Loading...
Ex-parte - Fiala 02/27/2018 Ex Parte Items - Commissioner Donna Fiala COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA FEBRUARY 27, 2018 ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 09-65, the Siena Lakes CCRC Commercial Planned Unit Development, to approve an insubstantial change to the CPUD, to retain the existing total number of permitted residential units but revising the ratio of permitted residential units by increasing the number of independent living units, increasing the number of assisted living beds and decreasing the number of skilled nursing beds and memory care beds; and to revise the Master Plan by changing the number of buildings, the entrance location, and the site, lake and building configurations. The subject property consists of 29.25± acres, located on the north side of Orange Blossom Road between Airport-Pulling Road and Livingston Road, in Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [PDI-PL20160003125]. (This is a companion to agenda item 9B) 9-B- This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to approve an amendment to Ordinance Number 92- 75, as amended, the Orange Blossom Gardens Planned Unit Development (PUD); providing for amendment to add temporary principal uses for off-site sales, marketing and administration for the Siena Lakes PUD and to add principal uses accessory to St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church including administrative offices and classrooms ancillary to the church; providing for development standards; providing for amendment to the master plan and providing for an effective date. The subject property consisting of 5.85 acres is located on the north side of Orange Blossom Drive approximately 1/10 of a mile east of Airport Pulling Road in Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, in Collier County, Florida. [PL20170000524] (This is a companion to Agenda Item 9A) NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM M SEE FILE (Meetings OCorrespondence ne-mails (Calls Staff Reports for both 9A&9B AGENDA ITEM 9-A Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JANUARY 18, 2018 SUBJECT: SIENA LAKES (CPUD); PDI PL20160003125 (COMPANION ITEM: ORANGE BLOSSOM GARDENS PUD; PUDA-PL2017-0524) PROPERTY OWNER/AGENTS: OWNER: ELP Naples, LLC c/o Erickson Living Management LLC 701 Maiden Choice Lane Baltimore MD 21228 AGENTS: Robert Mulhere, FAICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Hole Montes, Inc. Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester 950 Encore Way 4001 Tamiami Trail North Naples, FL 34110 Naples,FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an amendment to the Siena Lakes Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD), to retain the existing total number of permitted residential units but revising the ratio of permitted residential units by increasing the number of independent living units, increasing the number of assisted living beds, and decreasing the number of skilled nursing beds and memory care beds; and to revise the Master Plan by changing the number of buildings, the entrance location, and the site, lake and building configurations. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The 29.25-acre subject property is located on the north side of Orange Blossom Drive, approximately 1,000 feet east of Airport Road (CR 31) and west of Livingston Road (CR 881), in Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East(see location map on the following page). SIENA LAKES (CPUD);PDI PL20160003125 Hearing date: 1/18/18 Page 1 of 10 Last revised: 1/2/18 trer'epof ' 'Elginnwr Tii 70-1 ; -;-4 t no r" 4v4 owls i 1 er"'I tants so se I ratiliigillig MN,0 i r „, . ,..„, ,r,..--------,--„. : 1-4.---i---..„....4 tomminnit-40 . .,r4o.or. ,..,_., • „ ,4g ‘••r., .0”,, , .1.11, -. ” 1171r.t. 61 AM iiiiirg 1 , c.....p...."0...ft:r3 SO OJECT \ ... iLOCATION ‘1,.11, _ Aim - 4 .,....„ 11 .,..._ : 1 - 1114:111111111110 \ VA1CCRek BEACtIRD ,., Z , ........14 9 aillillirte ie Mitt o- V / 11:11 I 1 1111111 Wiiiiiiiiiii‘giatt III Pi$11041 Will 9 ill 9 I") 64 4INVIMMing 9 WSIMIMMIN!!!!I = . ow aft PUD a* ‘11* ON ., RD I ::: 417 ArAti.'... 114'' at:introit ir• Is PM ItiOGE - Nom IIAIS- - i :40 twit- 0. , ../eir rt. kummuniti 11.- 8121''' ''''' IP '4 II , ii!liti diakali 5 eV. MI6 a, 111P. aje lam - ... i - i '' ? IS 11" leo,-e tie ..-1 MS ,W. itt IIIII Saillii4111%2' .'41., zz.,, rik,.feAsitto. I Be .. ANS '....-. _ Location Map Zoning Map PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: BACKGROUND: This project was originally rezoned from several already zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD) projects and Agricultural (A) zoned lands to the Siena Lakes Continuing Care Retirement Community(CCRC)CPUD in Ordinance Number 09-65, as adopted by the Board on December 1, 2009. That PUD allowed a maximum of 764,478 square feet of area comprised of independent living units, assisted living units, a skilled nursing and memory (dementia) care unit, and 72,000 square feet of various amenities associated with these uses at a combined floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.60. The project provided one or more of the following dwelling unit types: villas, multifamily apartments, and skilled nursing and memory care units. As a "continuing care" community, residents could enjoy the ability to "age-in-place" as their health needs changed over time, since meals, housekeeping services, transportation, social activities, nursing care, and educational growth opportunities would be made available to them on-site. According to Section 1.08.02 of the Land Development Code (LDC), the CCRC is defined as a group housing unit, which includes assisted living and continuing care facilities. The group housing approved allows a maximum of 340 independent living units, 20 assisted living beds, 45 skilled nursing beds, and 15 memory care beds in a community restricted to persons aged 62 years or older. A variety of associated accessory uses, such as dining rooms, a bank, beauty shop, swimming pool,wellness center, medical office, et cetera would also be provided for the exclusive use of residents and their guests. As depicted on the approved Master Plan, the CCRC would be comprised of multiple buildings situated around a meandering lake system, which would feature as an integral component of the site's design. The tallest buildings on the site, housing independent living units, would form a central axis extending east to west between the project's two largest lakes. Each of these buildings would be a maximum of four-stories, with under-building parking occupying the first floor, for an effective total of five stories above grade. One of these buildings, the most centrally located,would not have understory parking, but rather five finished floors. The maximum zoned height of these structures would be 53 feet with an actual height of 60 feet, including appurtenances. Five other structures, also comprised of independent living units, would parallel the northern boundary of the site and would be oriented towards the lakefronts to their south. These structures would be three- story buildings with a zoned height of 41.5 feet and an actual height of 48 feet. They would provide one garage parking space on the first floor, with their remaining parking needs met by detached, one-story garages located to the north of each building to separate these buildings from the adjacent multi-family residences of the Lakeside community. In two-story structures in the northeastern portion of the site, an auditorium, a "commons" (i.e., dining hall) and the assisted living and skilled nursing and memory care units would be accommodated. These buildings would have a maximum zoned height of 42 feet and actual height of 45 feet. The residential portions of these structures would be built around private courtyards, while the auditorium would overlook a small .37-acre lake with a deck. The commons area would provide access to both a lakeside swimming pool and a green for badminton or croquet. Each of these uses would be interconnected by a network of pathways linking a boardwalk, another lakeside observation deck, two putting greens, a trellised seating area bridging the confluence of two lakes and, ultimately, the independent living units previously described in the central and western portions of the site (see Exhibit C-5 of the CPUD documents for graphic illustrations depicting the character and quality of some of the site's recreation and open space amenities). SIENA LAKES(CPUD);PDI PL20160003125 Hearing date: 1/18/18 Page 3 of 10 Last revised: 1/2/18 CURRENT REQUEST: The project described above has not been built. The site is undeveloped. The applicant's agent has listed the following requested changes in the narrative statement letter dated December 29, 2016: The applicant is requesting a slightly different mix of unit types, with no increase in the total number of units and no change in trip generation. Trip generation for a congregate care facility (Land Use Code 253) does not differentiate between assisted/skilled nursing and independent units, so there is no change in the traffic generation with the proposed change. The CPUD Master Plan also includes a great deal of specificity regarding the configuration of lakes and buildings on the site, which the applicant proposes to change. Master Plan changes include: • Exhibit C-1 (PUD Master Plan) has been split into two sheets, with notes, deviations, and tables contained on Exhibit C-2. This was done to make the plan more legible at 8.5"x 11 " scale. Please note that because we have split the plan into two sheets, the changes cannot be labeled effectively with clouding. Please also note that there is a great deal of detail on the Master Plan as adopted, which is not being amended through this insubstantial change to the CPUD. • The entrance from Orange Blossom Road into the site has been shifted to the east to be more central to the site. • The previous Master Plan showed five separate buildings at three stories along the northern portion of the site. The applicant now proposes one, interconnected building. The three-story height along the north has been maintained. • The central lakes have been reconfigured so that there will be views of the lakes from the north and east. • Pavilions have been added to two of the lakes (Lakes 3 & 4 on the revised MP). • The maintenance building at the northwest corner has been removed. • A parking area on the west between the northern (ALF/SNF) and southern (ILU) portions of the building has been removed. • Parking has been added along the northern side of the access road in the northwest portion of the site. • Additional amenity/recreation areas have been identified. • Exhibits C'-2 (Line of Sight) and C-3 (Landscape Buffer) duplicated the same information and have been combined into Exhibit C-3 (Line of Sight/Landscape Buffer). • The building elevations depicted on Exhibit C-3 have been changed to show the revised building heights. • Exhibits C-4 (Cross Sections and Details) and C-5 (Site Amenities) have been updated to reflect the current lake and building configurations. The applicant is also clarifying that the minimum square footage of accessory uses/amenities will be 72,000 SF. The applicant is removing the ability to do independent living at 5 stories (4 stories over parking) and clarifying that lake setbacks are 20' except adjacent to the seawall. The maximum number of stories will be four. There are no proposed changes to deviations, landscape buffers, or development commitments SIENA LAKES(CPUD);PDI PL20160003125 Hearing date: 1/18/18 Page 4 of 10 Last revised: 1/2/18 previously approved. Section references in the list of deviations have been updated to reflect current numbering. No preserve area is required. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Multi-family residences of the Lakeside community, with a zoning designation of Citrus Gardens PUD East: Multi-family residences of the Bridgewater Bay community and a stormwater management pond, with a zoning designation of Oak Grove PUD and First Baptist Church PUD, respectively South: Orange Blossom Drive, then single-family homes and duplexes of the Walden Oaks community, with a zoning designation of Lone Oak PUD West: Vacant land with a zoning designation of Orange Blossom Gardens PUD lik.s. V` ,:i,' '11 — Ia e A o 74 i �.: fill, lit isifililififilifistulixo , .l ' . 1 ,r. 1 11 ,m16 I ii ii Ia p ii -;. ,max AERIAL VIEW OF SUBJECT PROPERTY STAFF ANALYSIS: Comprehensive Planning: The subject property is located within the Urban designated area (Urban — Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the. countywide Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The requested Insubstantial change to the Siena Lakes CPUD (PDI)neither adds uses nor increases the intensity of the previously approved uses. Because this application is not adding uses or increasing the intensity of the previously approved uses in the Siena Lakes CPUD, it is consistent with the Future Land Use Element(FLUE) of the GMP. SIENA LAKES(CPUD);PDI PL20160003125 Hearing date: 1/18/18 Page 5 of 10 Last revised: 1/2/18 FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, surrounding land uses. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services Section's staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. Given the nature of this petition, staff has determined an analysis of FLUE Policies under Object 7 is not necessary as these policies were previously addressed, (re: interconnections, loop roads, access to arterial/or collector roads, etc.). Based on the above analysis staff finds this petition consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (COME): Environmental Planning staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element(CCME). Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. Aerials available on the Property Appraiser's website show the property previously cleared for agricultural purposes prior to 1975, the date of the oldest aerial available on the Property Appraiser's website. No native vegetation currently exists on the subject property, only native trees, twenty of which are required to be retained or relocated/replaced in accordance with the requirements of the LDC and section IV, Exhibit F of the PUD document. Soil and/or ground water sampling will also be required at time of SDP, in accordance with section 3.08.00 A.4.d.ii of the LDC. The project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, since it does not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews identified in Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff reviewed the application and found this project consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). There is no increase in the number of residential dwelling units/traffic generation, no changes to the master plan including point(s) of access or circulation, and no changes to the developer commitments; therefore, there is no impact on the previous findings of approval. Zoning Services Review: Several changes are proposed for this petition. A general analysis of the changes in provided below. The applicant is seeking changes to the specific mix of unit types. This will give the applicant the flexibility to adjust to market needs. Because the proposed change will not affect the transportation review conducted with the original petition, staff has no objections to the unit mix. The originally approved Master Plan provided details but they are not particularly legible so the Master Plan has been placed on two sheets rather than one for better legibility. This is an improvement and staff has no objections to the change. The entrance from Orange Blossom Drive into the site has been shifted to the east to be more central to the site. Staff has no objection to this change. The applicant has made the following additional changes: SIENA LAKES(CPUD);PDI PL20160003125 Hearing date: 1/18/18 Page 6 of 10 Last revised: 1/2/18 • The previous Master Plan showed five separate buildings at three stories along the northern portion of the site. The applicant now proposes one, interconnected building. The three-story height along the north has been maintained. • The central lakes have been reconfigured so that there will be views of the lakes from the north and east. • Pavilions have been added to two of the lakes (Lakes 3 &4 on the revised MP). • The maintenance building at the northwest corner has been removed. • A parking area on the west between the northern (ALF/SNF) and southern (ILU)portions of the building has been removed. • Parking has been added along the northern side of the access road in the northwest portion of the site. • Additional amenity/recreation areas have been identified. • Exhibits C-2 (Line of Sight) and C-3 (Landscape Buffer) duplicated the same information and have been combined into Exhibit C-3 (Line of Sight/Landscape Buffer). • The building elevations depicted on Exhibit C-3 have been changed to show the revised building heights. • Exhibits C-4 (Cross Sections and Details) and C-5 (Site Amenities) have been updated to reflect the current lake and building configurations. Staff does not see anything objectionable in the proposed changes; all items listed seem to either have a reduced effect on surrounding property owners and no effect on surrounding property owners. No new deviations are being sought as part of this petition. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE CRITERIA: There are three types of changes to a PUD Ordinance: Substantial, Insubstantial, and Minor. An insubstantial change includes any change that is not considered a substantial or minor change. An insubstantial change to an approved PUD Ordinance shall be based upon an evaluation of LDC subsection 10.02.13 E.1. LDC Section 10.02.13.E.1 Criteria: 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 5% of the total acreage previously designated as such,or five 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. SIENA LAKES(CPUD);PDI PL20160003125 Hearing date: 1/18/18 Page 7 of 10 Last revised: 1/2/18 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? No, 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, which were not anticipated when the principal uses were originally adopted. 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. 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 will be no incompatible relationships with abutting land uses. i. Are there any 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. SIENA LAKES(CPUD);PDI PL20160003125 Hearing date: 1/18/18 Page 8 of 10 Last revised: 1/2/18 380.06 (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 not a DRI therefore, a determination and public hearing under F.S. 380.06(19) will not be required. k. Are there any modifications to the PUD Master Plan or PUD document or amendment to a PUD ordinance which impact(s) any consideration deemed to be a substantial modification as described under Section(s) 10.02.13 E.? Based upon the analysis provide above, the proposed change is not deemed to be substantial. LDC Section 10.02.13.E.2 Criteria: Does this petition change the analysis of the findings and criteria used for the original application? (Rezone Findings are attached to this Staff Report as Exhibit "A".) No, the proposed changes do not affect the original analysis and findings for the original application (see Attachment -- Excerpt from the original staff report provided PUD and rezone findings for petition No, PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): The meeting was duly noticed by the applicant's agent and held on May 23,2017 at 5:30 p.m. at the Collier County Public Library Headquarters, Sugden Theater, 2385 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples FL. Persons in attendance, other than the applicant's agent team identified themselves as residents of Lakeside of Naples to the north, Bridgewater Bay to the east, and Walden Oaks to the south. There was discussion about several issues as noted in the applicant's agent's synopsis, but the agent did not make any commitments for this project. Please refer to attached NIM summary. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office has reviewed this staff report on December 8, 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission approve Petition PDI- PL20160002315 and forward the petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) for ordinance amendment. Attachments: A. Excerpt from the original staff report provided PUD and rezone findings for petition No. PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD B. Applicant's agent's NIM synopsis C. Draft Resolution SIENA LAKES(CPUD);PDI PL20160003125 Hearing date: 1/18/18 Page 9 of 10 Last revised: 1/2/18 PREPARED BY: n�. la/y// 9 , 9 KAY IIESELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: i/21/ 6 RAYMO V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION MICHAEL BOSI,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: � rrrrrr. -/ ES FRENCH, DEWY DEPARTMENT DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Tentatively scheduled for the February 27, 2018 Board of County Commissioners Meeting SIENA LAKES(CPUD);PDI PL20160003125 Hearing date: 1118/18 Page 10 of 10 Last revised: 1/2/18 Ex Parte Items - Commissioner Donna Fiala COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA FEBRUARY 27, 2018 ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS 9.A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 09-65, the Siena Lakes CCRC Commercial Planned Unit Development, to approve an insubstantial change to the CPUD, to retain the existing total number of permitted residential units but revising the ratio of permitted residential units by increasing the number of independent living units, increasing the number of assisted living beds and decreasing the number of skilled nursing beds and memory care beds; and to revise the Master Plan by changing the number of buildings, the entrance location, and the site, lake and building configurations. The subject property consists of 29.25± acres, located on the north side of Orange Blossom Road between Airport-Pulling Road and Livingston Road, in Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [PDI-PL20160003125]. (This is a companion to agenda item 9B) 9-B- This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to approve an amendment to Ordinance Number 92- 75, as amended, the Orange Blossom Gardens Planned Unit Development(PUD); providing for amendment to add temporary principal uses for off-site sales, marketing and administration for the Siena Lakes PUD and to add principal uses accessory to St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church including administrative offices and classrooms ancillary to the church; providing for development standards; providing for amendment to the master plan and providing for an effective date. The subject property consisting of 5.85 acres is located on the north side of Orange Blossom Drive approximately 1/10 of a mile east of Airport Pulling Road in Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, in Collier County, Florida. [PL20170000524] (This is a companion to Agenda Item 9A) NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM X SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence De-mails ❑Calls Staff Reports for both 9A&9B AGENDA ITEM 9-B Co e-r County 6ta STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JANUARY 18, 2018 SUBJECT: ORANGE BLOSSOM GARDENS PUD; PUDA-PL20170000524 COMPANION ITEM: SIENA LAKES (CPUD); PDI-PL20160003125 PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT/AGENT: Owner/Applicant: Contract Purchaser: James Ketis, President Erickson Living Properties II, LLC St Katherine Greek Orthodox Church, Inc. Sole Member of Siena Lakes LLC 7100 Airport Road North 701 Maiden Choice Lane Naples, FL 34109 Baltimore MD 21228 Agent(s): Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Hole Montes, Inc. Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester 950 Encore Way 4001 Tamiami Trail North Naples, FL 34110 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner seeks to amend Ordinance Number Ordinance No. 92-75, as amended, to revise the Orange Blossom Gardens Planned Unit Development (PUD), to add temporary principal uses for off-site sales, marketing, and administration for the Siena Lakes PUD, and to add principal uses accessory to St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church including administrative offices and classrooms ancillary to the church. The Amendment will also provide for development standards, amend the master plan, and provide for an effective date. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property consisting of 5.85 acres is located on the north side of Orange Blossom Drive approximately 1/10 of a mile east of Airport Pulling Road in Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. (See location map on following page) Orange Blossom Gardens;PUDA-PL20170000524 CCPC Hearing Date: 1/18/18 Page 1 of 14 Revised: 12/12/17 • L.,..,.._ , i , "'" ''''''."''::-, .4motom, Yandlikehat DPW• ;," , r .. , ' f• i „ •,-•• i PUO 0 *PUD t *""11`,...--,','" . „..., --- - SITE 0 ..., _. „ . .... , _ 6 , , . ' --- -_., N ,- LOCATIO , .... - ----ft - ,...,,, , , ' , .., A PROJECT , i . , ........ft LOCATION 1 /7 A 1, .... . ,,tatlet 810$60414 Dfrre ,,,-'' ...._____. „pup l' PUD 1., 1/ 1 - A •R' v..•;.' , 4 i I NOW * t '''' ... ,.-'...:::;.,''''t' • A - - t I tt it . 1 . -...... ... ) I Zoning Map Location Map PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: BACKGROUND: On January 15, 1985, the 11.7-acre Orange Blossom Gardens project was rezoned from Agricultural zoning district to the Planned Unit Development zoning district to allow a maximum of 84 multi- family residential units at a gross density of 7.2 dwelling units per acre (DU/A). On October 19, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved Ordinance No. 92-75 for the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD, which reduced the maximum density to a 40-unit multi-family residential development and reduced the density to 3.42 (DU/A). On December 1, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance No. 09-67 removing 5.85 acres from the project. CURRENT REQUEST: This application has been submitted, per the applicant's agents narrative statement (letter dated October 2, 2017),to accomplish the following: The applicant proposes to construct an off-site sales, marketing, and administration facility for Siena Lakes CPUD on the subject site, and is providing a revised PUD Master Plan and development standards to accompany this request. The applicant is also adding the option to allow uses ancillary to the adjacent St. Katherine Greek Orthodox church, limited to administrative offices and/or classrooms. The maximum building height of the off-site sales and marketing facility or uses ancillary to the church would be 53 feet (zoned). SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Multi-family residences of the Lakeside community, with a zoning designation of Citrus Gardens PUD approved at a density of 4 units per acre (upa) East: The undeveloped Siena Lakes project, with a zoning designation of CPUD (The subject property of the companion request.) South: Orange Blossom Drive, then a mixture of housing types in the 95.5-acre Walden Oaks community, with a zoning designation of Lone Oak PUD that was approved at 6.32 upa West: St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church, with a Conditional Use for a Church in the Agricultural zoning district; and the northerly 4.15 acre portion of an undeveloped 14.73- acre tract with a zoning designation of Longview Center PUD. This northly portion of Longview Center PUD is also owned by the church. (A Pre-application meeting was held on 10/11/17 seeking an amendment to this PUD to allow ancillary church uses on the northly portion in Petition No. PUDA- PL20170003322.) Orange Blossom Gardens;PUDA-PL20170000524 CCPC Hearing Date: 1/18/18 Page 3 of 14 Revised: 12/12/17 , .g.i'it Subject c Property ittt..„ , .iw 1,4„_-lik .„„,,,,.. -. ( ;00,-,-*---.:-.1. ...... .1,.... !it t 4 -4 ' ''':- 'fi1 ::: -7. 4 q ' f ' , :.:i ' JV .44f i.,,-.1, 1* *i''''-----' i ., Al- 4_ , iti-,,, ,- -i -, .. , f _ : -4 , � £ 4` c ` ,.. , , , : ...4.,,,, . , .,_42i..... tvIte ,....1,47,„77.,..„„ .. ,, , _ ...7. ,,... cm.,.....k.awcol::-.4 , `- ...--, '41411 ".1- ... : r.,.. ----- 1 ,7 ,,„.,,1111-41111,1 iii t idN Ifiti11) 1 �r.res i iT raw� ;+2' .„,. 7 +`k ,C, y ,e.1:, tle,allF ,x .ti '''''.4. '''. .4 - •4 odes C:agaHy v�- "C«**.", .'..- ✓` �'' .m_-...®w...-t.27'7 - J'S ow 5.2114-i aerial photo from the Property Appraiser's website GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the GMP. This District is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential uses, including Planned Unit Developments. Within this designation,and in accordance with the Density Rating System of the FLUE,a base density of four units per acre is allowed. The Orange Blossom Gardens PUD(via Ordinance No. 09-67)was approved for a maximum of 20 dwelling units which is a density of 3.42 DU/A(20 DUs per 5.85 acres provides 3.42 DU/A).Please refer to Attachment A for the full October 27, 2017 Comprehensive Planning staff memo. Conservation and Coastal Management Element: Environmental staff has evaluated the proposed changes to the PUD Documents. The petition is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the GMP. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP using the 2016 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states, The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element(FLUE) Orange Blossom Gardens;PUDA-PL20170000524 CCPC Hearing Date: 1/18/18 Page 4 of 14 Revised: 12/12/17 affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2%of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3%of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project's significant impacts on all roadways. The proposed PUD on the subject property was reviewed based on the applicable 2016 AUIR Inventory Report. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the proposed development will generate approximately eight net, new PM peak hour two-way trips, on the adjacent roadway segments,which represents a net reduction of approximately two PM peak hour two-way trips when compared to the currently approved PUD. The proposed development will impact the following roadway segments with the listed capacities: Roadway Link 2016 AUIR Current Peak Hour 2016 AUIR 2017 AUIR Existing Peak Direction Remaining Remaining LOS Service Capacity Capacity Volume/Peak Direction Orange Blossom Airport Pulling C 1,000/West 400 420 Drive Road to Livingston Road Airport Pulling Road Orange C 3,000/North 915 960 Blossom Drive to Vanderbilt Beach Road Airport Pulling Road Orange C 3,000/North 942 1,046 Blossom Drive to Pine Ridge Road Based on the 2016 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed trips for the project within the 5-year planning period. Staff also reviewed the recently adopted 2017 AUIR finding that there remains sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project within the 5-year planning period. Therefore,the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this Orange Blossom Gardens;PUDA-PL20170000524 CCPC Hearing Date: 1/18/18 Page 5 of 14 Revised: 12/12/17 proposed amendment. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any amendment petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as indicated previously in the GMP discussion. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff also recommends that the petition be found consistent with the CCME. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 10.02.13 B.5, Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection, 10.02.08 F.,Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Review." In addition, staff offers the following analysis. Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition to address any environmental concerns, The proposed changes do not affect any of the environmental requirements of the GMP or LDC. An EAC review is not required in accordance with Section 2- 1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Transportation Review: Transportation Department staff has reviewed the petition and has provided GMP comments as well as PUD and Rezone Findings in support of the application. Landscape Review: In reviewing the landscape element,staff has no issues with the deviation from LDC Section 4.06.00 and is recommending approval. The deviation that the applicant is requesting from LDC Section 4.06.00 is justified. The applicant is seeking a deviation to provide no buffer where stormwater lakes cross property boundaries.The PUD contains conditions to allow for shared stormwater lakes across property boundaries which would eliminate any plantable area on that perimeter of the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD. These lakes will create a unified design among the adjacent properties and provide a visual amenity. Zoning Review: As previously stated,this PUD Rezone Amendment will allow for the development of a temporary off-site sales, marketing, and administration facility for the neighboring development, Siena Lakes CPUD. The amendment will allow ancillary principal uses (limited to administrative offices and/or classrooms) to serve the adjacent St. Katherine Greek Orthodox Church. The maximum building height of the off-site sales and marketing facility or uses ancillary to the church would be 53 feet (zoned). No changes are proposed to the previously approved property development regulations for any of the previously approved uses. As depicted on pages 2, 3 and 4 in the Site and Location Maps, the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" and the aerial photo in this staff report, the land to the north is within the Citrus Gardens PUD, a 93.6-acre project approved at a density of 4 (DU/A). To the east, is the undeveloped Siena Orange Blossom Gardens;PUDA-PL20170000524 CCPC Hearing Date: 1/18/18 Page 6 of 14 Revised: 12/12/17 Lakes CPUD, which is the subject of a companion request for an amendment to that site's zoning to retain the existing total number of permitted residential units, but revises the ratio of permitted residential units by increasing the number of independent living units, increasing the number of assisted living beds.Also proposed is a decrease in the number of skilled nursing beds and memory care beds and a revision to the Master Plan to change the number of buildings,the entrance location, and the site, lake and building configurations. To the south, across from Orange Blossom Drive, is the 95.5-acre Walden Oaks residential development. This project was approved as the Lone Oaks PUD for a mixture of residential building types at a density of 6.32 (DU/A). To the west, is St Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church. The church is zoned Agricultural with a Conditional Use approval to allow a church. Farther west is the northerly 4.15 acre portion of an undeveloped 14.73- acre tract with a zoning designation of Longview Center PUD. This northly portion of Longview Center PUD is also owned by the church. A Pre-application meeting was held on October 11,2017 for the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD seeking an amendment to allow ancillary church uses on the northly portion in Petition No. PUDA- PL20170003322. The petition is requesting one deviation as part of this amendment also. Deviation #1 would eliminate the buffer requirement where this site shares water management lakes with neighboring properties. The changes proposed by the subject amendment should not alter the fact that the original rezone petition for Orange Blossom Gardens was determined to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08." 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land,surrounding areas,traffic and access,drainage, sewer,water, and other utilities. Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and believes the uses, as limited by the property development regulations, are compatible with the development approved in the area. The commitments made by the applicant should provide adequate assurances that the proposed change should not adversely affect living conditions in the area. In addition, as limited above, the proposed property development regulations provide adequate assurances that the proposed project will be suitable to the type and pattern of development in the area. Staff has evaluated this amendment request and found the area suitable based upon the proposed availability of infrastructure such as access, drainage,sewer,water and other utilities,and services. 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. Orange Blossom Gardens;PUDA-PL20170000524 CCPC Hearing Date: 1/18/18 Page 7 of 14 Revised: 12/12/17 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 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 [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 believes this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements,restrictions on design,and buffering and screening requirements. As described in the various sections of this staff report, staff is of the opinion that the proposed uses, development standards, and developer commitments will help ensure that this project is compatible both internally and externally. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The applicant has not sought any deviations from open space standards. The amount of 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. Transportation Staff has evaluated this petition and offers the following comments: The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review.Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order(SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans, are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal systems and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the 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. Orange Blossom Gardens;PUDA-PL20170000524 CCPC Hearing Date: 1/18/18 Page 8 of 14 Revised: 12/12/17 The petitioner is seeking one deviation requiring an evaluation to 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 deviation requested by the petitioner is itemized and analyzed in the Deviation Discussion section of this staff report on page 13. 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, & policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the GMP. The Comprehensive Planning staff has provided an in-depth analysis of the GMP FLUE and FLUM provisions; zoning analysis provides an in-depth review of the proposed amendment. The petition can also be deemed consistent with the CCME and the Transportation Element based upon the review provided by the reviewers responsible for that task. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the"Surrounding Land Use and Zoning"portion of this report and in the zoning review analysis. Staff believes the proposed amendment is appropriate given the existing land use pattern, and development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance. 3, The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The proposed PUD Amendment would not create an isolated zoning district because the property is already zoned PUD; no rezoning action is proposed as part of this petition. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Staff is of the opinion that the district boundaries are logically drawn given the current property ownership boundaries follow PUD zoning. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed amendment is not necessary; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek changes. The rezone and amendment to the existing PUD will allow the owner the opportunity to develop the land in a manner other than what the existing zoning district would allow. Without this amendment, the property could be developed in compliance with the existing PUD ordinance regulations. Orange Blossom Gardens;PUDA-PL20170000524 CCPC Hearing Date: 1/18/18 Page 9 of 14 Revised: 12/12/17 6 Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed petition, subject to the proposed list of uses and property development regulations and the proposed Development Commitments detailed in the PUD document, is consistent with the County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Therefore, the proposed change 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 change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have other specific regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new developments. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. If this petition is approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD Document. This project's property development regulations provide adequate setbacks and distances between structures;therefore,the project should not significantly reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 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 proposed changes in this petition are not anticipated to be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. Orange Blossom Gardens;PUDA-PL20170000524 CCPC Hearing Date: 1/18/18 Page 10 of 14 Revised: 12/12/17 The proposed development complies with the GMP, which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The petitioner is seeking this amendment 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 amendment meets the intent of the PUD district regulations, 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. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the 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. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the sole determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a particular zoning petition. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMP as discussed in other portions of the staff report. 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 or platting approval process 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 it may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional Orange Blossom Gardens;PUDA-PL20170000524 CCPC Hearing Date: 1/18/18 Page 11 of 14 Revised: 12/12/17 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. 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. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is seeking one deviation from the requirements of the LDC. The deviation is directly extracted from PUD Exhibit D. The petitioner's rationale and staff analysis/recommendation is outlined below. Deviation #1 "Deviation 1 requests relief from LDC Section 4.06.02,Table 2.4 Table of Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classifications, to allow no perimeter landscape buffer where shared stormwater lakes exist with adjacent properties." Petitioner's Justification: The PUD contains conditions that would allow for shared stormwater lakes, across property boundaries, between the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD and the St. Katherine's Greek Church property, and/or between Orange Blossom Gardens PUD and Longview PUD(see Sections 4.9 and 4.10 of the PUD). The applicant is requesting that no perimeter landscape buffers be required in the event stormwater lakes are designed to cross property boundaries. The lakes will provide separation and visual relief between uses. The design of these three properties that would allow for and necessitate shared stormwater lakes is a unified, cohesive site design,providing vehicular and pedestrian interconnection among the properties. The interconnected lakes would cross the western property boundary, and would not be visible to the traveling public along Orange Blossom Drive to the south or along the public access easement within Siena Lakes CPUD to the east. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Landscaping Review staff has analyzed this request and sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated. 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 application of such regulations." NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted two duly advertised NIMs for this petition. The first meeting was held on May 23, 2017. The second NIM was held on October 17, 2017. The second meeting was determined to be required, because the applicant amended the application to also seek church uses in the PUD. As noted in the attached synopses,the same issues were raised at both meetings. There Orange Blossom Gardens;PUDA-PL20170000524 CCPC Hearing Date: 1/18/18 Page 12 of 14 Revised: 12/12/17 was a discussion about the proposed access that is part of the Siena Lakes PUD but not part of this PUD. Also discussed were the proposed building design, construction noise, and water management. No commitments were made during the NIMs. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney's office on December 8, 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PUDZ- PL2017-0000524 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: A. Comprehensive Planning Memo, dated 10/27/17 B. NIM Synopses C. Proposed Ordinance B. Application Orange Blossom Gardens;PUDA-PL20170000524 CCPC Hearing Date: 1/18/18 Page 13 of 14 Revised: 12112/17 PREPARED BY: /\10, /6 bid-61,YA,_) 107/79//F KAY DES EM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: ,'"' ,/ . RAY D . BELLOWS, ` ONING MANAGER DATE ZON , DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION .-''J', ," l Z- t i -- r 7 MICHAEL BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: AiiiipPr ,e. Nily /42. — la/_ /? ES FRENCH,DEPU Y DEPARTMENT DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Tentatively scheduled for the February 27, 2018 Board of County Commissioners Meeting Orange Blossom Gardens;PUDA-PL20170000524 Hearing Date: 1/18/18 Page 14 of 14 Revised: 12/4/17 Ex Parte Items - Commissioner Donna Fiala COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA FEBRUARY 27, 2018 CONSENT AGENDA 16.A.1. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the final plat of Silverwood at Ave Maria (Phase 1), (Application Number PL20170002303) approval of the standard form Construction and Maintenance Agreement and approval of the amount of the performance security. Vv NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM n SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence ❑e-mails ❑Calls 16.A.2. This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve for recording the minor final plat of Creekside Commerce Park Lot 4, Application Number PL20170003819. X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM n SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence ❑e-mails ❑Calls 16.A.10. 