Loading...
Ex-parte - Fiala 11/14/2017 Ex parte Items - Commissioner Donna Fiala COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA November 14, 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 a rezone from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Cleary RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 63 residential dwelling units or 200 group housing units for seniors on property located on the south side of Immokalee Road, approximately one quarter mile east of Logan Boulevard in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 8.99± acres. [PUDZ-PL20160001985] NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM 7 SEE FILE ®Meetings ®Correspondence ®e-mails ®Calls Emails, Letters and Phone Calls from residents of neighboring communities, Met w/ Mr. Yovanovich, Franchesca Passidomo & Mr. Cleary, Met w/ Patrick Neale & Michael Manganaro of Saturnia Lakes, discussions with staff and read the Staff Report BrownleeMichael From: Val <vgmgp@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 4:03 PM To: FialaDonna Cc: BrownleeMichael Subject: Cleary development on Immokolee9/1111° Categories: PRINTED Dear Ms Fiala, I live in Saturnian Lakes and I object to the height and proximity of the proposed Cleary development next to Saturnia. This commercial property is proposed to adversely and directly affect the view from my lanai. I will lose privacy and property value. With all the senior care developments in the area, when occupancy rates become challenging, how will this property be used in 10 years or more? Let's think ahead of a developers immediate appeal. Do not approve this proposed 5 story building so close to residential property. No more than 2 or 3 stories! And they need to install a dense tree barrier between their commercial property and private property. Demand alterations that benefit long term collier residents in Saturnia ,please!! Valerie Palmieri 2415 Butterfly Palm Drive Naples, Florida Sent from my iPad 1 BrownleeMichael From: rick carabajal <rickcarabajal@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 10:52 AM To: FialaDonna Subject: CLEARY DEVELOPMENT OPPOSITION HELP REQUEST Dear Donna, My name is Rick Carabajal I live at 1599 Triangle Palm Ter. Naples FL 34119. I am opposed to the Cleary PUD Proposed Development on Immokalee Road just east of Logan Ave. There are numerous issues and concerns including: Environmental, safety, traffic, and rezoning are a few issues as to why I'm opposed to the development along with the nonconformance and misrepresentation as to what would be and what was proposed to the County Commissioners. I will follow up with a phone call to you in several days in an attempt to set up a meeting were myself and four other individuals, who have spoken to over 300 residents in the immediate area with similar concerns. We hope to have the opportunity to meet with you to discuss this proposal before you announce a formal position on this issue. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Rick Carabajal 1599 Triangle Plam Ter Naples, FL 34119 1 BrownleeMichael From: Richard C. Guliano <guliano610@outlook.com> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 4:25 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: cleary development With all due respect, how could board members, members of this beautiful community, allow such a project, a 4 story, 50 ft building, with noise from air conditioners,traffic etc. effecting an abutting neighborhood allow this to pass disappointed PS.......not to mention an adjoining new shopping center Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1 BrownleeMichael From: JOHN HART <kkhjjh@me.com> Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 1:15 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: Cleary PUD Our opposition to the development of the Cleary property on Immokalee Road is in the proposed height of 50 feet which will tower over all our surrounding homes in the Saturnia Lakes community. The planned preserve buffer has been demolished by Hurricane Irma. The building will be out of place as there aren't any buildings of that height east of 175 all the way to 951 and beyond (except church steeples). The proposed new shopping center at the corner of Immokalee Road and Logan Blvd. will not be near 50 feet high. It also opens up the idea of another builder putting a similar structure on the adjoining Walker property. We all know that the Cleary property will be developed but we strongly disagree as to the height and it will run the length of our whole entrance roadway. It should blend in with all the surrounding homes in the Saturnia Lakes and Old Cypress corridor. Please hear our appeal and deny the 50 foot building that will completely change our beautiful community. Kay and John Hart 2330 Butterfly Palm Drive Naples, FL 34119 1 BrownleeMichael From: romeysr@aol.com Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 3:28 PM To: FialaDonna Cc: BrownleeMichael Subject: Cleary PUD in North Naples Ms. Fiala: My name is Jerome Palmieri. Since 2013 I have been a homeowner in the Saturnia Lakes community (2415 Butterfly Palm Drive) in North Naples. I am writing to you to express my strong opposition to the proposed Cleary development project to build a five story senior housing building next door to Saturnia Lakes. Let me be clear: I am not opposed to a senior community being located on that property. I am against any three to five story building in that location. Saturnia Lakes is a beautiful upscale community. The landscaping on the tree lined main entrance into Saturnia Lakes creates one of the most elegant entryways of any community in all of Naples. The proposed multistory building will be next door to that main entrance and will ruin the beautiful view that we homeowners and our guests now experience. Property values will be damaged if you approve this large, multistory building to be constructed. Additionally, with my property being located on Butterfly Palm Drive (which runs parallel to the main entrance), the view from the back of my home will go from the privacy of the existing tree lined entryway to the bricks, windows and roofing tiles of the Cleary building. I strongly oppose the Cleary project as it will decrease all of the property values in the Saturnia Lakes community. Please do not vote to approve this project. Thank you, Jerome Palmieri (610)405-3099 romeysr@aol.com 1 BrownleeMichael From: Patricia Rose <patrose@me.com> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 10:12 PM To: SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; SolisAndy; McDanielBill; DavidLykins@colliergov.net; GrecoSherry; BrownleeMichael; GoodnerAngela; FilsonSue Subject: Cleary Project Dear Mr. Saunders, I am writing to express my concern over the construction of the Cleary Project,which is being proposed for the parcel next to Saturnia Lakes. I believe building this project would affect the aesthetics of the area as well as cause real problems with excessive traffic compounded by the shopping center that has been approved. It is already difficult to exit Saturnia during high traffic times. Construction of this project would exacerbate the problem. This new construction could also negatively affect our property values. It would take away from the beauty of our entrance and would be seen from all areas of the complex because of its height. It would be the only tall building in the area. Please vote no on approving this project. The voters of Saturnia are depending on you. Patricia A. Rose 1988 Isla de Palma Circle Sent from my iPad 1 BrownleeMichael From: KATHY MILLER <cjmsmom@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2017 4:28 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: Cleary property 'm sure that you have heard from many residents of Saturnia Lakes regarding the Clearly development and there are many concerns. My main concern is being able to safely enter and exit the property. We have been told that traffic is not a problem and a traffic signal cannot be installed at the Logan exit. It is already difficult to make a left turn onto Logan Blvd. during rush hour and once the shopping center is built on the corner of Immokalee and Logan,we know that will make it worse. When the Cleary development is built,there will be easily a couple of hundred more vehicles to navigate the roads. I assume that the majority of the residents there would exit onto Immokalee and make a u-turn the majority of the time to head west and with the volume of traffic, there is no safe way to do that. Please put yourself in our position and think about how this will jeopardize our safety. We realize that something will be built on this property, but could it be something that would create less hazardous conditions? Thank you for your consideration. Kathy Miller 2430 Butterfly Palm Drive 1 BrownleeMichael From: Tom Caione <tcaione@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 8:08 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: Cleary Property Proposal Attachments: Cleary Letter.docx Dear Ms. Fiala, Please see the attached regarding the Cleary property proposal. Thank you. Sincerely, Thomas and Janet Caione 2379 butterfly Palm Drive Naples, FL 34119 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1 BrownleeMichael From: Gerald Kelly <jspreppie7l©gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 11:23 AM To: FialaDonna Subject: Cleary RPUD PUDZ-PL20160001985 Ms. Fiala, I am writing to you to oppose the development of the Cleary RPUD. As presented at a CCPC meeting on October 5th, the attorney for the Cleary Project indicated that the residents of Saturnia Lakes (community off of Immokalee Road in North Naples) were in favor of this project. Please know that is a false statement. A four story building would tower over our community and lead to traffic, noise and potential accidents. Also, Hurricane Irma downed much of the tree line on our western border which would make the building much more visible at the entrance of our community. Even with re-plantings, it will take years for the view to diminish. Both Mark Strain and Diane Ebert strongly disagreed