Agenda 02/26/2008 Item # 8B
Agenda Item No. 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 1 of 132
,"^'.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PUDZ-2006-AR-IOI7I, Eastbourne Bonita, LLC, represented by Laura Spurgeon, of
Johnson Engineering, Inc., and Patrick G. White, Atty. of Porter, Wright, Morris &
Arthur, LLP., requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) and Special Treatment
(ST) Overlay Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning
District for project known as Brandon RPUD, for the development of 204 single-family and
multi-family residential units. The subject property, consist of 51.1 acres, and is located on
the southeast corner of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial
Boulevard, Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida
OBJECTIVE:
To have the Board of County eommissioners (BCC) consider an application for a rezone, to
permit the Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) and to ensure the project is
in harmony with all applicable codes and regulations in order to make certain that the
community's interests are maintained.
CONSIDERATIONS:
The request is for a rezone from the Agricultural (A) Zoning District with a Special Treatment
Overlay (ST) to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a project
known as the Brandon RPUD with a proposed density of 3.99 dwelling units per acre, for the
development of 204 single-family and multi-family residential units. Access to the proposed
project is from Livingston Road (CR-881) and Veterans Memorial Boulevard.
The parcel to the north is Mediterra PUD, a golf course community with a Village Center
approved for 20,000 square feet of commercial space. The Village Center is surrounded by 123
single-family dwelling units and 216 multi-family dwelling units. Mediterra was approved for a
total of750 residential dwelling units at a gross density of 0.56 units per acre. The parcel to the
south is vacant but was approved for a Conditional Use for a tire station. Further south is Royal
Palm International Academy, which has permitted 550 multi-family dwelling units at a gross
density of 3.40 units per acre.
The applicant originally requested six (6) deviations however, during the Collier County
Planning Commission (CCPC) the applicant agreed to remove three (3) of the requested
deviations. The following deviations from the Land Development Code (LDC) were approved by
the eepe: 1) seeks relief from LDC, Section 6.06.01 (eode of Laws and Ordinances, Section 2-
12.C.B.e), which requires a minimum local street right-of-way width of 60 feet; 2) seeks relief
from eode of Laws and Ordinances, Section 2-12.C.13.j, which requires tangents for all streets
between reverse curves, unless otherwise approved by the County Manager, or his designee,
pursuant to LDC, Section 10.02.04; and 3) seeks relief from Code of Laws and Ordinances,
Section 22-112, which requires for excavated areas to have a maximum four to one slope from
-, existing grade to a breakpoint at least 10 feet below the control elevation. Below this breakpoint,
slopes would be no steeper than two to one.
Page 1 of?
'- ..____~_.h_~"_ ._.~----
Agenda Item No. 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 2 of 132
FISCAL IMPACT:
The rezone by and of itself, will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no guarantee
that the project, at build out, will maximize its authorized level of development, however, if the
new Brandon RPUD is approved, a portion of the land could be developed.
The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the
impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund
projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan as
needed to maintain adopted Levels of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order
to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development
order approved by eollier County is required to pay 50 percent of the estimated Transportation
Impact Fees associated with the project. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building
pernlit include building permit review fees and utility fees associated with connecting to the
County's water and sewer system.
Please note that the inclusion of inlpact fees and taxes collected are for informational purposes
only; they are not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze
this petition.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use
District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of
the County's Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits
residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of up to four (4) residential units
per gross acre and recreation and open space uses. The proposed Brandon RPUD project
includes a maximum of 204 residential dwelling units of varying types as described in the
application and the PUD document, on 51. let acres ofland. The overall density is proposed not
to exceed 4.0 dwelling units per acre. The proposed development includes residential land uses,
lakes, preserves, and street right of way with sidewalks.
Conclusion: The Comprehensive Planning Department finds the proposed RPUD Document
consistent with the GMP.
Transportation Element: The proposed proj ect IS within the Northwest Transportation
eoncurrency Management Area as identified within the Transportation Element of the Growth
Management Plan. TranspOltation Division staff has reviewed the Traffic Impact Statement
(TIS) and the RPUD document to ensure the appropriate language was added to address the
project's potential traffic impacts. The surrounding roadway network was analyzed on the basis
of projected build-out traffic conditions. Based upon the TIS submitted, all roadway segments
that will be impacted as a result of the Brandon RPUD project will operate at an acceptable level
of service. The Brandon RPUD is consistent with Policies 5.1 and 5.2 of the Transportation
Element of the GMP.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT:
Page 2 of7
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 3 of 132
During the ecpc hearing, the developer agreed to contribute $1,000 to the Collier eounty
Affordable Housing Trust Fund for each residential dwelling unit constructed within the project.
This sum shall be paid prior to the issuance of the CO for each residential unit. The $1,000
contribution for each residential unit shall be a credit against any affordable housing fees that
may be later adopted by the County and applicable to this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES:
Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and notes that the applicant has complied
with staff s recommendations and safeguards have been addressed within the RPUD document,
and for this reason the rezone is consistent with the LDC and GMP.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
The EAC reviewed this petition on November 7, 2007. With a vote of 7-1, the EAC forwarded
petition PUDZ-2006-AR-10171 to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and the
Board of eounty Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of denial.
Mr. Penniman moved to deny the petition, asserted that seventy-eight (78) percent existing
wetland and intense development of such uncertain development specifications being put on the
site is probably not the appropriate way to develop this kind ofland. In addition, Mr. Bishofhas
concerns regarding the wetlands.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION:
The CCPC heard petition PUDZ-2006-AR-10171 on February 7, 2008 and by a vote of 7-2
recommended to forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a
recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions that have already been
incorporated in the RPUD document:
I. Include Exhibit Z access locations; costs for providing access through each access point
for interconnection will be determined by the developer and such landowners as may
desire to use anyone or more access point(s), or in the alternative as provided for by
general law. I intend to show the access "arrows" on the Master Plan and add
commitment in Exhibit F. It seems excessive to add Exhibit Z as well.
2. Add Multifamily limit of 3 stories to Exhibit B Table.
3. Replace buffers and north and east boundary with 15' Type B Buffers on Master Plan.
4. Add Multifamily actual height of 55' to Exhibit B Table.
5. Adjust distance between structures to match sum of setbacks in Exhibit B Table.
6. Strike footnotes 4 and 5 in Exhibit B Table.
7. Note that additional preserve will be contiguous Already noted on Master Plan and
Exhibit A, Preserve Area.
8. Add School inter-local agreement regarding traffic signal to Exhibit F eommitments.
9. Accept staffrecommendations, which are:
. Buffers of 15' Type B at north and east (Addressed on Master Plan per #3 above).
. Deny sidewalk deviation (Withdrawn in Exhibit E Deviations per # I 0 below).
. Provide hold harmless agreement (Addressed in Exhibit F Commitments per #13):
That the property owner will agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the
Page 3 of7
Agenda Item No. 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 4 of 132
eounty in the event of the County being named in any suit brought by adjacent or
nearby land owners of undeveloped property to establish lawful access, including
defending the County's interest at hearing or trial; except that the property owner
will not be responsible for any expenses for outside counsel that the County may
otherwise seek to retain in such matter.
. Deny fence or wall height deviation (Withdrawn in Exhibit E Deviations per #10
below).
10. Deviations 1, 3, and 6 are denied Withdrawn in Exhibit E Deviations.
11. Show turn lane at Livingston Road as "Potential turn lane with compensating right-of-
way" on Master Plan.
12. Add actual heights of 40' for all 35' zoned heights in Exhibit B Table.
13. Provide hold harmless agreement Added commitment in Exhibit F Commitments.
14. Provide commitment for $1,000 donation to Affordable Housing Trust Fund upon
issuance of building permit Added connnitment in Exhibit F eommitments.
15. Move guardhouses/gates provision from Residential Tract uses to a General Uses
category Revision in Exhibit A.
16. Move the connector road west and fill the preserve to west on Master Plan Shown on
Master Plan and noted in Exhibit A Preserves.
17. Add "greater than" for the 20 foot distance between multifamily buildings in Exhibit B
Table.
Since the ccpe approval recommendation was not unanimous and letters of objection have been
received, this petition has been placed on the regular Agenda.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This is a site specific rezone from an "A" Agriculture Zoning District with a Special Treatment
(ST) Overlay to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a project
to be known as Brandon RPUD. Site specific rezones are quasi-judicial in nature. As such the
burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent with all the criteria
set forth below. The burdcn then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), should it
consider denying the rezone, to determine that such dcnial would not be arbitrary, discriminatory
or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the proposal does not meet one or
more of the listed criteria below.
Criteria for RPUD Rezones
Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for
approval or 11Ot.
I. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development
proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic
and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities.
2. Is there an adcquacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements,
contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as
they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation
and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained
Page 4 of?
Agenda Item No. 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 5 of 132
at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only
after consultation with the county attorney.
3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed RPUD with the goals, objectives and policies
of the growth management plan.
4. Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which
conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on
design, and buffering and screening requirements.
5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve
the development?
6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of
assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and
private.
7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to
accommodate expansion.
8. Consider: Conformity with RPUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of
such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications
are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations.
9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and
future land use map and the elements of the grow1h management plan?
10. Will the proposed RPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use
pattern?
I\. Would the requested RPUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated
district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?
12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to
existing conditions on the property proposed for change.
13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the
proposed amendment necessary.
14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?
15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create
types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak
volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction
phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety?
16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem?
Page 5 of?
Agenda Item No. 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 6 of 132
17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas?
18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area?
19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations?
20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege
to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ("reasonably") be used in
accordance with existing zoning? (a "core" question. . .)
22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
county?
23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the
proposed use in districts already permitting such use.
24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site
alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range
of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification.
25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed RPUD rezone on
the availability of adequate public/acilities and services consistent with the levels of
service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and
implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code
ch.106, art.lI], as amended.
26. Are there other factors, standards, or cliteria relating to the RPUD rezone request that
the Board of County eommissioners shall deem important in the protection of the
public health, safety, and welfare?
The BeC must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the
written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive
Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the
BCC hearing as these items relate to these criteria. (MMSS)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approve Petition PUDZ-
2006-AR-I0171 Brandon RPUD subject to staff and the CCPC conditions of approval. All of the
deviations and conditions have been incorporated into the RPUD document which has been
reviewed by the County Attorney's Office for legal sufficiency.
PREPARED BY:
Page 6 of7
Agenda Item No. 88
February 26, 2008
Page 7 of 132
Melissa Zone, Principal Planner
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review
Page 7 of?
Page I of 1
Agenda Item No. 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 8 of 132
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Item Number: 88
Item Summary: This item has been continued to the March 11,2008 Meeting, This item requires that all
participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.
Petition: PUDZ~2006-AR-10171 Eastbourne Bonita, LLC, represented by Laura Spurgeon, of
Johnson Engmeering. Inc., and Patrick G. White, Atty. of Porter. Wright, Morris & Arthur,
LLP., requesting a rezone from the Agricultural (A) and Special Treatment (3T) Overlay
Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for
project known as Brandon RPUD, for the development of 204 single-family and multi-family
residential units. The subject property, consisting of 51 1 acres, is located on the southeast
corner of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, Section 13,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida,
Meeting Date: 2/26/2008 90000 AM
Prepared By
Melissa Zone Principal Planner Date
Community Development & Zoning & Land Development Review
Environmental Services 2/14/20085:31:57 PM
Approved By
--- James V. Mudd County Manager Date
Board of County County Manager's Office
Commissioners 2/19/20084:23 PM
file:/ /C :\AgendaTest\Export\ I 0 l-F ebruary%2026, %202008\08.%20AD VER TI SED%20PU... 2/20/2008
~'._,~'~__ ."...m.~_.~.~... ,-,._---------'. --~"~,,_._._........ . ''"--''-'---'-..-_.
I
Agenda Item No. 88 !
AGENDJ'i.ElfJrEM~-A 2008
Page 9 of 132
_ Co~~unt~
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 2008
SUBJECT: PUDZ-2006-AR-I0171, BRANDON RPUD
OWNER:
Eastbourne Bonita, LLC.
550 Essjay Drive, Suite 400
Williamsville, NY 14221
AGENTS:
Laura Spurgeon Patrick White, Esq.
Johnson Engineering, Inc. Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, LLP
2350 Stanford Court 5801 Pelican Bay Boulevard
Naples, PL 341 12 Naples, FL 34108
REOUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner seeks to rczone the subject 51.1+/- acre site from the Rural Agricultural Zoning
District (A) with a Special Trcatment Overlay (ST) to thc "RPUD, Brandon Residential Planned
Unit Development" with a proposed density of 3.99 dwelling units per acre for the subject
propelty.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Livingston Road I
,
(CR-S81) and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, ,
I
Collier County, Florida. See location map on the following page. ,
,
I
,
i
Page I of 14 I
I
!
!
CQroN
roO'"
-<o~
'0 J I
t:,>J~
2C"Q;l if g! ,
-roOl i;
ro:o'" i
-g.oD.. ~; .
",'" . ,
0llL.
-0: " ,
i
, --------- a..
~if 'I <(
I :!:
(9
z
-
z
i 0
N
I <, ~I
ii, !'~~
-- f
~ --- -- -- ~ ~
....
00110I_" ~
0
(lVO~ NOlS~N!An ~
,
,/ '"
<
. ,
co
0
0
'"
:nrn01!OH / N
E-- c
::>
"-
..
I~ Ii ! p z
I:: " I, Q
z 'I' . !.
l; . ~ ai :;li!i ...
5 . - >=
U I- Z I- i r i" . w
00 "-
w W - ---
w 0'<
~
fg .rroOlllIll1O:l....IW So:lOflllSJllldl.D l
, , "''UYJ.RI;IUll 1.i1I' II II a..
Iii , .
, . 11- <(
. i !
!~ II :2:
--I !ll Z
Hi . 2 I[ I 0
,,,.. I III ~!I -
l-
i OI'OY owrrYW".lW()oMV ~ - <(
! I i! U
, 0
III" J I ...J
I~ n
1 - I
~. ......
I -- I
n"
, ..
-_.~._,-~.~
--,~--.
.,._~--
.'n__ .--
Agenda Item No. 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 11 of 132
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The request is for a rezone from the Agricultural (A) Zoning District with a Special Treatment
Overlay (ST) to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a projcct
known as the Brandon RPUD with a proposed density of 3.99 dwelling units per acre, for the
development of204 single-family and multi-family residential units. The RPUD Master Plan for
this petition depicts generalized areas of development, water management, and traffic and
pedestrian circulation. Access to the proposed project is from Livingston Road (CR-881) and
Veterans Memorial Boulevard.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
Subject Parcel: Vacant, zoned Rural Agricultural (A) with Special Treatment Overlay (ST)
SUlTounding parcels:
North: Single-family residential dwelling units, undeveloped parcels and Vetcrans
Memorial Boulevard, zoned Rural Agriculture (A) and Mediterra PUD
South: Multi-family residential dwelling units and undeveloped parcels, zoned Royal Palm
Academy PUD (Verona Pointe townhomes)
East: Undeveloped pal'ccls, Florida Power & Light (FPL) Easement and The Links
single-family and Trophy Club multifamily residential dwelling units, zoned Rural
Agricultural (A) with a Special Treatment (ST) Overlay and The Strand (Pelican
Strand DRI/PUD)
West: Livingston Road (CR-881), undeveloped parcels, North Naples Middle School and
proposed Fire Station, zoned Rural Agriculture (A) and Della Rosa RPUD
Zoning Mall
Page 3 of 14
Agenda item No. 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 12 of 132
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use
District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of
the eounty's GMP. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits residential development
(variety of unit types) at a base density of up to four (4) residential units per gross acre and
recreation and open space uses. The proposed Brandon RPUD project includes a maximum of
204 residential dwelling units of varying types as described in the application and the PUD
document, on 51. H acres of land. The overall density is proposed not to exceed 4.0 dwclling
units per acre. The proposed development includes residential land uses, lakes, preserves, and
street right of way with sidewalks.
Compliance with Objective 7 and Policies Regarding Smart Growth (interconnections, loop road,
sidewalks/trails, etc.). Staff notcs thc following: The adjoining land to the east ofthe subject site
is between the subject site and the FPL easement, and no proposed interconnections with this
adjoining tl'act(s) of land are proposed in the Brandon RPUD Master Plan. This RPUD will be
found consistent with the GMP if the RPUD Master Plan is modified to show that future
interconnections from the subject development will be available to the tract(s) of land to the east.