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 adopt a Resolution amending Resolution 2009-58, as amended by Resolution 2014-37, as amended by Resolution 2015-40, relating to the Stewardship Sending Area with a designation as "BCI/BCP SSA 10"; approving the extension of certain dates to March 10, 2021 in the Stewardship Sending Area credit agreement for BCI/BCP SSA 10, the Escrow agreement and accept the amended notice of restrictions for BCI/BCP SSA 10. X NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM 7 SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence ❑e-mails ❑Calls Ex Parte Items - Commissioner Donna Fiala COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA FEBRUARY 27, 2018 SUMMARY AGENDA (NONE) 17.A. ***This item has been continued from the January 23, 2018 BCC Meeting.*** 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. 03-40, as amended, the Heritage Bay Planned Unit Development, to approve an insubstantial change to the PUD, to add a deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.7.a to remove the requirement for a landscape buffer along an internal side shared property line between Lot 1A, Lot 2A, and Lot 3A of the Heritage Bay Commons - Tract D Second Replat subdivision, and providing for an effective date. The PUD is located on the northeast corner of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 2,562± acres. [PDI-PL20170001859] NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ❑Meetings ❑Correspondence ❑e-mails ❑Calls Staff Report AGENDA ITEM 3-A coil e-r unty / 7,4. STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY HEARING EXAMINER FROM: ZONING DIVISION—ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 2017 SUBJECT: PDI-PL-20170001859; HERITAGE BAY PDI (CAMERON COMMONS) PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner/Applicant: Agent(s): Cameron Partners II, LLC Daniel Moyer, P.E. 11586 Quail Village Way CPH, Inc. Naples, FL 34119 3277A Fruitville Road Naples, FL 34104 PLEASE NOTE: The subject lots are owned by Cameron Partners II,LLC. Outside of the subject lots,there are many private owners,and they have not joined this application. REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests an insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 03-40, as amended, the Heritage Bay PUD, to add a deviation from Land Development Code(LDC) Section 4.06.02.C.7.a to remove the requirement for a landscape buffer along an internal side,shared,property line between Lot 2 and Lot 3 of the Heritage Bay Commons—Tract D replat subdivision or any internal buffer. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The PUD consists of 2,562± acres located on the northeast corner of Immakalee Road and Collier Boulevard(CR 951) in Sections 13, 14,23 and 24,Township 48 South, Range 26 East,Collier County, Florida. (See location map on following page.) Lots 2 and 3 are located in the southwest quadrant of the PUD. PDI-PL20170001859 Heritage Bay PUD Page 1 of 13 November 30,2017 West: A vacant lot designated as commercial, Heritage Bay PUD. Vl_ - , Subject -` =,' - Site .;,---".4;-:-41 . ,71"*.• Illiki,- - .n,,,� STAFF ANALYSIS: LDC Section 4.06.02.C.7.c states there shall be no net loss of landscape material or square footage between parcels as a result of the eliminated buffers. Currently, Lots 2 and 3 have a 15-foot wide, shared buffer, 7.5 feet on each side, running the length of the shared lot line excluding interconnections. The shared buffer is a Type A Buffer, and as outlined in LDC Section 4.06.02.0 a tree is required every 30 feet on center. The buffer may be relocated without reducing the number of trees, and as determined at the time of the Site Development Plan review, a trellis with 50% vine coverage, at the time of planting, may also be used to fulfill the square footage requirement of the relocated buffer per staff direction. Comprehensive Planning: Because this application is not adding uses or increasing the intensity of the previously approved uses in the Heritage Bay PUD, it is consistent with the Future Land Use Element(FLUE) of the GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element: Environmental staff has evaluated the proposed changes to the PUD Documents. There is no issue with consistency. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has evaluated the proposed changes to the PUD Documents, and there is no issue with consistency. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPENT INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE CRITERIA: There are three types of changes to a PUD Ordinance: Substantial, Insubstantial, and Minor. An insubstantial change includes any change that is not considered a substantial or minor change. An insubstantial change to an approved PUD Ordinance shall be based upon an evaluation of LDC subsection 10.02.13 E.1. The criteria and response to each criterion are listed below as follows: PDI-PL20170001859 Heritage Bay PUD Page 4 of 13 November 30,2017 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 will be no incompatible relationships with abutting land uses. i. Are there any 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. 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 Conservation and Coastal Management Element (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. Due to the limited nature of this request, a determination and public hearing under F.S. 380.06(19)will not be required. k. Are there any modifications to the PUD Master Plan or PUD Document or amendment to a PUD ordinance which impact(s) any consideration deemed to be a substantial modification as described under Section(s) 10.02.13 E.? Based upon the analysis provided above, the proposed change is not deemed substantial. Section 10.02.13.E.2 Does this petition change the analysis of the findings and criteria used for the original application? No, the proposed changes do not affect the original analysis and findings for the original application, which is summarized below. FINDINGS OF FACT: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.E.2 also requires an evaluation of the findings and criteria used for the original PUD application. PUD FINDINGS: PDI-PL20170001859 Heritage Bay PUD Page 6 of 13 November 30, 2017 LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08." Below are the PUD Findings with the original application that created the Heritage Bay, PUD 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 type and pattern of development have already been reviewed and found compliant with all applicable LDC and GMP regulations. This amendment will not change the pattern of development. Furthermore, this project is already being developed and with continued development will be required to comply with all county regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities pursuant to Section 6.02.00 Adequate Public Facilities of the LDC. 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 this PUD amendment application provided satisfactory evidence of unified control of the subject lots. 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 found that this petition to be consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The appropriateness of the uses within this project was reviewed in previous rezoning actions; no changes to the uses are proposed as part of this amendment. The landscaping and buffering requirements were already reviewed and approved during the previous rezoning process as well. The landscaping will be modified and all other portions of the project will be developed in compliance with the regulations already in effect,as part of the currently approved PUD ordinance.No other entities should be negatively impacted thus maintaining the project's internal and external compatibility. PDI-PL20170001859 Heritage Bay PUD Page 7 of 13 November 30, 2017 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this approved PUD meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. This proposed minor amendment will not change the amount of open space. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. This amendment does not change the timing or sequence of development. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. A change in the landscaping will not affect the ability for expansion. 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 deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. One deviation is being sought in conjunction with this amendment, and the evaluation of that deviation is addressed in the following section Deviation Discussion following Rezone Findings. REZONE FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1. 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." Below are the Rezone Findings of the original application that created Heritage Bay(LDC requirements are shown in italicized text and those are followed by staff's analysis): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, &policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the GMP. The proposed change is consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. This amendment does not change the land use pattern. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. PDI-PL20170001859 Heritage Bay PUD Page 8 of 13 November 30,2017 The proposed PUD amendment would not create an isolated zoning district, because no change is proposed to the boundaries of the subject property of this already zoned PUD property. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. This amendment does not change the district boundaries. S. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The original rezoning was approved on July 9,2003. The petitioner proposes this amendment to respond to what he views as a way to effectively utilize the site acreage. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood The proposed change will not adversely influence local living conditions 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. This PUD amendment does not increase the size or intensity of the currently approved PUD. In addition, development of the subject property is consistent with provisions of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Therefore,this project should not create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, and it should not affect the public safety. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. Storm water management was addressed in the previous rezone process. The proposed development should not create drainage or surface water problems, because the LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards as part of the local development order process that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Any proposed water management and drainage system will need to be designed to prevent drainage problems on site and must be compatible with the adjacent water management systems. Additionally,the LDC and GMP have regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new or on-going developments. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed amendment will not reduce light and air to adjacent areas outside the PUD or to other properties within the PUD. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed insubstantial amendment will not adversely affect property values. 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 PDI-PL20170001859 Heritage Bay PUD Page 9 of 13 November 30,2017 factors including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The basic premise underlying all the development standards in the LDC is that sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed PUD amendment should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. The development complies with the GMP, which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. Considering this fact, the proposed amendment 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 has been partially developed with the existing property development regulations; however, the petitioner is seeking this amendment in order to respond to the changing financial scene. LDC Section 2.03.06 which sets forth the purpose and intent of Plan Unit Development Districts says in part: It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs ...may depart from the strict application of setback, height, and minimum lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the public interest... Staff believes the proposed amendment 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. The PUD Document and the allowable development was found consistent with the GMP subdistrict requirements when the rezoning was originally approved.No changes are proposed as part of this amendment that would jeopardize that finding. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density, and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-designated areas of Collier County. Staff believes the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. PDI-PL20170001859 Heritage Bay PUD Page 10 of 13 November 30, 2017 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. This criterion is not applicable to this amendment as the uses have already been approved and no changes to those uses are proposed as part of this amendment. 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. This site has already been altered and partially developed in compliance with the applicable LDC requirements, and further there is no "proposed zoning classification" as noted above. The zoning to PUD was previously approved; only an amendment is being considered. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable to this petition. 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. This amendment should not affect public facilities and services. 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. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is seeking one deviation from the requirements of the LDC. The deviation s quoted direct from the PUD Ordinance proposed below and is followed by the petitioner's justification and staff analysis. Proposed Deviation #1 "A. From Section 4.06.02.C.7a which allows abutting platted parcels to submit a joint project plan to remove one side or rear landscape buffer along a shared property line as long as the joint project plan is submitted either as a single SDP or SIP consisting of both parcels or separate SDPs or SIPs for each parcel submitted concurrently, to instead allow the owner of Lots 2 and 3, Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat to eliminate the required internal landscape buffers for lots 2 and 3 and submit a separate SDP that is not submitted concurrently for each lot." Petitioner's Justification: Reallocation of a buffer is permitted using a Joint Project Plan. This deviation would only affect timing. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: See detailed staff analysis located on page 3 and 4. Staff sees no detrimental effect in approving this deviation. Planning and Zoning 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 PDI-PL20170001859 Heritage Bay PUD Page 11 of 13 November 30, 2017 petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The Hearing Examiner waived the requirement of a NIM. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney's office on October 30, 2017. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Hearing Examiner approve Petition PDI-PL20170001859 and forward the petition to the Board(BCC) for affirmation: PDI-PL20170001859 Heritage Bay PUD Page 12 of 13 November 30,2017 PREPARED BY: /0-c2C3-/7 FRED R AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: r RAYMON .BELLOWS,Z. ING MANAGER It TE ZONING irr ISION APPROVED BY: I 07/I MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR ATE ZONING DIVISION PDI-PL20170001859 Heritage Bay PUD Page 13 of 13 November 9,2017 AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION • FOR PETITION NUMBERS(S) FL20170001852 I, P Srgeids Farber,Jr. (print name), as Manager (title, if applicable) of 2017 GOODLAND NAPLES LLC (company, If applicable), swear or affirm under oath, that I am the(choose one) owner ,i applicant' contract purchaser and that: 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. Ail answers to the questions in this application and any sketches, data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true: 3, I have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. We/I authorize Daniel Moyer,CPH,Inc to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. 