with the CCPC vote. Please consider a "no" vote for the Cleary Project as well at your November BCC meeting. Thank you, Susan Kelly 2426 Butterfly Palm Dr, Naples,Fl. 34119 1 BrownleeMichael From: Gerald Kelly <jspreppie71 @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 2:32 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: Cleary RPUD Project Categories: PRINTED I am a homeowner in the Saturnia Lakes Community and I would like to go on record as being completely opposed to the Cleary RPUD Project. The project would place a 4 story building on our western border. This is inconsistent with all other construction in our area of Collier County both in terms of density and design. If built as designed, the building would tower over our community of single family homes and have a serious adverse impact on property values. Please do not be persuaded by the argument that Cleary has the complete support of the Saturnia Lakes HOA. That simply is not true and they know it. They have the full support of one individual who happens to be our HOA President and he signed a back room deal with the Cleary grout that no one else in our community knew anything about. we are in the process of removing him from office at the present time. Please consider all of the facts and vote against this misfit project. Thank you, Jerry Kelly 1 BrownleeMichael From: David Opland <martiandust@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 1:39 PM To: FialaDonna Subject: Objections to Cleary PUD Attachments: Letter to Donna Fiala Board of County Commissioners 20170128.pdf; ATT00001.htm Commissioner Fiala, We are asking you to support modifications to the Cleary PUD to ensure the development is consistent with existing nearby residential communities with reasonable density, building height, and setback restrictions. Planning Commissioner Chair Mark Strain and Secretary Diane Ebert objected to the Cleary PUD for reasons noted in our attached letter to you. Please consider their concerns, which mirror our objections, and bring about needed changes to the Cleary PUD. We agree the land owner has the right to develop this property.The Clearly Development Group has regulatory approval for a single-family residential development, which we would welcome. Unfortunately,they have the chosen the development option having the most undesirable neighborhood effects. Many people in our Saturnia Lakes community share these same concerns and object to the Cleary PUD. Please help us. Respectfully, David and Mary Opland martiandust@gmail.com 1 BrownleeMichael From: David Marin <dwmarin@optonline.net> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 9:15 AM To: SaundersBurt Cc: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Opposition to Cleary CFPUD PL20160001985 Attachments: Naples Assisted Living Bldgs.pdf; ATT00001.htm October 26, 2017 Mr. Burt Saunders Collier County Commissioner, District 3 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303 Naples, FL 34112 Dear Mr. Saunders, I'm writing as a resident of Saturnia Lakes to oppose the planned size and scope of Planning Project Application Number: PL20160001985 "Cleary PUD". This proposed project is being presented at your November 14th meeting. Below I've summarized my arguments: Proposed Height of 50 Feet for 200 unit building The proposed height of this development is not in keeping in character with the local community, as it will be, at 50 feet, the tallest building on Immokalee east of 175. In the 8/24/16 "Pre-Application Meeting Notes" #1 handwritten note says- "Address compliance with FLUE designation; FLUE policy 5.4 ("requires new land uses to be compatible with surrounding area"); FLUE objective 7 ("adhere to the existing development character of Collier County"and its applicable supporting policies"(such as developments provide "a range of housing prices and types")) Cleary argues that the Saturnia Lakes (Regis PUD) community is already zoned for 50 feet, so Cleary requesting 50 feet is in line with FLUE 5.4. However, although zoned for 50 feet, Saturnia is only built up to a maximum of single family 2 story homes (guestimate 30 feet). This became a "semantics" discussion at the 10/5 planning board meeting - should Cleary be compared to the zoned height or actual height of Saturnia Lakes? The County's Planning Zoning Director, Mike Bosi, stated that this rule was open to interpretation by the board. Saturnia asks the BCC to compare Cleary to the "comparable" existing height (and "community character") of Saturnia and not the zoned height. (Commissioner Mark Strain agreed it should be comparable height.) No similar sized (130-200 beds) Collier County Assisted Living/Retirement facility is as close to a residential community as Cleary will abut Saturnia Lakes Using the Agency for Healthcare Administration's Assisted Living Directory for Collier County I compared the largest ALRs (130-200 beds) to their proximity to local residential communities. Unlike Cleary's proximity to Saturnia Lakes, ALL are a significant distance away from other communities as indicated by satellite photos using Google Maps. See attached PowerPoint PDF document Cleary is a "Quasi-Commercial" Development 1 Cleary is asking the board to jump several steps from currently zoned Agricultural to "Quasi Commercial". In Principal Planner, Growth Management Department's Nancy Gundlach's 8/2/17 "third review of the Cleary PUD" rezone letter to Wayne Arnold (Grady Minor &Associates) and Richard Yovanovich (Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A.) she states "This PUD contains quasi commercial uses (ALF and CCRC) and residential uses. Therefore, it is a CFPUD, not a RPUD" I ask the BCC to draw a line in the sand and not allow for such a tall "quasi commercial" structure to set a precedent in our immediate community. 63 townhomes have never been taken off the table Cleary's Description of Work states: "Proposed rezone from the "A" Zoning District to RPUD to allow for group housing for seniors and/or residential dwelling units" ALL of Cleary's correspondence with the County includes his request for"A maximum development density of 63 (formerly 65) residential dwelling units or 200 units of group housing for seniors" (8/27/17 PUD exhibit from the Cleary "Planning Application Status" website) I believe Saturnia Lakes residents would welcome this option, and make for an easy BCC compromise - if it's good enough for Mr. Cleary to have proposed this option from day one, Saturnia would not oppose this low-rise option. Is there really a need for 200 additional assisted living beds in Naples? NO! Cleary lawyers try to argue, with the aging baby boomer generation, the obvious need for additional assisted living type of facilities. However, due to "turnover" at such facilities, the current number of beds (1765 in 24 facilities per AHCA Assisted Living Directory) in Collier County is not maxed out and there is currently no waiting for space in the largest ALRs: Terracina Grand - space available Brookdale North Naples - studio available (independant living) Tuscany Villa of Naples - space available Barrington Terrace - space available Bentley Village - space available Bradford Square - space available CCPC Chair Mark Strain was one of two "No" votes At the 10/5 Cleary planning meeting Chair Mark Strain felt a) Cleary's proposal option for the 200 beds ALF/CCRC should really only be zoned for 150 beds, and b) the 63 residential dwelling units should really only be 45 - I believe he felt in both cases this was due to the standard .45 FAR. Reducing the 200 units to 150 would also reduce by 25% all support staff associated with care at the facility. Mr. Saunders, based on these arguments I request you and the other members of the Board reject Mr. Cleary's request for such a large structure so close to our Saturnia Lakes community, and instead approve his smaller scale 63 townhomes option. Thank you, Dave Marin 2403 Butterfly Palm Dr. Naples, FL 34119 914-413-2351 2 Cc: Donna Fiala Andy Solis Penny Taylor William McDaniel, Jr. 3 BrownleeMichael From: Paul Petras <plpetras@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2017 12:37 PM To: SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; FialaDonna; SolisAndy; McDanielBill Cc: DavidLykins@colliergov.net Subject: Proposed Rezoning for PUDZ-PL20160001985, Cleary RPUD Categories: PRINTED Dear Commissioners: At the October 5th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission, Mr. Manganaro indicated that the Saturnia Lakes HOA supports the Cleary development, but all of the Saturnia homeowners that I know are against it. Having 50 ft. tall buildings, so close to our main entrance, will destroy the integrity and charm of our community and those high density buildings will add traffic congestion to Immokalee Road, which is already extremely busy and destined to get busier once the recently approved Landings at Logan development is completed. Please protect our community and our home values by disapproving the proposed rezoning for the Cleary development or, at a minimum, restrict the height of buildings to 3 stories (above the current floodplain elevation of that lot) and increase the setback requirements. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Paul Petras Saturnia Lakes Homeowner 1714 Triangle Palm Terrace Naples, FL 34119 1 BrownleeMichael From: Barbara Morley <bjmorley2@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 10:46 AM Subject: RPUD CLEARY SITE - Immokalee Road Allow me to introduce myself. I am Barbara Morley, a resident and owner at Saturnia Lakes the community immediately to the East of the Cleary property. I am opposed to the second option Cleary has recently put forward. Cleary's original proposal "Option One"to developed a gated community of 63 individual houses, is completely in keeping with all developments fronting Immokalee.Their newly proposed second option, if approved,would allow them to build a 50' tall, two hundred multi unit building on this site. I am opposed to option two for the following reasons; • At the Planning Meeting held in October the Cleary representatives, under oath during the rebuttal period, stated that a 50' high building is appropriate for this site as buildings of this height exist within a 2 1/2 mile radius of the Cleary site. This is not true. I'm enclosing aerial views of Immokalee Road,East and West of the Cleary site and there are no buildings greater than two stories within a 2 1/2 mile radius. • As you are aware,West of the Cleary property is another long, narrow 9 acre site similar to the Cleary land. This site has been referred to as the "Walker" property. Collier County plans show an access lane,which has been carved out of the Walker property,to be utilized by all vehicles entering and exiting both sites through the Cleary driveway. • Should Cleary get approval for their proposed 200 multi unit building the Walker property will surely be looking to build a building of the same size. • The proposed Cleary building will create traffic congestion with the addition of over 200 resident vehicles, guest vehicles, staff and service vehicles,delivery trucks,waste removal trucks all merging onto and off Immokalee Road. With the very likely possibility that the Walker owners, learning of a potential Cleary approval,will also want to build a similar multi unit building,the traffic coming into and out of the combine properties would double the number of vehicles trying to pore out onto Immokalee via a driveway unable to handle this flow.The narrow frontage of the Cleary and Walker properties combined is only a few hundred feet. A short distance East of Cleary is the access lane for Saturnia where well over 580+resident vehicles and the numerous other guest and service vehicles and school buses merge onto and off Immokalee Road from Saturnia Lakes. • Immokalee Road is a 6 lane speedway, 3 lanes running East and 3 lanes running West. Posted speed limit is 45 MPH,which more often than not is ignored. With the current traffic patterns residents leaving Saturnia and others traveling west but wish to make a left turn into Saturnia must wait for the traffic light on Immokalee at Logan to stop the easterly bound traffic flow.This turn lane also provides "U-turn ability for residents of Heritage Hills,a community that shares a border with Saturnia Lakes. • We have already been told that a traffic light would not be appropriate at either Cleary's or Saturnia's property entrances as these sites are too close to the light at Logan Blvd. This decision has already been made by Collier County's Traffic Department,who are aware that GL is about to begin building their shopping center on the corner of Immokalee and Logan immediate West of Cleary and Walker properties and Saturnia Lakes development. • The drastic increase of traffic from the GL Shopping Center, Cleary and potentially Walker properties with the existing Saturnia Lakes and Heritage Hills will occur within a a quarter mile stretch of roadway on Immokalee starting at the eastern exit lane of the GL shopping center. • In addition there are two schools back to back 1/2 mile East of GL shopping center exit and the above mentioned properties. Children can be see daily walking and riding their bikes to and from both Laurel Oaks and Gulf Coast High on the sidewalks of Immokalee Road as well as crossing Immokalee. For all of the above reasons I oppose Cleary's option two. Option two will change the distinctive residential nature of Immokalee Road that is situated East of Route 75, create traffic and safety nightmares for those living and traveling throughout the 1.9 mile stretch of Immokalee Road East and West from Logan intersection to Collier Blvd. The logical solution is for this Commission to approve Cleary's "OPTION ONE". Cleary's Option One is suitable and the proper way to develop this site.There have been no objections by current owners or residents to Cleary's "Option One"which would create 63 single family homes within a gated community as outlined and still on the table in their proposals.It is the right decision for all the above reasons 1 iR gico :: „,,,;*.-,,,40,„_-1,40,,,,.. r � -" . sso <4 ;;;-:--;-:;...., ,. 7i1.,, ‘1:1;Ti'. ,:n'--- ' , -7--4-4-,T,.,• ."-_,.,..---',”, -,%.,,..7,7:•,:.--;',.,--3.)..%,.7 ., - 4 A-,,.-,...7.'‘'.-•.A.".. Pr •••t -7.!:. 's I1 t'A,-:' - :I.'.•.11**iT1'1•111C.ii1/4*•:"f. -.117;:-....e:',=4*. ••' .' ,,t,k*''..*:: c.:::•:,•- ...i ••••••• -."••---E•4••'.,•'",".4.4*•41•---..,,A , • •• , .. paiti.,,-„ ' -,:r."--= „"..t.1--4391:---3 ,1,-.. '.333,',.-r-,-:",..:97-.7....,;.3.-,,....i,=.:,-;:. ---„T,,..,,,- ---- ' -0 • ' ".-4.,- .•- -=-7:-- 7.7:.."'--- ""4-....C-: 4__ 4 MEDITERRA" :.: � � , ��� .,, :.-4,.:4.-o.,:-.;,4: 4' 4 ‘10 - o 3„ z-zi,'-- - = -=-=-=-======-,---- ' , ---=,==-=====,- ,„ .....w- -.4. ,. = -,,,,.-1:.0= -,--- --- Vt,V,..0,1F.-,'-4,--::.7,-,",- -sil -- - „If r � ry a LBARRINGTONT COVE � gym �; a _ - ::. . � - CAMDEN1LAKES 40 tt.toilMAR51l.EA s .„... „1.., : ... 1 .... • • _. _. .... _ .. .. ..,,!....,„:._ __ _ .,„ :4„. _ ,.....,_...114,.. . ..,... ....._,...w ...,:. „. ,..,,,. .. .._ „ .., ... .. „:-...-,-„,, , ., ..:;.,..:,..,. . i '11 s _.:.. , .. , ..,:It,r,,„..,.. _ ...::...;:,,: . .; _ _ _ _. * ___._ _____.,,,_,. ..,_ _ . ...,,._.. ..„ __ __ ' 'IP '" ' < � :1001t, _ ; DELASOL a j„. • s : * » , ,..„....:,. .., , a p 2 iPad ico e: �,..... `�� STNEREEK I in 75 , 5 _...,..,„, ,. , _ . , -*,,,,,,w,,,,.„..„„..",,,,,,,,,- _,,,--....„„-=,..,-_'..:.,*--,...''',sivS)' ''Z''''"''''''e.',;'•2:',.''1'1'---'' artt-,:i. ,.Z4'''',:--:.,'..;' --.1 4 MALES ; - A;F . s; w� OUAi7 TREE j, � R VERSTONE 580 < ;;;;;..• .;;'' A •TAAAAAA,-.--A!,---;:. -.A.,„:-4.,, 0 '.•--. --;:;''''7'4:l'AAA-.,-,:',,A--:,---'''il'Eneol �5. OU '. IL GREEK LONG i OWE YPRESS VILLAGE LA J 1I00 ,a BrownleeMichael From: Mary Ellen Gustafson <megustafson@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 10:28 AM To: FialaDonna Subject: Saturnia Lakes and the Cleary Development Project Dear Ms. Fiala: I live in Saturnia Lakes and Cleary Development is planning to build a development next to our community. Our Board President hired an attorney and made an agreement with Cleary without the knowledge and approval of the 580 residents of Saturnia Lakes. We strongly urge you to vote"NO" on this project. Listed below are some of the reasons to vote "NO". 1. It will drastically change the look of this residential area--building a 50'building. 2. There are over 20 single family home communities that surround this Cleary project. 3. Cleary Development wants to build a 200 bed facility--the land density only allows for a 150 bed facility. 4. Originally Cleary told our residents they were building a single family home community. 5. This project will create dangerous traffic problems. Please vote "NO" for this Cleary Development project. Thank you for taking time in your busy schedule. Sincerely, Rod Gustafson 239-596-7339 (home) 239-248-7301 (cell) 1 BrownleeMichael From: David Marin <dwmarin@optonline.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 12:37 PM To: SaundersBurt Cc: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Subject: Re: Opposition to Cleary CFPUD PL20160001985 Attachments: BCCZONINGD-59-1798675-1.pdf; ATT00001.htm Categories: PRINTED Mr.Saunders&Commissioners, Just one more quick note following up on my previous 10/27 email (below) re: the 11/14 BCC meeting on the Cleary PUD (PL20160001985) In the October 25th public hearing notice regarding this meeting (see pdf attached)the "63 residential dwelling units" continues to remain an option acceptable to Mr. Cleary. As this option is also acceptable to the majority of Saturnia Lakes residents I suggest the Board grant Mr. Cleary approval for his desired 63 residential dwelling units vs the much taller& larger 200 bed group housing structure Saturnia Lakes residents oppose. Thank you, Dave Marin 1 BrownleeMichael From: Joseph Dykstra <jhdykstra@verizon.net> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 5:51 PM To: SaundersBurt; DavidLykins@colliergov.net; TaylorPenny; SherryGreco@collier.net; FialaDonna; BrownleeMichael; SolisAndy; GoodnerAngela; McDanielBill; FilsonSue Subject: Re: Cleary PUD Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, Despite the impression that you may have received from our board president and lawyer, we the residents of Saturnia Lakes are not at all in favor of the Cleary Project and strongly oppose it. Let's look at the reasons: 1. The height of the proposed building(s)will take away the little view of nature we have in that area and the privacy it now gives us, especially for those living close to or at the front of our community. 2. It will create traffic problems with entrances and exits for Saturnia and Cleary both on Immokalee Rd., especially during commuter hours when traffic is fast and heavy. This will be in addition to the light and turn in/turn out difficulties that the grocery shopping center will create on the corner of Logan Blvd. and Immokalee. Also, how does that all feed in when Logan becomes a 4 lane highway in the future? 3. What about the fact that there are 2 schools close by on Immokalee that have bus traffic there morning and afternoon as well as a large volume of parent drop offs and pickups that has increased since two new communities were developed between Logan and Collier Blvd. on the north side of Immokalee recently? The increase in population at Laurel Oak Elementary and at Gulf Coast High attest to that. 4. New man- made buildings will add to the problems of natural water absorption that planted areas can do and buildings and paved areas cannot. 5. More housing will add to the strain on the electric grid. Just look at the problems that occurred during and after the hurricane. Sewer water came bubbling up from manhole covers here in Saturnia and neighboring communities along with others farther from here. As I understand it this was caused by the jolt of power being restored in parts of our and other communities. 6. Removal of plants does affect the quality of our air and the amount of oxygen that plants give us. The project will also add to the amount of vehicle exhaust from more in and out traffic. 