The adjoining land to the west of the subj ect site will be provided with access from both
Livingston Road and from Veterans Memorial Blvd. This RPUD will be found consistent with
the GMP conditioned upon the RPUD Master Plan being modified to show a pedestrian
connection from the approximate center point of the project so that there can be a future
pedestrian interconnection between the Brandon RPUD and the development(s) that occur to the
west.
The Comprehensive Planning Department finds the proposcd RPUD Document consistent with
the GMP.
TransP0l1ation Element: The proposed project is within the Northwest Transportation
eoncurrency Management Area as identified within the Transportation Element of the Growth
Management Plan. Transportation Division staff has rcviewed the Tl'affic Impact Statement
(TIS) and the RPUD documcnt to cnsure the appropriate language was added to address the
project's potential traffic impacts. This project can also be considered consistent with policy 9.3
of the Transportation Element of the GMP, as it shows required interconnections wherever
feasible.
The surrounding roadway network was analyzed on the basis of projected build-out traffic
conditions. Based upon the TIS submitted, all roadway segments that will be impacted as a result
of the Brandon RPUD project will operate at an acceptable level of service.
The Brandon RPUD can be considered consistent with Policies 5.1 and 5.2 of the Transportation
Element of the GMP. The proposed PUD produces 127 PM peak hour, peak direction (south-
bound) trips on Livingston Road, and the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to
accommodate this project throughout the five-year plarming period. Livingston Road has a
service volume of 3,260 trips, with a remaining capacity of approximately 2,036 trips between
P'ge 4 of 14
... ._-_..~,-_.--- _'_______<0_ -- '-'-"'-~.._---..--.-- ..'-"--~,,.,'
Agenda Item No. 88
February 26,2008
Page 13 of 132
Imperial Boulevard and Immokalce Road (CR-846); it is currently operating at Level of Service
(LOS) "B" as stated by the Draft 2007 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR).
Note that the current (and old) TIS illustrates 77 PM peak trips northbound (NB), which was
apparently the peak direction of the roadway when it was originally approved. The PM Peak
direction of the background traffic is now southbound in the 2007 data; meaning the peak
direction impact is now southbound. Staff recommends approval of this petition.
Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element (CCME) of the GMP states, "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging
into estuaries shall meet all applicable fedcral, state, or local water quality standards." To
accomplish that, Policy 2.2.2 states ''In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of
stOlmwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water
does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and
quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system."
This project is consistent with the objectives of Policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or
enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing interconnected retention
and detention areas to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm
events prior to discharging into a wetland preserve.
ANAL YSIS:
Staff completcd a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the critcria upon which
a determination is based. The criteria are noted in Sections 10.02.13 and 10.02.I3.B.5 of the
LDC and required staff evaluation and comment. The staff evaluation establishes an accurate
basis to support the recommendations of staff. The eollier County Planning Commission
(eCPC) uses the same criteria as the basis for their 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 (Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B").
Environmental Analvsis: Environmcntal Services Staff has revicwed the petition and notes the
following. Because the subject property is cqual to or greater than twenty (20) acres, a minimum
of twenty-five (25) percent of the native vegetation is to be preserved. A total of 47.2 acres of
native vegetation habitat are found on the subject site, as outlined in Table 2 of the
Environmental Impact Statement (ElS). Therefore, the minimum preserve requirement is 11.8
acres. The proposed site plan illustrates seventy-flve (75) pcrccnt of the preserve requirement,
which is approximately 8.86 acres of onsite preserve. The preserve is composed of 7.76 acres of
existing nativc vegetation and 1.1 acres that will require replanting after exotic removal 10 meet
the native vegetation requirement (Exhibit K of EIS), In an effort to crcatc one contiguous
preserve and include those areas within the ST Ovcrlay, the 1.1 acres containing a high level of
exoties was included in the preserve. FUlthermore, staff has incorporated safeguards within the
RPUD document to ensure compliance with the environmental regulations.
Pnge 5 of L4
Agenda Item No. 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 14 of 132
Utility Analysis: The Utilities Division staff has reviewed and approved the petition. The RPUD
Document requires the Developer to meet all applicable County Ordinances in effect at the time
construction documents are submitted for development approval. Design and construction of all
improvements shall be subject to compliance with appropriate provisions of the LDe.
Transportation Analvsis: Transportation Services Division staff has reviewed the petition and
notes that they are requiring the proposed RPUD to interconnect to the parcel to the south which
is the Royal Palm Academy PUD (Verona Pointe townhomes).
Collier County School District Analysis (CCSD): This development is currently in the school
zones of Veterans Memorial Elementary (VME), North Naples Middle (NNM) and Gulf eoast
High School (GCHS). Based on the number of dwelling units the petitioner is proposing (204
units), CeSD estimate they will generate approximately forty-one (41) new elementary school
students, sixteen (16) new middle school students and eighteen (18) new high school students.
Month 2 Membership reports (Sept 18, 2007-0ct. 15,2007) show the following enrollment at the
schools:
VME - 871 students (CAPACITY: 932 with addition completed this summer)
NNM - 921 students (CAPACITY: 984)
GCHS. 2135 students (CAPACITY: 1900)
There is cun'ently capacity at the elcmentary and middle school levels, but not adequate capacity
at the high school level. The School District will be monitoring the number of students generated
by this development along with the overall emollment of these schools to ensure future capacity,
Zoning and Land Development Analysis: The proposed RPUD will allow a maximum of 204
single-family and multi-family residential dwelling units which will result in a gross density of
3.99 dwelling units per acre. The proposed RPUD is in the Urban Residential Subdistrict which
has a base density of four (4) residential dwelling units per gross acre, As mentioned previously,
the pcrmitted principal uses will be single-family and multi-family residential dwelling units. As
they apply to the RPUD document, tile development standards contained in Exhibit Bare
designed to reflect the design approach for a development that will allow a larger footprint for
each dwelling unit. The single-family and zero-lot line dwelling units would have a minimum lot
area of 4,500 square feet per unit and a lot width of forty-five (45) feet. The proposed single-
family attached units and townhouses minimum lot area would be 1,700 square feet per unit with
a minimum lot width of seventccn (17) feet. The proposed two-family dwelling units would be
4,000 square feet per unit with a lot width of forty (40) feet. The duplex properties would be
8,000 square feet in area and a lot width of ninety (90) feet. The multi-family dwelling units
would be 1,700 square feet per unit with a lot width of ninety (90) feet. It should be noted that on
cuI de sac lots and lots on the inside of curved streets, the dimensions would be reduced by thirty
(30) percent, provided the minimum iot area requirements are maintained. FUlthermore, the front
yard setback of twenty (20) feet is closer to the right-of-way (ROW) than the typical 25 foot
front setback.
The maximum zoned building height is thirty-five (35) feet for all the residential dwelling units.
Page 6 of 14
....c'~._.'_ --,., -.,- -"-~"-~"~...- "-'---,._-,
Agenda Item No, 88
February 26, 2008
Page 15 of 132
The building height will be measured from thc fmished floor to the highest point of the roof
surface of a flat or Bermuda roof and to the deck line of a mansard roof and the mean height
level between the caves and ridge of a gable roof. The petitioner did not provide for an actual
height because they wanted to wait lUltil the designs of the structures were determined.
The PUDs in the surrounding arca have various ranges of building heights. The Pelican Strand
DRI/PUD lies east of the propelty and situated west of 1-75. Pelican Strand DRIIPUD has a
maximum building height of thirty-five (35) feet for single-family and multi-family dwelling
units. The Tuscany Reserve PUD, which is situatcd nOltheast of the subject property and just
west of 1-75, has a maximum building height of fifty (50) feet for the multi-family structures.
The Royal Palm International Academy POO, which is southwest of the subject propcrty and
immediately west of Livingston Road (CR-881), has a maximum height of fmty-five (45) feet
and three (3) stories for the multi-family structures. The properly to the nmthwest is Della Rosa
RPUD, which was recently approved for 107 multi-family residential dwclling units at a density
of seven (7) dwelling units per acre and a maximum zoned building height of fifty (50) feet.
The parcel to the north is MeditelTa PUD, a golf course community with a Village Center
approved for 20,000 square feet of commercial space. The Village Ccnter is surrounded hy 123
single-family dwelling units and 216 multi-family dwelling units. Mediterra was approved for a
total of 750 residential dwelling units at a gross dcnsity of 0.56 units per acre. The parcel to the
south is vacant but was approved for a Conditional Use for a fire station. Further south is Royal
Palm International Academy, which has permitted 550 multi-family dwelling units at a gross
density of3.40 units per acre.
A concern has been raised regarding this petition and six adjacent property owners on its eastern
boundary. There are six propeliy owners whose parcels are undeveloped and who believe that if
this pctition is approved they will be landlocked. These propClty owners wish to seek access to
Livingston Road (CR-8S J) for ingress and egress through the proposed Brandon RPUD property.
The landlocked properties are situated between the FPL easement on the east and the proposed
Brandon RPUD on 1he west. On the following page is a diagram of the Brandon RPUD and the
properties involved.
Attorney Craig Blume, who represents the six property owners, contends that his clients are
entitled to an access easemcnt over the petitioner's property.
Chief Assistant County Attorney Jeff Klatzkow contacted Mr. Blume and Patrick White, the
attorney for the proposed Brandon RPUD, and requested they work out a private arrangement,
failing which the County Attorney may recommend that, as a condition to the rezone, the
applicant grant the County a hold harmless agreement. This agreement would require the
applicant to step in and fully pay all costs of litigation, including actual attorney's fees, and fully
indemnify the County against any claim by the six property owners related to this petition.
Alternatively, the petitioner could be rcquired to grant access to the six adjacent propelty owners.
Correspondence regarding the property owners to the east is included as back-up to this staff
repmt.
Page 7 of 14
Agenda Item No. 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 16 of 132
Six Landlocked Landowners
1) PI# 00149120003 2) PI#00149040002
Robelt & Barbara Chervenak Jan Forszpaniak
2923 Birchwood Street 430 Cove Tower Drive-Apt 803
Trenton, MI 48183-3681 Naples, FL 34110-6089
(sister has interest-Constance M. Butler)
3) PI#00l50nOO07 4) PI#00l50240008
I-Ialeakala Capital Partners Ltd/ Mark Nichols Richard & Jeanette Govig
2335 Tamiami Trail N - Suite #402 8475 E. San Marino Drivc
Naples, FL 34103-4458 Scottsdale, AZ 85258-2446
5) PI#OO14844000l 6) PI#OO 148360000
Amalia Harazian Mohammed & Fahmida Rahman
8348 Salem Lane 13056 Valewood Drive
Dearborn Heights, MI4127 Naples, FL 34119-8577
(sistcr has interest-NUl'geze Sarkissian)
(sister has interest-Margaret Mattyniuk)
Requested Deviation from the Land Development Code (LDC): The petitioner seeks approval of
six deviations from the requirements of the LDC and/or Code of Laws and Ordinances. The
petitioner has provided written justification in support of the deviations below. Staff evaluated
the dcviation request and recommends approval or denial ofthe deviations as specified below:
Page & of 14
",--,- ".-."~,--"--_..,, - '--"---'-~- .u."_'~_ ---
Agenda Item No. 86
February 26, 2008
Page 17 of 132
Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC, Section 6.06.02, which requires constlUction of five-foot
wide sidewalks on both sides oflocal streets in order to allow a single five-foot wide sidewalk on
one side of the street where preserves abut the internal road right-of-way.
Petitioner's Justification: If an access road is designed to connect to the existing 40-foot wide
public access easement located at the northwest boundary of the Verona Pointe subdivision, the
applicant requests a single five-foot sidewalk within the minimum right-of-way width of 40 feet
for that section that is an extension of the existing public access easement.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: The development standard for sidewalks per County
regulations requires the petitioner to construct the sidewalk or make a payment in-licu of
constmction. LDC, Section 6.06,02 states that if the pctitioner wants relief from the LDC
regulation then payment in-lieu is required for any sidewalk that is not heing constructed on
cither side of the road, or as an alternative a ten (10) foot wide sidewalk throughout the RPUD
on one (1) side of the road, is allowed.
Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC, Section 6.06.0 I (Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 2-
12.C. I3.e), which requires a minimum local street right-of-way width of 60 feet.
Petitioner's Justification: The minimum right-of-way width of fifty (50) feet is requested for
local streets within the Brandon RPUD. The applicant believes the deviation is justified because
of the small-scale setting of the ncighborhood. This addresses concerns that a larger road right-
of-way is conducive to bigher spccds, and physical design of the broader road right-of-way
becomes less articulated and does not rclate to the neigbborhood scale, A fifty 50-foot right-of-
way for a residential street can successfully facilitate movement of the vehicular, pedestrian and
bikc traffic while accommodating all utility and drainage needs. The fifty 50-foot right-of-way
accomplishes traffic calming to provide a safer transpOltation system within the neighborhood,
This dimension for a neighborhood right-of-way accommodates all the standard roadway
functions so tbat 1he development is compact, the native vegetation is less impacted, and open
spaces can be concentrated in areas oftbe property for enhanced environmcntal quality.
Additionally, if an access road is designed to COlmect to tbe existing fOlty 40-foot wide public
access easement located at the nOlthwest boundary of the Verona Pointe subdivision, the
applicant requcsts a minimum right-of-way width of fOlty (40) feet for the section of the access
road that is an cxtcnsion of that existing public access cascment.
Staff Analysis and RecOlmnendation: Engineering Staff agrees that under the proposed
dcvelopment scenario of fifty (50) feet is safer for pedestrian traffic because it shortens the
crossing distance and discourages higher speed traffic, Staff also SUppOlts the taper from the 50-
foot wide internal road section to the 40-foot wide public access easement located at the
northwest boundary of the Verona Pointe subdivision for the pUlpose of an intercOlmection
between the subject property and Verona Pointe. This is because the 40-foot wide easement
would be the same width as the existing public access easement on the Verona Pointe property
and also it poses no safety concerns,
Page 9 of 14
Agenda item No. 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 18 of 132
Deviation #3 seeks relief from Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 2-12.C.13.h, which
requires a minimum 25-foot radius (from edge of pavement) for local street intersections, and a
minimum 40-foot radius for alicrials. The Code also states that lesscr radii may be approved by
the eommunity Development and Environmental Services Administrator.
Petitioner's Justification: Street intersections are requested to provide a minimum of a 20-foot
radius (face of curb) for all internal project streets and a 35-foot radius for intersections at project
entrances. This deviation is justified because it is consistent with the Code provision for
administrative approval of lesser radii. Florida Department of Transportation's Florida
Intersection Design Guide (FlOG) indicates that a 20-30 foot corner radius serves for low speed
turns for passenger vehicles, which is the speed level desired for this residential neighborhood.
At a 40-foot radius, the FIDG lists modcrate turn speeds for passenger vehicles, which is not
desired for this neighborhood. The smaller radii requested will accommodate the small-scale
nature of the neighborhood, provide for traffic calming and increased open space without any
compromise to traffic mobility.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Engineering Staff agrees with this request for the same
reason as Deviation #2, because it is safcr for pedestrian traffic since it sholiens the crossing
distance and discourages higher speed traffic, under this deyeloprnent scenario.
Deviation #4 seeks relief from Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 2-12.C.13.j, which
requires tangents for all streets between reverse curves, unless otherwise approved by the County
Manager, or his designee, pursuant to LDC, Section 10.02.04.
Petitioner's Justification: Tangents are requested not to be required between reverse curves on
any project strcet. This deviation is justified because it is consistent with the Code provision tor
administrative discretion. The streets within the Brandon RPUD are not at a traffic capacity or
speed level to require tangents between reverse curves. The site is designed with straight section
curves and no super-elevated curves, With a speed limit of 25 mph, the design promotes traffic
calming.
Staff Analvsis and Recommendation: Engineering staff does not object to this request because at
low speeds, tangents between revcrse curves are not rcquired for safety.
Deviation #5 seeks relief from Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 22-112, which requires
for excavated areas to have a maximum four to one slope from existing grade to a breakpoint at
least 10 feet below the control clevation. Below this breakpoint, slopes would be no steeper than
two to one.
