The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 02/10/2009 Item # 8B Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 1 of 118 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PUDZ-2007-AR-12026: Stephen J. Lockwood, Trustee for SJL Realty II Trust, represented by Heidi Williams, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the Savannah Place RPUD, to allow development of a maximum of 20 townhouse, single-family attached or single-family detached dwelling units. The subject 6.81:i acre property is located on the south side of Orange Blossom Drive approximately one half mile west of Airport Road (CR 31), in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) review staffs findings 811d recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) regarding the above referenced rezone petition and render a decision regarding the petition. CONSIDERATIONS: .- The petitioner is proposing to rezone the subject site from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district to be known as the SavB11nah Place RPUD. The proposed 6.81:t acre RPUD, if approved, will allow a project density of 3 units per acre resulting in a maximum of 20 dwelling units which may be 811Y combination of single-fBlllily detached, single-family attached, or townhouse units. The remainder of the site will be utilized for slB11dard accessory Blllenities, I811dscape buffers, parking, drive aisles 811d water m811agement area. The master pl811 shows Bll approximate layout of the site to include a water m811agement lake, the internal traffic circulation pattem and the proposed project boundary butTering. The proposed property development stBlldards are provided in the PUD document. The petitioner is not seeking 811Y deviations from the LBlld Development Code (LDC) requirements. The property is currently utilized as a l811dscape nursery business. Site Development PI811 (SDP) 96-107 and a subsequent insubstantial ch811ge to the SDP were reviewed 811d approved by County staff for the Smallwood Nursery in February 1997. FISCAL IMPACT: The PUD rezoning, by Blld of itself, will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no guarBlltee that the project, at build out, will maximize its authorized level of development, however, if the PUD amendment is approved, a portion of the existing l811d will be developed 811d the new development will result in Bll impact on Collier County public facilities. -. Page 1 of 10 Agenda Item No. 86 February 10, 2009 Page 2 of 118 The County collects impact fees prior to the issu811ce of building pennits 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 (CLE) of the Growth Management PIB11 (GMP) as needed to maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of concurrency managemcnt, the developer of every local development order approved by Collier County is required to pay 50 percent of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project. Other fees collected prior to issu811ce of a building permit include building permit review fees and utility fees associated with connccting to the County's water and sewcr system. Finally, additional revenue is generated by applying ad valorem tax rates to applicable properties, and that revenue is directly related to the value of improvemcnts. Please note that the inclusion of impact fees and taxes collected are for informational purposes only; they are not included in the criteria used by Staff Blld the CCPC to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subjcct property is designatcd within the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Future L811d Use Map of the Growth Management Pl811 811d is within the Traffic Congestion Area. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits residential devclopment (variety of unit types) at a base density of four dwelling units per acre. This district is intend cd to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential uses, including mixed-use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. Also the property lies within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency M811agement Area (TCMA) as identified in the Tr811sportation Elemcnt of the GMP. Relevant to this pctition, the residential and recreational uses proposed to bc permitted in the RPUD are consistent with the UrbBll Mixcd Use DistrictJUrban Residcntial Subdistrict. The Density Rating System provides for a base density of four dwelling units per acre in the Urban Residential Subdistrict; density is calculated based upon the gross project acreage. Because the site is located in the Traffic Congestion Area, the density is reduced by onc dwelling unit, for a total allowable density of three dwelling units per acre (dula) or 20.43 dwclling units for the entire project. Staff notcs that the propcrty could seek to qualify for three additional dula based on the TCMA density bonus and the site may qualify for the Residcntial lnfill density bonus. Howevcr, these bonuses have not been requcsted. Other relcvant policies of the FLUE are notcd bclow with staff comments provided III italics following the policy. Policy 7.1: The County shall encouragc dcvclopcrs and propcrty owners to connect their propcrties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. The project proposes one entrance and it is to Orange Blossom Drive, all urban collector road. Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage intcrnal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and artcrial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. The RPUD Conceptual Master Plan depicts an internal cul-de-sac road within the project; all individual lots or tracts within the project will obtain access from that internal road. Page 2 of 10 Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 3 of 118 Policy 7.3; All new and existing developmcnts shall be encouragcd to connect thcir local strects and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. This project is surrounded by built-out PUDs and single-family residences; therefore it is not feasible, at this time, to connect to the adjacent or surrounding properties. Howel'er, the conceptual master plan shows a potential interconnect to the property located west of the site and east of Sleepy Hollow PUD, fronting along Orange Blossom Drive. Transportation Element: The first concurrency link that is impacted by this project is Link 142, Orange Blossom Drive, between Goodlette-Frank and Airport-Pulling Roads. The project generates 9 PM peak hour, peak direction net new trips, which reprcsents a 1.05 pcrcent impact on Orange Blossom Drive. The project's total PM peak hour, peak dircction trips (existing plus net new) are IS directional trips, a 1.76 percent impact. This segment of Orange Blossom Drive currently has a remaining capacity of 182 trips, and is currently at Level of Service (LOS) "C" as reflected by the 2008 Draft AUIR. No subscqucnt links are found to be significantly impacted by the proposed development as of today; however, recent traffic analyses of the adjacent roadway network (including the traffic 811alysis for this project) indicate that this segment of Orange Blossom Drivc is at risk of exceeding capacity in the five year window. Although recent background traffic data indicates a negative growth rate on this segment, the petitioner has correctly analyzed the background growth using a minimum two percent positive growth rate, as required by the County's adopted Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) Guidelines and Procedures. As such, 811d in accord811ce with recent requirements of nearby zoning actions and GMP amendments, the County has required the developer to contribute the fair share payment of the intersection improvements at Or811ge Blossom Drive 811d Airport Road. Fair share is rcquired to be quantified and paid prior to approval of the first development order on this project. This commitment has been added to Exhibit E as Item 2.B. With this commitmcnt, this project CBll be found consistent with policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental staff has evaluated the proposed rezoning to RPUD. An Environmental Impact Statement was not required for this petition. The subject property was studied 811d mapped for vegetation coverage and use by listed species. No listed species were found on-site. An area designated as Pinc Flatwoods on the Florida Land Use Cover Classification Systcm (FLUCCS) map is located in the southwcst comcr of the site. Staff has evaluated the applicable provisions of the Conservation 811d Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the GMP and finds that this pctition cannot be deemed consistent with the pertinent objectives, goals 811d policies of the CCME unless the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) adopts staffs stipulation addressing required open space as explained below. In accord811ce with CCME Policy 6. I.l, IS percent of the existing native vcgetation must be retained on-site and that native vcgetation must be set aside as preserve areas. This site was the subject of 811 approved SOP (96-107) for a commercial landscape nursery. The site plans for that SDP show the remaining native vcgetation (1.04 acres) was to remain on site as preservation area, with the label "Existing Vegetation to Remain." It has becn determined by the Division Administrator that this project, with its proposal to redevelop as a residential project, is required to keep the existing 15 percent of native vegetation in the redevelopment. The petitioner's agent contends that the native vegetation requirement can be met if 15 percent of the existing 1.04 acres existing vegetation, or 0.15", acres, is preserved, citing his belief that the property has a valid agricultural exemption and tl1e clearing was done in compliance with the agricultural operation, therefore the petitioner is only required to retain IS percent of the existing vegetation, not 15 pcrcent of the entire site as approved originally for the existing development. Page 3 of 10 Agenda Item No. 8B February 10, 2009 Page 4 of 118 Staff therefore requests that Exhibits A 811d C of the PUD document be revised to indicate that 1.04 acres of native vegetation must be preserved not O. 1 Solo acres as shown in the petitioner's exhibits, to be found consistent with CCME Policy 6.1.1. Without thcse changes, staff cannot support this petition, citing its inconsistency with GMP CCME Goal 6, Objection 6.1, and Policy 6.1.1 811d compliance with Land Development Code (LDC) Section 3.0S.07.B. and defers to the Board of County Commissioners for a final ruling of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning to RPUD. 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 811Y rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, 811d staff believes the pctition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as indicated previously in the GMP discussion. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff is recommending that the petition be found consistent with the CCME ONLY IF Exhibits A and C of the PUD document are revised to indicate the petitioner will set aside 1.04 acres of native vegetation as preservation area. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the overall GMP ONLY IF the stipulation is adopted to revise the preservation requirement, and thus based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed uses can be deemed consistent with the goals, objectives 811d policies of the overall GMP. AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT: This request contains no provisions to addrcss the Affordable-Workforce housing demands that it may create. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Environnlental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD dOClunents to address any environmental concerns. This petition was not requircd to submit an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) nor was a hearing before the Environmental AdvisOlY Commission (EAC) required pursuant to LDC section 10.02.022 (a) (b) (c). The site is not located within a Special Treatment (ST) overlay which would also have requircd the submittal of an EIS and the site is below the LDC 10-acre size threshold rcquirement for a tract locatcd landward of the coastal management boundary. However, as noted in the GMP CCME discussion, Environmental Staff believes this petition is consistcnt with the CCME only if 1 .04 acres of native vegetation remains as preservation area, not the petitioner's proposed O.IS", acre of native vegetation preservation area. Although the CCPC recommendation supports the petitioner's contention that the lesser anlount of vegetation is the correct amount to be set aside as preserve area on the PUD Master Plan, staff still contends that 1.04 acres of native vegctation should be the rcquired amount as noted in the GMP discussion above, not the O.IS", proposed by the petitioner. Stalf continues to believe that the notation on the SDP pl811s stating "Existing Vegetation to Remain" is consistent with the rcquirements of the LDC vernacular in use to designate areas to be Page 4 of 10 Agenda Item No. 8B February 10, 2009 Page 5 of 118 preserved when the SOP for the existing use was initial] ad' were not shown as preserve areas but instead we h y . pprove .' At that tIme, preserve areas on this pIBll--"Existing Vegetation to Remain." re s own with notatIons such as what was provided \ I -'" %/h S-{()r'OClf~' ~ Build':':',) ;;;' r/ ~ ~____~~~J~- ----- ':':;J-'" /' ~ ~- ~ 'i~;;r-:~~;~- r -'-;,-N~T ~" dYVdMY" ,r. n' d.r.:-~~~',':.~> ~ ,,-, 1'1 \ I .r,f I .(, ~ I~/~?'"' pa~k:n'i~~-~~: 'I I ~ ~OJl ':a ~ 'L"'l1'K'~Ck w,t/l -- , ~ !'u1}I-lm! "1)"1"''') ~5; Existing Vegeto{ion ~ , , , , , ,~J" To ilernoin ,% ~~ I I I I I I I '- ~ _L.l.W:_~_~._;_; ~;;I,:' '"' ,,," ~ ~'H~J~ -~....-~._,~.-._.~-_.. . Excerpt from Master Site Plan of SDP ~~~~e;:I~:~n that site plBll shows that some areas of the natural vegetation were to be cleared as . . _~,____"-__~/Zq!pl d . . ~ "'-'7'''-''''''-- ~ (2) . , ,( Proposed I C.Jea:'i,r.g or ,/I!:::duro{ "p/~'qr'3tofiOIl . , o;~ '''';:'::::::;7<~ Existing V5'}etaUon to t'!emoiO .. ~:~~';: Excerpt from Master Site Plan of SDP f,' . . 'or'ope/sed /:;;orkinq Spaces ~hat distinction would not have been necessary if there were pl811s t EXlstmg VegetatIon to Remain." 0 clear the area shown as Staffs professional assessmcnt is that it is t . . Remain" as anything less than what it say n~h ap:r?pnate to mterpret "Existing Vegetation to preserved. That area was not set aside ~s ~ e ~x~stmg vegetatIOn was to remain, i.e., to be "Buffers." The "Buffers" and tl "E.. vy huff?r, buffers are clearly labelcd on thc plans as 1e xIstmg eactatlon to R . ." d space on the site plan 811d they are clearly label;d sep t I c~~n ar~as 0 not occupy the SBllle No. 91-102) as it had been Blnended u . . ara e y. eversIOn of the LDC (Ordinance 811d "retained areas of veaetation shall ~euntll that'd tIme hused the tenns "vegetation to be retained" '" preserve m t err entIrcty With all trces, understory, and Page 5 of 10 Agenda Item No. 8B February 10, 2009 Page 6 of 118 ground covers left intact and undisturbed, except for prohibited exotic species removal,..." Itrarely used preserve/preserved (See LDC Section 3.9.5.5.2.). There was discussion at the CCPC hearing about whether the Smallwood Nursery was approved as a commercial project. The petitioner claimed that the project was not a commercial project; it was approved as an agricultural operation. Staff does not support that assessment. An agricultural use would not have required SDP approval then or now. At that time, an agricultural use was only required to submit a "notice of commencement," announcing the intent to clear land for agricultural purposes. "Active Agricultural Uses" are exempt from the requirements of the SDP process. Smallwood Nursery did not follow the "notice of commencement" procedure because the site was not plBlllled to be used as an "Active Agricultural Use," the then existing nursery was being exp811ded into a commercial operation to house a l811dscape business. An SDP was required because the use proposed was (and is) a commercial operation. Staff believes that the CCPC seemed to make a distinction that since there were no retail sales at the site then the use was not a commercial operation. That is not the case. Use of a site for retail sales is not the sole criteria to determine whether a use is commercial. The site is developed as a commercial landscape operation. The principal use of the site does not appear to be the growing of trees/plants; A small amount of plants appear to be growing/grown on site, however plant propagation appears to be a small portion of the overall operation. The area of the site plan designated as "Nursery Area" on the SDP plans (see attached) seems to be used for the operational events of the landscape business, such as truck loading 811d m811euvering when the SOP plan is compared to the aerial photo (also attached). The project was required to meet all commercial development standards of the LDC for parking 811d buffering. Agricultural operations are not so govemed. Building permits were issued in 1996 811d 1997 for the office and mainten811ce buildings. At that time, the Building Department did not issue building permits for farm buildings. The existing buildings were not recognized as farm buildings, they were considered to be commercial structures. The petitioner's agent indicated that the petitioner received an exemption from Collier County that recognized the site as an agricultural opcration. What the petitioner has is a Collier County Property Appraiser's tax emption for an agricultural use. That tax exemption is not the SBllle exemption that would have been recognized by today's LDC standards as authorization to clear for an agricultural use. The site did not qualify for that exemption and was instead required to receive SDP approval because the use is a commercial use. An additional point to consider is that the 1.04 acres set aside is the amount required to comply with the 15 percent preservation requirement per the code. The minimum required is 1.02 acres, 2/1 ooth of 811 acre difference. The SDP identifies the exact acreage required to meet native vegetation requires and that area is designated as "Existing Vegetation to Remain." The area was not labeled as "future phase" or 811ything else that would imply that the petitioner would be using it for anything except preserve. In conclusion, considering the facts as presented 811d as clarified subsequent to the CCPC hearing, staff recommends that the BCC consider that the 1.04 acres be set aside for the preserve area rather than the 0.15 acres as recommended by the CCPC. Page 6 of 10 Agenda Item No. 8B February 10, 2009 Page 7 of 118 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: Because an EIS was not required and there are no impacts to wetlands, this petition was not required to go to the EAC. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard this petition on December 18, 2008; a motion was passed by a vote of 8 to I to forward petition PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. Height shall be limited to 30 feet zoned height and 40 feet actual height for all structures; and 2. The projeet may consist of up to 20 units in either single-family detached, single-fBlllily attached or townhouse structures; but the project shall be limited to only one product type for all units, not a mixture of types; and 3. Townhouse structures shall not exceed 140 feet in length; and 4. Single-fBlllily attached unit's floor area shall be a minimum of 1,000 square feet; and 5. The minimum setback for principal and accessory structures for Orange Blossom Drive shall be 25 feet; 811d 6. The PUD boundary setback shall be no less thBll 25 feet for principal structures along the northern, westem and southem boundaries; the PUD boundary setback along the eastem boundary shall be no less tIl811 15 feet. The accessory setback requirement shall be commensurate with the buffer width provided, i.e., there shall be a 10-foot accessory setback for single-family detached and attached structures; there shall be a IS-foot setback for townhome structures; 811d there shall be a 20-foot wide setback for recreational buildings and clubhouse structures; and 7. All Clubhouse 811d Recreation uses shall be located east of the internal roadway; 811d 8. The developer shall provide Type B pl811tings in a Type A buffer (width) along all pelimeter property boundaries. 9. The developer shall revise the PUD doeument, Exhibit B, Table I to indieate a minimum 25-foot wide setback along the westem 811d southern property boundaries shall be provided. The petitioner's agent revised the PUD documents to incorporate all the recommendations noted above and the revised documents were approved by the CCPC on January 15, 2009 as a consent item. Commissioner Midney did not support the motion to approve this petition stating his belief that the 1.04 acres was intended to be set aside for preservation. Because the CCPC vote was not Ull811imous 811d because there was a letter of objection to the proposed townhomes and single-family attached units, this petition cannot be placed on tIle summary agenda. Page 7 of 10 Agenda Item No. 86 February 10, 2009 Page 8 of 118 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is a site specific rezone from a Rural Agricultural Zoning District to a Residential PIBlllled Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Savannah Place RPUD. Site specific rezones are quasi-judicial in nature and ex pm1e disclosures are required. The burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rczone is consistent with all the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to thc Board of County Conunissioners (BCe), should it consider denying the rezone, to dctermine that such denial would not be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that thc proposal does not meet one or more of the listed critcria below. Criteria for RPUD Rezones Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in maldng a determination for approval or not. 1. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattem of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding arcas, traffic and acccss, drainage, sewer, water, 811d other utilities. 2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control 811d 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 811d mainten811ce 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 onlv after consultatio/l ,vith the COU/lty Attorney. 3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed RPUD with the goals, objectives 811d policies of the Growth M811agement Plan. 4. Consider: The intemal and cxtemal compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, 811d buffering md screening requirements. 5. Is there 811 adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development? 6. Consider: Thc timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public 811d private. 7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansIOn. 8. Consider: Conformity with RPUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular casc, bascd on dctermination that such modifications are justified as mceting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Page 8 of 10 Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 9 of 118 9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, 811d policies and future lB11d use map 811d the elements of the Growth M811agement Phm? 10. Will the proposed RPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing I811d use pattern? 11. Would the requested RPUD Rezone result in the possible creation of 811 isolated district unrelated to adjacent 811d nearby districts? 12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the propeliy proposed for change. 13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. 14. Will the proposed ch811ge adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? 15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types 0 f traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding l811d uses, bccause of pcak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety? 16. Will the proposed ch811ge 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 811 individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 21. Are there substantial rcasons 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 chm'acteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for 811Y of the ral1ge of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. 