Ex-parte - Fiala 06/13/2017 Ex parte Items - Commissioner Fiala
COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA
June 13, 2017
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 final plat of Fronterra Phase 1, (Application Number P120150001982)approval of the standard
form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security.
7 NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM
SEE FILE ['Meetings ❑Correspondence De-mails nCalls
16.A.4. 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 final plat of Del Webb Naples Parcels 209-212, (Application Number PL20170000434)
approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of
the performance security.
171 NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM
SEE FILE ❑Meetings Correspondence _e-mails ❑Calls
16.A.5. 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 Coquina at Maple Ridge—Phase 3,Application Number PL20170000773.
Fl NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM
SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence De-mails _Calls
16.A.6. 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 Terracina Grand,Application Number PL20160002326.
171 NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM
SEE FILE ❑Meetings (Correspondence e-mails ❑Calls
SUMMARY AGENDA
17.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
the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District
of the Residential Multi-Family-6 Zoning District(RMF-6-BMUD-NC)and the Neighborhood
Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Commercial
Intermediate Zoning District(C-3-BMUD-NC)to a Residential Planned Unit Development
Zoning District for the project to be known as Mattamy Homes Residential Planned Unit
Development,to allow construction of a maximum of 276 residential dwelling units on
property located in the northwest quadrant of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive in
Section 14,Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 37+/-
acres; and providing an effective date. [PL20160000183]
NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM
X SEE FILE ®Meetings Correspondence pe-mails ®Calls
Met w/ Rich Yovanovich, Wayne Arnold & Matt O'Brien from Mattamy Homes, Attended CRA
Meetings, Meetings & Calls w/ Planning Commissioners & Staff, Read Staff Report
BrownleeMichael
Subject: Meet w/ Rich Yovanovicvh &Wayne Arnold and Matt O'Brien from Mattamy Homes
Location: DF Office
Start: Thu 2/11/2016 4:00 PM
End: Thu 2/11/2016 4:30 PM
Recurrence: (none)
Organizer: FialaDonna
Confirmed 2/10 2:30pm
Dianna Quintanilla Legal Assistant to Richard D.Yovanovich, Esq.
(239)435-3535
1
Coy -ie-r County
1
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION 1
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING DATE: MAY 4, 2017
SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20160000183 MATTAMY HOMES
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENTS:
Owner/Applicant: Agent: Agent:
Mattamy Naples, LLC D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq.
4107 Crescent Park Dr. Q. Grady Minor and Associates,P.A. Coleman,Yovanovich&Koester,P.A.
Riverview,FL 33578 3800 Via Del Ray 4001 Tamiami Trail North, suite 300
Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Naples, FL 34103
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an
application to rezone property from the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore
Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Residential Multi-Family-6 Zoning District (RMF-6-
BMUD-NC) and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use
Overlay District of the Commercial Intermediate Zoning District (C-3-BMUD-NC) to a
Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for the project to be known as
Mattamy Homes Residential Planned Unit Development.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
I
The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive
in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (See location map on
page 2).
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
This petition seeks to rezone the property to RPUD to allow for the development of up to 276
single-family, variable-lot-line for single-family, two-family, townhouse, and/or multi-family
dwelling units on 37± acres.