Petitioner's Justification: Lake cross sections will adhere to South FlOlida Water Management
District (SFWMD) minimum standards as identified in Drainage Details & Cross Sections, Sheet
11. Additional reductions in that cross scctional area of the lake beyond the standards required
by SFWMD will reduce the water quality coming out of the proposed lake.
Page lQ of 14
-"-'-----'-----,.- -,-,,- -.'" .,._-,,_._- '--'''''- -,,~- -
Agenda Item No. 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 19 of 132
Staff Analvsis and Recommendation: Engineering starr does not object to this request as long as
the break point is at least three (3) feet below dry season low water. The three (3) feet break
point is the minimum criteria for the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD).
Deviation #6 seeks relieffrom LDC, Section 5.03.02, which limits fence or wall height to 6 feet
measured from unaltered ground level at the fence or wall location.
Petitioner's Justification: A maximum pcrimeter fence or wall height of 8 feet is requested, as
measured from the finished floor elevation of the nearest residential structure within the
development or from the top of betm elevation if constlUcted on a landscape betm. This
additional height allows the fence or wall to function relative to the graded site elevation and the
Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard elevations. The two additional fcet in height
and adjustment to the measurement reference points responds to the site conditions so that the
perimeter fence or wall functions to visually and physically define and protect the neighborhood
edge.
Staff Analvsis and Recommendation: Staff disagrees with this request because the regulations in
the LDe for a fence are "The height of a fence or wall located outside of the building line shall
be measured from the ground level at the fence location." Furthermore, the LDC also states that
"Fences or walls on lots greater than one (1) acre in area may reach a maximum height of six (6)
feet; except for raw water wells, for which the allowable height is cight (8) feet." This provision
is very specific and does not appear to contemplate deviations.
If this request is approved, the wall will be higher than the eight (8) feet the applicant is
requesting. The center line of thc road will be at least one and a half (1 Yz) feet higher than the
base clevation. Plus, the belm will be no less than one and a half (1 Yz) feet high. These two (2)
minimum clevations would result in a total height of at least eleven (11) feet above the base
elevation. Staff does not recommend placing a higher fence on a residential property that is
adjacent to residential property.
Fences are permitted accessOl')' uses in residential zoning districts but the accessOl')' use should
not dominate the development. If the applicant still mainlains that a higher wall is needed and the
CCPC agrees then it should be measured from the crown ofthe ROW,
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMISSION (EAC):
The EAC reviewed this petition on November 7, 2007. With a vote of 7-1, the EAC forwarded
petition PUDZ-2006-AR-l0l71 to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and the
Board of County eommissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of denial.
Mr. Penniman moved to deny the petition, asscrted that seventy-eight (78) percent existing
wetland and intense development of such uncettain development specifications being put on the
site is probably not the appropriate way to develop this kind of land. In addition, Mr. Bishof has
concerns regarding the wetlands.
Page 11 or 14
Agenda Item No. 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 20 of 132
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING fNlM):
First NIM: The agent for the applicant held the required NIM on October 23, 2006 at thc North
Naples Middle School cafeteria, at 5:30 p.m. Ten people attended, including the applicant's team
and eounty staff. Ms. Laura Spurgeon of Johnson Engineering gave a brief overview of the
proposed zoning request and development plan. Of those in the audience who spoke, no one
voiced any objections to the proposal. When asked if there are any plans for affordable housing
units, Ms. Spurgeon replied, "There is not a plan for affordable housing at this time." Some
comments wcre madc regarding problems with affordable housing at the development near
Sam's Club and the ncw County park, although no one offered a detailed explanation.
Additional questions were relative to:
. water retention and drainage
. access to and from the project, and
. residential unit size and/or square footage.
The agent and/or applicant's representatives answered:
. They have set aside twelve (12010) acres of on-site preserves for wetlands
. There are, or will be, sheet flow outfall culverts under Livingston Road (CR-881)
. There are plans for four lakes on site for water management and storage purposes
. We'll take steps to protect the cypress head (special treatment area) to the east of the
project
. There are two (2) purposed access points to the project: one from Livingston Road (right
in, right out) and one from Veterans Memorial Blvd. (limited access road)
. The residential unit sizes have not yet been determined.
Second NIM: The NIM was held on Monday, September 16,2007 at 6 p.m. at the NOIth Naples
Middle School cafeteria. Approximately 30 people attended, including the applicant's team and
county staff. Ms. Laura Spurgeon of Johnson Engineering gave a bt;efoverviewofthe proposed
zoning request. Ms. Spurgeon made it clear that there were no requests for any housing density
bonuses. While there were no direct objections to the development there were questions relating
to access to and from the project as well as interconnectivity, water retention/drainage and
buffering requirements. The agents eXplained that the interconnection to adjacent parcels was not
feasible and the retention/drainage concerns would be addressed during the site developmcnt
plan (SDP) process. Staff confirmed that all development projects in the County have to follow
strict regulations regarding water retention and drainage.
A couple of neighbors expressed concern about the amount of buffering required and requested
that the developer be required to increasc the buffering along the northeastern boundary. The
agents for the applicant stated they will plant the required buffer per County regulations and
nothing more. Staff assured the residents that this concern would be address in the staff report
and would be requested as a stipulation for approval. Staff is requesting to have an enhanced
buffer along the eastern boundary incorporated into the RPUD document.
Page 12 of 14
,., -_..._~-. ---- .".- ..'.'u
Agenda Item No. 8B
February 26,2008
Page 21 of 132
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward petition
PUDZ-2006-AR-10171 to the Board of County Commissioners (BeC) with a recommendation
of approval subject to the following staff conditions.
I. The developer shall provide a fifteen (15) foot wide type B buffer along the north and
east boundary of the Brandon RPUD property line to address the concerns of the
sUlTounding neighbors that was discussed during the second (2"d) NIM.
2. Deny Deviation #1 which seeks relief from LDC, Section 6,06.02, which requi.res
construction of five-foot wide sidewalks on both sides of local streets. If Deviation #1 is
approved, then the developer shall provide payment in-lieu for sidewalks that are not
being consu'ucted on both sides of the internal roads or the developer shall provide a (en
(10) foot wide sidewalk throughout the RPUD on one (1) side of the road, prior to the
first development order approval.
3. The developer shall submit a hold harmless agreement prior to the BCC hearing. The
hold harmless agreement would state that the applicant (Eastbourne Bonita, LLC) would
pay all costs of litigation, including actual attorney's fees, and fully indemnify the
County against any adverse judgmcnt, arising out of the contentions concerning of the six
(6) property owners to the east of the proposed project.
4. Deny Deviation #6 which seeks relief from LDC, Section 5.03.02, which limits fence or
wall height to 6 feet measured from unaltered ground level.
Exhibits: A. Rezone Findings
B. RPUD Findings
Page 13 of 14
Agenda Item No, 86
February 26, 2008
Page 22 of 132
PREPARED BY:
~'~ ~
~ -VI-- CJ
MELISSA ONE, l?RINe!.J.lAL PLtffiNER D E c,---
DEPARTMENT oP'"zo1<.!fNG AND
LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
~/l,j Jrl.~jM()..Id -/21J.Ah~~n If Cs(oe,
MARJ EM. STUD T-STIRLING ,-_n~rO DATE
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
~ _ J/2-sfo'G
LOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE
DEPAR ENT OF ZONING AND
LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
~I~ Lr11. ~HLl J/-J Io;y
USAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR ~
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND
LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
~....... .:<~ ,/3I/d~
o EPH K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR DATE '
C MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND
NVIRONMENT AL SERVICES DIVISION
Tentatively scheduled for the February 26, 2008 Board of eounty Commissioners
Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
,^II~p~ _ j/7/025
fuf P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE
Page 140fl4
..---,--- _._---._---'-^~-- -,~, -_.'--~,-
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
EXHIBIT A Page 23 of 132
REZONE FINDINGS
PETITION PUDZ-2006-AR-IOI71 Brandon RPUD
Chapter 1O.03.05.G of the Collier eounty Land Development eode requires that the report and
recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall
show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation
to the following, where applicable:
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies
of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan.
Findings: Page 3 of the staff report expounds in detail how this petition is consistent with
the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the elements of the Grow1h Management Plan
(GMP). The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use District, Urban
Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the FLUM of the GMP. Relevant to this petition,
this Subdistrict permits residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of
up to four (4) residential units per gross acre; therefore, the project is consistent with the
GMP.
2. The existing land use pattern;
Findings: The existing pattern to the north is single-family residential dwelling units and
undeveloped parcels zoned Rural Agriculture (A); the land use to the south is multi-
family residential dwelling units and undeveloped parcels zoned Rural Agriculture (A);
the property to the east is undeveloped parcels and the zoning district is Rural Agriculture
(A); and the property to the south is undeveloped parcels with a zoning designation of
Rural Agriculture (A). The proposed project is consistent with the existing residential
land use patterns as explained in the staff report because the rezone complies with the
GMP and Land Development Code (LDC) requirements.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby
districts;
Findings: An isolated district from the neighborhood is usually determined by
topography and inadequate public facilities. Because the proposed Residential Planned
Unit Development (RPUD) rezone is consistent with the GMP with regards to adequate
public facilities ordinance, the rezone will not create an isolated district. In regards to the
nearby districts the location map on page 2 of the staff report illustrates that there are
several other PUD developments in the area with similar land uses. For those reasons, the
rezone request will not create an isolated district to the adjacent districts.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
Findings: The existing boundaries could be considered to be irregularly drawn in relation
to the majority of parcels in the County which are parcels that are a rectangular polygon
shape. Based on the Property Appraiser's website, the subject property was created by the
developer between 2005 and 2006 and assembled as a meandering, illogically shaped
parcel. The location map on page 2 of the staff report illustrates the perimeter ofthe outer
boundary of the subject parcel. The proposed RPUD boundaries also result in access
Page 1 of 4
1/31/08
Agenda Item No. 8B
February 26, 2008
EXHIBIT A Page 24 of 132
issues to the undeveloped property to the east and described on page seven (7) of this
---. staff report.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed
amendment necessary.
Findings: The proposed RPUD rezone is not obligatory at this location. However, the
request is reasonable because the FLUM designates this area as the Urban Residential
Subdistrict and the proposed RPUD rezone is appropriate because it adheres to the Future
Land Use Element (FLUE).
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood;
Findings: The development will not adversely affect the living conditions in the
neighborhood because the requested development standards are similar to the
development standards contained in the LDC and are similar to the Mediterra PUD and
Pelican Strand PUD/DRI residential development in the area.
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion
or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because
of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, includiug activity during
construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety.
Findings: The site generated trips will not lower the Level of Service (LOS) below the
adopted LOS standard for Livingston Road (CR-88]). The proposed PUD produces 127
PM peak hour, peak direction (South-bound) trips on Livingston Road, and the adjacent
roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project throughout the five-
year plarming period. Livingston Road has a service volume of 3,260 trips, with a
remaining capacity of approximately 2,036 trips between Imperial Boulevard and
Immokalee Road; and is currently at Level of Service (LOS) "B" as stated by the Draft
2007 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). The Transportation Services
Division has reviewed the proposed PUD and has recommended approval of the petition
based upon the project will not lower the LOS below the adopted LOS for the area.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem;
Findings: The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems
because the Section 4.03.01 of the LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development
standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. The
proposed water management and drainage is designed to prevent drainage problems on
site and is compatible with the adjacent water management systems. Additionally, 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;
Findings: As depicted on the RPUD Master Plan (Exhibit C to the RPUD) the Type A or
if approved a Type B buffer provides adequate light and air to adj acent properties.
Page 2 of4
1/31/08
---.- --- ,.- -~>--- -- .,.-,_.....
Agenda Item No. 86
February 26, 2008
EXHIBIT A Page 25 of 132
Therefore, the proposed change will not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties.
The proposed development requires the site to conform to the development standards
which are in Chapter 4 of the LDe, specifically in section 4.06.01 which is intended to
improve environmental quality by reducing and reversing air, noise, heat, and chemical
pollution through the preservation of canopy trees and the creation of shade and
microclimate. The standards in ehapter 4 of the LDC provide for open space, corridor
management, and building height restrictions, etc. to protect the adjacent areas. Exhibit A
Preserve Area of the RPUD document commits twenty-five (25) percent for native
vegetation requirement and Exhibit B provides the building height and setback standards
which should maintain the project will not reduce the light and air circulation on adjacent
properties.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent
area;
Findings: This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results which may be
internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of
factors including zoning; however zoning by itself mayor may not affect values, since
value determination is driven by market value. There is no guarantee that the project will
be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or
development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations;
Findings: The adjacent properties are also designated Urban Residential on the FLUE
and they allow for similar dwelling types. Therefore, the proposed development will not
be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare;
Findings: Land Use application are subject to the public hearing process to assure that
the rezone thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity in which the property is situated.
The proposed rezone complies with the land use designation of the Urban (Urban
Residential Subdistrict) FLUM of the GMP, which is a public policy statement
supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with the GMP.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in
accordance with existing zoning;
Findings: The subject property could not develop residential dwelling units in
accordance with the existing zoning because the current zoning is Agriculture (A) and
that zoning does not allow this type of residential development. The proposed RPUD
rezone conforms to the GMP because it will be developed in accordance with the FLUE
for the Urban Residential Subdistrict.
Page 3 of 4
1/31/08
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
EXHIBIT A Page 26 of 132
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or
the County;
Findings: The proposed rezone, subject to staff stipulations meets all objective criteria
set forth for residential zoning districts in the LDC and conforms to the goals and
objectives of the GMP and all its elements. Furthermore, the proposed RPUD is
compatible with surrounding property in scale.
15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed
use in districts already permitting such use.
Findings: There are many sites which are zoned to accommodate the proposed
development but this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of
a rezoning decision. The determinants of the zoning are with consistency with all the
elements of the GMP. The proposed RPUD document 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 RPUD is consistent with the FLUM
because it is in the Urban Residential Subdistrict and meets all the criteria for the Urban
Residential Subdistrict.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which
would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses
under the proposed, zoning classification.
Findings: Any development would require some site alteration and the Brandon RPUD
will have to be evaluated during a site development plan or plans and plat approval to
execute the RPUDs development strategy.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and
services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth
Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended.
findings: The proposed RPUD petition will have to meet all objective criteria set forth in
Section 6.02.00 Adequate Public Facilities for residential zoning as well as to conform to
the goals and objectives of the GMP and all its elements. This petition has been reviewed
by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP and they have
concluded that no LOS will be adversely impacted because the proposed development is
consistent with all Elements of the GMP.
Page 4 of 4
1/31/08
..__.~_. --"-'~- ..,-- ._,--'-
Agenda Item No. 8B
February 26, 2008
EXHIBIT B Page 27 of 132
FINDINGS FOR PUD
PUDZ-2006-AR- 10171 Brandon RPUD
Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning Commission
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
relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access,
drainage, sewer, water, and other ntilities.
Findings: The project is located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Future
Land Use Map (FLUM) and this district permits residential uses with a variety of
dwelling types. The RPUD rezone will intensify the land but relative to public facilities
this project 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. Exhibit A of the RPUD document states that the Brandon RPUD shall be in
accordance with all applicable sections of the Land Development Code (LDC) and
Growth Management Plan (GMP) at the time of issuance of any development order.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contract, or other instrnments, 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: The application has indicated that the project has evidence of unified control
and a homeowners association will maintain common areas. The documents were
submitted with the Brandon RPUD application and are provided as supporting evidence
of unified control.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives
and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Findings: The project as proposed is consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
which designated the subject property as Urban Residential. The subject petition has been
found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. Page three (3) of the
staff report expounds in detail of how the project is deemed consistent with the GMP.
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may
include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and
buffering and screening requirements.
