The URL can be used to link to this page

Ex-parte - Fiala 06/27/2017 Ex parte Items - Commissioner Fiala COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA June 27, 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 Number 2011-08,the Addie's Corner Mixed Use Planned Unit Development,to allow 250 multi-family dwelling units or Group Housing/Retirement uses in Tract C as shown on the Master Plan and 75,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial development and Group Housing/Retirement Community uses in Tract A as shown on the Master Plan; providing for amendment to the Master Plan; by providing for revised development standards; and by providing an effective date. The subject property consists of 23.33+/-acres and is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Immokalee Road (CR 846)and Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in Section 22,Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida [PL20150001776]. NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM XI SEE FILE ®Meetings ®Correspondence ®e-mails Calls Met w/ Sam Miller and other homeowners from Esplanade Golf& Country Club, JMeeting w/ Hearing Examiner, Staff Report 9.B. 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 Number 04-41, as amended,the Collier County Land Development Code,which includes the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area181 fleur de lis lane 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 Planned Unit Development(PUD)to Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD)for a project known as the Triad RPUD,to allow development of 44 single- family dwelling units.The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Palm Springs Boulevard and Radio Lane in Section 34,Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 10.75± acres; providing for repeal of Ordinance No. 05-11, as amended by Ordinance No. 05-23,the former Triad Planned Unit Development, and by providing an effective date. [PUD-PL20160002564] NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM X SEE FILE ®Meetings F<Correspondence ®e-mails Calls Meeting w/ Chris Hagen, Correspondence and Phone call w/ Cathy Gorman, Meeting w/ Hearing Examiner, Site visit and Staff Report IADVE TISED PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) 9.C. 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 amending Ordinance Number 04-41,as amended,the Collier County Land Development Code,which includes the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD),to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD)for a project known as the MAC RPUD to allow development of 44 single-family dwelling units.The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Palm Springs Boulevard and Radio Lane in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 10.76±acres; providing for repeal of Ordinance No. 05-50,the former MAC Residential Planned Unit Development, and by providing an effective date. [PUD-PL20160002565] NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM X SEE FILE ®Meetings ®Correspondence ®e-mails I (Calls Meeting w/ Chris Hagen, Correspondence and Phone call w/ Cathy Gorman, Meeting w/ Hearing Examiner, Site visit and Staff Report 9.D. 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 Number 04-41, 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 an Estates(E)zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the County Barn Road RPUD,to allow construction of a maximum of 268 multi-family residential dwelling units or 156 single family residential dwelling units or any combination of dwelling unit types permitted in the PUD, not to exceed a trip cap of 157 p.m. peak hour two- way trips.The subject property is located on the east side of County Barn Road,approximately one quarter mile south of Davis Boulevard in Section 8,Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 38.59±acres;and by providing an effective date. [PUDZ-PL20160001398]. NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM N SEE FILE ®Meetings ❑Correspondence ®e-mails ®Calls Meeting w/ Chris Hagen, Meeting w/ Bruce Anderson, Hearing Examiner, spoke w/ Karen Homiak, emails re: Street Lighting, Staff Report ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) 1 9.E. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be Vheld on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 2007-46, as amended,the Wolf Creek RPUD,to approve an insubstantial change to the PUD,to add a preserve exhibit that revises the preserve configuration for Parcels 3B and 9 only, and providing for an effective date. The subject property is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, approximately one-half mile west of Collier Boulevard, in Section 34,Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida,consisting of 189±acres. [PDI-PL20160000404] NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM ❑ SEE FILE ®Meetings ®Correspondence se-mails ®Calls Meeting w/ Bruce Anderson, Correspondence & Phone call w/ residents of Black Bear Ridge, email COUNTY MANAGER'S REPORT 11.G. 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 Sereno Grove, (Application Number P120160001884)approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. (Matt McLean, Director, Development Review Division) NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM X SEE FILE I (Meetings ®Correspondence se-mails Calls Mail & Emails from residents of Wilshire Lakes Community, Discussions w/ Planning Commissioners CONSENT AGENDA 16.A.2. 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 Maple Ridge Amenity Center at Ave Maria, (Application Number P120170000724) approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. ❑ NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE Meetings ['Correspondence e-mails ['Calls 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 Oyster Harbor at Fiddler's Creek Phase 1—Replat 3,Application Number PL20170000332. • NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM n SEE FILE ['Meetings ['Correspondence ❑e-mails ❑Calls 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 Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples Phase 4, Parcel "L", (Application Number PL20170001594)approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. N NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ❑Meetings ['Correspondence ne-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 Petition VAC-PL20170000730 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the conservation easement described in O.R. Book 4293, Page 4106 of the Official Records of Collier County, Florida.The subject property is located on the west side of Airport Pulling Road,approximately one half mile north of Golden Gate Parkway, in Section 23, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. 71 NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE [Meetings ['Correspondence [le-mails ['Calls 17.B. 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 a Resolution providing for the establishment of a Conditional Use to allow an auto supply store with over 5,000 square feet of gross floor area in the principal structure (Sic Code 5531)within a Commercial Intermediate(C- 3)Zoning District pursuant to Section 2.03.03.C.1.c.20 of the Collier County Land Development Code.The subject property containing 1.24 acres on Lots 12-18,South Tamiami Heights subdivision is located on the southwest corner of US 41 and Seminole Avenue, in Section 13,Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (CU-PL20150001611) N NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence [le-mails ❑Calls 17.C. 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. Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 97-70,as amended, Pelican Lake,a Planned Unit Development,to clarify the measurement of actual height of the accessory enclosed utility/storage structure is from the lower of finished floor elevation of the enclosed utility/storage structure or twelve inches above the FEMA flood elevation.The subject property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (SR-951)approximately 1/5 mile south of Tamiami Trail East(US 41), in Section 15,Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 101.3+/-acres. [PDI- P120160003463] DQ NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ['Meetings ['Correspondence De-mails ❑Calls 17.D. 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 Petition VAC-P120170001974 to disclaim, renounce and vacate the County and the public interest in a portion of the 15-foot Utility Easement recorded in Official Record Book 1401, Page 2152 and a portion of the 15-foot Utility Easement recorded in Official Record Book 1432, Page 1093 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida;and approve and authorize the Chairman to execute a Quit Claim Deed and Bill of Sale to transfer wastewater facilities from the County to the property owner.The subject property is located on the west side of Bayshore Drive,approximately one quarter mile south of Tamiami Trail East, in Section 11,Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. VI NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM n SEE FILE ['Meetings ['Correspondence [le-mails (Calls e r County y STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION /Ill° FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: MAY 18, 2017 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20150001776 ADDIE'S CORNER PROPERTY OWNERS/APPLICANT/AGENT: Owner/Applicant: Agents: Creekside West, Inc. D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Q. Grady Minor and Coleman, Yovanovich an Koester, Naples, FL 34105 Associates, P.A. P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Parcel ID: 00190041500 is owned by Collier County to be used for right-of-way purposes. REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to amend Ordinance Number 2011-08, the Addie's Corner Mixed Use Planned Unit Development(MPUD). GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property consists of 23.33+/- acres and is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County (see location map,page 2). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This petition seeks to amend the MPUD to add Tract C to allow 349 multi-family dwelling units or group housing retirement uses and to reduce the currently allowed commercial development on Tract A from 135,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial development to 75,000 square feet on Tract A. Tract A also currently allows community/group housing and hotel/motel uses. PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie's Corner MPUD Page 1 of 21 May 9, 2017 It ' 111114 /. Alrists po 7;" o=© SITE PROJECT ewe* , LOCATION E;®8 RPUD o LOCATION fr ®® Q .. i 1.1L I SPUD Q O o ©� 2 w o 1 MPUD IMO rLz Immokalee RD -- TRACT TRA NrRA�rS �CT L1 o .H++1+]+1-1-1-11-1-H+ OM= ) I i`e-(id 4" IP A E � . —• ?— lir , l �bo Location Map Zoning Map Petition Number: PL-2015-1776 Document Path:M:\GIS_Pequests\2016\06-June\06-17-2016 PL20150001776\workspace\site-location.mxd 3 1 a d 11 1 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject amendment proposes a density of 15.98 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 Addie's Corner MPUD: North: Preserve and open space tracts, then farther north are platted undeveloped residential lots, all of which are zoned Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). Maximum zoned building height five stories and 50 feet, including of under-building parking (0.74 DU/AC). East: Undeveloped lands in the A Tract and Commercial, Mixed-Use District (C/MU) Tract in the Tree Farm MPUD, a mixed use project (175,000 square feet of commercial). Maximum building height is 77 feet(7 DU/AC). South: Right-of-way for canal, and farther south is right-of-way for Immokalee Road, still farther south is preserve for Richland PUD. Maximum building height is 35 feet (3.10 DU/AC). West : A 15-foot wide landscape buffer easement, and farther west is an open space (to the north) tract and then a right-of-way for Esplanade Boulevard, all of which are zoned Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples RPUD (0.74 DU/AC). West: A 15-foot wide landscape buffer easement, and farther west is an open space (central) tract and then a 20-foot wide land maintenance easement,all of which are zoned Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples RPUD (0.74 DU/AC). West: A drainage easement and sidewalk easement are zoned Esplanade Golf and (to the south) Country Club of Naples RPUD (0.74 DU/AC), and a canal right-of-way. PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie's Corner MPUD Page 3 of 21 May 9, 2017 P.E5 Fa4 + BoSE # _Er .863> 8nt2' L d 838 V x6.,8641 totatie r 8636• . ..1,. v 8632. 8628 + �t 862 t 4+ y...�,. 8548 O J � !+" "8640 E sP is a Ebb 8546 ,. c 75376 --- fib'; a'e e R D Aerial(County GIS) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: 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. Future Land Use Element(FLUE): Staff identified the FLUE policies relevant to this project and determined that the proposed amendment to the MPUD may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. Please see Attachment 3—FLUE Consistency Memorandum for a more detailed analysis of how staff derived this determination. 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 5A 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 PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie's Corner MPUD Page 4 of 21 May 9, 2017 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 applicable 2016 AUIR Inventory Report. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the proposed new development will generate approximately 447 adjusted PM peak hour two-way trips, which is a reduction of 227 PM peak hour trips from the PUD's current trip count. The proposed development will impact the following roadway segments with the listed capacities: Roadway Link 2016 AUIR Current Peak Hour 2016 Existing Peak Direction Remaining LOS Service Volume/Peak Capacity Direction Immokalee Collier Boulevard C 3,300/East 974 Road to Wilson Boulevard Immokalee Logan Boulevard D 3,200/North 647 Road to Collier Boulevard Collier Immokalee Road C 3,000/North 1,026 Boulevard to Vanderbilt Beach Road Based on the 2016 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the current and proposed (reduced) trips for the amended project within the five-year planning period. Therefore, the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie's Corner MPUD Page 5 of 21 May 9, 2017 Staff notes that Immokalee Road is projected to fail the required Level of Service (LOS) past the current five-year plan projections. Staff is diligently working on various network improvements, such as the recently approved authorization to reinitiate the Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension project, which will serve as a parallel corridor within the network. Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the CCME. The project site contains 13.81 acres of native vegetation, a minimum of 25%, which equates to 3.45 acres, is required to be retained pursuant to CCME Policy 6.1.1, if developed as a mixed use. If developed entirely as non-residential, a minimum of 15% or 2.07 acres of the native vegetation present on- site is required to be retained. 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 (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. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis." Drainage: The proposed PUDA request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area, provided the project's stormwater management system is designed to the current Cocohatchee River Canal Basin discharge rate of 0.04 cubic feet second/acre. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting with the South Florida Water Management District. County staff will evaluate the project's stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria at the time of SDP and/or plat. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document to address environmental concerns. The project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), since it does not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Native vegetation retention identified in the existing PUD Document and on the Master Plan exceeds that which is required by the GMP and LDC, with 8.85 acres of preserve identified. Evaluation of the site, by the applicant and staff, shows the MPUD would contain 13.81 acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 25%,3.45 acres, is required to be retained if developed as mixed use. If developed entirely as non-residential, a minimum of 15%, 2.07 acres, of native vegetation is required to be retained. The proposed preserve is located in the northwest corner of the MPUD to act as a buffer and provide a connection to the preserve to the north within Esplanade Golf and Country Club of PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie's Corner MPUD Page 6 of 21 May 9, 2017 Naples RPUD. Connections to preserves, on and off-site, are required by LDC Section 3.05.07 A.S. Landscape Review: The Master Plan shows that a 15-foot wide, Type B buffer is proposed along the project's north property line, except in the area where the preserve abuts the Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples RPUD. The Master Plan also shows a Type B buffer of varying widths, from 15 feet to 30 feet, is proposed along the western boundary of the MPUD where abutting the Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples RPUD. A 15-foot wide, Type B buffer would run along the east property line where abutting the Tree Farm MPUD. Finally,the Master Plan depicts a 20-foot wide,Type D buffer along the canal and the Immokalee Road right-of-way. These buffers would comply with the requirements of the LDC. The Master Plan depicts an internal right-of-way, proposed between Tracts A and C. Landscape buffers would be placed outside the right-of-way, along its north and south sides. School District: There is sufficient capacity within the elementary and middle school concurrency service areas for this proposed development. There is not sufficient capacity at the high school concurrency service area the project is located in, but there is available capacity in adjacent concurrency service areas. At the time of site development plan (SDP) or plat (PPL), if there is not capacity within the concurrency service areas the development is located within adjacent concurrency service areas will be included in the determination of capacity. 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. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this project. Utilities Review: The project lies within the potable water and north wastewater service areas of the Collier County Water-Sewer District. Water service is readily available via a new 24-inch water main recently constructed along the north side of the Cocohatchee Canal. Wastewater service is readily available via an existing 12-inch force main along the centerline of Immokalee Road. Downstream wastewater system capacity must be confirmed at the time of development permit review and shall be discussed at a mandatory pre-submittal conference with representatives of the Public Utilities Engineering and Project Management Division and the Growth Management Development Review Division. Any off-site improvements necessary to provide wastewater service to the project shall be the responsibility of the developer and shall be conveyed to the Collier County Water-Sewer District at no cost to the County. Zoning Services Review: The original Addie's Corner MPUD was adopted on April 12, 2011 pursuant to Ordinance 11-08 and approved for up to 135,000 square feet of commercial uses and/or a Group Housing/Retirement Community with a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.60. Hotels and motels were approved with a maximum intensity of 26 unit per acre. This amendment proposes significant changes to the Master Plan, including the reduction of the PUDA-PL20150001776 Addle's Corner MPUD Page 7 of 21 May 9, 2017 preserve area from 8.85 acres to 3.45 acres and would modify Tract A,to create a separate,distinct tract of land for development known as Tract C. Under Ordinance 11-08, Tract A is 12.37 acres; however, if this amendment were approved, Tract A would be reduced to 9.82 acres and a new tract, Tract C,would be 4.32 acres. Combined,they would account for 14.14 acres or 65%of the MPUD. This amendment also seeks to introduce multi-family residential and townhouse dwelling units as permitted principal uses on Tract C, in conjunction with reducing the maximum allowable gross commercial square footage on Tract A from 135,000 square feet to 75,000 square feet. Group Housing, Independent Living Units, Assisted Living Units, and Retirement Community, which are only allowed on Tract A under the current ordinance,would also be allowed on Tract C as well. Staff does not have an issue with the new uses or the configuration of the developable tracts. The staff report for the original Addie's Corner MPUD petition(PUDZ-2009-AR-14425),written in 2010, identified that the lands to the north and west of the MPUD had not yet been developed. Staff compared the proposed building heights for the MPUD to the neighboring properties and concluded the following: Staff is of the opinion that the proposed maximum zoned building height of 55 feet is comparable to the maximum height limits approved for abutting properties which are as follows: Tree Farm MPUD, abutting the subject site on the west, allow buildings with a 77 foot maximum height; Mirasol, abutting the site on the east, would allow actual height of structures to reach 75 feet; and Richland PUD, which is located across Immokalee Road, would allow 35 foot high residential structures and would allow commercial structures up to 50 feet tall. Because the site abuts the future relocated Cocohatchee Canal, the 25 foot setback from the Immokalee Road Canal right-of-way is sufficient. To the east, the proposed uses could be commercial or a combination of commercial and residential; to the south any uses within the Richland PUD are already separated by Immokalee Road, thus this project would have little impact upon the residential uses within that project. As noted previously, to the north, uses on this site would be buffered by this project's 8.8+/- acre preserve tract, thus there should be slight impact. To the west, however is the Mirasol PUD. That PUD is approved for only residential uses. According to the site plan, however, the project's main roadway is planned to run north to south along the Mirasol/Addie's Corner shared boundary, thus any negative impact will be lessened. The Mirasol site plan recognizes that the land now proposed to be Addie's Corner is located within an Activity Center that would allow more intense, i.e., commercial uses adjacent to Mirasol. An interconnection has been provided between the two projects to allow local traffic to move more easily from Mirasol and Addie's Corner thus preserving the capacity of Immokalee Road. As described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of the staff report, the Addie's Corner MPUD is bounded by the Esplanade Golf and Country Club RPUD to the north and to the west. The most recent aerial photography from the Collier County Property Appraiser reveals that no dwellings have been constructed yet on the platted residential lots within the Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples RPUD to the north of the MPUD. To the west of the MPUD, residential lots have been platted and several houses have been constructed in the RPUD, as recently as 2015. PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie's Corner MPUD Page 8 of 21 May 9,2017 Because building heights in Addie's Corner MPUD are of concern to some residents in the RPUD (see Attachment 6—Emails_Letters from Public), staff has determined it would be worthwhile to provide a brief overview of the building heights allowed within the RPUD. The lands located directly west of the MPUD were once known as Mirasol PUD, which was approved in 2001 for 799 dwelling units on 1,558 acres (Ordinance 01-20). This ordinance allowed multi-family dwellings to be as tall as 50 feet, measured from the first habitable finished floor area to the uppermost finished ceiling elevation of the structure. In 2009,Ordinance 01-20 was repealed in favor of the adoption of Ordinance 09-21 (799 dwelling units on 1,543 acres), which reclassified the PUD to an RPUD. The adoption of 09-21 also established a maximum zoned height for the RPUD and a maximum actual(building)height. For multi-family dwellings, the maximum zoned height remained at 50 feet as in the original ordinance;however,the 2009 ordinance established a maximum height limitation applicable to the clubhouse/recreation buildings land use. The RPUD also contained special provisions associated with building heights for both the multi- family dwellings as well as clubhouse/recreation buildings land use. For multi-family dwellings, the 2009 ordinance established a maximum actual height of 65 feet. For the clubhouse/recreational buildings land use, the maximum actual height was 75 feet. In 2012, another amendment was approved for the RPUD, which added approximately 95 acres and allowed for a total of 1,121 dwelling units on 1,638.6 acres (Ordinance 12-41). In 2014, approximately 19.7 acres of land located just north of Addie's Corner MPUD was added to the RPUD, allowing for a total of 1,233 dwelling units on 1,658.3 acres(Ordinance 14-36). This ordinance renamed the Mirasol RPUD to the Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples RPUD, and this is the current name. Except for the deletion of a minor note related to the clubhouse/recreation buildings land use, the maximum zoned height and the maximum actual height for multi-family dwellings and clubhouse/recreations buildings remained the same. As previously mentioned, this amendment to the Addie's Corner MPUD seeks to introduce new principal uses (i.e., multi-family residential and townhouses) for Tract C. The PUD Document also proposes a maximum zoned height of 55 feet and an actual height of 65 feet, for multi-family dwellings. The PUD Document also clarifies that both Group Housing and Retirement Community would have a maximum zoned height of 45 feet and a maximum actual height of 65 feet. The current petition to amend the MPUD does not seek to increase the building heights above what was already established under Ordinance 11-08. Staff analyzed the proposed development standards for principal and accessory structures in the MPUD for this petition and compared them to the standards of the Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples RPUD and the Tree Farm MPUD. Staff has determined that the development standards proposed for this amendment would be comparable and compatible with the development standards of the aforementioned projects. The applicant requested the placement of signs within the County's road right-of-way, and applicant was informed that a license agreement approved by the Board and a right-of-way permit would be needed in order to place signage in the right-of-way. PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie's Corner MPUD Page 9 of 21 May 9,2017 I 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 fronts on Immokalee Road. Water and wastewater transmission mains are readily available within the Immokalee Road right-of-way,and there is adequate water and wastewater treatment capacity to serve the proposed MPUD. The south property line of the development abuts the Cocohatchee River Canal which conveys stormwater from the site. The Cocohatchee River Canal Basin will have the drainage concurrency needed to prevent adverse impacts, provided the development maintains a discharge rate of 0.04 cubic feet per second per acre. 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). 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 MPUD is required to provide at least 30%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 PPL. PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie's Corner MPUD Page 10 of 21 May 9, 2017 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 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 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. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, including Collier County Water-Sewer District potable water and wastewater mains, 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 meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. This MPUD was approved with two deviations pursuant to Ordinance 2011-08, and the petitioner is now seeking four new deviations, requiring an evaluation to the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this MPUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Each new deviation requested by the petitioner is itemized and analyzed in the Deviation Discussion section of this staff report on page 13. Staff is supportive of all deviations, because 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 GMP. Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals, PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie's Corner MPUD Page 11 of 21 May 9, 2017 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. The property is currently zoned MPUD and would remain as such. Staff responded to this criteria in the initial rezoning petition by stating the following: The proposed PUD rezone would not create an isolated zoning district because the abutting lands are also zoned PUD. Additionally, the project is required to provide a vehicular interconnection to the adjacent developments. No changes are proposed to the interconnections with this petition. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. This petition does not propose any change to the boundaries of the MPUD. 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 MPUD 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 PUD Ordinance. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed PUDA request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area, provided the project's stormwater management system is designed to the current PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie's Corner MPUD Page 12 of 21 May 9, 2017 Cocohatchee River Canal Basin discharge rate of 0.04 cubic foot per second per acre. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage on this project will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting(ERP)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 the changes proposed to this MPUD 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 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 Tree Farm MPUD is currently vacant and staff does not anticipate this amendment serving 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 amending the MPUD. 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. PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie's Corner MPUD Page 13 of 21 May 9,2017 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 PUD Document would require considerable site alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP and/or platting processes, and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities(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 PUD 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. Deviation Discussion: This PUD was approved with two deviations pursuant to Ordinance 2011-08. The petitioner is now seeking to add four additional deviations, and those deviations have been directly extracted from the proposed PUD Ordinance, itemized in Exhibit E (see Attachment 1 — Proposed Ordinance). The petitioner's justification and staff analysis/recommendation for each deviation are listed below. Proposed Deviation #3 (Off-Street Parking) "Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.G — Parking Spaces Required for Multi- Family Dwellings,which requires one parking space per residential unit plus 0.75 guest spaces for one-bedroom residential units and 1 guest space for two bedroom and larger units. In the event that Tract C is developed as leased multi-family units, this deviation proposes to establish the PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie's Corner MPUD Page 14 of 21 May 9, 2017 required number of parking spaces for leased multifamily residential units at 1.65 spaces per one bedroom unit and 1.8 spaces for two bedroom and larger units (inclusive of resident and guest parking spaces)." Petitioner's Justification: The applicant responded to this request as follows: The LDC standards do not distinguish between apartment and condominium multi family land uses. Multi family condominium projects generally have greater occupancy and as such a greater parking demand than rental apartment uses. In the event that the residential portion of the project is developed as a leased apartment development under single ownership, this deviation proposes to allow for a required parking ratio that is more appropriate for the parking demands associated with that use (based on Institute of Transportation Engineers guidelines and a site specific parking analysis of similar uses). Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The above justification references a leased apartment development. