Agenda 12/11/2018 Item #17B12/11/2018
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by the 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. 93-74 and Ordinance No. 98-73, as amended, the
Windsong PUD, to amend the Master Plan to reconfigure the preserve area location on the east side
of the PUD, for property located on the northwest corner of the County Barn Road and
Rattlesnake-Hammock Road intersection, in Section 17, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 37.6 acres; and by providing an effective date. (This is a companion
to Agenda Item 17.A)
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (Board) review st aff’s findings and
recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC)
regarding the above-referenced petition, render a decision regarding this rezoning petition, and ensure the
project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's
interests are maintained.
CONSIDERATIONS: The subject property is located on the northwest corner of the County Barn Road
and Rattlesnake-Hammock Road intersection, in Section 17, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 37.6 +/- acres. The petitioner is requesting to amend the Windsong Planned
Unit Development (PUD), approved via Ordinance #93-74 and Ordinance #98-73 by amending the PUD
Master Plan to allow for the reconfiguration of the Preserve Area in order to accommodate the
construction of a 6-foot privacy wall on top of the perimeter berm on the east side of the PUD. A portion
of the preserve area will be rezoned to an Open Space designation in order to allow the wall, which is not
permitted within a preserve area. There is a companion agenda item to vacate the conservation easement
where the wall will be located and to provide a replacement conservation easement/preserve.
FISCAL IMPACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help
offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund
projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) as
needed to maintain an adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet
the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved
by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with
the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees
collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional
revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the
value of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the
criteria used by staff and the CCPC to analyze this petition.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use
decisions, such as this 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. This petition is consistent with the GMP.
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): Staff identified the FLUE policies relevant to this project and
determined that the proposed amendment to the PUD may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the
GMP. Please, see Attachment B - FLUE Consistency Review for a more detailed analysis of how staff
derived this determination.
Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff reviewed the application and found this project
17.B
Packet Pg. 3196
12/11/2018
consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the 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 are no transportation
planning impacts related to this request.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found this
project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). A minimum of
6.1 acres of native vegetation are required to be retained for the PUD.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC
heard petition PUDA-PL20160001023 on October 18, 2018, and by a vote of 5 to 0 recommended to
forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval. The CCPC approval was
unanimous. It is notable that there were letters of opposition submitted with this petition; however, these
issues were resolved at the CCPC meeting. As such, this petition will be placed on Summary Agenda.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is an amendment to the existing Windsong PUD (Ordinance No.
93-74 and Ordinance 98-73, as amended). The burden falls upon the applicant for the amendment to
prove that the proposal is consistent with all of the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the
Board of County Commissioners (BCC), should it consider denial, that such denial is not arbitrary,
discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the amendment does not
meet one or more of the listed criteria.
Criteria for PUD Amendments
Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval
or not.
1. Consider: 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.
2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or
other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to
arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such
areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense? Findings and
recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney.
3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the
Growth Management Plan.
4. Consider: 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.
5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development?
6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring
the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
17.B
Packet Pg. 3197
12/11/2018
8. Consider: 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.
9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future
land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan?
10. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern?
11. Would the requested PUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district
unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?
12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed
amendment necessary.
14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?
15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic c ongestion 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?
16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem?
17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas?
18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area?
19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent
property in accordance with existing regulations?
20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot (“reasonably”) be used in accordance
with existing zoning? (a “core” question…)
22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county?
23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the
proposed use in districts already permitting such use.
24. Consider: 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.
17.B
Packet Pg. 3198
12/11/2018
25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed PUD rezone 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 [Code ch.106, art.II], as
amended.
26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the PUD rezone request that the
Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health,
safety, and welfare?
The BCC must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written
materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies,
letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the BCC hearing as these items relate
to these criteria. This item has been approved as to form and legality, and requires an affirmative vote of
four for Board approval. (SAS)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendation of the CCPC, which is reflected in the
attached Ordinance and recommends that the Board approve the applicant’s request to amend the PUD.
Prepared by: Gilbert “Gil” Martinez, Principal Planner, Zoning Division
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Staff Report-PUDA-PL20160001023 - Windsong PUDA (PDF)
2. Attachment A-Ordinance - 081018 (PDF)
3. Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Memo (PDF)
4. Attachment C-Master Plan-Cross Section (PDF)
5. [Linked] Back Up Material Windsong PUDA - Attachment D (PDF)
6. Attachment E-Correspondence (PDF)
7. Legal Ad - Agenda #7119 (PDF)
17.B
Packet Pg. 3199
12/11/2018
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 17.B
Doc ID: 7119
Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by the 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. 93-74 and Ordinance No. 98-73, as
amended, the Windsong PUD, to amend the Master Plan to reconfigure the preserve area location on the
east side of the PUD, for property located on the northwest corner of the County Barn Road and
Rattlesnake-Hammock Road intersection, in Section 17, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida, consisting of 37.6 acres; and by providing an effective date. (This is a companion to
Agenda Item 17.A)
Meeting Date: 12/11/2018
Prepared by:
Title: – Zoning
Name: Gilbert Martinez
10/22/2018 3:41 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning
Name: Michael Bosi
10/22/2018 3:41 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Reviewer Completed 10/23/2018 4:07 PM
Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 10/24/2018 9:10 AM
Zoning Michael Bosi Additional Reviewer Completed 11/02/2018 4:32 PM
Growth Management Department Thaddeus Cohen Department Head Review Completed 11/05/2018 12:55 PM
Growth Management Department James C French Deputy Department Head Review Completed 11/06/2018 4:52 PM
County Attorney's Office Scott Stone Level 2 Attorney Review Completed 11/15/2018 11:28 AM
County Attorney's Office Emily Pepin CAO Preview Completed 11/15/2018 4:01 PM
Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 11/15/2018 4:42 PM
Budget and Management Office Mark Isackson Additional Reviewer Completed 11/16/2018 9:41 AM
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 11/16/2018 11:24 AM
County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 12/03/2018 9:22 AM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 12/11/2018 9:00 AM
17.B
Packet Pg. 3200
PUDA-PL20160001023 Windsong PUD Page 1 of 12
Revised: October 5, 2018
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 18, 2018
SUBJECT: PETITION NO: PUDA-PL20160001023 – WINDSONG PUD
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Applicant: Agent:
The Villas of Greenwood Lake HOA, Inc.
Richard P. Barry, President
6230 Shirley Street, #202, Naples, FL, 34109
Agnoli, Barber and Brundage Inc.
Tom Barber, AICP
7400 Trail Blvd., Suite 200
Naples, FL 34108
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an
application to amend Ordinance No. 93-74 and Ordinance No. 98-73, as amended, the Windsong PUD.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is located on the northwest corner of the County Barn Road and Rattlesnake-
Hammock Road intersection, in Section 17, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida, consisting of 37.6 +/- acres. (see location map, page 2).
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The petitioner is requesting to amend the Windsong Planned Unit Development (PUD), approved via
Ordinance #93-74 and Ordinance #98-73 by amending the PUD Master Plan to allow for the
reconfiguration of the Preservation Area in order to accommodate the construction of a 6-foot privacy
wall on top of the perimeter berm on the east side of the PUD.
AGENDA ITEM 9.A.2.
17.B.1
Packet Pg. 3201 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDA-PL20160001023 - Windsong PUDA (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
PUDA-PL20160001023 Windsong PUD Page 2 of 12
Revised: October 5, 2018
17.B.1Packet Pg. 3202Attachment: Staff Report-PUDA-PL20160001023 - Windsong PUDA (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
PUDA-PL20160001023 Windsong PUD Page 3 of 12
Revised: October 5, 2018
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
This section of the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties
surrounding the boundaries of the Windsong PUD.
North: Developed multi-family and single-family homes with a zoning designation of RMF-6 (6.0
DU/AC) which is approved for single and multi-family dwellings, family care facilities, and
educational plants and public schools; and Riviera Golf Estates PUD (3.68 DU/AC) and is
approved for single family dwellings
East: County Barn Road, a two-lane arterial roadway, and then mobile home park with a zoning
designation of MH (7.26 DU/AC) which is approved for mobile homes, family care facilities,
recreational vehicles, and educational plants and public schools
South: Rattlesnake Hammock Rd, a four-lane arterial roadway, and then multi-family homes with a
zoning designation of RMF-16 (16.0 DU/AC) which is approved for multi-family dwellings,
townhouses, family care facilities, and educational plants and public schools
West: Developed multi-family homes with a zoning designation of RMF-6 (6.0 DU/AC) which is
approved for single and multi-family dwellings, family care facilities, and educational plants
and public schools
17.B.1
Packet Pg. 3203 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDA-PL20160001023 - Windsong PUDA (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
PUDA-PL20160001023 Windsong PUD Page 4 of 12
Revised: October 5, 2018
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions, such as this 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. This petition is consistent with the GMP.
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): Staff identified the FLUE policies relevant to this project and
determined that the proposed amendment to the PUD may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the
GMP. Please, see Attachment B – FLUE Consistency Review for a more detailed analysis of how staff
derived this determination.
Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff reviewed the application and found this
project consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the 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 are no
transportation planning impacts related to this request.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff found
this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). A
minimum of 6.1 acres of native vegetation are required to be retained for the PUD.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon
which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5, Planning
Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the “PUD Findings”), and Section 10.02.08.F,
Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which
establish the legal basis to support the CCPC’s recommendation. An evaluation relative to these
subsections is discussed below, under the heading “Zoning Services Analysis.”
Drainage: The proposed PUD Amendment request is not anticipated to create drainage problems.
Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage will be addressed through the
environmental resource permitting process with the South Florida Water Management District. County
staff will also evaluate the project’s stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria
through the site development plan (SDP) and/or platting (PPL).
Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and PUD master plan
to address environmental concerns. Pursuant to the PUD document (Ordinance No. 98-73), minimum
of 6.1 acres of native vegetation is required to be retained for the PUD. The preserve is proposed to be
reconfigured to accommodate a privacy wall.
Landscape Review: The landscape buffers shown on the Master Plan are consistent with LDC
requirements.
School District: The Collier County School District does not have any issue with the proposed
amendment as it will not impact the District’s level of service.
17.B.1
Packet Pg. 3204 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDA-PL20160001023 - Windsong PUDA (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
PUDA-PL20160001023 Windsong PUD Page 5 of 12
Revised: October 5, 2018
Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff reviewed the petition for compliance with the
GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this PUD Amendment.
Utilities Review: The requested action would have no impact on utilities.
Zoning Services Review: In 1988, a 37.6-acre PUD was approved for the subject property, changing
the land use from Agriculture (A-2) to a mixed-use PUD allowing for commercial, multi-family, and
single family uses. In 1993, the Board of County Commissioners down-zoned the PUD, removing
commercial uses and higher density residential. In 1998, a PUD to PUD rezone was approved, creating
the Windsong PUD, allowing for 145 single-family residential homes while eliminating multi-family
and assisted living units. The PUD also included 6.1 acres for the preserve requirement. In September
2016, the petitioner applied for an insubstantial change to the Windsong PUD (PDI) requesting an
amendment to the existing PUD, reconfiguring the existing preserves. This reconfiguration would
allow for a wall to be placed along County Barn Road, and the preserve would be setback 28 feet from
the PUD boundary. Reconfiguration of the preserve was needed to meet the required preserve setbacks
and landscaping for the construction of the wall. At the March 23, 2017 Hearing Examiner (HEX)
meeting, this PDI application was postponed to a future date pending the vacation of the existing
Conservation Easement. It was determined by Staff that this easement vacation must be approved prior
to, or simultaneously with, the PDI being approved. Procedurally in order, for the PUD Amendment
and the accompanying easement vacation be considered by the Board of County Commissioners, the
petition was converted from a PDI to a PUD Amendment.
Currently, the Windsong PUD has 5.52 acres of preserve area; however, the total required preserve
area is 6.02 acres. The petitioner is requesting that 0.60 acres of preserve area (See table on next page
illustrated in blue) be converted to open space to allow for the construction of a six-foot wall; thereby
leaving 4.92 acres of preserve area. Moreover, an additional 1.20 acres of preserve area will be situated
at the southeast corner of the PUD; thereby totaling 6.12 acres of preserve area. (See table on next page
illustrated in green) The 6.12 preserve area acreage will exceed the total required preserve acreage by
0.10 acres; thereby, complying with the preserve acreage requirement. Furthermore, w alls are not
permitted within a preserve area, so the applicant must remove a 28-foot wide portion of the preserve
adjacent to County Barn Road to allow for the wall, and then relocate that portion of preserve elsewhere
on site. The 28-foot wide portion of preserve will become open space. The amended Master Plan
reflects this reconfiguration of the preserve.
Intentionally blank
17.B.1
Packet Pg. 3205 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDA-PL20160001023 - Windsong PUDA (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
PUDA-PL20160001023 Windsong PUD Page 6 of 12
Revised: October 5, 2018
Preservation Area Plan by Agnoli, Barber and Brundage Inc.
17.B.1
Packet Pg. 3206 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDA-PL20160001023 - Windsong PUDA (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
PUDA-PL20160001023 Windsong PUD Page 7 of 12
Revised: October 5, 2018
Staff finds the proposed Amendment to be consistent and compatible with the commitments established
by Ordinance #93-74 and 98-73. (See Attachment C for amended master plan with associated cross
section of proposed wall.)
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 developmen t 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 and property development
regulations are compatible with the development approved in the area. The commitments made by the
applicant and staff’s recommended stipulations should provide adequate assurances that the proposed
change should not adversely affect living conditions in the area.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may
relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance
of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense.
Documents submitted with the application were reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office and
demonstrate unified control of the property.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of conformity with the relevant
goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion of this staff report on
pages 5-6.
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include
restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening
requirements.
As described in the Staff Analysis section of this staff report, the landscape buffers depicted in the
Master Plan are consistent with LDC requirements.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The usable open space areas are increasing; therefore, no deviation from required usable open space is
being requested, and compliance would be demonstrated at the time of SDP or PPL.
17.B.1
Packet Pg. 3207 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDA-PL20160001023 - Windsong PUDA (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
PUDA-PL20160001023 Windsong PUD Page 8 of 12
Revised: October 5, 2018
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the consistency
review. Finally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency
management regulations when development approvals are sought, including but not limited to any plats
and site development plans.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, including Collier County Water-Sewer District potable
water and wastewater mains, to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the
petitioner, and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will continuously be addressed when
development approvals are sought.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in
the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting
public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.
All future development proposed on the Windsong PUD would have to comply to the LDC and other
applicable codes. The petitioner is not requesting any deviations to the LDC.
Rezone Findings:
LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, “When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and
recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners…shall show that
the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when
applicable”:
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of
the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the GMP.
Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals, objectives,
and policies of the (FLUM) and other elements of the GMP.
2. The existing land use pattern.
The existing land use pattern (of the abutting properties) is described in the Surrounding Land Use and
Zoning section of this staff report. The proposed use would not change the existing land use patterns
of the surrounding properties.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
The property is currently zoned PUD and would remain as such.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
17.B.1
Packet Pg. 3208 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDA-PL20160001023 - Windsong PUDA (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
PUDA-PL20160001023 Windsong PUD Page 9 of 12
Revised: October 5, 2018
This petition does not propose any change to the boundaries of the PUD. The Master Plan would be
updated by relabeling the subject property.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning
necessary.
There are no changes to the uses or development standards. They are simply reconfiguring the preserve
area.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
The proposed PUD Amendment is not anticipated to adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or
create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes
or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the
development, or otherwise affect public safety.
The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation
Element consistency review. 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.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
The proposed PUD Amendment request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area,
provided stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage on this project will be
addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) with the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD). County staff will evaluate the project’s stormwater management
system, calculations, and design criteria at time of SDP and/or PPL.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
It is not anticipated the changes proposed to this PUD Amendment would seriously reduce light or air
to the adjacent areas.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas.
This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to
the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however,
zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
Staff does not anticipate this amendment serving as a deterrent to the improvement of residential
adjacent properties.
17.B.1
Packet Pg. 3209 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDA-PL20160001023 - Windsong PUDA (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
PUDA-PL20160001023 Windsong PUD Page 10 of 12
Revised: October 5, 2018
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasting with the public welfare.
If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment, then that
constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said
Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special
privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because
actions consistent with plans are in the public interest.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
with existing zoning.
The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the proposed
reconfiguration of 6.12 acres of Preservation Area cannot be achieved without amending the PUD.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
County.
It is staff’s opinion that the proposed amendment to Windsong PUD will not be out of scale with the
needs of the community.
15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use
in districts already permitting such use.
The petition was reviewed for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not specifically
review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would
be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed
zoning classification.
Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require considerable site alterat ion, and
this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development
regulations during the SDP and platting processes, and again later as part of the building permit process.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and
as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance,
as amended.
The requested action would have no impact on the availability of adequate 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.
17.B.1
Packet Pg. 3210 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDA-PL20160001023 - Windsong PUDA (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
PUDA-PL20160001023 Windsong PUD Page 11 of 12
Revised: October 5, 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
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.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
On September 11, 2018 a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was conducted by Tom Barber
of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., representing the Villas at Greenwood Lake HOA. The meeting
commenced at approximately 6:00 PM and ended at 6:21 PM. There were no objections relative to the
proposed reconfiguration of the conservation area or the proposed 6-foot wall along County Barn Road.
There was some questioning from the public directed to the President of the Home Owners Association
(HOA) relative to assessments fees and time frame for construction. Many of the questions by the
homeowners related to the HOA approval of this project. Tom deferred those questions to Richard
Barry, the HOA President, who was on hand to field those questions. A couple of letters of opposition
and/or concern over how the HOA handled the assessment were submitted to staff and are a part of the
backup. A copy of the NIM summary and sign-in sheet are included in Attachment D.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney’s Office reviewed this staff report on October 4, 2018.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval.
Attachments:
A) Proposed Ordinance
B) FLUE Consistency Review
C) Master Plan/Cross Section
D) Backup Materials
E) Correspondence
17.B.1
Packet Pg. 3211 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDA-PL20160001023 - Windsong PUDA (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
17.B.1
Packet Pg. 3212 Attachment: Staff Report-PUDA-PL20160001023 - Windsong PUDA (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
17.B.2
Packet Pg. 3213 Attachment: Attachment A-Ordinance - 081018 (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
17.B.2
Packet Pg. 3214 Attachment: Attachment A-Ordinance - 081018 (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
17.B.2Packet Pg. 3215Attachment: Attachment A-Ordinance - 081018 (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 2
Growth Management Department
Zoning Division
Comprehensive Planning Section
MEMORANDUM
To: Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section, Zoning Division
From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Division
Date: July 20, 2018
Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review
PETITION NUMBER: PDI-PL20160001023 (Submittal 5, Review 2)
PETITION NAME: Windsong PUD (previously submitted under Villas at Greenwood Lake PDI)
REQUEST: The petitioner is requesting to insignificantly amend the Windsong Planned Unit Development
(PDI), Ord. #98-73, adopted on September 8, 1998, which repealed the previous Ordinance #88-6, as previously
amended. The applicant requests to amend the PUD Master Plan and reconfigure the preserve area and to allow
the buffer along the eastern property line to include a wall. A Preserve Monitoring and Maintenance Plan are
included in the application.