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 1 of 19
April 26,2017
BMUD -
1aaas®a122@3 ""3®IBS115ETHEITITRA■■■
IlRKIN29Ml93lI!!I6relssaaas:3iiaaamdi��iiP
Q ....... .��'.&,_. � RSF @������� ��rnInsl�Q��') I�EEEi9$�0EE'ES33a@�
LIN
S _. C Davis BLVD- __ �C.tc�to RMFo6-BMUD-R1 IOW .c.®Ilo�� ��®,rreia
I
i PUD RMF-6-BMUD-R3
F ®�
Imo_ — filiatV railia�'+:
0 j ®_______ RMF-6-BMUD•NC
m d
®�9�39�91s l I ��
- 0_ 0 �_ �111PUD —
>111121 glifilinall— M
iilln-
CU
�,A� 11 I_____I�_ C:.BMUD-N I PUD
r
Si 11 I RPUD-BMUD-R2
PUD ®'.,�® C-59BMUD-I���YreptIl,
Thomasson DR en El ®CI Ell �f�1gi&______199_€
SITE ® Q _,.. - aa��g�ai�abC�i��r��i��;
LOCATION I diiilighlIgig11111
EIIIIIIRIIIIBIBEIRI
RSF-3-BMUD-R1
PROJECT
LOCATION tIi#®®®®I
moommou.n14 ik
Location Map Zoning Map
Petition Number: PL-2016-183
Document Path:M:\Graphics\Plats and Record dwgs\Mattamy Homes\PUDZ PL20160000183\lnitial Submittal 7-11-2016\workspace\site-location.mxd
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The subject project proposes a density of 7.46 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 Mattamy Homes RPUD:
North: Tract B (undeveloped), Tract C (undeveloped), and Windstar
Boulevard right-of-way in Windstar PUD (1.71 DU/AC)
East (to the north): Right-of-way for Bayshore Drive, then farther east is multi-family
residential, zoned Botanical Place PUD (10.99 DU/AC)
East: Right-of-way for Bayshore Drive, then farther east is multi-family
residential, zoned Pinebrook Lake PUD (16 DU/AC)
East(to the south): Right-of-way for Bayshore Drive, then farther east is undeveloped
land, zoned Cirrus Pointe RPUD-BMUD-R2 (10.89 DU/AC)
South (to the west): Right-of-way for Thomasson Drive, then farther south are a mix of
vacant lots and single-family homes, zoned RSF-4-BMUD-R1 (4
DU/AC)
South (to the east): Right-of-way for a cultural organization (Naples Botanical Gardens),
zoned Naples Botanical Gardens PUD
West: Right-of-way for Pine Street, then farthest west is the Sunset Homes
subdivision,zoned RMF-6-MBUD-R1 and a mix of single-family and
multi-family residential, zoned RMF-6-BMUD-R2 (6 DU/AC)
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 3 of 19
April 26,2017
11
11. ,,%4-11 s )4313# M o c r;tide a d 7,..,ie:g_S?RIT'J
.N C S'A R >'4"1114.1,
yi .. .,. •
6 i
ttg�14 14M d. a CULTURAL
ri.A1r '!r A./:'# ?"11.11141,61161-[!' ARTS VILLAGE
St
: ,,,
iT
`.. , mit: �`' ° _Lv D xs. �lyi k� � -z07,..::::::7;17- ':#.
S 1✓ r.dzt=' 6 �"' `'ia . .J, eFe i.U '!- R. MUD'R3 3r"A' .;yf
Vahthous'e LN
7#--r{-,t ��BOTA NICAL`
1 ,
, ,
°° 1 "t`l'f A __.. k. 'PLACE ' { 3
kkki l..�
,•
4'° ,,o Sunset AVE -44111140 '
��- # of t 1 - d.
..q,
'
,..'A--
..„,„_4.....,,,,,,...0.,,....... "po e G_ t
rrtg`. E-iC"7A V Ett =
k• Zo tng RMF-S `S ' �S'F414f s Gt a �._..,‘ a ems,C IiK j"¢
.,414
16 V �i Letiiritj �,5#..aax fyWlyr# kg toll‘4,000
r 'R{ rs
,. flor%daA, E . F' '�r - a: -14'4,4-41Z3
P LAKE OK
iii
N
L
f 'j'g Zonmge -1,., a a `' .. L{ - R � `'-.
1 .; -ri rig
� Ifs '
c B Nr-
5E t
° NAPLES i.` t - -
BOTANICAL 11'°to r 'k" ,1'- a °iiT : -; 'q,
E GARDENS '..,. a._.$, .