'Notes: • if the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the corp. Pres. or v. pres. • If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company (L.L.C.) or Limited Company (L.C.), then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's"Managing Member. • If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. • If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign end be identified as the "general partner"of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words'as trustee`. • In each instance, first determine the applicant's status. e.g., individual, corporate, trust, partnership, and then • use the appropriate format for that ownership. I \. Under penalties of pI delare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated In it 'r e 11/20'17 Signature Date STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER f NITh foregoing inst ument was sworn to(or affirmed) and subscribed before me on ,// I (date) by Y- 5ki.e I rel < ° C. t-i` (name of person providing oath or affirmation), as who is personally known towho has produced (type of identification) as identification. f° -- fes G STAMP/SEAL Signature of Notary Pu ,, y ^4, PAMELA L.LAURENZO ", : MY COMMISSION a FF225313 :'$ "4. EXPIRES August 10 2019 III CPNO$-COA-0O115\145 REV 3124114 • colla June 2, 2017 3277A.Fruitville Road Suite 2 Sarasota,Florida 34237 Phone:941.365.4771 rwr7ras,orp.umr Collier County Government Growth Management Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.2400 RE: Goodland — Heritage Bay Commons Replat Tract D PL #: 20170001859 Property ID #: 49660084485 & 49660084508 • Detail of Request Insubstantial Planned Development Change LDC Section 10.02.13.E.1 Criteria On behalf of our client, The Ferber Group, we request a PUD Insubstantial Change to eliminate the required internal landscape buffers for Lots 2 and 3 of the Heritage Bay Commons, part of Tract D Replat. The development will provide for the required 7.5 foot landscape buffer required between Lot 1 and 2, and the 10 foot landscape buffer required between Lot 3 and 4. We respectfully request that the requirement for a Neighborhood Meeting be waived for this request, due to the minor nature of the change. If the project was able to have all users submit concurrently, the removal of the buffers would be able to handled administratively as part of a SDP The proposed change to the PUD does not meet the thresholds of a Substantial Change, Section 10.02.13.E.1 of the LDC, as described below: A. A proposed change in the boundary of the PUD — the proposed change does not change the boundary of the PUD B. A proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development—The proposed change does • not increase either the intensity or height of commercial or residential within the PUD. The proposed change will only affect two existing parcels within the PUD and will not result in an increase in the allowable buildable area. C. A proposed decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation or open space areas within the development not to exceed 5 percent of the total acreage previously designated as such, or 5 acres in area - the proposed change will not affect the PUD's open space, preservation, conservation or recreation areas. D. A proposed increase in the size of areas used for nonresidential uses, to include institutional, commercial and industrial land uses (excluding preservation, conservation or open spaces ), or a proposed relocation of nonresidential land uses — the proposed change does not increase or change areas for nonresidential areas within the PUD. E. 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 —the proposed change will not result in an increase in proposed allowable development for the PUD and will not cause an increase to traffic generation. traffic circulation, or impacts to public facilities, The proposed change affects only two existing commercial lots. F. A change that will 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 change will not alter • allowable land uses and will not result a higher level of traffic. The proposed change will only affect two existing commercial lots. G. A change that will result in a requirement for increased stormwater retention, or will otherwise increase stormwater discharges — the proposed change will not impact or increase stormwater requirements. The two impacted lots will still be required to provide stormwater treatment required by the PUD, and will not exceed allowable buildable areas. H. A change that will bring about a relationship to an abutting land use that would be incompatible with an adjacent land use; - No changes in land use are proposed with this chanqe. The two existing lots that are part of this change will remain commercial uses as allowed by the PUD. I. Any modification 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 element of the Growth Management Plan or which modification would increase the density or intensity of the permitted land uses —The proposed change will not increase density above the allowable build out established in the PUD, and will not result in changes to the PUD that are inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element or Growth Management Plan. J. The proposed change is to a PUD district designated as a development of regional impact (DRI) and approved pursuant to F.S. § 380.06, where such change requires a determination and public hearing by Collier County pursuant to F.S. § 380.06(19). Any change that meets the criterion of F.S. § • 380.06(19)(e)2, 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 this LDC section 10.02.13; - The PUD district is a DRI. The proposed changes are not substantial per F.S. 380.06 (19)(e)2. K. Any modification in the PUD master plan or PUD document or amendment to a PUD ordinance which impact(s) any consideration deemed to be a substantial modification as described under this LDC section 10.02.13. —the project does not meet the criteria of a substantial modification per the LDC. • S From: J3ellowsRay 110 To: Cc: Move,.Daniel(KEA;.21/014LECit Fuentes.Heather;Ikaghlassi Subject: RE:Request for Plat&PDI docs Date: Friday,June 02,2017 10:05:38 AM Attachments: 1111112C00tIIng 11116131220/IIN 103038:02,88/ 10111:2C9=2 iI080:4.11.828 CSCIAILM22 Hi Dan, the pre-app meeting that was held yesterday and that was attended by Fred Reischl attended can be counted as the PDI pre-app. Please let me know if I can be of any other assistance. Ralf Raymond V. Bellows,Zoning Manager Zoning Division - Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department Telephone:239.252.2463; Fax: 239.252.6350 From: Moyer, Daniel (RE.). [mailto:dmoyer@cphcorp.corn1 Sent: Friday,June 02, 2017 9:49 AM 4111 To:BellowsRay<RayBellows@colliergov.net>;JohnsonEric<EricJohnson@colliergov,net> Cc:Fuentes,Heather<hfuentes@cphcorp.com> Subject:RE: Request for Nat & PDI docs Good morning Ray, I left you a voicemail earlier today. When you get a chance, can we please discuss at your earliest convenience? Thank you! Dan Moyer, PE Vice President CPH 941-365-4771 x2803 813-841-5851 (cell) From: Moyer, Daniel(P.E.). Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 2:27 PM To: BellowsRay(RayBellows(acollierov.net); 'ericjohnsonOcoiliergov.net Cc: Fuentes, Heather Subject: FW: Request for Plat& PDI docs Good afternoon Eric and Ray. First off,just want to apologize for interrupting you during your hearings today. We are in a bit of pickle on this site. Not sure how the pre-app was incorrectly scheduled, but we respectfully request that we be allowed to proceed with the submittal utilizing 1111 today's pre app meeting Our client is up against a hard deadline that requires the PDI (and Nat) to be submitted no later than this coming Monday (June 5). Ray, if you recall, we spoke about this site previously, the 2 parcels west of the Race Trac in Heritage BayOur request is very minor, we are requesting a single Deviation to remove the internal buffers for our 2 parcels. This would normally be able to be handled administratively through the SDP process per the LDC, but we are unfortunately not able to make all 3 users submit at the same time to utilize that section of the code Hopefully you can allow us to submit, and if you want us to have another meeting at the next available pre-app dates we will most certainly do that, and can make any updates to the submittal package as neededbut as I mentioned, its critical for the developer that we submit on Monday. If we cannot meet this, the deal potentially falls though. Please let us know if we can do anything to make this right Thank you again. Dan Moyer, PE Vice President CPH 941-365-4771 x2803 813-841-5851 (cell) From: Fuentes, Heather Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 2:21 PM To: Moyer, Danie] (P£). Subject: FW: Request for Plat& PDI docs Thank you, Nikki Fuentes Administrative Assistant CPH 941-365-4771 /��� ���&��' 35 years o�����' �� ��'��R ��{�e "_°xom .���� � Design Excellence From: Fuentes, Heather Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 1:56 PM To: ']ohnsonEric'; Be|kzwsRay Cc: HouldsworthJohn; GMD Client Services Subject: RE: Request for Plat &PD! docs Understood. Thanks Eric Ray, I have attached the pre-app notes that were taken that requests our coordination with you to determine if today's preapp can satisfy the preapp requirement. Thank you, -- Nikki Fuentes Administrative Assistant CPH 941-365-4771 Celebrating 35 years of Design Excellence From: JohnsonEric hailto:Enc.JohnsonAcolliergov.net] Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2017 1:44 PM To: Fuentes, Heather; BellowsRay Cc: Houldsworthlohn; GMD Client Services Subject RE: Request for Plat&PDI docs Heather. If the pre-application meeting.was mistakenly set up for a plat and not a PDI, then it may not have had the necessary staff members present. For example, it is likely that no one from the County Attorney's Office was present because they're currently attending the CCPC meeting. As to whether the meeting conducted today, which included Fred Reischl,can count towards your required pre-application meeting, I must defer to Ray. 410 Respectfully. Eric L Johnson,AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate Principal Planner From:Fuentes, Heather Emailt.olfuentesPcphcorp.coml Sent:Thursday,June 01, 2017 1:39 PM To:JohnsonEric<LriciohnsonPcolliergov.riet,>; BeliowsRay<RayBellowsPc.olliergov.net> Cc:HouldsworthJohn<johnhouldsworthPcolliergov.net>;GMD Client Services <GMDClientServicesr@colliergov.net> Subject:RE: Request for Plat &PDI docs Uric, the pre-app meeting took place today. The meeting was supposed to be for the PDI, but it appears I set it up for a final plat by accident online. In the meeting Fred Reischl attended.We were told that we would need a confirmation email from Ray saying that today's pre-app meeting was in fact for the PDI, We had already received an email previously from John Houldsworth (see attached) saying a pre-app meeting was not required for the final plat. Thank you, Nikki Fuentes Administrative Assistant CPH 941-365-4771 • Cerebrating 35 years of Design Excerfence From: JohnsonEric Viaitto:EricJohnsonOcolliergov.net] Sent: Thursday,June 01, 2017 1:18 PM To: BellowsRay; Fuentes, Heather Subject: RE: Request for Plat&PDI docs When was the pre-application meeting conducted? Respectfully, Eric L Johnson,AICP,CFM, LEED Green Associate Principal Planner From:BellowsRay Sent:Thursday,June 01, 2017 11:42 AM To:Fuentes, Heather<htuentescphcorp.com> Cc:JohnsonEric<Eridohnsont@colliergov.net> Subject:RE: Request for Plat&PDI docs • I am currently at the CCPC meeting today,however. I will discuss your request with Eric to verify that the proper pre-app notes were taken and the fee paid for the combined meeting. Raf Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Zoning Division- Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department Telephone:239.252.2463; Fax: 239.252.6350 From: Fuentes, Heather Imailto.hfueritesPcnhcsuo.com] Sent:Thursday,June 01,2017 11:30 AM To:BellowsRay<RayBellowsPcolliergov.net> Cc:JohnsonEric<FridohnsonPcolliergovmet> Subject: RE: Request for Plat&PDI docs Ray, We were told in our pre-application meeting today that we would need a confirmation email from • you stating that today's meeting would count towards our PDI pre app meeting.Can you please provide this to us at your earliest convenience? I appreciate all your help Thank you, Nikki Fuentes Administrative Assistant CPH 941-365-4771 Cerebrating 35 years of'Design Excellence From: BellowsRay a 0.11, ;40 Ii- Sent: Wednesday, May 31, N17 5:51 PM To: Fuentes, Heather Cc: JohnsonEric Subject: RE: Request for Plat&PDI docs Hi Heather, I have forwarded your request to Eric Johnson since he is the assigned Principal Planner for the PDI application that was approved for RaceTrac. He should be able to provide the complete application that was submitted. Ers, Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Zoning Division- Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department Telephone:239.252.2463: Fax: 239.252.6350 From: Fuentes, Heather Imailto:hfuentesOcphcorp corn] Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 10:10 AM To:BellowsRay<RayBellowsPcolliergov.net> Subject: RE: Request for Plat & PDI docs Ray„ Are you able to send me the complete package that was submitted by Raceirac? In addition, are we required to submit the zoning data sheet since we aren't changing any of that information? Thank you, 411 Nikki Fuentes Administrative Assistant CPH 941-365-4771 Celebrating 35 years of Design Excellence From: Fuentes, Heather Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 8:17 AM To: 'BellowsRay' Subject: RE: Request for Plat & PDI docs Good morning Ray, Thanks for that information.Can you provide the Current master plan that was provided by Racetrack?We have a copy but the quality is very poor and was hoping you had something better that can be provided. Thank you, Nikki Fuentes Administrative Assistant CPH 411 941-365-4771 Celebrating 35 years of Design 'Excellence From: BellowsRay [mailto:RayBellowsacolliergov.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2017 6:08 PM To: Fuentes, Heather Subject: RE: Request for Plat &PDI docs As you have requested. I have attached a copy of the PDI Resolution for the subject property. I have copied John Houldsworth to see if he can provide copies of any platting information. Please let me know if I can be of any other assistance. t Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Zoning Division - Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department Telephone: 239.252.2463; Fax: 239.252.6350 From:Fuentes, Heather[mailto:hfuentesPcphcorp.cornJ Sent: Tuesday,May 3Q 2017 11:09 AM To:BellowsRay<RayBellows(colliergov.net> Subject:Request for Plat & PDI docs Good morning, I would like to request the PDI and plat documents submitted for the Racetrack on Immokalee Rd near the vicinity of the attached site locations. I was also wondering if we are able to get a word document of the Heritage Bay PUD document so that we may edit it as requested in the document requirements for the PDI application. If you are not the correct person to get this information from, can you please point me in the direction of who I can speak with regarding these requests.Thanks for your help,and if you should have any questions please do not hesitate to ask. Thank you, Nikki Fuentes Administrative Assistant CPH 941-365-4771 • Celebrating 35 years of Design Exce(Cence Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request.do not send electronic mail to this entity Instead contact this office by telephone or in writing • • 1 _. ...... _ _ 6 _, _____ ___ _ _. _ __ _ ____ _ ,..