Simultaneously, the applicant is applying to vacate 28 feet of existing Conservation Easement adjacent to County
Barn Road, and mitigate by creating a new conservation easement in the southeast corner of the project (currently
reserved as a future tract and is a portion of the community that was never developed). The existing application
for the Conservation Easement vacation must be approved prior to the approval of the PUDA petition.
LOCATION: The ±37.6-acre subject PUD site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of County
Barn Road and Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR864), in Section 17, Township 50 South, Range 26 East.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject PUD site is designated Urban – Mixed Use
District, Urban Residential Subdistrict as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan
(GMP). Urban designated areas and the Urban Mixed Use District accommodate a variety of residential and non-
residential uses, including mixed-use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. Relative to this petition,
the Urban Residential Subdistrict allows residential uses at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre (DU/A),
yielding 150 DUs on the 37.6-acre site (37.6A * 4DU/A = 150.4 DU/A).
Ordinance #98-73 is approved for a total of 145 residential single-family dwelling units (which is consistent with
the FLUE’s Density Rating System). Only 134 dwelling units have been constructed to date and with this
insubstantial change, the PUD will be built-out with the existing 134 dwelling units.
17.B.3
Packet Pg. 3216 Attachment: Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Memo (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 2
FLUE Policies are stated below in italics; each is followed by staff analysis in bold text within [brackets].
FLUE Policy 5.6:
New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the
Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended).
[Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services Section’s staff as part of their
review of the petition in its entirety.]
FLUE Objective 7 and Relevant Policies:
Given the nature of this petition and the minor changes proposed (no changes in permitted uses, densities, or
intensities), staff is of the opinion that a re-evaluation of FLUE policies under Objective 7 (pertaining to access,
interconnections, walkability, etc.) is not necessary.
PETITION ON CITYVIEW
CONCLUSION
Based on the above analysis, staff finds the subject petition consistent with the FLUE.
cc: Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Division
Raymond V. Bellows, Manager, Zoning Services Section, Zoning Division
PDI-PL2016-1023 Windsong Submittal5R2.docx
17.B.3
Packet Pg. 3217 Attachment: Attachment B-FLUE Consistency Memo (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
TYPE'D'BUFFERi
PIESERVE 15 28' FROA,I
PROPERTY IOUNDAIY
N
A
RMF-6
WINDSONG
PUD
RIVER GOtF ESTATES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTT
!
I R
LAND USE SUMMARY
ROW
tEstDENTtAt (t)
flGHT-Or-W Y (ROW)
PRESEIVE
IAKE
OTHEP OPEN SPACE
I8.28 ACREs
3.98 ACRES
6.r 2 ACRES
6.04 ACRES
r.59 ACRES
36.0t ACRES
t.59 ACRES
37.60 ACRES
oZ
2
//
\\
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
It'
I
I
/
!
i
I
R SUIIOTAL
tow DEDtclTtoNs
TOTAL
I-AKE
REQUNEDI
PROVIDED
I6% Of TOTAL AREA
37.60 ACIES x O.l6= 6.02 ACRES
6.12 ACRES
I
I
R
o
=
PUD DENSITY
TOTALAREA
GEOSS DtNSITY
IO]AL UNITS
37.6 ACRES
3.86 UNTTS/ACRE
r!5 uNtTs
I
I
I
R - TAKE - RESIDENTIAT
i
I
I
I
l.
- ROW . OPEN SPACE
R - pRESERVE - PROPERTY
TINE
RATTTEsNAKE HA,A(|^OC( iOAO Ct. 86a 1 25', t/W
il\cNouRMF-I6
EXHIBIT A
MASTER PLAN
JUNE,2018
SCALE: 1" = 250'
Bensrn &
Noie: Prelerves lholl meet buller requirements ofter removol of exotics in
occordonce wilh LDC Seclions 4.06.02 ond 4.06.05.E.1 or supplem6ntol
plorlng will be required, in o.cordon.e with LDC Sedion 3.05.07.
Bnuupacr, rNc.
Protdrion.l E !ir..6, n.nn.6 & SuN.yon
II
TYPE ,D' BUFFERi
l
NATIVE VEGETATION PR€SERVE
lECiEND
llr
lll
llr
flI
llI
llI
U
c=--<
'
o
o
I
17.B.4
Packet Pg. 3218 Attachment: Attachment C-Master Plan-Cross Section (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
ATTACHMENT 4 (CROSS SECTION)
Villas at Greenwood Lake HOA
Preservation Area Plan
September 2018
OLI
ER&
RUNDAGE, INC.
Profess ional l.n gi neers, Planners et Survevors
Preservation Area to ROW Cross Section
nts
County Barn Rd
+2gr Conservation
Easerient
Type "D" Landscape Buffer
10'
Preserve Setback
0:l 3..I +6.9+6.9
General Notes:
1. Wall setback from Preservation Area is 5' per LDC.
2. Wall excavation for footing setback from Preservation Area is l0' per LDC.
3. Fill for Berm setback from Preservation Area is l0' per LDC.
4. Landscaping and wall specifications per requirements at time of permitting.
5. Entire area above contained in Tract ooB" Buffer, CE and DE. Refer to Plat Book 31
Pages 87 to 91.
6. *Wall location within 20' landscape buffer to be determined during insubstantial change
to construction plans.
trl
t Conc.
block wall
17.B.4
Packet Pg. 3219 Attachment: Attachment C-Master Plan-Cross Section (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
17.B.6
Packet Pg. 3220 Attachment: Attachment E-Correspondence (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
17.B.6
Packet Pg. 3221 Attachment: Attachment E-Correspondence (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
17.B.6
Packet Pg. 3222 Attachment: Attachment E-Correspondence (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
17.B.6
Packet Pg. 3223 Attachment: Attachment E-Correspondence (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
17.B.6
Packet Pg. 3224 Attachment: Attachment E-Correspondence (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
17.B.6
Packet Pg. 3225 Attachment: Attachment E-Correspondence (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
17.B.6
Packet Pg. 3226 Attachment: Attachment E-Correspondence (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
17.B.6
Packet Pg. 3227 Attachment: Attachment E-Correspondence (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
17.B.6
Packet Pg. 3228 Attachment: Attachment E-Correspondence (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
17.B.6
Packet Pg. 3229 Attachment: Attachment E-Correspondence (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
17.B.6
Packet Pg. 3230 Attachment: Attachment E-Correspondence (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
17.B.6
Packet Pg. 3231 Attachment: Attachment E-Correspondence (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
17.B.6
Packet Pg. 3232 Attachment: Attachment E-Correspondence (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
17.B.6
Packet Pg. 3233 Attachment: Attachment E-Correspondence (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
17.B.6
Packet Pg. 3234 Attachment: Attachment E-Correspondence (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
17.B.6
Packet Pg. 3235 Attachment: Attachment E-Correspondence (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
17.B.6
Packet Pg. 3236 Attachment: Attachment E-Correspondence (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
17.B.6
Packet Pg. 3237 Attachment: Attachment E-Correspondence (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
17.B.6
Packet Pg. 3238 Attachment: Attachment E-Correspondence (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
17.B.7
Packet Pg. 3239 Attachment: Legal Ad - Agenda #7119 (7119 : Windsong (PUDA))
1
K:\2017\17-0064 Villas at Greenwood Lake\Correspondences\Documents\NIM\2018 NIM\PDI Narrative.docx
May 11, 2018
REV August 28, 2018
ABB PN 17-0064
Villas at Greenwood Lake
PDI-PL20160001023
Revised Project Narrative:
In March of 2016, the community of Villas at Greenwood Lake began the process of
amending the PDI to construct a wall along the eastern property line to better buffer the residences
from the County Barn Road right of way. A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was held
by Jeff Nunner of Nunner, LLC on February 2, 2017. Through a series of comments and responses,
Nunner, LLC made a final PDI submittal to address comments for the Villas at Greenwood Lake
PDI to go to the Board of County Commissioners in March 2017. The PDI public hearing was put
on hold in March 2017 pending vacation of the existing Conservation Easement, which at the time
staff determined must occur prior to the PDI being approved. The Villas at Greenwood Lake then
engaged ABB as their new agent to complete the easement vacation and also revised the PDI to
match the proposed easement vacation.
The community is proposing to vacate 28’ of Conservation Easement adjacent to County
Barn Road to accommodate the 6’ privacy wall on top of the perimeter berm. The easement
vacation will be mitigated by the creation of a new conservation easement area in the southeast
corner of the project that is currently reserved as a future tract and is a portion of the community
that was never developed. The addition of the conservation easement in this area will equal the
portion along the east side of the property boundary being vacated, plus provide additional preserve
area needed to develop the remaining unbuilt portion of the community.