Findings: The RPUD Master Plan has been designed to optimize internal land use
relationships through the use of various forms of open space separation. External
relationships are regulated by Section 4.07.02 of the LDC has specific requirements for
Development within a PUD district shall be compatible with established or planned uses
of surrounding neighborhoods and property. In addition to Chapter 4 regulations, the
Page 1 of2
Agenda Item No. 88
February 26, 2008
EXHIBIT B Page 28 of 132
Development Commitments contained in Exhibit F of the RPUD document provide
additional guidelines the developer will have to fulfill.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
Findings: The amount of open space set aside in section II of Exhibit A of the RPUD
document is the minimum requirement of the LDC provisions. While the proposed
single-family development would be appropriate for the site, careful consideration must
be given to the protection of new residential uses from potential impacts resulting from
over crowded development and limited internal roadways.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
Findings: No capacity issues are known at this time and the petition has been reviewed
by all the required county staff and they have determined that no Level of Service (LOS)
standards will be adversely affected. Policy 2.3 of the GMP mandate, "Continue the
Certificate of Adequate Public Facility Adequacy regulatory program, which requires the
certification 0 f public facility availability prior to the issuance of a fmal local
development order." Because of this provision, the development must be in compliance
with applicable concurrency management regulation.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
Findings: Currently, the utility and roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve
the proposed RPUD as well as the surrounding development at the time of build-out of
this project.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such
regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications
are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations.
Findings: Staff has reviewed this petition for adequate public services and levels of
service and found it is consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and it meets
all the elements of the GMP. Additionally, Brandon RPUD contains development
standards that are comparable to the development standards contained in the Mediterra
PUD and The Pelican Strand DR!. The proposed building heights, setbacks and
development commitments ensure a similar product to that of the adj acent properties.
Page 2 of2
_'.,__'__'"__.,..w_____'~'. --.__.--~.- ~"'._'~~-- ..
Agenda Item No. 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 29 of 132
COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE
DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
WWW.COLLlERGOV.NET (i) (239) 403-2400 FAX (239) 643-6968
APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR:
o AMENDMENT TO PUD (PUDA) igj pun REZONE (PUDZ) o PUD TO PUD REZONE (PUDZ"A)
PETITION NO (AR) PIJD~2006-AJR-I0171
PROJECT NAME BRANDON RPlJD
PROJECT NUMBER Project: 2006040008
DATE PROCESSED Date: 1/16/08
ASSIGNED PLANNER
I APPLICANT lNFORMATlON ]
NAME OF APPLlCANT(S) Eastbourne Bonita LLC. a Florida Limited Liabilitv Corporation
ADDRESS 550 Esslav Drive, Suite 400 CITY Williamsville STATE NY ZIP 14221
TELEPHONE # 716-689-3300 CELL # FAX #
E-MAIL ADDRESS: fac@leqacvdev.com
NAME OF AGENT Johnson Enqineerinq. Inc, / Laura Spurqeon
ADDRESS 2350 Stanford Court CITY Naples STATE FL ZIP 34112
TELEPHONE # 239-434-0333 CELL # FAX # 239-434-9320
E-MAIL ADDRESS: IspurQeon@iohnsonenq.com
NAME OF AGENT Porter, Wriqht. Morris & Arthur LLP / Patrick White. ESQ.
ADDRESS 5801 Pelican Bav Boulevard . CITY Naples STATE FL ZIP 34108
TELEPHONE # 239-593-2963 CELL # FAX # 239-593-2990
E-MAIL ADDRESS: pwhite@porterwriqht.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 Hearing FOT PUD Rezone 01118/07
12/26/07 updated per Transportation and County At10mey comments
Agenda Item No. 8B
February 26, 2008
~ ASS()CIATIONS . rdyc..,10 -~I 101
--
Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition. Provide additional sheets
if necessary.
The following associations are not affiliated with this application. but are within proximity of the
subiect property.
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION. Mediterra
MAILING ADDRESS _ No contact information proviaed On the Collier County Associations Listing -
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: The Links
MAILING ADDRESS _ No contact information provided on the Collier County Associations Listing
NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION, Verona Pointe
MAILING ADDRESS _ No contact illfonnation provided on the Collier County Associations Listing -
NAME OF MASTER ASSOCIATION: The Strand
MAILING ADDRESS _ No contact information provided on the Collier County Associations Listing -
NAME OF CIVIC ASSOCIATION:
MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE_ZIP
I Disclosure of InterestInforl11ation ~
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
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01118/07
12/26/07 updated pe-rTransportation and County Attorney comments
-...,-,....."--_.. --
----, --'",'~,--
Agenda Item No, 88
February 26. 2008
b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, Iislthe offioers and stoo~J~so&h~
the peroentage of slook owned by eaoh.
Name and Address Percentage of Ownership
Eastbourne Bonita LLC. 60%
Francis Eqan. President
Robert Blakelv. Chairman & CEO
Peter Blaiklock. VP & Secretarv/Treasurer
Frank A. Chinnici. Manaqer
Leqacv Bonita LLC 40%
Frank A. Chinnici, President
c. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, Iislthe beneficiaries of the trust with the
percentage of interest.
Name and Address Percentage of Ownership
.
.
d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, lislthe name of
the general and/or limited partners.
Name and Address Percentage of Ownership
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 0 1/18/07
12/26/07 updated per Transportation and County Attorney connnenUi
Agenda Item No. 88
February 26, 2008
Page 32 of 132
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
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 subje<:t property acquired [gI leased 0 Term of lease yrs.fmos.
Properties acauired Julv 2005 throuah Mav 2006, see attached deeds.
If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following:
Date of option:
Date option terminates: . or
Anticipated closing date
0
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 POO Rezone 01/18/07
lZIZ6I07 updated per Transportation and County Attorney comments
~_".'_"______._m_ ------ "---- -.-" m,_ -----
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 33 of 132
I P'ROPl:RTY LOCATION I
Detailed lel!al descriution of the urouertv covered bv the auullcation: (If space Is inadequate, attach on
separate page.) If request Involves change to more than one %onlng district, include separate legal
description for property involved in each district. Applicant shall submit four (4) copies of a recent survey
(completed within the last six months, maximum ," to 400' scale) if required to do so at the pre-application
meeting.
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 /T ownshi p/Range 13/W25
Lot: Block: Subdivision:
Plat Book Page #: Property 1.0.#:
Metes & Bounds Description: See Leoal Description. Exhibit D
Sizeofurouertv: varies ft. X varies ft. = Total Sq. Ft. 2.225.916 s.f. Acres 51.1 ac
Address/l!enerallocation of subiect urouertv: The southeast corner of the intersection of
Livinoston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard
PUD District (LDC 2.03.06): [gI Residential o Community Facilities
o Commercial o Industrial
I ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE I
Zoning Land use
N A and PUD Undeveloped parcels. Veterans Memorial Boulevard and
Mediterra PUD (single family homes)
S A and PUD Undeveloped parcels and Royal Palm Academy PUD (Verona
Pointe townhomes)
E{adiacent) A Undeveloped parcels and FPL Easement
E{surrounding)PUD/DRI The Strand. includino The Links sinole family detached
neiohborhood and Trophy Club multifamily residential
neiohborhood
W(adiClcent) A Undeveloped parcels and Livinoston Road. proposed multifamily
Della Rosa RPUD
W(surrounding) A Proposed Fire Station. North Naples Middle School. elementary
school under construction
.
Application FOT Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01118/07
12/26/07 updated per Transportation and County Attorney comments
.. Agenda Item No. 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 34 of 132
Does the owner of the subject property own property contiguous to the subject property?
No
If so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space is inadequate, attach
on separate page).
Sedi 0 n IT ownship IRa nge I I
Lot: Block: Subdivision:
Plat Book_ Page #: Property 1.0.#: .
Metes & Bounds Description:
I REZONE REQUEST I
This application is requesting a rezone from the A and ST Overlay zoning distriet(s) to the RPUD
zoning district(s).
Present Use of the Property: Undeveloped
Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Residential neiahborhood
Original PUO Name: N/A Ordinance No.: N/A
I EVALUATION CRITERIA I
..
Pursuant to Seelion 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 nal'l'ative 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 fLOC Section 10.02.13.B\
1. The suitability of the area for the type and paffern of development proposed in relation to physical
charaderistics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other
utilities.
The proposed development is within the North Naples Planning Community, and is proposed
to contain up to 204 single or multifamily dwelling units, or some combination of both, along
with recreational and open space amenities. The area is suitable for this proposed
development type as it is within the Urban Mixed Use-Urban Residential Land Use category.
The site's location, along Livingston Road with access to Veterans Memorial Boulevard, is
suitable for residential development because it is compatible with other residential uses in the
vicinity. Public and community facilities and services are available in close proximity.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01118/07
12126/07 updated per Transportation and County Attorney comments
.-- "---- -.,," '''__h'~,.k '-'.'-~"'" -..,- --
Agenda Item No. 8B
February 26,2008
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, c~ilt\l{,.d~ 8/132
other instruments, or for omendments in those proposed, porticularly 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 allorney.
One entity owns the entire subject property. Operation and maintenance responsibility for
private areas and facilities shall be assigned to the developer until conveyance to a property
owners association.
3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth management
plan.
The proposed development will be in compliance with the goals, objectives and policies set
forth in the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) for the following reasons:
a, The subject property is within the Urban Mixed Use-Urban Residential Subdistrict, as
depicted on the countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM). According to the Growth
Management Plan (GMP), the purpose of the Urban Mixed Use-Urban Residential Subdistrict.
This proposed development addresses GMP objectives including Future Land Use Element
(FLUE) Policies 5.3 and 5.5, in that the site is located in an area with available infrastructure.
b. The subject property's location in relation to existing or proposed community facilities and
services allows for the development's residential density as required in Objective 2 of the
Future Land Use Element (FLUE). The presence of schools including North Naples Middle
School, an elementary school, Royal Palm Academy, church property, North Naples Regional
Park, North Collier Hospital, medical and office uses, emergency services including a future
fire station, sheriff department services, and shelters within a three-mile radius of the site, as
well as water and wastewater treatment services, demonstrate that residential development at
this site will be appropriately served,
c. The project development is compatible and complementary to existing and future
surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the FLUE through the internal arrangement
of structures, the placement of land use buffers, and the proposed development standards
contained herein. The proposed residential project will be consistent with the existing
adjoining development, including the Mediterra residential project to the north and Verona
Pointe residential project to the south. The FLUM designates property to the north, south,
east and west as Urban Mixed Use-Urban Residential Subdistrict. The proposed development
will be consistent with current uses and designations for future use of surrounding properties.
d. Improvements are pianned to be in compliance with applicable land development
regulations as set forth in ObjeCltive 3 of the FLUE.
e. The projected density of 4 dwelling units per acre (DUlA) is in compliance with the FLUE
Density Rating System based on the following relationships to required criteria:
Base Density 4 DU/A
Maximum Permitted density 4DUlA
PROPOSED DENSITY 3.99 DU/A
204 units on 51.12: acres (gross acreage for residential use)
Application FOr Public Hearing For PUD Rezone Ol!l8/07
12126/07 updated per Transportation and County Attomey"commcnts
Agenda Item No. 88
February 26, 2008
Page 36 of 132
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 proposed development is compatible with existing and future surrounding land uses as
required in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element. The property is adjacent to
surrounding undeveloped land, with the exception of proposed residential development to the
west (Della Rosa) and existing residential development to the south (Verona Pointe). The
proposed residential development on the subject 51.1-acre site will be screened at property
lines with buffers to foster compatibility between surrounding uses. Preserve areas are
delineated to address Collier County preserve requirements.
The proposed residential development is consistent with existing residential use at Mediterra
to the north and the Verona Pointe multifamily development at the Royal Palm Academy PUD
south of the subject site. The request is consistent within the range of project densities in the
area, from 0.56 units per gross acre at Mediterra to 3.4 units per gross acre at Royal Palm
Academy MPUD, as well as site-specific density of 6.5 units per acre (256 units on 39.34
acres) at Milano and 6.4 units per acre (94 units on 14.77 acres) at the adjoining Verona
Pointe.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development.
The proposed development will meet open space requirements of the Collier County LDC.
Usable open space in the form of recreation facilities, passive areas, pedestrian walkways,
lakes and will be provided within at least 30.66 acres of open space on the site.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequClcy of Clvailable
improvements Clnd fClciiities, both public and privClte.
Public and private improvements and facilities are available for the site. Water and sewer
services are provided in the project's location. Roadway capacity is available per the
submitted TIS. Drainage is adequate for the site per the submitted Stormwater Report,
Waste management, cable, electric, and telephone service are available in the project's
location. Adequate schools, police, fire, bus, park, and health care facilities are within the
proposed development's service area. Payment of impact fees and timing of adequate public
facilities certification are mechanisms to assure the development is appropriately serviced.
7. The ability of the subjed properly and of surrounding areClS to ClccommodClte expansion.
Expansion of the subject property would require revision to the PUD. Surrounding areas to
the west and east inclUde Special Treatment Overlay areas that are Identified as
environmentally sensitive, so development should not be expanded in these areas.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the
parliculClr case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public
purposes to a degree at least equivCllent to literal application of such regulations.
The proposed development conforms with PUD regulations. The proposed density of 3.99
units per acre is consistent with the applicable FLUE Density Rating System. Deviations listed
in Exhibit E are justified according to the project's size and layout.
.
Standard Rezone Considerations (LDC Section JO. 03.05. G.)
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and
future land use map and the elements of the growth management plan.
The proposed project's consistency with the growth management plan Is exhibited by
the fact that It Is located within an area designated for urban residential development,
where it is compatible with surrounding uses and supported by the availability of
public facilities.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18107
12/26/07 updated per Transportation and County Attorney comments
--------- ----- '---'---.-. --...--..
Agenda Item No. 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 37 of 132
.
2. The existing land use pattern.
The land use pattern in the vicinity accommodates residential neighborhoods, such as
Medlterra, Verona Pointe, and Milano; public uses, such as North Napies Middle
School, Royal Palm Academy, and a fire station site all oriented along Livingston Road.
The site's location in proximity to these compatible uses and services fits within the
existing pattern.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
The proposed Residential PUD zoning district is not unrelated to the adjacent and
nearby district. To the north is an existing Residential PUD (Mediterra), to the south is
an existing Mixed PUD (Royal Palm Academy) with Verona Pointe multifamily
residential adjacent to the subject site. Immediately east of the subject site is
environmentally sensitive land designated within a Special Treatment Overlay, which is
coordinated with the on-site preserve location. The proposed PUD has access to
livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, so the site is notisolated.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on
the property for the proposed change.
The configuration of existing district boundaries provides for Rural Agricultural zoning
across much of the area, except where rezonings have occurred to accommodate
residential and public use development. The applicable Rural Agricultural district is
not consistent with the site's location In the urban area fronting an arterial and a future
collector roadway. By rezoning to RPUD, this site is brought In consistency with the
site's Urban Residential Future Land Use Designation and is able to accommodate
appropriate residential uses.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment
(rezone) necessary.
The rezoning will ordain the most appropriate designation for the land to allow
development that is in accord with the Urban Residential land use designation
established for this location.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood.
Living conditions in surrounding neighborhoods will not be adversely influenced by the
rezoning of this site. Attention to architectural detail, landscaping, signage and
lighting will contribute to the aesthetic quality of the area.
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create
types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or
projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the
development. or othelWise affect public safety.
Please refer to the TIS accompanying this application.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
The proposed water management system shall be designed according to LDC
standards to accommodate drainage onslte so as not to create a problem. Please refer
to the submitted Stormwater Report dated 7/30/07.
9. Whether the proposed change ,will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
Application For Publit: Healing For PUD Rezeme 01/18107
12/26/07 updated per Transportauon and County Attorney comments
. Agenda item No. 8B
February 26, 2008
Light and air to adjacent areas shall not be limited by the rezoning requesf.a~tli9~R~~
buffers, and building height limits shall assure that light and air to adjacent areas is not
.-. affected by the proposed development.
10. Whether the proposed change will seriously affect property values in the adjacent area.
The proposed rezoning from the Rural Agricultural designation to the Residential
Planned Unit Development ~esignatlon typically has a beneficial effeCt on property
values in the adjacent area.
n. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or deveiopment of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
Adjacent properties are not deterred from developing based on the proposed rezoning.
The proposed project complies with LDC Section 4.04.02.B.3 in that potential
interconnection has been indicated on the Master Plan.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner
as contrasted with the public welfare.
The proposed rezoning is consistent with the goals of the growth management plan
and Future Land Use map, which are adopted to guide development in the public's best
interest and welfare.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with
existing zoning.
Being located in an urban area with frontage on an arterial and a future collector
roadway, the site is not in an appropriate location for existing permitted uses within the
Rural Agricultural zoning district.