„_._:....___.............,,.____.. .... 1......... . . . ____ ::::::7::::,....:::::::.....::.........._ . ...-.......-------''''','' �� j__________...._::::::::\ I ..................._ . ....__.................•_._._..........._._..................._,....., :::._______.....________ ., ..._.... . . k:I C. 1r 1 7 : ::::4:::•:::":1• ' _ --• ~ � •} _ J —y 3 Li\ -, U hill- C ;! t] •:• I-� 107 ems. - // �� i.— : : I pJ. ..- '7 ' �' '`✓_ r..h „sv tats, ..r (----,------ >" Ct' I W � • .� j _� 1 7 J f:r .;K? A4' ?- E;;- ('4• r'-- - - ,/• ���` r • 7 41x" .:..„,.G' '- _ >x } 'i jr. _-_-",---j a, tt - i.: ,,,•'. e 5 *#S.a;..4?�'9'^t}Eyw-.� 7 tiTel{ry / u ( ?. .,r . f 4w;�,} rq —4--.i 4 .S ., 1' .‘.,::::7"-..."::.::, 0E1,\ , - ... . -.." t '': ..,.ti. z e�tr' � t.j i • 'R:t •.fl syr 7 M. Y i 1 u _wig ;�• r I ' y4i • a* — —. — -- T IMMOKALEE RD. z-rl AFFECTED AREA LEGEND A AFFECTED AREA III Designed by: a town Scale: I,1,7S0' el.ISA*By: /� OM.Inc. AFFECTED AREA Sheet No. Drawn by: a worn Date: 0901/17 g Q r AMA FruiMb ea..auw z 0A�.FL 3<07 �/ M:Wessel:17/ E 2 Checked by. D 7qw Job No.:F1730 t . HERITAGE BAY COMMONS TRACT D FAS.CAA.As.no3 AM.LIC MCA Lcass IMMOKALEE BLVD.AND GOODLAND BAY DR. Approved by D Moo ©2011 www.cpheorp.wm su.r u.As.1+u t.oa.9n L w..cao9azs7 r\rIrye_9..dl t l'P.C7\o..n\E..en.'fl anmn.fITAI-w.n c-9.9...c..wl P%,n.w.8/12011318:49 a.....m.a W._mn-as Ana Una,. 0 /@ o June 2, 2017 3277A,Fruitville Road Suite 2 Sarasota,Honda 34237 Phone:941.365.4771 www.ephiorp.ioin Collier County Government Growth Management Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.2400 RE: Goodland — Heritage Bay Commons Replat Tract D PL #: 20170001859 Property ID #: 49660084485 & 49660084508 0 Legal Description: LOTS 2 AND 3, HERITAGE BAY COMMONS - TRACT D REPLAT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 58, PAGES 2 THROUGH 5, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. . ,,:---;.,..Vt.m.-7 $ F F �' „ 0 1-...'t!* '1'1•!#°:'''''''''Ail'.:eig:i .:Z.1‘t.k7i.rfli:';:7 -11:'!::,,,!'N** : t � a ' � I � � HERITAGE-;--- . ' P I € lMOE RD a . . ,.= W 6_: fietri ., 0 VICINITY MAP SCALE:l"=5000. • r .:, :;,.,r.T.:-A.;;.::_.., �,,. . z „ � � , . m � BELLAIRE BAY DR. - , ,/ fit�►�IIWRIiM... � ii11�a1111....F.. U�F�.........ili. ...OW 11r , aEij` II I PARCEL 5 PARCEL 6 PARCEL 7 PARCEL 8 I ti - 0r s a...rn...a+ r.r�<,a r a.....rr a 1.1101111/11M r aa9 a.aan..a r a a aa.NONII/a.a. NI\ A aa4 as+.al.ar.I a.as aa�Y SAGE AVE, aa�a..,..a.»........... � I el r /7 ,, 1 PARCEL , . . E7 a PARCEL 2 PARCELS PARCEL 4 I /74 ... t.'.. I IsE 1 IMMOKALEERD. x , ,,, Nr s iiii Lr�r- ems ■mss me r sir �E n moomana rem mama mum — • LOCATION MAP SCALE..1"=20O .. ...::. :...... +.Baa scike.. .0 w.ma '. .i.......i., Dta�m by x sso. Orbe: as it ., LOCATION MAP Sheet No. Checked by: 0 Ms Job No_FIl ��er�r ai.caw.i.saa wesue_rwiaewur umni HERITAGE SAY COMMONS TRACT 0 BI—/ mod* 0 is*** Cm' .., �^^ �,,,,yu..=,..wa,ruzw.a NAMOKALEE BLVD AND G0QDCAHD SAY R. + -. baWaw–I...a..are w#ia.K-11,1r.beak...-aaimaiiar.F.n. . .. • _ - ' I • wnry I(uNai N mED)ONEOgpv /GMDJEC ::::=:-7,::7:——-7—-` .7'7:-.7:::7:-:-..7------ .. .. et... 11111111 < $ m •i R.•c��.,:'-�':� =z$ i.., ^• _ • FPI I" 1 I_ ,, I, °'Y- lig AE NN (.1F:. OEVf 1 mg '... i �. _ `DFF r 1 s �f9 �S-®4 RESP 1-4 I1 1y , < 1e ��A��i ACM1Um ��! ' '�® iC�'In UNE m I. 1 a _ 511SVS. i ') / :.-.g • 1 /'----,`:aQ at tl@ t:2"ft, : t--). .iI.10 :: IIII , tau. ° -.:>. •a- •�BCTRL r JQ, r I y . � _It* �� OTAL A N et4 . ACTA El RE • 70' RD cal rf r) .- • 115 • 4 I .S, .......... .:. ?' " Ni i N® 11.-- '"� rte_ _ ,rt. 9t d&,/P MAF P �.. a. - - OFF .................,::::—2--:727:: • 2---;Th‘ \-Il --` 'j --•-- jri iI si. 42.#22 ¢R . AGR IiLVP+ zorv[o e L • RSE k'-,.�. 22 It-v 2 ` ,j• ° SIL .m aca-"RAY EAST I� t; 1-,..._•141.,•••-•+- quo . 6 q �° • •+ 1( _ Y __-_,W___________ ,,-7::a1 '`�"r 3: .:. .. .. �� • am `'tn°rc".• ��Y.0*C'X c..ICAx .<Evt TGVS.. - N �_. L�_,� 4J �p U •-AGRICULTURAL ZOrvED -,LTOSA,ZONE, Is -- • a...v m...., .... UL. (NURSES. •1401.-:':Mn..a.rvt;E; w AWE .'. CU.ti p.... -AGR C))14.1.14 ZO:4EO (..NOEVELOPE') 4111 110 HERITAGE BAY COMMONS-TRACT D REPLAT PLAT 13 S A S1JBDIVI..210N BEING A RF.FIAT OF TRACT'D" OF HERITAGE BAY COMMON:: AS RECORDED IN FIAT NOON 43. pAGE• 46 THROUGH TI. LYING IN sFrTION.,..::::. TOWNSHIP 40 F.,11TH, RANGE'16 EAST COLLIER counT1 FLORIDA El_iTH71,:ltP7 ,. - I _ . ,.....• ,.,<077_,tft2,,,...T •,,,_4.,. ,^.__,:::.,,_3_:-,,n I i .-L.' '-' .,;.2,a, ,7,4 BELLAIRE BAY DRIVE J 4',.- .-:,-1-,,,,,,, . ,._ ..- )a.cw. .v G.PuE•0E) .4.141 IL ft,•••••••••1 i V L'%I-- 55.14 4T.• 44., ' 4 zs....,,,, , , ,, , NIWCOMITE 711.07 I-. C. 1 2 t 141,•, JD%P.44.•Let , .'''''..'..' -:.ii ,e.•• .,... 3,-;. — ,-,,. , ,,--, -.7— —FT.7-Ei-- , k 1404,,.••••44 •44. ..TT.- ' r : . . 'n',F-,, 1 ,,.• 'r •' ' , •41 II , I.' •I.%.%. I • "V 1.• I. r ' LOTS !.. 4•41 5.T. I'• ''T. 5 -, . go ,,,EI ; :' i:- .:• .• YI 1 . i n 1...*F• •1 F77 !i•'• ,. I ' 1 • I. . . -"' . . , ,..... •..-• .. Dr 1-.),1 ) —......- - , ;;1 71w,4.L.•L44 • MIT. r I 1 .. 1 ' I4- 22,1 4 _ ono.1,:e 1041.4.P.a) SAGS AVENUE 4 t'. likr. .• i . i•, ,......sor) •,' ......... I : Fl• i ft, 1 1,14.4. . 4,,..., i .,; i•;,;(.., __if.4 V I 4 VILL .%. . --- .... -.—..-..... ........ -7-1 LEaCr.a .a• I 1 I ya- Iar0C ela•...,AnCnrr 1 , ! ! I-4-i IV .e irla:,ow. A 0 A.nroa 1-,VAJICIF 0 t t 0 ••• N i • -:",,, i' r'1 • OA. 444:14 01.3A,;na 14) ..... PAC MS,.i...44.514 I a AL toy•-A.A.Olf.• • I . L./. 1.4.iliKVILV•41 i AC mcwir P.{...4' ' ' I 4; : t An- Kase,C•50019+7. ...i'.' . I. • nue cm,.Winer Cer • 1:.: IA •1144114 0/40404 I 14 LOT I 1... LOT a al C. 1.114100,Cr CADA an , I r'• , 7 i ,..1. r r% • 79.;r47274-:•.-'i , • • ....wow comm. II;' .t • .1•044 PONT 4• .arvr 0,ONCIA,A• • I /r.v.'/".`.• : I i ,•••,:r7F ,;67' ..... i . ./. 4,... 1 .1: i •444.fL•417 ..,..,,,,, )1),-)»...roe 447.00 P.) A, -.-. L. .., /.0 a• ...,„ ,•,,,,,,,_qi..1..1.1.-., • IT\rerwarve&UM'cross comma)loa7.0 10....) • 0 111, HERITAGE BAY COMMONS -TRACT D REPLAT PLAT : • A SUBDIVISION BEING A RFPLAT OF TRAIT'D. • OF HERITAGE.BAY'RUMORS AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 43. PAGES 48 THROUGH 54 LYING IN SECTION 23.TOWNSHIP dB SOUTH. RANGE.20 EAST. COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA __S-[4 BEII.AIRE RAY DRIVE (maw,mac) —' +`,o. 4 �--�.1 _.. PA'O OVE 11[07 +,_ ..T.___. "t • I•• ;42,1 r.- .,4»_ -; a, .\ • z. LOT I I • > y e m 803 POW er er.4 tlm . t , Silr � MI 013•4•14• Oit '„.- ,111,1E \ it d K•u/-a+ 1./..c 7'•.' , -/1r.• Al .V weww _—.—._-____ ___ _._.._.._.r?_^_•rY rrr,..•.., 9AG8 AVENUE 41 •- ar 13•33 P‘,...--..,• ,hi�I•YYIT • • 'SI j�9i. ,11 w>7 a ar S Ni �_ I i 9.;r I 3 1 6`i m[ rrlV a' -O 9I1. LOT• J 1 • I J I• 1489.3874,ex.u•RO•1/4)10![,BIOA) .9,Yl-._! wfryn._j �L 1 rat”ua r a`."',r[,n-n.... ,/1$n` l: 110 III Cofer County • COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.coJliergov.net (239)252-2400 Pre-Application Meeting Notes Petition Type: FP { Date and Time: Iol f/Za(7- /D-30 Assigned Planner: G KDt IMU- `. � "rlwti< RAT-- Engineering ArEngineering Manager (for PPL's and FP's): je,tikr ff) s -- Project Information Project Name: t E 4a4a{©A! PL#: Ze317cet9(b5, Property ID#: kt64fgSr Current Zc nin P4-)Oftlier4LIT Project Address: Cit State: Zip: Applicant: 'ff • Agent Name: Phone: Agent/Firm Address: i.`ty: State: Zip: Property Owner: Please provide the following, if applicable: i. Total Acreage: ii. Proposed#of Residential Units: iii. Proposed Commercial Square Footage: _ iv. For Amendments,indicate the original petitis• i number: v. If there is an Ordinance or Resolution associr:ed with this project, please indicate the type and number: r9? -10 - Y vi. If the project is within a Plat, provide the nay°e and AR#/PL#• • Coi ierpCounty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 Meeting Notes - t v, S obs r fes. O -40 r TTTcz-- - rE-r au tots ( t(rowl-rFICtsits r -T vim" 7'— ribit NW:P.-Mitt FF. ,s. - � w> Mrs r7o ct- ,Bart...Quitas sj/J441x- ps:voros -PKI/J6 b T Sii MK- or- THE" pi's Gtrvt- m&kua5trAJA - teat-bra/or-u)rrff Iztots ?'a rf (AE ic5tt —s ( ttr'-1 'r Wisc _ — From V ; f j6 • 1,6e -401, G- • Ca C er County ID COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 Pre-Application Meeting Sign-In Sheet PL#: 7.4(7000/1559 Collier County Contact Information: Name _ Review Discipline Phone Email Chris Alcorn Utility Billing 821-8136 chrisalcorn@coiliergov.net David Anthony _ Environmental Review 252-2497 _davidanthony@colliergov.net L Summer Araque Environmental Review 252-6290 summerbrownaraque@colliergov.net ❑ Steve Baluch,P.E. i Transportation Planning 252-2361 StephenBaluch@colliergov.net Lf Laurie Beard _ Transportation Pathways 252-5782 Lauriebeard@colliergov.net Rachel Beasley Zoning Services 252-8202 rachelbeasley@colliergov.net ❑ Marcus Berman County Surveyor 252-6885 MarcusBerman@colliergov.net _ ❑ Craig Brown Environmental Review 252-2548 CraigBrown@colliergov.net ❑ Mark Burtchin ROW Permitting 252-5165 markburtchin@colliergov.net ❑ George Cascio Utility Billing 252-5543 georgecascio@colliergov.net ❑ Heidi Ashton Cicko Managing Asst.County Attorney 252-8773 heidiashton@colliergov.net • ❑ Sue Faulkner Comprehensive Planning 252-5715 suefaulkner@colliergov.net ❑ Dale Fey North Naples Fire 597-3222 dalefey@colliergov.net ❑ Paula Fleishman Impact Fee Administration 252-2924 paulafleishman@colliergov.net t Storm Gewirtz Stormwater 252-2434 stormgewirtz@colliergov.net El Nancy Gundlach,AICP, PLA Zoning Services 252-2484 nancygundlach@colliergov.net r]/Shar Hingson f East Naples Fire District 687-5650 shingson@ccfco.org _i 0f John Houldsworth Engineering Services 252-5757 johnhouldsworth@colliergov.net [i Jodi Hughes Transportation Pathways 252-5744 jodihughes@colliergov.net ❑ Alicia Humphries Site Plans Reviewer/ROW 252-2326 aliciahumphries@colliergov.net I i Eric Johnson,AICP,CFM Zoning Services 252-2931 ericjohnson@colliergov.net • Marcia Kendall Comprehensive Planning 252-2387 marciakendall@colliergov.net ❑ Stephen Lenberger Environmental Review 252-2915 stevelenberger@colliergov.net ❑ Garrett Louviere Right-of-Way 252-2526 garrettlouviere@colliergov.net ❑ Paulo Martins Utilities 252-4285 paulomartins@colliergov.net ❑ Thomas Mastroberto Fire Safety 252-7348 Thomasmastroberto@colliergov.net [_I Jack McKenna, P.E. Engineering Services 252-2911 jackmckenna@colliergov.net — ❑ Matt McLean, P.E. Principal Project Manager 252-8279 matthewmclean@colliergov.net El Gilbert Moncivaiz Utility Impact Fees 252-4215 gilbertmoncivaiz@colliergov.net ❑ Annis Moxam Addressing 252-5519 annismoxam@colliergov.net Stefanie Nawrocki Planning and Zoning T^ 252-2313 StefanieNawrocki@colliergov.net , Co' tier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE • GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 1 Jessica Huckeba CAD Technician 252-2315 JessicaHuckeba@colliergov.net Bill Pancake North Naples Fire 597-3222 billpancake@colliergov.net l-'}rand'Pollard Utility Impact fees 252-6237 brandipollard@colliergov.net Fred Reischl,AICP Zoning Services 252-4211 fredreischl@colliergov.net !"Daniel Roman, PE Utility Plan Review 252-2538 danielroman@colliergov.net Brett Rosenblum, P.E. Utility Plan Review 252-2905 brettrosenblum@colliergov.net Li Edwin Sanchez Fire Review 252-7517 edwinsanchez@colliergov.net El Michael Sawyer Transportation Planning 252-2926 michaelsawyer@colliergov.net LI Corby Schmidt,AICP Comprehensive Planning 252-2944 corbyschmidt@colliergov.net �r Chris Scott,AICP Planning and Zoning 252-2460 chrisscott@colliergov.net LI Peter Shawinsky Architectural Review 252-8523 PeterShawinsky@colliergov.net ❑ Ellen Summers Planning and Zoning 252-1032 EllenSummers@colllergov.net El Scott Stone Assistant County Attorney 252-8400 scottstone@colliergov.net ❑ ii4ark Strain Hearing Examiner/CCPC 252-4446 markstrain@colliergov.net e"Mark Templeton Landscape 252-2475 marktempleton@colliergov.net O Jon Walsh Building Review 252-2962 jonathanwalsh@coiliergov.net Li David Weeks,AICP Comprehensive Planning 252-2306 davidweeks@colliergov.net ❑ Kirsten Wilkie Environmental Review 252-5518 _ kirstenwiikie@colliergov.net • [❑ Christine Willoughby Planning and Zoning 252-5748 _ChristineWilloughby@colliergov.net Additional Attendee Contact Information: Name Representing Phone Email -t ry ✓ltd / � c11-1 '7 4)1-74" 4 F b vi c Ycic @ e-fry evAll r Ali . ii C(i' r'G/I ferii.i✓ 5401 Ua n1 Jit/with I9it-�Y,}l�L6hro �l / _j 1.`. ‘ I.Dc _ - \ f witril 24r 7z 4-;rk. SCIflei / 44-:‘,.; „cow • III Colley County • COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239) 252-6358 Minor Subdivision Plat (FP)Application LDC Section 10.02.04 Chapter 5 of the Administrative Code PROJECT NO(PL) PROJECT NAME For Staff Use DATE PROCESSED APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Agent: Firm: Address: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: Cell: Fax: E-Mail Address: • Name of Owner: Address: City: State: ZIP: Telephone: Cell: Fax: E-Mail Address: PROPERTY INFORMATION Provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application (if space is inadequate, attach on separate page): Project Name: Acres: Address of subject site and general location: Property ID Number: Section/Township/Range: Subdivision: Unit: Lot: Block: Zoning Designation: • 3/2/2016 Page 1 of 3 Collier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE0 GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Submittal Requirement Checklist for: Minor Subdivision Plat(FP) Chapter 5 of the Administrative Code At time of submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW COPIES SUBMITTED REQUIRED Completed Application(download current form from County website) 1 ❑ ❑ Cover Letter briefly explaining project 1 ❑ ❑ Signed&Sealed Plat, less than 6 months old 6 (l ❑ Signed&Sealed Boundary Survey, less than 6 months old 6 ❑ 0 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 ❑ ❑ PUD Ordinance and Development Commitment Information 1 ❑ ❑ PUD Monitoring Schedule 1 ❑ 0 Evidence of Authority/Affidavit of Authorization 1 ❑ ❑ Zoning Data Sheets 1 0 ❑ • Certificate of Public Facility Adequacy(COA)Application with fee, if 1 0 ❑ applicable School Impact Analysis Application, if applicable • School Concurrency:If the proposed project includes a residential component, you are required to contact the School District of 1 ❑ ❑ Collier County at 239-377-0267 to discuss school concurrency requirements. Opinion of Title 1 ❑ ❑ Historical/Archeological Survey 1 ❑ 0 Traffic Impact Study 1 n ❑ Easement Approval Letters 1 ❑ ❑ CD of all submittal documents in PDF format 1 X 0 III 3/2/2016 Page 2 of 3 Win Collier County • COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 FEE REQUIREMETNS Fee Requirements: Subdivision Final Plat: o Residential-$1,000.00 plus$5.00 per acre (or fraction thereof) o Nonresidential-$1,000.00 plus $10.00 per acre (or fraction thereof) ' School Concurrency Fees: [reserved] School Concurrency Review Fee, if required. o Mitigation Fees, if applicable:to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners The completed application, all required submittal materials and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department/Development Services ATTN: Business Center • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 • 3/2/2016 Page 3 of 3 Collier County Land Development Code I Administrative Procedures Manual Chapter 5 I Subdivision Procedures . F. Minor Final Subdivision Plat (FP) Reference LDC subsection 10.02.04 D. Applicability This procedure applies to a minor final subdivision plat.A minor final subdivision plat generally does not require improvements,a construction maintenance agreement,a security performance bond,or phasing. Prr-application A pre-application meeting is required unless waived by the County Manager or designee. initiation The applicant files a"Minor Subdivision Plat Application"with the Planning&Zoning Department. Application The application must include the following: Contents 1. Applicant contact information. 