The Conservation Easement Vacation was submitted on August 18, 2017, then resubmitted
in response to the first review comments on December 5, 2017. Between the first and second
submittals, a meeting with Scott Stone, Assistant County Attorney, and Chris Scott from Growth
Management took place on October 13, 2017. In that meeting, it was decided that both the
Easement Vacation and PDI change would be heard on the same date. The revised Easement
2
K:\2017\17-0064 Villas at Greenwood Lake\Correspondences\Documents\NIM\2018 NIM\PDI Narrative.docx
Vacation and proposed Conservation Easement have changed slightly since the December 5, 2017
submittal. The revised proposed Conservation Easement is further to the east abutting the ROW,
leaving some future residential lot area contiguous with the existing community. The proposed
easement is sufficient to meet the needs of a future residential lot buildout scenario. It has been
determined that this submittal will need to be a PUDA so that it can be addressed by the hearing
examiner while the conservation is also vacated at the same time. This PUDA resubmittal includes
the same (matching) Conservation Easement as what is currently being reviewed in the Easement
Vacation process. Staff has requested that the PUDA be revised and resubmitted with a new agent
(ABB) and that only the portions of the original PDI that need to be adjusted be addressed in the
revised PUDA submittal.
PDI - PL20160001023
ATTACHMENT 4 (CROSS SECTION)
Villas at Greenwood Lake HOA
Preservation Area Plan
September 2018
Preservation Area to ROW Cross Section
nts
General Notes:
1. Wall setback from Preservation Area is 5’ per LDC.
2. Wall excavation for footing setback from Preservation Area is 10’ per LDC.
3. Fill for Berm setback from Preservation Area is 10’ per LDC.
4. Landscaping and wall specifications per requirements at time of permitting.
5. Entire area above contained in Tract “B” Buffer, CE and DE. Refer to Plat Book 31
Pages 87 to 91.
6. *Wall location within 20’ landscape buffer to be determined during insubstantial change
to construction plans.
EXISTING CANAL
COUNTY BARN ROAD 125' R/WRMF-16RMF-6 RMF-6MHPUDRIVER GOLF ESTATESPRESERVE ROWRRRRLAKERRRATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD C.R. 864 125' R/WLAND USE SUMMARYRESIDENTIAL (R)18.28 ACRESRIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW)3.98 ACRESPRESERVE6.12 ACRESLAKE 6.04 ACRESOTHER OPEN SPACE1.59 ACRESSUBTOTAL 36.01 ACRESROW DEDICATIONS1.59 ACRESTOTAL 37.60 ACRESNATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVEREQUIRED:16% OF TOTAL AREA37.60 ACRES x 0.16= 6.02 ACRESPROVIDED6.12 ACRESPUD DENSITYTOTAL AREA37.6 ACRESGROSS DENSITY3.86 UNITS/ACRETOTAL UNITS145 UNITSWINDSONGPLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTEXHIBIT AMASTER PLANJUNE, 2018PRESERVE IS 28' FROMPROPERTY BOUNDARYTYPE "D" BUFFER*TYPE "B" BUFFER*TYPE "D" BUFFER*SCALE: 1" = 250'TYPE "A" BUFFER*LEGEND - LAKE - ROW - PRESERVE - PROPERTY LINE\\syno-fs01\Projects\2017\17-0064 Villas at GreenwoodLake\CAD\PUD Master Plan\11749 - PUD Master Plan.dwgTYPE "B" BUFFER* - RESIDENTIAL - OPEN SPACENote: Preserves shall meet buffer requirements after removal of exotics inaccordance with LDC Sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E.I or supplementalplating will be required, in accordance with LDC Section 3.05.07.
1
PL20160001023, PUD Amendment to Windsong PUD
Neighborhood Information Meeting
Villas at Greenwood Lake Clubhouse
5843 Greenwood Circle, Naples, FL 34112
September 11, 2018 at 6 pm
Summary of Meeting
The meeting was called to order by Tom Barber of Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc.,
representing the Villas at Greenwood Lake HOA, promptly at 6 pm. He introduced himself and
requested that everyone sign in and that all questions be asked at the end of the presentation. A
copy of the sign-in sheet is attached as Exhibit A.
Tom Barber began by introducing himself and the project. During his presentation, Tom
referred to three large exhibits prepared by Agnoli, Barber & Brundage which were displayed on
tables at the front of the room (copies attached as Exhibits B, C and D). Tom explained that the
Windsong PUD is a planned development and in the development, there is a certain amount of
preserve that is set aside when developing a piece of property. When this development was
originally created, there was a preserve that ran along the eastern side along County Barn Road
(referring to Exhibit B). Tom stated that it’s now the Villas’ wishes that they put a privacy wall
along County Bard Road. To do that, a portion of the easement must be vacated. Tom referred to
the exhibit of the amended PUD showing the existing and revised easements. While standing next
to this exhibit, he showed the revised easement under the PUD amendment where, along the
eastern side, there will be an easement that is 28’ wide, so that there can be a landscape buffer, a
small 1’ or 2’ berm and a wall. Tom explained that the area in blue on Exhibit D is the portion of
the existing conservation easement that is being vacated. He showed that the area in green is the
replacement conservation easement, which is all currently residential tract. Tom said that the
project overall is a positive for the community in that it will screen residents from County Barn
Road and also enclose the community and make it a safer community. Tom then opened the
meeting up for questions.
Many of the questions by the homeowners related to the HOA approval of this project.
Tom deferred those questions to Richard Barry, the HOA President, who was on hand to field
those questions. A summary of the discussion is as follows:
A homeowner asked why they were doing this. Another homeowner stated something but
was inaudible. Tom Barber stated that the HOA voted and passed the approval to vacate the
easement to build the wall, so the community agreed to do this project.
2
Another homeowner [Tom, HOA Board Member] stated that that was not really correct
and that the majority of the people in the community voted not to have the wall. Dick Barry,
President of the HOA, stood up and introduced himself. He told the Board member that what he
said was patently wrong. Dick said there were three special member meetings. There was a
petition where people didn’t want to fund the wall and that was true. There were two special
member meetings after that, and at the last members meeting when the wall was adopted, the
option before the board was to go for a hedge line or a fence. Based on the 53 owners that were
in the room, with 52 supporting the fence, that was the vote of the Board. Dick stated that it’s part
of the public record in the minutes. He then stated to anyone in attendance who may be from
outside the Villas at Greenwood Lake that this meeting is about relocating the preserve and that
what is done with the wall down the road (hedges, wall or fence) has yet to be determined. He
reminded everyone that until this portion is done, nothing can be done. He advised the Board
member that his discussions are for another time and another venue; not this meeting.
A homeowner stated he’s still confused about the project and the placement of shrubbery.
Tom Barber stated that the green area is the new preserve, which is not currently a preserve, and
the yellow dashed line represents where there could potentially be a wall and landscape buffer and
a wall. He questioned whether there would be a landscape buffer and a wall, to which Tom Barber
said yes. Tom explained that with a wall, you have to put buffering outside the wall to screen the
wall.
A question was posed as to the size of the easement vacation. Tom Barber explained that
the easement vacation width is 28’ wide and the landscape buffer would be about 5 .’ The
homeowner then asked if the wall will be 5’ behind the buffer, to which Tom said yes.
A homeowner questioned whether the wall would be concrete. Tom Barber answered that
the material has yet to be determined. Dick Barry clarified that the wall in the front will match the
existing wall. The material for the wall along County Barn Road will be determined once the bids
come in. Some of the homeowners are looking into companies/pricing, but it has not yet been
determined. Another homeowner asked whether there would be a special assessment, and Dick
Barry said it’s already been assessed and done and paid last year.
Another homeowner stated she was at a meeting where they were shown shrubs that were
going to be grown in place of a wall and that they would make a good buffer – they were fast
growing. Dick Barry acknowledged there was a meeting but clarified that it was not a Board
meeting; it was an ad hoc committee meeting to check the figures the board put out to check
whether the cost of a hedge line was the same as what had been anticipated. He stated that the
chairman of that committee was Pete Williams. Dick Barry stated that at the members meeting
where the Board made the final vote, Pete was in support of the fence, not the bushes. He stated
that all of this is in the records, which Judy [property manager] can provide.
3
Another homeowner asked why it was decided to do other than what the majority wanted.
Dick Barry stated that a decision had already been made to put the wall up. She stated that it was
not at that time, to which Dick Barry corrected her. He once again stated there were three meetings.
The project was canceled, then started over with the second members meeting and the third
members meeting. All in the record. Final decision was the third members meeting, which was
after that committee meeting. He reiterated that this has nothing to do with the easement vacation
process and that nothing can be placed out there until the County approves the relocation of the
preserve. The homeowner then asked whether the County has to make a special distinction for
having the wall and the shrubs or anything like that. Dick Barry stated that the engineers and
County informed them that they have to go through this vacation of the easement because it’s a
preserve – right up to the property line. The landscape plan will have to be the landscape plan
already approved by the County in the original development.
A different homeowner asked who they were vacating the easement to. Tom Barber stated
that they are vacating a conservation easement and then bringing it over to the Villas. It was then
asked how far the eastern edge of the easement starts from the center line of County Barn Road.
Dick Barry stated that they took 125’ right of way, so the buffer would be at 125’ feet from the
center of the right of way, the centerline of County Barn Road. Tom Barber stated that the property
boundary runs right along the vegetation line, so it would be 28’ inside that vegetation line. The
homeowner then followed up asking whether additional vegetation and trees would be cut down
when the drainage is put in. Tom Barber told him no.
Another homeowner asked whether anything could be built in the remaining area if this
goes through. Dick Barry answered that there are seven house units if the owners ever decide to
develop that area. Dick said he would not go into this subject further at this meeting.
The previous homeowner asked for clarification regarding the right of way and the
centerline of County Barn Road, to which Dick Barry addressed. Another homeowner asked to be
shown on Exhibit D where the seven house units are located. Tom explained that currently, it is
all residential, but that the green area is where the new conservation easement will be, and the rest
will be residential.