7. There would be increased noise (a lot) during construction which would especially affect the homeowners near the front of Saturniia. The in-place foliage provides some buffer now from traffic noise on Immokalee, but removal of trees takes away a huge part of that buffer. 8. Increased trash pickup will add even more noise to the Saturnia environment. 9. Revenue gained will also have to be revenue spent and most likely even more to handle all the problems over time this development will create. 10. Have you looked at the fact that there are two large senior housing developments on Vanderbilt in high rise structures which are not filled to capacity? If this proposed project is targeted to seniors or others, how will being so close to a road that is probably busier than Vanderbilt affect purchase? Finally, we ask that you not devalue our homes and lose tax value you already have. We ask that you not devalue us, your constituents, and our needs and desires and the trust and value of our votes. H. Dykstra 1 i-i-d 'LE 0 N {Eil Nov 062017 11 1523 Pacaya Cove By Naples, Florida 34119 November 1, 2017 Commissioner Donna Fiala Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East Suite 303 Naples,Florida 34112 Re: Zoning Change-Cleary PUD(PUDZ-PL20160001985) Dear Commissioner Fiala: I am a resident of Saturnia Lakes, a community of 580 single family houses, and am requesting your support in opposition to the proposed rezoning of the property on Immokalee Road and Saturnia Lakes Blvd. This proposed zoning change would allow a five story, 50 ft. high,200 group housing unit in an area surrounded by 1 and 2 story homes. This is entirely incompatible with the adjacent community. A project of this size would have an adverse effect on property values, add to the traffic congestion problem on Immokalee Road, create a noise condition in the surrounding residential community,and possibly create a flooding situation in Saturnia Lakes. Water did come dangerously close to our homes during Hurricane Irma. I believe any building on this property should be similar in height, scope and character to the neighborhood it borders. I hope you will join the residents of Saturnia Lakes in their opposition to this proposed zoning change. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Yours truly, yi Diane Jask t , . , ",,,.. = \ _ _ _ ( ) _ 11 ii ' i i i t - -= _ _ ...-= -7- ( ',‘ f ( . — —i if ,-- iA . ;-,a 'M — -s, — V z 6 = 15'. -7- 0 .„- . ..- ,.. .--.- ...... t..... -7 0 -5 — - b m E Lu r`i c. <-1 ' 0 — S 0 M a) D E -o c o m .c 76 o o —E 0 tij Li- _ I-- vl E -12 cl) w ill t 0 OCs, ummz d. M m -1 -I > m 0 >. 0 -.c 4.' CU = ° .Y MI -- VI (.) Li- Iti ;0 V W M ..... C rs, a co 0 ro .. Albert J. Jaskot lg T 11 V IE 1523 Pacaya Cove NOV 0 3 2017 Li Naples,Florida 34119 October 31,2017 By Commissioner Donna Fiala Board of County Commissioners 3299 Tamiami Trail East Suite 303 Naples Florida 34112 Re: Zoning Change - Cleary PUD (PUDZ-PL20160001985) Dear Commissioner Fiala: As a resident of Naples,I am writing to express my opposition to the request to rezone the property on Immokalee Road,just west of Saturnia Lakes Blvd. This proposed zoning change would allow a five story, 50 ft. high, 200 group housing unit in an area surrounded by 1 and 2 story single family homes. This is entirely incompatible with the adjacent community. Any building on this property should be complementary with the nearby neighborhood. Height restrictions should be consistent with the adjoining Saturnia Lakes development of 580 homes. I am sure you would not like a five story building next to your single family home. This proposal would destroy property values in the neighborhood, add an unacceptable level of noise to the surrounding homes, and dramatically contribute to the traffic congestion on Immokalee Road with cars and trucks exiting and entering the facility. Flooding would also be a potential problem, as this development plans to tap into the Saturnia Lakes discharge system which is already overtaxed. During Hurricane Irma water was within inches of many of our homes. I sincerely hope you will support the residents of Saturnia Lakes in their opposition to this proposed zoning change. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Respectfully, Albert J. Jaskot BrownleeMichael Subject: Meet w/ Patrick Neale & Mr. Michael Manganaro, President of the Saturnia Lakes HOA re: Cleary PUD Location: DF Office Start: Wed 11/8/2017 3:00 PM End: Wed 11/8/2017 3:30 PM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: FialaDonna Karen Kluklew/cz Chief of Operations Assistant to Attorney Patrick H. Neale Patrick Neale&Associates Phone: 239-642-1485 Fax: 239-642-1487 Email: karen(a�patrickneale.com Email Servicing: email-service cr patrickneale.com www.patrickneale.com 1 BrownleeMichael Subject: Meet w/ Rich Yovanovich & Mr. Cleary re: Cleary PUD Location: DF Office Start: Thu 11/9/2017 11:00 AM End: Thu 11/9/2017 11:30 AM Recurrence: (none) Organizer: FialaDonna Dianna Quintanilla Legal Assistant to Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. The Northern Trust Building 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 P: 239.435.3535 I F: 239.435.1218 dquintanillaCa)cyklawfirm.com 1 AGENDA ITE 7 Co e1r County ,., STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT- PLANNING&REGULATION HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2017 SUBJECT: PETITION PUDZ-PL20160001985, CLEARY RPUD (RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) APPLICANT/OWNER: Raymond J. Cleary, Jr. and Thomas J. Cleary Family Trust 3120 60th Street SW Naples,FL 34116 AGENTS: Mr. D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Mr. Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Q. Grady Minor and Associates,P.A. Coleman,Yovanovich&Koester,P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Bonita Springs,FL 34134 Naples,FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC) consider an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Cleary RPUD,to allow construction of a maximum of 63 residential dwelling units or 200 group housing units for seniors. Cleary RPUD,PUDZ-PL20160001985 September 21,2017 Page 1 of 15 *, ,r .., V qt •-_,... .., ,.- -- 1 Q., ® 1 ® ® 1 Dm T TRACT L2 0 C •1 diteeseosooe Ah:Nr PLC ,x, TRACT P cT ......STlACT li ...lig.' 1 ,..nnnen• SITE LOCATION 0,11,1111ti en coran PROJECT war \/ /,/,-/ LOCATION i 171 C133 \ CD itr* WW1 ._,...e..._ la 4 a Immokalee RD - 1 TR LI L i P GD g 34 rpe, a 011 e' ) Cal A 221 i' al rC11,,,,i 112E3 N v.-, ....5 11 ....,_ M o i N. .11,2 CGO..... aa .a., SC CC TRACT 0315 • P I 0 v . .i,3_-- ... D:Z - . iz.0-A.z„t-,-_- .\•- Vanderbilt Beach RD eaV..v--.I:te.ft..Z..e•,*•I...•:lI.IIift'Mi0It4-tM,W-r=l,ysI,Iy 000ec•-,a)4...,,,.,. Location Map Zoning Map Petition Number: PL-2016-1985 1 •^ IMMOKALEE ROAD(CR846)100'RIGHT-OF-WAY 20'WIDE TYPE'D'LANDSCAPE BUFFER , I �� — — a m lar -- — -- — — �� ` — SCALE:1'=100 Lx� _ INTERCONNECTION I 1 T• rrr rrr rrr rrr rrr rrr f TRACT"0515" 1 111 ) r/,r/,r/,r/,r/,r/,r { h (OPEN SPACE, 1 D.E.ANDA.E.) WATER MANAGEMENT r 1 _ I _ 1 I:r rir r%rrr 7/ 7/ rrr/ � 1 �I Ili : rr//)//,// //rrr rrr rr//,//rr (I % r r J /�-ATURNIALAKES I 1 i rr rr rrr rrr r „r!!! - 1 15'L.B.E. �� 1_4 {P836 PG56} Ie- -----"— --—, I I i/ --,, CONCEPTUAL I I '`/ I �,V. RESIDENTIAL - j / SITE DATA 1 • I 1 UILDINf 1 I I I z, k+ E Ij f TOTAL SITE AREA: 8.99±AC *--...---";.--",1'.--- I I I RESIDENTIAL 5.36±AC 1 i ` I I - PRESERVE 1.07±AC 1 f I I WATER MANAGEMENT 1.0±AC ° utiI F ` I BUFFERS/OPEN SPACE 1.56±AC 1 L . t 15'WIDE , I PUD BOUNDARY ` LANDSPECAPE 1 1 ' D r BUFFER I IEl 1 & Z ZONED:A7. N I . r I S 03 a RIGAS PUD UNDEVELOPED -, - // I I k RESIDENTIAL rn 10'WIDE TYPE'A' aONCEPTUAII. I I I mu) c�j LANDSCAPE BUFFER 1RESIDENTIAL 1 O m 03 '/'BUILDING ` lc 6 II < y 1. I ' i 1 Irn 1 I. {/ " ,} I I I MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS: 63 MAXIMUM GROUP HOUSING UNITS: 200 ` I ,' I 1 I MAXIMUM DENSITY: 7 DU/AC I I 1 J; j PRESERVE: i. 1 REQUIRED-1.07±ACRES(7.13±ACRES NATIVE CONCEPTUAL 1 I VEGETATION X 15%) I RESIDENTIAL BUILDING s I 't PROVIDED•1.07±ACRES I i r —"1 I ++`PUD BOUNDARY OPEN SPACE: REQUIRED PROVIDED I I I 1+`+ i y RESIDENTIAL: 5.4±AC(60%) 6.4±AC(60%) • t i. I I h GROUP HOUSING: 2.7±AC(30%) 2.7±AC(30%) - __ , } ISATURNIA LAKES NOTES E I I 15'L.B.E. I (P836 PG57) 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS _ `• , SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO , . . , ,. . . , . , .• , .. ,. 1 `, AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. . . . . • . . . . " ' ' I I \ 2. ALL ACREAGES, EXCEPT PRESERVE, ARE - • - - - - - • - . • APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION ` ' W W " " ' - ' AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL IN . ` y * .PRESERVE V ' . . . ' 1 ACCORDANCE WITH THE LDC. 15'WIDE +\ 3. PRESERVES MAY BE USED TO SATISFY THE . . . . , u . y , . . TYPE'8' l , LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AFTER • • • - - . .- LANDSCAPE \ EXOTIC REMOVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC - * - W - . 1 - BUFFER `, SECTION 4.06.02 AND LDC SECTION 4.06.05.E.1. , - . _ "' . `. . fJ I SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGS WITH NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC RIGAS PUD CHARGE ', SECTION 3.05.07. A MINIMUM 6-FOOT WIDE RESIDENTIAL LOCATION +', LANDSCAPE BUFFER MUST BE RESERVED FOR SATURNIA LAKES PLAT ONE + ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE MATERIAL WHICH (PB 36,PG 56-65) 15'WIDE TYPE'B' ++ SHALL BE ADDED OUTSIDE OF THE PRESERVE TRACT'OS15" LANDSCAPE BUFFER 4 ON THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE TO ACHIEVE THE (OPEN SPACE,D.E.ANDA.E.) ` 80%OPACITY REQUIREMENT WITHIN 6 MONTHS 1+ I OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE , OF OCCUPANCY. I, LEGEND CLEARY RPUD et"`' Fla GradyMinor . alo+"nnMIT REVISED 1.1.5.i. "•211" EXHIBIT C 08/23/2017 Mil F.M. • PQM surmors • Honaen . LwMalpe Anmeea" MASTER PLAN weyr,na zaae,i,+ri�i a , 1 1 0 vCM l0au. V.nw.«wmwcu-w..w+w,aw-unm wu.",r N((Y".u.2f,a0n,mn...WM/, U C,xy_n.ar a,,,ize„.s w GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The 8.99± acre subject property is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, approximately one quarter mile east of Logan Boulevard in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. (See the Location Map on page 2.