14. Whether the change suggested Is out of scaie with the needs of the neighborhood or the
county.
The requested rezoning for 51.1 acres is smaller in scale compared to surrounding
residential neighborhoods of Mediterra, Royal Palm Academy, and the Strand. The
requested density is in scale.wlth the density rating system of the Growth Management
Plan.
15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in
districts already permitting such use.
The requested RPUD zoning district is specific to the site location. Comparable land
areas with adequate public facilities permitting such uses as proposed in the RPUD are
not readily available.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be
required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the
proposed zoning classification.
The site is characterized by wetland and upland vegetation with substantial exotic
invasion. The site elevation ranges from 12.1 to 13.2 NGVD and is designated in FEMA
Zone X. Approximately 11.8 acres of the site are proposed as preserve area, and the
remaining area shall not require substantial site alteration to accommodate the
proposed residential neighborhood.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the ColHer County growth management plan
and as defined and implemented through the ColHer County Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance [Code ch. 106, art. II]. as amended.
Application Por Public Healing For PUD Rezone 01118/07
11126/07 updated per TransportatiQfl and County Attorney comments
.~----,-,---,-'...-..----.. ,,- -.",. --'^.<,~...'.. ._---,.
Agenda Item No. 88
February 26, 2008
The proposed development shall be permitted in accordance with the ccftllir cd1l~W
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. For traffic impacts, please refer to TIS
accompanying this application.
18. Such other factors, standards, '1.r criteria that the board of county commissioners shall deem
important in the protection of the publiC health, safety, and welfare.
Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restricnons, however, many
communlties have adopted such restrictions. Yau may wish to contact the civic or property owners association
in the area for which this use is being requested in order to astertain whether or not the request is affected
by existing deed restrictions.
Previous land use Detitions on the subiect DroDertv: To your knowledge, has e public heering been heid on
this property within the lest yeer~ 0 Yes IZl No
If so, whet wes the neture of that hearing~
NOTICE:
This application will be considered "open" when the determination of "sufficiency" has been made and
the application is assigned a petition processing number. The application will be considered "closed"
when the petitioner withdraws the application through wrl1ten notice or ceases to suoply necessary
information to continue orocessina or otherwise activelv pursue the rezonino for 0 oeriod of six (6)
months. An application deemed "closed" will not receive further processing and an application "closed"
through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An opplication deemed "closed" may be re-opened by
submitting a new application, repayment of ali application fees and granting of a determination of
usufficiency't. Further review of the project will be subject to the then current code. (LDC Section
10.03.05.Q.)
"
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 01/18/07..
12/26/07 updated per Transportation and County Attorney comments
Agenda Item No. 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 40 of 132
PUD ~ME~~II'1~Nt'!I'''l)A)
PU\)(REZ()NE'(I'QDXl
PUD to PU\)dZQN~{PUDZ.M
APPLICATION
SI.!BMITrALQHEOKLIST
THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW
W/COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION.
NOn: INCOMPLETE SUMBITT ALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
#OF NOT
REQUIREMENTS COPIES REQUIRED REQUIRED
i~t~~ft~,~jii:~$t-$jF'di;i'Ji"i":!;:;'j!~;' ,..',..,',;:,,""';":.<;':,:i:..f;';;,',,'; ,;,;'ttt~t'f'it;JJ:"~;,rj,
1 Additional set if located in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle x
Redevelo ment Area)
Copies of detailed description of why amendment Is necessary x
Completed Application wtth Ilst of Permitted Uses; Development Standards Table; Ust 24 x
of proposed deviations from the LOe (if any); List of Developer Commitments
(download a lication from website for current form)
Pre~o Heatlon meetin notes 24 x
PUD Conce tuol Master Site Plan 24" x 36" and One 8 If:z'' x 11" co 24 x
Revised Conce fuel Master Site Plan 24" x 36"'and One 8 Y2tl x 11 tI co 24 x
Original PUD document/ordinance and Moster Plan 24" x 36" - ONLY IF AMENDING 24 x
THE PUD
Revised PUD 0 24 "
Revised PUD 0 24 "
Deeds/legal's & Survey (if boundary of original PUD is amended) 2 x
List identifylng Owner & 011 parties of corporation 2 x
Owner/Affidavit signed & notarized 2 x
Covenant of Unified Control 2 "
Completed Addressing checklist 2 x
Environmental Impact Statement (8S) and digital(electronic copy of as or exemption
ustificotron 4 x
Historical Surveyor waiver request 4 "
Utlllty Provisions Statement w/sketches 4 x
Architectural rendering of proposed structures 4 x
Survey, signed & sealed 4 "
T rofHc Impact Statement {TIS) or waiver 7 x
Recent Aerial Photograph (with habitat areas defined) min scaled 1"-400' "
5
Electronic copy of 011 documents in Word format and plans (CDRom or Diskette) "
1
Letter of No Objection from tne U.S. Postal Service 1 x
If located in RFMlJ (Rural Frinae Mixed Use} Recelvlna Land Areas
Applicant must contact Mr. Gerry J. lacovero, State of Florida
Division of Forestry @ 239-690~3500 for information regarding
lIWildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plcmf', lDC Section 2.03.08.A.2.o.(b)l.c.
Applicant/Agent Signature Dote
.
Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 0 J /18107
12/26/07 updated per Transportation and County Attorney comments
,,_.._~--._-- "-_.- ---',._-,'--~'. _..._-,-~~-
Agenda Item No. 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 41 of 132
EXHIBIT A
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 1 of3
Regulations for development of the Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) shall be
in accordance with the contents of this RPUD Ordinance and applicable sections of the Land
Development Code (LDC) and Growth Management PIau (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 LDC that are otherwise
applicable shall apply.
I. GENERAL USES
Certain uses shall be considered general perlnitted uses and structures throughout the Brandon RPUD
except in the preserve areas. General permitted uses and structures are those uses, which generally
serve the developer and residents of the Brandon RPUD and are typically part of the common
infrastructure or are considered community amenities.
GENERAL PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES:
1. Water management facilities and related structures.
2. eommon recreation amenities.
3. Guardhouses, gatehouses and access control structures.
4. Temporary construction, models, sales, and administrative offices subject to a
temporary use permit.
II. RESIDENTIAL AREA
PERMITTED USES:
No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in
part, for other than the following:
A. Principal Uses:
1. Single-family detached dwelling units (a building which contains only one dwelling
unit) .
2. Zero lot line dwelling units (a single family detached dwelling structure on
individually platted lots which provides a side yard on one side of the dwelling and
no yard on the other).
3. Two-family dwelling units (a single, free-standing conventional building intended,
designed, used and occupied as two dwelling units attached by a common wall or
roof, but wherein each unit is located on a separate lot under separate ownership).
1/24/08 updated per County Attorney comments; 2/14/08 updated per cepc stipulations
Agenda Item No. 88
February 26, 2008
Page 42 of 132
EXHIBIT A
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 2 of3
4. Duplex dwelling units (a single, free-standing, conventional building on a single lot,
which contains only two dwelling units and is intended, designed, used and
occupied as two dwelling units under single ownership, or where each dwelling unit
is separately owned or leased but the lot is held under common ownership).
5. Single family attached and townhouse dwelling units,
6. Multi-family dwelling units.
7. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of
permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") by
the process outlined in the LDC.
8. Accessory Uses:
Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses
and structures, including, but not limited to private garages.
1I24f08 updated per County Attorney comments; 2/14/08 updated per ccpe stipulations
___"_'M__"~>_ ~.._'-"..~--~"..,_. ------ -.""
Agenda Item No. 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 43 of 132
EXHIBIT A
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 3 of3
III. PRESERVE AREA
A preserve area is delineated on the Master Plan to protect native vegetation and naturally functioning
habitat in a natural or enhanced state. On-site native vegetation areas total 47.2 acres, therefore a
minimum of 11.8 acres shall be dedicated as preserve area in the Brandon RPUO to meet the 25%
native vegetation requirement. The Master Plan attached as Exhibit C delineates 10.91 acres, which is
92% of the preserve area. The remaining 8% of preserve area (0.9 acres) shall be delineated at the time
of SOP or PPL development order submittal, and shall be located contiguous to the preserve shown on
the Master Plan consistent with the provisions ofLOC Section 3,05.07.H.I.a.ii.
PERMITTED USES:
No. building or structure or part thereof, shall be erected altered or used, or land used, in whole or in
part, for other than the following, subject to regional state and federal permits when required:
A. Principal Uses:
1. Open spaces/nature preserves.
2. Boardwalks subject to appropriate approvals by permitting agencies, however such
structures shall not reduce the retained native vegetation area below the minimum
required.
1/24/08 upda.ted per County Attorney comments; 2/14/08 updated per cepe stipulations
Agenda Item No. 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 44 of 132
EXHIBIT B
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 1 of2
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The Residential Development Standards Table that follows sets forth the development standards for the
Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Residential Subdistrict. Standards not specifically set
forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDc in effect as of the date of
approval of the site development plan (SDP) or subdivision plat.
GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth below shall be understood to be in
relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures. Condominium, and/or
homeowners' association boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development standards.
]/24108 updated per County Attorney comments; 2/14/08 updated per cepe stipulations
--~,--,._-~~-~-,-- -. ... ".---.,.,--.- ~"._-- .--. .---.--
Agenda Item No. 8B
February 26.2008
Page 45 of 132
EXHIBIT B
ie DEVEL()PMENT< i:i~r~t~t.'.j...' SI~GLEc ZERO.: .;TWO'FAMI~ y.. i'.......i.i . . CLUBHOUSEI
ie.'........ST.N~J)~Rl)~............ .cF~~I~Y.... , LOT LINE L""" ................................... 11 ......i..... . REcRE~TION
.........'.e...'. j' ...........
:_;j.::',.::~,;-':.::','::":~:-:',: ":,,::::':;!.: .:,:i::.:::..-.:,.":i'::" 'j\TIA.CHED.&' .. ......i,...i.r. .'" ....., C "'BlJIlJ:)INGS .
'L.je.c TOWNHOUSE. . ,,.. .< ..... .... ".':'> ...... ....., 0-" ,.~'-
PRINCIPAL'STRUCTURES' : ...... .".' ".ic. ".e..,e'.,.'.{'" '.' ,. ,,":' ..... .... c.,. e""" ....ec.. .',...., ..'" ....> e e. .,.. ". :e'cc'C;', · ....
MINIMUM LOT AREA 4,500 S.F. 1,700 S.F. PER 4,500 4,000 S.F. 8,000 S.F. 1 ,700 S.F. PER 6,000 S.F.
PER UNIT UNIT S.f. PER PER UNIT UNIT
UNIT
MIN. LOT WIDTH' 45 FEET 17 FEET 45 FEET 40 fEET 80 FEET 90 FEET 75 FEET
MIN. FLOOR AREA 1,000 S.F. 1,000 S.F, 1,000 1,000 S.F. 1,000 S.F. 900 S.F./D.U. 900 S.F,
S.F.
MIN. FRONT YARD' 20 FEET 20 FEET 20 FEET 20 FEET 20 FEET 20 FEET 20 FEET
MIN. SIDE YARD 6 FEET o OR 7.5 FEET o AND o AND 6 FEET 6 FEET 1 0 FEET 1 0 FEET
1 2 FEET
MIN. REAR YARD' 1 5 FEET 15 FEET 15 FEET 1 5 FEET 1 5 FEET 1 5 FEET 1 5 FEET
MIN. PRESERVE 25 FEET 25 FEET 25 FEET 25 FEET 25 FEET 25 FEET 25 FEET
SETBACK
MIN. DISTANCE 1 2 FEET o OR 15 FEET 1 2 FEET o OR 12 FEET 1 2 FEET > 20 FEET or V, 1 0 FEET
BETWEEN BH, whichever
STRUCTURES is greater
MAX. ZONED 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET 50 FEET 35 FEET
BUILDING HEIGHT 3 STORIES
MAX. ACTUAL 40 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET 55 FEET 40 FEET
BUILDING HEIGHT 3 STORIES
. ACC~SS.ORrHRUCTURE$: . .. ..... ....,... . j. . . . ......................... . .... ..... .... . .....,. '.. ......... ,
MIN. FRONT YARD SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS
MIN. SIDE YARD SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS
MIN. REAR YARD' 5 FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET S FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET
MIN. PRESERVE 1 0 FEET 1 0 FEET 1 0 FEET 1 0 FEET 1 0 FEET 1 0 FEET 1 0 FEET
SETBACK
MIN. DISTANCE , 5 FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET 1 0 FEET 5 FEET
BETWEEN PRINOPAL I
& DETACHED I
,
ACCESSORY I
STRUCTURE
MAX. ZONED 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET
BUILDING HEIGHT
MAX. ACTUAL 40 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET
BUILDING HEIGHT
SPS = Some os Principel Structure
BH= Building Height
10n cui de sac lots and lots on the inside part of 0 curved street, the minimum lot width may be reduced by 300/0, provided
tI1e minimum lot oreo requirement shalf be maintained.
:/' Front.loading garages shall be set back 0 minimum of 23 feet from edge of sidewalk or 23 feet from the edge of
pavement where no sidewalk Is provided. for side-loading gorages, a parking area of 23 feet in depth sholl be provided
to ovoid parking of 0 vehicle across the referenced sIdewalk or povement.
J For lots adjacent to a take, no strudures shall be- permitted in the required 20 foot lake maintenance easement.
lf24f08 updaled per County Attorney comments; 2114/08 updated perCCPC stipulations
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 46 of 132
EXHIBIT C
~ ! ~':::~.=- ME:OITERAA ct'QrD IRE~=Ak I _ _ _ _ _ _ __
--''j \ '------,--- --.i": ~ -- -- - 15' 'WE "8"
'-; I. BUF'F'ER
~ mtf "'" _____._~,,'"...___~ _,~._'"_,__,_,
[ " ,=-1'0"----::::::::-'- _" cN& - 'HAt'.. ", tc---
-"''', (,--=-~-' .... -=-.. I ~
t i I, ,I,' t - - - 15' T :E "s"
I r 10' TYPE ~A" - -
I,!J BUFFER n BU,
! I (' R I
: ill,
o~ 250 ~ III):! :
SCAU;:\N~rr II!II . I I I
r Ii i) ~II, @' -r~~\U~Di) 10' ~~~8' _ R J ' L. TVPEI'A" I:
i Hll ~ BUf'FER '" __-- _ - eu~Etl
] I' I' I"''';; CELLA RQS....-----...... ' ' , . -- , I I
Ii II I, ,,-"" ---o;;""~-U_"'l '/;i!>';P~"'C>, ___u_t"
j "'~'" \/ \l II "15:::;;;''Y;,;r;'~i",,.., ' I' I
I ,'il-! i ../1 'I ;\/~:;..{.r!,',;;,!!-:.Jt..' , ._
j 1 I i/i ~ I :~i";'.....'?, ,,~'~,.'" I r-
,t t ((1- / I I....,.~..,..,...~ \ : .;~~~8'j' I % I
! 11,1, ~")" If), ST""PEClAL II I I" ":9..:"'",";",;j;,,, " ,...!l! ,
J ' -'An.~~ I L . e;,!,""'<<:.~';J;',"/.''-, , a....:;
i 1'[ I/} .~ .-" \'- I ;~,~,;,;<,jc"'" 1 I... W I
I '\ ~Y" .oVERLAY _~ f l" , C/J
'I \ 'II '\- ',if'Q-- ',! .-.. -r I' 10' T'lP8 "A" ~T~:t;. : I :Ii:
, \ V" ,', 1 " J BUFF~ OVERlAY I I I
\ \" \ 'I ~,k . ';-------------.', I :
~',I',\\ "'li " I
~ ... '\,\\ \ \\~{!" PE "A" I '- '
\ . \\' \.-E".... UFFER j I' I
, "1\ \ /'1 R ' I I I
\ \ ~\~1O' -1 "D" I
\~~\ ~~ FER ___n_.._-----:I.J :1
\ \\\,
e ' .