2. Addressing checklist. 3. PUD Ordinance and Development Commitment Information, 4. Property information,including: • Legal description; • Property identification number; • Project name; • Section,township and range; • • Subdivision,unit,lot and block;and • Total acreage. 5. Current zoning designation of subject property. 6. Cover letter briefly explaining the project. 7. PUD Monitoring Schedule,if applicable. 8. Owner/agent affidavit as to the correctness of the application. 9. Signed and sealed Plat, less than 6 months old. 10. Signed and sealed boundary survey,less than 6 months old. 11. Evidence of Authority. 12. Zoning Data Sheet. 13. Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities application,if applicable. 14. School Impact Analysis application,if applicable. Final Subdivision 'See Chapter S D.1 - "Requirements for Final Subdivision Plat"within the Pat Requirements Construction Plans and Final Subdivision Plat section of the Administrative Code. Submittal Credentials: Minor final plats shall be signed and sealed by a professional surveyor and mapper registered in the State of Florida. •1801 Page Collier County Land Development Code Administrative Procedures Manual • Chapter 5/Subdivision Procedures Sheet size:The final subdivision plat shall be submitted on standard size 24-inch by 36-inch sheets,drawn to scale. Completenh•ss A ,d The Engineering Services Department will review the application for completeness. Procr ssii-4,of After submission of the completed application packet accompanied with the Applir.L+tion required fee, the applicant will receive a mailed or electronic response notifying the applicant that the petition is being processed.Accompanying that response will be a receipt for the payment and the tracking number(i.e.,XX201200000)assigned to the petition.This petition tracking number should be noted on all future correspondence regarding the petition. Notize No notice is required. Public Hearing The BCC shall hold 1 public hearing. Decision makar The County Manager or designee. Review Process The Engineering Services Department will review the application,identify whether additional materials are needed and review the application for compliance with and shall approve,approve with conditions,or deny the minor final subdivision plat. Once submitted for review,the minor final subdivision plat application will remain under review so long as a resubmittal in response to a county reviewer's comments is received within 270 days of the date on which the comments were sent to the applicant.If a response is not received within this time,the application for review will be considered withdrawn and cancelled. Further review of the project will require a new application together with appropriate fees. The County Manager or designee will provide a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to approve,approve with conditions,or deny the minor final subdivision plat. Digital Submittal After the minor final subdivision plat has been approved by the County Manager or Requirements designee for compliance the applicant shall submit the following: 1. The applicant's professional Engineer shall submit a digitally created construction/site plan documents;and 2. 1 CDROM of the master plan file, including,where applicable,easements, water/wastewater facilities,and stormwater drainage system.The digital data to be submitted shall follow these formatting guidelines:All data shall be delivered in the state plane coordinate system,with a Florida East Projection, and a North American Datum 1983/1990(NAD83/90 datum),with United States Survey Feet(USFEET)units;as established by a Florida registered surveyor and mapper.All information shall have a maximum dimensional error of+0.5 feet. Files shall be in an AutoCad(DWG)or Digital Exchange File(DXF) format;information layers shall have common naming conventions(i.e. right- of-way—ROW,centerlines—CL,edge-of-pavement—EOP,etc.). For a plan to be deemed complete,the layering scheme must be readily understood by county staff.All property information(parcels, lots,and requisite annotation)shall be drawn on a unique information layer,with all linework pertaining to the property feature located on that layer. Example:parcels—All lines that form the parcel boundary will be located on 1 parcel layer.Annotations pertaining to property information shall be on a unique layer. Example: lot dimensions— Lottxt layer.All construction permits required from local,state and federal 181 ' Page Collier County Land Development Code I Administrative Procedures Manual Chapter 5 /Subdivision Procedures • agencies must be submitted to the County Manager or designee prior to commencing development within any phase of a project requiring such permits. Re(orcing Prcr.es The minor final subdivision plat shall be recorded pursuant to LDC section 10.02,04 F <*See Chapter 5 G.of the Administrative Code Updated • 182 I Page • • 6-5 TABLE 3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ACTIVITY CENTER AND GOVERNMENT FACILITY SITE PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES Minimum Lot or Parcel Area 10,000 sq ft n/a Minimum Lot Width 75 ft n/a Minimum Building Setbacks Immokalee Road 35 ft or BH whichever greater 20 ft Future Extension of Collier Boulevard (County Road 951) 35 ft or BH whichever greater 20 ft Internal Frontage Drives 15 ft 20 ft 0 ft to bulkhead or riprap at top of bank provided architectural Waterfront bank treatment is incorporated into the design and subject to 0 ft written approval from Collier County Non-Right-of-Way Perimeter Project Boundary-buildings up to 50 ft in 30 ft 20 ft • height Preserves 25 ft 10 ft. Non-Right-of-Way Perimeter Project 35 ft or the Building Boundary-buildings over 50 ft in 50 ft Heights whichever is height greater Minimum Distance Between Commercial Structures which are part of an architecturally 10 ft. 10 ft • unified group Between All Other Commercial Structures 20 ft 10 ft Between All Multi-Family Buildings" 2 the Sum of the Building Heights 10 ft. Maximum Height Retail Buildings 50 ft 35 ft Office Buildings 65 ft 35 ft Multi-Family Buildings" 65 ft 35 ft Communications facilities n/a 65 ft *excluding drive-through facilities "For the purpose of Table 3,the term"Multi-Family Building"includes Assisted Living Facilities • • 740/7003.110047 Yer.151-DACHA CMU N0,4240S-000 PPHS.29402 Collier County • COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.coIliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 !NSUBS i AWTIAL CHANGE TO A PUD (PDI) .L2' s;:L,stctitn 10.02 13 .E. Code of Laws section 2 P.3- 1-°0 Ch. 3 G.3 of the Administrative Code Pursuant to LDC subsection 10.02.13 E.2, a PUD insubstantial change includes any change that is not considered a substantial or a minor change.A PUD insubstantial change to an approved PUD ordinance shall be based upon an evaluation of LDC subsection 10.02.13 E.1 and shall require the review and approval of the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner's approval shall be based on the findings and criteria used for the original application. PETITION NO PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION • Name of Applicant(s): 2017 Goodland Naples LLC Address: 2655 N OCEAN DR STE 401 City: Singer Island State: FL ZIP: 33404 Telephone: 561.210.9105 Cell: n/a Fax: n/a E-Mail Address: pferber@ferbercompany.com Name of Agent: Daniel Moyer, P.E. Folio#:49660084485 &49660084508 Section: 23Twp: 48 Range: 26 Firm: CPH, Inc. Address: 3277A Fruitville Rd., Ste 2 City: Sarasota State: FL ZIP: 34237 Telephone: 941-3654771 Cell: Ilia Fax: n/a E-Mail Address: dmoyer@cpheorp.corn 02/24/2017 Page 1 of 5 CDilier County • COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX: (239)252-6358 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST INFORMATION Is the applicant the owner of the subject property? El Yes []No 1. If applicant is a land trust,so indicate and name the beneficiaries below. ❑ 2. If applicant is corporation other than a public corporation, so indicate and name officers and major stockholders below. 0 3. If applicant is a partnership, limited partnership or other business entity, so indicate and name principals below. ❑ 4. If applicant is an owner, indicate exactly as recorded, and list all other owners, if any. ❑ 5. If applicant is a lessee, attach copy of lease, and indicate actual owners if not indicated on the lease. 6. If applicant is a contract purchaser,attach copy of contract, and indicate actual owner(s) • name and address below: (if space is inadequate, attach on separate page) 2017 GOODLAND NAPLES LLC-SHIELDS FERBER JR.&PAUL S FERBER SR. 2655 N OCEAN DR STE 401 SINGER ISLAND,FL 33404 DETAIL OF REQUEST On a separate sheet, attached to the application,describe the insubstantial change request. Identify how the request does not meet the PUD substantial change criteria established in LDC subsection 10.02.13 E.1. PROI ER1V INFORMATION PUD NAME: Heritage Bay ORDINANCE NUMBER: 03-40 FOLIO NUMBER(S): 49660084485&49660084508 Provide a legal (if PUD is recorded) or graphic description of area of amendment (this may be graphically illustrated on Amended PUD Master Plan). If applying for a portion of the PUD, provide a legal description for subject portion. Attach on a separate sheet, a written description of the map or text change. Does amendment comply with the Growth Management Plan? ❑✓ Yes ❑No • 02/24/2017 Page 2 of 5 Godlier County • COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 If no, please explain: n/a Has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? i Yes 0 No If yes, in whose name? n/a Has any portion of the PUD been L_J SOLD and/or© DEVELOPED? Are any changes proposed for the area sold and/or developed? X❑Yes No If yes, please describe on an attached separate sheet. The property was sold from Cameron Partners II LLC to 2017 Goodland Naples LLC on September 26, 2017. • 02/24/2017 Page 3 of 5 Cotiier County • COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 P:•e-Applic `ii i0e€1,'2g crit; Ililal S.trrtitta' Requirenwnt Chc. list fer: ['LID iiisubst?'?tie'- ChanFe Cn pter 3 G,3 of the Adiniiti_t:ative Code The following Submittal Requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At final submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. t:Or NOT REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW REQUIRED COPIES REQUIRED Completed Application(download current form from County website) 16 , g , 1-7 Pre-Application Meeting notes 1 Project Narrative, including a detailed description of proposed changes 16 ® ❑ and why amendment is necessary Detail of request 0 0 Current Master Plan& 1 Reduced Copy Ei Revised Master Plan& 1 Reduced Copy 0ill X Revised Text and any exhibits © • PUD document with changes crossed through&underlined X PUD document as revised with amended Title Page with Ordinance# 0 1__I X Warranty Deed Legal Description H . Boundary survey,if boundary of original PUD is amended rA❑ If PUD is platted, include plat book pages N List identifying Owner&all parties of corporation 2 Affidavit of Authorization,signed&notarized 2 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 Copy of 8%in.x 11 in.graphic location map of site 1 El Electronic copy of all documents and plans *Please advise:The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all materials 0 ® 0 to be submitted electronically in PDF format. *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing, include an additional set of each submittal requirement. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: • Following the completion of the review process by County Review staff,the applicant shall submit all materials electronically to the designated project manager. • Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required. • 02/24/2017 Page 4 of 5 Gait-icy ai t-iei' ivity • . COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 PLANNERS-INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: Q School District(Residential Components):Amy ri Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment: I Lockheart Executive Director BUtilities Engineering:Eric Fey 0 Parks and Recreation:Vicky Ahmad © Emergency Management:Dan Summers Naples Airport Authority:Ted Soliday 8 Conservancy of SWFL:Nichole Ryan Other: City of Naples:Robin Singer,Planning Director Other: I FEE REQUIREMENTS Ild PUD Amendment Insubstantial(PDI):$1,500.00 ® Pre-Application Meeting:$500.00 : Estimated Legal Advertising fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner:$1,125.00 Fire Code Plans Review Fees are collected at the time of application submission and those fees ore set • forth by the Authority having jurisdiction, The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. All checks payable to:Board of County Commissioners. The completed application,all required submittal materials,and fees shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department Planning and Regulation ATTN:Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 t ,/ t/� �- l u / .-1 Agent/Owner Signature Date 2`4-q/V°rc-L "GYEV . Applicant/Owner Name(please print) III 02/24/2017 Page 5 of 5 • November 20, 2017 � �� 0 �� x��� y� X .�~� Collier County Growth 'Development Department 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. sznApmx,uleRd,Suite z Nap/ea. FL 34104 Sarasota,Florida 34237 Phone:941-3654771 ^^«'11`9°m^rpo/* Subject: PUD Insubstantial Change PL2O170001859 Goodland Dear Fred Reinch|. Pursuant to your review of the above-referenced project, the following are the responses to your comments issued on November 14, 2017. Rejected Review: Landscape Review Reviewed By: Mark Templeton Rejected Review: Zoning Review Reviewed By: Fred Reischl Correction Comment: In determining how to clarify the requested Deviation as part of the PDI process preparing for hearing, we are requesting you modify the one-sheet PUD modification to read, "From Section 4.06.02....for lots 2 and 3." Strike out subdividing text (in attached document with staff markup). 8dd0ona||y, you will need to add the toe|ho, square footage etc. to the PUD Document so that it is part of the official record. We will open this application back up for submittal so that you can re-submit the updated PUD Ooounnant, and also send an Exhibit showing a mockup of the trellis with vines (with or without a building) in order for the Hearing Examiner to be able to determine what the appearance of the trellis. Addbiona||y, you need to submit an Exhibit, as you did in ernoi|, showing the site's building e1mvadmn, which you have also submitted with your SDP. See attached documents which we would like you to include as "new" exhibits and also please update the PUD Document and the change sheet from the PUD to reflect the same language. Response: based on our follow up conversations as well as a discussion with Mark Strain, the proposed text language was modified to address the concerns. If you have any questions, or if you require additional infomnadoO, please contact us at (941) 365-4771. Sincerely, CPH, Inc. Dan Moyer, P.E. Vice President S 2 110 SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1. 