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject 8.991 acre property is currently zoned Rural Agriculture (A). The petitioner proposes to develop a maximum of 63 single-family, townhouse, or multi-family residences, or a maximum of 200 units of senior group housing within a Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD). The proposed maximum density is 7 dwelling units per acre (DU/A). The proposed floor area ratio (FAR)for the senior group housing is 0.60. The Master Plan, located on the previous page of this Staff Report, depicts the area of proposed building,parking, vehicular circulation,water management area, and preserve. The Master Plan also shows that 5.36 acres shall be residential, 1.07 acres shall be preserve, 1.0 acre shall be water management, and 1.56 acres shall be buffers/open space. Depending upon the type of development, a minimum of 30% open space is provided for group housing and a minimum of 60% open space has been provided for residential development. The petitioner proposes a maximum zoned building height of 30 feet and an actual building height of 40 feet for the single-family residences; a zoned building height of 40 feet and an actual building height of 50 feet for the multi-family residences, and a zoned building height of 45 feet, and an actual building height of 50 feet for the group housing. There is a proposed 20-foot wide Type D landscape buffer along Immokalee Road. In addition to the existing 15-foot wide Type B landscape buffer at Saturnia Lakes along the east property line, is another proposed 15-foot wide Type B landscape buffer. Along approximately half of the south property line is a proposed 15-foot wide Type B landscape buffer and then a proposed preserve area adjacent to Saturnia Lakes. Along the west property line a 10-foot wide Type A landscape buffer is proposed. There is one proposed deviation related to FAR. For further information please see the Deviation Section of this Staff Report located on page 13. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Immokalee Road, a 6-lane road, and then a residential development with a zoning designation of H.D. Development Planned Unit Development(PUD) with a density of 2.42 units per acre and a maximum zoned height of 42 feet East: Entrance Road, and then single-family residences in Saturnia Lakes,with a zoning designation of Rigas PUD with a density of 3.13 units per acre and a maximum height of 50 feet Cleary RPUD,PUDZ-PL20160001985 September 21,2017 Page 4 of 15 South: Natural vegetation, and then single-family residences in Saturnia Lakes, with a zoning designation of Rigas PUD with a density of 3.13 units per acre and a maximum height of 50 feet West: Undeveloped land with a zoning designation of A(Agriculture) i', a8.iwr . . ,!1 m 1 Subject Site � IIWN f .. 46'it /1 '''' &t, "...$ ff 40.k �.NFei1W f x N i C Iv ,.. ...1. filitt ....,!...., ,, -,. . „.. . , „ ,, ,Il A .,,k v" 4,11 awiC I a,eae.o,arw« tr a #.1.o.fl.. 4ifii , "m1+: ` __55f AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP) CONSISTENCY: The proposed PUD rezone is consistent with the Future Land Use Element(FLUE) of the GMP. See attached Exhibit C: Future Land Use Element(FLUE) Consistency Review dated August 24, 2017. 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 Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the 2016 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). Cleary RPUD,PUDZ-PL20160001985 September 21,2017 Page 5 of 15 Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element(FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and 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 RPUD 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 a maximum of approximately 85 PM peak hour, two-way trips, on the adjacent roadway segments. The proposed development will impact the following roadway segments with the listed capacities: Roadway Link 2016 AUIR Current Peak Hour Peak 2016 Remaining Existing LOS Direction Service Capacity Volume/Peak Direction Immokalee Road Logan Boulevard to D 3,200/East 637 Collier Boulevard Immokalee Road Logan Boulevard to I- D 3,500/East 616 75 Logan Boulevarc Immokalee Road to C 1,000/North 380 Vanderbilt Beach Roac 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. Cleary RPUD,PUDZ-PL20160001985 September 21,2017 Page 6 of 15 1 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. The project site consists of 7.13 acres of native vegetation; a minimum of 1.07 (15%) acres of the existing native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. 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 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 "Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analysis: Utility Review: Public Utilities Department staff has reviewed the petition and recommends approval. Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD Document to address environmental concerns. This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. The PUD Master Plan provides 1.07 acres of Preserve, which meets the minimum requirement of fifteen (15%) in accordance with LDC section 3.05.07.B. There were no listed species observed on the site. However, bear nuisance calls have been documented within the vicinity of the subject property. Therefore, a commitment requiring a Bear Management Plan with the SDP and/or Plat has been included. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff finds this project consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Zoning and Land Development Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. Staff believes that the proposed development will be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. Staff offers the following analysis of this project: Cleary RPUD,PUDZ-PL20180001985 September 21,2017 Page 7 of 15 The land across Immokalee Road and to the north of the proposed 8.99± acre senior group care housing or residential units is developed with single-family dwelling units at a density of 2.42 units per acre and a maximum height of 42 feet. The land to the east is Saturnia Lakes, developed with a 15-foot wide Type B landscape buffer, an entrance road, a lake and then single-family homes. A 150-foot wide preserve area on the subject site and 50 feet of natural vegetation separates the single- family dwelling units to the south at Saturnia Lakes from the proposed development. The permissible maximum height of 50 feet at Saturnia Lakes is similar to the proposed maximum height of 45 feet at Cleary PUD. While the proposed Cleary RPUD density is higher than the adjacent PUD's, it is similar to the more recently approved PUD's along the Immokalee Road corridor: F - Addie's Corner PUD- 11.45 units per acre - Tree Farm PUD—7.22 units per acre - Abaco Club PUD—6.54 units per acre The combination of existing and proposed landscape buffers along with the preserve area and natural vegetation mitigates for the proposed higher density of the Cleary RPUD. Therefore, the proposed development is compatible with the existing development in the area. Zoning staff recommends that this petition be found compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses,pursuant to the requirement of FLUE Policy 5.4. REZONE FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below: Rezone fmdings are designated as RZ and PUD findings are designated as PUD. (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided 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 and discussed in the zoning review analysis, the neighborhood's existing land use pattern can be characterized as single- family residential and agricultural. Staff is on the opinion that the land uses proposed in this PUD petition will not create incompatibility issues. Cleary RPUD,PUDZ-PL20180001985 September 21,2017 Page 8 of 15 's. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The subject parcel will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. It is also comparable with expected land uses by virtue of its consistency with the FLUE of the GMP. 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. The proposed amendment is not necessary, but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such the amendment to allow the owner the opportunity to develop the land with uses other than what the existing Agricultural zoning district would allow. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD rezone, with the commitments made by the applicant, can been deemed consistent with the County's land use policies upon adoption that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Development in compliance with the proposed PUD rezone should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 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 that this PUD rezone will not adversely impact property values. Zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since market demand drives value determination. Cleary RPUD,PUDZ-PL20160001985 September 21,2017 Page 9 of 15 • 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The property surrounding the subject site is partially developed. The basic premise underlying all of the development (SDP) standards in the LDC is that their sound application, when combined with the SDP approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence 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 PUD rezone 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 zoning. The petitioner is seeking this rezone in compliance with LDC provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed rezone meets the intent of the PUD district, and further, believes the public interest will be maintained. 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 the proposed development site will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the building permit process. Cleary RPUD,PUDZ-PL20160001985 September21,2017 Page 10 of 15 1 4 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services r 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. 