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved for a leased apartment development. Zoning staff is supportive of this deviation,provided that it be applicable only for multi-family dwellings proposed on Tract C (see Recommendation section of this staff report, page 19). In this instance, staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation for a leased apartment development,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 #4 (Dumpsters and Recycling) "Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.04.G — Dumpsters and Recycling, which requires that multi-family rental units provide dumpsters or a compactor to allow for rental units to have the option for building staff to transport bulk containers from storage areas internal to the buildings to designated areas for pick up by the solid waste and recycling hauler." Petitioner's Justification: The applicant responded to this request as follows: In the event that rental units are proposed within the project, the requested deviation would provide flexibility in the type of services provided to residents and the provision of solid waste and recycling pick up. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Public Utilities 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." PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie's Corner MPUD Page 15 of 21 May 9, 2017 Proposed Deviation #5 (Width of Right-of-Way) "Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N — Street System Requirements and Appendix B, Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way Design Standards. The LDC establishes a minimum 60-foot right of way width for local streets. This deviation proposes to reduce the required right-of-way width for local streets to 50 feet. See Typical 50' ROW Cross Section Exhibit." Petitioner's Justification: The applicant responded to this request as follows: The number of lanes and required lane width can be accommodated within the proposed 50 foot rights of way and the reduction in the minimum required width will provide for a more efficient and compact development project. 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 #6 (Off-Street Parking Distance) "Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.G — Parking Spaces Required for Multifamily Dwellings allows for a reduction of the number of required parking spaces for small- scale recreational facilities within multi-family developments based upon the proximity of the units to the small scale recreational facility. The LDC allows for the required parking at the recreational facilities to be calculated at 35% of the normal requirements in cases where the majority of the multifamily units are located within 300 feet of the recreational facilities. This deviation proposes to increase the specified distance for the reduction of parking requirements for small-scale recreational facilities from 300 to 500 feet." Petitioner's Justification: The applicant responded to this request as follows: The proposed project will have a system of connected pathways from the multifamily units to the small scale recreational facilities that will allow for efficient pedestrian access to recreational facilities and will encourage walking within the potential multifamily uses. 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." PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie's Corner MPUD Page 16 of 21 May 9, 2017 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): For the initial rezoning petition(PUDZ-2009-AR-14425),the applicant held a NIM on December 7, 2009. Five people from the public signed in. A representative from the Naples Pathway Coalition was also in attendance. With respect to issues brought up at the NIM, the staff report dated November 18, 2010 identified the following: 1. It was verified that the project is located on the NW corner rather than what had previously been advertised as the NE corner. 2. One attendee questioned the possibility of a nightclub or bar and expressed interest in having one. Staff note: The proposed amendment contains permitted uses which does include drinking places but does not allow for cabarets. See Exhibit A,page]. 3. Residents expressed concern about the pathway and the developer commitments. They want to be sure the pathway is not removed from the proposal. Robert Duane explained that the canal would be relocated and a 10 foot wide pathway would be made, that 1.6 acres will be dedicated to the County and another bridge would be built to the west. A second NIM was scheduled and duly noticed for December 16, 2010 to address project density and building height; however, no one from the public attended the second meeting, so no presentation was made. For the proposed petition, the applicant conducted a NIM on December 21, 2016 at St. Monica's Episcopal Church at 7070 Immokalee Road in Naples. The meeting commenced at approximately 5:36 p.m. The NIM meeting minutes are included in Attachment 2 —Application and Support Material. The applicant's team consisted of Wayne Arnold, Dan Waters, Bruce Layman, Richard Yovanovich, Norman Trebilcock, and Sharon Umpenhour. Mr. Arnold opened the NIM by explaining the intent of the project. An attendee mentioned that he thought the maximum building height of the current ordinance should not be allowed. A question was asked if the buildings would have elevators, to which Mr. Arnold responded he believed they would if the buildings exceeded three stories. An unidentified male, who lived in Esplanade, asked if the extra traffic anticipated by this request was taken into consideration. When asked if a traffic light would be installed,Mr. Arnold answered that he did not think there would be a light at the entrance to the proposed MPUD. He re-iterated this later in the NIM, and a longer discussion ensued about the anticipated traffic movements. Earlier at the NIM, however, Mr. Trebilcock responded to transportation related question by explaining how the proposed changes to the MPUD would reduce traffic intensity by about 30%of what is currently approved. Mr. Arnold and an attendee discussed preserve requirements and the removal of exotic species. The attendee later commented as follows: PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie's Corner MPUD Page 17 of 21 May 9, 2017 Because we live on the street facing- this is our view and we look across the golf course and we see these beautiful trees that are right here. And so we're worried that these trees are going to get cut down and that's why I asked about exotic vegetation. More long discussion about landscaping ensued with the following statements: Mr. Arnold: Uh-huh. Unidentified Male Voice: And as far as the height, 40 and 50 feet, those trees are pretty tall. So we're hoping that if the trees remain, even ifyou do build that high, we still will have our view. We don't wish any harm on your development. We're not trying to get against it, but,you know, we have a nice. Mr. Arnold: Sure Unidentified Male Voice: We were told that was a preserve. So can you address that question? Where is this buffer? You showed it on this other map, but where would it be on this? A lot of us--a lot of us through here live right on this side of the street. Mr. Arnold: It's roughly along part of our northern boundary and on our western boundary. Unidentified Male Voice: That doesn't do us a bit of good. Unidentified Male Voice: Right here. Right here. Unidentified Male Voice: So you're going to cut down all these trees over here? Mr. Arnold: Yes, sir. It would be for the commercial tract in the front. Unidentified Male Voice: So it— Mr. Arnold: That was always the intent(indiscernible). Unidentified Male Voice: We're going to look at golden arches and Wendy's? Mr. Arnold: Well, under the existing PUD that's there today, that was always the intent, that the whole site was not going to be preserved. Unidentified Male Voice: Is there any way that you can avoid that? Mr. Arnold: I would like to say (indiscernible). Unidentified Male Voice: The answer is probably no. PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie's Corner MPUD Page 18 of 21 May 9,2017 • Mr. Arnold: Right. Unidentified Male Voice: So you're going to cut down all these trees. And then what -- there's no requirement for a buffer here? Mr. Arnold: There are buffering requirements for the county. Unidentified Male Voice: So you're going to plant new trees? Mr. Arnold: Yeah, the county requires the minimum buffering standards between all projects. So the vegetation would have to be replanted to at least meet that minimum criteria for buffering. Unidentified Male Voice: And what's-- is there any height— Mr. Arnold: Well, the county has heights. It's certainly not— Unidentified Male Voice: It's not 65 feet. Mr. Arnold: It's not 65 feet. Unidentified Male Voice: So probably 12, 14 foot trees (indiscernible)? Is there any way -- and maybe I'm addressing this to the gentleman from Collier County, if you're going to plant new trees, why go to the expense of cutting down these beautiful tall trees that are giving us some privacy and then having to go to the expense to plant a shorter tree? Can something be worked out? I don't see any disadvantage to the developer. Mr. Arnold: Well, one of the difference, and Dan is probably the guy that can address it in much more detail, but the challenge that we have for a lot of sites is that a lot of fill has to be brought in and the existing vegetation can't be retained where you have to place so much fill material on the site. Do you live in Esplanade? Unidentified Male Voice: Yeah. Mr. Arnold: That was probably one of the hardest fought environmental battles that occurred in Collier County since I've been here, and I know Rich and I both had some involvement in that over the years, but,you know,you have to keep in mind that all of your property that's now developed looked just like that. Unidentified Male Voice: So what I'm hearing is within six months all those trees are going to be gone. Mr. Arnold: A lot of the portion of--you know, the southerly portion, that's certainly the intent,yeah. Ma'am,you've been very patient. PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie's Corner MPUD Page 19 of 21 May 9,2017 When asked if the project was going to federal low-income housing, Mr. Yovanovich responded that it would not be federal low-incoming housing and that it would be market-rate housing. Mr. Arnold discussed off-street parking and how they are requesting a deviation. With respect to building height, an attendee commented that a 65-foot structure would be met with "significant resistance from everybody living in the area." Mr. Arnold answered more questions about the preserves on the subject property, and stated that there would be a minimum PUD setback of 15 feet for the residential tract and 25 feet on the western periphery of the commercial tract. When discussing building heights and fill for the property, Mr. Arnold informed the crowd that the 65- foot building height would be measured from the center line height of the nearest arterial road, which is Immokalee Road. He also stated the County requires a 20-foot wide landscape buffer along Immokalee Road and a ten-foot wide buffer along Esplanade PUD. When Mr. Arnold informed the crowd that a hotel is still allowed, an attendee commented "That would be a totally inappropriate use of that site." Toward the end of the NIM, Mr. Arnold clarified that it would unlikely that a six-story building would be proposed where the MPUD is restricted to a maximum zoned height of 45 feet. He ended the NIM by clarifying that an assisted living facility is considered the same as group housing. The NIM ended at approximately 6:38 p.m. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on May 3, 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval, contingent upon the following: 1. Staff recommends approval of Deviation #6, but only to the extent that it is applicable to Tract C and if developed with multi-family dwellings, designed as an apartment complex whereby the individual units are not owner-occupied. The type of land use will be determined at the time of SDP. Attachments: 1) Proposed Ordinance 2) Application and Support Material 3) FLUE Consistency Memorandum 4) Density Map 5) Legal Notifications 6) Emails_Letters from Public PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie's Corner MPUD Page 20 of 21 May 9,2017 PREPARED BY: ERIC JO ' . 40N, AICP, CFM, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: 5 - 8,) -/7 RAY/v1V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING DIVISION sr-'- ' ) MIKE BOSI,AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: 7 :.(ES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PUDA-PL20150001776 Addie's Corner MPUD Page 21 of 21 BrownleeMichael From: fcerminara [fcerminara@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 1:09 PM To: SolisAndrew; McDanielBill; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; TaylorPenny Cc: Sam H. Miller; scerminara@aol.com; "Frank Cerminara" Subject: Addie's Corner Categories: PRINTED As residents of Esplanade, Amour Ct, we have been concerned about the planned development referred to as Addie's Corner. We are very apprehensive about two items in particular. 1. View. Taylor Morrison promised that the "Preserve " would always exist. We need to keep as much of it as possible through remediation and where buildings are situated. 2. Traffic on Immokalee and Collier Blvd is near gridlock at times ( Jan-April.) Adding another development will exacerbate the situation. We at Esplanade need your help. Especially with our views, for which we paid lot premiums of$80-100 thousand or more. Thankyou for your consideration. Respectfully, Frank and Susan Cerminara 8644 Amour Ct Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone 1 BrownleeMichael From: Thomas Kleck [tkleck@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 11:14 AM To: FialaDonna Subject: Addles Corner Categories: Yellow Collier County Commissioners Collier County Planning Commissioners Eric Johnson, Collier County Principal Planner Mark Strain, Chief Hearing Examiner Re: Addie's Corner development Collier County Planning Commission Project#20150001776. We live in Esplanade Golf Et Country Club, on Immokalee Rd. We have 3 primary concerns with the Addie's Corner Development: 1. Shared Access Point. Current plans show a shared access point(driveway) between Esplanade and Addie's Corner. Since this is shown after the Esplanade security gate, we are concerned who will be entering our community. Even if a separate security gate is placed there, the paved road will make it easy for pedestrians and bicyclists to enter our private community. Headlights from vehicles will shine into the rear of the homes on Amour Court. 1. Traffic. It is already very difficult to exit Esplanade onto Immokalee Rd or enter Esplanade with a left turn from the eastbound lane. In addition, cars making a U-turn opposite our driveway from the eastbound to the westbound lane add an additional challenge. Even if only 150 residential units are permitted, the additional residential and retail traffic exiting Addie's Corner will create longer delays and more of a safety issue. We understand significantly more development is planned at Collier and Immokalee. Immokalee Rd. cannot handle the current volume of traffic. 1. Removal of trees, loss of property value. The current view entering Esplanade is enhanced by a wooded area to the right of Esplanade Blvd., with many tall trees. We understand the developer has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres. The proposed master plan shows a type B buffer mostly ranging from 15' to 25' in width, with a small area at 30' in width. We understand that 2 types of exotic trees must be removed. With the narrow buffer and removal of the 2 exotic types of trees, residents are likely to see the buildings through the thin tree line. In addition, the thinner tree line will increase sound and light affecting the quiet enjoyment of properties on Amour Court. Even with the existing tree line, 4 story buildings will rise above the trees and degrade the views and property values. If 8.85 acres was determined to be sufficient for the prior property owner, why shouldn't the proposed development be held to the same size? We encourage you to: a. Remove the Shared Access Point between Esplanade and Addie's Corner b. Widen Immokalee Rd. before allowing any more development. c. Not allow the reduction of the preserve, or alternatively, increase the buffer to a minimum of 150' and require a type C buffer. d. Permit the 2 types of exotic trees to remain within the buffer, or if they must be removed, then require that they be replaced. e. Limit this development to 2 story buildings and no more than 150 residential units. f. Require any lighting to be directed away from Esplanade. Name Address Date Naryn- oot & P44I�Ged Esplanade Golf&Country Club of Naples 8864 Savona Ct. Naples, FL 34119 Tom's Cell : 317-997-3416 Judy's Cell : 317-408-4162 tkleck(a,comcast.net judykleck@comcast.net 1 BrownleeMichael From: Ron Miller[ronmiller052645@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 4:52 PM To: pdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane; ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph; StrainMark; McDanielBill; SolisAndrew; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna Cc: JohnsonEric Subject: Addie's Corner Categories: PRINTED Ladies and Gentlemen of the Collier County Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners. This message is from Ron Miller, 8670 Amour Ct,Naples FL. 34119, 816-507-0164,ronmiller052645@gmail.com. The matter of a rezoning proposal for Addie's Corner will come before you in the near future, perhaps already has come before you. This rezoning is being requested by the Barron Collier organization. The property known as Addie's Corner is approximately 23 acres located on the north side of Immokalee Road contiguous with Esplanade Golf and Country Club,just west of Collier Blvd. I have been communicating with Eric Johnson regarding the new zoning proposal. He has been most courteous and helpful in the exchange of information. I have provided Mr. Johnson with two detailed analytical messages urging Collier County to reject the new Barron Collier request. Mr. Johnson will provide you those reports in due course. Collier County is booming, you must be very busy. I wanted to summarize my thoughts in my two reports before opinions are formed. The current zoning has Tract A and B. Tract A allows for a certain amount of commercial and the balance for "senior housing" age 55+with skilled nursing, assisted living etc. Tract B calls for 8.85 acres of permanent preserve. This zoning was approved, I believe unanimously, by your previous colleagues. Much thought and care must have gone into that effort when approved. Barron Collier has purchased the property and now wants to substantially rezone to continue to allow commercial plus 350 residential units in lieu of the senior housing. Perhaps the current senior housing element was well thought out as a need, no such facility is available in the area. This substantial expansion comes at the expense of the neighbors, noise, traffic and the environment. In particular, the environment suffers, the preserve is reduced from 8.85 acres to 3.45 acres to allow for the residential expansion. I strongly urge you to retain the current zoning. To allow Barron Collier to proceed would amount to a repudiation of the care and effort of previous Collier County personnel. I think it is also very noteworthy that developers of the surrounding property have not been allow to expand the previous zoning of their properties. Specifically,the two Taylor Morrison projects know as Esplanade Golf and Country Club contiguous to the west and north and the Tree Farm property contiguous to the east are developing within the previous existing zoning requirements. Why would Collier County make an exception for Addie's Corner? Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I look forward to the public hearings. i BrownleeMichael From: Jane Rollins [naplesjanel @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 9:02 AM To: StrainMark; EbertDiane; ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; LykinsDave; GrecoSherry; FilsonSue; JohnsonEric Subject: Collier County Planning Commission Project#20150001776. May 8,2017 Eric Johnson, Collier County Principal Planner Mark Strain,Chief Hearing Examiner Collier County Planning Commissioners Diane Ebert, Stan Chrzanowski,Joseph Scmitt,Mark Strain Collier County Commissioners Burt Saunders,Donna Fiala,Penny Taylor,Bill McDaniel,Andy Solis, cc:Dave Lykins, Michael Brownlee,Angela Goodner, Sherry Greco, Sue Filson Re:Addie's Corner development Collier County Planning Commission Project#20150001776. We are homeowners who live in in Esplanade Golf&Country Club full time and registered voters in Collier County. We have several primary concerns about our home investment as it will be impacted by the Addie's Corner Development: 1. Safety and Traffic. We are a gated community. We are requesting that the density be lowered considerably below the proposed plan.349 living units plus a possible group house would have a sizable impact for all of us currently living off Immokalee Rd.if we needed to evacuate in the event of a hurricane.We have no north bound route until 1-75,about 4.5 miles from Collier Blvd. We have only one paved entrance and exit from our neighborhood and it is Immokalee Rd. To leave,we have to share the turn out with cars making U turns in the same space as us. People don't realize who has right of way and this makes for a dangerous situation. The impact of adding as many as 349 living units,a group home and an unknown number of businesses to the traffic flow west of the Collier Blvd traffic light so close to our exit from Esplanade will make this dangerous situation even worse. We would like to see a traffic light installed at our entrance. We would like to see Barron Collier keep this project on hold until Collier Blvd is widened and operational and require them to direct most of its traffic out the Collier Blvd. side. 2. Sight and Sound. We would request the developer put an opaque wall around their property. To reduce the impact of this development, Barron Collier should not be allowed to reduce the acreage devoted to preserve by 61% (8.85 acres to 3.45)as they have requested,rather keep it as originally stated. We request the buffer areas be enlarged and exotic trees replaced with trees of similar size. We request that outdoor lighting be pointed away from our neighborhood and facing downward. We request living units be no more than 2 stories in height. We request no business or living unit amenity have outside amplified noise(there is a water management area at the north end of the property and water does amplify noise). 3. April 28,2017 Amendment To The Master Plan.The revision calls for even more housing than the original plan.It asked for a group home in Tract A with only a slight reduction in commercial space in addition to the requested 349 living units in Tract C.This is a large change from the September 2015 Master Plan done by Grady Minor Engineers. Respectfully,please do not grant these changes. We would like to attend the Planning Commission Meeting but unfortunately we will be out of the country on May 18th. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Michael&Jane Rollins 9368 Terresina Dr.,Naples,FL 34119 1 BrownleeMichael From: Lois Pogyor[Ipogyor@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2017 12:39 AM To: FialaDonna Cc: BrownleeMichael Subject: Development of Addie's Corner Dear MS Fiala: We are residents in the Esplanade community and are deeply concerned about the planned development for the property to the east of Esplanade along Immokalee Road, known as Addie's Corner(for clarity I will reference the property by this name). One of the things that attracted us to the Esplanade development was the large amount of both natural and planned landscaping. This would include the wooded area to the east of the entrance to the community that adjoins Addie's Corner property. With the proposed development of Addie's Corner, much of this natural landscape would disappear, leaving a few trees and a view of 4-story apartment buildings instead. This is not a view that I would like to have on entering my home community. If we had wanted a view of tall buildings, we would have purchased property in one of the many high rise communities in Naples. I understand that an owner has the right to develop property, but not necessarily to change the zoning to fit his or her needs and financial parameters. Just as we purchased property zoned and developed with a certain ambiance,we expected that adjoining properties would be developed in a similar manner, not changed to to suit the needs of a developer. I believe that this is referred to as "spot zoning". After destruction of natural landscape, this developer wants to build four story buildings that do not fit in with any of the surrounding communities. This density will severely impact both the views of the surrounding communities and the traffic on Immokalee Road, which is already very heavy. I am not certain where this development's entrance and exit would be placed, but certainly hope it is NOT approved for Immokalee Road. In summary, I would ask that the Zoning Commission would only change the zoning of this property to require: 1 - A dense buffer of at least 100 feet 2 - Locate any buildings at least 100 feet from the Esplanade property 3 - Limit the height of the buildings to TWO stories in keeping with the surrounding communities 4 - Limit the project to a maximum of 200 residential homes/units in keeping it more in line with current zoning. In closing, I would suggest that property owners have a right to expect a consistent zoning in the area in which they purchase a home. That is one purpose of zoning regulations. An investor should not be allowed to purchase property with the intent of changing the zoning to suit his or her financial needs. This would be unfair to current property owners and would defeat the purpose that zoning laws and regulations serve. Sincerely, Lois and Bob Pogyor, Home Owners in the Esplanade Community i BrownleeMichael From: TrochessettAimee Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 4:43 PM To: TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; McDanielBill; SaundersBurt; SolisAndrew; JohnsonEric; StrainMark Cc: BrownleeMichael; FilsonSue; GoodnerAngela; GrecoSherry; LykinsDave Subject: Emailing - BCC Correspondence-Addie's Corner 2017-03-21.pdf Attachments: BCC Correspondence-Addie's Corner 2017-03-21.pdf See attached correspondence received today at the BCC offices. Co ler County Communication&Customer Relations Division Aimee D. Trochessett Customer Service Specialist Communication & Customer Relations Division 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 102 Naples, FL 34112 239-252-8075 aimeetrochessett@colliergov.net 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. 1 BrownleeMichael From: Tom Coffey [ticoffey@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2017 9:01 AM To: TaylorPenny; SolisAndy; McDanielBill; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; StrainMark; HomiakKaren; pdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane; FryerEdwin; ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph; BellowsRay; JohnsonEric Cc: BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; LykinsDave; GrecoSherry; FilsonSue; Barbara Coffey Subject: 5-18-17 Meeting Addie's Corner Development May 13, 2017 Collier County Commissioners &Planning Commissioners Mr. Eric Johnson, Collier County Principal Planner Mr. Mark Strain, Chair of Planning Commission and Chief Hearing Examiner Re: Addie's Corner development Planning Commission Project#PL20150001776 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: We are homeowner's in Esplanade Golf and Country Club which is situated along Immokalee Road in Naples. One of the major factors in deciding to build our home in Esplanade was the fact that there were significant preserves bordering most of the property. We believe the proposed `Addie's Corner' development will significantly decrease the desirability of the community and decrease property values. The current view entering Esplanade is enhanced by a preserve area to the East of Esplanade Boulevard, with many tall trees. We understand the developer has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres. This will clearly decrease the overall appeal of the community. Even with the existing tree line, 4 story buildings will rise above the trees and degrade the views and property values. We encourage you to require the following: •Do not permit a reduction of the existing preserve •Limit the project to no more than the number of units that current zoning allows for •Limit the height of the buildings to 2 stories •A buffer of at least 100 feet •Locate their buildings no closer than 100' from Esplanade property If you would like to discuss any matters relative to this proposed development we can be reached through email at: ticoffey@gmail.com or via cell phone at: 610-716-7915. 1 Thank you for your consideration and I hope you can appreciate our concerns. Sincerely, Thomas & Barbara Coffey 9114 Trivoli Terrace Naples, FL 34119 2 BrownleeMichael From: William Nemeth [wnemeth@icloud.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 1:34 PM To: McDanielBill; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna Cc: BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; LykinsDave; GrecoSherry; FilsonSue Subject: Addie's Corner development- Collier County Planning Commission Project#20150001776 Attachments: collier commissioner letter- Naples Esplanade copy.pdf; ATT00001.txt Attached is a letter of comment regarding the Addie's Corner development. We appreciate your time and efforts in careful consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, William A & Laura D Nemeth 8652 Amour Court Naples, Florida 34119 wnemeth(licloud.com (216) 496-2995 1 BrownleeMichael From: jmaiella [maiellajoe@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 9:42 AM To: McDanielBill; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; 'DonnaFiala@colliergov.net Cc: BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; LykinsDave; GrecoSherry; FilsonSue; Lily Subject: Addie's Corner Development Attachments: BC 5-1-17_Esplanade-Plan plan view.pdf; ATT00001.htm Importance: High May 17, 2017 Collier County Commissioners& Collier County Planning Commissioners Eric Johnson, Collier County Principal Planner Mark Strain, Chief Hearing Examiner Re: Addie's Corner development Collier County Planning Commission Project#20150001776 We are residents of Esplanade Golf and Country Club, along Immokalee Rd. in Naples.The current view entering Esplanade is enhanced by a wooded area to the east of Esplanade Blvd., with many tall trees. We understand the developer has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres.The proposed master plan shows a type B buffer mostly ranging from 15'to 25' in width, with a small area at 30' in width. We understand that 2 types of exotic trees must be removed. With the narrow buffer and removal of the 2 exotic types of trees, residents are likely to see the 'buildings through the thin tree line. In addition, the thinner tree line will increase sound and light affecting the quiet enjoyment of properties on Amour Court. Even with the existing tree line,4 story buildings will rise above the trees and degrade the views and property values.We encourage you to require the following: • A Type C buffer of at least 100 feet • Limit the height of the buildings to 2 stories, • Locate their buildings no closer than 100' from Esplanade property • Limit the project to no more than 200 residential units. (current zoning allows far less) The attached file shows the current view, side by side with what we are concerned will be seen after construction. I hope you can understand our concerns. Sincerely, Joseph& Lily Maiella 8865 Savona Ct Naples, FL 34119 i BrownleeMichael From: Miller, Sam H. [shmiller@trumbull.com] Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 6:15 AM To: FialaDonna Cc: BrownleeMichael Subject: Addie's Corner, PLEASE, Preserve the Preserve, Request for appointment Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Thank you. Sam H. Miller 8632 Amour Court Naples, FL 34119 Cell: 330-565-2726 From: FialaDonna [mailto:DonnaFiala@colliergov.net] Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2017 8:48 PM To: Miller,Sam H. Cc: BrownleeMichael Subject: RE: Addie's Corner, PLEASE, Preserve the Preserve, Request for appointment I will have my executive coordinator contact you for an appointment. Donna Fiala From: Miller, Sam H. [mailto:shmiller@trumbull.com] Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 10:28 AM To: Fiala Donna Cc: BrownleeMichael Subject:Addie's Corner, PLEASE, Preserve the Preserve, Request for appointment Dear Ms. Fiala, Below is an email sent to all County Commissioners. If possible, I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you at your Tamiami Trail office. Would you have 10 minutes to meet at any of the following times: Wednesday March 29, 2:30 or later Thursday March 30, between 8 and 5 Friday March 31, between 8 and 1 pm Thank you very much. Sam H. Miller 8632 Amour Court Naples, FL 34119 Cell: 330-565-2726 1 From: Miller, Sam H. Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2017 10:16 AM To: 'BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net' <BillMcDaniel@colliergov.net>; 'AndySolis@colliergov.net' <AndySolis@colliergov.net>; 'BurtSaunders@colliergov.net' <BurtSaunders@colliergov.net>; 'PennyTaylor@colliergov.net' <PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; 'DonnaFiala@colliergov.net' <DonnaFiala@colliergov.net> Cc: 'MichaelBrownlee@colliergov.net' <MichaelBrownlee@colliergov.net>; 'AngelaGoodner@colliergov.net' <AngelaGoodner@colliergov.net>; 'DaveLykins@colliergov.net' <DaveLykins@colliergov.net>; 'SherryGreco@colliergov.net' <SherryGreco@colliergov.net>; 'SueFilson@colliergov.net' <SueFilson@colliergov.net> Subject:Addie's Corner, PLEASE, Preserve the Preserve, Letter to Collier County Commissioners To: Collier County Commissioners Attached please find a letter and picture file related to the Addie's Corner Project.Thank you for your consideration. Sam H. Miller 8632 Amour Court Naples, FL 34119 Cell: 330-565-2726 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. This email has been scanned for spam and viruses by Proofpoint Essentials. Click here to report this email as spam. 2 BrownleeMichael From: Howard L. Sosnik [HSosnik@kspcwills.com] Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 7:01 PM To: McDanielBill; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna Subject: Addie's Corner, request for appointment with Board of County Commissioners Categories: PRINTED Dear Members of the Board of County Commissioners, I am a resident of Esplanade Golf and Country Club, along Immokalee Rd. in Naples.The current view entering Esplanade is enhanced by a wooded area to the east of Esplanade Blvd., with many tall trees. We understand the developer has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres.The proposed master plan shows a type B buffer mostly ranging from 15'to 25' in width, with a small area at 30' in width. We understand that 2 types of exotic trees must be removed. With the narrow buffer and removal of the 2 exotic types of trees, residents are likely to see the buildings through and above the thin tree line. In addition, the thinner tree line will increase sound and light affecting the quiet enjoyment of properties on Amour Court. Other members of our Community met with members of the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners in March and April. In both cases,we were encouraged to negotiate with the developer, Barron Collier. It was specifically recommended that we request Barron Collier to step back the buildings away from the western boundary with Esplanade.Although Barron Collier has been cooperative and is discussing ways to screen their buildings from our community, they have not welcomed Commissioner suggestions to step back their buildings from Esplanade. I am aware of the Planning Commission Public hearing scheduled for May 18th which will include these matters on its agenda. I would like to request a meeting with the Board prior to that, preferable the afternoon of May 16th or anytime on May 17th if these dates do not work please let me know and perhaps we can schedule a different time)to articulate some of our particular concerns including: • Require the developer to "step back" their buildings no closer than 100' from Esplanade property • Provide landscaping and plantings to screen the new buildings comparable to the current view Limit the height of the buildings to 2 stories • Limit the project to no more than 200 residential units. (current zoning allows far less) Thank you very much. Howard L. Sosnik 516-313-3239 Esplanade Golf&Country Club 1 BrownleeMichael From: Nancy DeMarco [nancyd©carlawyernj.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 1:09 PM To: McDanielBill; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna Cc: BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; LykinsDave; GrecoSherry; FilsonSue Subject: Addie's Corner Development- Project#20150001776 Attachments: current view.pdf Importance: High Collier County Commissioners & Collier County Planning Commissioners Eric Johnson, Collier County Principal Planner Mark Strain, Chief Hearing Examiner Re: Addie's Corner development Collier County Planning Commission Project#20150001776 Ladies and Gentlemen: I am a resident of Esplanade Golf and Country Club, along Immokalee Rd. in Naples. The current view entering Esplanade is enhanced by a wooded area to the east of Esplanade Blvd., with many tall trees. We understand the developer has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres. The proposed master plan shows a type B buffer mostly ranging from 15' to 25' in width, with a small area at 30' in width. We understand that 2 types of exotic trees must be removed. With the narrow buffer and removal of the 2 exotic types of trees, residents are likely to see the buildings through the thin tree line. In addition,the thinner tree line will increase sound and light affecting the quiet enjoyment of properties on Amour Court. Even with the existing tree line, 4 story buildings will rise above the trees and degrade the views and property values. We encourage you to require the following: *A Type C buffer of at least 100 feet *Limit the height of the buildings to 2 stories, *Locate their buildings no closer than 100' from Esplanade property *Limit the project to no more than 200 residential units. (current zoning allows far less) The attached file shows the current view, side by side with what we are concerned will be seen after construction. I hope you can understand our concerns. Sincerely, Perry A. Pittenger 9091 Sorreno Court Naples, Florida 34119 1 Nancy DeMarco Legal Assistant to Perry A. Pittenger,Esq. Schiller&Pittenger,P.C. 1771 Front Street,Suite D Scotch Plains,New Jersey 07076 Voice: 908-490-0444 Fax: 908-490-0420 Email:nancyd@carlawyernj.com CONNECT: sp 111 rfn This Transmission Is Intended Only for the Party to Whom It Is Addressed and May Contain Legally Privileged and Confidential Information.If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any use,dissemination,or copying of this transmission is prohibited.If you have received this transmission in error,please notify us immediately by telephone or e-mail and return this transmission and all copies to us.Thank you. 2 BrownleeMichael From: William L McGee Jr[willie581950@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 8:54 AM To: FialaDonna; McDanielBill; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny Cc: BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; LykinsDave; GrecoSherry; FilsonSue Subject: Addie's Corner Project#20150001776 Attachments: Addie's Corner.docx Categories: PRINTED Thank you for your attention. William L. McGee Jr. 1 Brown lee Michael From: Robert Knuppel [bob@knuppel.org] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 8:34 AM To: FialaDonna Subject: Esplanade and Barron Cooier PUD Categories: PRINTED I live immediately across from the recent rendition of at least 4 buildings in the PUD East of Esplande CC... The preserve is being deforested and the large buildings will destroy our view and there are unintended consequences of this building. We Need opacity by the developement to reduce light, and the sight of the buidings proposed. OUr HOA attorney attempted to gain requests for protection of the current views and ambiance in our developmet. This was recently unsuccessful. We suggested maintaing opacity of 80% AND BERMS TO REDUCE VISUAL SISTURANCES. These are not costly afjust ments. All were rejected in negotiations. This corner (Addies Corner) and others surrounding the colier boulevard and Immokalee is most dangerous at the present time and hopefully planning by DOT will recognize the danger of the placement of this activity corner.\ Thank you for your time. Robert Knuppel MD, MBA, MPH 8628 Amour Ct Naples, Fl 34119 908-812-5240 1 BrownleeMichael From: Frank McDermott [mcdermott.frank@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 9:55 AM To: FialaDonna; TaylorPenny; SaundersBurt; McDanielBill; SolisAndrew Cc: Brenda McDermott Subject: Esplanade Residents concerns about Addie's Corner Development Attachments: Email to Collier County Planning Commissioners and County Commissioners.pdf; ATT00001.htm Categories: Yellow Begin forwarded message: From: Frank McDermott <mcdermott.frank(c�comcast.net> Date: March 16, 2017 at 9:45:30 AM EDT To: DianeEberta(�colliergov.net 1 BrownleeMichael Subject: Meet w/Sam Miller re: Addie's Corner Location: DF Office Start: Thu 3/30/2017 2:30 PM End: Thu 3/30/2017 3:00 PM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: FialaDonna Picture from rear Email to Collier of Amour Cou... County Planni... shmiller@trumbull.com Mr. Brownlee, Thursday March 30th @ 2:30pm is good. I will be there. Several neighbors in our community have expressed the same interest and may wish to attend. May I bring some others with me? Thank you very much. Sam Miller 8632 Amour Court Naples, FL 34119 Cell: 330-565-2726 1 BrownleeMichael From: Ronald Fischer[rfischer@certitudegroup.com] Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2017 7:42 PM To: McDanielBill; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna Cc: BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; LykinsDave; GrecoSherry; FilsonSue; StrainMark; JohnsonEric Subject: We are asking for your support on the proposed adjustments to Collier County Planning Project#20150001776 To: Collier County Commissioners & Collier County Planning Commissioners Eric Johnson, Collier County Principal Planner Mark Strain, Chief Hearing Examiner We are residents of Esplanade Golf and Country Club, along Immokalee Rd. in Naples. After living in Kensington for 15 years, we wanted to move into a newer community that had a bigger preserve area and noticeably less commercial noises and development. We found this in Esplanade and have been quite impressed with the ongoing commitment to the preserve principle and limited adjacent commercial development. The current view entering Esplanade is enhanced by a wooded area to the east of Esplanade Blvd., with many tall trees. We understand the developer of this parcel has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres. The proposed master plan also shows a type B buffer mostly ranging from 15' to 25' in width, with a small area at 30' in width. We understand that 2 types of exotic trees must also be removed as a result of this development. With the narrow buffer and removal of the 2 exotic types of trees, residents are likely to see the buildings through and above the thin tree line. In addition, the thinner tree line will increase sound and light affecting the quiet enjoyment of properties on our road, Amour Court. We understand that members of our Community have met with members of the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners in March and April. In both cases, they were encouraged to negotiate with the developer, Barron Collier. It was specifically recommended that we request Barron Collier to step back the buildings away from the western boundary with Esplanade. Although Barron Collier has been cooperative and is discussing ways to screen their buildings from our community, they have not welcomed Commissioner suggestions to step back their buildings from Esplanade. We encourage you to: • Require the developer to step back their buildings no closer than 100' from Esplanade property • Provide landscaping and plantings to screen the new buildings comparable to the current view • Limit the height of the buildings to 2 stories • Limit the project to no more than 200 residential units. (current zoning allows far less) Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Ron and Lynn Fischer 1 8625 Amour Ct Naples, FL 34119 617-953-0174 2 I LEE CO COWER CO QUAIL PARKLANDS 8 9 10 11 12 FROJECT SATURNIA FALLS LOCATION 17 15 16 ,�- 13 DATION '` 14 \: N D0 OLOE CYPRESS "> zti' 22 23 24 F-7- rix 20 0 21 rn 1 [ , IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R. 846) 29 2$ � 27 26 1 25 LOCA TION MAP NOT TO SCALE 8854 Vaccaro Ct Naples, FL 34119 (239)963- 5365 ejsone@aol.com May 10, 2017 Donna Fiala Board of County Commissioners Collier County Government Center 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 303 Naples Florida 34112 Dear Ms. Fiala: This will address the proposed rezoning and development of the property known as "Addie's Corner", which abuts the southeast corner of Esplanade Golf and Country Club. We have watched Esplanade grow into one of the premier bundled golf communities in all of southwest Florida and are among its earliest members. I would encourage you to visit Esplanade to see for yourself how it is developing into a community Collier County can be proud of and point to as an example of thoughtful planning. More than half of its 1700+acres are set aside and dedicated as lakes and preserves. The intersection of 951 and Immokalee Rd, and the areas within proximity to it as it develops further, could become a density and traffic nightmare if intelligent planning is not the first priority. I'm sure I don't have to tell you it would be short-sighted not to consider what the future holds for the southeast corner of the intersection (Pelican Nursey) as well as the existing development on the southwest corner(i.e. how difficult it is to exit the Pebblebrooke Shopping Center if your intent is to go east or west). The increased amount of traffic due to another right turn only access point onto Immokalee between 951 and the Esplanade entrance is of great concern. As it exists now, pulling out of the community can be challenging because of the high volume of traffic going east on Immokalee and the number of cars making a U-turn opposite our entryway. The point is that every effort should be made to minimize the impact of Addie's Corner on the entire area as it is now and will be in the future. And, yes,that includes its impact on Esplanade. For example,given all the preserve restrictions placed on the developer of Esplanade, why would you ever consider reducing the preserve acreage requirement of the developer of the property adjacent to it? Landscaping, buffers, height, light and noise are all related to the density issue. We recently had occasion to begin at the corner of 951 and Immokalee and drive a distance of 3 miles in every direction. There are no four-story buildings, commercial or residential,visible from either road. And,frankly,there are very few three-story buildings. We ask that you give the proposed development your most thoughtful consideration. Do not reduce the preserve acreage, require substantial buffers, limit building height to two-stories, substantially reduce the number of units, provide for light and sound restrictions and, most importantly, act as prudent stewards of the beauty that is Collier County and its sensible development. Sincerely, CfreArk Edmund J. Staley, Esq. Carol A. Staley I . 1 1 1 1 , \ 1 1 1 i 1 1 Z f., 2°,M \ / co co Y 1 P.' -rt el 0 i /. al CD . 4,1 4.4 4 cn , . , I ac, _...2 .. i -. .: -..., (N, t) , •.%4 __o , -......„ d -'CA ----c\. 3,.......... ___-. ,.. ---_-. \--) 3 ...... c..., A ,.. ......... a: 1 ... ..... it..z.) ....... ..... rt..,. . , ...._ _.... ,.....„ "Yr ' ‘ , ...... _. . - /fg ii 7 ' I BrownleeMichael From: Mindy Desrochers [mindydesrochers@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 9:40 AM To: BrownleeMichael Subject: Addie's Corner Collier County Planning Commission Project#20150001776 I am a resident of Esplanade Golf and Country Club, along Immokalee Rd. in Naples. The current view entering Esplanade is enhanced by a wooded area to the east of Esplanade Blvd., with many tall trees. We understand the developer has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres.The proposed master plan shows a type B buffer mostly ranging from 15'to 25' in width, with a small area at 30' in width. We understand that 2 types of exotic trees must be removed. With the narrow buffer and removal of the 2 exotic types of trees, residents are likely to see the buildings through the thin tree line. In addition, the thinner tree line will increase sound and light affecting the quiet enjoyment of properties on Amour Court. Even with the existing tree line,4 story buildings will rise above the trees and degrade the views and property values. We encourage you to require the following: • A Type C buffer of at least 100 feet • Limit the height of the buildings to 2 stories, • Locate their buildings no closer than 100' from Esplanade property • Limit the project to no more than 200 residential units. (current zoning allows far less) Certainly,if built as proposed,the traffic impact would be horrific for entering and exiting Esplanade,potentially causing accidents. Please consider carefully the long term impact of allowing zoning to change. Sincerely, Bob and Mary Desrochers 9053 Sorreno Court Naples, FL 34119 1 BrownleeMichael From: Irene Bond [ibond2010@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:15 AM To: TaylorPenny; andysolis@collier.net; McDanielBill; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; StrainMark; HomiakKaren; pdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane; FryerEdwin; ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph; BellowsRay; JohnsonEric Cc: BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; LykinsDave; GrecoSherry; FilsonSue Subject: 5-18-17 Meeting Addie's Corner Development May 16, 2017 Collier County Commissioners & Planning Commissioners Mr. Eric Johnson, Collier County Principal Planner Mr. Mark Strain, Chair of Planning Commission and Chief Hearing Examiner Re: Addie's Corner development Planning Commission Project#PL20150001776 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: As Canadians who winter in Florida, we understand and accept our limited influence on local governance. We would,however, like to pass along why we chose Naples, Collier County and the new Esplanade Golf and Country Club situated along Immokalee Road to purchase our home vs. other areas in Florida. Collier County is beautiful in its design because of its green spaces and low-density building. It doesn't feel like a concrete jungle as many Cities do. The preserve areas are what make Collier County special in our eyes and are the major reason we chose this community. We believe the proposed `Addie's Corner' development will significantly decrease the desirability of the community, decrease property values and add to possible safety risks due to the pressures on an already extremely busy Immokalee Road (with the additional development at the Collier Corner). We understand the developer has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres with 4 story buildings much larger than anything in the area. We encourage you to: • Not permit a reduction of the existing preserve • Limit the project to no more than the number of units that current zoning allows for Limit the height of the buildings to 2 stories • Require a buffer of at least 100 feet • Locate their buildings no closer than 100' from Esplanade property Please vote to maintain what, in our eyes, makes Naples, Collier County and Esplanade Golf and Country Club a beautiful and desirable place to stay, play and invest. We can be reached through email at: ibond2010@gmail.com or via cell phone at: 807-633-7269. Thank you for your consideration. Irene and Ward Bond 9158 Trivoli Terrace Naples, FL 34119 Sent from my iPad 1 BrownleeMichael From: DAVID FIX [davedds©comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 1:55 PM To: McDanielBill; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna Cc: BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna Subject: Addie's Corner development Project#20150001776 May 9, 2017 My wife and I are residents of Florida and of Esplanade Golf and Country Club. Our property is adjacent to the proposed Barron Collier development at Addie's Corner on Immokalee Road in Naples. We are writing to you in order to express our concerns about the many changes to the existing PUD that Barron Collier is planning. First, we would like to have the the nature preserve maintained at he originally planned 8.85 acres. We would like to have an opaque Type C buffer of at least 100 feet along Esplanade Boulevard. We also disapprove of the construction of multiple four story residential buildings on this property. Driving along Immokalee, we see no other existing four story buildings. Barron Collier knew what the exixting PUD was when he initially purchased this property. There is no reason to even bother writing zoning laws if changes like this are allowed for one individual. Sincerely, Dave and Alayne Fix 8656 Amour Court Naples, Florida 1 BrownleeMichael From: Joe Pestana [jpestana@jppestservices.com] Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 4:55 PM To: McDanielBill; BrownleeMichael; SolisAndy; burtssaunders@colliergov.net; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; angelafoodner@colliergov.net; davelykings@colliergov.net; GrecoSherry; FilsonSue Subject: Addie's Corner Development Dear Planning and County Commissioners, I am a property owner at 8636 Amour Ct in Naples and am writing about the proposed development of Addie's Corner. The most recent site plan I am familiar with has several aspects that could or will impact the value, level of enjoyment and safety of resident of the Esplanade development. The plan shows access to the Addie's development at our western property line. Getting in and out of our development is already difficult. I am not a traffic expert but this location seems to increase the pressure and chance of possible accidents. Is it possible to consider another location? I am sure you have already heard about the "view of the preserve" the Amour Ct residents were lead to believe we were looking at and paid substantial lot premiums for. I understand that is not something you have control over. What you do have influence on is the extent of the proposed removal of the existing preserve and requirement of a meaningful buffer zone. As I look at the proposed preserve, it is less than half of the existing preserve. This preserve was put in place prior to the current owner so they knew what they were purchasing. As I understand it the owner wants to reduce the existing preserve by over fifty percent. The preserve space was established for a reason. I suspect it was a conscious decision at the time based on environmental factors and other goals. I wonder what has changed besides ownership and the goals of a developer. If you allow them to substantially reduce the preserve please consider increasing the required buffer to at least 100ft along our common property line. I have taken a look at the Exhibit "A" Addie's Corner MPUD. I cannot decipher what this document proposes. What I can see is that more changes than stays the same and that speaks volumes. The goal of the developer is to maximize their return. I understand that however they purchased a parcel with limited access and permitted uses. The developers proposal appears to significantly change not only the permitted use of the parcel it will also increase the number of residents, size of the buildings, size of the parking lots, traffic, noise and ultimately the reduction of enjoyment for myself, my neighbors and my community. They appear to want to rewrite the rules. I hope you will consider restricting the number of residential units to a number that minimally impacts our community and the community at large. Other items like lighting that could be visible all night, dumpsters being emptied who knows when not to mention other noise pollution based on the final development. In closing I understand that development happens and things do change. What I, my neighbors and other community residents are hoping for is a mindful approach that ultimately mitigates the impact 1 on our homes and the enjoyment of them now and into the future. I have been told that the developer and our community have been communicating about building berms with vegetation and trees as buffers on the Addie's property as well as the Esplanade property. I have seen many examples of this in the local area so it is possible to create significant buffers. With some thoughtful restrictions and requirements combined with enforceable agreements between the developer and the Esplanade everyone involved and impacted could be satisfied. I am hoping a balanced approach and meaningful consideration of our reasonable requests could result in a mutually beneficial result. Sincerely Joseph Pestana 8638 Amour Ct Naples FL 34119 4") Pest Services The Pest Control Professionals Joe Pestana I President Office:800.222.2908 Facebook l Linkedln (Twitter Google+ JP Blog Tell us about your JP experience here! Q '-"CONFIDENTIALITY STATEME This email and any files transmit,.; t tine i.onfidential and are intended-olery tor me use of the individual or entity to iAllitth they are addressed. If you are not the inti that any review,use.dissemination forwarding, printing,or copying of this email and its attachments,if any,is strictly prohibited.If you have received this in error,please it Pkk t 2 BrownleeMichael From: Amy Lawlor[amylawlor.interiors@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 4:33 PM To: TaylorPenny; SolisAndy; McDanielBill; SaundersBurt; FialaDonna; StrainMark; HomiakKaren; pdearborn@johnrwood.com; EbertDiane; FryerEdwin; ChrzanowskiStan; SchmittJoseph; BellowsRay; JohnsonEric; BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; LykinsDave; GrecoSherry; FilsonSue Cc: Robert Lawlor; Amy Lawlor; Barbara Coffey Subject: Addie's Corner Development Collier County Commissioners &Planning Commissioners Mr. Eric Johnson, Collier County Principal Planner Mr. Mark Strain, Chair of Planning Commission and Chief Hearing Examiner Re: Addie's Corner development Planning Commission Project#PL20150001776 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: We are homeowner's in Esplanade Golf and Country Club which is situated along Immokalee Road in Naples. One of the major factors in deciding to build our home in Esplanade was the fact that there were significant preserves bordering most of the property. We believe the proposed `Addie's Corner' development will significantly decrease the desirability of the community and decrease property values. The current view entering Esplanade is enhanced by a preserve area to the East of Esplanade Boulevard, with many tall trees. We understand the developer has proposed reducing the preserve from 8.85 to 3.45 acres. This will clearly decrease the overall appeal of the community. Even with the existing tree line, 4 story buildings will rise above the trees and degrade the views and property values. We encourage you to require the following: •Do not permit a reduction of the existing preserve •Limit the project to no more than the number of units that current zoning allows for i •Limit the height of the buildings to 2 stories •A buffer of at least 100 feet •Locate their buildings no closer than 100' from Esplanade property If you would like to discuss any matters relative to this proposed development we can be reached through email at: drboblawlor@gmail.comor via cell phone at: 610-48-2629. Thank you for your consideration and I hope you can appreciate our concerns. Sincerely, Bob and Amy Lawlor 8810 Vaccaro CT. Naples, FL 34119 2 AGEND41.11111111 Co er Countyii!„ „,,,,.........„ STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARING DATE: JUNE 1, 2017 SUBJECT: PETITION NO: PURR-PL20160002564,TRIAD RPUD APPLICANT: AGENT: DR Horton Mr. Patrick Vanasse 10541 Ben C. Pratt Six Mile Cypress Pkwy. RWA Inc. Fort Myers,FL 33966 6610 Willow Park Dr. Suite 200 Naples,FL 34109 I I OWNER: t Sarecino LLC, an Ohio Limited Liability Company 22720 Fairview Drive#150 Fairview Park, Ohio 44216 REOUESTED ACTION: The petitioner seeks to amend Ordinance Number 05-11, as amended, which established 1 the Triad Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), to reduce the residential density from 86 units to 44 units; to revise the Master Plan to reconfigure the I development area; to revise development standards; to add deviations; and to modify and delete development commitments; and by providing an effective date. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: I The subject property, consisting of 10.75± acres, is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Radio Lane and Palm Springs Boulevard in Section 34, Township 49 I South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the Location Map on the following i page.) I I 1 TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 1 Page 1 of 21 q =- n. 1© m o0 0 ©RMF-6 D 0 . , a a 9 E 5 a1 a a " s a 3 4 IlliblIN._ - o 0 0 o c 7/\/ ./ \>'''...-'..------- CD © O O 111( rr�ccR_ar ,,t RIC:�,(a� SITE LOCATION /• �[ > o c m o o c o 0 0 fir, I{I+I I C PROJECT i Pun .. LOCATION a c 6 RPMAA.. a , , a R •PMa s 3 4 RaLo Rb 11 i �.. ■ 31 a 2 1 , 1 RADIO LANE ..,- C3 mV L A RPUD PUD Location Map Zoning Map Petition Number: PL-2016-2564 SITE DATA —341m-----1 1111p iiiu: TOTAL SITE AREA:10.751 ACRES ------ZONING PUDI ; I IIIIIIIIIl MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS: CURRENT USE:RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY_....... ' 44 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES A AMIE ----- , I ' I MASTER PLAN NOTES ;• N' EXISTING MASONRY WALL / w b- 1. THIS MASTER PLAN IS } • • + I { R m a I '� CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE r, ':r, :� =W I AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES m }. ;I V; :;.*_; ____=.,..-7._„.;.:_,,-7-...z.-..— I !- DUE TO AGENCY REVIEW 6 ;.� • 1 _ 1 ti= AND SITE CONDITIONS. 03 I Ir;.. 'f — ��/- -- t i .LI ce< ammo 12 d 2.ACREAGE AND THE DESIGN, a 1.• ' LOCATIONS AND vi ". ` I I ! ,M 1 e , CONFIGURATIONS OF THE c a �', .';. O I a°`k LAND IMPROVEMENTS ARE LL j f;....Z.; III �o !HI APPROXIMATE AND as ,. ;; 1 , PROPERTY I 5 is , SUBJECT TO REFINEMENT i�1- F::,: I. I BOUNDARY I I AT THE AND PLAT PPROVAE OF NS o t'. R I I I� R I I 1 R ` ; " 3.INTERNAL ROADWAY 4::;. •R LOT 15'TYPE•D° I • • DEPICTED ON MASTER PLAN o l',7:::. ��, LINE(TYP) I 11 I BUFFER IS CONCEPTUAL,ROW FOR ,, r:::• �' I SINGLE FAMILY. s a w 50' , r- is LL I'ROW ' 5'SIDEWALK I ` 4.REQUIRED PRESERVE:11.40 ce -:: 20' ER I I • ,I AC(15%OFt9.37ACOF I. . P ,, EXISTING NATIVE - X11 i PROPERTY BOUNDARY I i I o VEGETATION).PRESERVE }; •:3; - _ f ;I a I I ' PROVIDED:t1.40 AC. '-.1;2_4 i!__QELL.MLQN_i) __ - — a I — -..- - '1 I ` PRESERVES MAYBE USED TO SATISFY -✓jam • a THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS -_ _ _________�__------- - _PALM SPRINGBLVD.— - - Aa AFTER EXOTIC VEGETATION REMOVAL IN - - - - ------- ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTIONS — --�_---� i 4.06.02 AND 4.O6.OS.E1.SUPPLEMENTAL ` I i .. 1 i PLANTINGS WITH NATIVE PLANT ZONING:MAC RPUD MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE CURRRENT USE:RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY ''IT-- WITH LDC SECTION 3.05.07.' t°te°""'0 1..01.10a 1ttMMUI PItGiatIIM-rub W.w�LtwuO.Im+�MYa'aiN�^WOWeWrMFmor r3oorW4YVM • DEVIATIONS ""uit": REQUIRES IN - REQUIRES MINIMUM LOCAL STREET RIGHT-Of-WAY WIDTH OF 60 FEET,TO ALLOW FOR A 50-FOOT mimic I �� - - _-_� • RIGHT-OF-WAY MINIMUM WIDTH FOR THE PRIVATE STREETS. n \� ` FRONT DEVIATION#2 ' 5'SIDEWALK 1 REQUIRES THAT STREETS SHALL BE CLASSIFIED BY THE CROSS-SECTIONS CONTAINED IN APPENDIX B,TO ALLOW FOR AN INVERTED ROADWAY DESIGN,AS DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT C. 5'SIDEWALK DEVIATION#3 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 5.04.06A.3.E,WHICH ALLOWS TEMPORARY SIGNS ON RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES LIP TO 4 SQUARE FEET IN AREA OR 3 FEET IN HEIGHT,TO ALLOW A I ' ROWr. � - NIf _____ _ TEMPORARY BANNER SIGN UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 32 SQUARE FEET IN AREA AND B'HEIGHT.THE TEMPORARY BANNER SIGNS SHALL BE UMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 90 DAYS DURING SEASON DEFINED AS ROW JANUARY LST TO MARCH 31TH PER CALENDAR YEAR. r, '^ DEVIATION#4 SEEKS REUEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06 02.C,TABLE 2.4,WHICH REQUIRES A 15-FOOT WIDE 55'LOT WIDTH 2 Om TYPE B LANDSCAPE BUFFER WHERE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING ABUTS MULTI-FAMILY i .-% RESIDENTIAL ZONING ALONG THE EASTERN PUD BOUNDARY,TO ALLOW FOR A 1S-FOOT WIDE TYPE A ,,,,,,,,,{O c LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE EXISTING MASONRY WALL IIsm DEVIATION#5 SEEKS REUEF FROM LDC SECTION 6.06.02A.1 WHICH REQUIRES THAT SIDEWALKS BE 60'LOT WIDTH CONSTRUCTED ON BOTH SIDES OF PUBUC AND PRIVATE RIGHTS-OF-WAY,TO ALLOW FOR SIDEWALKS ON F I ONE SIDE OF THE ROW FOR ROADWAY STUBS WHERE INDICATED ON THE MASTER PLAN. It (j`@�- DEVIATION#6 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LOC SECTION 4A6AS.N.1.c WHICH REQUIRES ALL BODIES OF WATER, Eia ail' INCLUDING RETENTION AREAS EXCEEDING 20,000 SQUARE FEET,AND WHICH ARE LOCATED ADJACENT TO Aii'Sl 1 R.lR REAR PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY,MUST INCORPORATE INTO OVERALL DESIGN OF THE PROJECT AT LEAST 2 OF THE �JI1 FOLLOWING ITEMS:I.A WALKWAYS FEET WIDE ANDA MINIMUM OF 200 FEET LONG,WITH TREES OF AN 11 PLAN VIEW DETAIL ' AVERAGE OF 50 FEET ON CENTER AND WITH SHADED BENCHES,A MINIMUM OF 6 FEET IN LENGTH OR 11 CORNER LOTS ABUTTING ROADWAY PLAN VIEW DETAIL PICNIC TABLES WITH ONE LOCATED EVERY 150 FEET.II.FOUNTAINS.III.PARTIALLY SHADED LOT ABUTTING ROADWAY TERMINUS PLAZA/COURTYARD,A MINIMUM OF 200 SQUARE FEET IN AREA,WITH BENCHES AND/OR PICNICTABLES TYPICAL TYPICAL ABUTTING THE WATER-BODY,OR RETENTION AREAS;TO ALLOW FOR ONLY THE INSTALLATION OF AN .. SCALE-27 SCALE 1'-20, AERATOR/FOUNTAIN. 