!. - '"- .' C' r4°; nova AVE MF-6-BMUDR�
vi •3 7 r E i 11 l' is
Aerial(County GIS)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban (Urban — Mixed
Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict) and is within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO) and the Coastal High Hazard Area Overlay (CHHA), all of
which are identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the FLUE of the GMP. Both
the RMF-6 and C-3-zoned portions of the site are deemed "consistent by policy" on the FLUM
series. Pursuant to FLUE Policies 5.9 and 5.10,the RMF-6 and C-3 zoned portions are allowed to
develop or redevelop in accordance with the maximum density allowed under the existing zoning
classifications.
For market-rate housing, the Density Rating System would allow four DU/AC on the C-3-zoned
portion of the site, 19.92 dwelling units, and FLUE Policy 5.1 would allow six DU/AC on the j
RMF-6-zoned portion, 193.62 dwelling units. In total,the number of dwelling units allowed would
be 213.54 or as rounded, 214 units. The additional 62 units needed to achieve the requested 276
units are derived from the density bonus pool available in the B/GTRO. The approval to use the
62 density bonus pool units is at the Board of County Commissioners (Board's) discretion. See
Attachment 3 - FLUE Consistency Memorandum for the entire analysis by Comprehensive
Planning.
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 4 of 19
April 26,2017
Staff determined the proposed RPUD may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP.
However, as noted in Attachment 3 -FLUE Consistency Memorandum, a minor text correction to
the PUD Document is needed and stipulated as such in the Recommendation section of this staff
report,page 18.
Transportation Element: In evaluating this project,staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact
Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP using
the 2014 and 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR).
Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states the following:
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 PUD Amendment on the subject property was reviewed based on the then-
applicable, 2015 AUIR Inventory Report. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the
proposed new residential development will generate approximately 138 PM peak hour two-way
trips. The previous multi-family development contained 106 PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the
proposed development will have 32 PM peak hour new trips as listed in Table 1 on page 6.
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 5 of 19
April 26,2017
Table 1. Road Capacity
Roadway Link 2016 AUIR Current Peak 2016
Existing LOS Hour Peak Remaining
Direction Capacity
Service
Volume/Peak
Direction
Bayshore Drive U.S. 41 to B 1,800/South 1,162
Thomasson
Drive
Thomasson Bayshore Drive C 800/East 245
Drive
Based on the 2016 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate
the proposed new trips for the amended project within the 5-year planning period. Therefore, the
subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the
Growth Management Plan.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME): Environmental review staff found
this project to be consistent with the CCME.
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.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Applications to rezone to or amend RPUDs shall be in the form of an RPUD Master Plan of
development, along with a list of permitted and accessory uses and a development standards table.
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-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 6 of 19
April 26,2017
or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the
heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In the following sections, staff offers analysis of the
application.
Drainage Review: The current permitted downstream drainage infrastructure for this project, as
proposed, will meet stormwater concurrency, provided the specific condition requiring the
replacement of the drainage pipe under Pine Street is addressed at the time of site development
(see Recommendation section of this staff report, page 18).
Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
Document to address environmental concerns. A preserve is not required on this site as there is
no native vegetation that meets the definition in LDC Section 3.05.07.A.1-2. 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.
Landscape Review: The project is required to provide a 15-foot wide, Type B buffer along the
north property line. The Master Plan shows compliance with this requirement. The project is also
required to provide 20-foot wide, Type D buffers along the south (Thomasson Drive), east
(Bayshore Drive), and west (Pine Street) property lines. The petitioner is requesting a deviation
to allow these buffers to be 15 feet wide instead of 20 feet. The petitioner's justification for this
request and staff's recommendation are provided in the Deviation Discussion section of this staff
report,page 9. Staff supports this deviation.