25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed RPUD rezone on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in Page 9 of 10 Agenda Item No. 8B February 10, 2009 Page 10 of 118 the Collier County Growth MBllagement Plan 811d as defined 811d implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch.l 06, art.II], as amended. 26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the RPUD 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, in eluding 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. The proposed Ordinance was prepared by the County Attomey's Office. A supermajority vote is necessary for Board action.--HF AC RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve Petition PUDZ-2007-AR- 12026 subject to the conditions of approval that have been incorporated in the Ordinance of Adoption as that document has been revised to reflect the CCPC recommendation Blld further subj ect to the stipulation that Exhibits A Blld C of the PUD document shall be revised to indicate that 1.04 acres of native vegetation must be preserved not 0.15", acres as shown in the petitioner's exhibits. PREPARED BY: Kay Deselem, A1CP, Principal Planner Department of Zoning and L811d Development Review Page 10 of 10 Item Number: Item Summary: Meeting Date: Page lof2 Agenda Item No. 8B February 10, 2009 Page 11 of 118 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 88 This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members: PUDZ-2007-AR-12026: Stephen J. Lockwood, Trustee for SJL Realty II Trust, represented by Heidi Williams, AICP, of Q Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and Richard D. Yovanovich. Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich & Koester, PA., requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the Savannah Place RPUD, to allow development of a maximum of 20 townhouse, single-family attached or single~family detached dwelling units. The subject 6_81 acre property is located on the south side of Orange Blossom Drive approximately one half mile west of Airport Road (CR 31), in Section 2, Township 49 South', Range 25 East Collier County, Florida. (CTS) 2/10/2009 90000 AM Prepared By Date Kay Deselem, AIC? Community Development & Environmental Services Principal Planner Zoning & Land Development Review 9/22/20089:15:26 AM Approwd By Date Judy Puig Community Development & Environmental Services Operations Analyst Community Development & Environmental Services Admin. 1/23/2009 9:01 AM Approved By Date Jeff Klatzkow County Attorney Assistant County Attorney County Attorney Office 1/26/20094:59 PM Date Approved By Susan Istenes, Ale? Community Development & Environmental Services Zoning & Land Development Director Zoning & Land Development Review 1/27/20098:48 AM Appro\'ed By Norm E. Feder, AICP Transportation Services Transportation Division Administrator Transportation Services Admin. Date 1/27/20091:20 PM Approved By Joseph K. Schmitt Community Development & Environmental Services Community Development & Environmental Services Adminstrator Date Community Development & Environmental Services Admin. 1/27/20092:29 PM Date Approved By Heidi F. Ashton County Attorney Assistant County Attorney County Attorney Office 1/27/20093:21 PM Approved By Date Ray Bellows Community Development & Chief Planner Zoning & Land Development Review 1/28/20098:49 AM fi le://C:\Agenda T est\Export\] 23 -F ebruary%20 1 0,%202009\08. %20ADVER TI SED%20PUB... 2/4/2009 Page 2 of2 Agenda Item No. 86 February 10, 2009 Page 12 of 118 Environmental Services Approved By Nick Casalanguida MPO Director Date Transportation Services Transportation Planning 1/28/200910:06 AM Appro'r'cd By OMS Coordinator OMS Coordinator Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 1/28/2009 10:34 AM Approved By Mark Isackson Budget Analyst Office of Management & Budget Date County Manager's Office 1/30/20095:05 PM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County Commissioners County Manager's Office 21312009 2:27 PM file://C:IAgendaTestIExportl 1 23-Februarv%20 ] 0, %202009108.%20ADVER Tl SED%20PUB... 2/4/2009 OJ"'''' ~;:: '0 c~~ 2 em -rooo ro ::> ro -g..ao... ill ill ooLL. <( I { i ~" Ii I . ! i 1 I I I I I I I I I ! ~~ .{~: ~,q fU F: ; I \ \ i i 1,-----::'.""':'''---- ~~~~~~~~, i __- ~~-~T--,-"--r~ '~ , I "" '.1'1 " .!' "-, ,c, ~: I ] ..,,-, _~J111;, l ';\' I. i} ~ I ..----- I" I' ! '. , t ~ I .....}I L ~ ;l '~'\ ",0 ~ 2'q ~ \ \ i~!:~ I \ al I \ I -~ 1-----'-"'.--1 \ :"".1: ,,' ~ ,";::, 1\ ~, I. ~, I I \-\~~ I : I.: ;' , 'i 1 ~. ,I 1:_ 0",_= ._'] l ~ I "'1 ~~ 0 0' '<. ~ I ;1' I" ;'l;-j \ ~ I I [: ~ 1'~ ! //-= - ~----- ~ l ..,,,,., .J7;?'" ~:<.; ~~' , I ~ r -_ -..... "" / t/" t ~ '~i / ~ "J'l --...... ~_ "" '" ____- J>; ~ .~~, \1: :;p<~=~~:::~~--~~~~" \,1 ~ r ! ' / - ~'I eo : , L"j I, "! _____ ___,__ - - --./ ~ ~I '] I' ,.~ ,'\ \ ~~ ( ~:~ /?t I 'I, \ d ---------- ---~-~~ \ !I,/ ~~ I=-1 \ 0009~ 3 ..;: :~h'""' ~ I 'I'~ 6!! \ i . I IL ~_~ - --=:: \ \ 1 i I~; ';ccGff\' \ I i I 'j 1 Ii! \ I ;i~~.: I '.il 1.,. ! \ i I io:,\' \ j/;\ I ",'!;!"';, I" '" I' : i ~1\ \' ~~'.L i /. \ j;l~,-i l"I'~:~!r!!!1 '1:';;11];: i! ,I \ \ I, -~,.~ I l'-l!1 ',' ,i.:,. n,:~J ,~~~ J:~ ~ "1'j', Ii;: ',', \ j I iJ \ ) ,03/ (~ G~~ ! B :w ;:"r 1. i" i' I'"~ i';:;! i",~ i: II i ~ "';:::' /\i~ " 0'1:, \. I i (Ill I II I '-, ;,1; g -l-~ L(~~e'" -~-] .' . II..J- 'I" I!! I~~~h! ~r 'i]~~I~1 J._,H>!.:~i&i~~:-~ai. \ '" J', 11\K- L~ . . .A.!.- :b;,~,~~r,~;.I~1! ~1~::~; ~:1!~.,~!tli.B,:~~.:~~.H~~'1 s 8 \. \~ \ ---:-1 J . J ~'--,--l '. !'d ~..5~ -,'\)-, ~1"lV."~J't. <J;:~. '. }" -,.".,-.,.:. . .\' \. __.../.. ___,' Ii' 1 ~W,Ofj ,-~,. >';o~"d' '~~""',;-"d~'l' ,'; ~.:~ ~.~'t" ," 3 \ .._-\\-~,~;:;;rlL=".';.:~~ :.11'. if.:! '..",o.d ~,-~1,,::<!h,SI..!'i,,:.b,~~.-".~~11 11 1 i ;"'x~'\~~ ';,i~- . . , \ . LL_'-____._ -'____,J I I I I \ 1'"'-'''"",."""..,. ""W'.p<."._ U'-'", iiiil'<' 'sDu:,sSCJ:J ~'-'1 ,'eo<' -' ,,"'.Z, ,"'~ I I I 11 I I \ " I ~ ~ ;~ c- :1 1: ~ ~ ~ {,j '. t; i I I I ! ; o . . , " N~ / "'-===~~~ \, ,,"""')'o")",,--")":")J,:X:" ----,--:" =~=.==,"-'='""':= -=====I=-_,,--=~-= o.7=='=- = -:::::: :::-:::::: .~-: :::.~.~7-... ,~--,~ (~D~Z~r~;,"~';~;~E~~E~:~~: =..~ = ~~ ~ =~~ -=~~--~,,~ - ~-- -~----------_._~----- , "'. _C:~ ". '" Q ~. -'>'\ ~ S 'I I ~_ 'b~~~ ~ ;,' }. ~~~ z ~. I :-i~:~J ~. y , ~'Oil~ ~ -l'i < ~:i ~i' ~!I & 1, g. , ~ r i i . _0,'. . C\ r~' I ! " ]!! , J: "0.1 " _ ~ 5 0: J" _~ A . li,~ ~ ~'@) r t 'G'9I'-w ~ ) I :0;1" '-.::: V 3!~ V5 ~l~ ~ v" ::;f; I , I ~ :~~\SJ 1 I I ' I 'E) ~,- 1~~I!i ~\ ~li'~1 !~ "'~I i~i~i .'}'.,,, "I iC:-s;,""Cc-;;::' !f~~ ~i :m i~W~! 1,rr~\ ,~~ I ;~~~l \~~~l i~v~'1 i~""..;;~ !r0-'~l !,~~gl ifJ-: ~ gl \\'y~ (> '+1 i ~"~I . I , I I ,. i ;.!~',.I~I~:" i;:;;I:;;~I1< I l~'~:;!;ig:1 :1 ,,,!,.I,,,., 10' I""::'! . lil',I'II II' '1< ; ,i'I'._j 111I,I:'ll' , I, ,,,, : Iii: i \jl I 1 I I I I~, . _L~ LJ 111"1 'I' ']l : I~~I , I' ':"1 ! III ! !-:~1 , ~ ~ .,. III 0)(" ",o~ .o~ ON_ Z _0 ~~-q- ij) >."- :,:::~Cl) ttl ~ 0} -o.::'(1j "no.. Q)<ll (J)ll.. -0: Agenda Item No. 88 AGEND\\~~g~bfn~ Co~r Cou.n:ty - '- ~ ~_...-- STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 18,2008 SUBJECT: SAVANNAH PLACERPUD, PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: OWNER: AGENTS: Stephen J. Lockwood, Tr SJL Realty II Trust 9 Atlantic Ave Marblehead MA 01945 Heidi Williams, AICP Q. Grady Minor & Assoc. 3800 Via Del Rey 4001 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 ill chard Y ovanovich, esquire Goodlette, Coleman, & Johnson, et al Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 REOUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCpe) consider a rezone of the subject site from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the Savannah Place RPUD. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located at on the south side of Orange Blossom Drive approximately a half mile west of Airport Road (CR 31), in Section 2, TovI'I1ship49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map onfollowing page) PURPOSEillESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposed 6.8};, acre RPUD, if approved, will allow development of a maximum of 20 dwelling units which may be any combination of single-family detached, single-family attached, or townhouses Ul1its. The remainder of the site will be utilized for swndard accessory mnenities, landscape buffers, parking, drive aisles and water management area. The master plan shows an approximate layout of the site to include a water management lake, the intemal traffic circulation pattern and tile proposcd project boundary buffering. The proposed property development PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 Savannah Place December 18, 2008 cepe Rev: 11/20/08 Page 1 of 10 aJO>OO OOO~ o~ ON,a ZOc.o E~~ Q) CO) =lijO) r:l :J ro "O~[L c.o ill '" rnl.1- <C or ~ :J. i 0..' c~ . ~ ~ ,uJlj3$J'tA :J" 0.. "'" eL! m ~ <( , ~ ~ ~I 31 ri ~ 0 , u. <.9 ~ (/) , 'g~ g~ 0: o~~ Z eL5 ,~ - z 0 N :n<xol.OH / ",,-_ - " , 1;I-;ll\'J.W2>I. ~ i if ~K . le ~ id ! ~ . . , I --C'o'OIIII()~ i · i! . i- i~ ~-- - - II ! ;n I .h I ii"i ~ i ! , III , ~ ioqlliJ~~ . M~-I · I! Ii . 1\~-i1\\'2>'>Il'-"1 . !! 1.'; . , - , . . "- '" '" N . N Cl :0 D- " Z o ;:: r- w D- 0- <( ~ z o I- <( o o -l mOHO ~;: '- o r-- L '-... (j) >- Q) =rocn ro::;:;ro ~..ao.. ",<ll Ol"- <( 11 h Ii ~. ,~ ....""'...--...- ~[';~:~j'l -_..... "1 , I -".-....-..... i f' -''''''-'..- j ! , I ... ---. ....-.: r' . > , ..__.......Jll j , . ------. _._.~ ~ ~~ !j Ii h I I II I~ !I n i 51 . ! ~! ,i 4e;."r,.:..."c,"""""e, 'lil:r'~1! ~ ; ~~ ~.. .~"~ ~llllj . p--Ji I -'-'-'- -~.. '". l~::i ,L.. .. 0"\ 11,.' .. ) <o<.d . .... ..- ~ If". I' ~":::-=(--w:_=_:>;:=_:_.:_::.:_~:~ ',:.-./ In! _.- - "oO I I .. ~~ 'I II. -I I Iii - fi~ ", '" ~, 'I Ii ,(-..-----......"1 U i~ n - Ii I i;\ l--;l i ~ ~ ~~~+i Ii ~ "U' "..) !! ~i i.~~~;'"':":_:.F::'L:=_,:;"-;:o_"_::=_;:,,QM{b. iolJ fi !,S( .< Ii!! ili- ~ !.d n H H ~i<I 8~ IS ~ ~ m Ii il f i ! i ~i rill ::! ~~... ~:!i , '"<1 ,~ < . " '~i~ liP HI u n ':l:''f ~.. d ~M !~ i I I~i l~!! " ,g i ~ J, . ~i ,~ . 5' I ' .... ~ " ~ ~ m... oj In 18 ~ .... '" ~p h~ .. . o~ ,~ h ~g " ~~ i I" " ~ I II>> I I !3 5 ~ .. ~ ~ ()~ .:s ~< Q" iii:::: '" ~oI " Wi' ~ fu " u ~ 1> '" u " I ::~ ' ~il! II o. ! v,.' I ~!Il ! i ! ~~15 'I ! ~~. I! :Eli I I >< . ~1 . ~I" ! ~! I '! , ~~ ~ I mOHO ooo~ .o~ o"'~ Z _0 E~CO '" ~ =::CCD co ~ 2Jl ~lso.. ijjaJ ",lJ.. <( II 11 s Ph" "' II II I ~l If Ii U l- ! i i h I 1~ 1 ~ ':. ,~, c." ..", """,,,J'"""7' '"' 7 """'=, iJ-.- '--.. / 1.. ',' id 'i! ,., -I::,:;;::'~::'"::::~~""::::lf \ --~ o~.. ill Ii: ~ / ::i " J 'II ~. : :;'~ .- "'--"\ ". ~ ::! ;~ ;:! i ~~ ~ ~t ::! "'~ : ~ \ ""Ii: u:> s' .!I "i'" Ii ,!~'" ::g~ In , ~ l ,!!! 8 :;" I " ;: : .' ~:.:O'.,,::.:.:::j:: = ~::: . . ,_<:::/11 r - .---.. - -' -- .1 _ _.__.=_~_~._..:'l ,~ II fl Pi d~ '--.: ------. . -~ f ,R !~ JI;~lg~o .i it fl ~dl ~~:~ i. ..'~ ' _~ ~. 'O!! i~ a'" ~i ; ~ ", :1 iH' g " . " Ii l'~ h .I I ~~,.!! ~11;o ,~ ~c I' . ~.~' a ~ p !~. h ! ,~ .~i ,~~ II i It ......,.......... _1__ I ~ 2 tl q;~ ~ ;2'!1 ~ fbl'l '" u' iI 6~ ~ u~ ~ ~ ~I,l I ~Jil'l I ~r ~ ~!Ul! ~ I ~U~.i l ~!. I! I ~111!1 j O~I 66 ! .::;~' . ':,. I' I I " I , f 'F ! I -r' I I I '!d ! !W,' ,: ~' I @1:1 . I I I I Aaenda Item No. 8B ~February 10, 2009 Page 19 of 118 slB11dards are provided in the PUD document. The petitioner is not seeking BllY deviatioll8 from the Land Development Code (LOC) reqnirements. The property is currently utilized as a landscape nursery business. Site Development Plan (SOP) 96-107 and a subsequent insubstantial chB11ge to the SDP were reviewed and approved by County staff for the Smallwood Nursery in February 1997. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North; OrBllge Blossom Drive, then, single-fBlllily home sites within Heron Pointe at the Crossings subdivision (1.69 Wlits per acre), with a zoning designation of PUD (Sleepy Hollow POO) East: Cay Lagoon Condominiums, multi-fBlllily uses (5.87 units per acre), with a zoning designation of PUD (Cay Lagoon POO); Blld a vacBllt two-acre tract; and 2, one-acre tracts developed with single-fumily homes--all with a zoning designation ofRSF-I South; The Crossings at Mill Run, single fBlllily use (1.69 units per acre) with a zoning designation of PUD (Sleepy Hollow PUD) West The Crossings at Mill Run, single fBlllily use (1.69 units per acre) with a zoning designation ofPOO (Sleepy Hollow PUD); and a 1.8-acl'e single-fBlllily home site, with a zoning designation ofRSF-l Aerial Photo PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 Savanneh Place December 18, 2008 ccpe Rev: 11/20/08 Page 2 of 10 Agenda item No. 8B February 10,2009 Page 20 of 118 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated within the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan and is within the Traffic Congestion Area. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of four dwelling unil~ per acre. This district is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential uses, including mixed-use developments such as Plmmed Unit Developments, Also the property lies within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) as identified in the Transportation Element of the GMP. Relevant to this petition, the residential and recreational uses proposed to be permitted in the RPUD are consistent with the Urban Mixed Use DistricVUrbBll Residential Subdistrict. The Density Rating System provides for a base density of four dwelling units per acre in the Urban Residential Subdistrict; density is calculated based upon the gross project acreage. Because the site is located in the Traffic Congestion Area, the density is reduced by one dwelling unit, for a total allowable density of three dwelIing units per acre (du/a) or 20.43 dwelling units for tile entire project. Staff notes that tile property could seek to qualitY for three additional du/a based on the TCMA density bonus and the site may qualitY for the Residential Infill density bonus. However, these bonuses have not been requested. Other relevant policies of the FLUE are noted below with staff comments provided in italics following the policy. Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers Blld property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such cOllilection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. Tlte project prOpOf,.eS one entrance and it is to Orange Blossom Drive, an urban collector road. Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage intemal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector 811d arterial roads 811d minimize the need for traffic signals. Tile RPUD Conceptual Master Plan depicts alt illfernal cul-de-sac road wit/tin the project; all iltdividual lots or tracts within the project will obtain access from that internal road. Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of I811d use type. This project is surrounded by bui/t-out PUDs altd single family residellces; therefore it is lIot feasible, at this time, to cOn/teet to tlte arljaceftt or surroultding properties. However, the conceptual master plait shows a potential intercoJlnect to tlte property located west of tlte site and east of Sleepy Hollow PUD,fronting along Oraltge Blos~'om Drive. PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 Savannah Place December 1 S, 2008 eepe Rev: 11/20/08 Page 30f 10 Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 21 of 118 TranspnrtatiDD Element: The first concurrency link that is impacted by this project is Link 142, Or811ge Blossom Drive, between Goodlette-Frank and Airport-Pulling Roads. The project generates 9 PM peak hour, peak direction net new trips, which represents a 1.05 percent impact on Orange Blossom Drive. The project's total PM peak hour, peak direction trips (existing plus net new) are 15 directional trips, a 1.76 percent impact. This segment of Orange Blossom Drive currently has a relllilining capacity of 182 trips, and is currently at Level of Service (LOS) "C" as reflected by the 2008 Draft AUIR. No snbsequent links are found to be significantly impacted by the proposed development as of today, however, recent traffic analyses of the adjacent roadway network (including the traffic analysis for this project) indicate that this segment of Orange Blossom Drive is at risk of exceeding capacity in the five year window. Although recent backb'1'Ound traffic data indicates a negative growth rate on this segment, the petitioner has correctly analyzed the background growth using a minimum two percent positive growth rate, as required by the County's adopted TlS Guidelines and Procedures. As such, and in accordance with recent requirements of nearby zoning actions and GMP amendments, the County has required the developer to contribute the fair share payment of the intersection improvements at Orange Blossom Drive 811d Airport Road. Fair share is required to be quantified and paid prior to approval of the flIst development order on this project. This commitment has been added to Exhibit E as Item 2.8. With this commitment, this project C811 be found consistent with policy 5.1 ofthe TrBllsportation Element ofthe GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental staff has evaluated the proposed rezoning to RPUD. An Environmental Impact Statement was not required for this petition. The subject property was studied and mapped for vegetation coverage and nse by listed species. No listed species were found on-site. An area designated as Pine Flatwoods on the Florida Land Use Cover Classification System (FLUCCS) map is located in the southwest corner of the site. Staff has evaluated the applicable provisions of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the GMP and finds that this petition cannot be deemed consistent with the pertinent objectives, goals and policies of the CCME unless the Collier County Planning Commission (CCl'C) adopts staff's stipulation addressing required open space as explained bclow. In accordance with CCME Policy 6.1.1, 15 percent of the existing native vegetation must be retained on-site and that native vegetation must be set aside as preserve areas. This site was the subject of Bll approved SDP (96-107) for a commercial landscape nursery. The site plans for that SDP show the remaining native vegetation (1.04 acres) was to remain on site as preservation area, with the label "Existing Vegetation to Remain." It has beell detelmined by the Division Administrator that this project, with its proposal to redevelop as a residential project, is required to keep the existing 15 percent of native vegetation in the redevelopment. The petitioner's agent contends that the native vegetation requirement can be mct if 15 percent of the existing 1.04 acres existing vegetation, or 0.15"' acres, is preserved, citing his bclief that the properly has a valid agricultural exemption and the clearing was done in compliance with the agricultural operation, therefore the petitioner is only required to retain 15 percent of the existing vegetation, not 15 percent of the entire site. PUDZ-2007.AR-12026 Savannah Place December 18. 2008 eepe Rev: 11120108 Page 4 0110 Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 22 of 118 Staff therefore requests that Exhibits A and C of the PUD document be revised to indicate that 1.04 acres of native vegetation must be preserved ill!! 0.15;' acres as shown in the petitioner's exhibits, to be found consistent with CCME Policy 6.1.1. Without these ch811ges, staff canuot support this petilion, citing its inconsistency with GMP CCME Goal 6, Objecti011 6.1, Blld Policy 6.1.1 and compliance with LBlld Development Code (LDC) Section 3.05.07.B. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support IBlld use decisions such as this proposed rezoning to CPUD. Staff is required to make a reconunendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A fmding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall fmding that is required, 811d staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as indicated previously in the GMP discussion. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff is reconunending that the petition be found consistent with the CCME ONLY IF Exhibits A and C of the PUD document are revised to indicate the petitioner will set aside 1.04 acres of native vegetation as preservation area. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the overall GMP ONLY IF the stipulation is adopted to revise the preservation requirement, and thus based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed uses can be deemed consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the overall GMP. ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this I811d use petition and the criteria on which a determination must be based. These criteria are specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Sections 10.02.13 and 10.02.13.B.5. The staff evaluation establishes a factual basis to support the recommendations of staff. The Collier County Planning Conunission (CCPe) uses these same criteria as the basis for the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request, These evaluations are completed as separate documents and are attached to the staff report (See . Attachments A and B). Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition 811d the PUD documents to address any environmental concerns. This petition was not required to submit 811 Environment Impact Statement (EIS) nor was a hearing before the Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC) required pursuant to LDC section 10.02.02 2 (a) (b) (c). The site is not located within a Special Treatment CST) overlay which would also have required the submittal of an ms. However, as noted in the GMP CCME discussion, Staff believes this petition is consistent with the CCME only if 1.04 acres of native vegetation remains as preservation area, not the petitioner's proposed 0.15;' acre of native vegetation preservation area. Transportation Review: TrBllsporlation Department Staff has reviewed the petition and has recommended approval with the commitments contained in the PUD document, Exhibit E to address minimum throat length and intersection improvements. PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 Savannah Place December 18. 2008 eepe Rev: 11120108 Page 5 of 10 Agenda Item No. 8B February 10, 2009 Page 23 of 118 Utility Review: The Utilities Department Staffhas reviewed the petition and notes the following: This project is located within Collier County Water Blld Sewer District 811d is su~ject to the conditions associated with a Water and Sewer Availability Letter from the Collier County Utilities Division at the time SDP approval. Per GIS, there is a 12-inch water main and a 24 inch force main along Orange Blossom Drive. Emerf!encv Manaf!ement Review: Emergency Management staff provided the following comment: The SavB11llah I'lace RPUD is located in a CAT 3 hurricane surge zone which requires evacuation during some storm events. The Emergency Management Department has no issues with this PUD. Parks and Recreation Review: Parks and Recreation staff did not provide comments fur this petition. Enf!illeerinf!