \ \ \ N O
\
\ \ \ I \ 26 N
\\ \\n \ `n \ i �' O
\01
v Q I QI V \\ �u ll G \ - \
st-
I \ cv - \\ cc' g lF(� ,38 , /LZ `\ �_J
A10,' 3p �p.9 v G
c.
-,:i \ \ \\ O/0
\ \\ �\ U �- ill \\ \, i
iQi Lij -i
LEE CO
COWER CO
QUA
WEST
PARKLANDS
8 9 10 11 12
i
a
0
re
0
SATURNIA FALLSc
d
17LOC.ATIOT
16 13
I 15
4. \ �. 14
41, rc
O
aD y0 OLDE CYPRESS i
F ms 22 23 24 c
20 0 21
0
J
i+
IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846) E
E
29 28 27 26 25 2
a
LOCATION MAP
NOT TO SCALE
1
Paoket Pg 529