Staff supports a 15-foot front yard setback for accessory structures with the additional condition
that smaller canopy trees shall be used. The provision to reduce the front setback for porches,
entry features, and roofed courtyards is only applicable when those accessory structures do not
exceed 50% of the front façade (primary structure), excluding the garage, and a 20-foot area is
provided to accommodate the smaller canopy trees (see Recommendation section of this staff
report, page 18). A list of LDC-approved, smaller canopy trees, has been provided in the
Developer Commitments, Exhibit F of the PUD Document.
An alternative design option to ensure compliance with the canopy tree requirement is to have a
street tree program as provided for in LDC Section 4.06.05.A.1. However, Deviation#2, which
seeks to reduce the width of the right-of-way from 60 feet to 50 feet, essentially eliminates the
possibility of implementing a successful street tree program. Also, the proposed side and rear
yards are not able to accommodate the requisite trees either, due to their limited space. For
example, rear building setbacks may be reduced to zero feet where abutting a landscape buffer
easement(LBE).
School District: There is sufficient capacity within the elementary, middle, and high school
concurrency service areas for this proposed development. At the time of site development plan
(SDP) or plat review (PPL), the development would be reviewed for concurrency to ensure there
is capacity within the concurrency service areas the development is located within or adjacent to
concurrency service areas. This finding is for planning and informational purposes only and does
not constitute either a reservation of capacity or a finding of concurrency for the proposed project.
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 7 of 19
April 26, 2017
Transportation Review: During the review process for this petition, the agent requested that this
sidewalk requirement be addressed through the payment-in-lieu provisions of the LDC. Staff does
not agree with this request. Staff's recommended condition of approval is based on the August
2010, Collier MPO, Walkable Community Study that lists Pine Street as a Tier 1 rated facility.
The study recommends a five-foot sidewalk on one side of the road as a phase one
recommendation.
Further, staff attended the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board
Meeting on April 4, 2017 at which time this sidewalk segment was discussed and a
recommendation to construct was unanimously voted on and approved. Based on this information,
it is staffs opinion that this segment of sidewalk should be constructed instead of the payment-in-
lieu proposed by the agent.
Utilities Review: The project lies within the City of Naples water service area and the south
wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District. Wastewater service is readily
available via an existing eight-inch gravity sewer along Bayshore Drive with two existing stub-
outs to the property. Downstream wastewater system capacity must be confirmed at the time of
SDP or PPL permit review and will be discussed at a mandatory pre-submittal conference with
representatives from the Public Utilities Engineering and Project Management Division and the
Growth Management Development Review Division.
Any improvements to the Collier County Water-Sewer District's wastewater
collection/transmission system necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be
the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the Collier County Water-Sewer
District at no cost to the County at the time of Preliminary and Final Acceptance.
Zoning Services Review: The RPUD is currently comprised of two parcels. Aerial photography
from the Collier County Property Appraiser reveals that the larger of the two was developed with
multi-family buildings between 1975 and 1985 and subsequently razed sometime before the 2011
imagery was taken. The smaller of the two parcels has remained vacant. The subject parcels are
located within the BMUD-NC Overlay District. The purpose and intent of the BMUD is to
encourage revitalization of the Bayshore Drive portion of the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment Area with pedestrian-oriented, interconnected projects. The BMUD encourages
uses that support pedestrian activity, including a mix of residential, civic, and commercial uses
that complement each other and provide for an increased presence and integration of the cultural
arts and related support uses.When possible both commercial and residential buildings are located
near the street and may have front porches and/or balconies. The purpose and intent of the BMUD-
NC is to encourage a mix of low intensity commercial and residential uses, including mixed-use
projects in a single building.This subdistrict provides for an increased presence and integration of
the cultural arts and related support uses, including galleries, artists' studios, and live-work units.
Developments will be human-scale and pedestrian-oriented.
With respect to project density, staff compared this RPUD with the densities of the abutting and
adjacent properties (see Attachment 4 - Density Map). The maximum proposed density for this
RPUD would be 7.46 dwelling units per acre. Staff determined the density proposed for this RPUD
would be acceptable when compared with the abutting and adjacent properties.