/Water Manal!ement: Collier County Engineering staff asked the petitioner to address the design and constrm:tion of a single three-inch (maximum) bleeder into the 01'llnge Blossom Road storm drain system. The petitioner added the required language into PUD Exhibit E. item 3. Zoninf! Review: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria upon which a determination is based. The criteria are noted in Sections 10.02.13 and 10.02.13.B.5 of the Land Development Code (LDC). The staff evaluation establishes 811 accurate basis to support the recommendations of staff. The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) uses the same criteria as the basis for their recOIillnendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. These evaluations are completed as separate documents and are attached to the staff report (Attachment "A" and Attachment "B''). Staff has evaluated the uses proposed and their intensities 811d/or densities; the development standards such as building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers; building mass; building location and orientation; the amount and type of open space 811d its location; and traffic generation/attraction of the proposed uses. The proposed property development regulations are proposed that will allow the configuration and combination of uses that are proposed. A minimum lot area of 5,000 square is proposed for the single-family detached units and a minimum lot area of 3, 500 square feet is proposed for the single family attached units. A minimum floor area of 1,000 is proposed for the single-family attached nnits and 750 square feet minimum floor area is proposed for the single-family attached units, with 20-foot front and 15- foot rear setbacks for the two single-family unit types and a 20-foot front and rear setback for the clubhouse/recreation buildings or townhouse buildings. Side setbacks are proposed to be 7.s feet for the single-family detached units; 6/0 feet side setbacks are proposed for the single-family attached units and 7.5 feet will be the side setback for townhouse units. Actual building heights are not to exceed 45 feet. No numbcr of stOlY limitation is proposed for any unit type. The surrounding properties-to the north, west and south are developed with single-family homes sites located within various subdivisions within the Sleepy Hollow POD. That PUD limited overall project density to 1.69 units per acre; however two distinct lot types were approved in that PUD with lot size minimums of 10,800 square feet and 6,000 square feet and PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 Savannah Piace December 18, 200B cepe Rev: 11120108 Page 6 of 10 Agenda Item No. 86 February 10, 2009 Page 24 of 118 correspondingly larger setback requirements. The lots to the south and west of the subj ect site are developed with larger lots, at approximately 12,000 square feet each, which corresponds to the lot type A as described in the Sleepy Hollow PUD Ordinance (Ord_ # 88-25). To the east is a multi-family condominium project approved at a density of 5.87 units per acre. The subject property's density, at three units per acre, would be slightly less than the average density of the two adjacent PUD zoned projects. The Master Plan for SavB11llah Place shows that a 15-foot wide Type B buffer will be provided along the project perimeter if townhomes are constructed and a 10-foot wide Type A buffer will be provided along the project perimeter if the site is developed with single-fBlllily homes sites. The residential uses proposed should be compatible with the surrounding area however staff is concerned that the proposed property development regulations do not comport with the general development patterns of the neighborhood and suggests that increased setbacks 811d larger lots would be appropriate arid more compatible with what currently exists in the area. SETBACK COMPARISON TABLE (Principal Structures) PRO.JEeT FRONT REAR SIDE LOT AREA HEIGHT FROM PUD NAME BOUNDARY Savannah Place 20 feet 15 feet 6f7,5 5,000/3,500 35 feel (zoned) 5 feet feet' sq ft" 45 feel (actual) 25 or 30 Sleepy Hollow 30 feel feet 10 1 0,800 sq. ft. 30 feet 30 feet for (LotType A) perimeter feet (unspecified) perimeter lots iots 30 feet and Cay Lagoon .. .. 15 N/A--all multi- two stories 25 feet family bldgs. above base flood elevation . . single family attached I single-fmlli1y detached . ** Cay Lagoon has a special perimeter buffering requirement as follows; "A landscape buffer 25 feet wide shall be placed along the eastern, southern, and western boundaries of the project A landscaped buffer 30 feet wide shall be placed along the northern boundary and the northern 16 feet of this buffer shall only be grassed m'eas that is located within the future 16 foot right-or-way. These buffers shall include at a minimum: a fence or wall at least 4 feet in height, trees spaced no more than 25 feet on center, be at least 80 percent opaque up to a height of 6 feet within 1 year of planting, and an 8 foot wide jogging path/vehicular maintenance aceess path." (Ordinance No. 92-037, Scction 3.4.E.) Staff believes it would be appropriate to increase the setbaeks along the western and southern boundaries to no less than 25 feet and increase the lot sizes to at least 9,000 square f~et for the single-family attached and 6,000 square feet for the single family detached units. The larger lot PUDZ-2007.AR-12026 Savannah Place December 18, 2008 cepe Rev: 11120/08 Page 7 of 10 Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 25 of 118 size is based upon the fact that although a minimum of 10,800 square feet could have been developed within Sleepy Hollow PUD, the proximate lots are 12,000 square feet. The important issue is that the lots should be larger than what is proposed in the Savannah Place PUD document, in order to enhance compatibility between the projects. The proposed zoned building height within Savannah Place is more than what was approved and developed within the Sleepy Hollow PUD. While the Sleepy Hollow PUD was developed with mostly one story homes, there is no restriction within that PUD that limits homes to one story. It is therefore conceivable that some homes could be remodeled or rebuilt to include a second story. The Sleepy Hollow PUD does establish a minimum floor area for two story homes, therefore such structures were contemplated as possibilities when the PUD was approved. Staff is of the opinion that this project can be deemed compatihle and consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5,4 if the setbacks and lot sizes are increased as noted above. Another outstanding issue with this petition relates to the required native vegetation. Staff and the petitioner's agent are not in agreement with the amount that should be set aside. Staff has included a stipulation to address our concerns. , ENvmONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL mAn RECOMMENDATION: This petition did not trigger the need for a hearing before the EAC. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMA nON MEETING (NIM): The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the NIM for this petition on October 3, 2007 at 5:30 pm at the North Collier Government Center conference room, 2335 Orange Blossom Drive. At that time, the petitioner was proposing development of a maximum of 75 dwelling units with an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement authorizing the developer to utilize affordable housing bonus density units in the amount of 45 units at 8.0 bonus density units pel' acre. Approximately 90 persons signed the attendance log, along with the applicant's team and county staff. The majority of the public's comments, questions, and conCerns focused on 1) density, 2) traffic impacts, and 3) the "affordable housing" element of the proposed development. Other questions Were asked relative to landscaping buffers and building architecture. Additionally, some present asked about parking, noise levels and school concurrency. There was considerable opposition voiced about the affordable housing aspect of the proposed project. One of the last speakers in the audience said, "The development doesn't fit the neighborhood; that's the problem". The meeting concluded at approximately 7:15 pm. Another NIM was required pursuant to Ordinance 07-67 Section.1O.03.05.F.2.d. That NIM was held November 6, 2008 at 5:30 PM at the North Collier Government Center conference room with the meeting having been duly noticed by the agent. Approximately 25 persons, the applicant's team, and county staff were present. The applicant's agent, Ms. Heidi Williams of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, presented an overview of the proposed project, explaining that the current conceptual site plan has been PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 Savannah Place December 18, 2008 cepe Rev: 1112010B Page 8 of 10 Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 26 of 118 revised from the plans presented at the October 3, 2007 NIM. The petitioncr is currcntly requesting a rczone from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to thc Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district to allow development of a maximum of 20 townhouses, single-family attached or single-family detached, dwelling units not to exceed a height of 35 feet. The site is slightly less than seven acres and will not exceed a density of three units per acre. Ms. Williams explained that water management, a Preserve area, parking, exotic species removal, and landscape buffers, will be providcd according to the LDC rcquirements. She also statcd that the Transportation Departmcnt requested the access road into the development be relocated to tine up with Timberline Drive. Members of the public had questions regarding landscape buffers, drainage, density, parking, price range of the homes, amenities, presence of environmental hazards, and the height of the units. One resident was also concerned with the possibility of protected species being present, stating that she has seen an eagle and a hawk flying in the area, Residents questioned if there would be deceleration lanes or turning lanes and the agent stated that this would be determined by the Transportation Department bascd on the number of trips generated by the new development. Numerous people in the audience stated that it would be much easier to support the project if the agent could present more detailed plans. The agent explained that the applicant is seeking a rezone with three different housing types to be allowed so that the developer is not limited to a certain type of development. Additionally the agent mentioned that final plans cannot be determined until there is a devcloper, which at this time, there is not. The meeting concluded at approximately 6:45 p.m. (Synopsis provided by Michele McGonagle, CDES Administrative Secretary) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Pctition PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval subject to the following stipulations: I) Exhibits A and C of the PUD document shall be revised to indicate that 1.04 acres of native vegetation must be preserved not 0.15,1, acres as shown in the petitioner's exhibits; and 2) The developer shall revise the PUD document, Exhibit B, Table I to indicate minimum lots sizes shall be no less than 9,000 square feet for single-family detached units and 6,000 square feet for single-family attached units; and 3) The developer shall revise the PUD document, Exhibit B, Table I to indicate a minimum 25 foot wide setback along the western and southern property boundaries shall be provided; and 4) Furthennore, approval is subject to the conditions of approval that have already been incorporated in the Ordinance of Adoption. PUDZ-20D7-AR-12026 Savannah Place December 18, 2008 eepe Rev; 11/20/08 Page 9 of 10 Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 27 of 118 PREPARED BY: ~ II-f7-0g- KA D ELEM, AlCl', PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEP ARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: II---- . BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER NT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Il-&-\-O~ DATE g~ '-1'YI.ls~po /SUSAN M. lSTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW II /7--Y /08 tlATE 10 HEIDI ASH 0 -CICKO ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY 12-/1/()f( DATE APPROVED BY: ....- K~ ~hNq . SCHMITT ADMINISTRATOR . 'DATE ITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DMSION Ten ively scheduled for the February 10,2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: ~ i'l i QAt.. V V i (I..v It f}JiCLi ,"",,- MARK P. iSTRAIN, CHAIRMAN 11 ,r8. be DATE Attachments: A. Rezone Findings B. PUD Findings PUDZ-2007-AR.12026 Savannah Place December 18,2008 cepe Rev; 11/20108 Page 10 of 10 Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 28 of 118 ATTACHMENT A REZONE FINDINGS PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 SAVANNAH PLACE RPUD Chapter 10.03.05,0 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and recommendations of the Plmming Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following, where applicable: 1. Whether' the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the clements of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The GMP and FLUM discussion of the staff repOlt (beginning on page 3 of that document) provides a detailed analysis of this project's consistent with the FLUM and the clements of the GMP. The subject propcrty is designated Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, as identified on the FLUM of the GMP, TIlis Subdistrict allows residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre as discussed in the staff report. The petitioner is seeking approval of a residential project with several possible unit types at a maximum density of 3 dweliing units per acre, There is disagreemcnt betwcen staff and the petitioner regarding the amount of native vegetation that must be preserved pursuant to GMP Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy 6. 1.1; staff has included a stipulation to address that issue. Staff has conCCl"I1S about the project's compatible and has offered conditions that would require the petition to increase setbacks and lot sizes so the project will be more in keeping with the character ofthe neighborhood. 2. The existing land use pattel'll; Properties to the north, west mld south are developed with single-family homes sites located within various subdivisions within the Sleepy Hollow PUD. To the east is a multi-family condominium. Tbe uses proposed should be compatible with the surrounding area and staff is of the opinion that this project can be deemed consistent with OMP FLUE Policy 5A if staffs stipulations to address increases in setbacks and tot sizes are incorporated into any approval. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; There are residential PUD zoned projects to the east, south and west of this site. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that this petition will not create an isolated district. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property pr'oposed for change. The proposed zoning boundaries follow tbe existing property ownership boundaries that result in all L-shapcd tract Tberefore, staff is of the opinion that the existing boundaries are logically drawn in relation to existing conditions, Nov. 17, 2008 Page 1 of 4 Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 29 of 118 5. Whether changed or changing conditiolls mal{e the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The proposed change is not necessary, but is appropriate for this location based upon its FLUE designation and adjoining land-use patterns, 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change, with the stipulations recommended by staff is consistent with the County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the OMP. Therefore the proposed change will not adversely impact living conditions in the area. The proposed residential uses have less likelihood of causing similar impacts and should in fact, decrease any existing adverse living conditions. As the subject property is currently used, Le., the landscape nursery, there is more potential for conflicts between the neighboring residential uses because workers could be on site working in the landscape nursery very early and very late and create noise, dust and odor. The proposed residential uses have less likelihood of causing similar impacts and should in fact, decrease any existing adverse living conditions. 7. Whether the proposed change will create 01' excessively increase traffic congestion or Cl'eate types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uscs, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the devclopment, or othenvise affect puhlic safety. Based upon the Transportation Planning staff review, the difference in the site-generated traffic from the currently approved use versus the proposed RPUD will not create or excessively increase traffic congestion.. 8. Whether the pl'Oposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed change should not create drainage 01' surface water problems because the LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Any proposed water Illanagement and drainage system willnced to be designed to prevent drainage problems on site and be compatible with the adj acent water management systems, Addltionally, the LDC and GMP have regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new developments. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this petition is approvcd, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development 01' as outline in the PUD document. This RPUD project's property development regulations, as augmented by ~iaff's recommended conditions to increase setback and lot sizes would encourage compact development thus the devcloped project should not significantly reduce light and ail' to adjacent areas; thus the RPUD petition, if approved, should not negatively affect light and air permeation into adj acent areas. ATTACHMENT A Rezone Findings PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 Nov 17, 2008 Page 2 or 4 Agenda Item No. 8B February 10, 2009 Page 30 of 118 10. Whether the pmposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results which may be internal or external to the subject property, Property valuation is affected by a host of factol's including zoning; however zoning by itself mayor may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. There is no guarantee that the project wilt be marketed in a manner comparable to the sUl'rounding developments. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent propel'ty in accordance with existing regulations; Propelties around this property are already developed as noted in the staff repolt, The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the Land Development Code is that their sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning wilt not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should riot be a detel1"ent to the improvement of adjacent properties, 12. WhethCl' the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; The proposed development, as stipulation by staff, complies with the Gl'Owth Management Plan, as stipulated for apPl'Oval, 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 grunt of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further detemlined 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 aceordance with existing zoning; The property is zoned and LL~ed for agricultural purposes. As the property is surrounded by other residential uses and within an Urban area of the GMP, the proposed use would be more compatible with the existing pattem of development and the GMP. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of sCllle with the needs of the neighborhood or the Connty; The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan, a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-designated areas of Collier County, Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of tile community. 15. Whethel" is it impossible to find othet. adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such nse. ATTACHMENT A Rezone Findings PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 Nov 17, 2008 Page 3 of 4 Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 31 of 118 T11ere may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision, The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition, The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP as discussed in the staff report. 16. The physical charactedstics 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 altcration and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in thc Collicr County Growth Managcmcnt Plan and as defined and implcmcntcd through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6,02,00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities for and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process and those staff persons have concluded that 110 LOS will be adversely impacted because the proposed development, if approved subject to stuff recommendations, is consistent with all Elcments of the GMP. ATTACHMENT A Rezone Findings PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 Nov 17, 2008 Page4of4 Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 32 of 118 ATTACHMENT B PUD FINDINGS PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 SAVANNAH PLACE RPUD Section ]0,02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning Ccmmission to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the following criteria: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in rclation to physical characteristics of thc land, surl'Ounding areas, t1'affic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. As discussed in the staff report and the Rezoning Findings, items 2, 6, 7, 8, 16 and 17, the type and pattern of development proposed should not have a negative impact upon any physical characteristics of the land, the surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, waler, and other utilities. Furthermore, this project, if developed, will be required to comply with all county regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities pursuant to Section 6,02.00 Adequate Public Facilities of the LDC, 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposcd agrecmcnts, contract, or othcr instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may rclate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be pt'ovided or maintained at pnblic expense. Documents submitted with the application provided satisfactory evidence of unified controL The RPUD document and the general LDC development regulations make appropriate provisions for the continuing operation and maintenance of common areas. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planncd Unit Devclopmcnt with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Managcmcnt Plan (GMP). County staff has rcviewed this petition and has offered an analysis (see staff report) of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP, Based on the analysis contained in the staff report, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP as stipulated in the staff report. Staff has included additional conditions to address native vegetation preservation and compatibility. 4. The internal and cxtemal compatibility of proposcd uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and huffering aud screcning rcquirements. TIle development standards, landscaping and buffering requirements contained in this petition are designed to make the proposed uses compatible with the adjacent uses. The staff analysis contained in the staff report support a finding that this petition is compatible, both internally and externally, with the proposed uses and with the existing surrounding uses if staffs additional stipuiations are incorporated into any approval. Additionally, the Development Commitments contained in the RPUD document provide additional guidelines the developer will have to fuUilL Nov 17, 2008 Page 1 of 2 Agenda Item No. 86 February 10, 2009 Page 33 of 118 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Since the project is currently being developed, the timing or sequence of development in iight of concurrency requirements does not appear to be a significant problem for this project. However, Transportation staff has identified a possible negative traffic situation on Orange Blossom Drive within five years, and has included a stipulation to' require the petitioner to contribute his fair share contribution to any intersection improvements at Orange BlossDm Drive and Airport Road. In addition the project's development must be in compliance with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. CUl'l'ently, the utility and roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed CPUD as well as the sUl'l'ounding development at this lime, i.e. GMP consistent at the time ofrezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP consistency review indicates (see the staff repDrt). However, as noted above, the petitiDner will be contributing a fair share proportionate share payment for the Orange Blossom Drive and AirpDrt RDad intersection. Specific concurrency requirements will need to be met when develDpment orders are sought. 