50'RIGHT OF WAY s' SITE SUMMARY S/W 25'PAVEMENT Y 5 3` 5' u l .f____ 5N� USE ACREAGE R o s I ri � 1� RESIDENTIAL ±5.34 0 3' VALLEY YGyUTTER OTHER OPEN SPACE 11.62 ,7"i• \�r'v( 2% I I ,2% __-,„ Y ws,,"y'jv\�y� \��N �‘. ,x(7.>/ ��G �..' ,, , , i,. .``` '��D��p.•N-4e: ✓, LAKE/WATER MANAGEMENT ±0.92 "\\•t-••J,%.,, :• 6'••••?•moi\: `,••>-**"-' \\rte\` ACCESS DRIVE/RIGHT OF WAY ±1.47 WATER MAIN �a l TYPICAL ROAD CROSS SECTISANITARY SEWER MAIN PRESERVE AREA ±1.40 SCALE I.-Y :r.pi.. TOTAL 110.75 ;,,,,,,,, • l "i.T , O.,-f1.2017211.MX121713111019.6[00 Ite01(04 ,c07U2.MV.,aYURang 4p^^faW NwIMf40?I M,,219.1. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezone will change the land uses from the currently approved 86 multi-family dwelling units to 44 single-family dwelling units. The Board approved the original Triad RPUD on September 27, 2005 under Ordinance 05-11 (see attached Exhibit B), and the subject site was rezoned from Commercial Professional and General Office District(C-1) and Commercial Convenience District (C- 2) to PUD. The residential structures shall remain at a height of 35 feet. The preserve area shall remain in a similar location, as originally approved, along the north and east property lines. The petitioner is also requesting the following changes to the PUD, and they are listed below: - Removal of a commitment to contribute towards the construction cost of a concrete panel fence at an off-site location in the neighborhood. (See attached Exhibit E: Fence Location.) - Removal of other commitments related to phasing, a bus shelter, and LDC redundancies related to transportation, planning, water management, and environmental requirements. The petitioner is also requesting Deviations related to: - Private street right-of-way width - Roadway drainage design - Size and height of a temporary banner sign - Reduction in landscape buffer width - Relaxing of a required sidewalk in"roadway stub"locations - Removal of one of the required amenities around a lake For further information,please see the Deviations Section located on page 13 of this Staff Report. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Subject Parcel: The subject property is a 10.75± acre site is currently undeveloped, with a zoning designation of PUD Surrounding: North: Single-family residences in the Palm Springs Village subdivision, with a zoning designation of Residential Multi-family-12 District(RMF-12 (7)) East: Multi-family residences with a zoning designation of Saddlebrook Village PUD,with a density of 12.96 units per acre South: Radio Lane, a 100-foot right-of-way TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 5of21 i 1 1 I West: Palm Springs Boulevard, an 80-foot right-of-way and then the fI undeveloped land with a zoning designation of Triad RPUD, with an i existing density of 8 units per acre and a proposed density of 4.09 dwelling units per acre tt • 1 '1,-4., ''''' ,,,,t ii i 4 ,0 , , , 1Ti.:4 ...., ... , , , _ .. . •. ,Y 9 . , e Subject , ;tit . Property tilt AlEE R i , Ali ". (1. 11", 1 'e A,r ',t .rte ' .' . AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP) CONSISTENCY: The proposed PUD Rezone is consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the GMP. See attached Exhibit C: Future Land Use Element(FLUE) Consistency Review dated April 6, 2017. TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 6 of 21 t f 1 i 1 '. i Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the petitioner's 1 Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element E 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: i i "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future 7` 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 i 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 I roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below l t an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application i has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the 1 following occur: 1 a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project t traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; 1 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; 1 and a 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. y 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." F r a The proposed PUD Rezone on the subject property was reviewed based on the then E applicable 2016 AUIR Inventory Report. The TIS submitted in the application indicates i that the proposed new residential development will generate approximately 50 PM peak hour two-way trips. The proposed development will impact the following roadway segments with the listed capacities: I I TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 7 of 21 is Roadway Link 2016 AUIR Current Peak Hour 2016 Remaining Existing LOS Peak Direction Service Capacity Volume/Peak Direction Radio Road Davis Boulevard B 1,800/West 1,135 to Santa Barbara Davis Radio Road to B 2,900/East 2,210 Boulevard Santa Barbara Davis Radio Road to B 2,900/East 1,737 Boulevard Collier Boulevard 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 Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the CCME. In accordance with CCME Policy 6.1.1, a minimum of 1.40 acres of native vegetation are required to be retained for the PUD. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13 B.S., Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 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 these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading"Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analysis: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document to address environmental concerns.Approximately 9.37 acres of native vegetation occur on site, fifteen percent, 1.40 acres(.15 x 9.37)of which are required to be retained for the PUD. The location of the preserve along the rear of the property will align with preserve to the west within the Triad PUD. TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 8 of 21 t f i 4 This project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), i since it does not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews identified in 1 Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition request, the PUD Document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues and is recommending approval. 1 Utility Review: The Utilities Department staff has reviewed the petition. The project lies within the water service area and the south wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District. Water and wastewater service is readily available via existing infrastructure along the project's frontages on Palm Springs Boulevard and Radio Lane. Downstream wastewater system capacity must be confirmed at the time of Site 1 Development Plan (SDP) or Plans and Plat (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. a Any improvements to the Collier County Water-Sewer District's wastewater transmission system necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the 1 responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the Collier County Water- i Sewer District at no cost to the County at the time of Preliminary and Final Acceptance. Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) District Review: CCPS staff has reviewed the petition and has concluded that there is sufficient capacity for the proposed development i within the elementary and middle school concurrency service areas and within an 1 adjacent high school concurrency area. This fording is for planning and informational purposes only and does not constitute either a determination of capacity or concurrency for the proposed project. At the time of SDP or PPL review, the development will be `. reviewed for concurrency. This is to ensure that there is capacity either within the concurrency service area that this development is located in or within adjacent concurrency service areas such that the level of service standards are not exceeded. Zoning and Land Development Review: As previously stated, this PUD Rezone petition will change the land uses from the currently approved 86 multi-family dwelling units to 44 single-family dwelling units. The proposed building heights will remain the same as the previously approved height of 35 feet. Access to the subject site remains the same and will be from Palm Springs Boulevard. The subject site is mostly surrounded by residential single-family and multi-family development. Along the northern property line is an approximate 50-200-foot wide preserve area providing separation and buffering between the proposed single-family homes and the existing single-family homes. To the east, an existing wall and a proposed 15-foot wide Type A Landscape buffer shall separate the proposed single-family TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 9 of 21 residences from the existing multi-family residences. To the south, the applicant is providing the Code-prescribed, 15-foot wide Type D Landscape buffer along Radio Lane. To the west, across Palm Springs Boulevard, is a similar development to the Triad RPUD called MAC RPUD, which also proposes 44 single-family homes with similar development standards as the Triad RPUD. REZONE FINDINGS: 1 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." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below: Rezone findings are designated as RZ and PUD findings are designated as PUD. Staff's responses to these criteria are provided below in non-bold font. 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the GMP. The Comprehensive Planning Section has indicated that the proposed PUD Rezone is consistent with all applicable elements of the FLUE of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report (page 5) and discussed in the zoning review analysis, the neighborhood's existing land use pattern can be characterized as residential and commercial lands. The residential land uses proposed in this PUD petition should not create incompatibility issues. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. Commercial, single-family, and multi-family zoning districts surround the subject site. The proposed conversion of multi-family to single-family will not create an isolated, unrelated, zoning district. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The district boundaries are logically drawn as discussed in Items 2 and 3 above. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 10 of 21 The proposed change is not necessary, but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes, because the petitioner wishes to develop single- family residences instead of multi-family residences. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. rt The proposed change from multi-family residential to single-family residential will reduce the overall density and intensity of land uses allowed by the current PUD. Therefore, the proposed change will not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. 7. 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 PUD Ordinance. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed development will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore, the project is subject to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed change will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Staff is of the opinion this PUD Rezone will not adversely impact property values. Zoning by itself however may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market demand. il. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Most of the property surrounding the subject site is developed. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the LDC is that their sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 11 of 21 to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The proposed development will comply with the GMP,which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship, because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be developed within existing multi-family residential PUD zoning. The surrounding single-family residential land uses would suggest, however, that the rezoning to single-family residential PUD is more compatible and in character with the surrounding single-family residential land uses. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD Rezone is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or county. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the county that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC. Staff does not 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 PUD Document would require site alteration and these sites will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during 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 GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance. TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 12 of 21 1 Y The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals 1 and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by County staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and that staff has concluded that the developer has provided appropriate commitments so that the impacts of the Level of Service will be minimized. 1 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners g. shall deem important in the protection of the public health,safety and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. x DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is seeking approval of five deviations from the requirements of the LDC. 1 The deviations are listed in PUD Exhibit E. The petitioner's justification and staff E analysis/recommendation is outlined below. 1 I Proposed Deviation#1 1 The petitioner seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N, "Street System Requirements," 1 which requires a minimum, local street right-of-way width of 60 feet to allow for a 50- ft foot right-of-way minimum width for the private streets. s Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states that the following in support of the new deviation: Minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet is requested for local streets within the TRIAD RPUD. This deviation is justified because of the size and the small-scale neighborhood character of this project. A 50 foot right-of-way for a residential street can successfully facilitate movement of the vehicular, pedestrian and bike traffic while accommodating all utility and drainage needs. The 50 foot right-of- way accomplishes traffic calming to provide a safer transportation system within the neighborhood. This deviation is commonly approved and has been effectively implemented in numerous residential PUDs throughout the County. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health., safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.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." TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 13 of 21 { { Proposed Deviation#2 Petitioner seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N, "Street System Requirements," which requires that streets shall be classified by the cross-sections contained in Appendix B (6),to allow for an inverted roadway design, as depicted in Exhibit C. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states that the following in support of the new deviation: The proposed inverted roadway design will not only allow for more efficient drainage of the neighborhood streets but will also provide immediate construction cost savings from not having to provide outside curbing. Moreover, this design requires fewer structures, connections, and drainage inlets that need ongoing maintenance, thus reducing long term costs for the HOA. A 3-loot wide, concrete valley gutter will be utilized to increase revetment durability and reduce long term maintenance concerns. The design of the roadway will still maintain a low point above the 25 year flood elevation. The reduced construction costs associated with this roadway design will allow for greater housing affordability, as the cost savings will be reflected in home prices. Furthermore, the reduced maintenance cost will also provide affordability benefits to the residents. The inverted crown design has been and continues to be used in numerous communities throughout Florida, it is consistent with engineering best practices and does not pose any concern from a public health and safety standpoint. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees a detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved, as the proposed deviation is a reduction in engineering standard from the current Land Development Code crowned roadway design requirement in Appendix B—Typical Street Sections for a Local Street. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends DENIAL 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 Petitioner seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e, which allows temporary signs on residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height, to allow a temporary banner sign up to a maximum of 32 square feet in area and 8' height. The temporary banner signs shall be limited to a maximum of 90 days during season defined as January 1st to March 31st per calendar year. TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 14 of 21 Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the new deviation: Due to the property's location within the view of a busy arterial road and the high travel speeds along the roadway, the Applicant is seeking an increase to the allowable banner size to ensure visibility of this new community. The proposed deviation will allow for a banner sign located along Radio Lane in order to advertise new homes available within the community. The 4 square foot banner sign permitted by the LDC provides minimal visibility and likely will not be seen by vehicles travelling along Davis Boulevard, a 50mph 4-lane divided roadway. Additionally, the applicant is requesting that the banner be allowed for up to 90 days per calendar year to allow display throughout the peak winter season for home sales. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.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#4 Petitioner seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C, Table 2.4, which requires a 15-foot wide, Type B Landscape buffer when Single-Family Residential Zoning abuts Commercial Zoning, to allow for a 10-foot wide landscape buffer with Type B plantings along the existing public utility easement. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the new deviation: The western boundary of the property abuts a 30 foot wide, public utility easement, which in [and of] itself provides significant spatial buffering from the adjacent property. The plantings for Type B buffering will occupy approximately 7-8 feet. Any loss of open space within the buffer will be mitigated by the presence of the 30 foot public utility easement. The combination of a 10'buffer with Type B plantings and the abutting easement will meet or exceed the intent of the code by providing ample separation and screening. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated. TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 15 of 21 is Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.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 #5 The petitioner seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.1 which requires that sidewalks be constructed on both sides of public and private rights-of-way (ROW), to allow for sidewalks on one side of the ROW for roadway stubs where indicated on the Master Plan. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the new deviation: The portions of roadway associated with this deviation and identified on the Master Plan abut the side yard of only one lot, whose front yard is serviced by the sidewalk along the intersecting roadway. The proposed sidewalk configuration meets the intent of the code by providing safe pedestrian access to all lots. Other than the identified stub-out locations, the proposed sidewalk network meets the requirement of providing sidewalks on both sides of the road and ensures that all homes are provided pedestrian access and fully interconnected to one another. The proposed deviation will not affect public health and safety, nor is it contrary to the intent behind the sidewalk requirements. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.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#6 Petitioner seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.05.N.1.0 which requires all bodies of water, including retention areas exceeding 20,000 square feet, and which are located adjacent to a public right-of-way, must incorporate into overall design of the project at least 2 of the following items: i. A walkway 5 feet wide and a minimum of 200 feet long, with trees of an average of 50 feet on center and with shaded benches, a minimum of 6 feet in length or picnic tables with one located every 150 feet. ii. Fountains. iii. Partially TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 16 of 21 shaded plaza/courtyard, a minimum of 200 square feet in area,with benches and/or picnic tables abutting the water-body, or retention areas; to allow for only the installation of an aerator/fountain. i Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the new deviation: The design and positioning of the water management structures on this property was done in a manner to provide maximum drainage functionality and buffering from the adjacent Palm Springs neighborhood to the north, rather than serve as an amenity to residents. Additionally, such features as a walkway with benches and/or a plaza/courtyard would encourage activity along this buffered area, which the neighbors have made clear they would like kept to a minimum. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.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 Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the Planning Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria:" I. 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 nearby area is developed or is approved for development of a similar nature. The petitioner will be required to comply with all County regulations regarding drainage, sewer,water, and other utilities. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 17 of 21 Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property and roadway access to the subject site. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or site development plan approval. These processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP. } 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering 1 and screening requirements. As described in the Staff Analysis Section of this staff report (page 5), staff is of the opinion the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The 60 percent open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure 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 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. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal systems and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 18 of 21 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 c. application of such regulations. This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development ,£ standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. The petitioner is seeking six deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06 A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes that the five of the six deviations proposed can be supported, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h., the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviations are "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Please, refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report for a more extensive examination of the deviations (page 13). NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on April 6, 2017. The neighbors in attendance spoke of their desire for the developer provide an off-site fence/wall that was a commitment in the current PUD Ordinance. For further information, please see Exhibit D: Neighborhood Information Meeting Notes and Exhibit E: Fence Location. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office has reviewed the staff report for Petition PUDA- PL20160002565, Triad RPUD,revised on May 12,2017. RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission, acting as the local planning agency and the Environmental Advisory Council, forward Petition PUDR-PL20160002565, TRIAD PUD, to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the denial of Deviation#2. TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 19 of 21 Attachments: Exhibit A: Proposed PUD Ordinance Exhibit B: Ordinance Number 05-11 Exhibit C: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review Exhibit D: Neighborhood Information Meeting Notes Exhibit E: Fence Location is ii TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 20 of 21 PREPARED BY: Akitt L 2 c NANCi��LACH, AICP,PLA D A 1`E PRINCL PLANNER ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: -' ...--, / 7,-ki c , 7i0.1)A__,,,-- RAYMOV. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING t VISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION 5—)-- n MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION APPROVED BY: 4/7 I " : FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE FA OWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT TRIAD RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 21 of 21 I 1 AGENDA ITEM 9-F er County y STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARING DATE: JUNE 1,2017 SUBJECT: PETITION NO: PUDR-PL20160002565,MAC RPUD APPLICANT: AGENT: DR Horton Mr. Patrick Vanasse 10541 Ben C. Pratt Six Mile Cypress Pkwy. RWA Inc. Fort Myers,FL 33966 6610 Willow Park Dr. Suite 200 Naples,FL 34109 OWNER: Radio Lane Development LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company 22720 Fairview Drive#150 Fairview Park, Ohio 44126 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner seeks to amend Ordinance Number 05-11, as amended, which established the MAC Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), to reduce the residential density from 86 units to 44 units; to revise the Master Plan to reconfigure the development area; to revise development standards; to add deviations; and to modify and delete development commitments; and by providing an effective date. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 10.75±acres, is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Radio Lane and Palm Springs Boulevard in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the Location Map on the following page.) MAC RPUD,PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 1 of 20 sommen1=M11= �ItOFt cce,.c a a! vxry ,0„,1- p, RMF-6 C PM XII � © O a O O O O O THl�CTB e e • a , 1 a •E IlArillill - S a a Px%1 4 PUD O OO O Oa O O © o PH X 4.....". NNC ORE37 unt-RM" 2(7) ,/ 1� SITE o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c PROJECT ' LOCATION o 2 LOCATION 1-$�'I 1 L. PKStaI a T U —,-62.'..'=Ill / 5 s , B �x.TsktmirtARPUD \ e y I ♦ f t + , a 3 C-2 PUD "° 4, Me sva Kadlo KL ) , Rpm ..`1 N 1 O 2di NB •ate ._. 22 05 0 RADIO LANE 111 C-4 PUD Ca aaara PA; Location Map Zoning Map Petition Number: PL-2016-2565 • SITE DATA TOTAL SITE AREA:10.78±ACRES ZONING:TRIAD RPUD HT1 'I"I""E MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS: CURRRENT USE:RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY 1 unmmn 44 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES �,� � .. _ I - JJI MASTER PLAN NOTES -�- -�- ---- - - _ _ - - PALMSPIt1NG BLVD. - _-_-- -, (_ 111 1. THiS MASTER PLAN IS --r - . 1 (' CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE W J , , � r ROPERTY 80UNDARY� �`r I AND SUBJECT TO CHANGES $ i �- _y;;-/- _ I ' DUE TO AGENCY REVIEW -. %z -j r° m I r' 0 15'TYPE"D• AND SITE CONDITIONS. k I - --. I .I I 1 i auun�sa m- I �_rj1 J� -, LI! I BUFFER 2.ACREAGE AND THE DESIGN, a ' -r� r J c I ' Z ! LOCATIONS AND y „rte- I I I F i CONFIGURATIONS OF THE z I _? API LAND IMPROVEMENTS ARE N ..-- I rr r-= I' I R i I W 10111 APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATE AND 2 - I - �.==-�- , I I I S .I�� SUBJECT TO REFINEMENT Ea7.,--_,.;,i.:;;--,-,-•_, I; I I I m E AT THE TIME OF PLANS LL "- '- R . 50' ' 5'SIDEWALK I Iv W AND PLAT APPROVAL. Zd Q :�:r`,=r',-_, 'ROW I . r rr 3.INTERNAL ROADWAY z Z .r r Ys_r-- REAR LOT IN 3 DEPICTED ON MASTER PLANK - ..j,,—',.f ! LINE(TYP) I I I I R 1 IS CONCEPTUAL,ROW FOR g r E SINGLE FAMILY. o �k4-"- -:—_,,,...,,___:=---,;)Lwr ( I i W 1. c - .-.crD.�_ETENTIO _ � L---------� I ' ' a g $ .0 4.REQUIRED PRESERVE:*1.30 AC(15%OF±8.64 AC OF '� - 1 �Z` ;1 BOUNDARY Y ill I I u 4 18 EXISTING NATIVE - ------= VEGETATION).PRESERVE PRESERVE m ®� r PROVIDED:*1.30 AC. N tW PRESERVES MAY BE USED TO SATISFY a.2 > '1 ' THE 10'WIDE TYPE`A'LANDSCAPE re °°n BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AFTER EXOTIC - - R p/3\ j li I VEGETATION REMOVAL IN l - ' ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTIONS L 4.06.02 AND 4.06.05.E1.SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGS WITH NATIVE PLANT I ZONING:PUD COMMERCIAL BUS STOP , @N MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE CURRENT USE:BOWLAND BOWLING ALLEY 5'x8'CONCRETE PAD , I\ , \ WITH LDC SECTION 3.05.07! Merlin II.m7i„w cvom,onuam .nu-rvc,ea In ma .,...... .... ,M,zon.as roar 1300110X0iVI... G • DEVIATIONS 1 1 DEVIATION#1 I ....___ __ I - FEET,TO ALLOW FOR A 50-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY MINIMUM WIDTH FOR THE PRIVATE STREETS. , 1 1 _ FRONT DEVIATION N2 5'SIDEWALK CROSS-SECTIONS CONTAINED IN APPENDIX B,TO ALLOW FOR AN INVERTED ROADWAY I 5'SIDEWALK DESIGN,AS DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT C. __ DEVIATION tl3 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02.C,TABLE 2.4 WHICH REQUIRES A ROW .� ((fI+TT' __!,_ 15-FOOT WIDE TYPE B LANDSCAPE BUFFER WHEN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING ABUTS COMMERCIAL ZONING,TO ALLOW FOR A 10-FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH •OW TYPE B PLANTINGS ALONG THE E)OSTING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT. L0 DEVIATION tl4 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LOX SECTION 6.06.02A.1 WHICH REQUIRES THAT 55'LOT WIDTH I • - SIDEWALKS BE CONSTRUCTED ON BOTH SIDES OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RIGHTS-OF-WAY,TO ALLOW FOR SIDEWALKS ON ONE SIDE OF THE ROW FOR ROADWAY STUBS WHERE INDICATED • �_, ON THE MASTER PLAN. 7 O Im 60'LOT WIDTH DEVIATION 115 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.05.N.1-c WHICH REQUIRES ALL BODIES OF WATER,INCLUDING RETENTION AREAS EXCEEDING 20,000 SQUARE FEET,AND WHICH ARE t LOCATED ADJACENT TO A PUBUC RIGHT-OF-WAY,MUST INCORPORATE INTO OVERALL DESIGN v i I OF THE PROJECT AT LEAST 2 OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:I.A WALKWAY 5 FEET WIDE AND A 11101 MINIMUM OF 200 FEET LONG,WITH TREES OF AN AVERAGE OF 50 FEET ON CENTER AND .414 I .. ' R� • , I WITH SHADED BENCHES,A MINIMUM OF 6 FEET IN LENGTH OR PICNIC TABLES WITH ONE '1_111 1 : REAR LOCATED EVERY 150 FEET.II.FOUNTAINS.III.PARTIALLY SHADED PLAZA/COURTYARD,A >:i 11 MINIMUM OF 200 SQUARE FEET IN AREA,WITH BENCHES AND/OR PICNIC TABLES ABUTTING Id PLAN VIEW DETAIL PLAN VIEW DETAIL THE WATER-BODY,OR RETENTION AREAS;TO ALLOW FOR ONLY THE INSTALLATION OF AN I CORNER LOTS ABUTTING ROADWAY LOT ABUTTING ROADWAY TERMINUS AERATOR/FOUNTAIN. TYPICAL TYPICAL SALE:1'.20 WALE:1..25 50'RIGHT OF WAY r 1 SITE SUMMARY 5' 5' S/W 25'PAVEMENT Sm USE ACREAGE u g a' 3, RESIDENTIAL ±5.31 . g VALLEY GUTTER OTHER OPEN SPACE ±1.71 >jy i' �Ov\ _„>r % .,ilk \j.�\.�yv,iO\�✓✓ \.�\\gyp?fid o\o�s-0; •• -- .• -.• 4..., •*. •.y.•.;-‘[..;•..V...,•„..-v.r.—t.I4.-I._-2-s9-?.6_‹f-,-,,,,,v1„v..,r.>.,,,.-i :$pM\�4N.. , ✓ LAKE/WATER MANAGEMENT ±0.95 iX • WATER MAINACCESS DRIVE/RIGHT OF WAY ±1.49 II °``SANITARY SEWER MAIN J TYPICAL ROAD CROSS SECTION PRESERVE AREA ±1.30 SCALP:1•.4 ,,P . TOTAL ±10.76 ,,, 4qn.l�xn w.£',Y �!SXXI/a eyPA 0710 Wflt mw0 Nem,AM nn,pm,K. ..620/).a*N 0T mm�mavMM \ • '�'"-i u PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) rezone will change the land uses from the currently approved 86 multi-family dwelling units to 44 single-family dwelling units. The Board approved the original MAC RPUD on September 27, 2005 under Ordinance 05-50 (see attached Exhibit B), and the subject site was rezoned from Commercial Professional and General Office District(C-1) and Commercial Convenience District(C- 2) to PUD. The residential structures shall remain at a height of 35 feet. The preserve area shall remain in a similar location, as originally approved, along the north property line. The petitioner is also requesting the following changes to the PUD, and they are listed below: - Removal of a commitment to provide a bus shelter along Radio Lane and to provide a bus stop instead to meet the needs of the Collier County Transportation - Removal of a commitment to contribute towards the construction cost of a concrete panel fence at an off-site location in the neighborhood. (See attached i Exhibit E: Fence Location.) - Removal of other commitments related to phasing, a bus shelter, and LDC redundancies related to transportation, planning, water management, and environmental requirements. The petitioner is also requesting Deviations related to: - Private street right-of-way width - Roadway drainage design in - Location of on-premises directional signs - Reduction in landscape buffer width - Relaxing of a required sidewalk in"roadway stub"locations For further information,please see the Deviations Section located on page 13 of this Staff Report. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Subject Parcel: The subject property is a 10.76+ acre site is currently undeveloped, with a zoning designation of PUD Surrounding: North: Single-family residences in the Palm Springs Village subdivision, with a zoning designation of Residential Multi-family-12 District(RMF-12(7)) East: Palm Springs Boulevard, an 80-foot right-of-way and then the undeveloped land with a zoning designation of Triad RPUD, with an MAC RPUD,PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 5 of 20 existing density of 8 units per acre and a proposed density of 4.09 dwelling units per acre South: Radio Lane, a 100-foot right-of-way and then vacant lands and a Circle K; with a zoning designation of Commercial Intermediate District(C-3) West: A 30-foot wide drainage easement, and then existing Bowland Woodside Bowling Alley, with a zoning designation of Woodside Lanes PUD (Commercial PUD) Subject Property NIN FC I- 'f- -i` '€. 4111114, .Rim. ,Ex,,.o �tV9 .., ,rt .,:;.w ''",•_ Calm cau*,v p+a+WlY Aa4r2n9f Nn�ct „�,'•'"" "'" D 33ft AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP)CONSISTENCY: The proposed PUD Rezone is consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the GMP. See attached Exhibit C: Future Land Use Element(FLUE) Consistency Review dated April 6, 2017. MAC RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 6 of 20 3 Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, Staff reviewed the petitioner'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). 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 [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. " Staff reviewed the proposed PUD rezone on the subject property based on the then applicable 2016 AUIR Inventory Report. The Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) submitted in the application indicates that the proposed new residential development will generate approximately 50 PM peak hour two-way trips. The proposed development will impact the following roadway segments with the listed capacities: MAC RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 7 of 20 t Roadway Link 2016 AUIR Current Peak Hour 2016 Remaining Existing LOS Peak Direction Service Capacity Volume/Peak Direction Radio Road Davis Boulevard B 1,800/West 1,135 to Santa Barbara z Davis Radio Road to B 2,900/East 2,210 Boulevard Santa Barbara Davis Radio Road to 8 2,900/East 1,737 Boulevard Collier Boulevard 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 GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the CCME. In accordance with CCME Policy 6.1.1, a minimum of 1.30 acres of native vegetation are required to be retained for the PUD. STAFF ANALYSIS: 4' Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13 B.5.,Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 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 these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading"Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analysis: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. Native habitats on site consist solely of hydric pine flatwoods with approximately 8.64 acres of native vegetation currently on site. A minimum of 1.30 acres (.15 x 8.64) of native vegetation are required to be retained for the PUD. The location of the preserve along the rear of the property will align with preserve to the east within the Triad PUD. This project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC), since it does not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews identified in Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. MAC RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 8 of 20 i 1 i , 1 Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition request, the PUD document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues and is 5 recommending approval. Staff has also reviewed the revised bus stop commitment in r Exhibit F,Transportation item B, and is recommending approval. i Utility Review: The Utilities Department staff has reviewed the petition. The project lies within the water service area and the south wastewater service area of the Collier County I Water-Sewer District. Water and wastewater service is readily available via existing infrastructure along the project's frontages on Palm Springs Boulevard and Radio Lane. Downstream wastewater system capacity must be confirmed at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP) or Plans and Plat (PPL) permit review and will be discussed at M a mandatory pre-submittal conference with representatives from the Public Utilities 1 Engineering and Project Management Division and the Growth Management Development Review Division. Any improvements to the Collier County Water-Sewer District's wastewater transmission system necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the 1 r 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. R a Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) District Review: CCPS staff has reviewed the z petition and has concluded that there is sufficient capacity for the proposed development within the elementary and middle school concurrency service areas and within an adjacent high school concurrency area. This finding is for planning and informational 1 purposes only and does not constitute either a determination of capacity or concurrency ii for the proposed project. At the time of SDP or PPL review, the development will be reviewed for concurrency. This is to ensure that there is capacity either within the concurrency service area that this development is located in or within adjacent concurrency service areas such that the level of service standards are not exceeded. i Zoning and Land Development Review: As previously stated, this PUD Rezone petition { will change the land uses from the currently approved 86 multi-family dwelling units to Y 44 single-family dwelling units. The proposed building heights will remain the same as the previously approved height of 35 feet. Access to the subject site remains the same and will be from Palm Springs Boulevard. The subject site is surrounded by Commercial zoning to the south and to the west. To the E south, the applicant is providing the Code-prescribed, 15-foot wide Type D Landscape 5' E buffer along Radio Lane. Across Radio Lane is a vacant Commercial site and a Circle K gasoline station and convenience store. To the west, is a 30-foot wide drainage easement and then the Bowland Woodside Bowling Alley. The applicant is seeking a deviation to 5 provide a 10-foot wide, Type B Landscape buffer instead of the Code-prescribed, 15- foot wide buffer. € I The 6-foot high wall, fence or hedge required by the Type B Landscape buffer will aid in 5 screening and buffering the adjacent bowling alley. Along the northern property line is a MAC RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 9 of 20 i i i if I preserve area varying in width from 60-180 feet that provides separation and buffering between the proposed single-family homes and the existing single-family homes along the northern property boundary. To the east, across Palm Springs Boulevard, is a similar development to the MAC RPUD called Triad RPUD, which also proposes 44 single- 4 family homes with similar development standards as the MAC RPUD. I REZONE FINDINGS: 1 i 1 LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report k and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." Additionally, Section 1 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below: Rezone findings are designated as RZ and PUD findings are designated as PUD. Staffs responses to these criteria are provided below in non-bold font. 1 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and 1 policies and future land use map and the elements of the GMP. The Comprehensive Planning Section has indicated that the proposed PUD Rezone is consistent with all applicable elements of the FLUE of the GMP. i 2. The existing land use pattern. i As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report (page 5) and discussed in the zoning review analysis,the neighborhood's existing land use pattern can be characterized as residential and commercial lands. The residential land uses proposed in this PUD petition should not create incompatibility issues. 1 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby 1 districts. Commercial and single-family zoning districts surround the subject site. The proposed conversion of multi-family to single-family will not create an isolated, unrelated, zoning district. i 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. i The district boundaries are logically drawn as discussed in Items 2 and 3 above. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. MAC RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 10 of 20 The proposed change is not necessary, but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes, because the petitioner wishes to develop single- family residences instead of multi-family residences. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change from multi-family residential to single-family residential will reduce the overall density and intensity of land uses allowed by the current PUD. Therefore, the proposed change will not 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 PUD ordinance. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed development will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore, the project is subject to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed change will not seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. • Staff is of the opinion this PUD Rezone will not adversely impact property values. Zoning by itself however may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market demand. 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 property surrounding the subject site is developed. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the LDC is that their sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence MAC RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 11 of 20 ti to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an ti individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The proposed development will comply with the GMP,which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship, because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be developed within existing multi-family residential PUD zoning. The surrounding single-family residential land uses would suggest, however that the rezoning to single-family residential PUD is more compatible and in character with the surrounding single-family residential land uses. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD Rezone is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or county. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the county that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC. Staff does not 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 PUD document would require site alteration and these sites will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during 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 GMP and as MAC RPUD,PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 12 of 20 defined and implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance. The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding fi Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by County staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and that staff has concluded that the developer has provided appropriate commitments so that the impacts on the Level of Service will be minimized. 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. ff To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is seeking approval of five deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are listed in PUD Exhibit E. The petitioner's justification and staff analysis/recommendation is outlined below. Proposed Deviation#1 The petitioner seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N, "Street System Requirements," which requires a minimum, local street right-of-way width of 60 feet to allow for a 50-foot right-of-way minimum width for the private streets. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the new deviation: Minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet is requested for local streets within the MAC RPUD. This deviation is justified because of the size and the small-scale neighborhood character of this project. A 50 foot right-of-way for a residential street can successfully facilitate movement of the vehicular, pedestrian and bike traffic while accommodating all utility and drainage needs. The 50 foot right-of-way accomplishes traffic calming to provide a safer transportation system within the neighborhood. This deviation is commonly approved and has been effectively implemented in numerous residential PUDs throughout the County. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, MAC RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 13 of 20 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 Petitioner seeks relief from LDC Section 6.46.01.N, "Street System Requirements," which requires that streets shall be classified by the cross-sections contained in Appendix B (6), to allow for an inverted roadway design, as depicted in Exhibit C. Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the new deviation: The proposed inverted roadway design will not only allow for more efficient drainage of the neighborhood streets but will also provide immediate construction cost savings from not having to provide outside curbing. Moreover, this design requires fewer structures, connections, and drainage inlets that need ongoing maintenance, thus reducing long term costs for the HOA. A 3-foot wide, concrete valley gutter will be utilized to increase revetment durability and reduce long term maintenance concerns. The design of the roadway will still maintain a low point above the 25 year flood elevation. The reduced construction costs associated with this roadway design will allow for greater housing affordability, as the cost savings will be reflected in home prices. Furthermore, the reduced maintenance cost will also provide affordability benefits to the residents. The inverted crown design has been and continues to be used in numerous communities throughout Florida, it is consistent with engineering best practices and does not pose any concern from a public health and safety standpoint. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees a detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved, as the proposed deviation is a reduction in engineering standard from the current Land Development Code crowned roadway design requirement in Appendix B—Typical Street Sections for a Local Street. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends DENIAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has not 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 not 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 Petitioner seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5, "On-Premises Directional Signs," which requires on-premises directional signs to be setback a minimum of 10 feet from edge of roadway,paved surface or back of curb,to allow a minimum setback of 5 feet from the edge of private roadway/drive aisle. MAC RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 14 of 20 i 1 i i i Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the new deviation: This deviation will allow locational flexibility for directional signage internal to the RPUD. A unified design theme will be utilized for all signage throughout the 1 community, thereby ensuring a cohesive appearance and increased aesthetic appeal. IAll directional signage will meet the Clear Sight Distance requirements in accordance with LDC Section 60.06.05. i i Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated. v i I Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this t 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." i I Proposed Deviation#4 R i Petitioner seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C, Table 2.4, which requires a 15-foot wide, Type B Landscape buffer when Single-Family Residential Zoning abuts Commercial 1 Zoning, to allow for a 10-foot wide Landscape buffer with Type B plantings along the existing public utility easement. I Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the new deviation: 7 The western boundary of the property abuts a 30 foot wide, public utility easement, which in [and of] itself provides significant spatial buffering from the adjacent property. The plantings for Type B buffering will occupy approximately 7-8 feet. Any loss of open space within the buffer will be mitigated by the presence of the 30 foot public utility easement. The combination of a 10' buffer with Type B plantings and the abutting easement will meet or exceed the intent of the code by providing ample separation and screening. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has s 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." MAC RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 15 of 20 1 i 1 I i Proposed Deviation#5 The petitioner seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.1 which requires that sidewalks be constructed on both sides of public and private rights-of-way (ROW), to allow for sidewalks 1 on one side of the ROW for roadway stubs where indicated on the Master Plan. z i Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states that the following in support of the new z deviation: i i The portions of roadway associated with this deviation and identified on the Master t Plan abut the side yard of only one lot, whose front yard is serviced by the sidewalk along the intersecting roadway. The proposed sidewalk configuration meets the 1 intent of the code by providing safe pedestrian access to all lots. Other than the identified stub-out locations, the proposed sidewalk network meets the requirement of providing sidewalks on both sides of the road and ensures that all homes are provided pedestrian access and fully interconnected to one another. The proposed deviation will not affect public health and safety, nor is it contrary to the intent t behind the sidewalk requirements. t 5 Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated. 1 C Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has i 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 G has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at 1 least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." PUD FINDINGS: f LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the w Planning Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria:" 3 i 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 nearby area is developed or is approved for development of a similar nature. The petitioner will be required to comply with all County regulations regarding drainage, sewer,water, and other utilities. 1' 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed i agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the i MAC RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 i Page 16 of 20 3 i I s continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be t provided or maintained at public expense. 1 Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property and roadway access to the 1 subject site. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or site development plan approval. These processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP. { 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering 1 and screening requirements. As described in the Staff Analysis Section of this staff report (page 5), staff is of the opinion that the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area. I i 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. , i The 60% open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the g LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. u P; 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 Plat), at which time, a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project's a 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. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate . expansion. . MAC RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 17 of 20 3 i {p2 The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal systems and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. t 1 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such I 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 1 application of such regulations. t This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that 1 would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. x I The petitioner is seeking five deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with 1 the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06 z A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards I and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes that the four of 5 the five deviations proposed can be supported, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that"the elements may be waived a without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and 1 LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h., the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviations are ft "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application f of such regulations." 1 Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report for a more extensive I examination of the deviations(page 13). 1 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): ft E 5 The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on April 6, 2017. The neighbors in attendance spoke of their desire for the developer provide an off-site fence/wall that was a commitment in the current PUD Ordinance. For further information,please see Exhibit D: Neighborhood Information Meeting Notes and Exhibit E: Fence Location. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office has reviewed the staff report for Petition PUDA- PL20160002565,MAC RPUD,revised on May 15, 2017. Ft. f RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission, acting as the local planning agency and the Environmental Advisory MAC RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 18 of 20 kZti Council, forward Petition PUDR-PL20160002565, MAC PUD, to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to the denial of Deviation#2. Attachments: Exhibit A: Proposed PUD Ordinance Exhibit B: Ordinance Number 05-50 Exhibit C: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review Exhibit D: Neighborhood Information Meeting Notes Exhibit E: Fence Location tS p[F� {E4 { MAC RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 19 of 20 PREPARED BY: tiA(14(4EA, 13aW201-7 NANCY GA D . CH,AICP,PLA DATE PRINCIPArt LANNER ZONING D SION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: -7:1: 72.et RAYMD . BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING IVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION APPROVED BY: I 1� 44."r-11*-t.a-- �]'-/ 7 f S FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT j i i f 1 MAC RPUD, PUDR-PL20160002565 May 22,2017 Page 20 of 20 BrownleeMichael Subject: Meet w/Chris Hagen re: rezonings in East Naples Location: DFs Office Start: Thu 2/11/2016 2:30 PM End: Thu 2/11/2016 3:00 PM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: FialaDonna Confirmed 2/10 2:30pm (VM) Hagan Engineering 1250 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 203B Naples, FL 34102 (t) 239-228-7742 (c) 239-851-8239 As a follow up to our phone call the three new projects I would like to discuss with the Commissioner include the following: 1. County Barn Road 5 acre residential rezone property ID#00406600509 2. Triad RPUD—parcel ID number 65720320005 zoning amendment 3. MAC Builders PUD—parcel ID number 65720040000 rezone 1 ( NOTE'. THIS SITE PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND INTEDED FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.THE i OVERALL CONFIGURATION,DENSITY AND/OR INTENSITY DEPICTED MAY CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY BASED UPON SURVEY, ENGINEERING,ENVIRONMENTAL AND/OR REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS. NOTE. BUILDING FOOTPRINTS ARE FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY. ®OPEN SPACE-RESIDENTIAL 2.28±AC. L I OPEN SPACE-R.O.W. 0.47±AC. ek:.. OPEN SPACE-BUFFER/OTHER 1.71*AC. I♦OPEN SPACE-PRESERVE 1.31±AC. DETENTION/RETENTION 0.18±AC. MIMI'_ LAKE 0.69±AC. . POTENTIAL BUILDING ROAD/CURB/WALKS FOOTPRINT 1.09±AC. TOTAL SITE 10.76 AC. tQ 0.i:0 3 e Ry9 OPEN SPACE-RESIDENTIAL 2.28*AC. OPEN SPACE-RO.W. 0.47*AC. _ \ OPEN SPACE-OTHER 1.71t AC. OPEN SPACE-PRESERVE 1.31*AC. _Ii �� - _ / -___ LATE 0.18±AC. o 7. I -- DETENTION/RETENTION 0.18*AC. TOTAL PROVIDED 6.64 AC. y TOTAL REQUIRED 6.46 AC. (60%OF TOTAL SITE) 0 T 0 ,---r- -T T _I-. r 63 z3 o co- I II—_- - - - - .------ ----------- . - -- r--W ::t: : !l5f1 3 O O OO R MF-8 Os z , , z 3 ,6 3 3 5 s e //X---- 0 0 0 0 0 O O O It RMF-12Q) SITE ruccar3r v,4t3.333„V f LOCATION r > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 © / Or,'; 4111 ' I I I [ PROJECTPUD )] . LOCATION I s 1 I I I RPUD .,., RPUD , c 3 2 O .3.10 Rp „ . —ill 0 N0 2 3 . 3 . RADIO LANE C-3 L RPUD PUD Location Map Zoning Map Petition Number: PL-2016-2564 AREA ANALYSIS OF MAC AND TRIAD ERP AND PUD PERMIT APPLICATIONS COLLIER COUNTY PROPER IT APPRAI 'MrTOTALS PERCENTS PROPERTY PROPERTY WEST SIDE AC EST. EAST SIDE AC EST. 657200400 10 76 657203200,5 -.10.75 21.51 ERP PLANS MAY 2017 WEST SIDE AC EST. EAST SIDE AC EST. 657200400 10.75 6572032005 10.75 21.5 IN-BASIN 8.64 IN-BASIN 10.16 18.8 OUT-BASIN 2.11 OUT-BASIN 0.59 2.7 TOTAL 10.75 TOTAL 10.75 21.5 IN-BASIN BREAKDOWN LAKE 0.79 LAKE 0.78 TOTAL BUILDING 2.39 TOTAL BUILDING 2.4 4.79 TOTAL PAVEMENT 1.73 TOTAL PAVEMENT 1.72 3.45 WATER MGT 0.17 WATER MGT 0.14 PRESERVE 0 1.4 1.4 TOTAL OPEN/PERVIOUS 3.56 TOTAL OPEN/PERVIOUS 3.72 TOTAL: 8.64 TOTAL: 10.16 18.8 OUTSIDE-BASIN BREAKDOWN PRESERVE AREA 1.3 PRESERVE AREA 0 1.3 BACKSIDE OF BERM 0.81 BACKSIDE OF BERM 0.S9 1.4 TOTAL: 2.11 TOTAL: 0.59 11.86 55.2% MAC(WEST SIDE)BREAKDOWN TRIAD(EAST SIDE)BREAKDOWN LAKE 0.69 LAKE 0.62 POTENTIAL BLDG FP 3.03 POTENTIAL BLDG FP 3.08 6.11 PAVEMENT/WALKS 1.09 PAVEMENT/WALKS 1.07 2.16 WATER MGT 0.18 WATER MGT 0.17 OPEN SPACE: OPEN SPACE: RESIDENTIAL 2.28 RESIDENTIAL 2.28 4.56 R.O.W. 0.47 R.O.W. 0.47 0.94 BUFFER/OTHER 1.71 BUFFER/OTHER 1.61 3.32 PRESERVE 1.31 PRESERVE 1.45 2.76 SUB-TOTALO/S: 5.77 SUB-TOTALO/S: 5.81 13.24 61.6% 10.76 10.75 21.51 FE HAGAN Douglas A. Lewis June 12, 2017 Thompson Lewis Counselors at Law 850 Park Shore Drive, Suite 201-A Naples, FL 34103 Re: MAC and Triad RPUD and ERP Applications Review Updated Engineer's Report Dear Mr. Lewis, This letter is submitted to provide a brief review of the pending Collier County zoning applications and South Florida Water Management District(SFWMD) Environmental Resource Permit(ERP) application for the referenced projects. This is done consistent with our previous correspondence and May 25, 2017 agreement. This report is submitted to outline my findings from the review of the applications noted above that are available on line. We have also had a site visit,received photos, and held discussions with you and the adjoining neighbors. Consistent with the agreement we have addressed open space, drainage, access, and utility issues below: 1. Open Space Calculations Attached please find a PDF of the Area Analysis for the zoning and ERP applications. You will note that the ERP,which is a more detailed set of plans, shows a 55.2%open space versus the County calculations that show 61.6%open space. This is above the County zoning minimum of 60%on both independent and combined plans. The big difference between the ERP and zoning plans is in the open space/pervious area. The acreage goes from 11.86 for the ERP to 13.24 acres for the zoning applications. The ERP application shows a smaller open space pervious area. The preserve numbers match up well. The pavement area is also larger for the ERP application than the zoning applications. The spreadsheet has highlighted the items in blue that are lake or water management and in green that are open space. The yellows are the cumulative numbers that calculate out the percentages. The SFWMD review of the ERP application also found that the storage capacity in the water management area maybe exaggerating flood capacity. This could require a further increase in water management area. 2. Drainage • The proposed land use breakdown only allows approximately 9%of the site for stormwater management. This is well below the typical industry standards of 15%percent for a dense single family project. The smaller than average water management facilities onsite will result in the need for additional fill. 1250 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 203B Naples, Florida 34102 239-228-7742 Chris@HaganEng.com • The preserve is bisected with a discharge swale and should be left outside of the water management area. The County may not accept the preserve with a drainage easement through the middle like this. • County and SFWMD drainage rules will require a reduced discharge from the site of 0.15cfs/acre. This should help with any overburdened outfall ditches. • A floodplain analysis was done to show that regional floodplain issues are not adversely impacted by the proposed development. The SFWMD is still reviewing this. • Inverted crown roadways proposed for the project should be efficient in directing stormwater internally and reducing costs. This also supports the higher density proposed. • Palm Springs Blvd. roadside drainage swales are inconsistent at the south end. The developer should bring Palm Springs Blvd. up to current code including improved drainage swales. ERP cross sections show 3:1 slopes within the County's right of way which may not be acceptable. The swales will also need to be improved not only offsite, but onsite to maintain flow consistent with the resident's photos noting flooding in these areas. • Existing outfall drainage system for the subdivision to the north includes swales on the east and west side of the subdivision along with an interconnection of roadside swales and ditches down to a lake and discharging out into I-75. Review of these swales (photos in link) find that they do not meet County minimum standards and do not appear to have been regularly maintained. Some of the single family homeowners have built intrusions into the swales that impact the flow. As the County is to maintain these. A stipulation of the approval should include rehabilitation of the swales from the County and/or developer. • The developer's proposed interconnection of the drainage systems under the roadway show that the projects should be processed as a single application. This interconnection will cause conflicts with the utilities and require a County right of way permit. • Perimeter berm elevations around the new project are proposed at elevation 12.3 NAVD. The expected flood waters get high above the edge of pavement of the existing roadway. Roadside swales in these areas it may be 3 to 1 or greater not allowing them to be sodded, but be used in native ground cover. This may not be acceptable in the right of way and need to be addressed during the County right of way permitting. The ERP should be consistent with these requirements and the flow way should be reestablished along both sides of Palm Springs Boulevard. • The elevation differential may require that the reconstruction of Palm Springs Boulevard be elevated also to prevent discharge from the subdivisions. • The developer proposes inverted crown roadways internally. This is an exception to the LDC and is inconsistent with any County owned, operated, and maintained roadways to our knowledge. This design has 1250 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 203B Naples, Florida 34102 239-228-7742 Chris@HaganEng.com some inherent challenges that need to be accommodated so that roadway maintenance is improved. • The fact that the site is going to have to be elevated above the existing roadway with side yards directly abutting the roadway will result in a negative visual impact. The request to reduce the perimeter buffer type should not be accepted, but should include a 6 or 8 foot tall concrete block wall to provide additional screening. Homes are going to be set close together it is possible that side yard equipment and would be readily seen from Palm Springs Boulevard. • The ERP shows retaining walls will be used in some areas to segregate the preserve from the water management facilities and may also be required to flatten out slopes as things are more detailed along Palm Springs Boulevard and/or coordinated into a perimeter wall for visual purposes. 