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 8 of 19
April 26,2017
This RPUD proposes a range of residential uses including single-family detached,variable-lot-line
single-family homes, two-family dwellings, townhouses, and multi-family dwellings. Staff
compared the principal uses proposed in this RPUD to those allowed in the surrounding properties.
Abutting the subject property to the north is Windstar PUD (Ordinance 1993-23) a residential
development approved for 549 dwelling units. The south perimeter of the subject property fronts
on Thomasson Drive. Much of the land south of Thomasson Drive is zoned Naples Botanical
Gardens PUD; however, there is a small pocket of homes on lands zoned RSF-4-BMUD-R1
nestled in between the Naples Botanical Gardens PUD. To the east of the subject property, across
the street from Bayshore Drive, is Botanical Place PUD, which was approved for a maximum of
218 dwelling units pursuant to Ordinance 2003-38. To the south of Botanical Place PUD is
Pinebrook Lake PUD, the 10-acre development that was approved for up to 160 multi-family
dwelling units (Ordinance 1980-56). To the south of Pinebrook Lake PUD is Cirrus Pointe RPUD,
which is currently the undeveloped 9.92-acre RPUD that was approved for up to 108 multi-family
dwelling units, of which 44 are designated as workforce housing. To the west, adjacent to the
subject property, is the Sunset Homes subdivision, which is zoned RMF-6-BMUD-R1. This
Zoning/Overlay District allows single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings, duplexes,
rowhouses, and multi-family dwellings. To the south of Sunset Homes subdivision is a strip of
lots zoned RMF-6-BMUD-R2, allowing the same residential uses as those within the RMF-6-
BMUD-R2 Zoning/Overlay District.
The uses proposed in the RPUD are comparable and compatible with the surrounding properties.
Staff evaluated the development standards for the principal and accessory uses/structures proposed
in the RPUD and compared them to the same standards found in the residential tract of the
Botanical Place PUD,the residential tract of Windstar PUD, the cluster housing provisions of the
LDC Section 4.02.04, the townhouse provisions of LDC Section 5.05.07, and the applicable
BMUD provisions of the LDC Section 4.02.16. With the exception of the front setbacks, staff
determined that the proposed standards would be comparable and compatible with the
aforementioned developments and relevant provisions of the LDC. Staff is recommending
changes to the front setbacks as a condition of approval (see Recommendation section of this staff
report,page 18).
DEVIATION DISCUSSION:
This petitioner is requesting three deviations, which are itemized in Exhibit E in the RPUD
Document. The petitioner's justification and staff analysis/recommendation is outlined below:
Proposed Deviation#1
A deviation from LDC Section 4.02.16.A.1, Design Standard in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment area, which requires dimensional standards as shown in Table 1, Dimensional
Requirements in the BMUD-NC, to allow Mattamy Homes to establish their own residential
development types and dimensional standards within their PUD.
Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner justified the deviation request as follows:
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 9 of 19
April 26, 2017
Mattamy Homes is rezoning to a PUD rather than using the MVP (sic)process, Mattamy
Homes is an experienced homebuilder and has many unit types and floor plans which have
established architectural standards. Mattamy Homes will utilize their proven development
standards tailored for their products.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved and staffs conditions of approval are accepted. Zoning staff recommends APPROVAL
of this deviation,contingent upon the acceptance of staff's condition of approval#2 regarding the
front setback, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has
demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety
and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h,the petitioner has demonstrated
that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations."
Proposed Deviation#2
Deviation#2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N,Street System Requirements and Appendix
B, Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way Design Standards, which establishes a 60-foot wide
local road, to allow a minimum 50-foot wide local private road. This deviation applies when the
developer proposes to develop local streets in lieu of a private drive or access way.
Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner justified the deviation request as follows:
The proposed 50' wide private road right-of-way is sufficiently wide to accommodate the
required roadway improvements. Utilities and sidewalks can be placed within easements
outside the private right-of-way if necessary. The internal project roads will be private
and the standard public right-of-way is not necessary for internal traffic volumes. Dual
sidewalks will be provided on any platted local street.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved. Zoning staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance
with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3,the petitioner has demonstrated that"the element may be waived
without a detrimental effect on the health,safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section
10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public
purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations."
Proposed Deviation#3
From LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4, Buffer Requirements, which requires developments of 15 acres
or more to provide a perimeter landscape buffer of at least 20 feet in width regardless of the width
of the right-of-way, to permit a 15-foot wide,Type D buffer adjacent to external rights-of-way.
Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner justified the deviation request as follows:
This deviation is warranted because the site has been previously developed and it has three
road frontages. The Bayshore Overlay permits roadway buffers to be 15' in width for
multi family and commercial developments. The Mattamy Homes RPUD provides for a
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 10 of 19
April 26,2017
variety of dwelling unit types, including multi family units. The 15'buffer will include the
same amount of vegetation provided within a 20' wide buffer. A 15' wide right-of-way
buffer will provide the flexibility necessary to redevelop the site with new residential
product types meeting the market demand for sale product compared to the rental
apartments, which previously occupied the site.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved. The type of buffers proposed along Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive would be
appropriate for this area. Along Pine Street, the petitioner is electing to install a 15-foot wide,
Type B buffer instead of the 20-foot wide, Type D buffer. Staff determined this substitute would
be acceptable as well.
Therefore, the Zoning staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in
compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3,the petitioner has demonstrated that"the element may
be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and
LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as
meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations."
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."
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in
relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access,
drainage,sewer, water,and other utilities.
The subject site is located within the water service area of the City of Naples and the south
wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District. Water distribution
and wastewater collection facilities are readily available to the site and current treatment
capacities are sufficient to serve the proposed RPUD. Drainage solutions will be evaluated
at the time of development permit review.
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
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 11 of 19
April 26,2017
relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion
of this staff report(or within an accompanying memorandum).
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. Notwithstanding the fact
the petitioner is requesting a landscape buffer deviation, it is the opinion of staff that the
Master Plan proposes the appropriate type and size perimeter landscape buffers. Staff has
concerns regarding the ability for each lot to accommodate the requisite canopy tree. As a
solution, staff is making a condition of approval that would modify the Development
Standards in Exhibit B of the PUD Document (see Recommendation section of this staff
report,page 18).
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 60%of the gross area for usable open space. The
Master Plan indicates that 60% would be provided and no deviation from the open space
requirement is being requested. Compliance would be further demonstrated at the time of
SDP or platting.
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 is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the
Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time
of first development order (SDP or PPL), 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. With respect to drainage, impacts from the site discharge
will be addressed at time of SDP, PPL, or actual site development. Additionally, the
project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management
regulations when development approvals are sought.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
The area has readily available supporting infrastructure,including public water distribution
and wastewater collection systems, to service this project based upon the commitments
made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be
continuously addressed as development approvals are sought.
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 12 of 19
April 26,2017
8. Conformity with PUD regulations,or as to desirable modifications of such regulations
in the particular case,based on determination that such modifications are justified as
meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such
regulations.
The petitioner is requesting three deviations, requiring an evaluation to the extent to which
development standards and deviations proposed for this RPUD depart from development
standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Each
deviation requested by the petitioner is itemized and analyzed in the Deviation Discussion
section of this staff report on page 9. Staff supports all deviations with one minor condition
of approval related to the Master Plan regarding the landscape buffer. With the update to
the Master Plan, it is the opinion of staff that the petitioner has demonstrated that "the
elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of
the community"in accordance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, and that the petitioner has
demonstrated the deviations are "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least
equivalent to literal application of such regulations" in accordance with LDC Section
10.02.13.B.5.h.
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.