A different homeowner said he was confused about “preserve property.” He wondered if
it was a “pick and choose” thing because he said that for the 19 years he’s been here, you couldn’t
put anything back there. Now, they want to touch it. He knows that County Barn Road didn’t
destroy all of it; there is more vegetation than 19 years ago. He wanted to know if it can happen
with another development and why have a preserve property and he thought it was from the
beginning when they built the properties. Tom Barber explained that you have to have a certain
amount of preserve per your PUD. The homeowner further questioned how it can be changed once
4
it was determined what was preserve. Tom Barber further discussed how the location of the
proposed new conservation easement will take the place of the current preserve area. Another
homeowner spoke up and stated that it’s pretty basic and asked what he is missing. [inaudible
discussion amongst themselves]… He then continued stating the Villas wanted to put some kind
of barrier along County Barn Road. In order to do that, they have to get into the preserve land. In
order to do that, the Villas is saying, “we’ll take that land and we’ll give you this land.” More
inaudible discussion and laughter. Dick Barry suggested they move on.
Tom Barber asked if there were any further questions.
A homeowner asked whether he understood correctly that they were not giving up property, just
reorganizing it so that they can do something further later should they desire to do that. Tom
Barber confirmed he is correct. Dick Barry stated that it would take a 2/3 vote of the membership
to convey property. He stated that all this is doing is saying, “this is preserve today, and this is
preserve tomorrow.”
A homeowner asked whether it’s Collier County who makes the final decision. Tom Barber
answered affirmatively. He said that after this meeting, ABB will write it up and it will be heard
by the hearing examiner and they will approve or deny it. Gil Martinez with the County corrected
Tom and stated that it will be heard by the CCPC (Collier County Planning Commission), local
planning board. From there, it will go to the Board of County Commissioners for final approval.
The homeowner asked for confirmation of her understanding that until it has been approved,
nothing can be done out there. Dick Barry confirmed.
A homeowner asked Tom Barber whether he felt it would go through. Tom stated he had a good
feeling it would and did not see a reason why it wouldn’t. It was asked what the next step would
be. Tom Barber explained that there would need to be a site development plan to show the location
of the berm, landscaping, and whatever is proposed for there. It was asked what happens if it’s
not approved. Dick Barry stated it would be turned over to attorneys and engineers to fin d out
what happened. The homeowner again asked Tom whether he felt what they’ve done would go
through so that they could do whatever they want in that area later on. Tom said he thinks so and
that it’s all developable area and dedicating it and conserving it and taking some portion along the
right of way and that it was a positive for the County and their community.
Another homeowner asked whether it was acre-for-acre. Tom Barber answered that the new
conservation area is 1/10 of an acre more. Dick Barry reconfirmed with Tom Barber that Phase 2
had no conversation area and that because of the new acquisition, there had to be more
conservation area, which is why there’s a little more.
5
A homeowner asked whether this would cost the Association any money. Dick Barry stated it had
already been paid for by special assessment. Another homeowner asked whether the money that
has been paid covers everything through approval. Dick Barry said that when the assessment was
issued, it included all estimated construction costs, engineering and permitting and a 20%
contingency. He thinks the 20% continency is probably more like 5% now because it has taken 3-
1/2 years to date and the assessment was 18 months ago. They check periodically with vendors
on pricing. He reiterated that all of those discussions will be at a later date after the County
approves this vacation.
Tom Barber asked if there were any other questions.
A homeowner asked when it will be taken to the BOCC to finalize. Tom deferred to Gil Martinez.
Gil stated that it’s tentatively scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission in mid -October
and then hopefully will make it to the BOCC in early December. He stated that those are tentative
dates and that this is still a work in process. Dick stated that their Board would then get to work
in January and get it out for bid and will start working in earnest once they find out what the BOCC
does in December. A homeowner asked how to shorten the process; there is none.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:21 pm.
This meeting was audio recorded by Agnoli, Barber & Brundage; a copy of which has been
provided to the County. The meeting summary was also prepared b y Agnoli, Barber & Brundage.
EXISTING CANAL
COUNTY BARN ROAD 125' R/WRMF-16RMF-6 RMF-6MHPUDRIVER GOLF ESTATESPRESERVE ROWRRRRLAKERRRATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD C.R. 864 125' R/WLAND USE SUMMARYRESIDENTIAL (R)18.28 ACRESRIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW)3.98 ACRESPRESERVE6.12 ACRESLAKE 6.04 ACRESOTHER OPEN SPACE1.59 ACRESSUBTOTAL 36.01 ACRESROW DEDICATIONS1.59 ACRESTOTAL 37.60 ACRESNATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVEREQUIRED:16% OF TOTAL AREA37.60 ACRES x 0.16= 6.02 ACRESPROVIDED6.12 ACRESPUD DENSITYTOTAL AREA37.6 ACRESGROSS DENSITY3.86 UNITS/ACRETOTAL UNITS145 UNITSWINDSONGPLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTEXHIBIT AMASTER PLANJUNE, 2018PRESERVE IS 28' FROMPROPERTY BOUNDARYTYPE "D" BUFFER*TYPE "B" BUFFER*TYPE "D" BUFFER*SCALE: 1" = 250'TYPE "A" BUFFER*LEGEND - LAKE - ROW - PRESERVE - PROPERTY LINE\\syno-fs01\Projects\2017\17-0064 Villas at GreenwoodLake\CAD\PUD Master Plan\11749 - PUD Master Plan.dwgTYPE "B" BUFFER* - RESIDENTIAL - OPEN SPACENote: Preserves shall meet buffer requirements after removal of exotics inaccordance with LDC Sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E.I or supplementalplating will be required, in accordance with LDC Section 3.05.07.
(PLAT BOOK 13, PAGE 108-111)
RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD COUNTY BARN ROADN
VILLAS ATGREENWOOD LAKECONSERVATION EASEMENT VACATION
(PROPOSED PRIVACY WALL)
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
Legend
PROPOSED PRIVACY WALL
PRESERVE
MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE
PLAN
VILLAS AT GREENWOOD LAKE
REV. JULY 6, 2018
Prepared by:
TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC
3584 EXCHANGE AVENUE
NAPLES, FL 34104
Villas at Greenwood Lake
Section 17, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County.
Preserve Management Plan
Rev. July 6 , 2018
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapters Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 2
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2
3.0 IMPACTS 6
4.0 PRESERVE AREA 7
4.1 Initial Enhancement Activities 7
4.2 Supplemental Plantings 8
4.3 Preserve Goals 8
5.0 PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION 9
6.0 LONG-TERM PROTECTION 9
7.0 GENERAL MAINTENANCE 9
7.1 Vines 9
7.2 Weeds and Weedy Species 10
7.3 Unique to Upland Habitats 10
8.0 DESIGNATION OF PRESERVE MANAGER 10
9.0 WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT 11
9.1 Big Cypress Fox Squirrel 11
9.2 Eastern Indigo Snake 11
10.0 VEGETATION REMOVAL PERMITS 11
10.1 Dead/Dying/Leaning Trees Posing Public Safety Property Issues 11
Tables
1 Existing Habitat FLUCFCS Table 3
2 Proposed Plan 3
3 Description of Habitats 1 & 2 4
4 Description of Habitats 3-6 4
5 Description of Habitats 7-9 5
6 Description of Habitats 10-11 6
7 Impacts 6
8 Preserve Target Habitats 7
9 Supplemental Plantings, Sizes and Spacing 8
Exhibits
1 Location Map
2 FLUCCS Map
3 Impacts Map
4 Preserve Map
5 Soils Map
Villas at Greenwood Lake
Section 17, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County.
Preserve Management Plan
Rev. July 6 , 2018
2
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this plan is to document pre-restoration conditions of an existing 5.52 acre
preserve area, as well as proposed maintenance and monitoring activities for this and an
additional 1.20 acre conservation area to be added external to the development footprint of the
project known as Villas at Greenwood Lake. Preserve acreage would total 6.12 upon
completion of the proposed work.
The project is located in Section 17, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, of Collier County on the
corner of County Barn Road and Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Surrounding land use can be
characterized by residential development in the form of single-family villas directly north and
west of this parcel, mobile homes to the east across County Barn Road and multi-family to the
south across Rattle Snake Hammock Road.
The site plan proposes to construct a visual/sound barrier wall along the eastern perimeter of
the site, adjacent to County Barn Road, wrapping slightly around the north and south sides in a
westerly direction. Impacts associated with the new wall would include 0.60 upland acres to
the existing 5.52 acre preserve and 0.44 upland acres of impacts to a new undeveloped area (1.04
acres total). Of the 1.04 acres worth of proposed impacts, 0.10 acres are to open mowed area on
the southeast corner of the site.
Both existing and proposed preserves will need restoration and maintenance work as outlined
in the following chapters in order to meet current native preserve guidelines.
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The 5.52 acre previously designated preserve area has a variety of exotic and landscape plant
species present in varying densities throughout. There are also a few thin linear areas (habitats
#9 and #11), which have been planted with ornamental or fruit tree landscape material and/or
are grassed and mowed, which will need restoration done to bring them back into compliance.
Of the newly added 1.20 acre preserve, most of it is relatively impacted by exotic plant species
and hurricane debris to some degree. Prior to Hurricane Irma, the canopy coverage was
considerably denser than it is presently. It appears based on what has fallen and what is
remaining now that the canopy was dominated before the hurricane by ear-leaf acacia. The
pines fared a bit better than the ear-leaf during the storm, but there is still a dominance of exotic
species in the canopy overall. The following table (1) provides the habitats as described in the
Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS), with a more detailed
species list for each immediately following Table 1.
Villas at Greenwood Lake
Section 17, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County.