3. Utilities • Utility provisions should be made to accommodate the project with connections to the existing utilities on Palm Springs Boulevard. • Looped water distribution system will benefit the community with better fire protection and water quality. • The sanitary sewer system will need to have two onsite pump stations to accommodate the centralized sewage collection. • A sewage force main connection will be required on Palm Spring Boulevard. • A regional pump station network analysis will need to be done to make sure that the existing pumps remain online when the new pump(s) are added. • The County's utility services should be more than adequate to accept the proposed development. • The interconnect between the two projects will cross County water and force main lines requiring air release valves (ARVs). These ARVs should be hidden in the perimeter buffer landscaping to protect them so they will not be an eyesore. 4. Access/Traffic • The Traffic Impact Statement shows only the single project. As this project is being processed with both applications. Cumulative impacts should be analyzed and distribution should be handled accordingly. Request for combined Traffic Impact Statement was not provided or addressed. These should be considered together as a single application for traffic impact analysis and turn lane requirements. • The Traffic Impact Statement for the project does not address the necessary improvements that may be required on Palm Springs Boulevard and/or the Radio Lane to accommodate turning movements. 1250 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 203B Naples, Florida 34102 239-228-7742 Chris@HaganEng.com • Alignment of the driveways between the MAC and Triad project will require coordination to prevent awkward driving motions. • The elimination of sidewalks and bike lanes in these neighborhood though will put people in the road right of way. The internal roadways are proposed with an inverted crown. This means that the middle of the road will have water in it during rainfall events. This puts pedestrians walking on the apron, which could be a hazard. • The tie in of the project inverted crown roads with the existing Palm Springs Boulevard will result in some grading challenges at the project entries. This will be exacerbated by needing to maintain the perimeter berm for the stormwater management requirements. The new roadway may need to be considerably higher than the existing roadway. • The swale along Palm Springs Boulevard will need to be maintained outside of the turning radii for traffic safety. Below is the link to recent site photos: https://app.box.com/s/5bwxbg5tgb547fkObn4vxlct2h5mnhwO I believe this provides an outline of the open space, drainage, utility, and traffic issues associated with the referenced application. These projects need to be considered together as the impacts of both need to be considered as one. Please look this over and let me know if you have any comments, questions, or require any additional information regarding this. Sincerely, Awl Chris Hagan 1250 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 203B Naples, Florida 34102 239-228-7742 Chris@HaganEng.com HADLEY PLACE WEST WA PLAT BOOK PAGE SHEET 1 OF 2 A REPLAT OF ALL OF BLOCKS 1,3 AND 5 AND ENGINEERING A,..5..+ns.w..Ie, DECARONSmESERYARONS .erd.[,e..,e., THAT PART OF VACATED CALLE DEL RAY P,ANE� 3.32 m°.aa o[n 1,... ..t„........,,,,,,.......__"—"°. PALM SPRINGS PLAZA,UNIT NO.1FLoRIwD„ [ on,ax. . n a SN Urnz--n[Ma....VI-- PLAT BOOK 8,PAGE 21 a s o m a e< . e a .1f1"',. SECTION 34,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST ar.As REOOROED iN,Te.RAP,, EORe,,S HE OPNc,AL COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA EPICRN OF THE SUBDIVIDED[ANDS HEREIN AND WALL IN NO v [r.`[M[re s o[enm n[Isar(.Mo c.w..,c,e.u[...No c.u.[.)Anti IesvarrsiN,m CIRCUMSTANCES BE SUPPLANTED IryBY ANY Dns fo.c)rvn stonw,[n xNwc<.[rrt PonPouz rm,IrtzPoxsmxm ron xNxrtxwc[. DIGITAL R E PLAT. MAY BE usvins 0.zz 1 mm.,srwvanr ran w,xrtrwc[. RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE NOT RECORDED ON THIS FLATT THAT MAY BE vrs�,.Y.E)wn..EVCxv.,nY rw,wNIENucC FOUND IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF THE COUNTY e onrn.T,n,,IA.n''''°"'xauow nm"'"'" y J fI ��,,��,�]� COUNTY APPROVALS' Aeem ron ® -.1 o^ II �. • - VT: .1 a COUNTY ENGINEERx[«,a wu[n cauxn. .,,rvr,T NWT.T m z,..,,. .A,rn=oar FF.L'ufgo.5310no=a5n= ,an=<..— [—a.c NQ \-,fief"": .ii ili �� rano rs -:„1"--_ _.""-T".„. To coL co coutcy V ti,,,, , .xaI[m�R+[�w�Ex[ N, �mA»x.[7a VInoUa, VNm SEPxx raN�,m TD,»[usix[x,s z»m,n xexea+n,no�T msasnua TA .14 n. .,a.NNvs[ws[.vrrs m.E)u s.oxx n[n[a A,nw,n.[sPoxv,u,Y ran N+m[Nwa. p I!tamp,I COUNTY SURVEYOR M�M 9T M�N rs xr�M o�am nE�a ge axaRN� ,n ;'''7 1 I ^i T.'H,, p,,ANN "c..a.,N"an mrs—aY c court To wu[n caxa wa[n-s[.[n Nsmn. 1� ,_•\� '.. ��I 3 i mum L...„,...,,,,,.e '. :, )`o`::�ihln"„u.[.I r Naon Ili • ,I'—-- lam .s - 116'll r iIIIG,/t ''t SIUI -II COUNTY ATTORNEY . nam sx m n n[aN.e onnn[ as , n a PROJECT LOCATION a=p,T.wa. "`"`"""',Tmn''a_aY _ woia." s,s<,rwno m�,'?'1T ANT Ta saNc ° .Ty"r,�Isa T «,,^r�;a"a.-,`p tcc nc+ Far.�„T[a Tn[ ACKNOWLEDGMENT Asvn..r,colmr Ammer ' t=';R.«v mn[n: VI°.'`[15«[s°YsRn`,17A„:1,,ox,4°Aalc. or anwmPo ,T.w.. "'"'[v.rus V[T." c '" ! tE = a=7,51roa*tug , Oxon[..aa caP,..aIF'F"[r:LF'C S.TFa ma F.if3 e.Tn[r:o,.4 s[Bw mx.Ss""wxn Uv s ololc:A RUNG RECORD nACATED a .T. m r.Zo ,wa..",n[s,P.,s,ms T..s..o,tis a mu,n mmmOATS aaxa.'''•"``onE I,u emn a um ,my) Ano 5 Cwsrs a.N...xx.e. .moms nx[ vMswN P,ss.D[.T.an,.m,dt .- �• ..an oiz'':re'v,fo i"PD ca I,c.1 gc Gct.00 3L,,,,,,.,..., 0 _ NOTES'. fa Aa,, ERTIFIcATD aixaN.f:siENx 'E:Zi sum.EYORsrew,.c«P,..o,.,T.[n,f.:, Nn xx[x,s. a.1.,,ff k �o�:�.� ,w.s.IP ,s [ ze usT [errs Z3 75cfn n[mnos a caV[n mw.aanvw 4`1=1.07r'''''' F.a .wBNc a„ „. HADLEY PLACE WESTnw IPLAT BOOK PAGE SHEET 2 OF 2 A REPLAT OF ALL OF BLOCKS 1,3 AND 5 AND ENGINLLOW NEEE JNDRIVE`u TE 200 THAT PART OF VACATED CALLE DEL RAY NAPLES , ORIDA�'o „ PALM SPRINGS PLAZA,UNIT NO.1 `°P1°°CERTIFICATE OF;,om , ,. "tEs,RMEsp,s PLAT BOOK 8,PAGE 21 SECTION 34,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA 000,1 501 n GC .a "evJe aJ�Jw.m , t a 4 rwuurytlON '.. U 25 50 tl : f (w w%'oE g a Pr O :R . , 54,21.5.21 .t b P.uE�sev"eav aJt t n ss.v 50 10 m.io �ev .ta• .3 me m.v m.,9 �xPACr [. "' I . 8 >'' tm.m'e m�xs 8 J aJY`Jmm 5•21•571 20.20. f .8 $ 8 d 8 8 P5 • a PO PUT 0001, ��*`_'a_�� $mte$8m,9gg ;`'°d ge" gem.�ga ,d a ,..T.;», 12' 1 N Ovm M R i• ` u.x u Nwv'd 301 OW : 9 y : 11.`°- ua �J},y• Aff N�41..N1 5910 sy.ta I- t 4 x 8 n il_ `I e rt s T w • _PERMANENT// w nwco rnu to M f f ft-.o �g f xA • PERMANENT corm°,POW e ,. ro t $ ser row g '8 xe n a a ^$ m p$ r 8.: B 8 8 e .FOUND ML rn"mono rote a wu 8 8 -8 `8 `8 8 C17 20.75. 25.00.a1,11•53. M131•01•241 xose gFx ''.1 e aE na$ $ g' g` a, $ `m rax $a teem g J i .J ' l-" `.t J 8 d.m .aJ.• "..xtsxt t.® C T i t_� ,'' 1�td -! o_ r s.lm a�,d.d. 2_,.a. i 8 e f " 74P q xs 8 8W a"--4n $ 8 $ 'S 8 8e F8 "8 r 8 m _8 ago s g- g $-o 0' x g- g- g $,°301:;: J.�xe V.—Js.ra- SO ta so io Ji-.71-v' m.ld moo $g m n oEi W.'_ 10..1.E _39.ts __m.0 Tm,.' ,,...;_,..• 10,1,7 39.t25J'"'- t. s e '$ S's m C.$ %s ?aa =8 . I is �$ •C$ ^8 to t u mos..., Cou $8 -8 8. 8- S 8 8 8 8 _'e8 -r- Tr 1.od-7-f o mdt,t".wa:a ca* ffm >.. ou.. L J seE �7w -Ce �a,:. �°`p« uc a,"e WEST .eos.t>ti—�" HADLEY PLACE EAST DWA PLAT BOOK PAGE -'�` SHEET 1 OF 2 A REPLAT OF ALL OF BLOCKS 2,4 AND 6 AND THA PART OF ,,,orv,ENGINEEE NGRTEBOD O R BER AADN VACATED CALLE DEL RAY NONE IN NAPLES FLORIDA;,o sD,a.r. O x Or PALM SPRINGS PLAZA,UNIT NO.I TLOR TMMC„ ,EEYRE.P.M(.GEITIFIGATE Of p. O ILL TM FM us I-WoOSSJ. 7HENEM..«n or .`"°s DEF'AHD xEMN.we" PLAT BOOK 8,PAGE 21 A. M DEDICATE TO ME ANEY ARE xONLORNE,r CATION.,TIE.: SECTION 34,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST, NOTICE.THIS PLAT AS ED IN B GRAPHIC FORM IS ME OFFICIAL (R.D.n.)(KANDY STREET LAM xrsw SIRES. DEPICTION of MEOS�UBDMDED LANDS RERETN PND WILL IN NO ria .—,NORT-DUPNNED.REO.Inn.DF..AF..I.E.PDE.NN CUE)won COWER COUNTY,FLORIDA TI TANCES BE SUBDIVSUPPLIDED L IN T O ANY OTHER z EASEMMz R.F.)FOR nowNATER wnRrmENT PWRRS wax RswNieun FOR CIRCUMSTANCES OR DIGITAL FORM OF THE AUTHORITY MERE MAY BE 3. AL LANDscARE BuFFER Ms(LSE,RTN REmoxanun FCA wMFxxxaE. THAT ADDITIONAL RESTgCTONS THAT ARE NOT RECORDED ON THIS PUT _ MAY BE FOUND IN ME PUBLIC RECORDS OF ME COUNTY. 4. AL VAL ITANTDVACE xrs IL AL MN R[ MFwNCE. 5. AL AMISS Ms(Ac.)Rm,cswsaENY FOR IwMEMNOE uu T ',RIVE TT TER RPosrs xnuRxc roNNUTNx.WD Y APPROVALS: COUNTY ® ,I-._ . erl OUNT EL MUTE TO mLEw u n'En m mr Re.. . . . ,nv uNNrzxNAc E' -( 0. Ori ^ COENGINEER ' No DT^ o-"mII'i-� -�� rEDRDr,FOD M.a< IN,,.AD M a[D,I,ER caxn. NR.00T M�BAIN FOR MMM DU,Fa,NO DNN xFRF I,`A . a �/ N.omfROF[AgxEM,(DE)M NNMENAM y, ;,a � JACK 0[D RRIE To m L R woolly g(R a� SHORN HEREON MND RE D STIR FOR T1 A• Z ie ?lei,: 1�I.1 co,.cam.,FlAN.ER F �Rlg PO RMw ANi ■r L i It ' ■ M "a AY,[, �: Pil°N=(;)", 7I' I , �pvu REN SURVEYOR COWAN Merry.NS DF.OF N_SENM(e,` n tIII ��' �, 1, D,,.Ao°� — roN µ,� »M,[w,rR, nFvroR M; g- _ wL0E,0eoRwx, ,m. tmr "(;P:a.1 DrRR DPDN mak,-:!m_ 4iI rI aN�0.00o,MMMan CCEP,N,«OF TM MINIMS.DrNxsms AND/OR PRORENENTS MOORED.,,HE Pur. II lithTi a•Hn6 Ger 311.1 R 111 D. DFDRAT TO mEER coup,Ws FAvool<..IND,NE GREATER m.„5 TINE R[scNE NSTRR. COUNT/ATTORNEY M NDO,NFn,FRF a^: n"maINF w 'raw w M ND PROJECT LOCATION O TN p AD ,DER CORM,ATTORNEY INS_wM NOT NT SEAT E. DENTATE TO EC MIMED Ofi MANORS.PLAGE o.PINNATE TANSIES: Xad.".ND mFwTNN O< ,,, RF.4= llaGlA'N'Oace ATaM COUNTY COMMISSION APPROVAL DESCRIPTION WITNESS MALMYRON PRESIDENT,Dn.HOCEv, FLING RECORD PRINTED IMF !OMAN..PENTECOST TriartZ.=name' NM_my or 20 17.No.Am okirTralya:/"I,LAT ortoess wow PRINTED NINE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIRO AA ra,EN.r.o=1R NOTES: SURVEYORS CERTFICATP I AL ONENSIONS ARE II FEET ma[RCM PART5 THEREOF. 701,..FOREGOING ccNP.vT.IND S rt '•^ xant[wED e[rDM CD cN 9[wu a FOE R v'ii'`u a L7NZExD Sc I[y) 711, AFI U [`rcc"iF,',[ d .1}1-1E SIdeJECI FARM rN sem) n�MxNW[EWeuc=WANE ^,Ns rnw n u wmix ME ,.OPLID INCE n I.AS N,rxDED. xc. ('' a,I[R[aHD nNMEUEMR DImERs wx,x ./�.w� ' ww.x oNI SET roman r0 R###' /1 .. wRrF MIVO.IMARD w swurml ---eaax 00 -"c..mNRsmn(unR� RFmnm ar cawER mMnr.aDREA NW.J.WM.PSN.LS/e)b DATE \� Aw PLAT BOOK PAGE HADLEY PLACE EAST yNGINEE_ING SHEET 2 OF 2 ENGINEERING SUITE A REPEAT OF ALL OF BLOCKS 2,4 AND 6 AND THAT PART OF 5010 WILION INPLES FLOP,.34.100 VACATED CALLE DEL RAY soNsra F,O.CER.ONE TION0 isegz PALM SPRINGS PLAZA,UNIT NO.1 "",x0=x.'.E,x'ESP5,,2,s2'02 PLAT BOOK 8,PAGE 21 SECTION 34,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA P Clliter TABLE a'!. - n x0.m.,v b=..: INISF01NW: ,m „., =2ar oP>:>z• x112 5,v bu ,. 115, '100 1„0.ar pa,9,'..0 510 x. 0105.,\4, s 51.05.1.11/410 Kr ,°iuo< 5010 50 IV 10.,> inl= C13 t Bi ax - a 5, ax ax } se 8Ei mn-a a c,1 = 2m 2„115. 1nmx.0 maw a ,c •..--Zxx loej-_ 3.��--T— ,��' los c=1 esW 11.1 ....... x.xS..,.0 nm' - T _glx,_I wA±P___30J2 b.l2ry31.iV 0.m_i2J2_1 N.,9'�" „ R UNE TAME m,: g " fi' �as 11.2, !i5"' 4" -5 " ' 1x10. n LK scram x \a ax w gi 00 ax ax =_ „ax x as 0.a x W f1=a ,..,0I. ,V J ,:?7-.-'"A. 1 1 ,0,0 _ ;i .A r.., I e0. L . 45, .t a" a"„'ti 7.,0185, a' 0.-s 02,1 x S. , 1105-100.0 LO Na0.03,11 30 02. '1 `31 i 0. �,0 0' 5410.1--!100.50.S g-�1a,0 j 1 :f`' .. 0 vaL2 SCOS1,5•5 NOM. a x x< FFx m `.,ad- 20,d >o,o� .0,a�, i I LIO 900,6'122 52. C. ,„2,0.5,x.0 5,,1 ~— ,1n—. I.So . __-.2.,,,,,,—..7,--I w� u -L' °81 w1x,-o,-wA. 7 - 55,:.Z.......... AnI) _$212_-41.I¢___,u,s-1_a.�o .F1y,.o. ..N�,_._m.t0___sx.u____XII-.x.>➢:_ r 2 r A s 11 2, aax $g= s = s -01 •ax s _110 2 1 P E _ L L L 4 L x011. .„,0� 0.15,0. „,0 -- 10.,0' .2.«' t 0„,0• - el �l i,5,....a, 'nos.,„'„• t 4 9 ai - SOON 1,muw.F1wa1 NOTE'. THIS SITE PIAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND INTEDED FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.THE OVERALL CONFIGURATION,DENSITY AND/OR INTENSITY DEPICTED MAY CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY BASED UPON SURVEY, ENGINEERING,ENVIRONMENTAL,AND/OR REGULATORY REQUIREMENT$. NOTE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS ARE FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY. OPEN SPACE-RESIDENTIAL 2.28/AC. I I OPEN SPACE-R.O.W. 0.47±AC. - OPEN SPACE-BUFFER/OTHER 1.613 AC. MIIM OPEN SPACE-PRESERVE 1.45/AC. DETENTION/RETENTION 0.17/AC. J 'Ilk LAKE 0.62/AC. O POTENTIAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT 3.08*AC • . EMMEN ROAD/CURB/WALKS 1.07/AC. $ TOTAL SITE 10.75 AC -5 t B OPEN SPACE-RESIDENTIAL 228*AC. ----/ / � ...�' a OPEN SPACE-R.O.W. 0.47/AC. . ,q„ • I -._.- :: _ — e al: OPENSPACE-OTHER 1.61/AC. o_;es OPEN SPACE-PRESERVE 1.45/AC. z 3 a i _ _ LAKE 0.62/AC. @ � — 7 ,, ,•ii' DETENTION/RETENTION 0.17*AC. !Ii I §, TOTAL PROVIDED 6.60 AC j8 T F, r 160%OFOTALREQUIRED TOTAL SITE) 6.45 AC. A 1.._— 1-..- I a'. § a: - -1 °4 E 8 , J i RADIO LAI 1300/102 00 _ ,a, -------mll 111 ner c ,. PH IV Shy i' PH XII OO RMF-6 C E TRACTS s s a 6 , PH XI s a 3 , z , z a 4 PUD OO © O 0 0 0 0 0 PH wrmowa �� OO C ^ t0.— TYNE CREST 1,11. RMF.19(7) SITE v 0 0 0 o c Q� 0 0 0 PROJECT '4iii �� U LOCATION 0 0 2 LOCATION Igo I I '� PH VII - 9. , / C I h 6 s a 5 , z , J , z rilL "W°' —— L RPUD "2 PUD 9 ..w< "'A° a Haio HL ', RPUD III ,^t 2 CV --1 1 III '—, RADIO LANE PPP ''''...*'''''''''....... NN.'NN:''‘.1:111'1 wiL Ki VP 0 C-4 /c PUD )=1 14.7.4 Location Map Zoning Map Petition Number: PL-2016-2565 ."." 4 , i . . ' ' I I I 4 74, - - ; , 1 ir 1 ' I 4 ' , 4.4., 1 'f::' RIPME -' 151 _ - SW E"I. • i 4 ' ' 1 ! 0 R .4. * fit 1 ' ' pfli i' t • ' ; \, • , , ,, • -,3-!;1 '.1 11;',•.,------ - .'4•1 z .. . ., .. . • 1 - PALM WRINGS WW1 EV‘120 _.. 4....:,, , ...„ . I ! r..,..-',, . ai,,,' -' , ,--4 ' ' °.'" ' ' e_ - te wo e ' , / ---,..-41-- ' . „.• ----------- ------------ .... ,,, ...,„,„_.,....„... _ —,,, ,14. ir , ..-1.4 -.7.4-1 ‘01, -e, fe, )!,„— & -. • ' , M. FM--..--77.7 i I ' it gi ,,,i1A 0 .. A, . .' -- —?"-- - ,.4f: -' 14 .,4 1,A%11==if- ',' _ ' I: 1 ;'i f ,. , -7----1 ly .4) IA ' # , # . a" 4k E Z 's -t.„..-- I ,co ,,,, r 4 i '1 .15).r'i•.:11:!,Tit:::1, 3 1,',::, IN\:r 3J1 ill' 3 ',. tri:?,,i' 1 , ,4 l'a* I • ,11 1 1 1 1 i I, , t -11 i q ' g 31:i 3' If F lii ..,,,,Z-•,- i '1-,„'-,„2-1.•.•--C--L,1.1.• 4, , , 1 r•ti!fy i ' •f; 1 ' ' f • 4$1 ?i ,I,1., •f, ,' F,,,, , f„,..!, ' A , 1,,,„_, 0 , I t-4cr ' li'44 r._:-.1.',:-..*:,-1.!.-.7.-2,4, t , - 1:-; ,, ,,gi__ ._.......1 L._7._.___r, ' ., . ._ -...!--,'-itr, es. .-....... .10. we. II p '''.•-1 ,..,-- L.,:11 .p.,to...,- : b "ll'th.-; - " ••• --t .t' vo 44)4,'"") ", 1;1 ff ,), ,1 471, 1 I 8 8 •. i'‘ .11.....j . r f:::1 .c.' ...t " , 7 - '• — , • : " •-.4...----- ....--=`, •. • 0100 1. I '. i A f 3.:3 f i , , •b I 3 j•-i '•'•-`1 i •1 it§ 3 , ` ` ,1, ' I t'•• ;,.' •-' I ' ''- :',...:-1.',,'II"''''',.1 1, ' ...,,A _ ; 1 , I e. a i a,+ ma> 4 ,lt x 41 t 0 : :3E: 1 % i ' i ' 1 i- 3 3 ',I ' .• .t,',. i.7 . rl i 1).-) .2,-47.,-,--,..-:„.. ,..J '' '' '--i,r t / ...., ' t-' ' 1 4 l't=gt r"t",,.‘',''', ti.'. `..1.'* +-T---," P. ., !! et'1 ! t"ti 1 Oi' . ' ' tt \<...::SL''a... it > ,y e` I ' ,.!i.s, e''''' .- V ;!".I.e. .0. i , ' . , ,., I ' 1 i i L'''' ' -- ,,, , ..,,,k,,,7_____ , ___ _ i 1' ' AL:—-...,, ,._-,' , . ' ,,,,,,__,...___, , ..' l' """'..*".....'''''''''... —r i ' • ' ' ,. • . •' 1 ';. 2 0 . -... A•N - L''"' 1 ', •0";,------ - - - -114 • - 4-- - .1.... 0 — 1 ; ' ' z ?).; I - ' I t. '4,1 ' i ,gi •; • , - t i• -4-4" ' :7;4: I k 14 tir I): 4... 1,. ?.... i ' . - q ....... '....• 2 ft3 ••: ., a ,-7 II t '11 P= i - 01 4 ' Pf ' 1 ''. " . , • .'- . L t i 1,,,.. ' L% F -0 .. \i , 'Ns 1 I 114RMIIINVF 0 ! ' s . fttf4t - . "" .• , Q ISi74 /1• 1111 1 ItidFil .* * 4 4 ,,,- .1. . > g t Ft- ‘.1 ? gill 'VC. a pi r.t.i. ;tqlliir 51.• .,1 ; , ;.!. ..i.f .111D 3 F, ifilvtil f. it, ;,- ...., !li ' g g ? 2 4:A ___ is) 't-e 1 i 111 ...1 .z,'§' iliiitA ,ry =0 - 0 4'.? , i P -4 w I g 44' gxig4g= k$tox.4 1 =1 w., e - t-zx' • .in41 a 3 F i k 1,6„.....g.. ..41i4 Z il ; ___/ ... ij 4 i x al $ 73 2 _�I«13+.!11, xriii a 4 i i ii 1 MI MI0 wit1 1 1 i i i g 4. o 11; I ,, I" I. s at j 'lus ! dalI- E V_ . r r. g t 1 , )- ' 1. .-- i, ?-.., le 1,,, l, ,,,,i_ 1, I _ :, '. : i :.:, 1 ;c:k---.. —. '' .11- , 3 — '''' — .-. —L—r — /, 41,::. .. _",. :, ,: ' ., 4 ' r ,,-,' ;he 1 , . !----- ,-- ,, ;.f.:--4.--s-b.': , , i t O- y ti �' p r +i3 a� Bf j. ';t3 2 r'�:I a' _ �� t t1 �. -- . K I � i c •i s t t �� l« 3D t e x is h m F i 1 y iia - a G � f� i - ' ,` ,c. • ` 1 g . [per ? --° .�."�'° s 11\< .pv v ,tet # , ._...._.. ? ,, iy{ .f 11 ,, 1 1 f a \ D y -".a._,._ {I` a i' \ 41446) s µ o $ill 0 3 .. $ `x _ --- i irs§1gia33/1 3` i ,�j : +le x � ' es.. r Q g € gill,- 1111-A ., 31 t, >2 '= . — ` 41,.rgpZ3 a h Fax C > 1 g ' Q _ a ' _ G O , — if;;;;;;i A v `ig1itig :a 1 fl ii, O - 1J/ I I I I }r.Kt.• :'''Ay'.,:.` MOM,IOti I`\\\l a e+k <i', 00:01,011",AOUNOAAV MSN Ali 't � �I .•- fi 1 IIr:::••;��y s ; i LEGEND ` 177A PROPOSED 1.1 r:•fiTLC��Y / — r ^. LITTORAL Alla L• 1, fOaMsu - w. ''s1ill IV (1x. dA.22. - 1 .....-:-..44-4r•;%lA vL bt :2 •.... FIA101tBASII F _ �1m^ ■ r� }(_ ,ti f r —.'j .s� �as BOUNDARY J I. I _ I�,. 1 k .`9u k i TIONS BASED ON NOM AMERICAN 1 .. } I I--4- n i� k 1 — --j I OM r fYro w�NwN.,s„ FROM w ? --. —1..t. l0 r' SlSi z WA MANAGEMENT SU M MARY T,, TER x Puwt Si .I'I m 1 i Io I I� b � ill'Aill 38 { kIN i • j� I J . i.—.-- �' — �'.. Ili -1 .� �L t BASIN*ABLE q. s. a... � I i �� 111 ' I WKS, �afn 11 S I I i,1 (� m I ; ��M i I w I�„ ¢ L o 2 • t, k IF 4I ' M! 1 AREA ODE CONTROLLEDDRNAGE kk le I `F CONTROLLED K'u —'{F — "' — — � — T — — — - - w .0 MM9 �j -`� ' _ W DR.NORTON,INC. HADLEY PLACE sR% lCires'vr ova — l/I01N,Lon°°m cs3�`ie .... "` MASTER SITE PLAN -- ..,, �.. ...o +. ' 13001900.00 r"03 SMI 117"-, .=n•.. .1.7' ....,..-.0 7 = I,. rillrnr.qt1BLM''it ,, Z. ifillifilII1.111111li 11! -- _ 111___111, Ingl 1111 . SECTION A-A SECTION B-B SECTION C-C al 11111111 till III alp:;11 .0, .., ----"— ,..„, .. ,_ ,..7.1,.. „........... ..... ...,.., n., .. "' ...... '''' 6:47"--• .t :":" "''''`i,' . . .......... .=., ,. -. --_7 Z...1=.7,_=.'4.414..(--_-= _2 , .,.... = -- ., ^^.- _.. _ TYPICAL SECTIONS INDEX SECTION Cl-CI SECTION C2-C2 SECTION P-P ...'.'°. " 1. , . , . . ---....- .,.. _ ,, _ -, --, r•=4.„, --• ,.,...... ' ' ' : 1 ...-r--- • _,....- • „ , • .„.... - r , , - - _ -r-i r;-.. I • - . .. .,_. ..„. ...., ..._ . -a......,- SECTION 0-13 _ -.S.....,- '....— .........,' SECTION E-E SECTION F-E ' .... ..., ...., ;''' I 11111111111111111111111,1 .7.,-.-raz — ,...„ SECTION GO SECTION IT-II '`. JRCIER,E 10-Ala.4ECTKIN SECTION I I SECTION KJ SECTION P-P PREa111,04 DETENTION SECIION am..-.., =vat 1 . .... ,......., 1 ........ SECTION K-K SECTION L-L SECTION M-M 4., • SECTION SECTION Q-g . wulKSTNX,% wrs IWA OR.HORTON,INC. PRON.C. .- ,- HADLEY PLACE ;.• ..... INGINURING ......,..,rrea.orn .....-,...• .-7,,,,, ,,,, TYPICAL SECTIONS ._ —. 'I.3Zol 9 co co r""L'OA Now 90200E.7 BrownleeMichael From: Dianna Quintanilla [DQuintanilla©cyklawfirm.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 2:33 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: Meeting Request: MAC &Triad Good afternoon, Rich, along with Wayne Everett would like to meet with Commissioner Fiala regarding the upcoming agenda item on June 27th: MAC&Triad PUD Amendments. Would the Commissioner have any time on the following dates: Monday June 19th 9:00—3:00 Tuesday June 20th 10:00—12:00; 2:30-5:00 Thursday June 22nd 3:3:0—5:00 Friday June 23rd 11:30—3:00 Thank you. Dianna Assistant Quintanilla Legal Assistant to Richard D.Yovanovich, COLEMAN Esq. `LOVANOff"'IC Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North,Suite 300 KOESTER Naples, Florida 34103 (239)435-3535 (239)435-1218 (f) 1 BrownleeMichael From: Douglas Lewis [Doug@tllfirm.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 6:13 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: Bob; Christopher Hagan; GundlachNancy Subject: FW: Triad RPUD (PL#20160002564) & MAC PUD (PL#2016-0002565) Attachments: MAC-Triad area analysis.pdf; MAC RPUD Review Report 06-12-2017.pdf; ERP Pages.pdf; CCF060617_0006.pdf; Submittal 1 05 Hadley Place W PPL Plans- Prepared.pdf; Submittal 2 08 Triad Open Space.pdf; Submittal 1 06 Plat- Prepared (Received).pdf; Submittal 1 06 PlatO - Prepared (Received).pdf; Submittal 2 09 MAC Open Space.pdf Categories: PRINTED Dear Board Members, In advance of the hearing next week, please find the attached and below for your review. I will update you on any progress between the neighbors, staff and the applicant. Best, Douglas A. Lewis THOMPSON LEWIS counselors at law m 850 Park Shore Drive Suite 201-A Naples, Florida 34103 Direct Dial Phone: (239)316-3004 General Office Phone: (239)316-3006 Facsimile: (239)307-4839 E-Mail: doug@tllfirm.com http://www.martindale.com/Douglas-A-Lewis/1419349-lawyer.htm http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/34108-fl-douglas-Iewis-1250057.htm I Licensed to practice law in Florida, Texas and Washington DC Both Douglas A. Lewis and the Thompson Lewis Law Firm, PLLC intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee(s).This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please permanently dispose of the original message and notify Douglas A. Lewis immediately at 1(239)316-3006.Thank you. Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment hereto is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, to (1) avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or(2) support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter.This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice. From: Douglas Lewis Sent:June 20, 2017 6:03 PM To: 'GundlachNancy' Cc: 'Bob' ; 'Christopher Hagan' Subject: FW:Triad RPUD (PL#20160002564) & MAC PUD (PL#2016-0002565) 1 Nancy, This will confirm that we have not heard back from the applicant regarding our neighborhood concerns raised back on May 31, 2017. In follow-up to the below May 31st submission and in advance of the BCC hearing next week, please find the attached and below for staff and applicant follow-up (hopefully, we can get these items addressed, agreed to by the parties and solved prior to the hearing) 1.Regarding drainage,the existing drainage ditches along the east and west sides of the RUPD's simply do not work (I am having pictures of the drainage problem sent to your office tomorrow).The ditches are not draining properly, and according to my client,the water has not left the ditches since June 6th. In reviewing the ERP and PPL,the East and West drainage systems are connected by pipe under Palm Springs Boulevard. a.My client respectfully requests that Exhibit F to the RPUDs be modified to confirm that both the East and West side drainage ditches will be fully graded and improved by either the County or the applicant, so that they adequately and properly drain (all work to be completed prior to the issuance of any building permit for the project). b.Also, my client respectfully requests that Exhibit F to the RPUDs be modified to require that the projects drain on both the East and West side drainage ditches and that either the County or the applicant commit to install a barrier(prior to the issuance of any building permit for the project)to help keep incursions and encroachments out of the drainage ditches. 2.Additionally regarding drainage and according to Chris Hagan,the proposed land use breakdown only allows approximately 9%of the site for storm water management, and this is well below the typical industry standards of 15% percent for a dense single family cluster project. According to Chris Hagan and based on his review of the ERP,the applicant is making up for its lack of storm water management by draining into the preserve area in the Traid RPUD. a.PUD Hagan's office reviewed the ERP cross sections and noted that the applicant wants to put a retaining wall around the north side of the eastern preserve. Upon closer review of the ERP plans, it appears to Mr. Hagan that the applicant is looking to incorporate that preserve into the water management plan to provide storage for storm water.This is inconsistent with Collier County's rules regarding allowances in preserve areas.This inconsistency would disqualify the area from preserve status for onsite preservation.This would require additional offsite mitigation to compensate for this. b.To eliminate this issue, my client asks that Exhibit F to both RPUDs be modified to expressly prohibit any water discharge into to preserve areas. 3.Additionally regarding drainage, according to Chris Hagan, Palm Springs Blvd. roadside drainage swales are inconsistent at the south end and Palm Springs Blvd. does not comply with County standards. a.My client requests that a stipulation of the approval should be for the County or the applicant commit to bring Palm Springs Blvd. up to current code, prior to the issuance of any building permit for the project, including the addition of improved drainage swales.As an alternative, my client is still open to exploring the possibility of modifying the Master Plan to put all project access(in and out of the proposed project) directly on Radio Lane. 4. The developer proposes inverted crown roadways internally.This is an exception to the LDC and is inconsistent with any existing County owned, operated, and maintained roadways to our knowledge.This design has some inherent challenges that need to be accommodated so that roadway maintenance is improved. a. My client asks the BCC to reject this Exhibit E deviation request consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. 5.Regarding density, the Density Rating System outlined in the FLUE provides that "a base density of 4 residential dwelling units per gross acre may be allowed,though not an entitlement.This base level of density may be adjusted depending upon the location and characteristics of the project." In this case and based on the location and characteristics of the project, the applicant's plat for Hadley Place West is for 42 lots(see attached), not 44 2 units as per the MAC RPUD and the plat for Hadley Place East is for 41 lots (see attached), not 44 lots per the Triad RPUD. a.In view of the forgoing, why does the MAC RPUD provide for 44 single-family units vs 42 per the PPL and why does the Triad RPUD provide for 44 single-family units vs.41 per the PPL? 6.Regarding open space, LDC 1.08.00 provides as follow, "Open space, usable: Active or passive recreation areas such as parks, playgrounds,tennis courts,golf courses, beach frontage,waterways, lakes, lagoons,floodplains, nature trails and other similar open spaces. Usable open space areas shall also include those portions of areas set aside for preservation of native vegetation, required yards (setbacks) and landscaped areas, which are accessible to and usable by residents of an individual lot,the development, or the general public. Open water area beyond the perimeter of the site, street rights-of-way, driveways, off-street parking and loading areas, shall not be counted towards required Usable Open Space." a.RWA prepared document titled Triad Open Space and MAC Open Space showing 6.60 acres and 6.64 acres, respectively, of open space. 1.Can the applicant or staff provide supporting detail for the 2.28 acres of"Residential— Open Space" calculations as shown on both the Triad and MAC Open Space documents? b.It appears that most of the "Residential—Open Space" area is coming from required yard (setbacks). Please confirm.As such, I am only calculating 13,200 square feet or .3+/- acres as required yard (setbacks) as follows: 15 ft front yard, 15 ft rear yard and 5 ft for each side yard or 300 square feet times 44 lots= 13,200 square feet. c.The applicant has also filed its PPL. See the attached confirming a compliance problem with the 60% usable open space requirement as required by the Comprehensive Plan. d.Further, the applicant has filed its ERP for the MAC and Traid RPUD's. See the attached from Chris Hagan confirming only 55.2%open space for the MAC and Triad RPUD's based on applicant's ERP applications. e.In view of the clear problems as outlined above, my client requests that the "Site Summary" on the both MAC and Triad RPUD Master Plans should be modified to confirm how the 60% usable open space requirement will be met and to detail the specific "open space" calculations and break-downs. Additionally,the Master Plans for both the MAC and Triad RUPDs should be modified to show the distances between the preserve areas and the lot lines and the distances between the lake, dry detention areas and preserve. 7.The minimum rear yard setbacks for accessory structures in both the MAC and Traid RPUD's is 0 as measured from "lot boundaries", not easements. However,the applicant's plat for Hadley Place West and Hadley Place East show 32 lots+/-that back up to each other and that have 7.5 feet DE off the lot line and into the platted lot. 8.Also, Section N-N (see attached) places a 6 foot swale on the north property line and a 3 foot retaining wall against the existing rear of the existing properties with the preserve behind.A preserve adjoining residential does not need a buffer, but with the swale and wall and detention behind this would make it aesthetically inconsistent with normal perimeter buffering. a.My client requests that the Triad RPUD Master Plan be modified to show heightened and adequate buffering along the north property line in the event of any proposed swale and retaining wall. 9.Consistent with the existing Triad PUD, my client requests that Exhibit F to the RPUDs be modified to require the applicant to seek to obtain permits for all construction access occur off Radio Lane and not involve Palm Springs Boulevard. 10.Finally, see also the attached, follow-up comments from Chris Hagan pertaining to traffic, access and utilities, etc. based on his letter to me dated June 12, 2017. I look forward to speaking with staff and the applicant as soon as possible to address the above items in advance of the hearing next week and will make myself available to meet with the applicant this week. Best, Douglas A. Lewis 3 I 1 I./ THOMPSON LEWIS counselors at law 850 Park Shore Drive Suite 201-A Naples, Florida 34103 Direct Dial Phone: (239)316-3004 General Office Phone: (239)316-3006 Facsimile: (239)307-4839 E-Mail: doug@tllfirm.com http://www.martindale.com/Douglas-A-Lewis/1419349-lawyer.htm http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/34108-fl-douglas-lewis-1250057.htm I Licensed to practice law in Florida, Texas and Washington DC Both Douglas A. Lewis and the Thompson Lewis Law Firm, PLLC intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee(s).This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please permanently dispose of the original message and notify Douglas A. Lewis immediately at 1(239)316-3006.Thank you. Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment hereto is not intended to be used, and cannot be used,to (1) avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or(2) support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter.This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S.Treasury Regulations governing tax practice. From: Douglas Lewis Sent: May 31, 2017 12:41 PM To: 'nancygundlach@colliergov.net' <nancygundlach@colliergov.net> Subject:Triad RPUD (PL#20160002564) & MAC PUD (PL#2016-0002565) Nancy, In follow-up to our phone call and in connection with the rezone applications referenced above, I have been retained by a neighbor that resides directly adjacent to proposed projects (Mr. Colasanti) and will be attending the hearings tomorrow to provide public input on these items. My client is very supportive of single-family use of the properties. However, he offers the following significant concerns and questions from Chris Hagan of Hagan Engineering pertaining to the proposed development of these properties (a summary engineering report from Hagan Engineering will follow by separate e-mail): • Palm Springs Blvd. roadside drainage swales are inconsistent at the south end.There is no sidewalk.The pavement is only 19 feet in width. My client requests that a stipulation of the approval should be to bring Palm Springs Blvd. up to current code including the addition of a sidewalk and improved drainage swales. As an alternative, my client is open to exploring the possibility of modifying the Master Plan to put all project access (in and out of the proposed project) directly on Radio Lane. • Existing outfall drainage system for the subdivision includes swales on the east and west side of the subdivision along with an interconnection of roadside swales and ditches down to a lake and discharging out into 1-75. A review of these swales (see below photos in link) by Hagan Engineering found that they do not meet County minimum standards and do not appear to have been regularly maintained. Some of the single family homeowners have built intrusions into the swales that impact the flow. As the County is to maintain these swales, a stipulation of the approval should include rehabilitation of the swales by the County and/or developer. 