8. Conformity with pun regulations, 01' as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations propDsed fDr this PUD depart fi'om develDpment standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. The development standards in this PUD are similar to those standards and the petitlDner is not seeking any deviations. ATTACHMENT B PUD Findings PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 Nov 17, 2008 Page 2 of2 Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 34 of 118 Compatibility information . compatihility (See ar50 lmrd-tlsc (OHt- p/lt'ilJi1i~iJ Design \,\'hich utilizes ac- cepted site planning (eg. building place- ment, orientation and siting) and the elements of architectural composition \'\'ithi11 the context of the surrounding area. Similar adjacent land uses or square footage shall 110t necessarily constihlte ar- chitectural compatibility. (T'aim Beach County, FhL.l The characteristics of different uses or ilcti"ities or design Vdlich allo\\' then, to be Jocated near or adjacent to each other in harmony. Sorne elements affecting compatibility include [the following]: height, scale, mass and bulk of structures, p€'destrian or \"elliadar traffic, circulation, access and parkirlg impacts, landscaping, lighting, noise, odor and architecture. Compa.tibility does not mean "tbe Si:lnle as." Rather, compatibility refers to the ~ nlaintaining the character of existing de- velopment. (l-ludson. OI,lio) . compatibi Ii ty slandard De\'elop- ment regulations established to minimize the effects. of commercial, industrial, or intense residential development on nearby residential rrOp'?fty. These stan- dards usually include regulation of build- ing height, minimum and m.aximuJ1\ building setbacks, buffers, building de- sign, ('Jnd controls to lill1lt the imFil.ct of lighting on adjacent properties (jlltstin, Te1,) Source: A Planners Dictionary, Edited by Michael Davidson and Fay Dolnick, April 2004 Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 35 of 118 COMPATIBLE DESIGN The YisuaheIationship between adjacent and nearby buildings and the immediate streetscape, in terms of a consistency of materials, colors, building elements~ butlding mass, and other constructed elements of the urban environment, such that abrupt or severe differ- ences are avoided. Comment: Two of the major problems facing planners today with respect to compatible design are "tear- downs" and "poptops" (American Planning Associa- tion, Planning, October 1999). "[eardowns are buildings (usually dwellings) purchased for the specific purpose of replacement, almost always on a larger scale than the original. Poptops are second-story additions, usually con- siderably higher than the surrounding structures. Many planners would agree that residential tear- downs are palt of the natural evolutionary process that takes place within neighborhoods. As noted by Charles Crook, planning director of Lake Forest (Illinois). in the pre...iously cited planning article, "Some houses deserve to be torn down. . . [but] . , . you need to control what you put up in their place." (ibid, p. 7) A number of different techniques have been sug- gested to ensure that replacement homes or major expansions still remain compatible with the surround- ing homes and reflect the neighborhood fabric. These techniques include FAR (floor area ratio) limits, build- ing scale calculations, encroachment planes, and similar methods. With the exceptton of FAR limits, these tech- niques appear to be complicated and labor-intensive. Generally speaking, the techniques that seem to work include making house size a function of lot size, that is, smaller houses on smaller lots. Thus, a 5,000- square"foot lot with a maximum FAR of .30 would permit a 1,500-square.foot house. Larger lots wonld allow larger. houses, but the FAR would probably have to be reduced in order to keep the houses compatible ",ith the neighborhood. A 15,OOO.square-foot lot ,vith the same FAR as the one permitted for the 5,000-square- foot lot (.30) would result in a honse with 4,500 square feet. This probably would be inconsistent with the overall neighborhood design. A FAR of between .20 and .25 would probably be appropriate. The exact FAR would have to be determined after more detailed studies of the prevailing FAR in the neighborhood, possibly as part of the design element of the master plan. More important, however~ new houses or expan~ sions of existing houses should take place on the lot only in such a manner that the character of the existing streetscape ts not seriously affected. This requires that the existing front yard and side yard setbacks remain the same, Dr in the case ofthe side yards, any encroach- ment take place toward the rear of the lot. Building heights can be increased, but that part of the roof that is raised should be set back farther from the from build- ing line, One additional point worth noting is that most houses are not built to existing setback requtremems. "xcept on very smalllolS. In other words, on moder- ately sized and larger lots, with the exception of the front building line, many houses can be expanded to the rear and sides and still conform to existing codes. But this type of expansion or new honse will be signifi- cantly different from the existing neighborhood char- acter. A detailed survey of the existing development characteristics is needed to estab1tsh a realistic and ef- fective set of controls. This type of survey can best be done by the use of aerial photography. See COMMU- NITYDESIGN PLAN; DEStGN FIT. Source: The Latest Illustrated Book of Development Definitions, New Expanded Edition, Harvey S. Moskowitz and Carl G. Lindbloom, 2004 Edition (pp 85-86) (OU!c.o ooo~ .o~ 0"'_ Z .0 E~(O Q) >, M :=:::{tjW ",-0) u.::<O C.oCL Q) Q) O)LL <1: IlREGAlOCjRClE L o oj ::;' a.~ ~ ~ ~ Cl " ::; w a.a ~ Ii 5 Cl 0 ~ ~ 3Wl .1.)0,,38<1'0'.1. ii 08 ::;, a.S ~ u. (fl '" " ~o; :~ =?t2'-'- OwO g'~ ~~ <1: T"\f:)SOl.oN / - ~ " ~::1 "I' I , , " " J~ , "'I ~~~ , , , ii' 0... <( . I" ~ r " '"VJ~~''''' , ~ Ii" ~ro~~~i ;e I n-L",~~ - ~~ E~ ~ !" "'S~ II ~,,- ~ ~ ~ .;'~ ~ 2; ~~ ~:;! " "- 3- r ~~ "0 ~ii ~ l5 """,,~.O)",,''''d lr,,,W;STO~ RaM) ~~ l c , ~e " ! r, ! ~" ,- \ c'-, " ~i r , -I'. ~~ , ! g~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ , L ;'~ ~- 1I,~~1 ! 1: ~~ ""o~ 8_~rllM J"o"~lv > "'-,;; ~ ," Ig!a iT ,,:;,;i;';j'" ~ ~! !,di' w~ -" ~ "- ~ s ~ ---;-- ~ ~~ ~ ) ~o: ~ ~~ ~ ~ \!...1"-!j : c-" :=l--= I I ~~)l ;;: 3!;'';' i f1'tio!' z I ~,,-f~~ I~:"" ,~'" "',;::5 " , i~ ~~ ~~ ~t5i~I''''_'-:f"''>"''OOOO'''''OC ,J " ' I" ;- -- <" E'~ ,_ I' . 'i'~''''o'-;'~T ~ ~-~~ I (' ;, '," , i" :< ,; ! )'7 I. L=:J' I ,Iii ; <, I 1" om, w", ' 11' 7/i'''''' 1 I' 1 Ji ' g" I' , ~~ r < N~3"'" " '~ ~~~ J,;~~ ~," '; !" I" 's'mllV"CI~'~"""C ~ ;" ~ ~ ~._ss,cc;tr'511~ ~r'~' (f'V~-----C-~~ ~'- ')"\_JiJ :] -~ 0... <( ~ <.9 z z o N ~I N "' '" ~ o o N N o ::l "- '" z o l- I- w "- z o I- <( U o --1 COLUER COUNTY'. GOVERNMENT , DEPT. OF ZONING & LA.ND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW "" WWW.COLLlERGOV.NET (i) Agenda Item No. 86 February 10, 2009 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE<4!IUVE)f 118 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 403-2400 FAX (239) 643-6968 PETITION NO (AR) PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER DATE PROCESSED ASSIGNED PLANNER PUDZ_2007-AR-12026 . REV: 2 SAVANNAH PLACe RPUD. Project 200707006te' 3117108 Date: 2/15/08 . NAME OF APPLICANT (S) STEPHEN J. LOCKWOOD. TRUSTEE .- "DRESS 9 ATLANTIC AVE CITY:MbRBLEHEAD STATE MA ZIP 01945-3230 'l","LEPHO)'.'E # 317-809-6960 CELL # FAX # .317-577-5605 E-MAIL ADDRESS: NAME OF AGENT HEIDI Wll-LlAMS. AlCP - O. GRADY MJNORAND ASSOCLATES. P.A. ADDRESS 3800 VIA DEL RBY CfIY BONITA SPRINGS STATE FLORIDA ZIP 34134 TELEPHONE # 239-947"1144 CELL # E-MAIL ADDRESS: HWJLLIAMS@GRADYMINORCOM FAX # 239-947-0375 NAME OF AGENT RlCHARD D, YOV ANOVICH. ESO. - GOODLETTE. COLEMAN AND JOHNSON. P.A. ADDRESS 4001 TAMIAMl TRAIL. SUITE 300 CITY NAPLES STATE FLORIDA ZIP 34103 TELEPHONE # 239-435-3535 CELL # FAX # 239-435-1218 E-MAIL ADDRESS:RYOVANOVICH@!GCJLAW.COM BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. Application For Public Hearin~ For PUD Rezon\": 1/18/07 SPUOR .1\genda item No. 88 February 10, 2009 ~ Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition. Provide additional sheet~ if necessary. NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: The Community Association for Mill Run CITY NavIes STATE FL NAM E OF HOMEOWN ER ASSOCIATION: The Villages at Emerald Lakes Association MAILING ADDRESS 7760 Emerald Circle #203 ZIP 34109 CITY Navies STATE ~ NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP NAME OF MASTER ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP NAME OF CIVIC ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Not Applicable Application For Public Hearing Foi pun Re-z:one 11! 8/07 SPUDR Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 39 of 118 b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Not Applicable c. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership SIL Realtv II Trust Stephen I. Lockwood. Trustee 9 Atlantic Ave Marblehead. MA 01945-3230 100% d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general an(j/or limited part~ers. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Not Applicable Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rozone 1/18/07 SPUDR Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 40 of 118 e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Not Applicable Date of Contract: f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired C8J Nov. 2005 leased g Term of lease yrs.jmos. If, Petitioner has o'ption to buy, indicate the following: Date of option: Date option terminates: , or Anticipated closing date h. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public 'hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone I118/07 SPUfJR Agenda Item No. 88 ~ -Detailed legal description of the property covered bv the application: THE SOUTHERLY 796.70 FEET OF HE EASTERLY 470.61 FEET OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHERLY 398.35 FEET OF THE SOUTHERLY 796.7 FEET OF THE EASTERLY 470.61 FEET OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 2S EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, . FLORIDA, SAID POINT ALSO BEING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT "B" OF THE CROSSINGS, MILL RUN, PLAT BOOK 15, PAGES 39 THROUGH 41, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ON THE RIGHT OF WAY OF ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY NORTH 89'42'58" EAST 265.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY SOUTH 01"33'49" EAST 295.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89"42'58" WEST 265.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST PROPERTY LINE OF THE CROSSINGS, MILL RUN; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE NORTH 01 "33'49" WEST 295.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED. NOTE: The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section/Township/Range ~I 49S I 25E Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page #: Property I.D. #: 00238440801 Metes & Bounds Description: -<;ize of property: ft. X ft. = Total Sq. Ft. Acres 6.81:t Address/general location of subiect property: Subiect urooertv is located on the south side of Orange Blossom ;Ranch Drive west of Airoort Road at 20 I 0 Orange Blossom Drive. PUD District (LDe 2.03.06): [ZJ Residential 0 Community Facilities o Commercial 0 Industrial : . . " ,,',' . - _. 1 .l..." ." . Zoning Land use N RSF-l, PUD Sinale familv residence. Emerald Lakes PUD and Sleepv Hollow PUD- Sinale familv re5idel]ce5 Sleepv Hollow PUD - Sinqle familv residences Cav Laaoon PUD - Multi-familv residences. Sinqle family residence Sleepv Hollow P!,!D - Sinale familv residences. Sinqle familv S PUD E PUD. RSF-1 W PUD. RSF-l residence Does the owner of the subject property own property contiguous to the subject property? If so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page). NO Application For Public Hearing Fot" PUD lZC.ZOM f/18/07 SPUDR Section/Township/Range _/ _/_ Lot: Block: Subdivision: Agenda Item No. 86 February 10, 2009 Page 42 of 118 Plat Book Page #: Metes & Bounds Description: Property 1.0. #: Application For Public H~aring Fo. PUD Rezone 1/18/07 SPUDl\ Agenda Item No. 88 .. February 10, 2009 . .., '. .. .. ." . ... . . . . '. ~ '. '. .. . . fhis application is requesting a rezone from the A. Rural Aqricultural the RPUD zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: Nurserv and landscapinq Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Residential zoning district(s) to Original PUD Name: Ordinance No.: .,., .. , .' '. , - . . , .' . .' '-"., . -" .' .' " Pursuant to Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County land Development Code, staff's analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria noted below. ProvIde a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. PUD Rezone Considerations flDC Section 10.02.13.B) 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The site is very suitable for the proposed development. Historically, the property was used for agricultural purposes and has been altered over time by clearing and use. The north, west and south sides of the property have been developed predominantly in the style of a traditional suburban single-family development. The east side of the site is bordered by both multi-family and single:-family residences. The subject property is adequately served by necessary infrastructure, including roads and utilities. The site would be more in character with its surroundings should the requested PUD rezone application be approved than If it retained the existing Rural Agricultural zoning designation. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. The property is currently owned by an entity that holds unified control. As the project is developed, proper authority and responsibility will. be retained or delegated to future ownership interests as necessary to ensure proper maintenance of infrastructure. 3 Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth management plan. App!ication For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone I fl 8/07 SYDDR . Agenda Item No 88 The proposed Savannah Place RPUD is consistent with the Collier Coaa~aGr~09 Management Plan, as described in the attached narrative. Page 44 of 118 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The subject property is entirely surrounded by developed residential uses at various densities. The requested PUD rezone will allow residential and accessory uses similar to those of neighboring properties. Design standards, including setbacks and landscape buffers will ensure compatibility between these developments. 5. ihe adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The proposed Savannah Place development will provide adequate usable open space. Preserve areas, landscaping and community amenities will soften the built environment and create a harmonious environment for future residents. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Development of the site will be timed to coincide with the provision of adequate facilities, as demonstrated by the Traffic Impact Statement, Utility Provision Statement and as required by related County regulations. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Once the site is developed in accordance with the proposed PUD standards expansion is unlikely. The lands surrounding the property are already developed with various residential uses. These properties are held under separate private ownership and are unlikely to merge with the current development. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The proposed development is consistent with the PUD requirements contained within the Land Development Code, except as modified by the requested deviations. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions, however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. Previous land use petitions on the sublect propertY: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? 0 Yes [8'J No If so, what was the nature of that hearing? Application For Public Hearin.g ForPUD Rezone liI8/07 SPUDR . Febru~ry 10, 20 tJ Page 45 of 1 ~ NOTICE: '-This application will be considered "open" when the determination of "sufficiency" has Jeen made and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The application will be considered "closed" when the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to supplv necessary information to continue orocessinCl or othelWise activelv pursue the rezonina for a period of six (6) months. An application deemed "closed" will not receive further processing and an application "closed" through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed "closed" may be re-opened by submitting a new application, repayment of all application fees and granting of a determination of "sufficiency". Further review of the project will be subject to the then current code. (LOC Section 10.03.05.Q.) Application For Public Hearing FOT PUD :Rezone l!l 8/07 SFUDR STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONEREQUEST Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 46 of 118 ! , .~ . . NAME OF APPLlCANT(S) STEPHEN I. LOCKWOOD ADDRESS 9 ATlANTIC AVENUE CITY MARBLEHEAD TELEPHONE # CELL # E-MAIL ADDRESS: STATE MA ZIP 01945-3230 FAX # ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (IF AVAIlABLE): 2010 Grance Blossom Drive Section/Township/Range ~/ 49 South / 25 East Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page #: Property 1.0. #: 00238440801 Metes & Bounds Description: THE SOUTHERLY 796.70 FEET OF THE EASTERLY 470.61 FEET OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHERLY 398.35 FEET OF THE SOUTHERLY 796.7 FEET OF THE EASTERLY 470.61 FEET OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 2S EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID POINT ALSO BEING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT "B" OF THE CROSSINGS, MILL RUN, PLAT BOOK 1 S, PAGES 39 THROUGH 41, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ON THE RIGHT OF WAY OF ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY NORTH 89'42'58" EAST 265.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY SOUTH 01'33'49" EAST 295.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89'42'58' WEST 265.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST PROPERTY LINE OF THE CROSSINGS, MILL RUN; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE NORTH 01"33'49" WEST 295.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED. . .. . - '. . . - ," 1-' . (Check applicable system): IS] D D D D COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM a. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM b. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM PROVIDE NAME d. PACKAGE TREATMENT PlANT (GPD capacity) e. SEPTIC SYSTEM a. COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM b. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM I2J D STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS - page 2 Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone III 8107 SPUDR . c. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM. 0 PROVIDE NAME ________________ d. PRIVATE SYSTEM (WELL) 0 Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 47 of 118 : 20 Units WATER-PEAK SEWER-PEAK 9.636 GPD 7.507 GPD AVERAGE DAILY AVERAGE DAILY 4.380 GPD 3.413 GPD IF PROPOSING TO BE CONNECTED TO COLLIER COUNTYREGJONAl WATER SYSTEM, PLEASE PROVIDE THE DATE SERVICE IS EXPECTED TO BE REQUIRED-,-- ~ Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. N/A If the project is located within the services boundaries of Collier County's utility service system, written notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate to Collier County Utilities the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at the at time. This statement'shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applfcable,the statement shall contain shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. App!kation For- Publlc Hearing For POD Rc:mne 111&107 SPUDR THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKmN THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW WjCOVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION NOTE: INCOMPELTE SUBMITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. #OF COPiES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED 1 Additional set if located In the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelo ment Area Co ies of detailed descrl tlon of why amendment is necessa Completed Application with list of Permitted Uses; Development Standards Table; List of proposed deviations from the LDC (if any); List of Develo er Commitments (download from webslte for current form) Pre-a lication meetln notes PUD Conce tual Master Plan 24" x 36" and One 8 W' x 11" co Revised PUD Conce tual Master Plan 24" x 36"and One 8 Yz" x 11" co Original PUD document/ordinance and Master Plan 24" x 36" - ONLY IF AMENDING THE PUD Revised PUD ap licatlon with chan es crossed thru & underlined Revised PUD application wjamended Title page w/ord #'s, LDe lO.02.13.A.2 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 Deeds/Legal's & Survey (If boundary of original PUD is amended) 2 List identifying Owner & all parties of corporation 2 OWner/Affidavit signed & notarized 2 Covenant of Unified Control 2 Completed Addressing checklist 2 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and digItal/electronic copy of EIS or 3 exem tlon 'ustification Historical Surveyor waiver request 4 Utility Provisions Statement wf5.l~5 4 Architectural rendering of proposed structures 4 Survey, signed & sealed 4 Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) or waiver 7 Recent Aerial Photograph (wirh habitat areas defined) min scaled 1 "=400' S Electronic copy of all documents In Word format and plans (CDRom or 1 Dis kette) x x x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X ~J;1;-~ .~ -'-', fjl" <,a; o EDC "Fast Track" must submit approved copy of official application 2 X ~ Affordable Housing "Expedited" must submIt copy of signed Certificate of A reement. lflQJ;;atp.d in RFMU (Rural Frinae Mixed Use) Receivina Land Areas Applicant must contact Mr. Ge.rry J. Lacavera, State of Florida Division of Fore.stry @ 239-690-3500 for information regarding "Wildfire. Mitigation & Prevention Plan", LDC Section 2.03.08.A.2.a.(b)l.c. m16,2007 Date Applicant/Agent Signature Application For Publi>; Hearing For PUD Rezone 1/18/07 SPUDR o:J co dJl-S?, ~ ~ "6 '" "" (j) Ol (0 n. I ! 5 "] . u . . . ~f)~ I: ~! "'~o3tiit'u~ 2 1 1 ,I i 'J:::~::::: I' 1: ,. ;z';:~~:::: ;: " ~ ~ " i lS ~~~. !3~~ ~~t'9 ~S5~~ ~ ~ ~-~ N Sir;: ~S:~::3 ~~e:,8 ~~~~ ~~~8 2 ~ i:f..lS~ o~B ~~E;3 ~ ~ wn-w: _ _tit '"""II" ..-.. onK\I.,....-J1I~Wllll' ~t~~ .. :mr'OOOMiONl!.SOl:WO ~-' ';. ......,,~ "'iI.W>l'~........ -,- ,...,." .,......,....~.,....,... ......~,.lII"''''.........~_ ~1i\flilr'lAlt .:::'..~~'":;~:~: - ..'.0'.""."'....', .....-.......'<"/. . ? . i ; ; , i ~ i ~ ,. l' fi i!. ." '. g......, -: ""''''''- " ~;;:l~' ,-: = .l",:-..~~ ..-~..fr- , _ - ~~____-~~-;""2~r-.-:, 1-" T r<J';~~\ \.~'> , V ~. ;,.,,~l. '~!' r '~(l .! ~ \ ! I J n! I' " \ ,:"-'."....1.,..-.).; j ...n,,, ,. ~ i: ~___-=-L_-,,<,) .u. ~1 " i; ~~ . ~. :!!s aj ,1. .'...... 1 I. ~S ~l" I '\ I"",!, I,,' ,d. ,),.~ Ii !i II (IIL.tl~!~~i~ . . '.c.'1". .' ."rJ:!j . '. '. . /"''t,'''',>J " . a m I~ I~ ~ m !~ I{' I . ~ ii " ~;, i~ ;: '4 ~ ' >, ,; w'O...."",,'" .,,~"'~ "'".... in t~ l~ ...~ ,~. ...~;:( i!~ l~J ;;. ~ 11 ~ ~ ~~ J !. ~~ ~l"; i i~ :~e j,f :r ~, ~h ~ln :1 ,: .... I" ;1 ~~1; ~ !","r. ~~ .:::: . ~~) ','. ,,,, I : if" '~! ~,,~ . ~g~ ~: ,.j;~~ i ~. ~;~ ;~ ~~ ;~!.~ I ' i" '!l" - !di ~ "!!!:;l'-!' .;~ :~.~ ~ ~f ~j, ~! ~f .Ii ~ ~a " II' P 1 ~ ~ 1 '," & 1 j i ~ ; 1 1~1~~iH~ ~; ! !!!i!!h!! ~l..'l.!>.;z~",.. ."It,. ~ :~. ~ 1'1.; . hij"i~lI , 1"""1' .. ~~... ~"~f ~~ ~~:j~~~i~ i:l. X!l~;'l!1t :1f I~Ia~lI\'!i ~ i><;.!t'~~i:'~ ~i "iil";'! ~::- 7'!.....r~~!'l ~~ ~H~~qi~~ ~j ~~~~~":...i ~i i! ~~i~i:i~~ ~liil!.'lll.l ;(~ I- ,i;!,'ill f, 9:~! btL:t~~n Agenda Item No. 88 February 10,2009 Page 50 of 118 COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL The undersigned do hereby swear or affirm that we are the fee simple titleholders and owners of record of property commonly known as Folio Number 00238440801. 