12 THE FOLLOWING DEVIATIONS FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ARE APPROVED FOR THE PARCEL IN THE AC DISTRICT DESCRIBED AS LOTS 2 AND 3. HERITAGE BAY COMMONS TRACT D REPLAT ONLY AFrom Section 4.06.02.C.7a which allows abutting platted parcels to submit a joint prosect plan to remove one side or rear landscape buffer along a shared property line as long as the joint project plan is submitted either as a single SDP or SIP consisting of both parcels or separate SDPs or SIPs for each parcel submitted concurrently, to instead allow the owner of Lots 2 and 3. Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat to eliminate the required internal landscape buffers for lots 2 and 3, or any internal buffer, subject to the following conditions: 1. Per section 4.06.02.C.7.c, there shall be no net loss of landscape material or area of the buffer as a result of the eliminated buffer on the shared property line. 2. Per section 4.06.02.C.7.c, the eliminated buffer area shall be provided elsewhere on Lots 2 and 3 in areas not used to meet other landscape requirements 3. Relocated buffer plantings and area shall be labeled as such and delineated on the landscape plan at time of SDP. . 4. In the event that there is not adequate pervious area to satisfy number 2 above, a planted trellis may be provided to make up for the deficient area. The trellis shall be a minimum of 1/3 the structure height and have a length of no less than 5 feet. The trellis shall not be used to satisfy Façade Standards. The trellis shall be shown on the architecture elevations at time of SDP. • Cof4ti er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.coIliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-5724 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and email to GMD Addressing@colliergov nel or fax to the Operations Department at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Department at the above address. Form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to pre-application meeting, please allow 3 days for processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Department. PETITION TYPE (Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) 0 BL(Blasting Permit) E SDP(Site Development Plan) O BD(Boat Dock Extension) 0 SDPA(SDP Amendment) O Carnival/Circus Permit El SDPI(Insubstantial Change to SDP) O CU(Conditional Use) 0 SIP(Site Improvement Plan) o EXP(Excavation Permit) 0 SIPI (Insubstantial Change to SIP) O FP(Final Plat 0 SNR(Street Name Change) o LLA(Lot Line Adjustment) 0 SNC(Street Name Change—Unplatted) O PNC(Project Name Change) 0 TDR(Transfer of Development Rights) o PPL(Plans& Plat Review) 0 VA(Variance) • 0 PSP(Preliminary Subdivision Plat) VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) o PUD Rezone 0 VRSFP(Vegetation Removal&Site Fill Permit) O RZ(Standard Rezone) E] OTHER Minor Subdivision Plat (FP)& Insubstantial Chan se to PUD PDI LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat Lot 3; Heritage Bay Commons Tract D Replat Lot 2 FOLIO(Property ID) NUMBER(s)of above(attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) 49660084485 and 49660084508 323 T4 8 R 2 b STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) n/a • LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right- of-way • SURVEY(copy - needed only for unplatted properties) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) n/a PROPOSED STREET NAMES(if applicable) Ask SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projects/sites only) IP SDP - or AR or PL# Collier County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-5724 Project or development names proposed for,or already appearing in,condominium documents(if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) n/a Please Return Approved Checklist By: Email 0 Fax 0 Personally picked up Applicant Name: Nikki Fuentes Phone: 941-365-4771 Email/Fax:hfuentes@cphcorp.com Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Department. • FOR STAFF USE ONLY Folio Number 49660084508 Folio Number 49660084485 Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number AL,/ Approved by: —7---- V Date: 3/23/2017 Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED 3+21/2017 Print Map '. „trivial". Ittli, 1 j Vet n B 8I DR g .-.p � ...` �� s ; • k � �, ,- R II ,sM.,, ,. 'f. ' .:as 't •,':',, , Ms cilRAP oodsEGEND '14* � � 4 {' x "� $,e, ; ; agrsM?!teles T P � ae �rii44Mnw.eawwr....p { , . ¢k. Aerials.201?te ince urban] t t. * �€ MOINI1 € t° Aarlada Ht1821ea#J sin ri 4'.„ ',4."-. col"(c*u^tY ,7,„ '° -' -.' Name.CA PARTNERS II LLC;` .,7 �_ ' ma ' e � ? -. — Street,/S Name. ieax: rr� w Buil#/Unita;/2:_ .. +,F as =*� a.xe � , ' '� -legal Description:HERITAGE BAY _ COMMONS TRACT D REPLAT LOT 2 I ,.„;' - *1 4.4'41": - 4. ' .44–Wr.V.74` 41 -4 j * 4- ...Z 1:..V ....-s-ii.---...-------- : ... a.„, ,',:',..:,..21,4M., .,:14 ,, ,,,,,,,, ,-,,,:-...,,,!,:- -2,,,,,--,,,, 028004 Coo,er Couz tp P oper.'r Appreser While the Codtie+County P`We„Y Appeaser is crmm,1ted to provteng the rwst accuPate and opt-to-date ttitafmaiiCli,no warrantee expressed or empHe7 are prev:dec for the data harem Rs use,.or ds etterpretatron. S http:+imaps.collie-ape aisle-.con*sell ap'mappyint.aspx?titie=&o lent=LANDSCAPE&paper=LETTER&mit X=431251,459485999&minY=705173.193092974&m.. 1j1 32112017 Print Map ., ,, 7:',,, ,. = ' fat.,,, „ . ... , .. ,.... ii. - - , ; J 1 f, 7 __, .. _ . ! 9 € 1"4"4"." " .e a; .' MAP LEGEND whuet Reed; . NIIIIINWft.4, ''''' 4/t ',i 1. '': ,.,-'''' ti-tN, tsstsa a Lti� ' �" LiAHti15 2017 ffith Urban) . yw _ , IT ,-- d t +u s r 4e.Sz«p.. Aertats 2era 12 4'01 Collitl County AV s4.00. t,tii / 1 1,; C z €r . -. • „ ,,,::,,,, . ,.,...___,,„.,.,, ,.: , ... _,,,, .... .„ Y Folio Number:49860084508 t .l'”- „ a Name:CAMERON PARTNERS!i LLC LL Name= Build,!Unit#.1:7,444„,, , it l3 44.„ ' , l escriptHERITAGE DAY ' COMMONS TRACT D REPLAT LOT 3 .44 e.. • 2004 CoUir Carey Prepary Appraaet,waste the Canter County Prope ty ACpta*er a canmatea to provk�np the trwe<t accurate and up4o Yate entormaton.ria wacrart;+es expressed or wnptieo we provdect tar the OgSa hereat,ee ane.or es Merieatatiar. • http:ilmaps.collierapprastx.saantwebmapmvprrnt.aspx?tlG8=8oriertt=LANOSCAPE&pape€=LETTERarninX=431282.5783737588minY=705243.674892951&m.,. 1/1 11202017 Deted by Entity Name /4.0RIDA DITARTML tiT Of-STA11-* • (..:DIVISION of ,..,. 1016 5 I,Z ORPORATIONS of Stag I 0.,..,or co.0,0.5 / seo,,,,R,,,c(e. / La- izill by Document Numbel I • • http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=initial&searchNarneOrder42017GOOD... 1/2 11/20/2017 Detail by Entity Name Detail by Entity Name Florida Limited Liability Company 2017 GOODLAND NAPLES LLC Filing Information Document Number L17000038707 FEI/EIN Number NONE Date Filed 02/17/2017 State FL Status ACTIVE Principal Address 14255 U.S. HIGHWAY ONE SUITE 2165 JUNO BEACH, FL 33408 Malibu!Address 14255 U.S.HIGHWAY ONE SUITE 2165 JUNO BEACH, FL 33408 Registered Agent Name&Address FERBER,SHIELDS,JR. 14255 U.S.HIGHWAY ONE SUITE 2165 JUNO BEACH,FL 33408 Authorized Person(s)Detail Name&Address Title MGR FERBER, PAUL S,SR. 151 SAWGRASS CORNERS DRIVE,SUITE 202 PONTE VEDRA BEACH, FL 32082 Title MGR FERBER,SHIELDS,JR. 14255 U.S.HIGHWAY ONE,SUITE 2165 JUNO BEACH,FL 33408 Annual Reports No Annual Reports Filed Document Images L21 i2( '7t-knioa inuteci Liapilfty view mew on PDF format 1111 http:fisearch.sunbiz.orgilnquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail7inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=lnitiallosearchNerneOrder=2017G000... 2)2 S CollD June 2, 2017 3277A.Fruitville Road Suite 2 Collier County Government Sarasota,Florida 34237 Phone:941365.4771 Growth Management Department Imew.crheorp.4.0m 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 239.252.2400 RE: Goodland — Heritage Bay Commons Replat Tract D PL #: 20170001859 Property ID #: 49660084485 & 49660084508 Project Narrative Insubstantial Change to Planned Unit Development Introduction: • This application is for an Insubstantial Change to the Heritage Bay Planned Unit Development (PUD) for lots 2 and 3, located near the northwest corner of Immokalee Road and Bellaire Bay Drive in Naples, Florida. The request is to make text changes in the PUD under the Commercial Development Regulations sections for Lots 2 and 3. The proposed change is described below. Adjacent Uses: Lots 2 and 3 are located in the Heritage Bay PUD which includes both residential and commercial uses. Specifically, lots 2 and 3, of the Heritage Bay Commons Commercial Subdivision within the Activity Center area in the southwest corner of the overall PUD. To the north of the property is a platted private right of way, Sage Avenue, with a planned Goodwill development. To the east of the property is a gas station currently under construction. To the west is a planned office park and to the south is the Immokalee Road drainage canal right of way, south of the canal is the Immokalee Road right of way with Bent Creek Preserve RPUD across the street. Existing Heritage Bay PUD: The Heritage Bay PUD consists of residential, commercial, recreational, and preserve areas. The project is located within the Activity Center portion of the PUD which currently consists of a combination of built and vacant commercial and multifamily developments. 1110 Proposed PUD Changes: As required by Chapter 3.G of the Collier County Administrative Code a detailed description of the proposed changes along with a justification for each is provided below. Please note that these changes are limited to Lots 2 and 3. Deviation Request 1: Section 4.06.02.C.7.a (Buffer Requirements) Collier County LDC Section 4.06.02 C.7,a, states that Abutting platted parcels may submit a joint project plan to remove one side or rear landscape buffer along a shared property line in order to share parking or other infrastructure facilities, provided that the projects be submitted as either a single SDP or SIP consisting of both parcels, or separate SDPs or SIPs for each parcel that are submitted concurrently. Justification 1: The Ferber Company, Inc. is working to develop Lots 2 and 3 of the Heritage Bay Commons, part of Tract D Replat. The two existing lots are proposed to be subdivided to create three lots. The adjacent development to the east, Lot 4, is currently under construction to construct a RaceTrac gas station. During the permitting of the RaceTrac, they obtained a PDI (CCPC Resolution No 16-01) to obtain a number of deviations, including removing the interior 7.5 foot buffer between Lots 3 and 4 and placing a larger, 10 foot landscape buffer, on Lot 3. In addition, an access drive was • constructed that was centered on the common lot line between Lots 3 and 4, resulting in approximately 12 feet of pavement on Lot 3. The resulting roadway and increased buffer on Lot 3 has created a hardship for the development of the parcels. The three proposed users do not have enough width to provide the required 7.5 foot interior buffers between the users. If Lot 3 did not have the increased buffer and 12 feet of pavement, the proposed layout would be able to provide the majority of the required 7.5 foot buffers on each outparcel. The required 10 foot buffer on the east side of Lot 3 will be constructed as required, along with the required 7.5 foot buffer on the west side of Lot 2. All front and rear buffers will be provided as required. The project is eligible to remove the internal buffers as a joint project based on Section 4.06.02.C.7.a, however the three developments are not able to be submitted concurrently, as such, we are requesting a PDI to remove the internal buffers which will allow each of the three users to submit separate SDPs. Neighborhood Meeting Requirement for Deviation Request 1: We respectfully request that the requirement for a Neighborhood Meeting be waived for this request, due to the minor nature of the change. If the project was able to have all users submit concurrently, the removal of the buffers would be able to be handled administratively. • INSTR 5452416 OR 5435 PG 89 RECORDED 9/27/2017 2:44 PM PAGES 2 DWIGHT E. BROOK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC@.70 $24,072.30 REC $18.50 CONS $3,438,844.20 • Purchase Price/Transfer Dollar Amount$3,438,844.20 Documentary Stamp Tax Amount: $24,07230 Property Identification Number(s):49660084485 and 49660084508 Prepared without opinion of title by: Paul K.Heuerman,Esquire Roetzel&Andress,L.P.A. 850 Park Shore Drive,Third Floor Naples,FL 34103 Phone No.(239)649-6200 Fax No.(239)261-3659 File Number: 111708.0026 acVbb`oeording SPAS. WARRANTD THIS SPECIAL W , i ► li}a• ]' ' day of September, 2017, by • CAMERON PARTNERS II, C,Rs ,ori` 1 �' a o....•, '+i.s= posit office address is 11586 Quail Village Way, Naples, Flori 31I178�, a'=fcalle +e r for ), to 2017 GOODLAND NAPLES LLC, a Florida limit i4biTity company, w pos o` e i dress is 2655 N. Ocean Drive, Suite 401, Singer Island,FL 33 ereinafter called the want-e"k� (Wherever used herein the � .-ttrantor"and "Gr_ 'tr �tnclude all the parties to this �s'e instrument and the heirs, legal r ` atiuesltnd '" s,df individuals, and the successors andi3s� c� #fons.) WITNESSETH: That the Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars and other valuable considerations, receipt and sufficiency whereof are hereby acknowledged, hereby grants, bargains, sells, aliens, remises, releases, conveys and confirms unto the Grantee, all that certain land situate in Collier County,Florida,viz: Lots 2 and 3, HERITAGE BAY COMMONS - TRACT D REPLAT, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 58, Pages 2 through 5, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida (the "Property"). Subject to taxes for 2017 and subsequent years; covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements,reservations and limitations of record,if any. TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same in fee simple forever. *** OR 5435 PG 90 *** S 4. The Development Rights assigned hereunder shall run with the land of the Property. 5. This Assignment shall constitute a direction to and full authority to any governmental or private entity to act at 2017 Goodland's written direction as to said Development Rights. Cameron hereby acknowledges and agrees that all such parties are hereby irrevocably authorized and directed to rely upon and comply with any written request,notice or demand made by 2017 Goodland with respect to such assigned Development Rights. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, Cameron and 2017 Goodland have respectively executed this Assignment of Development Rights by their duly authorized officers. WITNESSES: CAMERON P• "4 4 RS ,LLC a Florida lim.i -. iabili. comp. ,/ N., --1,- { ��• a , ! a. . l *' 4,.!-....-.1 / \• ' y: .0', �/ / •'nt Name: ' ,_ e om a i . t. 'l as . 's 4 lo . ager / N Print Name: , .,4! J`.,_., �• III � !''s7-7-4-7fi7�t ,t „.... \,..........)\ LLT/ 1,j ii_-_-, „ L r,-. STATE OF FLORIDA ) `' ` � �•-- :1--- J -� ) ; 1 I,`)/ COUNTY OF COLLIER ) '/\ l'\I./-,'�f 4 The foregoing instrument was , ki:i, • •, C this 3 - day of August, 2017, by Thomas C. Carollo, as Manager of C• s ' *A+ •:%" ` RS H, LLC, a Florida Iimited liability company,who(✓'j is personally known to me,or( )has produced as identification. (SEAL) 1,kbtrali_ ,Lshotb--lanv Notary Public Printed Name: Deborah S.Davis-0G11ZaIeZ My Commission Expires: Al DEBORAH S.DAM$-GONZALEZ _.: :.= Commission#FF 049964 aW ,41 Expires October 16,2017 �?i fgs;r awe Th.Troy Pan Prowse 1067$.7019 • 2