Preserve Management Plan
Rev. July 6 , 2018
3
Table 1- Existing Habitat FLUCFCS Table
Habitat # FLUCFCS Code Description Acreage
1 411E3 Pine Flatwood 60% Exotic 0.70
2 411E2 Pine Flatwood 40% Exotic 0.87
3 411E3 Pine Flatwood 72% Exotic 0.33
4 740 Cleared Land 0.27
5 411/740 Pine Flatwood, Cleared Under 0.23
6 740 Cleared Land 0.10
7 411 Pine Flatwood 2.08
8 434 Hardwood-Conifer Mixed 0.87
9 434E2 Hardwood-Conifer Mixed 40% Exotic 0.34
10 434 Hardwood-Conifer Mixed 1.12
11 434 Hardwood-Conifer Mixed 0.38
12 624 Cypress-Pine-Cabbage Palm 0.73
TOTAL 8.02
TOTAL NATIVE VEGETATION 7.65
Table 2- Proposed Plan
Number FLUCFCS Description Total Ac Impact Ac Preserve Ac Un-used Ac
1 411e3 Pine flatwood 60% Exotic 0.70 0.18 0.51
2 411e2 Pine flatwood 40% Exotic 0.87 0.10 0.41 0.36
3 411e3 Pine flatwood 72% Exotic 0.33 0.06 0.16 0.11
4 740 Cleared Land 0.27 0.27
5 411/740 Pine flatwood, Clear Under 0.23 0.11 0.12
6 740 Cleared Land 0.10 0.10
7 411 Pine flatwood 2.08 0.47 1.62
8 434 Hardwood-Conifer Mix 0.87 0.13 0.74
9 434e2 Hardwood-Conifer Mix 4% Exotic 0.34 0.34
10 434 Hardwood-Conifer Mix 1.12 1.12
11 434 Hardwood-Conifer Mix 0.38 0.38
12 624 Cypress-Pine-Cabbage Palm 0.73 0.73
Existing Preserve
0.60 Ac Impacts
4.93 Ac Preserve
Undeveloped New Area
0.34 Ac Impacts
1.19 Ac Preserve
8.02 1.04 6.12 0.86
Villas at Greenwood Lake
Section 17, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County.
Preserve Management Plan
Rev. July 6 , 2018
4
Table 3- Description of Habitats 1 & 2
1- 411E3 2- 411E2
Common Name Scientific Name % Cover Common Name Scientific Name %
Cover
CANOPY 55 CANOPY 40
*ear-leaf acacia Acacia auriculiformis 60 slash pine Pinus elliottii 60
*tropical almond Terminalia catappa 20 *ear-leaf acacia Acacia auriculiformis 35
slash pine Pinus elliottii 20 *tropical almond Terminalia catappa 5
MIDSTORY 50 MIDSTORY 30
*ear-leaf acacia Acacia auriculiformis 60 *ear-leaf acacia Acacia auriculiformis 40
cabbage palm Sabal palmetto 20 *Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius 35
*Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius 15 gumbo limbo Bursera simaruba 15
myrsine Myrsine guianensis 5 cabbage palm Sabal palmetto 7
GROUNDCOVER 25 *tropical almond Terminalia catappa 3
grapevine Vitis rotundifolia 30 GROUNDCOVER 60
saw palmetto Myrsine guianensis 25 grapevine Vitis rotundifolia 25
*Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius 25 saw palmetto Myrsine guianensis 15
*ear-leaf acacia Acacia auriculiformis 8 *ear-leaf acacia Acacia auriculiformis 12
gumbo limbo Bursera simaruba 8 gumbo limbo Bursera simaruba 12
wax myrtle Myrica cerifera 4 *Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius 12
*carrotwood Cupaniopsis anacardioides 8
myrsine Myrsine guianensis 4
*tropical almond Terminalia catappa 4
smilax vine Smilax spp. 4
*wedelia Sphagneticola trilobata 4
Table 4- Description of Habitats 3-6
3- 411E3 4- 740
Common Name Scientific Name % Cover Common Name Scientific Name % Cover
CANOPY 55 CANOPY 0
*ear-leaf acacia Acacia auriculiformis 70 MIDSTORY 0
slash pine Pinus elliottii 20 GROUNDCOVER 3
cabbage palm Sabal palmetto 5 *oyster plant Tradescantia spathacea 50
strangler fig Ficus aurea 3 common wireweed Sida acuta 50
*melaleuca Melaleuca quinquenervia 2 5- 411/ 740
MIDSTORY 60 Common Name Scientific Name % Cover
*ear-leaf acacia Acacia auriculiformis 65 CANOPY 35
*Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius 15 slash pine Pinus elliottii 100
*melaleuca Melaleuca quinquenervia 10 MIDSTORY 0
cabbage palm Sabal palmetto 4 GROUNDCOVER 10
Chapman oak Quercus chapmanii 2 saw palmetto Myrsine guianensis 30
*carrotwood Cupaniopsis anacardioides 1 *oyster plant Tradescantia spathacea 25
myrsine Myrsine guianensis 1 *white-head broom Spermacoce spp. 25
laurel oak Quercus laurifolia 1 *ear-leaf acacia Acacia auriculiformis 20
gumbo limbo Bursera simaruba 1 6- 740
GROUNDCOVER 45 Common Name Scientific Name % Cover
grapevine Vitis rotundifolia 25 CANOPY 0
*ear-leaf acacia Acacia auriculiformis 25 MIDSTORY 0
saw palmetto Myrsine guianensis 18 GROUNDCOVER 100
*periwinkle Catharanthus roseus 10 *bahia grass Paspalum notatum 100
Chapman oak Quercus chapmanii 5
*Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius 5
gumbo limbo Bursera simaruba 5
beautyberry Callicarpa americana 3
*carrotwood Cupaniopsis anacardioides 3
*schefflera Schefflera actinophylla 1
Villas at Greenwood Lake
Section 17, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County.
Preserve Management Plan
Rev. July 6 , 2018
5
Table 5- Description of Habitats 7-9
7- 411 8- 434
Common Name Scientific Name % Cover Common Name Scientific Name %
Cover
CANOPY 48 CANOPY 40
slash pine Pinus elliottii 71 slash pine Pinus elliottii 50
cabbage palm Sabal palmetto 14 cabbage palm Sabal palmetto 40
cypress Taxodium distichum 12 laurel oak Quercus laurifolia 10
*ear-leaf acacia Acacia auriculiformis 2 MIDSTORY 20
laurel oak Quercus laurifolia 1 *allamanda Allamanda spp. 35
MIDSTORY 30 *Queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 25
*ear-leaf acacia Acacia auriculiformis 28 cabbage palm Sabal palmetto 25
cabbage palm Sabal palmetto 28 *ear-leaf acacia Acacia auriculiformis 15
slash pine Pinus elliottii 14 GROUNDCOVER 100
Simpson stopper Myrcianthes fragrans 6 *wedelia Sphagneticola trilobata 36
dahoon holly Ilex cassine 3 *allamanda Allamanda spp. 28
fire bush Hamelia patens 3 *floratam Stenotaphrum
secundatum
18
*Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius 3 *ear-leaf acacia Acacia auriculiformis 7
*allamanda Allamanda spp. 3 broom grass Andropogon spp. 5
*orchid tree species unknown 2 *Caesar weed Urena lobata 5
myrsine Myrsine guianensis 2 9- 434E2
strangler fig Ficus aurea 2 Common Name Scientific Name % Cover
gumbo limbo Bursera simaruba 2 CANOPY
live oak Quercus virginiana 1 slash pine Pinus elliottii
red maple Acer rubrum 1 cabbage palm Sabal palmetto
wax myrtle Myrica cerifera 1 laurel oak Quercus laurifolia
*Queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana 1 *areca palm Dypsis lutescens
GROUNDCOVER 86 *Queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana
*white-head broom Spermacoce spp. 18 gumbo limbo Bursera simaruba
grapevine Vitis rotundifolia 15 MIDSTORY
*torpedo grass Panicum repens 14 *bird of paradise
*wedelia Wedelia trilobata 12 *Queen palm Syagrus romanzoffiana
*ear-leaf acacia Acacia auriculiformis 9 *ear-leaf acacia Acacia auriculiformis
*rose natal grass Melinis repens 4 *carrotwood Cupaniopsis
anacardioides
saw palmetto Myrsine guianensis 3 *areca palm Dypsis lutescens
Alabama sedge Cyperus ligularis 3 *schefflera Schefflera actinophylla
Fakahatchee grass Tripsacum dactyloides 3 *sour orange Citrus aurantium
sand blackberry Rubus cuneifolius 2 *bishopwood Bischofia javanica
wax myrtle Myrica cerifera 1 firebush Hamelia patens
coontie Zamia integrifolia 1 wax myrtle Myrica cerifera
Simpson stopper Myrcianthes fragrans 1 *Norfolk pine Araucaria heterophylla
broom grass Andropogon spp. 1 GROUNDCOVER
smilax vine Smilax spp. 1 *wedelia Sphagneticola trilobata
*rosary pea Abrus precatorius 1 *Heliconia Heliconia spp.
slash pine Pinus elliottii 1 *floratam Stenotaphrum
secundatum
*Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolius 1 firebush Hamelia patens
*allamanda Allamanda spp. 1 *sour orange Citrus aurantium
*carrotwood Cupaniopsis
anacardioides
1 *ginger
*Boston fern Nephrolepsis cordifolia
Villas at Greenwood Lake
Section 17, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County.