20] 0 Orange Blossom Drive (Streel address and City, Slate and Zip Code) and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto. The property described herein is the subject of an application for residential planned unit development (RPUD) zoning. We hereby designate O. Gradv Minor and Associates. P.A. and Goodlette. Coleman and Jolmson. P.A. legal representative thereof, as the legal representatives of the property and as such, these individuals are authorized to legally bind all owners of the property in the course of seeking the necessary approvals to develop. This authority includes, but is not limited to, the hiring and authorization of agents to assist in the preparation of applications, plans, surveys, and studies necessary to obtain zoning approval on the site. Any hiring of outside agents must have prior written approval of ov.:ner before any contracts are signed or verbally agreed to. These representatives will remain the only entity to authorize development activity on the property until such time.as a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to Collier County. The undersigned recognize the following and will be guided accordingly in the pursuit of development of the project: 1. The property will be developed and used in confomlity with the approved master plan inclnding aU conditions placed on the development and all commitments agreed to by the applicant in connection with the planned unit development rezoning. 2. The legal representative identified herein is responsible for compliance \;ith an terms, conditionsl safeguards, and stipulations made at the time of approval of the master plan, even if the property is subsequently sold in whole or in part, unless and until a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to and recorded by Collier County, 3. A departure from the provisions of the approved plans or a failure to comply with any requirements, conditions, or safeguards provided for in the planned unit development process ",ill constitute a violation of the Land Development Code. 4. All terms and conditions of the planned unit development approval will be incorporated into covenants and restrictions which run with the land so as to provide notice to subsequent O"\VI1ers that all development activi.ty within the planned unit development must be consistent with those terms and conditions. 5. So long as this covenant is in force, Collier County can, upon the discovery of noncompliance with the terms, safeguards, and conditions of the planned unit development, seek equitable relief as necessary to compel compliance. The County will not issue permits. certificates, or licenses to occupy or use any part of the planned unit development and the County may stop ongoing con~ 'ction activity until the project is brought into compliance with all terms. conditions and safeguards of th larm unit e ~ent Owner Owner 5 Tt'/#.hrJ ,,7 L oc:jLtu<<dJ As Truste~,Qf the SJL STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF 2,,11,,:)1, Printed Name Realty Trust II, dated October 28, 2005 as identification. -/"-- Sworn to (or affmned) and subscribed before me this /7 day of 1lWIN~s.cawrOll ~"ul>f~.SlI1'0fFIorl4I Ily COoun. E>P'" fob 20, ,2010 COmmIs>lOO . DO 520552 f' (Name typed, printed or stamped) (Serial Number, if any) N'"''' 'I .i ~,,"Q . Uv f... u ,m;(i Q. @!"2!GV Mlk!i & Associates, P.I-\, $?UDR Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 *** OR: 3931 PG: 23b1g'tU:Of118 .......' '-'. -:-;:-;: EXHIDIT "A" e easterly 470.61 feet of the north one.half of the urh. Range 25 East. Collier County. Florida. Beg' the Easterly Range 26 of Crossinis 98.35 feet of the Southerly 796,7 feel of est 295.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein dcscri Subjeclto easements and restrictions of record; containing 1.79 acres more or Jess; bearings are llSswncd and based on the rignt of way ofO!1ll1ge Blossom Drive being Nortb 89". 42'.58" East. ~: ., , Agenda Item No. 8B February 10, 2009 D?,-,o t;? f 11 We/I, Stephen J. Lockwood as Trustee of the SJL Realtv Trust II being first duly sworn, depose and say that we/I am/are the owners of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of in1erest Informalion, all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest ond true to the best of our knowledge and belief. We/I understand that the information requested on this application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or County printed sholl not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this application is deemed complete, and all required information has been submitted. As property owner We/I further authorize Q. Gradv Minor and Associates. P.A. and Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A. to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this Petition. Signature of Property Owner S-t-;:;.? JlaJ :r L<< e&JaoJj As T~stee of the SJL Realty Trust II, dated October 28, 2005 ,,~._\,;,;'.'.-- >""" . _," ,t.., ,..... .,'. State of Florida County of ---C.a;/(8t The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this -.LL day of /!/()VdHd,u who is personnlly know/, to me or has produced as identification. o?t%'8 . 2G~by_ (Print, Type, or Stamp Comm;s e of Notary Public) " i . IlWftlU CCWPTOlI !/oW, l'ilblIi. Stale 01 Florlclt My COmm. ~ Fob 20. 2010 COaimluloo , DO 5.._ )"""".. 1 :;', I~ ( ;:,>-, .~ .--t. SPUDR Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 53 of 118 Savannah Place RPUD Owner and/or All Parties of Corporation SJL Realty II Trust dated October 28, 2005 Stephen J. Lockwood, Trustee 9 Atlantic Ave Marblehead, MA 01945-3230 Sole owner with 100 percent ownership O\Nller List, 12-9.08 SPUDR ~ v Pre,pared by and return 10: Mark E. Nogalski, Esq. Bond, Sehoeneek & King, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail Norlb Suite 250 Naples, FL 34103 Agenda Item No. 88 February 10,2009 Page 54 of 118 3735290 OR: 3931 PG: 2365 nCGROID in omCIAL RJCORDS of COLLm COllITT, 1L 11/11/2005 at 02:11PK DilGBl I. BROCl, CLIRI COIS tmOOue RlC m 21.e~ DOC-.10 21515.00 Reto: GOODLIn! COIJW IT IJ, ml TWAllI 'Ill I3IG KUm lL 3m3 Parcel Identification No. 00238440801 [Space Abm'e: Thi$ Line FOot Recording Datal Warranty Deed (STATIITORYFORM - SECTION 689.02, F.S.l -l" This Indenture made this J.k. day ofNDvemher, 2005 whose post office address i~ 2010 Orange BIos e Florida. grantor', and Stephen J. Lockwoo , ee-<>RIi power and anthorityto protec~ conse Jease, eocumbe property described bereln v.1lose post ddress is 9 Atlantie Av Essex. State of Massaehusetts:, grantee, een JMS Holdings of Naples, Iuc.) a Florida corporation 34109-8874 of the County of Collier, Stale of ty Trust II dated Octoher 28, 2005, wilh fuD Twise to ma-nage and dispose of the real ue, arblebead, MA 01945 of the County of Wituesseth that said grantor, for good and valuable considerations to aid bas granled, bargained, and <old to e s d situale, lying and being in Collier Co ~, See Exhibit "A" attached b~t and said grantor does hereby fully warrant e whomsoever ~ 0/100 DOLLARS (SI0.00) and other ipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, forever, the following descnDed land, In Witness \Vhereof. grantor bas hereunto set grantor's hand and seal the day and year firsl above writlen. Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence: . Mk...", NO~A,LS",":C ~ JMS Holdings of Naples, Inc., a Florida corporation By:~~.^,,--r o~ Jo M. Smallwood, President Witness Name: (Corporate Seal) Goodletle, Coleman & Johnson, P _..... 4001 Tamiami Trail, N. Suite 300 Naples.FL 34103 &~ 2.SsI'I-001 PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 Project: 2007070013 Date: 7117107 REV: 1 DUE: 8/14/07 DoubleTimoe Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 55 of 118 OR: 3931 PG: 2366 Stale of Florida County of Collier The foregoing inslrume~ was acknowiedged before me tlJis 16ft. day of November, 2005 by JoAnn M. Smallwood, Presidont of JMS Holdings ofN~h' Inc., a Fiorida corporation, on behalf oflbe corporation. She U is personally known tomeor~aspr<>duceda t>r/A drlV~ ~ ~ [Notary Seal] Notary Public Printed Name: ~a. rq h. ~a.Stro ,.,,-~ SAIWl CAST!\O f:l~," MYCOMMISSlON'DD22413a ~~. ..' EXPlRES:Ju11. 19,2007 '"jj!~ """"''''''--'''''''''''''' My Commission Expires: Warranty De.r:d (S/Oful()7')' Frm1l) -Page 2 OoubleTImee Agenda Item No. 88 ;=ebruary 10, 2009 OR: 3931 PG: 23rrffff118 *u ~:=;; EXHIBIT "A" 98.35 feet of the Southerly 796.7 feet of sl V. of SeCtion 2, Township 49 South, being the Northeast Comer of Tract ~B" lier County. Florida, and on the rigltt of of way North 89"-42'-58" F.ast 265.00 0" , n East 295.00 feet: thence South 89"-42'- lne of Crossings Mill Run; est 295.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING Subject to easements and restrictions of record; containing 1.79 acres more or Jess; bearings are assumed and based on the right of way of Orange Blossom Drive being Nortb 89"- 42'-58" East. '. COLL{ER COUNTY GOVE~NME~' ~ ADDRESSING DEPARTMENT ,.. v -- \ \ , \ Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 2800 NORTH HORSESR€iJjieLmIMEi 18 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 Please complete the following and fax to the Addressing Department at 239-659-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Department at the above address. Form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to pre-application meeting. Not all items will apply to every project Items in' bold type are required, Forms older than 5 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Department. PETITION TYPE (check petition type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition Type) o 8L (Blasting Permit) o BD (8oat Dock Extension) o CarnivaVCircus Peni1it o CU (Conditional Use) o EXP (Excavation Permit) o FP (Final Plat o LLA (Lot Une Adjustment) o PNC (Project Name Change) o PPL (Plans & Plat Review) o PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) X PUD Rezone o RZ (Standard Rezone) o SOP (Site Development Plan) o SDPA (SOP Amendment) o SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SOP) o SIP (Site Improvement Plan) o SIPI (Insubstantial Change to SIP) o SNR (Street Name Change) o SNC (Street Name Change - Unplatted) o TOR (Transfer of Development Rights) o VA (Variance) o VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) o VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) o OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property Dr properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) See attached - p~ c:...r-\ S'1 .., -z... - !+ q ~ Z- S " FOLIO (Property 10) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) 00238440801 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, If already assigned) 2010 Oranoe Blossom Drive, Naples, Florida . LOCATION MAP must be attached Showing exact location of project/site In relation to nearest pubiic road right-of-way . SURVEY (copy - needed only for unplatted properties) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 REV, 1 Project: 2007070013 Date: 71t7/07 DUE: 8114/07 PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicabie) _SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUM8ER (for existing projects/sites only) SOP or AR # Page 1 of2 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST - PAGE TWO Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 58 of 118 project or development names proposed for, Dr already appeartng in, condominium documents (if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) Please Check One: X Checklist is to be Faxed back o Personally Picked Up APPLICANT NAME: Heidi Williams PHONE: (239) 947-1144 FAX: (239) 947-0375 Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Addressing Department. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Primary Number .s z. 35 . Address Number Address Number Address Number Approved by: /D....~ ((lC>)!' ((). m Date: l4- - \ '3 - 0"1 Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED Page 2 of2 G:\Current\A.pplicafion Forms\A,ddressirlg Checklist rev 020207.doG ,. Agenda Item No. 8B tit OR: 2251e~;;~1~~'tt EXHIBIT "An The ~outherl)' 796.70 leel of the easterly 470,61 led of the north one-half of the southwest quarter of Soxtion 2. Township 49 South. Range 25 East. {'oilier County. Florida. Less and Exceptthc ti,llowing described pared: y. 01' Section 2. Township 49 South. tht: Northeast Comer of Tract "'B" ty. Florida. and on the right of y orth 890-42'~58"' East 265.00 95. Ie.:t; thenctl South 890_42-. Mill Run; thence along said East line ~ of the parcel hereiu descri bearings un: assumed and ba~ed on the right of way of Orangt: Blossom Driw being North 890_ 42' -58" East. Details Property Record .~Jr-- sk:,i,:h~-:J[~-!ri~!i~t~~~'~~L_~__ Current Ownership Property Addressl12010 ORANGE BLOSSOM DR .,. I; Parcel No.11 00238440801 i Owner Nam LOCKWOOD TR, STEPHEN Addresses SJL REALTY II TRUST UTD 10128105 9 ATLANTIC AVE City MARBLEHEAD I Statelf" MA Legal, 249 25 SLY 796.70 FT OF EL Y 470.61 FT OF N 1/2 OF SW 1/4, LESS BEG AT NW CNR NL Y 396.35 FT OF SLY 796.7 FT OF ELY "'For more than four lines of legal DescripUon please call the Property Appraiser's Office. Section Ii Township Range 2 49 25 Sub No. r- 100 I ACREAGE HEADER .IfjUse~ ~ 69 I AGRICULTURAL Acres 6.82 Map No. 4A02 1j MjUaae Area 133 2008 Preliminary Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Page I of! Agenda Item No. 86 February 10, 2009 P~oe 60 .Gill8 I; Zipl 01945 . 3230 l Strap No. I l 492502 059.0004A02 I -t Millaoe 11.1362 Latest Sales History If all Values shown below equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll I Land Value -..JI $ 2,898,500.00 I I (~) improved Value I $ 730,432.00 (=) Just Value $ 3,628,932.00 H SOH Exempt Value $ 0.00 H Assessed Value $ 3.628.932.00 (-) Homestead and other Exempt Value $ 2,886,224.00 I {=) Taxable Value I $742,708.00 II SOH - "Save OUf Homes" exempt value dUe to cap on assessment increases, Date 11/2005 11/2005 11/2005 J 11/2005 1112005 11/1996 II Book - Page 3931 . 2365 3~31 ,.~63 3931 . 2361 ;!l!31 . 235~ 3931 - 2ill 2251.610 The Information is Updated Weekly. http://www.collierappraiser.comlRecordDetaiLasp?Map=N 0&FolioID=000000023 844080 1 ij Amount I $ 4,225,000.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 I $ 0.00 I $ 0.00 I $ 375.000.00 I II I I II 9/30/2008 Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOqATES, P.A Civil Engineers. Land Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 61 of 118 ..ARK W. MINOR. P.E. MlrnAEL T. HERRERA,P.E. DAVID W. SCHMlTI, P.E. MlrnAEL J. DELATE. P.E. C DEAN SMITH,. P.E. GARY J. GASPERlNI, P.E. WIlSON A. GARClA. P.E, D. WAYNE ARNOLD. A.1.c.P. Sl"EPHEN V. BURGESS, P S.M. JUAN A. ARAQUE. P S.M. KEITH A. Sl"EPHENSON, P.S.M. KENNEIH W. PAHUlSKl JEFFREY S. CURL, ASLA, RLA PAMELA M. HYYll July 16, 2007 Ms. Kay Deselem, AICP Principal Planner Department of Zoning and Land Development 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FI 34102 Re: RPUD Application; Savannah Place RPUD PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 REV: I Project: 2007070013 Date: 7/17/07 DUE: 8/14/07 Dear Ms. Deselem: Enclosed, please find the completed PUD application and supporting materials for the Savannah Place RPUD. The subject property is 6.8H acres located at 2010 Orange Blossom Drive, which is on the south side of the road approximately Y. mile west of Airport-Pulling Road (Folio # 00238440801). The site is zoned Rural Agricultural (A) and is located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Currently the property is utilized as a landscape nursery facility. The proposed Savannah Place Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) would permit up to 75 dwelling units, including 53 designated for affordable housing. Please feel free to contact either Richard Yovanovich at 435-3535, or me if you have any questions. SincEr~~_ ~~\)f 'F~> ~ Heidi K. Williams, AICP Enclosures cc: Stephen J. Lockwood Ronald Russo Richard D. Yovanov;ch Zoning Transmittal Ltr.doc (239) 947-1144. FAX (239) 947.0375. Web Site: www.gradyminor.com 3800 Via Del Rey a Bonita Springs, Florida 34134-7569 EB 0005151 a LB 0005151 . LC 26000266 SPOOR Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 62 of 118 Savannah Place Residential Planned Unit Development Project Narrative The subject property is 6.81:!: acres located at 2010 Orange Blossom Drive, which is on the south side o(the road approximately Y, mile west of Airport-Pulling Road (polio # 00238440801). The site is zoned Rural Agricultural (A) and is located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land USe Map of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Currently the property is utilized as a landscape nursery facility. The proposed Savannah Place Residential Planned Unit Developrnent (RPUD) would permit up to 20 dwelling units. The project is compatible with the development of the surrounding area The property has historically been subject to clearing activities for existing and previously approved uses. SDP-96-107 and a subsequent insubstantial change to the SDP were reviewed and approved by County staff for the Smallwood Nursery in February 1997. According to historic aerial photography, the site was utilized for various agricultural uses for years prior to SDP approval. Following SDP approval the site was legally cleared for the bona fide agricultural use, which has continued uninterrupted to this day. According to Collier County Land Development Code Section 3.0S.02.C, lands used for agricultural pUlposes are exempt from native vegetation preservation requirements, but may not be converted to a non-agricultural purpOse ror 25 years. However, at the time the site plan was approved,. agricultural uses were only required to be retained for 10 years. For these reasons the preserve area shown on the Master Plan represents retention of 15 percent of the existing native vegetation. The remainder of the site will be utilized for single~farnily or townhome residential uses, standard accessory amenities, landscape buffers, parking, drive aisles and water management The master plan indicates an approximate layout of the site, and appropriate development standards are provided in the PUD Ordinance attachments that are compatible with neighboring uses and will provide an attractive, high-quality community. In conclusion, the proposed Savannah Place RPUD is consistent with the surrounding area and with the requirements of the LDC. The site is already impacted by development and may be easily converted to a new urban use. Therefore, it is consistent and appropriate to approve this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY The subject property is located within the Urban Residential Subdistict on the Future Land Use Map (PLUM) and is subject to the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier COlmty Growth Management Plan. The site is also within the Traffic Congestion Area, as shown on the FLUM. Properties within the Traffic Congestion Area are subject to decreased density unless affordable housing is provided. The requested density and number of dwelling units for tlris site are as follows: ProjectN.arrativ<; revised, 7-7-08 Page J of3 PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 REV' 3 SA V ANNAH PLACE RPUD . Project: 2007070013 Date: 7/31108 DUE: 8129/08 Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 63 of 118 Residential Subdistrict: Traffic Congestion Area; Total Density: x Site Acreage: + 4 units per acre - I unit per acre 3 units per acre x 6.81 acres 20.43 units According to the Future Land Use Element, the Urban Residential Subdistrict is intended to "provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural. resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated." Right now the site is a small pocket of non-residential use in the midst of existing single-family and multi-family residential development. Other policies support the rezoning, including Policies 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6, which support the maximization of areas designated Urban on the Future Land Use Map. Several policies are included in the Future Land Use Element that address community character and smart growth in Collier County. The proposed rezone is an infill project that is consistent with these policies. Policy 7.3 encourages interconnections with adjacent properties; a potential future interconnection has been shown on the Master Plan. Policy 7.4 encourages walkable communities and a range of housing prices. The property is in close proximity to a public library and government center. The majority of employers and commercial centers are located within the Urban area, as are many recreationaIlcommunity facilities. The development of an infill property meets the intention of the community character policies. Although the site is within the Traffic Congestion Area, Orange Blossom Drive is an Urban Minor Collector that is expected to operate at a Level of Service D in 2010. The additional traffic placed on the road network if this project is approved will not adversely impact the level of service. More information on consistency with the Transportation Elernent is contained within the Traffic Impact Statement. The applicant has also agreed to participate in a fair share contribution agreement for improvements to the intersection of Orange Blossom Drive and Airport-Pulling Road to address potential impacts at that location. The Conscrvation and Coastal Management Element (CCME), among other things, guides the retention of native vegetation in new developments. Goal Six and the related objectives and policies provide minimum standards for retention and quality of the required preserve areas. The policies are reiterated in the Land Development Code. The Savannah Place RPUD is consistent with both the CCME and the LDC. The subject property was studied and mapped for vegetation coverage and USe by listed species. No listed species Were found onsite. An area desiguated as Pine Flatwoods on the FLUCCS map that is located in the southwest comer of the site has been retained for the required preserve area. It encompasses the largest area of native vegetation on the site. Any exotic invasive plant species that may be present on-site will be removed, consistent with Policy 6.1.4. As required by Policy 6.1.1, a permanent conservation easement will be placed over the preserve area during the plat or site development plan phase of the project. This project is consistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan. Project Narrative, revised, 7~7..{)g Page 2 of 3 SPUDR Agenda Item No. 86 February 10, 2009 The Savannah Place RPUD is located within the Urban area, which is the appropriate Iddtfoft4 of 118 for additional density and intensity according to the Future Land USe Element The proposed development standards for the project ensure compatibility with the surrounding developments. As demonstrated above, the proposed rezone is supported by and consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Projoot Narrative, revised, 7~7-O& Page30f3 SPUDR Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 65 of 118 e-r County ~ =-::.J REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE OR WITHDRAWAL l CHECK ONE: CONTINUANCE x WITHDRAWAL If a continuance is requested. please indicate: lenqth of time: to: 12/18/2008 OR indefinite: From: Planning Commission X Board of County Commissioners 1. Date of Scheduled Hearing: 11/20/2008 2. Applicant/Project Name: Sava'nnah Piace RPUD 3. Application/Petition number: PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 4. Type of Application (examples: Rezoning, Conditional Use or Variance) Rezonino 5. ReasonJor Request: Required to hold second NIM before public hearinqs. UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, AND PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 92.525, I DECLARE THAT I HAVE READ THE FOREGOING REQUEST AND THAT THE FACTS STATED IN IT ARE TRUE. 10/21/2008 DATE SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT Heidi K. Williams PRINTED NAME hwilliams@qradyminor.com e-mail address Address: 3800 Via Del Rev Street 239-947-1144 Phone number Bonita Sprinqs. FL 34134 City, State Zip 239-947-0375 Fax number C:\Documents and Settings\jeselemkay\Local Setlings\Temporary Internet FIEes\OLK1 O\Request for Continuance 1 O~21"()8.doc Agenda Item No. 8B Fe~uc:~ 10, 2009 PUDL-2007-AR-12026 1RlJ;l't:~ of 118 SA V ANNAH PLACE RPUD Project: 2007070013 DUE- 8/29/08 Da te: 7/31/08 . TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT FOR SAVANNAH PLACE RPUD Prepared for: Stephen J. Lockwood, Trustee 9 Atlantic Avenue Marblehead, MA 01945 Preuared by: Q. GR/\DY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, PA CNIL ENGINEERS. LAND SURVEYORS. PLAi'ffiERS 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 (239) 947-1144 June 2007 Revised February 2008 Revised July 2008 G:\PROJ - PLArJNrNG DOCS\Savann2h Place PUO\sPUDR\Drafts\TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT,doc Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 67 of 118 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................................1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................,..................... 