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 and objectives of the GMF 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. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health,safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing, 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:" } 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 with, 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. In addition, the commitments included in PUD Exhibit F adequately address the impacts from the proposed development. 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. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office (CAO), demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or SDP approval. Both 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. Cleary RPUD,PUDZ-PL20160001985 September 21,2017 Page 11 of 15 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 Staff Analysis Section of this staff report, 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 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 the time of first development order(SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans,are sought. 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. Furthermore, adequate public facilities requirements will 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 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 one deviation 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 deviation 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 deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Cleary RPUD,PUDZ-PL20160001985 September 21,2017 Page 12 of 15 6 Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report below for a more extensive examination of the deviation. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking one deviation from the requirements of the LDC. The deviation is directly extracted from PUD Exhibit E. The petitioner's rationale and staff analysis/recommendation is outlined below. Proposed Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.D.1 which establishes a maximum FAR of 0.45 for group housing to instead permit a maximum FAR of 0.60. s Petitioner's Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: Modern senior housing projects provide a significant array of recreational amenities, which when provided within the building increases the total square footage of the structure; therefore, increasing the FAR. Newer senior housing projects also provide more spacious interior living space, necessitating a larger FAR. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL, 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 1 application of such regulations." NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on April 26, 2017. For further information,please see Exhibit C: "Transcript of the Neighborhood Information Meeting." Over 200 residents from the neighboring Saturnia Lakes community have signed petitions objecting to the proposed Cleary PUD. Please see Exhibit D: Saturnia Lakes -Petitions." COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for Petition PUDZ-PL20160001985, Cleary RPUD revised on September 18, 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-PL20160001985, Cleary PUD to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Cleary RPUD,PUDZ-PL20160001985 September 21,2017 Page 13 of 15 .5 gk • Attachments: Exhibit A: Proposed PUD Ordinance Exhibit B: Future Land Use Element(FLUE)Consistency Review Exhibit C: Transcript of the Neighborhood Information Meeting Exhibit D: Saturnia Lakes — Petitions (Note: Only the cover letter, map and one example of a signed petition has been attached. The petitions are all the same, but they are signed by 200 individual residents. t Cleary RPUD,PUDZ-P120160001985 September 21,2017 Page 14 of 15 PREPARED BY: \aft j 4I okA +Afi . 017 NANCY IS H,AICP,PLA I DATE PRINCIP 'L-I ER ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: RAYM V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER ATE ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION 9 MIKE BOSI,AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION APPROVED BY: �( / 11 MES FRENCH,DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Cleary RPUD,PUDZ-PL20160001985 September 6,2017 Page 15 of 15 FialaDonna From: Mary Anne Guarino <maryanneguarino©gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 11:18 AM To: FialaDonna Cc: BrownleeMichael Subject: Cleary Project I am a Saturnia Lakes resident who would like to voice my objection to the Cleary Development plan as I understand it to stand at this time. I did attend the Planning Commission meeting of October 5th, where all of the Saturnia residents, except two, one being our lawyer Patrick Neale, were shocked to hear that our HOA president had signed an agreement, without holding a board meeting with the residents, with Cleary. This agreement was not in the best interest of Saturnia Lakes residents. Thee Cleary Project which will result in the construction of a five story building up to 50 feet tall on the property that borders our entrance to Saturnia, only feet away from our main entrance and certain residential streets in Saturnia Lakes.This project is scheduled to go before the Collier County Commissioners for a final hearing on Tuesday, November 14th. Many Saturnia residents attended the October 5th planning commission meeting on the Cleary project with a goal of persuading the commissioners not to endorse the project. In the end, our efforts fell short by one vote for a tie. Both the chairman and the vice-chairman voted against this project as it was presented by the developer. I do not want to take up a lot of your time but there are several concerns we have concerning this project. The proposed structure will be 50 feet tall with parking, dumpsters, generators, etc. almost in the backyard of some Saturnia residents. Cleary stated that the tree lined Saturnia will block a lot of this view and noise, but it will not. After Hurricane Irma, a good portion of the tree line is gone. In addition to the height of this building, Saturnia has a concern about traffic since there will be an entrance and exit only feet away from our entrance and exit. Since there is currently a U-turn option here on an already busy street, Immokalee Road, and we are soon to have a shopping/restaurant mall just feet away from both entrances on the corner of Logan and Immokalee,this situation has a potential for many accidents. In addition, we have school buses twice a day entering and exiting our main entrance which could also cause traffic issues since the two entrances will now be only feet apart form each other. Another main concern is water drainage. During the last rainy season and Hurricane Irma, our lakes and preserves were at capacity. I have no actual knowledge of water drainage issues, but I cannot imagine where all the standing water will run once this large facility is built. If you speak to most of Saturnia residents,they would tell you that one of the reasons they settled here was because of the beautiful landscaping throughout the development, especially our entrance way,which will now be lost forever.A 50 foot structure and parking lot in our backyards is not what we ever expected. Thank you for your time, Mary Anne Guarino 2072 Isla De Palma Circle 1 Ex parte Items - Commissioner Donna Fiala COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA November 14, 2017 CONSENT AGENDA 16.A.8. 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 Heritage Bay Commons - Tract D Second Replat, Application Number 20170002126. DQ NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence ❑e-mails ❑Calls 16.A.9. 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 Buckley Parcel Replat, Application Number PL20170003099. ® NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence ❑e-mails ❑Calls SUMMARY AGENDA 17.A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 14-24, as amended, the Buckley Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD), to approve an insubstantial change to the MPUD to reduce the minimum lot area and minimum lot width for single family detached dwelling units, and providing for an effective date. The subject property is located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Orange Blossom Drive, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, FL, consisting of 21.7± acres. [PDI-PL20170002630] NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence ❑e-mails ❑Call Staff Report +t Co ler County 1 7A STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 12,2017 SUBJECT: PDI-PL20170002630; BUCKLEY PUD OWNER/APPLICANT: AGENT: Pulte Home Company, LLC Lindsay F. Robin, MPA 24311 Walden Center Dr. #300 Waldrop Engineering, P.A. Bonita Springs, FL 34134 28100 Bonita Grande Dr. #305 Note: Five fee simple lots are owned by individual homeowners Bonita Springs, FL 34135 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Hearing Examiner approve an insubstantial change to the Buckley PUD by reducing the minimum lot area of the single-family detached dwelling units from 5,400 square feet to 5,000 square feet and by reducing the minimum lot width from 45 feet to 40 feet. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road(CR 31)and Orange Blossom Drive in Section 2,Township 49 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida. (see location map on following page) PDI-PL20170002630 Buckley PUD Page 1 of 8 August 23. 2017 fis`it • y•f' - ,-#. e IA•*ip 0 x.-u . 0 . _ c 4, 4.r- 2 n).71 , o 0 a / 11111111§111 :4' ci) ta a co vanftraie, _ it0 ---- c _ -, 0 --' \ : :,.". C C SITE .. - 1 1 LOCATION 1 . i Pu-D i , '3 FEEL ,..: -i . 1 it j. , . . A I 1 El Location Map Zoning Map = . Petition Number: PL20170002630 rs.