Preserve Management Plan
Rev. July 6 , 2018
6
Table 6- Description of Habitats 10 and 11
11- 434 12- 624
Common Name Scientific Name % Cover Common Name Scientific Name % Cover
CANOPY CANOPY 40
slash pine Pinus elliottii slash pine Pinus elliottii 42
live oak Quercus virginiana cypress Taxodium distichum 42
cabbage palm Sabal palmetto cabbage palm Sabal palmetto 5
cypress Taxodium distichum strangler fig Ficus aurea 5
MIDSTORY laurel oak Quercus laurifolia 4
*banana tree red maple Acer rubrum 2
UNDERSTORY MIDSTORY 50
*floratam Stenotaphrum secundatum cypress Taxodium distichum 30
*schefflera Schefflera actinophylla mahogany Swietenia mahagoni 30
live oak Quercus virginiana 15
*carrotwood Cupaniopsis anacardioides 11
wax myrtle Myrica cerifera 8
laurel oak Quercus laurifolia 8
firebush Hamelia patens 5
slash pine Pinus elliottii 5
UNDERSTORY 80
*wedelia Wedelia trilobata 55
*white-head broom Spermacoce spp. 25
laurel oak Quercus laurifolia 8
broom grass Andropogon spp. 3
Alabama sedge Cyperus ligularis 3
mahogany Swietenia mahagoni 3
*Cuban laurel Ficus retusa 3
3.0 IMPACTS
Impacts proposed for this project are primarily to disturbed natural habitats. Some desirable
species are found within these zones as well, but the eastern preserve berm contains quite a few
exotic midstory and groundcover species. Additionally the habitats immediately west of the
berm have varying degrees of unwanted species that, because they are not necessarily found in
the canopy, might not be reflected in the FLUCFCS Code. Tables above outline species and
exotics in each habitat.
There are 1.04 acres of impacts proposed for the fence, of which 0.94 acres is to what constitutes
native habitat according to the Land Development Code.
Table 7- Impacts
Habitat # FLUCFCS Code Description Acreage Impacts
1 411E3 Pine Flatwood 60% Exotic 0.70 0.18
2 411E2 Pine Flatwood 40% Exotic 0.87 0.10
3 411E3 Pine Flatwood 72% Exotic 0.33 0.06
4 740 Cleared Land 0.27 0.10
7 411 Pine Flatwoods 2.08 0.47
8 434 Hardwood-Conifer Mixed 0.87 0.13
TOTAL 5.12 1.04
NATIVE VEGETATION 4.85 0.94
Villas at Greenwood Lake
Section 17, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County.
Preserve Management Plan
Rev. July 6 , 2018
7
4.0 PRESERVE AREA
Portions of four (4) habitats onsite will be placed into conservation easement with Collier
County to expand the existing onsite preserve area from approximately 5.52 to 6.13 acres in
order to satisfy native preservation standards per 3.0.5.07 of the Land Development Code. With
0.93 acres of impacts proposed to areas which qualify as native habitat, an additional 1.20 acres
will be added to the preserve and restored to natural target habitats.
Table 8- Preserve Target Habitats
Habitat Existing
FLUCFCS
Target
FLUCFCS
Description Total
Acreage
Preserve
Acreage
1 411E3 411 Pine Flatwood 60% Exotic 0.70 0.51
2 411E2 411 Pine Flatwood 40% Exotic 0.87 0.41
3 411E3 411 Pine Flatwood 72% Exotic 0.33 0.16
5 411/740 None Pine Flatwood, Cleared Under 0.23 0.11
7 411 411 Pine Flatwood 2.08 1.62
8 434 434 Hardwood-Conifer Mixed 0.87 0.74
9 434E2 434 Hardwood-Conifer Mixed 40% Exotic 0.34 0.34
10 434 434 Hardwood-Conifer Mixed 1.12 1.12
11 434 434 Hardwood-Conifer Mixed 0.38 0.38
12 624 624 Cypress-Pine-Cabbage Palm 0.73 0.73
TOTAL 8.02 6.12
TOTAL NATIVE VEGETATION 7.65 6.12
4.1 Initial Enhancement Activities
Prior to any site work a cavity and nest survey will be conducted to ensure that listed
wildlife species will not be impacted by activities.
All Category I and Category II exotic/nuisance plant species, as defined by the Florida
Exotic Pest Plant Council will be included in this eradication program, as well as any non-
native ornamental landscape and fruit trees planted by residents that are not on the FEPPC
list. Targeted species will be removed from the first 75 feet of the preserve boundary limits.
Beyond the first 75 feet these undesirable species will be handled as described below.
Trees greater than 4 inches diameter breast height (DBH) will be girdled and treated with
U.S. EPA approved herbicide and visible tracer dye and left to die in place. Any other
undesirable shrubs smaller than 4 inches DBH will be, cut, stumps treated and removed
from the preserve and disposed of properly. Groundcover and small seedlings will be
killed in-place with foliar spraying.
Storm debris will largely be removed from the site by hand prior to planting to prevent
excess vine coverage and to open up the understory for planting and better natural
recruitment chances.
Villas at Greenwood Lake
Section 17, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County.
Preserve Management Plan
Rev. July 6 , 2018
8
4.2 Supplemental Plantings
In pre-existing preserve areas where there is not at least 60% coverage of native desirable
plant species in the groundcover stratum after initial exotic removal then supplemental
planting will occur. In newly added areas supplemental planting will occur immediately
following the treatment except in strata that already meet 80% desirable native coverage,
apart from midstory which will not require 80% total coverage. A list of suitable plantings is
found below.
Table 9- Supplemental Plantings, Sizes and Spacing
Common Name Scientific Name Height Min. Size Min. Spacing
Trees
slash pine Pinus elliotti 5 ft 3 gal 20 ft
cabbage palm Sabal palmetto 5 ft 3 gal 20 ft
live oak Quercus virginiana 5 ft 3 gal 20 ft
dahoon holly Ilex cassine 5 ft 3 gal 20 ft
Shrubs
wax myrtle Myrica cerifera 3 ft 1 gal 15 ft
gallberry Ilex glabra 3 ft 1 gal 15 ft
saw palmetto Serenoa repens 1 gal 15 ft
firebush Hamelia patens 3ft 1 gal 15 ft
Groundcover
cordgrass Spartina bakeri 12 in 2 in 3 ft
muhly grass Muihlenbergia capillaris 12 in 2 in 3 ft
saw palmetto Serenoa repens 12 in 2 in 3 ft
wire grass Aristida stricta 12 in 2 in 3 ft
broom grass Andropogon sp. 12 in 2 in 3 ft
4.3 Preserve Goals
Each year the preserve will be maintained and inspected by the preserve manager to ensure
there are no exotic, nuisance or ornamental landscape species present and that the preserve
is healthy. The goal of any preserve is to maintain at least 80% coverage of desirable native
plant species and for the supplemental planting survivorship to also be no less than 80%. If
80% coverage is not met within 2 years of initial enhancement activities, then the preserve
manager will coordinate additional planting work to reach those goals. If plantings are not
in good health then the preserve manager will assess the cause and seek to remedy the
situation by adding new material that is better suited to the habitat.
Villas at Greenwood Lake
Section 17, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County.
Preserve Management Plan
Rev. July 6 , 2018
9
5.0 PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION
During construction, protection measures shall be in place to protect natural resources.
Protection measures include, but are not limited to silt fence/ turbidity barrier, surveyor’s tape
and temporary preserve signage.
6.0 LONG-TERM PROTECTION
The enhanced upland preserve will be placed in a conservation easement to Collier County and
maintained in perpetuity as native habitat.
Permanent preserve signage shall be placed around the preserve perimeter at a minimum of
every 100 feet identifying the boundary and protection of the preserve. Preserve signage shall
not exceed 2’ x 2’ in size.
7.0 GENERAL MAINTENANCE
Preserve maintenance requires a solid knowledge of native, exotic and nuisance vegetation and
wildlife. The average landscape or lake maintenance company does not usually have the kind
of specialized knowledge needed to perform preserve maintenance properly.
For the purposes of maintaining this preserve, a licensed and insured exotic removal company
will be retained to sweep the preserve thoroughly during each scheduled visit. Any person who
supervises up to eight (8) people in the application of pesticides and herbicides in the chemical
maintenance of exotic vegetation in preserves, required native vegetation areas, wetlands, or
LSPA shall maintain a Florida Department of Agriculture and a Consumer Services certification
for Natural Areas Pesticide Applicators or Aquatic Herbicide Applicators, depending on the
area to be treated. At the time of the sweep the exotic removal company will kill in-place all
Category I and II listed plant species, any other undesirable invasive or non-native species
observed, and any non-native ornamental species. Thinning of vines and other specific
vegetation will also occur at least every other year.
If questions arise as to the status of a plant that is unknown to the maintenance company, then
the preserve manager will be contacted to determine the status of that particular species.
Maintenance events will be conducted on yearly intervals at a minimum; however if needed to
control an unwanted species, they will be performed more frequently at the discretion of the
preserve manager.
7.1 Vines
Vines are very problematic in Southwest Florida. Most of the problematic vines on this site
are native, so they are not listed as Category I or II invasive/exotic plant species, and
Villas at Greenwood Lake
Section 17, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County.
Preserve Management Plan
Rev. July 6 , 2018
10
therefore can frequently be overlooked. Vines can suffocate adjacent desirable vegetation,
prevent sunlight from hitting the forest floor where seed germination occurs and can climb
into tree tops creating the potential for crown fires in the event of a wildfire.
At a minimum, maintenance crews will thin the vines every other year using a combination
of machetes and herbicide. The vines can be left to die in-place as long as they are not
totally covering shrubs and seedlings. In instances where they have covered young plants,
they are to be cut and hand-removed, freeing the seedling. Total vine coverage shall not
exceed 10% of any area within the preserve as a point of reference for determining where
thinning is needed.