2 2.0 SCOPE ..............~..................................................................................................................................... 2 3.0 TRIP GENERATION...........................................................................................................................2 4.0 TRIP ASSIGNMENT AND SIGNIFICANCE TEST ........................................................................ 2 5.0 DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................ 3 6.0 LOCATION MAP AND TRIP DISTRIBUTION .............................................................................. 4 7.0 TRIP GENERATION........................................................................................................................... 7 TABLE 1 -TOTAL DAILY PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ......................................................... 7 TAB!.E 2 - ENTERlEXIT BREAKDOWN OF DAILY TRIPS......................................................... 7 TABLE 3 - TOTAL DAIL Y EXTER.~AL PROJECT TRIPS ........................................................... 8 TABLE 4 - TOTAL DAILY EXTERNAL NON-PASS BY PROJECT TRIPS................................ 8 TABLE 5 - TOTAL AM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ..................................... 9 TABLE 6--TOTAfo AM PEAK HOUR EXTERNAL PROJECT TRIPS ......................................... 9 TABLE 7- TOTAL AM PEAK HOUR EXTERNAL NON-PASS BY PROJECT TRIPS............ 10 TABLE 8- ENTERlEXIT BREAKDOWN OF TRIPS DURING AM PEAK HOUR.................... 10 TABLE 9- TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP GENERATION ..................................... 11 TABLE 10- TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR EXTERNAL PROJECT TRIPS...................................... 11 TABLE 11- TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR EXTERNAL NON-PASS BY PROJECT TRIPS ..........12 TABLE 12- ENTERlEXIT BREAKDOWN OF TRIPS DURING PM PEAK HOUR .................. 12 TABLE 13- PROJECT DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION............................................................. 13 TABLE 14- ThiP ACTED SEGMENTS .............................................................................................. 14 TABI,E 15- ROADWAY LINK PEAK HOUR LOS- EXISTING ...................................................15 TABLE 16- ROADWAY LINK PEAK HOUR LOS- 2012 BACKGROUND TRAmC..............15 TABLE 17- ROADWAY LL.,l{ PEAK HOUR LOS- 2012 WITH PROJECT............................... 15 8.0 APPENDICES..................................................................................................................................... 16 8.1 Appendix A - Trip Generation...................................................................................................... 16 8.2 Appendix B.. Collier County Am 2006....................................................................................18 G:\PROJ - PLANNlNG DOCS\Savannah Place PUD\SPUDRillrafts\TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENTdoc Agenda Item No. 83 February 10, 2009 Page 68 of 118 1.0 INTRODUCTION The proposed Savannah Place RPUD is a request for Residential PUD zoning approval of approximately 6.8ll acres for up to 20 Single Family dwelling units. The project site is located on the south side of Orange Blossom Drive approximately Y, mile west of Airport Road in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, F1orida. For project location please refer to Fi.gure 1, Location Map. The project will have a single entrance to be located on Orange Blossom Drive. Project build out is projected to be 2010. 2.0 SCOPE The following analyses are included in this report: 1. Trip Generation Calculations (at build out) presented For Peak Season Daily Traffic (pSDT) including the Respective Peak Hour Volumes. . 2. Trip Assignment within the Radius of Development Influence (RDI). 3. Discussion ofImpacts to Roadways within the RDI. 3.0 TRIP GENERATION The 7th Edition Trip Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (IrE) is used for trip generation calculations provided in this report. Please rcfer to Tables 1 through 12. Per our discussion with Collier County staff, it has been agreed that the land use code of 110 for Light Industrial Use will be used for the existing facilities, which is being used as a landscape maintenance company. The trip generation for the existing facilities is estimated to be 70 trip ends for daily traffic volume, 9 trip ends during the AM peak hour and 10 trip ends for the PM peak hour. The trip gencration for the proposed use is cstimated to be 237 trip ends for daily traffic volume, 23 trip ends during the AM peak hour and 25 trip ends for the PM peak hour. Therefore, a net increase in trip due to tile proposed facilities would be of 167 trip ends for daily traffic volume, 14 trip ends during the AM peak hour and 15 trip ends for the PM peak hour. Please refer to the DISCUSSION section for details concerning the effects of these traffic volumes on the level of service for roadway Jinks within the RDL 4.0 TRIP ASSIGNMENT A-ND SIGNIFICANCE TEST The project directional distribution oftraffic to and from Savannah Place RPUD is presented on Figure 2 and Table 13. When traffic is distributed to the accessed, adjacent and subsequent links, trip generation volumes are below 2% of the service capacity of the surrounding roadways (see Table 14). No roads meet the significance test. G:\PROJ - PLA.NNING DOCS\Savannah Place PUD\SPUDR\Drafts\TRAFFtC IMPACT STATEM:ENT.doc -2- Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 69 of 118 5.0 DISCUSSION Tables 15, 16 and 17 show the results of the Level of Service analysis for the accessed roadway projected through the 5-year planning window, Year 2012, using a compound growth rate of2%. The projected traffic volumes are below 110% of the Service Volume of the roadway and the project does not significantly impact the accessed roadway. However, the accessed roadway, Orange Blossom Drive, will fail within the 5-year analysis period by the background traffic. There are several other projects around the roadway currently in the permitting stages and the mitigation plan for the roadway is c-'UITently being analyzed. The applicant has agreed to participate in a fair-share intersection improvement plan along with several other property ownersfdevelopers in the area. This mitigation should address road constraints associated with this project. G:\PROJ - PLANNTNG DOCS\..):l.vannah f'lace PVD\sPUDR\Drafts\TRAFFIC IMPACT STAlEMENT.doc -3- 6.0 LOCATION MAP AND TRIP DISTRIBUTION (, ,,! ~-= %1 ....-.:;5:. . -- ~ -- :1 f ~~ " ,~~-- '- " " ~ ~ '" \".). I;"'" , . SUE JECT r---* i PROF &,TY . i " Cui f \I,.h, ~ of ~~fJ " ", Mexico " ~, V/// Cityll~ .~ 01 ~~ Na :ples. r;: " ,,, (" FIGURE 1 Location Map ,. " " I " I " ,. " . ... ..... .. " . a...... '" " \ " " . ; i W . '\: " ,.;.1 ::-1_ ~l d~ LOCATION MAP I>[.T.5. " " - - . . ul . " '-- " G:\PROJ. PLANNING DOCS\S2vannah Place PUD\sPUDR\Drafts\TRAfHC 1M PACT STATEMENT,doc " " " " " GO Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 70 of 118 " " " " ,. " " T , J I , , " " ,. " . " DEN GATE: " " , " " ,. 1'- 3~' I,?""'---- , -4- Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 71 of 118' F1GURE2 AM and PM Peak Hour Traffic Distnbution '" ~ i:l ~ I ~ ,: ~ ~ ~ il ~ 00 " 11 o ~ ~ ~ ~ fi J1 , ij! '5 ~ m 6 "' . " .. ~ ii . . . ~ o o " z Ii: i 01"}l~RJnF.'Vf:1JlPrn n=nn ~Yl B8 b ~.!.~.J)R.l.nrlm l...H ~ 8A~',{)IllE J.JInIOY!2lI II'U i5 ll~.w.ii1H:5~tOD!:: S?t/tlfl ~ 'a 1 [1J ~ ~ VANO'ERBILT BEACH RO 0 1 [2] 1 [1J a9 PINE RIDGE ROAD 7~ ~ Si 1 [1] 1 [1] ili "" 8 ~ "" l3 ~ C:> <:..:> 1:3 ...., K ~ ~ :::0 ~ 4- a GOLDEN GA PARKWAY ::; Cb LEGEND: XX [XX] = AM [PM] PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC DlSTRtBUTIDN '" SAVANNAH PLA~J: PUD l1S FlGUR( 2 Q. GRADY llIHGR !IDI ASSOCIA'f!S, P.! tml.DK:II\WtS.WID~.}'U1ImlS \Ill(lQ 'IUIl/a.Jttf => om "",JQ;:_NJ-t!.'4 , ''''.t47~ _c-m.__""~ ..........~IIr_"""""~_ ..m fIBRUJ.JI.Y,200!1 ~'t.OC1f lllU.1I"lliGJWIWtR 1" 1 G:\PROJ ~ PlANNING DOCS\Sa\'annah Place PUD\SPUDR\Drnfts\TRAH1C W:rACTSTATEMENT.doc -5- l ~ ~ ~ ~ :l' ~ Ji1 rg " 1; ~ o o ~ ~ c::. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 i ~ ~ ~ 2 : ~ 8 o o ~ % ~ ;S ~ I "'~ ",,,, ,.. ;.:" "'''' j r "", .... tlJ,:.; "'''' r FIGURE 3 AM & PM Peak Hour Flow by Direction j "" .." 6;:. U I c:, ~ "" J :0", "'0. rS~ "''' r iH 41 '-' ~ !Z "" MiD; PM1-- ---AMt'PM1. c:, 23 "" ~ '<: e: I ~ c:> 8 1 0_ =<'" .... ;':0 n I PINE ROAD A 1:PM -AMO, PM! 31 J ",:0 ~~ _0 "'" r I ii 0." ,~ RIDGE "" ~ '" "" 12 ~ :s; ~ GA PARKWAY a GOLDEN lEGEND' AMX: PMX-- AM AND PM PEAK HOUR FLOW BY DlS1RIBUT10N /)9'VFRIDr:\'?!fl~P.Jf IlW.}lfl!lIr!; BEl (3 m::f"HOl'J..l.CtK\'IOttl, PIU.1'HlN: L.Ji ~ ~,,~'otIU ~ ~ 1U.FIl:ll.l]-Db.1ol.I.0lti$~C':I:>l:: :JC'it%: q. GR.IDY llIlIOR AND ASSOCJAml, P.! CM:,ClG!l!1'n5.L\.WSll!i1ltl)S. f"..IJ!XtiS _'flt1la.1af I s- ..l 0;': I ~*E S P\genda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 72 of 118 VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD J lit ~g r 75 SAVANNAH PLACE pun bu~ fE!:lRUAR'I',2OPll TIS fIGURE 3 t>lL\.'tl1!IC~l"'l mu,,", ., G:\PROJ - PLANNlNG DOCS\Savanllah Place PUD\SPUDR\Drafts\TRAFFlC lMPACi STATEME/'..'T.doc Si ~ '" <Jl c:> ... ,6, Agenda Item No. 8B February 10, 2009 Page 73 of 118 7.0 TRIP GENERATION TABLE I-TOTAL DAILY PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 110 10.1 T.O.S.F. T = 6.97 (X) 70 210 20DU 237 TABLE 2 - ENTERlEXIT BREAKDOWN OF DAILY TRIPS " PROPOSED USE NET NEW TRIPS FOR PROPOSED USE G:\PROJ - PLANNING DOCS\Savannah Place PUD\.'3PUDR\Drafu;.\TRAFflC IMPACT STATEMENT.doc -7 - Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 74 of 118 TABLE 3 - TOTAL DAILY EXTERNAL PROJECT TRIPS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE PROPOSED USE NET NEW TRIPS FOR PROPOSED USE TABLE 4" - TOTAL DAlLY EXTERNAL NON-PASS BY PROJECT TRIPS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE PROPOSED USE NET NEW TRIPS FOR PROPOSED USE G:\PROJ - PLANNrNG DOCS\Sa'lannah P!:lce PUD\SPUDR\Drafts\TRAFFlC n...tPACf STATEMENT.doc -8- Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 75 of 118 TABLE 5 - TOTAL AM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP GENERATION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE 110 10.1 T.G.S.F. T = 0.92 (X) 9 PROPOSED USE 210 20DU Ln(T) =.7 Ln(X) + 9.43 23 TABLE 6- TOTAL AM PEAK HOUR EXTERNAl, PROJECT TRIPS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE PROPOSED USE NET NEW TRIPS FOR PROPOSED USE ,"'.~ G:\PROJ - PLANNING DOCS\Savannah Place PUD\SPUDR\Drnfts\TRAFF!C Th1PACT STATEMENT.doc -9- Aoenda Item No. 88 'February 10, 2009 Page 76 of 118 TABLE 7- TOTAL AM PEAK HOUR EXTERNAL NON-PASS BY PROJECT TRIPS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE PROPOSED USE NET NEW TRIPS FOR PROPOSED USE TABLE 8- ENTERlEXIT BREAKDOWN OF TRIPS DURING AM PEAK HOUR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE PROPOSED USE NET NEW TRIPS FOR PROPOSED USE G:\PROJ . PL.'\"NNING DOCS\Savannilh Place f'UD\SPUDR\Dn~fts\TRAFFIC IMP ACT ST A TEMENT.doc .10. Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 77 of 118 TABLE 9- TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR PROJECT TRIP GENERATION 110 10.1 T.G.S.P. T = 0,98 (X) 10 210 20DU Ln(T) = .9 Ln(X) + .53 NET NEW TRIPS FOR PROPOSED USE TABLE 10- TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR EXTERNAL PROJECT TRIPS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED USE G:\PROJ ~ PLANNrNG DOCS\Savannah place PUD\sPUDR\Drafts\1R.Af1-1C lMPACT STATEMENT.doc -II. Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 78 of 118 TABLE 11- TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR EXTERNAL NON-PASS BY PROJECT TRIPS PROPOSED USE NET NEW TRIPS FOR PROPOSED USE TABLE 12- ENTER/EXIT BREAKDO\VN OF TRIPS DURING PM PEAK HOUR ~ PROPOSED USE NET NEW TRIPS FOR PROPOSED USE G:\PROJ ~ PLANNR'i'G DOCS'Sil'r'annah Place PUD\SPUDR\Drafts\TRJ.>.FFIC LMPACT STATEl\1ENT.doc - 12- romco coO~ -'-0 ~ '- o -'" ,:;:' I'- 2 ca> -roo> m::lro "D~o.. e.o (1)'" DOLL <r: ~ ~ ~ .~ Q ~ ..... Eo< U ~ Q Eo< U r:; o E: N~~O~~OO~_O~_O_OO__ ~~N-NN-_NN_________ ~~~-~~~~~~-NN_M__N~ ~~N-NM__NN_________ NN-O--OO--OOOOCOOOO '" 13 1;; ~OO~~~~~_M~_~__~____ 'ef?-~';1?,*,a?"$;f.~'$.~'JZ'$."$. g~V)~~V)tr}g~V};::8V) . '"" .... ej ~ oj '" "" ;j ". " "" p., ro ~ E :01 "c3 ] .S >=I u ~ ~ l!) d 0 0 ::s id - 0 :>.8 e'J .s~ .8 ;;1 P-i ~ g.=: iU <d;~ ~ o "'0 a 11> ."j ~ :il 1'101 ",.El:>Op., ~ Q S D ~ ~ o ii5 " '"Cl "0 -0 "0 <>::<>::<>::00: ~~~~ H .... .... 1-0< !.:...~~~ I . , I d) 0 IU ~ ..... ...... ...... ..... ...... ..... ...... ...... do) .u Cl} v ~ ;:; :a ::a o 0 0 0 ...... 0 0 0 0 <>:00e'J0 .:::::~.;!:::; :.e:.o:e QJ U IV V "lj "2 'tj .9 :il oj :il p.,:>:>:> ~ o '" " is ;:\"l .~ ~;:j ~ 0 ""' - b "" t <>:: ~ S ~ D v D r/) e'J ~ ~~ 31~ ';f('2f.a? I.()o~ " o ~~ ~~ ,,;" f-' '" ~ ~ ~ g ~ g 0. " ~ ;;:: 1 ~ "' on u o '" o ~ ~ 0. ;;;l 10 ;:;:! D ~ ""' B "l) 'i3 o D o .8 :;;:: ~~~ ~g~ " " " rororo aJ CHa coO~ O~ ON......... Z .0 ,-::::0 e CO '" V) t""- ... '" 00 '" '" ... '" '" V) '" 22 Co> N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "'OJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d d d d 0 '" "'''' "O~CL en 0> Q) o>LL <( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r- '" 0.0 '" '" '" 0 '" 0 '" '" ... '" 0;. r- ... ~ ~ "": 00 t""- '" '" oq '" '" '" N N '" ~ '" ".; N ".; '" ~ '" ",I", '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '" CI) '" ] '" ] ] '" ] '" ] ] ] ] 1 E-< g g g g Z a 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ :B ~ :B ~ .g .f! 0 .f! ~ .g .g .g :l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " " " " U1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ::: ::: U1 ::: U1 C) Z en Z en Z en Z 1':1 CI) -g '" '" ""0 '" A '" '" >- '" to '" ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 1':1 ~ ~ 0 "" E-< " '" "' ~ -g v '" -g "'~ U 0( 0( '" '" '" Gj- ""0 '" 0.. 0.. ""0 ~ .2 ~ po: po: " " Pl -"' 11 aJ " aJ * 11 11 '" """ ~ '" ~ " 15 '" 1:: [':< ~ " " '" ~ ~ ~ .13 .S :e c:> '" (:J .13 0 <'" 1 ~ ~ e- " 0.. 0.. " ~ !l ""' ~ " ~ '" . B 2 B 1 :sa B B ~ "'T '" "0 11 s ~ k B M. .S' '" 11 a '" ~ '" ;> c:> ;> c:> I> .~ ~ 1':1 .2 0 ~ '" '" 11 .c ~ 2 B B B '" OJ '" H " a o-l " ~ o-l "' .Cl ""0 ""0 '" "d '1l 'tl ~ '" I ~ B " " OJ " OJ " 1 0 OJ '" ~ 0 ~ ~ -~~ 0 - 0 ~ " " ~ c3 11 0 '" aJ aJ P1 c:> '" <i: ;t 0 - "" '" " v '" '" ~ " '" " '" S S ~ ~ ] ""0 ] "d :e I> , ~ -e " 1:: po: po: ~ " 1:: ~ 'il .IJ " ~ j j " ... ..'l 0 ... 0 1 1 " ~ ~ :a " " <Zi 0 ~ <Zi .13 .S c3 0 ;> ;> ~ 0.. ""' ;> ;:i ::5 tJ g H '" '" " C) ""0 '" ""0 ""0 g ""0 '" '" >- '" ~ OJ OJ 0 ~ '" c: ~ 0 0 ~ ~ Q ~ ~ f-< "d "d ""0 -g "'" " S .~ ~ ~ ""0 '" OJ '" g ii; U OJ 0 0 ~ 0 ~ " " - '" -g "" -g "d k ~ ~ aJ aJ .. ~ " '" ~ '" " .s '" Z d S ~ " ~ g 1,1 '" ~ " S " ~ " ~ B E ~ , aJ to Z '" '" ""0 . ~ " 1:: " 1:: 1:: v " ~ P1 Pl Pl k '" 0 'i3 'i3 '" " " "" 0 '0 0 a .13 ""0 "d ~ .~ 0 U g- 8 a 0 '" " '" ~ ;;I () ~ 0 :;: a 0 >- .S .8 8 0 0 .;: tJ f-< .;: 0 0 ;J ""' 0.. ""' > > " H '" Z l; f-< "" ~ Z 0 <( "" Qi 0 ~ ..l U <<> "" '" V) '" """ V) t""- o. ... '" ",. '" N N V) 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~ ~ ;::; ~ N CI) ~ , ~ g A 0 ~ ~ CI) () Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 81 of 118 TABLE 15-ROADWAYLINKPEAKHOURLOS-EXISTING ROADWAY LINK PEAK HOUR LOS ~ EXISTING TABLE 16- ROADWAY LINK PEAK HOUR LOS- 2012 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC ROADWAY LTh'K PEAK HOUR LOS - 2012 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC TABLE 17- ROADWAY LINK PEAK HOUR LOS- 2012 WITH PROJECT ROADWAY LINK PEAK HOUR LOS - 2012 WITH PROJECT G:\PROI - PLANNING DOCSIS,vann,h Place PUDISPUDR\D"dls\TRAFF1C IMpACT STATEMENT.doc PAGE 15 SPUDR Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 82 of 118 8.0 APPENDICES 8.1 Appendix A - Trip Generation Savannah Place RPUD Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 10.1 Th.Gr.Sq.Ft. of General Light Industrial July 24, 2008 Average Rate standard Deviation Adjustment Factor Driveway Volume Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 6.97 4.24 1. 00 70 7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.81 0.00 1.00 8 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.11 0.00 1. 00 1 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.92 1. 07 1. 00 9 4-6 PH Peak Hour Enter 0.12 0.00 1. 00 1 4-6 PH Peak Hour Exit 0.86 0.00 1. 00 9 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 0.98 1.16 1.00 10 Saturday 2-Way Volume 1. 32 1. 48 1. 00 13 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.07 0.00 1.00 1 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.07 0.00 1.00 1 saturday Peak Hour Total 0.14 0.41 1. 00 1 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. TRIP GENERATION BY HICROTRANS G:\PROJ ~ PLANNING DOCS\Savannah Place PUD\SPUDR\Drafts\TRAFF1C I:MPACT STATEMENTdoc Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 83 of 118 Savannah RPUD Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 20 Dwelling Units of Single Family Detached Housing January 25, 2008 Average Standard Rate Deviation Adjustment Factor Drive-way Volume Avg. Weekday 2-~lay Volume 11.83 0.00 1.00 237 7-9 AM Peak Hour Ent er 0,29 0.00 1. 00 6 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.88 0.00 1. 00 18 7-9 AM Peak Hour Tota.l 1.17 0~00 1. 00 23 4-6 PM peak Hour Enter 0.79 0.00 1.00 16 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.47 0.00 1.00 9 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total 1. 26 0.00 1. 00 25 Saturday 2-Way Volume 11.59 0.00 1. 00 232 Saturday Peak Hour "Enter 0.78 0.00 1. 00 16 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0,66 0.00 1.00 13 Saturday Peak Hour Total 1. 44 0.00 1.00 29 Note, A zero indicates no data available~ The above rates were calculated from these equations: 24-Hr. 2-Way Volume: LN(Tl = . 92J,lo1{X) + 2,71, R^2 0.96 7-9 AM Peak Hr. Tota 1: T = .7(X) + 9.43 R^2 = 0.89 , 0.25 En.ter, 0.75 Exit 4-6 PM Peak Hr, Total; LN[T) = .9LN[X) + .53 R^2 = 0.91 , 0.63 Enter r 0.37 Exit AM Gen Pk Hr. Total, T = ,7(:\) + 12.05 R^2 = 0.89 , 0.26 Enter, 0.74 Exit PM Gen PI< Hr. Total: LN(T) = . 89LN (X) + .61 R^2 - 0;91 , 0.64 Enter, 0.36 Exit Sat. 2-Way Volume: U'I(T) = ,94LN(X) + 2.63, R^2 ~ 0.93 Sat. Pk Hr. Total: T = ,89 (X) + 10.93 R^2 - 0.9 , 0.54 Enterl 0.46 Exit Sun. 2-\1ay Volume, T - 8.83(X) + -9.76, R^2 = 0.94 Sun. Pk Hr. Total: LN(T) = ,89LN (X) + .44 R^2 = 0.88 , 0.53 Enter, 0.47 Exit Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003. TRI~ GENERATION BY MICROTRANS G:\PROJ . PLANNlNG OOCSIS,v:mn,h PI",e PUDISPUDRIDrnftslTRAFFIC TMPACT STATEMENTdoc PAGE 17 SPUDR coo,,>:> ooo~ O~ ON....... Z .0 o E~~ 2 (:'IJ) -roo> "'::l '" -gZo.. <DQ) :JlLL <l: 8.2 Appendix B - Collier County AUm 2006 , i & , 1 ~ ! 3 t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I . r · o i u ~ u , I 1 .I- , ~ i!. . 1l ~ ~"'li!~ " ,. .-Q! ~ :; -; ~ '" ..",'" ." ! . i ~ ~ ~ ~ " , E . .. :i .. . 5 ~ 5 , ~ !, ".1 -u ~. . . ~~ "S ,~ '. .. , ~ 5~ ~ 11 5 U , ~ ~ ~ ~.. I .. ~ -' ~ ! - ~! - -- . l ! ~ ~ ~ . ~ . . . . ~ ~ . . . A - 0 " A " A 0 0 0 A 0 " "UU 0 0 0 0 . 0 u 0 " " 0 " . . u 0 'I 6 " . ~ a . ~ ~-- ~ $ g ;; I~ ~ 0 i $ S g ! ~ ;; 0 - , ." . 0 " 0 - ! " " fi ~ I; " ~ . ~&i; ~ ! g . ~ . i " . !! ~ " ~ i1 ~ " " . ~ E 0 > n 1 1; " a ~ . " . . . ~~'O' !; . " - . n " !S "I - 5 - 5 '. . " . I- i . ~ . ~ . " ~ . . ~~;!; . . . . . ~ ~ ~ . !l ;; 0 " " ~ , . 0 > - n - n n n n - - I- n I~ ;; . I. " . 8 . i . . ~ g . . ~ ~~ii .0 ~ ~ . . . . - - n n - ~ ~ . - - - n n - :< :< . ~ - 0 . . " . . 0 0 0 000 " 0 0 0 0 0 " " " . 0 0 0 . . 0 J ~ @ e ij e e ~ ~ g f;le;;: e ~ ~ ~ g ~ e e ~ e e 0 e e g " ~ li I I. ~ . . . I I. ~ " " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;; . ~ .1 , G I , . ~ ~ , j ~ .s I! 1.:\ ~ ~ . ~ . ; i ~ ~ 1 ~ . a ~ , 8 j 0 j 1 . J 1! ! ~ s j ~ " ~ . 1 ~ ~ ~ I~ Ii , ; . " I~ " . , .. 'l , ~ > ! 1- , j ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ 0 ~ . . ~ ~ " ~ ~ , ~ I; i , t . " .! ! ~ . ~ . i . . <I ~ ~ ~ ~ i I- " Ii ~ ! ~ . i .I .. . i . ~ ~ . ~ I~ ~ ~ ,. , j . ~ t ~ ! " . i " . j i 0 t . . . " i ~ l~ ~ " . , ; . . j ~ i .2 ~ .2 . IB ~ '! ~ j ] i ~ ., > ~ ~ , ~ ~ 0 , - " ! I i ~ . . , ~ . I~ " . ~ ~ . l - ~ i!. . ~ . ~ ~ ~ . I . ~ . , ! 1! ~ . , 1! . . ~ ~ . ~ ~ , "I' "I' r~ " ~ 0; " . . , ~ . . . " . 11 . 0 0 . . ~ '. ~ ~ , , , , , , . ., , , ., "E 2 ., J .; ~ .; J . 11 'il ," " " " " .. . ~ 0 0 ^ ~ 0 ~ ~ " " ~ Ii ~ ~ " . s .;; 8 . . I "! € ;; g fj g B B 8 ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ B e B B " B @ S 6 6 . u 5 . ~ . ~ i ~ . ~ Iii " 8 ~ I, ~ ~ ~ il ~ il ~ i~ il ~ ii il il a . . " . . . '. " ~ " . " n " " ~ . . , . . .. . , , . . " . 8 I~ - -- - " " . .. . , - . . " - . , ~ , . . . " " " , ~ " . . ~ - . u "> . 00 I :a ~ .. ~ ~ a G:\PROJ - PLANNING DOCS\S3vannah Place PUD\sPUDR\Drafts\TR.A.FFlC D\1PACf STATEMENT.doc PAGE 18 SPUDR I . < ~ ;: ! ~ ;; . ~ ~ , , ~ ~ [ ti ;; " l f ! ! <D ""0 coo~ .'"-0..... '- " c~~ " >'" ::':::CUOl <1l ::l <1l "O~CL ".0 " " O)LL <( i a . ! ~ . ~ ~ ~ t;, . ~ :! a ~ l: 6 ~ . ~ 6 6 ~ i .0 ~ . E !'~ ~~ 'l!~ ,. . ."~ e" a ~8~ " . al 5 5 5 ~ . ~ ~ 0 ,~ ~ i i i i " i ~!3 ~ ~ ~ . ~ li ~ ! ~ " ;j i . i i i A I 0 . " 0 ... 0 '" ClIll I;.) l<lOIllQU 0 0 0 . . " 0 < 0 0 . " " . " } ~ ~ ~~Ef ~ 8 ~~ ~ ~R ~ ~1~ i , a . . . ~ ! . a a . il a . !l . " . - - j . ~ .'8 8 "'..."'..,............. ! . ~ * ~ ~ g il " !1 ~ ~ il ~ ... " ~a~HI!HHi~ ~ . . 0 " ~ . 1 . ~ ~.~ ~ ".-"""I~ " " . " s ~ ~ ~ '! , E . ~ . . a . ~::;:-~=c;;~;::: " ~ - . 0 . j ~ . eli2 ~ ~~~~~55~~ . " . .. ~ 2 ~ " a . . ~ ;! = . 0 .'"' . . - - - - - . . . - - ro . 8 " . .. H .. . ~ . . ~ . " ~ !l . ., " ~ . " j ~ " . ~ ~i B ...~..... - -"I " - n n - " > R -- ! 01 . a.o 0 !=l~Al<lOMOI40 0 0 I. ... ... ~ ~ . 0 . Q 0 0 . " " ~ a I . , ~ ~ , ~ 0 ~ J ~ ~ ~~~ ~ e1ee@ef5.i!ee ~ ~ e e e ~ e " ~ ~ . " ~ 6l . I~ _ " ~ ~ ~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ " ~ " ~ ! j . ;l! ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ . ~ " ~ ~ i " . .">0::15 ~ .. ~ i a t ~ ! " ~ 1 .~ 5 . . ;l! .!,. l . ~ . 1 . . ~ 1 ~ I~ .:; . :i , . ~ '& ~ I 11 . ;j . ~ ~ "' i . ~ ~;:l~ . . , " 1 I~ > ~ ~ i ~ 0 '; ~ . .:; ~ ~ ..' . ~ , . . > 11 ~ ~ ~ a ~~ii Ii Ii , ~ , ~ I- ~ ~ ~ ~ g . ~ ~ 1 ,:; I~ . ~ . " ~ ~ ~ i 0 ~ .!IS! .i { i ~ ~ i { ~ . ill ~ ;: , . ~ .g 5 ; _ -H 0 .. . Ii . .. j ~ . ,; ~ ,; J ~ . I ~ ~ ? . ~ Ii ;j " 0 0 > .< ;1 ! , ,. . . llS ~ IB . & I~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,. I~ ~ ~ "" "" "" ~ ~ J J ~ I; "I "I "I "I "I . ~ . ~ 1 . . " ~ "" "' "I ~ ~ I~ , . ~ j ~ , ~ ~ ! ! ! ! ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,:; J < < ~ :i ~ :i ~ . " " Ii ~ ~ ,g ~ ~ ~ ~ S j j , . ,0 .j 0 0 , " I. . , .! .! , ~ ," ., ., j ~ v ~ 3 v '. " . . , , ,- " " " " " v . ," . I . . . 11 18 B 8 B ~ S B ~ ~ ~ B ~ . B ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ B I ,:; 6 6 ~ Iii ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ . . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ " " ~ l; ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ il ~ ~ . 8 ~ " " ~ . . " ~ " . - . . . " " R . ~ " " ~ . " , " . . . g " " ~ " , " " " . . . . . . 0 . 0 . . " " " " , " . " a - . ~i ",I" "0 4 ! ! .. ~ 'l~ '=1 . " , ~RS 11- . ~ ;i G\PROI- PLANNfNG DOCSIS,v,nnah PI"e PUDISPUDRlDraftslTRAFFlC IMPACT STATEMENT.doc PAGE 19 SPUDR . ~ ~ l 5 " ~, i . ~ I . . ~ ;; ! i . . E I l! . ! ~ ",moo ooo~ o~ ON....... Z - 0 r- s: (0 " 00 2CID -roOl (t:;:i('\j "D~CL ,,-" CD'" OJLL <( . ~ ' ! ~ IH " $~ 0030vt tel IQ uH . i I' . ~ x~~~ 1l~~ . ~ i: · ~ ~! l; , n. " . s. ~~ · 1~ ~ .5-; r:1S$ "0" a ~ !:< S ~ t . ~ t! ~!T o I~ ~ eJ ~~ ;i~ ~ iil ~ :~ o ~~ ~ ~ ~ " 8~g~~~ .! !n~ ,B-<,g"'l :r I~ ~ ! 5 " 5 ~ i ~ g ~ \ "" .] 1<>, i ~ ,~ ~ ~ '1 . 11] , Hi - . lj ,~ ~a ~E i i ~ a i ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ u 0 U U Q 0 Q ~ ~ ~ Q Q Q NU~ ~ ~ ~ 0 u ~ .. I. Q ~ a ~ B ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~~ ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . " 11 , III . 0 I~ ~ . " ~ " ,", a ~ '~ '~ ~I ~ . ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q Q <> ~ a-~ ~ : g o o ~ i'l ~ ~ B i ~ S ~ ~138mj~ 'i..'o,"o, ~ I; :;;- - ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ;;: <=I <> :: ;;t Q ~ r;! ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ . . " ~ " 'Ii .!f -; < ~[ .- ~ - I [ , I i ~ '~~~~~II ~ ~ i ,~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ j j j jl .' . · ! 'is . ii u 0 B B .. , . .. ~ . .. . e . " . ~ ;a li . Ii ~ t~ . !. BI ia ~'oold .... .../.. ~...~~.~- i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ g ! g ~L , ~. fJ .... I'" I l<l lJo:l l<l \I.l Q Cl ~ S fe ~ elle ~ Ie e e o 0 o " . g 0 .... - ;:;- ... Q Q Q P i<ll I'Q Q uj u u u u u ~ j :i , j 8 .1 $ ; ~ ~ ! ~ . s~~ '<=!,! : ~ . 0 I 10 I" i~ . ~ ~ . ~. ~ . a ~ ~ ~ ~ B " t:l1CliQ t;> QIQ 0 Q Q P Q C >;I 0 1:1 0 P ::> ::> ::> ... ...!... ... ... <0 ... ... "" ~ ... .... ... ... ... <'l .... ... u u ! i ~ , ! I~ ~Il~ il~ 1 i~i e~V~ !I~..~ t:J~~~ iie~;!B~!aS ~~~ u ~ ~ I; J ~ ~ ~ ~ ! : : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .'i~a~'~a~~ ti"a~ ~ ~~~L-.I.,jl-~ j j ~ · i · ~ " i 1 ~ ~ i ~ , ~ l: ~ 1tI.... ID III JIC_.,: 3 'i! r i ~ .~ Ii ... ~ ~ "l ., a B ii ~~~I~~~I~ ~ ~.: ]1 ~ ~ t~ ! , - ~l - - ,-I - on ;;; ;; ~ .:ll ~l ~ ~~~~ag,I~IIg, t I :;;: ; ;;; !~ ;.; 0> l~ :;; ~ ~ ~ . . I- . I. · ~ I" · · I. · ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ l~ ~I . .! i. " i! . . a ~ ~:::~~l-~~~'" " p , p " cI ,. . , L. G:\PROJ - PLA.1{NTNG DOCS\Savannah Place PUD\sPUDR\Drafts\TRAFFIC iMPACT STATEMENT.doc PAGE 20 SPUDR ~ . 5 , ., :- . ! " . ~ ~ , I , E ~ I , , I . Jl I t I. v OJ """, ",o~ .,::....c:)....- '0 l"- e '" 2ca> -cuo> cu::>cu "tJ~"- c"'" <D (!) o>LL <( ~ Q . . ~ ~ ~ " "- S 9 m 6 S ~~ ~a e~ ~ . ~ . . . j . a i i i . i a ~ i i ~ i i ~ i ~ ~ . . a i I ! ~ . ! . . u v ~ v . u u . ~ . U Q Q ~ . . Q ~ V V V ~ ~ . . v v 0 . t E . ~ ~ . il ~ 6 ~ ~ 11 ~ . ~ il ~ ~ ~ ~ Ii ~ ~ e ! R . - . . . " I 1! . " :1 s " !'i 1\ S , " " , ~ ~ 11 . " . " . s fa . ~ a ~ '" " " . R . ~ . . ! ~ . ~ g . , ~ . . . . ~ . ~ . " . " , " . " ~ . . ~ . 'l . ~ il ~ ~ ~ . 0 " ~ . . 0 ~ 0 . . 0 !'i . " ~ - ~ . . ~ -.- . " ~ . ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ s r; 8 . ~ 9 ~ . . ~ ~ s . ~ . ! . - :'f - - " . ~ . " . . M - - . M - - - > ~ v ~ . . . . " v u u . " " . ., . . " . . . " . . . . ~ . . e 5 e ~ @ @ " I" Q e e @ 5 5 e e e e e " e e e " " " .i - ," " - I , I , ~ . .~ . Ii I ~ ., , ~ ~ ~ ! i . j ,-~ ~ i ~ ~ .! ~ . ~ ! " ! . . i u . ~ ~ . 'i ~ -i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " q ~ " . ! . ! . , ;l g J ~ , ;; . . . is ;;; , 6 ~ ~ . .' ~ .. Iii It . 3 ] ~ , i ~ ~ . .5 Q ~ . j g ~ " ~ ~ . 1i ~ . ~ , .. ~ . u d :; ! ~ Ii ; . " . 3 . 1 ! ., ! 1 oi i : i . = ~ . i . Ii < ~ 1 ~ ~ , II . ~ b . . ~ i . ~ u ~ , ~ . ~ , ~ ;; g ~ i ~ = . . , ~ , ~ l . , ~ u ., il , i ., 3 ~ ;; ~ ., ~ d ~ 3 , ~ . g . ,; . ,; :; J ~ > . V Q > ! ~ l l l .~ l . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . "' ! ! ! ,; ! ;; ! ! ! ~ ~ " " " z z Z , 11 < . i < ~ . ~ ;; ~ ~ '7 ;; ~ . ;; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;; Ii ~ ~ ~ i " ~ ~ ~ ~ .. . ~ 1 ~ " ~ " ~ " " " ! I~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ., i ! ] ; ! ii I i ; " ! I '! J , I I i ~ ~ :1 , , . 11 . j j J " ,! ] ,! j ! ;1 ., ] ! j ., " ! ,! ., "J I; ., 1 I~ ~ ;;; " . ~ . " " > > :; . ~ j j ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ " " B ~ " B ~ J i3 s i3 iJ Ii! iJ . s ~ ~ i3 i! B 5 B ~ , .- ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ I . I . ;; a " 0 . " . . " ~ " G . " " ~ il . . . . " 0 o. " ~ , ~ . !~ . ~ ~ "i !i ~ !; ~ ~ ~ " " :l 13 ~ , . . - , n >,1" .0 J 1 ~ . ~ . l" t:~i .: !. . ". . ~1i " . " li ~ G:\PROJ - P"LANNING DOCS\Sava.nnah Place PUD\sPUDR'Drafu;\TRAFFIC IMPACT STA.TEMENT.doc PAGE 21 SPUDR . ~ 5 3 i ::to'"~ " . ;; ~ i " , , .. , { ! g I ~ ! ! ~ aJOJCO ",o~ O~ ON...... Z .0 ~s::CO - "" .2:: C"'w -0)01 0) ::> 0) "O~D- ~..o - '" 1i,u. <( . ~ 1 ~ " ~ . . . " " ~ . ~ il E :I ~ :; " ~ ~ " ~ 0 ~ \) 0 ~ . .' ~5 ~~ >, ~ , ~ " . ~ . 0 0 0 0 . . 0 Oi" . u u . . u . 0 . I. i ~ ~ Ii ~ I " !" . I~ 0:: " " . ! ~ ~ " " 0 I ! ~ ~ " ~ 1\1 ~ . il 'i . . I~ . 1:0 1:0 . " - 1 ~ ~ E '" , " - I . " " 'I " ~ . I " ~ ~ . . - , i ~ 0 . . 5 8 .1 ~ . ~ - n - ~ - - ~ . '" " . > Ii! 3 . 3 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ Ii! ~ ~ - - 0 " ~ . , > ! i , - , " 0 0 0 . Q 0 i" A " " " 0 0 0 " " I" 1 ~ ~ ~ g g g ~ ~ e e Ie i I I . ! I , I I 1 i 1 I i ~ I I I I .; , . I ,. I ~ ;; I I' I 1 /; ," 1 j . ~ . ~ ~ j * ,J! ,. ~ i'i . ii . Il '. " " I~ K ~ . I Is . ~ ~ , ] ~ '.i .\ 5 I , ~ ~ . e I' ~ j l Ii j 0 !~ i . . ~ ~ . J ~ ., ~ . " ~ 5 " I , ; ~ i~ " .; ~ . ~ ~ . ; " ;0 j' I j . . ~ . 0 . . ~ . ~ 1"5 , 1 . ~ . , ~ , ~ .\ . ~ j " . , . Ii ~ S , ~ 0 i'i " /; ~ I, - I ~ J I.-e . ~ I, . "I j ~ Ij . 0 . , ~ ~ . ~ ~ . 3 ! , , " ~ I " . ~ . " ~ ~I :. ~ . . " 2 ] ;0 0 ~ i "2 . . i j ! 0 . ! i ~ ~ ,?: ~ ~ ~ " ! :; i , . ~I . ! ~ , . ~ 1 . g ~ \'6 ~ <; ~ " .. .i < < .; ~ . Ii Ii , 0 . . !. i . .\ I I I 1 . . ~ ~ g " 5 " . 0 5 . 0 . i N ~ . 0 ~ I~ II . ~ .,. i ~ i ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~ s M . ~~ I I Ii a E E . i~ <; a < 5 IE E . > ;; E 12 Is - - ~ :: " " 00 B - 0 0 " - ,- . n "A' ". , I . ., ~ . ~ pi: p.,~1 " ~ ~ ~ t: .;1\ c ~I><'" ~ ~ G:\PROJ _ PLANNING DOCS\S:avannah Place PUD\SPUDR\Drafts\TRA.FFIC IMPACT STATEMENT.doc PAGE 22 SPUDR I , ", :' j , . :l . " ~ ~ 1 . c , ~ < ; . ~ . l I ! , ! ~ o Agenda Item No. 8B February 1 0, 2009 Paae 89 of 118 SAVANNAH PLACE RPUD Section 2; Township 498; Range 25E Collier County, F10rida Protected Species Survey Boylan -?;- Environm~~~ -- Consultants, ,~c. Wetland & Wildlife Sf,/rve!~onmental PermlUlllg, Impact hsessmen.t.s 11000 Metro Parkway, Suite 4 Fort Myers, Florida, 33966 Phone: (239) 418-0671 Fax; (239) 418-0672 punZ-2007-AR-]2026 REV; 1 Project: 20070700] 3 Date; 7/17/07 DUE; 8/14/07 July 3,2007 Agenda 11em I~o. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 90 of 118 INTRODUCTION An environmental scientist from Boylan Environmental Consultants, Inc conduded a field investigation on the 71: acre property on May 11,2007. The purpose of this field investigation was to identifY the presence of protected species and species habitat. Additional time was spent conducting FLUCFCS mapping. The survey was condncted between the hours of9:00 am and 12:00 pm. The site is located south of Orange Blossom Drive in a portion of Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, in Collier County, Florida. r. r\\ " .:,';:' ";"ort" sr' l.' .. r!>.' ,~ .~m~ ~"t}: .....E~~ cf'J'.......r- " /" ~ < . . ""~ ~ J.~ .- ! \ ~ L llthT;lOJrlul;l Datal./S'l!subjl:d:miet:nse. 1007 DeLorme. Stn::e1 Atjat USJlI!) 2000. _.dclom1~_l;Om ~, a AOO fJ'J;l l:lOOlliOO1lX02.oJ D'alaZt1oml3-6 - 2 Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 91 of 118 SURVEY METHODOLOGY The property was surveyed for the presence of listed species in accordance with the overlapping belt transects method. This method is comprised of a several step process. First, vegetation communities or land-uses on the property or study area are delineated on an aerial photograph based on nomenclature of the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS). Next, the FLUCFCS codes or land-use types found on the property are cross- referenced with the Collier County Protected Species List. This protected species list names the species that have a probability of occurring in any particular FLUCFCS community. Then, each community is searched in the field for the species within that particular FLUCFCS type. An intensive pedestrian survey is conducted using parallel belt transects that are approximately 10- 40 feet apart, depending upon both the thickness of vegetation and visibility, as a means of searching for plants and animals. In addition, periodic "stop-look-listen" and quiet stalking methods are conducted foraniinals. Signs or sightings of these species are then recorded and are marked in the field with flagging tape. The table at end of this report lists the FLUCFCS cOrnniunities found on the property and the corresponding species that have the potential of occurring in them. Transects were walked approximately as shown on the attached protected species survey map. Parti<war attention was placed upon locating potential fox squirrel nests. Nearly 100 percent of the property that was considered as potential tortoise habitat was surveyed. SITE CONDITIONS During the site inspection on May 11, 2007 the temperature ranged from 770F to 80"F. It was partly cloudy outside with a 10 mph westerly breeze. Weather information acquired from www.weatherunderground.com: The site has been used as' a landscape nursery with associated areas for office, storage, landscape materials, mulching, ect. Landscape debris piles are located in the south portion of the site. There is a small water management lake located in the centeTportion of the site. Near the entrance, there are several vacant office buildings with driveway entrnnce road and associated parking. Listed below are the vegetation communities or appropriate land-uses identified on the site as shown on the attached FLUCFCS map. See Florida Land Use, COVer and Forms Classification System (Department of Transportation 1999) for definitions. 140 Commercial and Services (approximatelv 4.72 acres) This developed and disturbed area includes the buildings, driveways, parking, landscaped areas, water management areas except the lake, and other integral areas which support the landscaping operation. Storage sheds, trailers, trucks, equipment and landscaping debris incl~ding mulch, rocks, non-native vegetation are also found in this area Willow and primrose willow Were observed in the water management swales and ditches. 3 Agenda Item No. 8B February 10, 2009 Page 92 of 118 411 Pine Flatwoods (approximately 1.00 acres) This upland community is dominated by Florida Slash Pine in the canopy. The understory vegetation is dominated by saw palmetto. Some disturbed and exotic vegetation was present including elephant grass, Climbing cassia, Brazilian pepper, ficus, and java plum. Other groundcover species observed included Grape vine, wax myrtle, swamp fern, saw grass, mimosa, ragweed, poor man's pepper, Caesar weed, nut sedge, and cabbage palm. This area is surrounded by fill from development to the south, west and to the north from the landscaping facilities and is located adjacent to the drainage swale along the south boundary to the east. 500 Other Surface Water (Water Management Lake) (approximately 1.07 acres) This man made excavated lake is located in the center portion of the site. No littoral vegetation was present. Scattered small cypress trees, which may have been planted, were located along the perimeter of the lake. This lake is part of the existing water management system. Table 1: FLUCFCS COMMUNITIES BY PERCENTAGE JITJ(1.C'ifcs ~:IDiil~~N';",""" ...~ ffl~~JmNt .,:j..-, ~-;..', ',:,~" :..: .:' $. .' ' Y <... :, . AC' " . 140 Commercial and Services 4.72 69.5% 41 1 Pine Flatwoods 1.00 14.7% 500 Other Surface Waters 1.07 15.8% Total . 6.79 100% ..... .... . .>:'..,_ . _,f'.. ~._.", *Total OSW *Total Upland L07 ac. 5,72 ac. 15.8% 84.2% SPECIES PRESENCE During our field survey for protected species on the property, we did not observe any endangered species or signs thereof. No tree cavities were noted. No tortoise burrows were identified. No stick nests or any nest like structures were found. Other non listed species observed included a Northern Cardinal, and evidence of a small rabbit. 4 Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 93 of 118 DISCUSSION The site is smrounded by development included Wellington located to the west and south, Cay Lagoon to the east. This site is not located adjacent to any preserves or wildlife corridors which would provide access to or from the site for wildlife. The size of the site is also very small, and the area of native vegetation is even smaller relative to the site. The lack of appropriate and sustainable habitat for wildlife could explain the minimal presence of both non-listed and listed species. Although limited species were observed during the survey, it is anticipated that wading birds may utilize the littoral areas of the lake for foraging. However, the laCk of use or presence of wading birds would be explained by the limited littoral vegetation, and adjacent land USes. Table 2: Collier County Protected Species Survey Summary Protected species having the potential to occur in the corresponding FLUCFCS community or land-types with corresponding field survey results. '. j i ! FLUCCS Potential Listed Species % Present Absent Density Visibility Coven.e (ftl 140 Butrowino Owl 95 X 40 Gonher Tortoise 95 X 40 411 Beautiful i'a=aw 100 X 10 Bi" Cvoresspox Sauirrel 100 .X 10 'Eastern Indioo Snake 10() X 1(} Fakahatchee BurmaIlllia 100 X 1(} Florida Black Bear 100 X 10 Florida Coontie 100 ..~ - X JO Florida Panther 100 X 10 Gooher Fro" 100 X 10 GOD"her Tortoise 100 X 10 Red-Cockaded W oodoecker 100 X 10 Satin lear 100 X 10 Southeastem American Kestrel 100 X 10 Twisted Air Plant 100 X J(} 500 American Allioator 95 X 100 Evendades Mink 95 X JOO Limokin 95 X 100 Little Blue Horon 95 X 100 Reddish Egret 95 X 100 Roseate Snoonbill 95 X 100 Snowy Egret 95 X 100 Tricolored Heron 95 X 100 5 N , ,~ Scale: 1M... 100' PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 REV: 1 Project: 2007070013 Date: 7/17/07 DUE: 8/14/07 FLUCFCS LeQend Code Description 140 Commercial and Services 411 Pine Flatwoods 500 Other Surface Waters Acreage 4.72 ac 1.00 ac 1.07 ac 6.79 ac , 7 ~l(lbt-Itf'JW 2007-39 5/T'" L C CS """" 1" = 100' Co<.nty 2/49S/2.5E Collier P('"'J~ Savannah Place FLUCFCS C',-,-."V~ N SceJs:1.=-100'" FLUCFCS Legend Code Description 140 Commercial and Services 411 Pine Flatwoods 500 other Surface Waters Acreage 4.72 ac . 1.00 ac 1.07 ae 6.79 ac 411 1.00 500 1.07 140 4.72 .-I"" It" I 88 February 10,' 09 Page 95 of 118 B ~_. """ ""'"""" "- oylan Savannah Place Environmenlal Job G.nau1t.anUl, Inc. 2007-39 . - 100' FLUCFCS """" ,.~.~~ S/fjR """"" JI(X;fJj/~~~.n..~n. f1J'}fl3-W1 2f49S/25E Colli~r TRANSECTS Agenda Item No. 88 - . - 9 8 N 1 i ,. Scate: 1"'" 100' FLUCFCS Legend Code Description 140 Commercial and Services 411 Pine Flatwoods 500 Other Surface Waters Acreage 4.72 ac 1.00 ac 1.07 ac 6.79 aG Boylan ~_ K Environmental ~~="" Conmlltsnw, InC~ f"..t4~.!t ""i:a<."It~~z"""'~~"'4- lrW)/.!rv~l'al:,>,.7~f,~~Jn-~lr6-<ml P.,. ,/" .IcbNtmIt<< 2007-39 s/r/R. 2/48Sj25E FLUCFC"S """" Savannah F'laco . - 100- """" Colli~r Protectecl Species Survey E;:h'l;l!t N A e Item No. 88 February 10, 20 9 Page 97 of 1 8 r I \ ~:..-=-;-------j I L______ I , I . r::----., I , i \ I I '--I \ l I I \ I I 1 \ I ~ ~ \ I I \ I I \ 1 I \ I I \ 11 \ I I \ I I \ I I ) I I II L-1.J I I -1 I r---"""', I I ( 'r. (,I \ '1 I I I I I \ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I : 114q \ \ I r I I I I I I I L. I I 14.721 I I I - -,I I I 1 I I I ,-----..1 I I I I' I \ L------l I I \ I I I -----1 I I ) I I I ,------1 I \ I I I l------l I I \ / I I 1 r------J r----J : I I I I I L______ I II I r.J { I I I r------ -U l \.., L_-..J I : L 444---~-- ----=-~ ~ I - L__ ____~------ \ ,--]-:00-------- ----';-\ I \.1_________-' L______________ __~ Acreagt;> 4.72 ac 1.00 ac 1.07 ac 6.79 ac Seale.:1"= 100' FlUCFCS Legend Code Description 140 Commercial and Services 411 Pine Flatwoods 500 Other Surface Waters ----- TRANSECTS ,--------------- I I I I I 500 1.07 Bop_ ~ """""" """' .".",..., Savannah Place "'" Environmental , c'mrultanta. me. 2007-39 '-1 Protected Species Survey ~..~~ SlfIR """" ....... -- lJ<<i(JMdn>hrl:tHf,t.NtJ,h.",",n. (1lt,llfu.zq1 2/49SJ25E Conler ,COLUER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (i) Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIV~age 98 of 118 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 403.2400 FAX (239) 643-6968 PRE-APPLICATION MEETING NOTES ~ PUt> R.ezone (PUDZ) DpUD fo PUD Rezone (PUDZ.A) D PUD Amendment (PUDA) Dale: 4/ig-/D1 Time: In:30A. Firm: 8rOL1(f Minor- 4' AS6CC . ~ro-ArnQtcl Prolecl Nome: S Y\ACL.Woo D \=>llf) Cock- o.p~{bVJt~ Size of Project Site: &. <},2 ocres ~lY'A-Il VJO c:x::,\, Nv..~ ApplicantName: 5+tphQX1 Lockwocd phone:J141-W.fLf Owner Name: Phone: Owner Address: $1f('a.\lwoo~ City Slale ZIP Existing PUD Name and Number ~ 'All L...o)o.jED. . . PUDZ-2007-AR-12026 REV: 1 Project: 2007070013 Date: 7/17/07 DUE: 8/14/07 \;J~\-nt f1r~T ~ on o fQ 1\Dg...;\-,,'" c.CL-- . \1\~ (D1 m~ tN~+) ~L '0 bl'l \,.l s ckv\ S I ~ by AF fO)(.j)A~Lf, \-\() US \ t() & CQU-\& ~ ,go o~ Y\\; Assigned Planner ~(ll.j D.e.S2~ Meeting Affende'es: (allach Sign in Sheet) Submillal requirements (see next page checklist): G:\CurrentIPre.Application Forms 2006\PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment PUD to PUD Rezone pre-app 050404.doc pUD REZONE (f'UDZ) PUD to pUD REZ()NE (pIlDI-A) PUb AMENDMENT (f'UDA) APPLICATION . SUBMITT At CHECKLIST ,onrl Ifo 1\ PR February 10, 2009 Page 99 of 118 THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW W/COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION. NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WilL NOT BE ACCEPTED. REQUIREMENTS #OF COPIES 1 Additional set if located In the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area) Copies of detailed description of why amendment is necessary Com leted Application (download from website for current form) Pre-a plication meeting notes PUD 9__..,<..1 & Conce tuol Site Plan 24" x 36" and One B y," x 11" co I oD"llr-'ll:Conceptuol Site Plan 24" x 36"ond One B y," x II" co Original PUD document and Master Plan 24" x 36" - ONLY IF AMENDING THE PUD ' 24 24 24 24 24 24 REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED rv{A tv/A V V 24 24 Nt ; Deeds/legal's & Survey (If ".uneari of oli.JI..~1 PliO" o,...I,Jd) Ust identifying Owner & aU parties of corporation Owner/Affidavit signed & notarized 3"nanf of Unified Control 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 7 5 2 If located in RFMU (Rural frinae Mixed Usel Receivina land Areas Applicant must contoct Mr. Gerry J. locavera, State of Florida Division of Forestry @ 239-690-3500 for informotion regarding "Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan", LDC Section 2.03.0B.A.2.a.(bF.c. V' v v rvA v V v -2- G:\Current\Pre-Application Forms 2006\PUD Rezone. PUD Amendment PUD to PUD Rezone pre-app 050404.doc , Fees: Application Fee: Jx:r$10,000 (PUD Rezone) + $25 per aere (or fraction thereof) ',"[5i8,o00 (PUD to PUD) + $25 per acre (or fraction thereof) o $6,000 (PUD Amendment) + $25 per acre {or fraction thereof) Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 100 of 118 l $150.00 Fire Code Review $2,250.00 Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review $500.00 Pre-application fee (Applications submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last pre-t1pp ~ting shall nol be credited towards application fees and a new pre-application meeting will be required. ~ $729.00 Legal Advertising Fee for CCPC meeting (to be reconciled upon receipt of Invoice from Naples Dally o News). "l3J $363.00 Legal Advertising Fee for BCC meeting J:;V~$2500.00 Environmental Impact Statement review fee . ...e3. Property Owner Notification fees. Property Owner Notifications $1.00 Non-certified; $3.00 Certified return receipt mail ( to be paid after receipt of invoice from Dept. of Zoning & Development Review) Transportation Fees, if required: ~..J 1'eB'P I $500.00 Methodology Review Fe , if required flp. c"r./-re"-'''' $750.00 Minor Study Review Fee if required ""Z A.... "" f? L.o ~"" "$4 sh")) "", $1,500.00 Major Study Review Fe , if required ) Fee Total $ PLANNER MARK IF NEEDED TO BE ROUTED TO REVIEWERS BELOW: Comments should be forwarded to the Planner rior to the due date SCHOOL DISTRICT PARKS & REC - Amanda Townsend SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS IMMOKALEE: WATER/SEWER DISTRICT DRlEM1 - EMER. MGMT - Jim Von Rintein UTILITIES ENGINEERING - Zamira Deltoro CDES Coordinator - Linda B. Route Sheet onl Fro USl~R8J1 Nil V Meeting Notes d(~,4;r">oP 19-hll+ ft)IJf'SIOYl ~ k$W V\~oTlQ_ ~ 0(\ . c cU ~(?J' ~~r~df;1~~~~~I~ili1W:~ , 1IIJm f!>e;~ctJ ~ jT) usl- Ad )"'.>f'I' _ to FUJf Pn t;c'j ~,vl ~ fM.r: l""-f 7. r - 7, '1 -AJZ.efI. f.eUtf!.lJ; ,1..!o'1 ApP/6/ "'-"fR/ cs:- (fF3.3(~A.J FOe. A<<i/. . -.f2:erJ. . ~ .:c ~ __.~ .. ~'h~~~ .4=~-^ 2"/A~ '.J//1. ,1/ /;)7.. " -d o~. .A'~~ w~~~fl-,\.dv,....,..d<1.f..~r..?~ 'O~.~./~~-!. ~ rl/D;~ -az /r-:7-~~ 0 ~__.h~ ~ ~7A .~. ~~~. ( (;?t~ ?~) ~ ~nJ;r~ - ~ +oafkJud ~+ .3- G:\Current\Pre-Application Forms 2006\PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment PUD to PUD Rezone pre-app 050404.doc Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 101 of 118 MEETING NOTES T0\tUS'P.1'v.."v"""''''''b' "';7 <ft<;;avt~ ; ~~l.-~y HV$'r , f ~1r~ ,?~tbe..- 10 SU"?/1/7fQL", 5J.1cw N<e\ !lJ6...) C:L /1 :?,iSD\Su/v,u OF' jf:.\ . -rV'/':.fl L.a.w6,,;>1 ):;,. 1<-iEcvk<=:P 11 . O. W. 1J,il;v'i=> eI"oJM"'o~ ^ _ . Ir k.lJ.~T- 1]& NG r )'J6-"-" T.iZ.'f'i> . ;:-4,ll.- "'" ,",44:: -r"'-'->4i2-",.:; 3' (.,A.1lJ~P --;I"7f'f4yt;ll~yr? ~ OfZA,v,,:;. ~'3>""=""'1 /J1'le:.F\ "";0>>1;;; k / 1Z(!;;-<:(oJ""t-U::D _ Lt",OA ~ flb\lllt~ NtM pa-dr,pr to l.kui.. lA.),lU,..p,~_., ~W~"'t -?rbV',dd La.!Jd,sc,-,XW- t't1h(i't1ut.\'f\'1 L.1"J(J5't:#PE",' /",'-;-Y;<JE' .0' .#tcN'4 ~.r I.?~ /r2;r,-rAJAI/,d:;. /BII!';of~ , ,,/,: ') -r'/"~ g (!rf ficePr #a~ 7"2::) 1"t'11J.-TJ-P'~ A..lo~vk.r / .. ~~ wH1CtI,~ ,,,' /YN ,11" Fb"rZ. ,rr./~LIF"" F~WI c.l.!i&j J , , '. .I ' (?c./F~S [.oIo,.l[,(J BE:"loJ TV/l,t;A /ht. ~......i() 1"( tY@ O~ lit. KAY' AsttD P.s-rn-~NEJ2.."\"O P=tJtO". "lI(Jl"~ TlIPe.<;;,.l;:- Wn:oTl-lS ........l A u... p~ H F:TI=l?<; {..AV E'U"1.A1r-JR"f") h; e-w .p UD 'T'It.ocEOU llli-S Vj/ agIE!:l"I3. ~bRbII\lA~ tr 'FIN DIWc.:G, f...lA.l2lMIl\JE~ <::.Mt' COloJf./.!.TU..lc-Y R,F:!Jt'f;MJ5 (...KP FWE. . . ,5,4 ~ I. i ll;"TJ2+..~, S., (''>;;,"2-.+ "m; ",-H<.r ('.c.l"Utu.:r p()\!; ("-""") SHot)!..IJ BE -t'~\D~ s"'\".AeATF-t-V' , EXHIBIT A Collicc County // Traffic Impact ~ Imiew ~ Schedule Fees will be paid in=talIy as the development proceeds: ~th0<!9IQgy ReView, ~ Review, and Sufficiency Reviews. Fees for additiOnal medings or olhc-< optional services are also provided below. Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 1020(118 Metnodoloi!v Review - S500 Fee Melhodology Review iDelDdes rmew of a rrubmitted mefuodology mot"1l"'"1ll. including review of submitted trip gmeration c:stimate(s), distn"bation, assignment, and review of a "Small Scale Study" &termination, WrittelI approval/co..... ~ts on a proposed methodology &tatelneDt, and written confirmation of a re- : submitted, ameoded methodology statCment, and oDe m::eting in Collia County, if T'ffil~ . . "SmaD 'Scale Study" Revle!I' - No. Additional Fu flDcl1Ides one R!fllclenev review) Upon "t'!"vval of the methodology review, the appliCllllt may submit the study. The review includes: a COI1CU1l"CllC}' detcrniination, site access inspection and eonfirmalioo of the stDdy compliance with trip generation, distribution and maximum1hreshold compliance. . "Mlnor StudT Review" - $750 Fee fInc:ludes one S1Ifficlellev review) Review of the BUbmittCd tratliO analysis includes; optiool1 field visit to site, confirmation of trip generation, distnOution, and assi~t, COIlCtlI"lmcy determination, coniirmation of.committed improv=1s,. rmew of traffio w1mne data. oollectediassCmblod, review of off-cile. improVements wilhin the right-of-way, review . of site access and citt:ulation, and ft "i"" ~lion and rmeW of "sufficiency" C<:JmT1V'nt<:/ql\~OIlS. "Mal or studv R~ew" - $1.500 Fee ancludes two hatenedion anaIvsls ud two SlIfiiclenev reviews) Review of the BUbmitted trafliellllll1ysisincludes: field visit to Bite, coofirmationoftrip gcnaaiion, special . trip gen(:mian and/cr trip length mIDy, distributiOll and ~gnmart, COIll,":lID;'CI dc:terinination, confirmlition of coimDitted impro~, review of 1nfIic volume data collected/assembled, I'Mew of traffic growth ~ rmew of off-6ite roadway operatioIis and. capacity analym, rc:view of Bi~ aroess and circulation, ~borhood traffic intrusicin issues, any necessary improvement proposals and associated cost estimates, and prepara1ion md review of up to two I"OUIIds of "sufficiency" COInJn<:llt&Iquestions and/or recommended conditioos of approval. . "Additional iDwl'$eetion Reflew" - $500 Fee The review of additional intemctions. Bhall include the same pmuneten; as outIincd in the "Major Study Review" and IihalI apply to ~b intersection above the first two inta&ectiillls included in the "Mlgor Study Review" . . '"' . "Additional SnfiIdenev Reviews" . $500 Fee) Additional sufficicticy moiewi beyond those initially iDeJudedin the fl.pj,'lvJ>>.1atC study Gball require the . additional Fee prior to the completion of the review. . Other MIscellaneous ServIces; . AdditioDal optional savi=, if necessary, will be provided per the scbedille below . . 