4 (At your direction, I can provide proof of the existing swale problem by historic photos from the residents of flooded backyards and roadways). • The developer's proposed interconnection of the drainage systems under the roadway show that the projects should be processed as a single application.The fact that they are back to back makes this easier. However,the traffic impact statement provided online was only for one project.These should also be considered together so any roadway impacts for turning motions, stacking, etc. would be combined and accommodated as a single project. • The onsite stormwater areas are less than the normal industry standards.This will require substantial additional filling. A floodplain analysis should be done so this additional fill will not adversely impact the regional floodplain. • Preliminary assessment of the existing roadway should be conducted and proposed roadways and finished floor elevations should be included in the PUD Master Plan to address concerns like the height (above existing grade) of the new roadway finish floors in relation to the adjoining properties.Accommodating the perimeter berm and roadways without discharging drainage out onto Palm Springs Boulevard will be difficult. Cross sections should be requested from the developer showing the slopes and heights of these elements and such should be included in the PUD Master Plan. • The elevation differential may require reconstruction and elevation of Palm Springs Blvd. to prevent discharge from the subdivisions. • The developer proposes inverted crown roadways internally.This is an exception to the LDC and is inconsistent with any existing County owned, operated, and maintained roadways to our knowledge.This design has some inherent challenges that need to be accommodated so that roadway maintenance is improved. • The site is going to have to be elevated above the existing roadway, and with side yards directly abutting the roadway, this will result in a negative visual impact.The request to reduce the perimeter buffer type should not be accepted, but the PUD should include a requirement 6 or 8 foot tall concrete block wall and landscape buffering along the entire northerly project boundary and also along both sides of Palm Springs Boulevard to provide additional needed screening. Homes are going to be set close together, and it is possible that side yard equipment would be readily seen from Palm Springs Boulevard. • The interconnect between the two projects will cross County water and force main lines requiring air release valves (ARVs).These ARVs should be hidden in the perimeter buffer landscaping to protect them so they will not be an eyesore. • Preserve areas should have exotic vegetation removed and be replanted with native vegetation from Collier County's approved list. No grading in these areas should be allowed. Additionally, • Consistent with the existing Triad PUD, my client requests that all construction access occur off Radio Lane and not involve Palm Springs Boulevard. • Consistent with the existing Triad PUD, my client requests that the dimensions of all existing easements be depicted on the Mater Plan. Also, that cross-sections be provided on the Master Plan (with elevations and required set-backs) for perimeter buffering, sloping, preserve areas,the lake area, and other features as depicted on the Master Plan. Click on the below link for photos of existing site conditions: https://app.box.com/s/5bwxbg5tgb547fkObn4vxlct2h5mnhwO Douglas A. Lewis FITHOMPSON LEWIS counselors at law 850 Park Shore Drive 5 Suite 201-A Naples, Florida 34103 Direct Dial Phone: (239)316-3004 General Office Phone: (239)316-3006 Facsimile: (239)307-4839 E-Mail: doug@tllfirm.com http://www.martindale.com/Douglas-A-Lewis/1419349-lawyer.htm http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/34108-fl-do uglas-lewis-1250057.htm l Licensed to practice law in Florida, Texas and Washington DC Both Douglas A. Lewis and the Thompson Lewis Law Firm, PLLC intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee(s). This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please permanently dispose of the original message and notify Douglas A. Lewis immediately at 1(239)316-3006.Thank you. Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment hereto is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, to (1) avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or(2) support the promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S.Treasury Regulations governing tax practice. 6 Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION 9 9 GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JUNE 1, 2017 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20160001398 COUNTY BARN ROAD RPUD PROPERTY OWNER/AGENTS: Owners: Applicant: Agents: County Barn Investors, LLC Jaxe, LLC D. Wayne Arnold,AICP 5800 Lakewood Ranch Blvd. 3435 Enterprise Ave, Ste. 25 Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. North Sarasota, FL 34240 Naples, FL 34104 3800 Via Del Ray Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Charles R. Keller Trust Contract Purchasers: 2301 County Barn Rd Jaxe, LLC Bruce Anderson Naples,FL 34112 3435 Enterprise Ave, Ste. 25 Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. Naples, FL 34104 821 5th Avenue South Jaxe, LLC Naples, FL 34102 3435 Enterprise Ave, Ste. 25 County Barn Investors, LLC Naples, FL 34104 5800 Lakewood Ranch Blvd. North Sarasota, FL 34240 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from an Estates (E) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the County Barn Road RPUD. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located on the east side of County Barn Road, approximately one-quarter mile south of Davis Boulevard in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (See location map on page 2). PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 1 of 19 May 24, 2017 __. , , URI° `�r PUD - l ..,a.,, PUD UP I 1 > Radio RD RPUD Oa R F.6(4) ,-- E m ., :=7n co ie co . P e Davis BLVD �0 SITE CO C LOCATION c m i PROJECT cn V LOCATION cC m CO N . RPUD cme.egMc - a 1... _ I I Pu e.cu PUD: L-_—_. >\,:),,,,, �0 Rattlesnake Hammock RD , o, P Cu \� _ t I —T_ Location Map Zoning Map Petition Number: PL-2016-1398 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner seeks to rezone 38.23± acres, from E to RPUD, to allow a maximum of 268 multi- family dwelling units or 156 single-family residential dwelling units or any combination of dwelling unit types permitted in the RPUD, but not to exceed a trip cap of 157 p.m. peak hour, two-way trips. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: The subject project proposes a density of seven dwelling units per acre. This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding boundaries of the County Barn Road RPUD: North: A school with a zoning designation of Seacrest Upper and Lower Schools Community Facilities Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) and farther north is a church with the zoning designation of E and Avalon of Naples RPUD,and then farthest north is the right-of-way for Davis Boulevard. East: A church with a zoning designation of E and farther east a school with a zoning designation of E. East(to the south): An ornamental nursery with a zoning designation of E and farther east is a single-family home with a zoning designation of E,and then farthest east is Falling Waters Planned Unit Development(PUD). South: Stormwater management pond on property owned by Collier County with a zoning designation of E and farther south is right-of-way for Cope Lane, and farthest south are single-family homes with a zoning designation of E. South (to the west): Stormwater management pond on property owned by Collier County with a zoning designation of E and farther south is right-of-way for Cope Lane, and farthest south is vacant property with a zoning designation of Cope Reserve RPUD. West (to the north): Right-of-way for County Barn Road and farther west is multi-family residential with a zoning designation of Residential Multiple-Family-6 [RMF-6(4)]. West: Right-of-way for County Barn Road and farther west are two parcels, one developed with a church with a zoning designation of E, the other unimproved with a zoning designation of E with a Conditional Use (CU). West(to the south): Right-of-way for County Barn Road and farther west are vacant parcels with a zoning designation of E. PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 3 of 19 May 24, 2017 tr if D snact i Do F,a f i (j ( blfI 1 i) .t ,r .,..Q 11.9 Y" i r ,'"--113bim, Vl r,Ii iilrf'S a c.rr, rr.ry y: I .�r '.ffin " r iQja i. ., itit, :,. .„... iv . i .t 01- m DeWitt:3 ice* Burt L. S ; > c Saunders ne a'y 4§W Nig_ „ k _:+w - -':,s1 FALLING o ,„,.yw~ AVEiiiYJLTERs��'" ._...'''. 14 a 1"" ..w.._.1 '11 .1 ' NMI a '}.. Aerial(County GIS) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): Staff identified the FLUE policies relevant to this project and determined that the proposed RPUD may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. Please see Attachment 3 —FLUE Consistency Review for a more detailed analysis of how staff derived this determination. 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 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 PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 4 of 19 May 24, 2017 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 on the subject property was reviewed based on the applicable 2016 AUIR. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the proposed new residential development will generate approximately 157 PM peak hour,two-way trips. The proposed development will impact the following roadway segments with the listed capacities: Roadway Link 2016 AUIR Current Peak Hour 2016 Existing Peak Direction Remaining LOS Service Volume/Peak Capacity Direction County Barn Davis Boulevard B 900/South 528 Road to Rattlesnake Hammock Davis Lakewood D 2,000/East 409 Boulevard Boulevard to County Barn Road Davis County Barn C 2,200/East 636 Boulevard Road to Santa Barbara Based on the 2016 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips for the amended project within the five-year planning period. Therefore, the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the CCME. A minimum of 2.72 acres of native vegetation are required to be retained for the RPUD. PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 5 of 19 May 24, 2017 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: 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 Subsection 10.02.13 B.5, Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection, 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 these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below,under the heading"Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analysis. Drainage: Stormwater Engineering Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document to address stormwater drainage concerns. The proposed RPUD is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area, provided the project's stormwater management system is designed to the current Lely Canal Basin discharge rate of 0.06 cubic feet per second per acre (cfs/ac). Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage for this project will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting with the South Florida Water Management District(SFWMD). Key portions of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project(LASIP)off- site stormwater drainage infrastructure are currently in place and capable of adequately conveying SFWMD permitted stormwater discharges from this proposed development. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document to address environmental concerns. Habitats on site are fragmented due to past clearing activities making it necessary for the applicant to request a deviation from an environmental standard of the LDC,to allow more than one acre of preserve to be created on site. Since a deviation from an environmental standard had been requested, review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) is required pursuant to Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. The preserve within the RPUD was selected by the applicant to retain the highest quality vegetation on the property. This habitat contains wetlands which accepts off-site flows from the east and together, with adjacent uplands, maintains a connection to the County-owned pond to the south and off-site undeveloped lands to the east. These undeveloped lands to the east, in turn, extend north on undeveloped property owned by Unity of Naples, Inc. and then west to a preserve within Seacrest School, allowing for use of the area as a corridor for wildlife. This corridor can be determined to be consistent with the preserve selection criteria pursuant to LDC Section 3.05.07 A.5, which requires preserves to be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off-site preservation areas or wildlife corridors. PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 6 of 19 May 24, 2017 Landscape Review: No deviations to landscaping or buffer requirements are proposed. Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) District Review: 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 (PPL), if there is not capacity within the concurrency service areas the development is located within, adjacent concurrency service areas will be included in the determination of capacity. 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. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning Staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this project. Utilities Review: The project lies within the potable water and the south wastewater service areas of the Collier County Water-Sewer District. Water and wastewater service is readily available via existing infrastructure along the project's frontage on County Barn Road. Zoning Services Review: 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 seven dwelling units per acre. Staff determined the density proposed for this RPUD would be acceptable given the fact that the subject property is located within a Residential Density Band on the FLUM of the GMP and that Avalon of Naples RPUD, another residential project located within close proximity of the subject property, was approved in 2015 with the same density requested for this petition. This RPUD proposes a range of residential uses including single-family detached, zero-lot-line single-family homes, two-family attached dwellings, townhouses, and multi-family dwellings. The petitioner proposes a maximum of 268 multi-family dwelling units, 156 single-family dwelling units, or any combination of dwelling unit types permitted in the RPUD, not to exceed a trip count of 157 p.m.peak hour two-way trips. Staff compared the principal uses proposed in this RPUD to those uses allowed nearby the subject property and determined they would be compatible. Staff determined that the proposed standards would be compatible with those allowed in the surrounding area. 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 nearby area is developed or is approved for development of a similar nature. The petitioner will be required to comply with all County regulations regarding drainage,sewer, water, and other utilities. PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 7 of 19 May 24, 2017 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 and roadway access to the subject site. Additionally, the development will be required to obtain SDP or PPL approval. These processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals,objectives,and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of 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). 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 StaffAnalysis section of this staff report(page 6), staff is of the opinion that the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area. 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 PPL. 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. 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 PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 8 of 19 May 24, 2017 and wastewater transmission 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. 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 10 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 12. Except for Deviation#2,staff supports all deviations as 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. The proposed RPUD will not create an isolated, unrelated,zoning district. 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. PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 9 of 19 May 24, 2017 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed rezoning is necessary if the petitioner desires to develop the property with multi-family residences. 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 PUDZ Ordinance, which includes provisions to address public safety. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed RPUD is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area, provided the project's stormwater management system is designed to the current Lely Canal Basin discharge rate of 0.06 cubic feet per second per acre(cfs/ac). Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage for this project will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting with the 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 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 basic premise underlying all development standards in the LDC is that their sound application,when combined with the SDP or PPL process,gives reasonable assurances that PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 10 of 19 May 24, 2017 a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of an abutting or adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. The proposed 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 multi- family uses and 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, 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 would require considerable site alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP or PPL processes, and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth regarding Adequate Public PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 11 of 19 May 24, 2017 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. Key portions of the LASIP off-site stormwater drainage infrastructure are currently in place and capable of adequately conveying SFWMD permitted stormwater discharges from this proposed development. 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 ten deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are directly extracted from PUD Exhibit E. The petitioner's justification and staff analysis/recommendation is outlined below: Proposed Deviation #1 "Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2 which requires dual sidewalks on local roads internal to the site, to allow a sidewalk on one side of the roadway where the property is permitted with single loaded homesites. Appropriate crosswalks shall be provided at crossing locations." Petitioner's Justification: The applicant responded to this request as follows: The developer wishes to construct sidewalks on only the side of the street where homes are located. It is unnecessary to construct sidewalks in areas of the community where no homesites are proposed. Constructing the sidewalk on the side of the street where homes are located will provide safe and convenient access to the pedestrian network for all residents. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Transportation Planning staff recommends approval of Deviation #1, noting the approval is consistent with other project deviation approval recommendations, where there will only be structures on one side of the street. As shown on the Master Plan,this deviation would only be applicable in two areas. One area is along the entrance road by the amenity center, and the other area is along the eastern property edge. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of this request as limited on the Master Plan, 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." PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 12 of 19 May 24, 2017 Proposed Deviation#2 "Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e, which allows temporary signs on residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height, to allow a temporary banner sign up to a maximum of 32 square feet in area and 10 feet in height. The temporary banner sign shall be limited to a maximum of 90 days during season defined as January 1 to March 31 per calendar year." Petitioner's Justification: The proposed deviation will allow for a banner sign located on the proposed wall along County Barn Road in order to advertise new homes available within the community. The 4 square foot banner sign permitted by the LDC provides minimal visibility and likely will be difficult to read by motorists travelling along County Barn Road, a 45 mph 2-lane roadway and separated from the travel lane by 100±feet. Additionally, the applicant is requesting that the banner be allowed for up to 90 days per calendar year to allow display throughout the peak winter season for home sales. Due to the property's location on a busy road, high travel speeds along the roadway and the setback from edge of pavement, the Applicant is seeking an increase to the allowable banner size to ensure visibility of this new community. The requested banner size is in accordance with deviations approved for similar residential projects throughout the County. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: A deviation for relief from the sign size has been sought and approved in several other projects, such as Esplanade Golf and Country Club, which was approved for an eight-foot tall sign,not the 10 feet this petitioner is seeking. That sign usage was limited to 28 days,not the 90 days this petitioner is seeking. That petition also cited"the project's location on a busy road with high speeds along the roadway and the [implied large] setback from the edge of pavement." The Esplanade project is located along Immokalee Road,where there is a wide canal,as well as the six-lane Immokalee Road. That project was approved for 1,233 units on 1,658 acres. This current project proposes 268 multi-family units, 156 single-family units, or any combination of permitted uses listed in the RPUD, not to exceed a trip cap of 157 p.m.peak hour, two-way trips on 38.23±acres. Immokalee Road is, as noted, a six-lane,divided arterial roadway, whereas County Barn Road is an undivided two-lane collector roadway. The petitioner is seeking two other sign deviations that staff is supporting. Those signs deviations should provide enough flexibility for the development without this deviation. Therefore, staff recommends DENIAL of this request, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has not 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 not 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 "Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5.a,which requires on-premises directional PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 13 of 19 May 24, 2017 signs to be setback a minimum of 10' from edge of roadway paved surface or back of curb, to allow a setback of 5' from edge of roadway paved surface or back of curb." Petitioner's Justification: This deviation will provide locational flexibility for directional signage internal to the RPUD. A unified design theme will be utilized for all signage throughout the community, thereby ensuring a cohesive appearance and increased aesthetic appeal. All directional signage will meet the Clear Sight Distance requirements in accordance with LDC Section 60.06.05. Furthermore, this deviation is typical of many of the master planned developments throughout Collier County. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning staff anticipates no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of this request, 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#4 "Deviation 4 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, which permits two (2) ground signs per entrance to the development with a maximum height of 8' and combined area of 64 s.f., to allow for two (2)ground signs per entrance with a maximum height of 10' and combined area of 80 s.f." Petitioner's Justification: The subject property will be accessed via County Barn Road, a collector roadway with relatively high travel speeds. Due to the property's location, and high travel speeds along County Barn Road and the 100'setback from edge of pavement of County Barn Road, the Applicant is seeking an increase to allowable entry sign height and area to ensure visibility. Further, sign height is measured from the centerline height of the adjacent roadway. The site will need to place 3' to 4'of fill material on-site to reach a finished grade. The sign location is anticipated to be located at or slightly higher than the finished grade; therefore the additional height is warranted. This deviation request is similar to numerous other requests approved for master planned communities within Collier County. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning staff anticipates no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of this request, 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." PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 14 of 19 May 24, 2017 Proposed Deviation#5 "Deviation 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.1.a and 5.03.02.C,which requires fences or walls in a residential PUD to be 6 feet or less in height and prohibits the existing ground from being altered under the sign,to permit an 8-foot high wall on top of berm." Petitioner's Justification: The additional 2 feet of wall is necessary to provide a buffer from the adjacent road traffic noise and the ground must be altered to meet water management criteria. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning staff anticipates no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of this request, 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#6 "Deviation 6 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.H, which requires if any required turn lane improvement requires the use of any existing County rights-of-way or easement(s), then compensating right-of-way shall be provided at no cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement(s) upon final approval of the turn lane design during the review of the first subsequent development order unless waived by the County Manager or designee, to permit no additional compensating right-of-way as long as the existing County Barn Road swale cross section can be maintained." Petitioner's Justification: The typical cross section will be maintained. The right-of-way is currently 200 feet. 50 feet of right-of-way was taken from the subject property as a part of the LASIP project. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Transportation Planning staff reviewed this deviation and determined that the normally required compensating right-of-way is not needed in this instance, because there is adequate right-of-way way existing for the current and projected needs on County Barn Road. Furthermore, the current two-lane road configuration is adequate to address the projected traffic for this road segment, including drainage, pathway, and sidewalk facilities. For these reasons, it is staff's opinion this deviation is reasonable. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of this request, 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." PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 15 of 19 May 24, 2017 Proposed Deviation#7 "Deviation 7 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J, which limits cul-de-sacs to a maximum length of 1,000 feet unless existing topographical conditions or other natural features preclude a street layout to avoid longer cul-de-sacs,to permit cul-de-sacs up to a maximum of 1,100 feet with placement of no through traffic signage." Petitioner's Justification: A portion of the proposed residential development tracts require access via cul-de-sacs. The 1,000'length will need to be exceeded in order to gain adequate vehicular access to all development areas within the PUD. The cul-de-sac can be identified with appropriate signage indicating that the roads are not through streets. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The Fire Code Administrator reviewed the proposed Ordinance and has no comments or concerns at this time. Additionally, staff notes that a full review will be conducted at the time of SDP or PPL. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of this request, 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 #8 "Deviation 8 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N, and Appendix B, which establishes a minimum 60-foot wide local road right-of-way,to allow a minimum 50' wide right-of-way. This deviation applies when the developer proposes to develop local streets in lieu of a private drive or access way." Petitioner's Justification: 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 local street locations with homesites and a 23'setback will be required between the garage door and back of sidewalk. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Transportation Planning reviewed this deviation and concurs with Zoning staff that this deviation request is reasonable. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of this request, 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." PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 16 of 19 May 24, 2017 Proposed Deviation#9 "Deviation 9 seeks relief from LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.e.ii, which permits a maximum of 1 acre of required preserves to be created for property with less than 20 acres of existing native vegetation, to permit 1.3 acres of preserve to be created." Petitioner's Justification: The deviation is warranted because the highest quality vegetation that exists on-site is located in the southeast portion of the site and is approximately 1.40 acres. In order to meet the County required native vegetation preservation requirement in an area contiguous to the proposed preservation area, 1.32 acres of preserve will need to be created. This is consistent with plans presented to the SFWMD. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Environmental staff reviewed this deviation and concurs with Zoning staff's approval. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of this request, 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 #10 "Deviation 10 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02 A.1., which requires sidewalks and bike lanes must be constructed within public and private rights-of-way or easements,which are adjacent to the site prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for construction authorized by a final subdivision plat, site improvement,or site development plan,unless otherwise determined by the County Manager or designee, to allow no sidewalks and bike lanes to be constructed for the development." Petitioner's Justification: Relief is requested from this requirement understanding that the applicant will construct a right turn lane that is not warranted by the Collier County's Right of Way Handbook, and therefore, should not be required. However, the Developer proposes to construct the right turn lane in lieu of the sidewalk because it will preserve capacity along County Barn Road, and more importantly, avoid NB traffic flow conflicts and rear-end collisions. The capacity and safety benefits achieved by constructing the right turn lane far exceed the benefits of constructing a sidewalk that will only extend the length of the property and will not connect to other sidewalks because none exist along County Barn Road. There is adequate r/w along the east side of County Barn Road if the County decides to construct a sidewalk in the future. At this time, the County is planning to construct a multi-use path on the west side of County Barn Road. This should be conditioned with the following: 1. The right turn lane will be 185 feet long. PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 17 of 19 May 24, 2017 2. The adjusted swale section will allow for a sidewalk on the west side of the County Barn right of way. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Transportation Planning staff reviewed this deviation and determined this deviation will better serve the safety concerns of the public by retaining the free flow of traffic on County Barn Road. Staff requested the right-turn lane to reduce traffic conflicts on this two-lane road segment; however, the traffic volume generated by this development does not warrant this request. Additionally, the sidewalk along the east side of County Barn Road is not currently planned within the next five years; however, a multi-use pathway along the west is identified and partially funded in the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization's pathway priority list, as well as the Florida Department of Transportation's Five Year Work Program. It is staffs opinion this deviation request is reasonable. Therefore, staff recommends APPROVAL of this request, 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." NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on December 8, 2016. The applicant's team consisted of Wayne Arnold, Michael Greenberg, Bruce Anderson, Chip Youman, Jim Banks, Brent Addison, and Sharon Umpenhour. Discussion items included LASIP, tree removal along County Barn Road, types and sizes of dwellings proposed, needed sidewalk/lighting/guardrail improvements to County Barn Road, permitting timeline, conservation areas, water management and drainage, school capacity, roadways accommodating school buses, construction trucks on County Barn Road, affordable housing, loss of green space, height of structures, density, and traffic. One member of the public commented that LASIP ought to be completed prior to allowing construction on this project. Please see the NIM summary in Attachment 2—Application and Support Material for additional information. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office reviewed this staff report on May 19, 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC, acting as the local planning agency and the Environmental Advisory Council, forwards Petition PUDZ-PL20160001398 COUNTY BARN ROAD RPUD, to the Board with a recommendation of approval subject to the denial of Deviation#2. Attachments: 1) Proposed Ordinance 2) Application and Support Material 3) FLUE Consistency Review 4) Density Map 5) LIDAR Map 6) Legal Notifications PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 18 of 19 May 24, 2017 PREPARED BY: S 7// ERIC JOHN r,AICP, CFM,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: RAYMOND ZONING MANAGER 'ATE ZONING DIVISION r.- r?- C) MIKE BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: S-.r- -2 3-// 7 ES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PUDZ-PL20160001398 County Barn Road RPUD Page 19 of 19 BrownleeMichael Subject: Meet w/ Bruce Anderson Location: DF Office Start: Mon 6/26/2017 4:30 PM End: Mon 6/26/2017 5:00 PM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: FialaDonna Good morning again, Michael. Thank you for fitting us in such a tight schedule. Please tell Ms. Fiala we hope she has a speedy recovery. Bruce needs a half hour appointment to discuss three things: 1) Wolf Creek Insubstantial PUD Amendment 2) County Barn Road PUD 3) (and if on the Agenda)Vanderbilt Commons PUD & Growth Management Plan Amendments. Bruce will be the only attendee. Michele M. Gowdy Real Estate Assistant CHEFFY PASSIDOMO Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. ATTVR :ITS AT LAW 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 (239) 261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile mmgowdy(a�napleslaw.com www.napleslaw.com 1 BrownleeMichael From: Marlene Sherman [mwsherman@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 4:06 PM To: FialaDonna; Henning Tom; Hiller Georgia; TaylorPenny; Nance Tim Subject: Need for sSidewalks and street lights on County Barn Road Categories: PRINTED Original Message From: Marlene Sherman [mailto:mwsherman@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 11:39 AM To: FialaDonna Subject: Sidewalks and street lights for County Barn Road Commissioner Fiala: I attended the June 1st meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission where the advertised hearing for PUD-PL2016001398 for 38 acre property on the east side of County Barn Road and south of the Seacrest school. The Neal Communities are seeking to create a new townhouse community similar to their Avalon Development on the corner of Davis Blvd and County Barn Road. Two persons from Glen Eagle Community spoke in regard for the need for infrastructure on County Barn Road (street lights and sidewalks) before more development is approved for property along Country Barn Road. However, I do not believe this matter will impede their PUD approval. I use County Barn Road regularly and I agree there needs to be street lighting. Is the need for street lights a matter that should first needs be brought to the attention of the County Commissioners before any action would be taken? Marlene Sherman Chairman, External Community Relations Committee Countryside Golf & County Club This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com BrownleeMichael From: Marlene Sherman [mwsherman@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 4:24 PM To: ScottTrinity; FialaDonna; TaylorPenny Subject: Need for Street lights on County Barn Road Categories: PRINTED Ms. Scott: I was referred to you by Eric Ortman(MPO) who told me you would be the one to start with in my pursuit of street lights on County Barn Rd. The lack of street lights on County Barn is becoming a hazard to night time drivers. The Collier County Water Management Division has now completed deep and large drainage ditches on both sides of County Barn Road. This road is two lane and currently without street lights. To my knowledge there is no long term plans to install street lights along this roadway which acts as a conneior road between Davis Blvd and Rattlesnake Hammock. I attended a Collier County Planning Commission meeting last week where Neal Communities has purchased 38 acres fronting on County Barn Road. Neal Community is now building and selling their Avalon Development at the corner of Davis Blvd and County Barn Road. It appears approval of the new Neal PUD for 200 town homes will be granted. The property will be gated with the only entrance/exit onto County Barn Road. Additionally, there is another large parcel of land advertised for sale just south of the above mentioned property. To my knowledge, the County has no plans in place for the needed infrastructure, such as side walks and street lights, on the County Barn two lane road with the deep drainage ditches on both sides. The MPO does have 2020/21 project for a bike trail in their Tentative Work Program. I believe the County needs to consider planning for street lights and sidewalks on Country Barn Road since there are other properties affronting this roadway that are currently being advertised for sale. After dark, County Barn Road,with the NEW deep water drainage ditches, on both sides of the road, presents a hazard to night time drivers. Will you assist me in getting street lights, on County Barn, in the Collier County long term planning budget? Marlene Sherman Chairman, External Community Relations Committee Countryside Golf and County Club (239) 352-9876 © Virus-free. www.avg.com 1 BrownleeMichael From: Marlene Sherman [mwsherman@earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 11:39 AM To: FialaDonna Subject: Sidewalks and street lights for County Barn Road Categories: PRINTED Commissioner Fiala: I attended the June 1st meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission where the advertised hearing for PUD-PL2016001398 for 38 acre property on the east side of County Barn Road and south of the Seacrest school. The Neal Communities are seeking to create a new townhouse community similar to their Avalon Development on the corner of Davis Blvd and County Barn Road. Two persons from Glen Eagle Community spoke in regard for the need for infrastructure on County Barn Road (street lights and sidewalks) before more development is approved for property along Country Barn Road. However, I do not believe this matter will impede their PUD approval. I use County Barn Road regularly and I agree there needs to be street lighting. Is the need for street lights a matter that should first needs be brought to the attention of the County Commissioners before any action would be taken? Marlene Sherman Chairman, External Community Relations Committee Countryside Golf & County Club This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.corn 1 BrownleeMichael From: ScottTrinity Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 4:38 PM To: Marlene Sherman Cc: ScavoneMichelle; FrenchJames; PattersonAmy; FialaDonna, TaylorPenny Subject: RE: Need for Street lights on County Barn Road Ms. Sherman, Thank you for your email. I hope all is well with you. Ms. Scavone (she is copied on this email) will coordinate a response for you from our Traffic Operations section as it relates to your street lighting request. Best Regards, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning Manager Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees &Program Management Division Telephone: 239.252.5832; Fax: 239.252.6610 trinityscott@colliergov.net From: Marlene Sherman [mailto:mwsherman@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, June 05, 2017 4:24 PM To: ScottTrinity; FialaDonna; TaylorPenny Subject: Need for Street lights on County Barn Road Ms. Scott: I was referred to you by Eric Ortman(MPO) who told me you would be the one to start with in my pursuit of street lights on County Barn Rd. The lack of street lights on County Barn is becoming a hazard to night time drivers. The Collier County Water Management Division has now completed deep and large drainage ditches on both sides of County Barn Road. This road is two lane and currently without street lights. To my knowledge there is no long term plans to install street lights along this roadway which acts as a conneior road between Davis Blvd and Rattlesnake Hammock. I attended a Collier County Planning Commission meeting last week where Neal Communities has purchased 38 acres fronting on County Barn Road.Neal Community is now building and selling their Avalon Development at the corner of Davis Blvd and County Barn Road. It appears approval of the new Neal PUD for 200 town homes will be granted. The property will be gated with the only entrance/exit onto County Barn Road. Additionally, there is another large parcel of land advertised for sale just south of the above mentioned property. To my knowledge,the County has no plans in place for the needed infrastructure, such as side walks and street lights, on the County Barn two lane road with the deep drainage ditches on both sides. The MPO does have 2020/21 project for a bike trail in their Tentative Work Program. I believe the County needs to consider planning for street lights and sidewalks on Country Barn Road since there are other properties affronting this roadway that are currently being advertised for sale. After dark, 1 County Barn Road,with the NEW deep water drainage ditches, on both sides of the road, presents a hazard to night time drivers. Will you assist me in getting street lights, on County Barn, in the Collier County long term planning budget? Marlene Sherman Chairman, External Community Relations Committee Countryside Golf and County Club (239) 352-9876 Virus-free. www.avg.com 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 BrownleeMichael 1 e From: marc alien [mallencny@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 8:00 AM To: FialaDonna Subject: Re: PDI — PL20160000404: Wolf Creek RPUD by the developer of parcels 3b and 9 to reduce preserves Categories: PRINTED Re: PDI - PL20160000404: Wolf Creek RPUD by the developer of parcels 3b and 9 to reduce preserves Dear Commissioner Fiala, First, let me be clear, I am not against development, nor against this developer's right to develop his property. The property is, however, within a residential planned urban development, Wolf Creek, and development should be in keeping with the agreements and ordinances associated with the RPUD, and should be compatible with other developments in the RPUD. There are two facets to this proposal; preserve reduction and residential density, although only one is being considered with this PDI. To be properly assessed the project should be looked at in its entirety, not piecemeal. Please consider the following: With respect to the preserves: There were no excess preserves or excess native vegetation prior to 2013 when a portion of Palermo Cove was brought into the Wolf Creek PUD. As noted in the CCPC minutes of 3/21/2013, it was intended that there be no net effect upon preserves and no increase in density in the Wolf Creek RPUD and Palermo Cove PUD, with the 2013 WCPUD and Palermo Cove amendments. Thus, the apparent "excess" should not have existed. The excess appeared when the required preserves for SFWMD, which were more than the county's native vegetation requirement, were added to the WCPUD map exhibit as preserve, but not taken into account as required native vegetation because only a portion was required. The excess was an unintended consequence and a reduction should therefore not be approved. With respect to the density: While other county PUDs may have dwelling unit "pools", Wolf Creek dwelling units have been allocated to the different parcels in the PUD, initially by a Cost Sharing Agreement* and subsequently by 1 county ordinances** as parcels were added to the PUD. This was done with intent as documented in county minutes*** CCPC minutes from 3/21/13 document specific allocation of dwelling units to prevent them from being "used" by other parcels, which would change density Parcel 9 was allocated 80 dwelling units for a density of 3.99 dwelling units per acre when it was brought into the Wolf Creek RPUD in 2007 - that was the request and that was what was approved Parcel 3b, representing N 60% of the original parcel 3, would be allocated — 24 dwelling units based upon acreage and the original 2004 CSA post transfer of units to Falls at Portofino Thus, parcels 3b and 9 have N 104 dwelling units allocated to them under current ordinances and agreements - this yields an allocated density of N 3.3 du's/acre Comparable densities are: Black Bear Ridge - density 1.97 built out (^' 4 allocated) Raffia(WCPUD portion) - '' 2.3 Adjacent Island Walk - 3.04 Falls at Portofino - ' ' 6.85 - these were initially high end town homes selling in the N $500K range - the allocation plan was for one higher density multifamily project on the periphery of WCPUD with lesser density elsewhere There is a companion application PL20160000157 which proposes a 215 dwelling unit project with N 88% of the buildings being 7-9 flex units - this is a high density row house type development of N 6.82 du's/acre - more than twice the approved/allocated density. parcels 3b and 9 do not have 215 dwelling units allocated to them and there is no request to increase the approved density the developer is claiming density he does not appear to have At every juncture, the county has historically upheld the allocation of dwelling units within the Wolf Creek PUD, documented in meeting minutes and ordinances. The county should be consistent and continue to recognize the historical allocation and not allow a claim for unused but allocated dwelling units within the PUD. In conclusion please consider: 2 The PDI for a requested reconfiguration of the preserve map and decrease in preserves should not be approved as there should be no "excess" preserves. The companion PL 20160000157 should not be approved as the requested number of dwelling units is more than twice that allocated. The high density row house type development is not compatible with the original plan and not in keeping with the majority of the adjacent developments. Note that there is no opposition to development according to parameters of the original plan; a development of —104 dwelling units, which may be multifamily, possibly with a mild or moderate increase in density, but this proposal is not that. We have met with the developer in an attempt to work out something mutually agreeable. They have been unwilling to consider any compromise in their proposed density, to which they are not entitled according to allocation. Thank you for your time, Respectfully, Marc Allen, 7347 Acorn Way, Naples FL *OR 3635 PGS 1672-1699, recognized as valid and enforceable as documented in various county meeting minutes **Ordinances 2007-46 and 2013-37 ***BCC minutes 5/22-23/2007, CCPC minutes 3/21/13 3 BrownleeMichael Subject: Meet w/ Bruce Anderson Location: DF Office Start: Mon 6/26/2017 4:30 PM End: Mon 6/26/2017 5:00 PM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: FialaDonna Good morning again, Michael. Thank you for fitting us in such a tight schedule. Please tell Ms. Fiala we hope she has a speedy recovery. Bruce needs a half hour appointment to discuss three things: 1) Wolf Creek Insubstantial PUD Amendment 2) County Barn Road PUD 3) (and if on the Agenda)Vanderbilt Commons PUD &Growth Management Plan Amendments. Bruce will be the only attendee. Michele M. Gowdy Real Estate Assistant CHEFFYPASSIDOMO Cheffy Passidomo, P.A. TTOILKIII ET LAW' 821 5th Avenue South Naples, FL 34102 (239) 261-9300 telephone (239) 261-9782 facsimile mmgowdy(c�napleslaw.com www.napleslaw.com 1 lv /' BrownleeMichael From: Sheri Roberts jroberts.sheri@att.netj Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 8:38 AM To: FialaDonna Subject: Sereno Grove at Pelican Marsh Attachments: Ltr to Commissioner Fiala 2.7.17.pdf; Attachment 1 -Sereno Grove Plan 1.11.17.pdf; Attachment 2-Sereno Grove Alternative Plan 1.23.17.pdf; Attachment 3-Key to Markings on Sereno Grove Alternative Plan 1.23.17.pdf; Attachment 4-Sereno Grove Plan in Context 1.11.17.pdf Categories: ATTENTION, PRINTED Commissioner Fiala: My neighbors and I would like to raise with you our concerns regarding the "Sereno Grove at Pelican Marsh" development in Naples. Please see the attached letter and the attachments referenced in that letter. We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you to discuss. Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards, Sheri Roberts L/ Roberts.sheri cr,att.net ��" // t/0„ Mobile: (248)630-5194 cfril4 • - / "i - / i In ° ,4 ` , / Ji* po ,,Q;4/4-3 .--t/' 2 y I 1,i ./ 21 ?,‘tvi.t, krliA1 February 7,2017 BY USPS AND EMAIL Commissioner Donna Fiala Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 303 Naples,FL 34112 DonnaFiala@colliergov.net colliergov.net RE: Disproportionate Adverse Impacts of WCI Sereno Grove Site Plan on our Homes in Wilshire Lakes,Naples To:Honorable Collier County Commissioner Donna Fiala From: David and Linda Bankston—9664 Wilshire Lakes Blvd,Naples,FL 34109 Jim and Sheri Roberts—9670 Wilshire Lakes Blvd,Naples,FL 34109 Larry and Jessica Doyle—9660 Wilshire Lakes Blvd,Naples,FL 34109 Dear Commissioner Fiala: The purpose of this letter is to make you aware of information about the WCI Sereno Grove PUD that will cause our homes to absorb more impacts of the WCI development than any other homeowners in either Sereno Grove or Wilshire Lakes. We have tried to address this directly with WCI and even hired an engineering firm to develop an alternate plan that would address our concerns. However, after a great deal of delay,we were advised on Friday,February 3,2017, that WCI will not discuss this with us. Therefore,we are asking for your help in resolving this matter before it is too late. We all own homes in Wilshire Lakes that directly abut the proposed Sereno Grove,Naples, development.The first attachment depicts the current Sereno Grove construction plan;our properties are highlighted in yellow for your reference. As you can see,WCI has chosen to run their access road from Livingston Road all the way east to within 10 feet of our back property lines,then curve the road north and again east,effectively surrounding the Roberts home at 9670 Wilshire Lakes Blvd. The wall that was proposed earlier in the process to provide separation has been removed from this plan,and the normally 15 foot buffer has itself been reduced to only 10 feet. The buffer will be nothing other than a hedge and trees spaced 25 feet apart. Our homes, much like others,are designed to be open to the back each with a lanai area that is used much like a family room. We will be denied this use and enjoyment of our property if the development proceeds as planned. 1 { Further,there is a viable alternative for the design of the development that would mitigate the impacts to our properties. This was first discussed with Grady Minor, WCI's agent for this development, on January 9,2017,and then further refined in the following weeks. The second • attachment reflects that alternate plan(the third attachment is a key to the markings). This redesign keeps the same number of lots with equivalent lot areas, and should be relatively cost neutral to construct. We presented this refined alternative plan to WCI on January 23,2017 and, as indicated above,were advised on Friday that they will not even consider it. This blatant disregard for the property interests of existing homeowners is detrimental to the economic development of this area. If homeowners lose confidence that their property rights have any protection,the desire to purchase property in this area will suffer. In the course of addressing this issue,we have also identified flaws in the process that are equally detrimental to preserving homeowner property rights and,therefore,to economic development. There has been a lack of proper notice of this development in more than one respect. Two of the homeowners, including 9670 Wilshire Lakes Blvd.which is most impacted by the proposed roads,were not provided with notice of the September 2016 meeting at which the PUD was approved. The two homes that didn't receive notice are families who moved to Wilshire Lakes for positions with companies that recently relocated to the area. We only learned about the WCI development plans when a separate notice to vacate an easement in the area to be developed was received before the December holidays by one of us. After multiple objections to that easement vacation were filed with the county,including by the Wilshire Lakes Homeowners Association(the"HOA"),the HOA was advised last week by Marcus Berman that WCI has withdrawn its request to vacate the easement. We find it curious that after objections are filed, WCI has now simply withdrawn the request to vacate,denying us the public hearing that would otherwise be required. In addition,there has been some amount of misdirection relating to WCI's intended site plan in notices of the meetings held. At the time of the PUD approval,the board was provided in the official"notice"with a drawing of the proposed development that showed a green space adjacent to our properties. This was consistent with how other adjacent developments were treated— specifically the Marsala PUD received a generous preserve area around all of their adjacent lots. However, as indicated above and on the attachment we are providing to you with this,the document provided to the board and in the notice is not in fact how the developer intends to proceed. WCI's actual plan is not within the spirit or intent of the original approval,nor is it in keeping with notice provisions of the land development code. And most of all,it is not a good land planning solution. Below please find two images reflecting this change. We own the three northerly homes in the orange circle. 2 "r 44 6 '4 9 P V ' III!, • -* 1 ; • -- - •--T • •,,, 00 r---- ......- . . , X1' 1 ) I., ,. 1 ♦ S Y-" k . , . I. • ` 7 tom- , 1i1 rt a t , b i t. DRAWING# 1 - SERENO AT NAPLES PUD/PELICAN MARSH PRESENTED AT SEPTEMBER 13 COUNTY COMMISSION MEETING. [NORTH IS TO THE LEFT-HAND SIDE] 3 .. •♦ '. 4 , • 1' 1 ,' ' /iS‘-'4•11)3 M a. x.. c•ast. a i ? !°E�.-v i , 41111\ olio : mot, st,. .. ,1 1 s y , wr DRAWING#2-SERENO AT NAPLES PUD/PELICAN MARSH CURRENT PLAN The second issue observed in these two drawings is that Drawing#2(Current Plan)includes four additional lots not previously shown when presented to you,the commission,for approval. Drawing#2 further encroaches on our back yards with the very minimal Type B border described above. Drawings#1 and#2 create a very small border with hardly any separation for the corner home at 9670 Wilshire Lakes Blvd.Water runoff from roads,traffic,noise and headlights will be on three sides of the house. We are the only homes affected so drastically by the WCI Sereno Grove plan,as you can see on the fourth attachment.Everyone else in our current community and the new community has a preserve or lake view. The planned road extends directly into our back and side yards. Our property values will plummet. Water runoff from so much roadway will exacerbate the water issues that we already have during the rainy season. Further,with the road noise,headlights from vehicles,lack of privacy and diminished view,we will be prevented from enjoying the property we purchased. In addition,our local wildlife,which includes threatened species,will also suffer. We were trying to be constructive by contacting with the developer in an attempt to resolve the issue with an alternative site plan,but WCI has been delaying their response to us while at the same time pressing ahead despite the concerns we have raised. We,of course,are also willing to work with Collier County staff. Since it now seems that an amicable resolution cannot be achieved,we need to consider our legal remedies.It is our feeling that no property owner should be placed in a position of having to spend significant funds on representation to achieve what should be common sense solutions that have been afforded to all other homeowners in the area. 4 Thank you for your attention to this matter. We and our HOA look forward to your support and assistance. Sincerely, OP • "/Iir f � iI • 5 £ � i. a Ywa, o ' Z = 6. E +i it a I jI f: 1 "I ' I1 '0)4P �I�y. 3 ugg 7 Ri .ii.1 A II 'S \�'•1 :.._iwiwiirwiiiwl "^1.- 1:: ✓ Itr + -,+n '� f ' F r I I I f—€� it i C A II-- � -- ._ a O 1 ....A2 it —� ----,''11.11111 �1'111,1 ' '�t' . I_. ._- - ; o i . 1. A a ``a 11-- iii a 1� 1 l ' _ I"•it i ____hiii a 1 ' 1 y -,- €i 4 f -ffill_ li ' —— . —— — .4 ' ' 1 ir.nr.', - 1111 I; 0 — ii 1 I� s >I 1 OVA'p i c r;;, •i 1 �17 1 E 2 Ii i. £f I) i. � iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii EE E ll s I t> I i' ii •V 27{ 1. .... `�. ll Ht 7 t �, is I 1 1 a iv I� ' 1 A 1 11 1 A 1 1 - a A a l 1 r', I � ?i<;.`?!ii _ I �f/ 1 1 - µ 1 a 1 _" 1 1 - . b¢ 1 ;1 1 I II i� — ',...7.„10.0„,..0 ,1,-,is �rf��A. 4 _- I -4-.101 a •O 3- ,ii. ... i tl _Y B ee 2 1, tt ib .1 k,k tr 4`, l+tr bf i)ttr!all. i1�A Ill 4 © 4 f 1 ,,11i. { ! --_•;•z• i v,' - '9i! -21 g a r 3 iY Li dltd(;r}lg1:k�#3 F ,i `r 'sI 1„ 3 !tit€f i 5 3 0 i,F}g•a1111 �E1 P t ( r ��`� . it s � 1 f8 n ii8$ii�''- hi; 1 g tttS{,:ss{ts:{, tt{.i{se I �¢t t ,il ' •I.. /,' ii } Mi? 33111v. li93dt� Sl#!' • :j i j 1, 1 q. J p , gitit 117�1a1a1i17lit''J91'1.41tit {:{{ i £ 'i-r �sk' :'?S,' 1 1iki- h'tjtli{i t aild i`f! £ 1 £ (j it. :;•'\''...*; I I it 1 i 1 t • 1, t I t t azo{i} ,-" / 11_ 1, cf.:— ,f 1 ( 1 4-..., tttWC.sN k • • ' ,,' ........-,...----------::::......=------ CZ:_::::::, w„wrollmmaM+a • . . � 1 BrownleeMichael From: Sheri Roberts [roberts.sheri@att.net] Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 3:54 PM To: FialaDonna Cc: BrownleeMichael Subject: Update on Sereno Grove Attachments: Exhibit A June Sereno Grove Plan.pdf Categories: PRINTED Commissioner Fiala, In follow-up to our February 7, 2017 communication sent on behalf of us and our neighbors, I would like to update you on events that have occurred with respect to the development known as Sereno Grove at Pelican Marsh ("Sereno Grove"), particularly since the plat and construction plans for Sereno Grove ("PPL") are scheduled to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") next Tuesday, June 27, 2017. As a reminder, the access road for Sereno Grove is planned to extend eastward from Livingston Road for approximately 1/2 mile to within 10 feet of our back property line, then curve north and east, effectively surrounding our home at 9670 Wilshire Lakes Blvd., Naples. The current plan is attached as Exhibit A (our home and those of our two neighbors are highlighted in yellow). On January 9, 2017, we raised concerns with WCI/Lennar's agent regarding the placement of this portion of the roadway, to no effect. In February, WCI/Lennar's agent contacted our Wilshire Lakes Homeowners Association ("HOA") to discuss WCI/Lennar's need for easements to tie into the Wilshire Lakes stub-outs for water and sewer, since no such easements exist. Use of the Wilshire Lakes stub-outs was assumed in WCI/Lennar's initial plans as it would be the most cost- effective location and alignment to provide the water and sewer connections for Sereno Grove. Our HOA President advised the representative that she wanted to include us and our neighbors in the discussion so that we could address all issues at the same time. Initially, they agreed and a meeting was set for February 13. However, on or about February 3, when WCI/Lennar's counsel advised ours that WCI "did not see any benefit to discussing" our request to address the location of a portion of the roadway in their plan, WCI/Lennar's agent canceled that February 13 meeting. In mid-April, we were advised that management of WCI/Lennar would meet with us to discuss our concerns, and we were asked to contact Rhonda Brewer, their VP of Community Development, to set up a meeting. We called and spoke to Ms. Brewer on April 19, 2017, and provided her with our availability: three full days and one half-day from April 25 through May 2. She thanked me for being so flexible, but then did not contact me to arrange a meeting. Instead, WCI/Lennar was working behind the scenes to reconfigure their PPL, a revised version of which was filed with the county on May 24. That filing was made in connection with a process termed an insubstantial change to plans ("ICP"), in which WCI/Lennar sought approval of changes to the PPL in order to avoid addressing our concerns (application #20170001891). Despite their use of the ICP process, the changes are not"insubstantial;" they involve a complete re-work of the wastewater and water distribution facilities for the PPL. To provide further detail, WCI/Lennar now plans to run the water and sewer connections all the way from Livingston Road which is approximately 1/4 mile west of their western property line (not counting the access road), rather than use the Wilshire Lakes stub-outs that are approximately 12.5 feet to the east, as originally planned. According to the opinion of WCI/Lennar's own engineer, as filed with the county, the probable additional construction cost for the proposed changes will be approximately $290,000, which does not seem to include engineering, permitting or filing fees or the additional costs of ongoing maintenance of the wastewater facilities. Not only do the new plans increase WCI/Lennar's costs unnecessarily, but the proposed changes result in an inferior and inefficient design which, in certain respects, raises public health and safety concerns. The changes include (1) using an unlooped water system which can result in poor water quality, (2) a very long distance between the water connection and the further points in Sereno Grove which will likely result in poor water pressure, (3) a privately-managed sanitary sewer system that includes an extremely long force main and low flow, and (4) the removal of the requirement for a standby generator for the wastewater pumping station, which removes any protection against failure. In its ICP filing, WCI/Lennar further claimed that its private ownership and maintenance of the wastewater facilities is necessary because the legal requirements it must otherwise meet will create a "considerable economic hardship" on them. If there is any"hardship," it is a hardship that they created by their unwillingness to work with us. Despite all of this, the county staff approved their ICP request on June 20, 2017. It is obvious that their unwillingness to address the positioning of a portion of their roadway so close to our home and the homes of our neighbors has nothing to do with either the cost of doing so or the time necessary to re-work their plans. The alternative plan created by our engineer(who we hired and paid) was provided to WCI/Lennar in January; the changes included in that plan would be relatively cost neutral and WCI/Lennar would retain the same number of lots of equivalent size. Rather than consider that configuration, WCI/Lennar has wasted time developing a new plan involving a costly move of the water and sewer tie-ins. For less cost, they could have used our engineer's plan and been in a position to obtain approval of their PPL at the May 9 Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") meeting, as originally scheduled. They chose not to do so, but instead sought, and received, an abeyance from legal requirements in order to obtain approval for their significantly revised plan. Under Sec. 250-58 of the Code of Laws we have 30 days from the June 20, 2017 decision to file an appeal. We advised county staff that we intend to do so. Despite this, county staff advised us that they have scheduled the PPL to be considered by the BOCC next Tuesday, June 27, 2017, essentially shortening our 30-day appeal period to less than one week. WCI/Lennar has made it clear that they are more interested in spending their time and money pushing for approval for a PPL that is inconsistent and incompatible with the surrounding land uses, than make any attempt to recognize the rights of existing homeowners. Under their proposed PPL, we and our neighbors will be forced to bear disproportionate negative impacts from the WCI/Lennar development in excess of those borne by any other homeowners within Sereno Grove or the surrounding communities. This is a blatant disregard for the property interests of existing homeowners. Thank you for your time in reviewing this email. If you have any questions or would like to schedule a call or a meeting to discuss these developments, please let us know. Kind regards, Sheri and James Roberts roberts.sheri(a)att.net Mobile: (248) 630-5194 2