7.2 Weeds and Weedy Species
Weeds in buffer zones tend to pioneer and dominate. Weeds and weedy plant species, such
as dog fennel, Spanish needles, beggar ticks, spurge, rag weed, and white-head broom shall
be treated during every maintenance event.
7.3 Unique to Upland Habitats
Since the entire preserve area is upland in nature it will be maintained for fire management
by thinning the saw palmetto and shrubbery every few years and keeping woody vine
coverage below 10% at all times. This will also promote good foraging habitat for fox
squirrels and other small mammals and reptiles.
8.0 DESIGNATION OF PRESERVE MANAGER
A Preserve Manager must have academic credentials and experience in the area of
environmental sciences or natural resource management. Academic credentials shall consist of,
at a minimum, a Bachelor’s degree in one (1) of the biological sciences and at least two (2) years
of ecological or biological professional experience in the State of Florida.
Homeowner’s Association and Preserve Manager for Villas at Greenwood Lake contact
information is as follows:
Onsite Contact Preserve Manager
Richard Barry
Homeowner’s Association President
C/o Anchor Associates, Inc.
3940 Radio Road, Suite 112
Naples, FL 34104
Phone: 239-272-0048 rbarry@comcast.net
Marielle Kitchener
Senior Biologist & Operations Manager
Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.
3584 Exchange Avenue
Naples, FL 34104
O: 239-643-0166, C: 239-253-1860
marielle@thanaples.com
Villas at Greenwood Lake
Section 17, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County.
Preserve Management Plan
Rev. July 6 , 2018
11
9.0 WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT
9.1 Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia)
The midstory and understory shall be thinned somewhat during each maintenance event to
create foraging habitat for the Big Cypress Fox Squirrel. No trees containing squirrel nests
or daybeds shall be felled during enhancement activities without authorization from the
proper state, local and federal agencies.
9.2 Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon couperi)
The general upland management practices of this plan will provide proper habitat for the
Eastern Indigo snake as well. Construction personnel will be educated on the characteristics
of the Eastern Indigo snake prior to construction commencement and educational signage
will be present on the construction site.
10.0 VEGETATION REMOVAL PERMITS
Vegetation Removal Permits are not required to implement the Preserve Management Plan;
however, any clearing-type work activities shall be discussed with the preserve manager prior
to initiation.
10.1 Dead/ Dying/ Leaning Trees Posing Public Safety/Property Issues
Collier County does not require a Vegetation Removal Permit for the removal of trees that
could eminently fall and damage property or endanger public safety unless they contain
nests, cavities, or bald eagles. General dead tree removal due to unsightliness in the
preserve though is not allowed. Any vegetation that has to be removed must be done so by
hand. No equipment may enter the preserve system without first obtaining a Vegetation
Removal Permit from Collier County.
EXHIBIT 1
LOCATION MAP
STATE OF FLORIDACOUNTY AERIAL VICINITY MAPSTATE OF FLORIDACOUNTY AERIAL VICINITY MAPNOTES:<> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.SUBJECTPROPERTYSUBJECTPROPERTY<> LATITUDE:N 26.109696<> LONGITUDE:W -81.730286SITE ADDRESS:<> 550 GREENWOOD CIRCLENAPLES, FL 34112Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.Email: tuna@turrell-associates.com3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732Marine & Environmental ConsultingPhone: (239) 643-0166Fax: (239) 643-6632REV#:CREATED:DRAWN BY:JOB NO.:SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE-DESIGNED:P:\9749.1-Villas at Greenwood Lake\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\9749.1-COUNTY.dwg LOCATION 1/24/2018THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.SE1.2.3.4.5.REV BY:DATE:CHK BY:CHANGED:SHEET NO.:MKRMJ01-24-189749.1-1726VILLAS AT GREENWOOD LAKELOCATION MAP50-------------------01 OF 05COLLIER COUNTYCOLLIER COUNTY)7.(1(/':+%1)7.(1(/':+%18588288641MARCOISLANDEVERGLADESCITY9329846NAPLES90908399483783784129292983983992887846951862I-758486431856850846890896NESWKEY WESTTAMPAFT.MYERSMIAMINAPLESSUBJECTPROPERTY
EXHIBIT 2
FLUCCS MAP
NESW0100200400SCALE IN FEETTurrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.Email: tuna@turrell-associates.com3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732Marine & Environmental ConsultingPhone: (239) 643-0166Fax: (239) 643-6632REV#:CREATED:DRAWN BY:JOB NO.:SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE-DESIGNED:P:\9749.1-Villas at Greenwood Lake\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\9749.1-COUNTY.dwg FLUCCS 1/24/2018THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.SE1.2.3.4.5.REV BY:DATE:CHK BY:CHANGED:SHEET NO.:MKRMJ01-24-189749.1-1726VILLAS AT GREENWOOD LAKEFLUCCS MAP50-------------------02 OF 05UPLAND (ACRES):WETLAND (ACRES):PROJECT (ACRES):7.656.920.73IDFLUCCSDESCRIPTIONAREA(AC)1411E3PINE FLATWOODS (EXOTICS 50-75%)0.702411E2PINE FLATWOODS (EXOTICS 25-50%)0.873411E3PINE FLATWOODS (EXOTICS 50-75%)0.334740DISTURBED LAND0.275411 / 740PINE FLATWOODS / DISTURBED LAND0.236740PINE FLATWOODS / DISTURBED LAND0.107411PINE FLATWOODS2.088434HARDWOOD-CONIFER MIXED0.879434E2HARDWOOD-CONIFER MIXED (EXOTICS25-50%)0.3410434HARDWOOD-CONIFER MIXED1.1211434HARDWOOD-CONIFER MIXED0.3812624CYPRESS-PINE-CABBAGE PALM0.73PROJECT TOTAL8.02TOTAL NATIVE VEGETATION7.65·SURVEY COURTESY OF:··SURVEY DATED:NOTES:·THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY ANDARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE."NO SURVEY DATA AVAILABLE"MM-DD-YYYYRATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RDCOUNTY BARN RD (3) 411E3(2) 411E2(1) 411E3(5) 411/740(7) 411(6) 740(4) 740(8) 434(9) 434E2(10) 434(11)434(12) 624
EXHIBIT 3
IMPACTS MAP
NESW0100200400SCALE IN FEETREV#:CREATED:DRAWN BY:JOB NO.:DESIGNED:P:\9749.1-Villas at Greenwood Lake\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\9749.1-COUNTY.dwg IMPACTS 1/31/2018THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.SE1.2.3.4.5.REV BY:DATE:CHK BY:CHANGED:SHEET NO.:MKRMJ01-24-189749.1-IMPACTS MAP-------------------03 OF 05xSURVEY COURTESY OF:xxSURVEY DATED:NOTES:xTHESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY ANDARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE."NO SURVEY DATA AVAILABLE"MM-DD-YYYYVEGETATION IMPACT (AC)RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RDCOUNTY BARN RD(3) 411E3(2) 411E2(1) 411E3(5) 411/740(7) 411(6) 740(4) 740(8) 434(9) 434E2(10) 434(11)434(12) 624
EXHIBIT 4
PRESERVE MAP
NESW050100200SCALE IN FEETREV#:CREATED:DRAWN BY:JOB NO.:DESIGNED:P:\9749.1-Villas at Greenwood Lake\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\9749.1-COUNTY.dwg PRESERVES 1/31/2018THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.SE1.2.3.4.5.REV BY:DATE:CHK BY:CHANGED:SHEET NO.:MKRMJ01-24-189749.1-PRESERVES MAP-------------------04 OF 05xSURVEY COURTESY OF:xxSURVEY DATED:NOTES:xTHESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY ANDARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE."NO SURVEY DATA AVAILABLE"MM-DD-YYYYUPLAND PRESERVE (ACRES):WETLAND PRESERVE (ACRES):TOTAL PRESERVE (ACRES):RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RDCOUNTY BARN RD (3) 411E3(2) 411E2(1) 411E3(5) 411/740(7) 411(6) 740(4) 740(8) 434(9) 434E2(10) 434(11)434(12) 624
EXHIBIT 5
SOILS MAP
NESW0100200400SCALE IN FEETTurrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.Email: tuna@turrell-associates.com3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732Marine & Environmental ConsultingPhone: (239) 643-0166Fax: (239) 643-6632REV#:CREATED:DRAWN BY:JOB NO.:SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE-DESIGNED:P:\9749.1-Villas at Greenwood Lake\CAD\PERMIT-COUNTY\9749.1-COUNTY.dwg SOILS 1/24/2018THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.SE1.2.3.4.5.REV BY:DATE:CHK BY:CHANGED:SHEET NO.:MKRMJ01-24-189749.1-1726VILLAS AT GREENWOOD LAKESOILS MAP50-------------------05 OF 05·SURVEY COURTESY OF:··SURVEY DATED:NOTES:·THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY ANDARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.·SOIL DATA PROVIDED BY:1998 UNITED STATES DEPT OF AGRICULTURESOIL SURVEY OF COLLIER COUNTY AREA, FL"NO SURVEY DATA AVAILABLE"MM-DD-YYYYCODEDESCRIPTIONHYDRIC16OLDSMAR FINE SAND17BASINGER FINE SANDYES32URBAN LAND34URBAN LAND-IMMOKALEE-OLDSMAR,LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM, COMPLEXRATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RDCOUNTY BARN RD1734 1632