Lands zoned RPUD are located to the east of the subject property. In addition, there are
PUDs located within close proximity of the subject property. For all intents and purposes,
these lands that are zoned PUD are considered similar and related zoning classification,
because the County did not adopt the RPUD zoning district until 2004 (pursuant to
Ordinance 04-41). Therefore, the proposed petition would not create an isolated district
unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 13 of 19
April 26,2017
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
The square-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.
The proposed change is not necessary,per se, but it is being requested in compliance with
the LDC provisions to seek such changes.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
The proposed RPUD is not anticipated to adversely influence 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
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 sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project at this
time. The project is subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in the RPUD
Ordinance, which includes provisions to address public safety.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
The RPUD is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area, provided the
petitioner coordinates with Collier County's Road Maintenance Division to replace the
drainage pipe under Pine Street that connects the project outfall to the adjacent Windstar
PUD lake.The project's stormwater management system should be designed to a discharge
rate not to exceed 0.15 cubic feet per second/acre. Stormwater best management practices,
treatment, and storage on this project will be addressed through Environmental Resource
Permitting with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). County staff
will evaluate the project's stormwater management system, calculations, and design
criteria at time of SDP and/or PPL.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
It is not anticipated this RPUD would reduce light or air to the adjacent areas.
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
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 14 of 19
April 26,2017
external to the subject property.Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including
zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination
is driven by market value.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development
of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
The Cirrus Point RPUD to the east is currently undeveloped 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.
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.
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.
Any development anticipated by the RPUD Document would require considerable site
alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state,
and local development regulations during the SDP and/or platting processes, and again
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 15 of 19
April 26,2017
later as part of the building permit process. This RPUD is for redevelopment that is located
within an established community redevelopment area and key portions of the stormwater
drainage infrastructure, both on-site and off-site, are currently in place.
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
what is 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 (LOS) 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. The
redevelopment of this site will maintain the intended LOS and direction of flow through
the interconnected developments downstream in this part of the area known as
Miscellaneous Coastal Basin (MCB-06), which does not have an official LOS established
in the GMP.
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.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The applicant conducted a NIM on September 13, 2016 during a regular hearing of the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board. The meeting
was held at 3570 Bayshore Drive, Unit 2 in Naples, Florida.
The applicant's team consisted of Wayne Arnold, Matt O'Brien, Richard Yovanovich, Mike
Delate, Jim Banks, and Marco Espinar, and the NIM summary is included in Attachment 2 -
Application and Support Material. The public asked questions that included but were not limited
to the proposed number (density) of dwelling units, access, whether the project would be gated,
anticipated price range and size of the dwelling units, traffic lights, infrastructure, maximum
building height,location of amenities,drainage,blasting during construction,lot sizes,and project
phasing.
According to the NIM summary, when discussing the project,Mr. O'Brien stated that no entrance
was being proposed into the Windstar PUD; however,the Master Plan currently shows a potential
interconnection into Windstar PUD. The Master Plan must be modified to remove this
interconnection (see Recommendation section of the staff report, page 18).
Another person asked if a traffic light is proposed at the intersection of Thomasson Drive and
Bayshore Drive, to which Mr. Arnold responded that he thought the County would be installing a
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 16 of 19
April 26,2017
roundabout. With respect to density, Mr. Arnold explained the previous project for this site was
developed with 200 apartment units,to which an unidentified woman commented that the previous
development"seemed pretty dense there, 200." Later in the meeting, a resident of Windstar PUD
mentioned the following regarding the proposed density and type of construction:
A Windstar resident. I'm not officially representing the 550 people that live there, but the
president of the master association board did ask me to come as a formal president of the
board and point out that we're concerned about the density and the type of construction.
These are sort of standard townhome type things. We were hoping for more of an
imaginative use of the property, you know, (indiscernible) or something like that, that
would be more of an urban type feel rather than this sort of straight planned community
type of thing, but the traffic and density are primary concerns.
When asked if a barrier wall would be installed along the property line adjacent to Pine Street,Mr.