... m"",,-'IlII'PIu.l'fI'~ \>>. , ~ ' ,
~ tlOIo<Pmm1'l1_~ ',\\..... ~ I I
h '\ " I I
~ LANOllSEKEY \ ,,~~~~, , :-"'-~;....-:
l; AE.._r'^'-l") 20' ~E ,:i, ~ J I
g o$.".I'om'" BUFF'ER '. "'.'" ,', ~
~Twofamllr , ,,~). ... ~
~ ."""lDtLl" '"","':'~,~''-. - -':;"~I:'--"'JJI]"'" J \' ,,". "ffiJl]!IT![U' I 'yr7 PELlOAl;
~ "".... ,'" '-. ~ ..... 'II' , ]! I J'lli' I ' .. .~
~ .h.................:t.. -~ :::::...... ~ -...... - '\' , 'JJ t j ~ I! I /1# / SmA,,"
J: ......u"'"",y "".:::;~... ,...... ~ ,~..~. - \:.1'_ .'(/) (DR"
~--..'-" ,." , -", ~']=rrn""ffi' )/ / "
...,., .......,'.......'0........ ..., " .~ '-:0 ' f ill I ~IJ.! L ;" '
~ .ope<lSp$oo "~~ ~~ l[!\1!l;~!~111' ~hi,m:' f I
~ JN4tcfM8l'lOQlll'nal'ltAI'Ns " .... .. ) "'" 01:: .o.u_~_ . ,
" ........,"'f""~ '<~::.:::~,-,,,,~~...... "'" C;;r'1"
::l ......__...... '" ~......" '" '=:''':1' I
. RPUO_P<ANNOTE& "'" -.,~~ G'''' 1 I
~ 1.AlM>o!~"..r.1'lHunlllll'ioto.lhullllil"~lDlJv;'k~ ... "~" ~"'1
~ IR~Ag<j:"'_I""',",lhn,"'_"""t'''".t_~.t , U!GEfIID ....... ,~~..... ~ I 1
11Itt."ST'~1l1T~o..NrOlWkl'ln"Limro - "'-.......~...... ~"'''' I
~ ~esIdiJr>IlaI~UIMIUIll~~ - I'f;E8ERVEHlEA ....... ~............. "1.....' \
'U ~'~'III1o.'l1l~I~..o:I"",..-.rl""'~~ ~ ~ "'.;~. .../1 I
~ !.n'''IUu:t>IIClll'tt\!'lIllI'ds.g:rl:(lUl1n.bIlldl~.:e.IJ'' ~ W"'TCRflf.llAGOI.'1lTARrA ...." '-.",,' . I I
> I ...lIlItwiI1fiilgoo(la.lIoodpWni.nm."1'lIIulllIlll1wr ... ... Z, '-..
d. '~c;pli<'i~h:lud~_hl.t:t5&... RPLIDlICMIOAR.\'
~ :~~~~:::"~=~'h - - --- ~1t$tfT.(lF#l"" PROJECTLN;OUSE:
.b ~1Ir;.~"Rl"W,.IlO'lr.fIII=II'JIIIIIlQppl~ _.~___ &peCl^Lt'ReJ\.Tl~r~ RESIDENTIAL(R) 28.f9AQl
:cl 8N!lb8I1\l!".lMdOl>lirNYItolld~:,AIlIhmIll\ ~ lAIl;ES 5.MACt.
8 ~S'll<t4Mo~O:!I""'lw~OIWIMllt ~ ~ctA&SlFI""J,1'I:rN PRESER'lEREQUlRED" H.81ACt
/' .~lIi~OlGhr~l~dDWllltJI>lIlll'fl.Cl:>N, ~ 1.A!pU$nCLAtlSIA0411Qto: F'Ri:SERveSHOWN 10,91:1\01
~ 'NO'lE:~~JIllSA~IAAn;.ubS"~to~~ R pcea.Jo~AAiA ROAOSIRO'lN" 5A1AC:t.
c: PlATTIIlO. TOTAl. NeT ACREAGE 51,10 ACt.
.;" ft!;CltF~!'l'aIl!!;~'l!"JU1l-o,~tU.lW~\oUtIrfAll!;),;jjllZl,:1'.oUJZ/l&.11"1,o,q -..... r.wOFl........""'.., ''''-'IOUS'-' "" ..~
If1 f"MlSlI~1:N'l~lIhil:lwHl:):l(l,II"-AClles,w~<w.!l"U)~'I:H!:RHll.IIRli!b -p'" ..........." ...,.<O"~......... . ''''"""'
It ~~l'lUlllOt'ltlo~WlI4Dml:lE"ml'J:l;r.:rCEl,fQ,Cl'-IIIa;. ... Pl'lOPOSmACCESSPl"J1NT MtNI~'IUIi/IOI"ENSPACE{GII%.l ,SO,G8I\C:
!fi =~=~.u:=~~~~~.It.~oI>T..:=~t ..
(5 ....F-:-t~Cli't+"lf\!li'Vli'l;lnO,l101'lAl'Il>~II!D....'I\lal,.tlGWr"...'tRt "^'UN~~1 lAC -3"U"TSPERACRE
1"1' lIn1WtE.'U~'l'.lw...eeo~.t't~CWlll!S~A!tCl.lJlO!l..:rl/)lltJt'Q'llN ~" ,."".., ,-. 1'1'
ii ~ll1u:eSl!C\"W1IUU't,H;w.
1 01 I N Sf N 235 ST RI) COOR1 BRANDON Rl'UD
- L , ~ 1 NA~ES. ~DA ~.m~ MASTER PLAN
. PHONE (239) H+-om
E N G I' NEE R I N G F" 1239) .,.....0l211 "
E.B. fS-42 &; L..S. #642 Frs. 2.OQS
1124108 updo1ed per County Attumey comments, 218106 update<! per CCf'C Slipulations
1/24/08 updated per County Attorney comments; 2/14/08 updated per cePe stipulations
-"'-----.---.-,,-..- - .'.-,- -_.
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 47 of 132
EXHIBIT D
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 1 of4
The subject property, being 51.1:t acres, is described as:
PARCEL ID 00149640004: THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE
SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 AND THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE
SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL ID 00148120004: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4
OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 AND THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE
NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSIDP 48 SOUTH, RANGE
25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 00149520001: THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF
SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST.
PARCEL 00149480002: THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST
ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE
NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF
THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4)
OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 13, TOWNSIDP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL 00149800006: THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER eNE 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST
ONE-QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4), OF THE
NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4), SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF
THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4),
OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4), SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE
25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
PARCEL 00151120004: THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (SE 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST
ONE-QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4), OF THE
NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4), SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
PARCEL 00148400009: THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (SW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST
ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4), OF THE
NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4), SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
PARCEL 00150960003: THE E.l/2 OF THE N.l/2 OF THE S.W. 1/4 OF THE S.W. 1/4 OF THE
N.E. 1/4 SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
1124/08 updated per County Attorney comments; 2/14/08 updated per cepe stipulatklOs
Agenda liem No, 8B
February 26. 2008
Page 48 of 132
EXHIBIT D
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 2 of 4
FLORIDA; THE WEST 15 FEET OF THE DESCRIBED PROPERTY IS RESERVED FOR
EASEMENT PURPOSES.
LESS
A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, R.<\NGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN S.88020'15"W., ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2650.16
FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13;
THENCE RUN N.00036'50''W., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID
SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2692.40 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE
NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE CONTINUE N.00036'50''W., ALONG THE
WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 336.73
FEET, TO TIlE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE
SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE RUN
- N.88031'06"E., ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF
THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF
331.82 FEET, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE
SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13,
AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING
OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN N.00036'15''W., ALONG THE
WEST LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE
SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF
180.39 FEET, TO A POINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHEAST,
WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS N.55010'01"E. A DISTANCE OF 1772.36 FEET THEREFROM;
THENCE RUN SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT,
HAVING A RADIUS OF 1772.36 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07018'23",
SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 225.86 FEET AT A BEARING OF S.38029'll"E., FOR A
DISTANCE OF 226.01 FEET, TO THE END OF SAID CURVE AND A POINT ON THE SOUTH
LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST
1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE RUN S.88031'06"W., ALONG
THE SOUTH LINE OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE
SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF TIlE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF
138.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 0.27 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
PARCEL 00149680006: TIlE SW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF
SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST.
PARCEL 00148160006: THE NE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4, SECTION
13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
1124/08 updated per County Attorney comments; Y14/08 updated per cepe stipulations
-- ......--"'-.-..-.
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 49 of 132
EXHIBIT D
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 3 of 4
PARCEL 00149440000: THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (SE-1f4) OF THE NORTHEAST
ONE-QUARTER (NE-1f4) OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (SW-1/4) OF THE
NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE-1I4) OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST.
PARCEL 00151200005: THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (SW-l/4) OF THE NORTHEAST
ONE-QUARTER (NE-1/4) OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (SW-1/4) OF THE
NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE-1I4) OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST.
PARCEL 00148080005: A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION
13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN N.88057'29E., ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 862.17 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD, A 275.00 FOOT
RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN
DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE N.88057'29"E., ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 133.12 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTEROF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE
RUN N.00007'26''W. ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 672.76 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER Of THE
WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF HIE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13; THENCE RUN S.88059'57"W., ALONG THE
NORTH LINE OF THE WEST HALF Of THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER Of THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF
331,87 FDEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER Of THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 13; THENCE RUN S.00008'03''E, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE WEST HALF Of
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF TEH NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 336.50 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALf OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13,THENCE RUN
S,88058'45"W., ALONG THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUmWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A
DISTANCE OF 193.14 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-Of-WAY LINE Of
LIVINGSTON ROAD A 275.00 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE SAME BEING A POINT ON A
CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS
N.48019'14"E. A DISTANCE OF 1772.36 FEET
U24/08 updated per County Attorney comments; 2114/08 llpdated per cepe stipulations
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 50 of 132
EXHIBIT D
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 4 of 4
THEREFROM; THENCE RUN SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO
THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1772.36 FEET, TIIROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF
16"37'26", SUB TENDED BY A CHORD OF 512.43 FEET AT A BEARING OF S.49059'30"E., FOR
A DISTANCE OF 514.23 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 5.25 ACRES,
MORE OR LESS.
1/24/08 updated per County Attorney comments; 2/14/08 updated per cepe stipulations
._,-_.,-_._-~."._..- ....,-~--~. .",~-----~,.,-- . _>____.m____..__""._, ~-_._--~---
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 51 of 132
EXHIBIT E
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 1 of2
LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS
Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC, Section 6.06.02, which requires construction of five-foot wide
sidewalks on both sides of local streets, to allow a single five-foot wide sidewalk on one side of the
street where preserves abut the internal road right-of-way.
Withdrawn.
Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC, Section 6.06.01 (also Code of Laws and Ordinances
Administrative Code Section 2-12.C.13 .e. which requires minimum local street right-of-way width of
60 feet.
Minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet is requested for local streets within the Brandon RPUD. TIlls
deviation is justified because of the small-scale setting of the neighborhood. This addresses concerns
that a larger road right-of-way is conducive to higher speeds, and physical design of the broader road
right-of-way becomes less articulated and does not relate to the neighborhood scale. A SO-foot right-
of-way for a residential street can successfully facilitate movement of the vehicular, pedestrian and
bike traffic while accommodating all utility and drainage needs. The SO-foot right-of-way
accomplishes traffic calming to provide a safer transportation system within the neighborhood. This
dimension for a neighborhood right-of-way accommodates all the standard roadway functions so that
the development is compact, the native vegetation is less impacted, and open spaces can be
concentrated in areas of the property for enhanced environmental quality.
Additionally, if an access road is designed to connect to the existing 40-foot wide public access
easement located at the northwest boundary of the Verona Pointe subdivision, the applicant requests a
minimum right-of-way width of 40 feet for that section that is an extension of the existing public
access easement.
Deviation #3 seeks relief from Code of Laws and Ordinances Administrative Code Section 2-
12.C.13.h. which requires a minimum 2S-foot radius (edge of pavement) for local street intersections,
and a minimum 40-foot radius for arterials. The Code also states that lesser radii may be approved by
the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator.
Withdrawn.
Deviation #4 seeks relief from Code of Laws and Ordinances Administrative Code Section 2-
12.C.13,j. which requires tangents for all streets between reverse curves, unless otherwise approved by
the County Manager, or his designee, pursuant to LDC, Section 10.02.04.
Tangents shall not be required between reverse curves on any project streets. This deviation is justified
because it is consistent with the Code provision for administrative discretiolL The streets within the
Brandon RPUD are not at a traffic capacity or speed level to require tangents between reverse curves.
1/24/08 updated per CoWlty Attorney comments; 2/14/08 updated per cepe stipulations
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 52 of 132
EXHIBIT E
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 2 of2
The site is designed with straight section curves and no super-elevated curves. With a speed limit of 25
mph, the design promotes traffic calming.
Deviation #5 seeks relief from Code of Laws and Ordinances Section 22-112 which requires for
excavated areas a maximum four to one slope from existing grade to a breakpoint at least 10 feet below
the control elevation. Below this breakpoint, slopes shall be no steeper than two to one.
Lake cross sections will adhere to South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) minimum
standards as identified in Drainage Details & Cross Sections, Sheet II. Additional reduction in that
cross sectional area of the lake beyond the standards required by SFWMD will reduce the water quality
coming out of the proposed lake cross section.
Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC, Section 5.03.02, which limits fence or wall height to 6 feet
measured from unaltered ground level at the fence or wall location.
Withdrawn.
1/24/08 updated per Count)' Attorney comments; 2/14/08 updated per cepe stipulations
,-, ---.-- .---_. ---'~"'''~'~'.~,_._--_' ,. ..------. ----
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26,2008
Page 53 of 132
EXHIBIT F
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 1 of 4
DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS
GENERAL:
Development of the Brandon RPUD is proposed for completion in 2012.
TRANSPORTATION:
A. All traffic control devices, signs, pavement marking, and design criteria shall be in accordance
with the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum
Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design Standards, current edition, and the Manual
on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), current edition.
B. Access points shown on the RPUD Master Plan are considered to be conceptuaL The number
of access points constructed may be less than the number depicted on the Master Plan;
however, no additional access points shall be considered unless a POD amendment is
approved.
C. Site related improvements (as opposed to system related improvements) necessary for safe
ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, shall not be eligible for
impact fee credits, All improvements necessary to provide safe ingress and egress for
construction-related traffic shall be in place and operational prior to commencement of on-site
construction.
D. Nothing in any development order shall vest a right of access in excess of a right-inlright-out
condition at any access point. Neither shall the existence of a point of ingress, a point of
egress, or a median opening, nor the lack thereof, be the basis for any future cause of action for
damages against the County by the developer, its successor in title, or assignee. Collier County
reserves the right to close any median opening existing at any time which is found to be
adverse to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based
on, but not limited to, safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity.
E, If any required turn lane improvement requires the use of any existing County rights-of-way or
easement(s), then compensating rights-of-way shall be provided at no cost to Collier County as
a consequence of such improvement(s) upon final approval of the turn lane design during the
first subsequent development order. The typical cross section may not differ from the existing
roadway unless approved, in writing, by the Transportation Division Administrator or his
designee. Upon closure of the turn lane along Livingston Road, the County shall retum the
compensating right-of-way back to the developer, its successors, or assigns.
F. If, in the sole opinion of Collier County, traffic signal(s), other traffic control device, sign,
pavement marking improvement within any public right-of-way or easement, or site related
improvements (as opposed to system related improvements) necessary for safe ingress and
egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, are determined to be necessary, the fair
1124/08 updated per County Attorney comments; 2/14108 updated per cepe stipulations
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 54 of 132
EXHffiIT F
- for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 2 of 4
share cost of such improvement shall be the responsibility of the developer, its successors or
assIgns. The improvements shall be paid for or installed prior to the issuance of the
appropriate, corresponding CO. Additionally, proportionate fair share payment will be
determined by a traffic study and will be paid by the developer to Collier County prior to SDP
or PPL approval consistent with the terms of the attached Exhibit G, entitled "lnterlocal
Agreement by and between Collier County and the School District of Collier County" dated
August 16,2007 (OR Book 4281, Page 1295).