> 9., i PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: In 2005, the property was rezoned from Rural Agricultural (A) to Mixed Use Planned Unit Development(MPUD)pursuant to Ordinance 2005-05 allowing for a maximum of 251 dwelling units,74,230 square feet of retail,and 97,070 square feet of office space.In 2014,the property was rezoned from MPUD to MPUD pursuant to Ordinance 14-24 allowing for a maximum of 239 multi-family residential units, and a maximum of 162,750 square feet of retail,office and service uses.A companion Growth Management Plan(GMP)Amendment was approved with Ordinance 14-23,which modified the underlying Buckley Mixed Use District removing the office and retail caps,providing for a conversion ratio for non-residential and residential uses,and further limiting commercial uses, and vertically integrated mixed-use development within the project. In 2016, there was a PUD amendment via Ordinance 16-10 allowing for single family detached and two- family/duplex dwellings as permitted uses, development regulations, various deviation additions and modifications, and revised developer commitments. On July 18, 2017, the petitioner applied for this insubstantial change to the Buckley MPUD to modify the residential development standards for single family detached dwellings by reducing the minimum lot area from 5,400 square feet to 5,000 square feet and reducing the minimum lot width from 45 feet to 40 feet,which the petitioner claims will allow for a wider size range of single family detached dwellings. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding the boundaries of the subject property: North: Adult Congregate Living Facility/Adult Living Facility/Skilled Nursing facility (HarborChase of Naples), zoned Brighton Gardens Planned Unit Development (PUD). East: Right-of-way for Airport-Pulling Road;then farther east is a canal;still farther east is developed residential(Lakeside of Naples), zoned PUD and a church(St.Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church),zoned Rural Agricultural(A)with a Conditional Use(CU) for a church. South: Collier County Library Headquarters,zoned A with a CU for a governmental facility. West: Single-family residential(Emerald Lakes),zoned Emerald Lakes PUD at a density of 3.54 dwelling units per acre. PDI-PL20170002630 Buckley PUD Page 3 of 8 August 23,2017 f . y F 8 y # *::— c r .,A g ' a*r _"' •4.sag...�. o; jo: taro d&r.' wsamrrf=tiowr..... r�ir instr1M.r fern. ..7. Daw�r+rF ,R, a .:** '. ' `tai , R I. a ,^ , st .1Subject Property +" a .*+ . `- i�. i"4+'��y 4 ter. ,_ t;,, 4--aa ut #r xa r i rt < .a k-i.'0,,, . set ' . .a. *** , 0 i ;. -.. t 40'4,41.' _ tom. tk t= +-rztg; **PE-t fir. » e < .,*,,. - , ..._ . «r? m 'v 4t , -- . ., , 1(B fe " it,to { N 41'4 {' Aerial(County GIS) STAFF ANALYSIS: Comprehensive Planning: Because this application is not adding uses or increasing the intensity of the previously approved uses in the Buckley MPUD, it is consistent with the Future Land Use Element(FLUE)of the GMP. t Conservation and Coastal Management Element: Environmental staff has evaluated the proposed changes to the PUD documents and found no issue with consistency. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning statT has evaluated the proposed changes to the PUD documents and found no issue with consistency. Sections 10.02.13.E.1 and 10.02.13.E.2 of the Land Development Code set forth the criteria by which insubstantial amendments to a PUD Master Plan and/or minor text changes to a PUD document are to be reviewed before they can be approved. The criteria and a response to each have been listed as follows: PDI-PL20170002630 Buckley PUD Page 4 of 8 August 23,2017 10.02.13.E.1 a. Is there a proposed change in the boundary of the Planned Unit Development(PUD)? No,there is no proposed change in the boundary of the PUD. b. Is there a proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development? No,there is no proposed increase in the number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development. c. Is there a proposed decrease in preservation,conservation, recreation,or open space areas within the development in excess of five (5) percent of the total acreage previously designated as such, or five(5)acres in area? No,there is no proposed decrease in preservation,conservation,recreation, or open space areas within the development as designated on the approved Master Plan. d. Is there a proposed increase in the size of areas used for non-residential uses, to include institutional, commercial and industrial land uses (excluding preservation, conservation or open space),or a proposed relocation of nonresidential land uses? There would be no increase to the size of areas used for non-residential uses and no relocation of non-residential uses. e. Is there a substantial increase in the impacts of the development which may include, but are not limited to increases in traffic generation;changes in traffic circulation;or impacts on other public facilities? No,there are no substantial impacts resulting from this amendment. f. Will the change result in land use activities that generate a higher level of vehicular traffic based upon the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers? The proposed amendment would not result in land use activities that generate higher levels of vehicular traffic based upon the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. g. Will the change result in a requirement for increased stormwater retention, or otherwise increase stormwater discharge? No, the proposed changes will not impact or increase stormwater retention or increase stormwater discharge. PDI-PL20170002630 Buckley PUD Page 5 of 8 August 23,2017 h. Will the proposed change bring about a relationship to an abutting land use that would be incompatible with an adjacent land use? No. There w:i.1 be no incompatible relationships with abutting land uses. Are there :uay modifications to the PUD Master Plan or PUD Document or amendment to a PUD ordinance which is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element or other elements of the Growth Management Plan or which modification would increase the density of intensity of the permitted land uses? No. Staff from Comprehensive Planning staff determined the proposed changes to the PUD Document would be consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. Both environmental and Transportation Planning staff reviewed this petition,and no changes to the PUD Document are proposed that would be deemed inconsistent with the CCME or the Transportation Element of the GMP. This petition does not propose any increase in density or intensity of the permitted land uses. j. The proposed change is to a PUD District designated as a Development of Regional Impact(DRI)and approved pursuant to Chapter 380.06,Florida Statues,where such change requires a determination and public hearing by Collier County pursuant to Sec.380.06(19),F.S. Any change that meets the criterion of Sec.380.06(19)(e)2.,F.S., and any changes to a DRI/PUD Master Plan that clearly do not create a substantial deviation shall be reviewed and approved by Collier County under Section 10.02.13 of the LDC. The project is iot a DRI. k. Are there ably modifications to the PUD Master Plan or PUD Document or amendment ti a PUD ordinance which impact(s) any consideration deemed to be a substantial miidification as described under Section(s) 10.02.13 E.? Based upon dale analysis provide above, the proposed change is not deemed to be substantial. Section 10.02.13.E.2 Does this petition change the analysis of the fmdings and criteria used for the original application? (Rezone Findings are attached to this Staff Report as Attachment"A".) No, the proposed changes do not affect the original analysis and findings for the original application. DEVIATION DISCI SSION: No deviations are bei 71g requested as part of this application. PDI-PL20170002630 Buckley PUD Page 6 of 8 August 23,2017 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): NIM was waived via email correspondence from HEX Examiner Mark Strain on August 31,2017. (Attachment B) COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's office reviewed this Staff Report on September 19,2017. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Hearing Examiner approve Petition PDI- PL20170002630. Attachments: A) Support Material Provided by Staff B) Application and Support Material PD1-PL20170002630 Buckley PUD Page 7 of 8 August 23,2017 PREPARED BY: TIMOTHYTI4-6714-yriN AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: ALT 0 . // - /i,J,7 RAYMIIi V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DE ZONIN DIVISION I) MIKE BOSI, AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION PDI-PL20170002630 Buckley PUD Page 8 of 8 August 23,2017 Com► e r Co1141.ty Growth Management Department Zoning Division/Comprehensive Planning Section MEMORANDUM To: Tim Finn,Principal Planner Zoning Services Section,Zoning Division From: Sue Faulkner,Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Section,Zoning Division Date: August 18,2017 Subject: Future Land Use Element(FLUE)Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PDI-PL20170002630 Rev: 1 PETITION NAME:Buckley MPUD REQUEST: To amend Buckley MPUD(Mixed Use Planned Unit Development),approved via Ordinance #05-5 (subsequently repealed), as amended via Ordinance #16-10, to modify Exhibit `B' Residential Development Standards-Table 1 with two Insubstantial Changes to the Planned Unit Development(PDI): • Single-family detached to reduce the minimum lot area from 5,400 square feet to 5,000 square feet • Single-family detached to reduce the minimum lot width from 45 feet to 40 feet LOCATION:The subject site,comprising±21.7 acres,is located on the west side of Airport-Pulling Road (CR 31)and+330 feet north of Orange Blossom Drive,immediately north of the Collier County Regional Library;in Section 2,Township 49 South,Range 25 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject site is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District,Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict,on the Future Land Use Map of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). In the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP, this Subdistrict reads, "The intent of this Subdistrict, which comprises 21.7 acres, is to allow for limited retail, office and residential uses while allowing for the development of a mixed-use development. The Activity Centers to the North and South provide for large-scale commercial uses,while this Subdistrict is intended to promote convenience and intermediate commercial development to serve existing and future residential development in the immediate area. This Subdistrict will serve to reduce existing trip lengths for convenience and intermediate commercial services. Commercial uses for the purpose of this section are limited to those permitted and conditional uses allowed in the C-1,C-2 and C-3 Zoning Districts except as noted below. The development of this Subdistrict will be governed by the following criteria." The site is zoned Buckley MPUD(Mixed Use Planned Unit Development)consistent with the Subdistrict. This petition does not seek to increase the number of DUs -currently approved at 239 DUs—nor add or make changes to commercial uses or intensities. Two insignificant changes are proposed: reduce the minimum lot area and reduce the minimum lot width. These modifications to the development standards will allow for a larger variety of single-family detached product types. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr.,Naples,FL 34104 Page 1 of 2 Relevant FLUE Objeci ives and policies are stated below(in italics); each policy is followed by staff analysis(in bold). FLUE Policy 5.4: New developments shall be compatible with,and complementary to,the surrounding land uses,as set forth in the Land Development Code(Ordinance 04-41,adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18,2004, as amended). [Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services Section's staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety.] FLUE Objective 7 and Relevant Policies: Given the nature of this petition and the minor changes proposed(no changes in permitted uses,densities, or intensities),staff is of the opinion that a re-evaluation of FLUE policies under Objective 7(pertaining to access,interconnections,walkability,etc.)is not necessary. These policies were recently evaluated during staff's consistency rel,iew of the Buckley Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) petition, approved April 12,20 it 6. CONCLUSION Based upon the above analysis,the proposed PDI may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. PETITION ON CITYVIEW cc: Mike Bosi,AICD, Director,Zoning Division David Weeks,AIC P,Growth Management Manager,Zoning Division,Comprehensive Planning Section Ray Bellows,Manager,Zoning Services Section PDI-PL2017-2630 Buckley R1.docx 2800 North Horseshoe 01 Naples,FL 34104 Page 2 of 2 9 FINDINGS OF FACT: 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 Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 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 proposed option of allowing single-family and two-family/duplex dwellings would be compatible with the approved uses and existing development in the area. 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. Additionally,the;development will be required to obtain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation 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 the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the Growth Management Plan (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 the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area. Both Master Plans show a Type"C" Buffer would be created along the west property line. Landscape Buffers(of varying types dependent on which Master Plan is utilized)would be installed along the north,south, and • east property lines as well. The MPUD would also contain common themes related to architecture, signage, lighting, and landscaping as identified in the Developer Commitments(Exhibit F)of the PUD Document. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. According to a note on the Exhibit C — Master Plan for Single-family and Two- family/Dupl ex,the project would provide 13.03 acres or 60%of the 21.72-acre site as open space. This open space includes areas such as lakes, buffers, pervious area within the rights-of-way and on individual lots,and other open space. Therefore,the amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. Also, the maximum lot coverage for all buildings is capped at 35%for the total project as per General Note #1 in the Developer Commitments (Exhibit F) of the PUD Document. If this amendment is approved,usable open space would be further addressed at the time of Site Development Plan(SDP)or plat(PPL)review,whichever is applicable. 6. The timing o r 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 PPL), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. The applicant has committed to pay their proportionate share of intersection improvements to the intersection of Airport- Pulling Road and Orange Blossom Drive which is currently under study by the County. Finally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 7. The ability ►f the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. No changes are proposed to the MPUD boundary. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal systems and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will 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. The petitioner is seeking two amend one(1) existing deviation and requesting six(6)new deviations. Staff supports the proposed amendment to Deviation#1 and most of the new deviations (i.e., #3, #5, #6, #7, and#8),with the exception of Deviation#4. Staff does • not support this deviation based on the applicant's lack of compelling justification for it. Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report for a more extensive examination of this and the other deviations. 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. Staff determined the proposed residential land uses in connection with this amendment are appropriate for this area of the County. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. This amendment would not change the MPUD zoning of the subject property. The petitioner is requesting to add single-family and two-family residential land uses to the existing MPUD. Adding these types of dwellings would be akin to creating a PUD (or an RPUD). The abutting land to the west is zoned PUD and developed with single-family homes. The adjacent land to the east is zoned PUD and developed with residential uses. Therefore, approval of this amendment would not create a district unrelated to adjacent or nearby districts. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The boundaries of the MPUD would not be altered by this proposed amendment. 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. Staff does not anticipate the new uses would adversely impact living conditions in the neighboring community. 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,which includes provisions to address public safety. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed change will not create a drainage problem as the applicant will be required to submit a SFWMD permit and all required stormwater documentation to County staff to be evaluatedduring the development review process. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; It is not anticipated that this amendment would significantly reduce light or air to the adjacent area:. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. 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. There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The abutting, and adjacent lands are already developed. Longview Center, which is currently vacant land located in close proximity to the subject property, was previously approved for mixed-use development (commercial and residential). Staff does not anticipate the proposed amendment at the subject site would be a deterrent to the improvement of the vacant Longview Center to the southeast or any other adjacent property. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed 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 property may still be developed within the parameters of the current PUD Document; however, there are no substantial reasons to prohibit the inclusion of the requested residential uses. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staff's opinion the proposed uses and associated development standards and developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed on its own merit 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 site development plan (SDP) or platting approval process (PPL), whichever is applicable, 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 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 adequate public facilities is determined at the time of an SDP or PPL, whichever Master Plan is applicable. a 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)shall deem important in the protection of the public health,safety,and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. Ex parte Items - Commissioner Donna Fiala COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA November 14, 2017 CONSENT AGENDA 16.A.8. 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 Heritage Bay Commons - Tract D Second Replat, Application Number 20170002126. M NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ❑Meetings ['Correspondence De-mails ❑Calls 16.A.9. 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 Buckley Parcel Replat, Application Number PL20170003099. 7 NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE Meetings ❑Correspondence De-mails ❑Calls SUMMARY AGENDA 17.A. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 14-24, as amended, the Buckley Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD), to approve an insubstantial change to the MPUD to reduce the minimum lot area and minimum lot width for single family detached dwelling units, and providing for an effective date. The subject property is located at the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Airport-Pulling Road and Orange Blossom Drive, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, FL, consisting of 21.7± acres. [PDI-PL20170002630] NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM 7 SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence [le-mails ❑Call Staff Report