't I" OIltional Services: I. Attend moiew meetings in Collier County oulside of the office $300 . 2. Attend public meetings $600 " h(tp:!iwww.collieraov.neVlndex.Bsox?oaoe=566 Q) co c>...- : ""lcr- '0 ~<"'l ~o >>..-:-. . m 0) :::;. OJ. ~<1l -ili(L: '" ",t;(l, . '=:li' ~r;'~!:i::',:, "d;t"~ ~"""'.':I;;:: ,'~d:':; "';:;1'.".' '. . ,.' ".i1l11f~~: - I': 'II '......."",,"" ::;~':,,~<, ~li~ ~~~":i" ,. LJ :: <II .- > ~C> <II ~ - C <II Z E affi l:l. I W 0 \::P~ -ai > - -0 <II III W 0 c I ~ " .; -::r-a c 0 0 .... ell 0) c .2 0 N - 0 - C ll> E - ~ 0 l:l. ll> 0 D o o 3us -.J ~ .J !- c:..:rl -:;'0 - ~ VIa. .i:L :E I W ~ - M 0- C'l I M - . C'l I 0:: 0- w M Z C'l Z <l: ~ .... ll> 0. ..a o E w :) Z Z (!) GI C in 0 VI .J: <l: 0. '"co")' ,.,:,:, ".=-::: ~,'. :G.:' tn;:: ~1 a Q' 0(' t:J:~ :;;: ~; w:';;. ~'i' ~.;, ~:ic W) 2F ~',' ''':','' ,:,~;,. .:;;""" _i-'.", ',"'.i+ "'",f ~ , ~~ ~ \<1 \ :iE' ~"" ~;~:~. ;:'~fi:;; .:!;!:if:. ~::;' u'"" a", ~:r Z oj:; lit;;. - >T en ~'~ ::>/ ~F ":i,; J W ::'E' 0( z it '" .~ 0 \) ..; 0 '" """"' l \:J fad'- ::., J Po \0\i) I \ ~ 't:!' <:'{ N :;; . ~ '--, ~~ ~V) :sill ~t) ~ '" 1ij ~ N o ie '" -0 .. '" '0; ~ @ <J o "0 -i 9 CD N , o ~ ;; '" L; m .s c '" 10 "0 '" '" '0; ~ ";;j C. 0- '" &> ~ "- :> u.: . COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT -ADDRESSING DEPARTMENT (i) Agenda Item No. 8B 2800 NORTH HORS~'gill\;;:009 NAPLES, FLORIDA 341'/j~'n tl~'i18 ADDRESSING CHE~KLIST 1 Please complete the following and fax to the Addressing Department at 239-659-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Department at the above address. Form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to pre-application meeting. Not all items will apply to every project Items in bold type are required. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Department PETITION TYPE (check petition type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition Type) o BL (Blasting Permit) o BD (Boat Dock Extension) o Carnival/Circus Permit o CU (Conditional Use) o EXP (Excavation Permit) o FP (Final Plat o LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) o PNC (Project Name Change) o PPL (Plans & Plat Review) o PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Piat) X PUD Rezone o RZ (Standard Rezone) D SOP (Site Development Plan) D SDPA (SDP Amendment) D SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) D SIP (Site Improvement Plan) o SIPI (Insubstantial Change to SIP) o SNR (Street Name Change) D SNC (Street Name Change - Unplatted) D TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) D VA (Variance) o VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) o VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) o OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) See attached - p~ c..U 1S'1 .., 'Z- - 4- "l - ~ So l> FOLIO (Property 10) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) 00238440801 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) 2010 Oranae Blossom Drive, Naples, Florida . LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of projecllsile in relation to nearest public road right-of-way . SURVEY (copy - needed only for unplatted properties) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projects/sites only) SDP orAR# Page 1 of2 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST - PAGE TWO Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 105 of 118 Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in. condominium documents (if application; indicate whethar proposed or existing) Please Check One: X Checklist is to be Faxed back o Personally Picked Up APPLICANT NAME: Heidi Williams PHONE: (239) 947-1144 FAX: (239) 947-0375 Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Addressing Department. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Primary Number 5 z.. 35 . 'dress Number Address Number Address Number Approved by: ./Q...,.~ (Yl ())C lO.. ...... Date: 14- - I '3 - 0'" Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED Page 2 of2 ~urrent\A.pplication FormsVt.ddressing Checklist rev 020207.doc . tit OR' 2251~n~~~,~~~t , ~"ll~ 1ljl:'~h18 EXHIBIT "A" The southerly 7%.70 fe"t of the caslerly .nO.bl /""t of tbe north one. half of the southwest quarter of Section 2. Township 49 Sooth. Range 15 East. t 'ollier COWl!y. Florida. Less and Except the !l)llowing described parcel: thence along said East !in~~ 0'" &et t!rt e POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein deseri . e:: tP ....,; Subj"ct to easements and rest~1.1~' . of record; GO .. ] 79 I 0;,., '?- C0{- conlamlllg. acres more or ess; ~ CiR bearings are assumed and based on the right of way of Orange Blossom Drive being North 89". 4Z' .58" East. . ~~ --""'~ J ([>A f).Rh Q J';:;:. 10 ~ . t:. N V II(' ON J1 e fJT A.L Agenda Item No. 8B . February 1 0, 2009 . , PUDRezone&Pl,IDAmendment : -/-... ~~~~ AII~~~~.oI1Lvt~'_. If .- 1).. . Provide a map of all overlays, districts and zoning on the subject site and the surrounding properties. (i.e. CON, ST, PUD, RLSA designation, RFMU district, etc.) (LDC 2.03.05- 2.03.08; 4.08,00) 2. Comply with specific reqnir=ents per SSA stewardship easement, or SRA development document/master plan. (LDC 10.02.13; 2.03.06; 4.08.06) G> Submit a current aerial photograph and clearly delineate the subject site boundary lines. If the site is vegetated, provide FLUCFCS overlay or vegetation inventory identifying upland, wetland and exotic vegetation. (LDC 10.02.03.B.l.d - e) tV Clearly identify the location of all preserves and label each as ''Preserve'' on all plans. (LDC3.0S.07.A.2). WVI? \)@( c>nd~ y.. 1510 '" r~ ~~ fl '.J ' p~ pr-CJ.-"~ =; =ti:-~ (J) Provide calculations on site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to be retained, the max. amount and ratios permitted to be created on-site or mitigated off- site. Exclude vegetation located within utility and drainage easements from the preserve calculations (LDC 3.05.07.B-D; 3.0S.07.F; 3.05.07.H. Ld-e). ~ Created and retained preserve areas shall meet the minimum width requirements per LDC 3.05.07.H.l.e. CJ Retained preservation areas shall he selected based on the criteria defined in LDC 3.0S.07.A.3, include all 3 strata, be in the largest conti.guous area possible and shall be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off-site preservation arcas or wildlife corridors, (LDC 3.0S.07.A.4) ~trovide the justification for proposing a created preserve versus retaining existing native vegetation. (LDC 3.0S.07.H.1.e.i) 9. Provide the location, maintenance plan, and type of habitat of any proposed off-site preservation/mitigation. (LDC 3.0S.07.F) .@ 'Wetland line shall be approved by SFWMD and delineated on the site plan. Provide wetland permits from the applicable agencies. (LDC 3.05.07.F; 1O.02.03.B.l.j.) 11. Wetlands within the RFMU District and the Urban Designated i\rea Lake Trafford/Camp . Keais wetland system shall provide an assessment of the value and function ofthe onsite wetlands (WRAP score). Direct impacts of development shall be directed away from high quality wetlands. (LDC 3.05.07.F.3.a) 12. Wetlands within the RFMU District and the Urban Designated Area Lake Trafford/Camp Keais wetland system being utilized by listed species, serving as wildlife corridors and existing wetland flow ways shall be preserved onsite, even ifby doing so exceeds the required preservation acreage. (LDC 3.0S.07.F.3.b-c) . 13. Wetland preserves 'within the RFMU District and the Urban Designated Area Lalce Trafford/Camp Keais wetland system shall have a vegetated (existing or planted) upland buffer located landward from the appro'Vedjurisdictionalline. (LDC 3.0S.07.F.3.f) JD DX. ~i~ , Agenda Item No. 88 . . .1__' . th " d th b . F~rLjary 10, 2009 14. All direct rmpacts to weW1Llds WIthin e RFMUDIStrict an e Ur anDesIgnat~~',re~8 of 118 Lake Trafford/Camp Keais wetland system shall be mitigated. Provide a mitigation assessment. (LDC 3.0S.07.F.4) 15. RLSA Baseline standards for Wetlands outside of FSAs, HSAs. WRAs and the ACSC. Provide a map identifying ~e wetland assessment scores of each wetland on-site. The preservation requirement shall be met first with wetlands with a score of 0.65 or greater (based on SFWMD methods). Provide agency approved wetland score documentation. (LDC 4.08.0S.H.!.) 16. RLSA Baseline standards for Wetlands outside of FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and the ACSC. Wetlands being utilized by listed species or serving as wildlife corridors shall be preserved onsite, even ifby doing so exceeds the required preserv'ation acreage. (LDC 4.0S.08.H.2.) 17. RLSA Baseline standa1'ds for Wetlands outside of FSAs, HSAs, WRAs and the ACSC. Direct impacts to wetlands, shall be mitigated for. Provide a mitigation assessment. The wetland functional score of the mitigation must equal or exceed that of the inapacted wetlands. Demonstrate that there's no net loss of wetland functions. Priority shall be given to mitigation within FSAs and HSAs. (LDC 4.0S.0S.H.S-9.) IS. Provide a complete and sufficient EIS (and the review fee) identifYing author credentials, consistency determination with the GMPs, off-site pres elves, seasonal and historic high water levels, and analysis of water quality. For land previously used for fann fields or golf course, provide soil sampling/groundwater monitoring reports identifYing any site contamination. (LDC 10.02.02) @ProvideawildlifesUlvey. (LDC 3.04.00) 20. Provide USFWS and FFWCC agency permits for protected species. (LDC 10.02.03 .B.1.j .viii) 21. Include the wildlife habitat management plan as an appendix to the PUD DocUment (eagle, RCW). (WC 3.04.00) 22. Golf Course PUD within RFMU or Rl.SA: Provide an Enviroumental Master Plan and Natural Resource ManagementPlaiI (NRMP) approved by Audubon International. (LDC 2.03.0S.A.2.a.(3)(a).xi.b; 2.03.08.A.3.a.(I)(k); 4.08.06.A.3.h; 4.0S.0S.FJ) ~ 23. PUD Document and Master Plan shall state the minimum acreage required to be preserved. (WC 1O.02.13A2) 24. UD Document shall identifY permitted uses within the pre~eR':e and wetlan~~~~lrs. (WC 10.q2.13.A.1.e} k~' C)j(J/) 'iJ-f.urd"- w! P'S { dS( ~ . PrOlMl.e.. nDk a1:vlN+ ~nQ I . 25. PUD Document shall provide ale following note: "This POO shall comply ,vith the guidelines and teco=endations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) regarding potential impacts to protected species onsite. A Habitat Management Plan for those protected species shall be submitted to enviroumental review staff for review and approval prior to final Site PIan! Construction Plan approval." (LDC IO.02.13.A.2.m) @;UD Document shall provide the following note: "All conservation areas shall be . designated as "Preserve" on all construction plans and shall be recorded on the plat with Agenda Item No. 86 February 10, 2009 protective covenants per or similar to Section 704.06 of the Florida Statutes. ConfdNfui8ll. of 118 easements shall be dedicated on the plat to the projeCt's homeowners association or like entity for ownership and maintenance responsibility and to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance." (LDC 3.05.07.A.2; LDC 3.05.07.H.l.d; 6.01.02. C.) 27. PUD Document shall provide the following note: "All principal structures shall have a minimum setback of 25' from the boundary of any preserve. Accessory structures and all other site alterations shall have a minimum 10-foot setback." (LDC 3.0S.07.H.3; 6.0l.02.C.) 28. PUD Document shall provide the following note: "All Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, nuisance and non-native vegetation, shall be removed from within preserve areas and subsequent annual removal of iliese plants (in perpetuity) shall be ilie responsibility of the property owner." (LDC 3.05.07.H.Lg.ii) 29. PUD Document shall provide ilie following note: "A Preserve Area Management Plan . shall be provided to Environmental Review Staff for review and approval prior to final plan/construction plan approval identifying meiliods to address control and treatment of invasive exotic species, fire management, and maintenance of permitted facilities." (LDC 3.0S.07.H.1.g) . 30. PUD Document shall provide the following note: "All approved Agency permits shall be submitted prior to final Site Plan/ Construction Plan approval." (LDC 3.0S,07.F; 1O.02.03.B.J .j.) 31. Golf Course PUD Document shall provide the following note: "PUD golf course shall be designed, constructed and managed in accordance with the Audubon International's Gold Signature Sanctuary Program." 32. Additional Comments: 33. Stipulations for approval: I~~~ _.~~ . Aoenda Item No 88 -February 10, i009 Page 110 of 118 ORDINANCE NO. 2009-_ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS; BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM THE RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A 6.8l:!:-ACRE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE SAVANNAH PLACE RPUD, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A MAXIMUM OF 20 DWELLING UNITS, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE APPROXIMA TEL Y Y, MILE WEST OF AIRPORT ROAD (CR 31), IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Heidi Williams, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson, et ai, representing Stephen J. Lockwood, Trustee of the SJL Realty Trust II dated October 28, 2005, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the Savannah Place RPUD, to allow developrnent of a maximum of 20 dwelling units in accordance with the Savannah Place RPUD Exhibits, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as CPI07 -CPS-0070310rdinance Rev. 1/22/09 - HFAC Page I of2 Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 111 of 118 described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, is hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by superrnajority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ,2009. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: DONNA FIALA, CHAIRMAN , Deputy Clerk Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency v'" ~t P ,f 'V'> I Heidi Ashton-Cicko Assistant County Attomey Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibit E: List ofPerrnitted USeS Development Standards Master Plan and Water Management Plan Legal Description Development Commitments Specific to the Project CP\07 -CPS-00703\Ordinance Rev. 1/22/09 - HF AC Page 2 of2 Agenda Item No. 88 February 10,2009 Page 112 of 118 EXHIBIT A SA V ANNAH PLACE RPUD PERMITTED USES 1. Residential Tract: The residential tract of the Savannah Place RPUD is approximately 6.66 ;j; acres, which are to be developed with up to 20 dwelling units and related accessory USes. ' A. Permitted Uses No building or structure,.Of part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, in whole or in part, for other than the folJowing: . I. Principal Uses a. Single-family, detached dwelling units; b. Single-family, attached dwelling uni ts; c. Townhouses, no greater than 140 feet in width; d. Any other use that is comparable in na\ure with the foregoing list of pennitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) according to the process described in the Land Development Code (WC); e. All dwelling units must be of the same type; i.e. a mixture of townhouses and single-family detached units would not be allowed. ../~ ./ 2. Accessory Uses a. Garages; b. Carports; c. Model homes and model home centers including offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing; d. Guardhouses, gatehouses and access control structures; e. Community clubhouse (must be located east of the internal roadway, if provided); f. Recreation facilities, including but not limited to swimming pools, telUlis courts, playground equipment or other amenities (must be located east of the internal roadway, if provided, except those serving one dwelJing unit); g. Essential services, including but not limited to, water, sewer, cable, electric and other utilities to serve the principal uses; h. Any other use that is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of pennitted uses, as determined by the BZA according to the process described in the LDC. B. Development Standards Table I, contained in Exhibit B, sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Residential Tract of the Savamlah Place RPUD. Standards not specifically Set forth PUD Exhibits revised 12-30-08 per CCpe.doc Page 1 of 7 <--,I< Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 113 of 118 herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of the date of approval of the Site Development Plan (SDP) or subdivision plat. n. Preserve Tract The Preserve Tract of the Savannah Place RPUD is approximately 0.15:1: acres, which shall meet native vegetation retention requirements. A. Permitted Uses No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: I. Principal Uses a, Native vegetation preserve. B. Development Standards The Preserve Tract of the Savannah Place RPUD shall comply with standards contained in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. PUD Exhibits revised 12-30-08 per CCPG.doc Page 2 of 7 0~J< EXHIBIT B SA V ANNAH PLACE RPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Tables 1 and 1.1 below set forth the development standards for land uses within the RPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in the applicable sections of the Land Development Code (LDC) in effect at of the date of approval of the site development plan (SDP) or subdivision plat. Table 1 Residential Tract Development Standards SfNGLE- SfNGLE- FAMILY, FAMILY, TOWNHOUSES DETACHED AITACHED PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES Minimum Lot Area 5,000 s.f. 3,500 sJ. nla Minimum Lot Width 50 feet 35 feet nla Minimum Floor Area 1,000 s.f. 1,000 sJ. nla Minimum Setbacks: PUD Boundaries, except 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet east side PUD Boundarv - east side 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Front (see note Il 20 feet 20 feet . 20 feet Side (see note 21 7.5 feel 6 feet or 0 feet o feet or 7.5 feet Rear 15 feet 15 feel 15 feet Preserve 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Distance Between 15 feet 12 feet 15 feet Structures Maximum Zoned Heisnt 30 reet 30 reet 30 reet Maximum Actual Heil!bt 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet Note I: Driveways shall be a minimum of 23 feet from the edge of sidewalk to the face of the garage door or building fa,ade in order to prevent parking across pedestrian ways. Note 2: Zero foot minimum side setback on one side of building as long as a minimum J 5 foot separation between principaJ structures is maintained. Note 3: Principal and accessory uses shall not be permitted to encroach into any required PUD perimeter setback. I pun exhibits revised 1.15-09 per cepe (2) Page 3 of 7 Agenda Item No. 8B February 10, 2009 Page 114 of 118 .~ ) .(o-tl" Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 115 of 118 Table 1.1 Residential Tract Development Standards I SINGLE- SINGLE- CLUBHOUSE! FAMILY, FAMILY, TOWNHOUSES RECREATION DETACHED ATTACHED BUll..DINGS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Minimum Lot Area nla nla nla nla Minimum Lot Width nla nla nla nla Minimum Setbacks: PUD Boundary, except adjacent to ()!"ange 10 reet 10 reet 15 feet 20 feet Blossom Drive PUD Boundary, adjacent to 25 feet 25 feet 25 reet 25 feet Omn.e Blossom Drive Front (see note I) 20 reel 20 reet 10 reet 20 reet Side 5 feet 5 reet 5 feet 7.5 reet Rear 5 reet 5 reet 5 reet 15 reet Preserve 10 feet 10 reet 10 reet 25 reel Minimum Distance Between o reet o reet o feet o reet Accessorv Structures Maximum Zoned Heioht 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet Maximum Actual Height 40 reet 40 reet 40 reet 40 reet { Note 1: Driveways shall be a minimum of 23 reet rrom the edge or sidewalk to the face of the garage door Dr building ra~ade in order to prevent parking across pedestrian ways. Table 2 Preserve Tract Development Standards No development standards are required since no structures are allowed to be located within the Preserve Tract. Development shall be in accordance with LDC standards. I PUD Exhibit. ",vi.ed 1-15-09 per CCPC (2) Page 4 of 7 .(-.rJ' ......,~ -~ \ L- 'I -~\ . \ ~~\ \ " ':i 0\ -\ " .. ~ " " \\' , o~ \1\ .. u , ._-' 11 \---, ~ ..~ .- '" ~~ ~ w~ '" tl ~ B "" Vl 1\ \1 \1 h 1\ \\ . \ ,; ~ \ h . b \ \ \,r~p"'f=ee",~"'''''''''''"''"'\i"':U",,,~i '\l \ Ii n ~li \"j\\,\ , 'i ' . ' ,,' \ \\\VI- I -,-,-'-"",' ,";' I" " ----- ,,\\': :---.._~_- ____.--.-----...........' 0 ) i:: ;~\ :--::"":::-;',:-;:"," ' " \' \ ~'\'\';;;~'l"~''-'\-''-'--'\\/lO--''/-\ \~ ii ~~\, I', Ii \ .~ ~ '" \ ,.. 'I ' ~ <, 'ii l' c \,,~' i D-:i -! - ,,' . .,..,.." i II t I, ' '""'W"., .' \\ Ii ~':?!::;::77::"i;,,-;,,;;;::;;:::;";?'''';'~''\' h \~\l Ul I ". I; nU. !! il U h 1\ \! U h , i i 'i .. \ \i \ \ \' - . d h ..' h 1\\ \ \\\ '? of- -:r ~\ \\ H b ',! \ \. -\ \\, ~ \\ i\ \ ; \\ h ~\ Pi }\ h ~ ~! \\ n \ i\l ~\ \\ ; 1'\ ,'.' :' .;i I p..~ \ %\\\ \ O' . "'\_ ,8. U> ! ~_t\ n 3til \ a ~~. \ )\. I ~\,ii o I d~ \ . I j ., @\\ \ Agenda Item No. 8B February 10, 2009 Page 117 of 118 EXHIBIT D SAVANNAH PLACE RPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE SOUTHERLY 796.70 FEET OF THE EASTERLY 470.61 FEET OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRffiED PARCEL: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHERLY 398.35 FEET OF THE SOUTHERLY 796.7 FEET OF THE EASTERLY 470.61 FEET OF THE NORTH 112 OF SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID POINT ALSO BEING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT "B" OF THE CROSSINGS, MlLL RUN, PLAT BOOK 15, PAGES 39 THROUGH 41, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ON THE RIGHT OF WAY OF ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY NORTH 89042'58" EAST 265.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAlD RIGHT OF WAY SOUTH 01033'49" EAST 295.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTII 89042'58" WEST 265.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST PROPERTY LINE OF THE CROSSINGS, MILL RUN; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE NORTH 01033'49" WEST 295.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED. PUD Exhibits revised 12-30-08 per CCPC.doc Page 6 of 7 .(.If Agenda Item No. 88 February 10, 2009 Page 118 of 118 EXHIBIT E SAVANNAH PLACE RPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS I. Regulations for development of the Savannah Place RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this RPUD Document and applicable sections of the LDe and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate. Where this RPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the WC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. 2. Transportation: A If the entrance is to be gated, the face of said gate shall be located so as to maintain no less than a 1 DO-foot throat length to the southerly edge of pavement at the entrance intersection with Orange Blossom Drive. B. The developer shall contribute his fair share of the future intersection improvements at Orange Blossom Drive and Airport Road. Fair share is required to be quantified and paid prior to approval of the first development order on this project. 3. Water Management: A Prior to submittal of the application for final development order, the developer will coordinate the design and construction of a single three-inch (maximum) bleeder into the Orange Blossom Road storm drain system. The coordination and approval will be with the Collier County Stormwater Management and Road Maintenance departments of the Transportation Division and the Engineering Department of the Community Development and Environmental Services Division. 4. Landscaping: A. If the developer builds single-family, attached or single. family, detached dwelling units, the developer wi]] provide Type B landscape buffer vegetation within the ten foot width, If multi. family dwelling rinits are built then LDC-required Type B landscape buffers will be provided in the standard IS foot width. PUD Exhibits revised 12-30-08 per CCPC.doc Page 7 of 7 -<-(,"r.