G. The interconnection point via Verona Pointe shown on the RPUD Master Plan is conceptual,
and dependent upon the timing to obtain required, private cross-access easements. Tlus access
point design for the incoming development traffic is contingent upon perpetual cross-access
easement dedications from affected property owners being made in writing to allow unrestricted
ingress and egress for the Brandon RPUD within 90 days of adoption of the Brandon RPUD
Ordinance. If perpetual-cross access easement dedication is not achieved as contemplated
within 90 days of adoption of the Brandon RPUD Ordinance, then upon notification by
Transportation Staff, the developer, or successor, shall design, permit, and construct a two-lane
roadway within a 40-foot wide road right-of-way (which will include a single 5-foot sidewalk
in the typical section) connecting to Verona Pointe with a one-way southbound travel way
within the restricted area for exiting development traffic. Construction and maintenance costs
shall be funded by fair share contributions of the property owners gaining access from
extension of the cross-access easements. The private cross-access easements, once recorded,
shall be the primary access for the Brandon RPUD to Livingston Road, and any then existing
right-in access driveway along Livingston Road constructed as shown on the Brandon RPUD
Master Plan shall be eliminated within 180 days of completion of the full two-lane road
connection through Verona Pointe.
If the cross-access easements are not obtained within 90 days of adoption of this Ordinance,
then in the interim, until such cross-access easements may be obtained and recorded, a right-in
only access point shall be permitted at the Livingston Road access driveway shown on the
Brandon RPUD Master Plan. Once the perpetual cross-access easements are subsequently
achieved and recorded to allow full connection to the Verona Pointe public access easement,
then the developer, or successor, shall design, permit, and construct a second lane for incoming
development traffic within the 40-foot right-of-way.
H. All internal roads, driveways and sidewalks within the Brandon RPUD shall be operated and
maintained by the developer, its successors, or assigns, in perpetuity.
1. Access points for connection to off-site properties to the east are shown on the RPUD Master
Plan, The costs for providing access through each access point for interconnection will be
determined by the developer and such landowners as may desire to use anyone or more access
point(s), or in the alternative, as provided for by general law.
1/24/08 updated per County Attorney comments; 2/14/08 updated per cepe stipulations
---'-'-"'^'-' ~--'--'- .._- ,.._'-- ------- ,-
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 55 of 132
EXHIBIT F
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 3 of4
WATER MANAGEMENT:
The Brandon RPUD conceptual surface water management system is described in the Water
Management Report, which has been included in the RPUD rezone application materials. Water
management infrastructure shall be operated and maintained by the developer until conveyed to the
homeowners' association.
UTILITIES:
A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission systems shall be constructed throughout
the project by the developer. Potable water and sanitary sewer facilities constructed within the
platted rights-of-way or within dedicated utility easements shall be conveyed to the Collier
County Public Utilities Division.
B. All customers connecting to the potable water and sanitary sewer system shall be customers of
the Collier County Public Utilities Division.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
A. Special Treatment (ST) Overlay District designations shall be eliminated from the subject
property .
B. All preserve areas shall be identified as separate tracts and be protected by a permanent
conservation easement to prohibit further development. Conservation easements shall be
dedicated on the plat, or at time of SOP approval, to the homeowners' association, or like
entity, for ownership and maintenance responsibility and to Collier County with no
responsibility for maintenance.
C. This RPUD shall comply with the guidelines of the USFWS and FFWCC for impacts to
protected species. A Habitat Management Plan for Big Cypress Fox Squirrel shall be submitted
to Environmental Review Staff for review and approval prior to SDP or subdivision plat
approval.
INDEMNITY AGREEMENT:
The developer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the County in the event of the County
being named in any suit brought by adjacent or nearby land owners of undeveloped property to
establish lawful access, including defending the County's interest at hearing or trial; except that the
developer will not be responsible for any expenses for outside counsel that the County may otherwise
seek to retain in such matter,
1/24/08 updated per County Attorney comments; 2/14/08 updmed per cepc stipulations
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 56 of 132
EXHIBIT F
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
Page 4 of 4
AFFORDABLE HOUSING:
The developer shall make a payment of $1,000.00 to the Collier County Affordable Housing Trust
Fund at the time of the first and each subsequent issuance of building permit for the construction of
dwelling units within the Brandon RPUD. This commitment and the subsequent payments shall be
credited against any subsequently adopted affordable, work force, and/or other gap housing or housing
needs impact fee, mitigation, exaction, fee, contribution, linkage fees, and/or other similar tax or
charge which would otherwise be applicable to the Brandon RPUD, as may be so contemplated and
provided for by such subsequently adopted provisions.
1/24/08 updated per County Attorney comments; 2/14/08 updated per ccpe stipulations
..' '._...~'-....-._._---,- ~ .-- .' -"-~."-'~-~-'--"
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26,2008
Page 57 of 132
EXHIBIT G
for Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND THE SCHOOL DISTRlCT OF
COLLIER COUNTY
Veterans Memorial Elementary School- County Transportation Improvements
OR BOOK: 4281 PG: 1295
1/24/1)8 updated per County Anorney conunents; 2/14108 updated perCCPC stipulaiions
4071590 OR: 4281 PG: 1295 Agenda Item No, 8B
Retn: February 26, 2008
Cml fO THI BOARD RBCORDID io the OPPICIAL RICORDS of COLLIIR COON1Y, PL Page 58 of 132
IITlROPPIC! I'lB nOOR 09/13/2007 at 11:2~AM DWIGHT B. BROCl. CLERR lie nI 21.00
II! 1140 COPIBS 3.00
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BY AND BETWEEN
COLLIER COUNTY AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF COLLIER COUNTY
Veterans Memorial Elementarv Scbool- County TranSDortatioD Imnrovements
This Interlocal Agreement ("Agreement"), dated this J/J/!' day Of~,
2007, is by and between the School District of Collier County ("District'') Collier
County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida ("County").
Recitals
WHEREAS, the District intends to construct a traffic signal at the comer of
Veterans Memorial Boulevard and Livingston Road (the "Project'') in order to serve
Veterans Memorial Elementary (the "School''); and
WHEREAS, the County burse the District for costs of
the Project, in excess of the D' of the traffic signal project,
from the owners of other ong Veterans Memorial
Boulevard that will directly, e
WHEREAS, the and mutually agreed
to consummate this A ~ of the Project and to
address any potential tr hool and other future
developments located alon }j
0
es, the sum ofTen Dollars
ipt and suffiCiency of which
en the parties as follows:
2. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the provisions of Section 163.01,
Florida Statutes, known as the "Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969."
3. The parties have entered into this Agreement in good faith and covenant to
cooperate with each other in order to fulfill the intent of this Agreement so as to better
serve the residents of Collier County.
4. Construction of Proiect. The District shall pay for the cost of designing
and constructing the Project as the School is the first project located along Veterans
Memorial Boulevard. Upon completion of the Project, the District shall submit to the
County a detailed summary of all the costs incurred in connection with the Project (the
-', "-_.._-_.~.- --- _ w ._'._'______,__-_.__
Agenda Item No, 8B
OR: 428ie~ M~~
"Project Cos!"). Any subsequent modifications, maintenance, and/or repairs to the
Project shall be paid for solely by the County.
5. Reimbursement of Proiect Cost. To reimburse the District for the Project
Cost, the County shall collect funds on a proportionate share basis from the owners of
other future developments located along Veterans Memorial Boulevard that will directly
benefit from the Project as determined by traffic studies (the "Collection"). The Comty
shall not grant any development approvals for developments that are subject to the
Collection without determining and making arrangements for the collection of such
amounts. The County shall transfer the Collection to the District within 90 days of
receipt. The County shall have the obligation to perform the Collection until the District
has been reimbursed for Project Costs in excess of the District's proportional fair share
obligation. The District's proportional fair share obligation will be determined by traffic
studies following completion of the Project and opening of the School.
Legal Matters
6. This Agreement s ~
Collier County, Florida, wi
Collier County shall pay al c
document will be provi to
7. This Agree en ct rized as a development
agreement ,under the Flo da rn tAct.
0 I-<
8. District ac of thi ~ eement to address any
permit, condition, term or . ction shall not re e i@ e applicant or owner, or
their successors or assigns, cessity of comply! . any law, ordinance, rule or
regulation governing said perm" ~n s, terms or restrictions.
1lE C1v-'
9. In the event of a dispute un ~ement, the parties shall first use the
County's then-current Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure. Following the
conclusion of this procedure, either party may file an action for injunctive relief in the
Circuit Court of Collier County to enforce the terms of this Agreement, said remedy
being cumulative with any and all other remedies available to the parties for the
enforcement of this Agreement. In the event any litigation is instituted with respect to
this Agreement, the party prevailing in said litigation shall be entitled to collect and
recover from the opposite party all court costs and other expenses including reasonable
attorney's fees.
10. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of Florida. With respect to the subject matter herein, this Agreement is
the entire agreement between the parties, superseding all previous oral and written
representations, understandings, and agreements between the parties, This Agreement
can only be changed by a writing signed by both parties. Any waiver at any time by
either party of its rights with respect to any matter arising in connection with this
2
-.
- Agenda Item No, 8B
*** OR: 42~r~~6f~~'~***
Agreement shall not be considered a waiver of such rights or matters by either party at
any subsequent time. This Agreement shall take effect on the date first above written and
shall continue in effect until the parties mutually determine that it is no longer needed or
until termination pursuant to the terms hereof.
AT.fEST:" ~~,~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DWI<;1HIE. BR:eJ~K, Clerk COLLIER CO FL
~~';~'~
. By:," " , 0.( .
',~'. " itttJi~'~, filerk
'-. t' " .piil~
~ ~ '. . ...;;.
A 'torm and legal sufficiency:
_ AITEST: CT OF COLLIER
7
OV AN, Chairman
By:
Its: ~ 1; y' ~ 1
and legality:
3
-' _.,,-....~._--,._- ._-----,,,~~-~.
-,,-,-,,-,,-,,~",,"'-"-'
EXHIBIT C Agenda Item No, 8B
MEDITERRA epUO) URBAN Page 61 of 132
~ I.... co"'rE~~:';~::G~.QF.wAY - -:t _ _ _ _R~~T~A=- - - - - - - - --
-_/ ---------~ 15 TYPE "8"
I ~~
200 ROW __ _ __ ____
,::' -::..:: ::::.:=-= t~----cc-"C - -, VETER'AN'S MEM0R v --,--- I
-....; f~-----=-- , I n ~
I I _ 15' TY E "B"
I 10' TYPE "A" \\~- - - - ""
I ~ BUFFER - '" - R- - - - - --r: BUF:FER
I I ~ ~.~' 'I
I ~ 49AC I
o 125 250 5~0 I ! ' (fr;:-=2;' R
SCAlE IN FEET ~ L~~~a;l70"==10~1r~;::"- _ ~ ~ ~ _ _ _ Jl 1 0' B~~~~" A I
: DELLA ROSA/ ,;;~ ... I
I I !,-o'-"---l ,! k ---"l
I I I I I..., I . f- I
I I I ,I 2117AC Z
I I ,ST.SPECIAL I" I I ..J ~ :
: I TREATMENT I 8: W i
1 I - ,OVERLAY I r I rJl,
I 1--------:-=----- I I 5T-SPECIAL ~ i
\ I 10' TYPE! "A" TREATMENT I I
\ "\ - '" L..._ ,---' __J I : - BUFF1R OVERLAY I' I I'
~\ \" 'I I
~ ~~o~- TYPE "A" ~ - - - II' .:
\ \-~'- BUFFER 'CSJ'" R I R,' I I
_ .__; _ Lltke3 _ (
\,,)\D'~~~~R"D" ,me,),~ : ~_,_____)J
\ ']>, " ' , - ' I I
(' ,\:-, - _:~
E \ ',' CD I
0- ~OTEml"'~ TU"'''.....E.....,.,
g COMPENSATI~G RlG<l.QF.wA' PRESERVE A I
", I I
0Cl LAND USE KEY \ 1_ m' _I
0' F~L EI\SOIENT
o ,
N RESIDENTIAL (R) 20' T'N(E "D" I I
115 -Single Family BUFF'ffi ~
o -Two Family, ~
~ - Zero Lot Line '"", +._.~__~ ~~_ - ___ -.-------;-~'~;-'. .. u />/-. PELICAN
_ -Ducl,ex , ___ "'" <.:gU. D)i:.i---LJJ':';~-': /ii STRAND
~ -Multifamily ',1../' ~ _____ __.' ..~ ~__~ (DRI)
o ' -Common Area -...... VI;\;, ~ 'VERONAPOINTE
_ 'I -Open Space '-... OS......
~ -Water Management Areas ........ -lb.l\l ",..... ~._- -~.-. -"-"-'~
z , -Recreation Facility ~ '..-?D '-'-
S -. .
a.. RPUD MASTER PLAN NOTES: "--. '"
~ 1.Althatmeo/thisrezooing.thesiteis8ubjectlOlhe"'A" ....
.@, I Rural Agriculw",.1 ZlIning dilllrK:1. wilhlimitedareasllubjllct LEGEND '-
l\oth~-ST"Sllllci81TrMlmentOverlllydi$tnct.'n\h~Urb.!ln - -.........
~ I'ReSidentaIFutureLllI"ldUSeDe1lignaton, ~ PRESERVE AREA ........
'tl 2,OpenspaCf! !!hall,ncilJde acWe and passive recreaMn L-.J ~
N amassuchsllplayground~,goHcourses,beachlrontage, D WATER MANAGEMENT AREA ....
j. Watll"""'YS lagoons. nood plsrns, nBlUre t"'~s and Olher ,
I s,mJaropen spaces"nc:ludlr,g areas set 3S>de for RPUDBDUNDARY
51 prtl$efYation of native vegetation & landscaped areas
::i: S,RPUDmast~rp~nshllllbecol1s,derec!COI1cepju..lin - - - RIGHT.OF.WAY PROJECT LAND USE
~ ~a~~intl1e Brandon RPUD, afiO% mil1imumoPflI1!pace _ _ _ _ _ _ SPECIAL TR~lM~NT ZONE RESIDENTIAL(R) 28.19 AC:t
l(l ihall be achieved over the wIlole development. A minim....." ~ LAKES 5.63 AC:t
~ 25%nalivevegtllalionsh..lbtlrllj;!lr.ec!on...ne;n ~ ZONINQCLASSIFICA1l0N PRESERVE REQUIRED. 11.61 AC:l:
;;.. acconiance.....th Colie. Countv Land Developmen\Code I LUC I lAND USE CLASS!FICATION PRESERVE SHOWN 10.91 ACt
g ROADS/ROW 5,47 AC:t
&: ~~~iN~R.ESERvE ACRE"'GES ...RE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT' TQ FINAL R RESIDENTIAL AREA TOTAL NET ACREAGE 51,10 AC:t
/' RliQlIl<tEDPRESERVE ~ ~5% 0' NATIVE VEGETATION 10.25 X 47.2< AC:" 8' ACj ......IiIrr... MAJOR ACCESS POINT IMPERVIOUS AREA 1231 AC+
If) PRESERVE AREA SHOWN IS '0,9' ACIl.ES, WHICH IS 92'1'. OF THE REOUIR~{J ......,.... . -
:ri PIl;ESERVE. REMAINING PRESERVE AREA WILL BE DEFINED AT DEVElOPMENT MINIMUM OPEN SPACE(60%) 30,66 AC:t
If) ORDER SUBM'TTAl AND SHAU. BE LOCATED CONTlGLJOllS TO T1-K PRESERVE ..... PROPOSED ACCI:SS POIN!
If) SHOWN ON THIS MASTER PLAN PER lDC SEClION 3.05.07H 1.ll,;;, PRESERVE --,...
g WILL CONSIST 01' NATIVE VEGETATION AND CREATED NATIVE vEGETATION 204 UNITS/51.1 AC. '" 3.99 UNITS PER ACRE
N WHERE NEC=SSARY. IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS
/' ES7IU1LISHEDINLDCSCCTlON3.05.07.H.',e
~
JOt-IN S II) BRANDON RPUD
2350 STAN~ORD COURT
'- NAPLES, FLORIOA 34112 MASTER PLAN
PHONE (239) 434-0333
E N G I N E E R I N G FAX (239) 434-9320 om
E.8. #642 & LB. #642 FEB. 2008 EXHIBIT C
1/24/08 updated per County Attorney comments; 2/8/08 updated per cepe stipulations
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26,2008
Page 62 of 132
Item V,B.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF November 7, 2007
I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT
Petition No.: PUDZ-2006-AR-IOI71
Petition Name: Brandon RPUD
Applicant/Developer: Eastbourne Bonita, LLC
Engineering Consultant: Johnson Engineering
Environmental Consultant: Johnson Engineering
II. LOCATION
The subject property consist of 51.1 acres and is located on the southeast corner
of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, Section
13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
The surrounding properties are mostly vacant but, there is a land use petition
under review PUDZ-2006-AR-9577 Della Rosa RPUD that was heard by the
cepe on October 4, 2007 and it is schedule to be heard by the Bee on
November 13, 2007. The proposed Della Rosa RPUD is relying on the Residential
In-fill provision of the Future Land Use Element for an additional (3) three units
per acre to achieve a density of 7 units per acre for a total of 107 multi-family
dwelling units.