Arnold responded by saying, "we're proposing, I think, Matt, we're pretty committed to having a
wall along that part of our landscape buffer."
With respect to traffic, an attendee made the following comments about Bayshore Drive:
Right now, it's very tough coming out of Windstar to get out onto Bayshore Drive because
the traffic is coming down all the time in the morning. It's going to be a lot worse when
you put another 200 plus homes in there. We're also concerned about where you locate
your amenities in terms of any pools and stuff that they not be too close to our entrance
roads here. And,finally, I would point out that there is no agreement to allow that entry
though Windstar at this point in time. It's something that may be discussed down the road,
but there's no agreement now.
More discussion ensued about the project being a gated development and the traffic impacts on
Bayshore Drive. Mr. Arnold stated the following:
On this concept, ma'am, and Mike Delate — on that design on Bayshore, we have a turn
lane, a right turn lane on each side. So we would design a right turn lane southbound on
this concept. The gate is actually here. So there would be stacking in the turn lane and
then to the gated area before you get into our community.
An unidentified female voice asked, "But what if they're coming from the south?" Mr. Arnold
started to respond, "If they're coming from the south,"but another attendee interrupted and spoke
for him saying,"There's going to be a turn lane there." Mr.Arnold affirmed the previous speaker's
comment by stating,"Correct. You'd probably have a turn lane there as well." The NIM summary
reflects additional discussion and concerns about traffic in the area as well as criticism about
drainage. Later in the meeting, another attendee was worried that any unit constructed on-site that
is assessed for less than $400,000 requires more in public services than it pays in taxes. When
discussing the proposed water management areas,Mr.Delate promised there would be no blasting
in the process of creating the lakes.
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 17 of 19
April 26, 2017
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on April 19, 2017.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of
approval, contingent upon satisfying the following:
1. To obtain drainage concurrency, prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the
owner shall,at its sole cost,replace the existing 12-inch drainage pipe within the Pine Street right-
of-way with an appropriately-sized drainage pipe that will accommodate stormwater from the
RPUD and from property that currently flows through the Pine Street drainage pipe. Prior to
construction, the Collier County Road Maintenance Department must review and approve the
plans and the owner shall obtain a right-of-way permit.
2. Note #1 in Exhibit B of the PUD Document, which provides for a reduced setback for
porches, entry features, and roofed courtyards, must be modified so that these elements shall not
exceed 50% of the front building façade, exclusive of the garages.
3. The owner, or its successors or assigns, at its sole expense, shall construct a five-foot wide
sidewalk along the RPUD's frontage on Pine Street prior to the issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy for the RPUD.
4. Deviation#3 in the PUD Document must be updated to indicate that a 15-foot wide,Type
D buffer is the minimum required where adjacent to rights-of-way.
5. Revise Exhibit F, #2.b of the PUD Document to read: A maximum of 62 density bonus
pool units,as provided for in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay in the Future
Land Use Element of the GMP, are available for this RPUD for a period of seven years from the
date of approval of this RPUD. If after seven years the bonus units have not been utilized, the
bonus units shall expire and not be available unless reauthorized by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
6. The Master Plan must be modified to delete the Potential Interconnection into Windstar
PUD.
7. A wall shall be installed within the Type B buffer along Pine Street.
8. As promised at the NIM, no blasting shall be used in the process of creating the water
management areas.
Attachments:
1) Proposed Ordinance
2) Application and Support Material
3) FLUE Consistency Memorandum
4) Density Map
5) City of Naples Letter
6) Legal Notifications
7) Emails_Letters from Public
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 18 of 19
April 26,2017
PREPARED BY:
' (12117-
ERIC JOHNS'•N,AICP, CFM,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE
ZONING DIVISION
REVIEWED BY:
72.,) � 3 I
RAYMV.BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER 'ATE
ZONIN DIVISION
44 - /4- i
MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE
ZONING DIVISION
APPROVED BY:
AMES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 19 of 19