ZONING DESCRIPTION
N - Rural Agricultural (A) and PUD Undeveloped and Mediterra PUD (single
family homes)
S - Rural Agricultural (A) and PUD Undeveloped and Royal Palm Academy
PUD (Verona Pointe townhomes)
E - Rural Agricultural (A) Undeveloped and FPL Easement
and Special Treatment (ST) Overlay
Zoning District
W - Rural Agricultural (A) Livingston Road and Undeveloped
(proposed Della Rosa RPUD)
-_.,-"-_.'~"'~--'-'- ,_ "___.~_~.___m' _...__.,-~._----"-_.
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 63 of 132
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The rezone request is for a rezone from the Agricultural (A) and Special
Treatment (ST) Overlay Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit
Development (RPUD) Zoning District for project known as Brandon RPUD with
a proposed density of 3,99 dwelling units per acre, for the development of 204
single-family and multi-family residential units. The proposed Brandon RPUD
! will be heard by the cepe on January 3, 2008 and by the Bee on February 26,
2008,
V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY
A. Future Land Use Element
I, Relationship of proposed development to the Future Land Use Map and
the Growth Management Plan
a) Future Land Use Element Policy 5.4. This project was reviewed
within the context of Policy 5.4 which states: "New developments
shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land
uses, subject to meeting the compatibility criteria of the Land
Development Code ", The Comprehensive Planning Department Staff
defers to Zoning and Land Development regarding compatibility to
surrounding areas.
b) Density, The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use
District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Future
Land Use Map (FLUM) of the County's Growth Management Plan
(GMP). Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits residential
development (variety of unit types) at a base density of up to four (4)
residential units per gross acre and recreation and open space uses, The
proposed Brandon PUD project includes a maximum of204 residential
dwelling units, of varying types as described in thc application and the
PUD document, on 51.1 acres of land, The overall density is proposed
not to exceed 4.0 dwelling units per acre, The proposed development
includes residential land uses, lakes, preserves, and street right of way
with sidewalks, In summary, staff finds the proposed development
compatible with the surrounding developments.
c) Compliance with Objective 7 and Policies Regarding Smart Growth
(interconnections. loop road. sidewalks/trails. etc.). Staff notes the
following:
1, The adjoining land to the east of the subject site is between the
subject site and the FPL easement, and no proposed
interconnections with this adjoining tract(s) of land are
proposed in the Brandon RPUD Master Plan. This RPUD will
befound consistent with the Growth Management Plan if the
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 64 of 132
RPUD Master Plan is modified to show that future
interconnections from the subject development will be
available to the tract(s) of land to the east.
2, The adjoining land to the west of the subject site will be
provided with access from both Livingston Road and from
Veterans Memorial Blvd, This RPUD will befound consistent
with the Growth Management Plan conditioned upon the
RPUD Master Plan being modified to show a pedestrian
connection from the approximate center point of the project
so that there can be a future pedestrian interconnection
between the Brandon PUD and the development(s) that occur
to the west.
2. Transportation Concurrency Management Area, The proposed project
is within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area as
identified within the Transportation Element of the Growth Management
Plan. However, no density bonuses are being requested. Comprehensive
Planning department defers the determination of traffic concurrency to the
Transportation Planning Department Staff.
Comprehensive Planning Department finds the proposed PUD Document
consistent with the Growth Management Plan if the stipulations provided in the
bold printed notations above are complied with.
Conservation & Coastal Manaeement Element
Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the
Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging
into estuaries shall meet all applicable Federal, State, or local water quality
standards. "
To accomplish that, Policy 2.22 states "In order to limit the specific and
cumulative impacts of storm water runoff, stormwater systems should be designed
in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an
attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality offresh water
(discharge) to the estuarine system.
This project is consistent with the objectives of Policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to
mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing
interconnected retention and detention areas to provide water quality retention and
peak flow attenuation during storm events prior to discharging into a wetland
preserve.
Goal 6 states, "The County shall identify, protect, conserve and appropriately use
its native vegetative communities and wildlife habitat" Objective 6.1 states, "The
County shall protect native vegetative communities through the application of
..-...-.- ....~~- -~".~-_. . _._.~,~.-.....,~~..._...-~ .~_._._-,.._.~-_.,-.,"-_.._- ,-. .__._.._..-..__..-._,.~."-"-
------.-.
Agenda Item No, 88
February 26, 2008
Page 65 of 132
I minimum preservation requirements." Residential and Mixed Use Developments
are required to preserve 25% of native vegetation onsite. The proposed project
I contains approximately 47.2 acres of vegetative communities that contain less
than 75% invasive exotics, Collier County therefore requires a minimum of 11.8
acres of native vegetation preservation be retained on the Brandon RPUD site.
The applicant stated in the EIS, "This will be met through a single onsite preserve
measuring 11.8 acres at time of final development order. The preserve area
shown in accordance with LDC Section 3.05.07.H.a.ii constitutes 75% of the
preserve area and included approximately 7.57 acres ofretained native vegetation
and approximately 1.07 acres ofrestored habitat."
As required by Policy 6.1.4, prohibited exotic vegetation will be removed from
the entire development during construction and will be maintained exotic-free in
perpetuity.
Policy 6.1.1 (5) b. of the Growth Management Plan allows stormwater in
preserves under the following condition:
Receipt of treated stormwater discharge where such use, including
conveyance, treatment and discharge structures, does not result in
adverse impacts on the naturally occurring, native vegetation, to include
the loss of the minimum required vegetation and the harm to any listed
species according to the policies associated with Objective 7.1, as
determined by criteria set forth in the land development regulations.
Discharge to preserves having wetlands requires treatment that will meet
water quality standards as set forth in Chapter, 62-302 F.A, C and will
coriform to the water quality criteria requirements set forth by the South
Florida Water Management District,
Discharge into the wetland is consistent and anticipated to provide a benefit
by hydrating the wetland. The project site consists entirely of hydric soils
with 6.85 of the 8.86 acres of preserve shown being jurisdictional wetlands.
Because the 75% preserve proposed and 25% to be shown at next
development order will consist of hydric soil, water being discharged into
the preserve is pretreated and is expected to rehydrate the wetland.
Therefore, staff finds there will be no adverse impacts. Specific amounts of
discharge into the preserve will be evaluated at the next development order.
Littoral shelf planting areas (LSP A) within wet detention ponds required by
Policy 6.1.7 will be required at the time of SDP/Construction plan approval.
Policy 6.2.1 and 6,2.2 states, "The County shall protect and conserve wetlands
and the natural functions of wetlands and verified by jurisdictional field
delineation," The wetland jurisdictional determination has not been verified by
SFWMD staff at this time. Limits of jurisdiction will be verified during the ERP
process.
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 66 of 132
Policy 6.2.4 states, "Within the Urban Designated area, the County shall rely on
the wetland jurisdictional determinations and permit requirements issued by the
applicable jurisdictional agency." The Brandon RPUD will be required to obtain
an ERP from the South Florida Water Management District and a Federal Dredge
I and Fill permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers. Wetland limits, preserves,
i and mitigation will be determined through those processes and incorporated into
i
the project design.
Policy 6.2.6 states, "Within the Urban Designation and the Rural Fringe Mixed
Use District, [required] wetland preservation, buffer areas, and mitigation areas
shall be dedicated as conservation and common areas in the form of conservation
easements and shall be identified or platted as separate tracts; and, in the case of a
Planned Unit Development (PUD), these areas shall also be depicted on the PUD
Master Plan." In accordance with Policy 6.2.6, required preservation areas are
identified on the site plan. Allowable uses within the preserve areas are included
in the preserve agreement that is part of the construction plans. Uses within
preserve areas shall not include any activity detrimental to drainage, flood control,
water conservation, erosion control, or fish and wildlife conservation and
preservation.
Policy 7.1.2 states, "Within areas of Collier County, excluding the lands contained
in the RLSA Overlay, nonagricultural development, excluding individual single
family residences, shall be directed away from listed species and their habitats by
complying with the guidelines and standards." A Protected Species Survey has
been completed for the site and a proposed management plan for the Big Cypress
fox squirrel is provided as Exhibit M of the EIS.
VI. MAJOR ISSUES:
A. Stormwater Manal!ement
Brandon RPUD will be reviewed and the permitting for the project will be done
through the SFWMD Environmental Resource Permitting procedure. The
applicant has had a preapplication meeting with SFWMD, but has not yet
submitted to SFWMD for a permit because the project is only in the rezone stage.
Section 8.06.03 0.2. of the Collier County Land Development Code states 'The
surface water management aspects of any petition, that is or will be reviewed and
permitted by South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), are exempt
from review by the EAC except to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated
stormwater to be discharged into Preserves as allowed in Section 3.05.07."
This project is situated at the east side of the Imperial River Outlet Basin. lbe
allowable discharge rate within that basin is 0.15 cfs per acre for 51.1 acres which
yields an allowable total discharge of 7.67 cfs. The project has two basins, with
the northernmost basin having two lakes which are 1.49 acres and 2.97 acres
-' ,. ,~,.,,,.."...,.,,._._. -.,.,-.-..-.-........-.,.. -- .~--
Agenda Item No, SB
February 26,2008
Page 67 of 132
connected in series by a 48" diameter pipe, The maximum discharge rates from
the two basins are 4.61 cfs from the northern basin and 3.05 cfs from the south
basin for a total of7.65 cfs.
The southern basin has one lake connected directly to the wetland. The lake
systems discharge toward the south into the preserve. Since stormwater is
discharged into the preserve, the project is subject to EAC review of its surface
water management aspects. On-site water management will be done with
collection pipes and swales to direct the stormwater into the lakes for treatment
and attenuation prior to discharge. The water management system will include
discharge facilities into the northern and southern portion of the wetlands in order
to hydrate and maintain regional flow characteristics. The water management
system will be isolated from these wetlands so that only controlled discharges
from the structures will be allowed into the wetlands.
B. Environmental
1. Site Description:
The applicant has observed that much of the Brandon site is comprised of wetland
communities, totaling 39.7 acres (77,6% of the site). These wetland communities
consist of several low-quality systems with the majority containing between 51-75%
invasive exotics. The wetlands appear to have been severed and isolated by
surrounding roadways and adjacent developments. These disturbances have likely
resulted in altered sheet flow and reduced hydro period.
2. Wetlands
Subject to agency verification, the Brandon site contains approximately 39.7 acres of
SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands (Exhibit C ofEIS). The wetlands found on the site
can be characterized as low-quality, with the majority of them containing between
51-75% invasive exotics, Wetland acreage for the site and a description of the
wetland FLUCFCS types can be found in Table 3 of the EIS.
The wetland jurisdictional determination will be verified during the Environmental
Resource Permit (ERP) process. However, preliminary UMAM scores have been
included to aid in preserve design (Exhibit 0 UMAM Impact Map and Exhibit P
UMAM Scores). Please note that these scores have not been verified by the SFWMD
and may change during permitting. The proposed site plan directly impacts 32.8
acres (82.6%) of onsite wetlands (Exhibit J, Wetland Impact Map) and preserves 6,85
acres (17.4%) of wetlands,
3. Preservation Requirements
The property lies within the Urban Residential Sub district of the Collier County
Future Land Use Map. Since the subject property is equal to or greater than 20 acres,
Agenda Item No, 88
February 26, 2008
Page 68 of 132
."'" a minimum of25 percent of the native vegetation is to be preserved. A total of 47.2
acres of native vegetation habitat are found on the subject site, as outlined in Table 2
of the EIS. Therefore the minimum preserve requirement is 11.8 acres (47.2 X 0.25 =
11.8 acres). The proposed site plan shows 75% of the preserve requirement, which is
approximately 8,86 acres of on site preserve. The preserve is comprised of 7.76 acres
of existing native vegetation and 1.1 acres that will require replanting after exotic
removal to meet the native vegetation requirement (Exhibit K of EIS). In an effort to
create one contiguous preserve and include those areas within the ST Overlay, the 1.1
acres containing high level of exotics was included in the preserve area.
4. Listed Species:
A listed species survey was conducted by Johnson Engineering ecologists on May 19,
2006, Three (3) nest structures were observed that could potentially be Big Cypress
fox squirrel nests, The location of these nests is illustrated on the FLUCFCS map
within the Protected Species Survey (Exhibit L ofEIS). The Big Cypress fox squirrel
is listed by FWC as Threatened. A management plan has been prepared for the Big
Cypress fox squirrel because there is a potential for them to occur on the property.
The management plan has been reviewed and approved by Collier County. No other
signs of potential protected species utilization were identified during field work done
by the environmental consultant. Due to the high levels of invasive exotics in most
habitat types, the site does not provide optimal habitat for most listed species.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of Brandon RPUD with the following stipulation:
1. The "Note" on the bottom of the Master Site Plan shall state the following and
shall be added before this project is reviewed by the Collier County Planning
Commission:
a. Remaining Preserve area will be defined at "the time of next"
development order. . .
b. The end of the note (after 3.05.07.H.l.e.) shall state,"; shall be
located adjacent and contiguous to the preserve shown on the site
master plan."
-'''~'~'. ".._."".~-""'" ""-'''.'~'~'" - "-_.~.....~._~,,.__.. -,-~-~-,_..
-.--.-
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 69 of 132
i PREPARED BY:
/l
. -,-O"-~ "'-
~;;. .LI .;..,/,
ST N CHRZANO SKI, P.E, DATE
ENGINEERING VIEW MANAGER
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
i:P:J'l'..<.;~~ tlJ.:f_!1-02_ /D/d.YO /
S MERARA E DATE
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
~p~~ Q lel4o/"'7
MELIS ZONE, DArt
PRINCIPAL PLANNE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
-. ----
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 70 of 132
-
REVIEWED BY:
/V-/l-fn
BARBARA BURGESON DATE
PRINCIPAL ENVIRONM NT AL SPECIALIST
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Ji!P,~ 'lJj2 iT /0 -17 'c7
LLIAM D. CO Z, Jr" P. ' ~ DATE
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR
l ~:~7--7l5'r
JEF W
ASSI NT COUNTY ATTORNEY
OFF Ie OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY
APPROVED BY:
10/;1'7
S PH K. SCHMITT DAT
MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
MINISTRA TOR
_'-',_...,.."-- -~"..,.."..,,"," --._._--".........._.,-"'---,,--.---.--...".,.....,..~--- .--.-.,---..,->',---
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 71 of 132
Access Issue Memo l.txt
From: blkmdl@pol.net
sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 10:45 AM
TO: deruntzMichael
subj ect: [Fwd: Legacy Dev. Livingston rd]
-------- original Message --------
Subject: Legacy Dev. Livingston rd
From: <blkmdl@pol.net>
Date: wed, November 8, 2006 11:57 am
TO: <michaelderuntz@colliergov.net>
Dear Mr Deruntz
Thank you for taking the time to talk to me yesterday. AS per our discussion I am
sending this e-mail to record my concerns about potentiallh getting land locked by
future developments planned around my properties. Givin~ t at none of the parties is
interested in purchasinR my properties I will be be movlng forward to try to ~et an
easement so that I can ave access to my land. I want my objection to those panned
developments ( the future north fire department. legacy development, and Rosa Bella
by page) be noted in the record. I also would like that any final approval be
withheld until proper access to my properties is clearly determined.
Again thanks for your time..
Dr vladimir J. Mathieu
Page 1
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 72 of 132
JOHNS N 5 UJCE 19116
'" .....-.'..-'-.
I
ENGINEERING
TO: Frank Chinnici *~ DATE: July 27, 2007
Brandou RPUD (AR 10171)
FROM: Laura Spurgeon and Alan EI UrfaJi RE:
This memorandum is submitted to document our 7/23/07 meeting with Collier County staff re-
garding staff's June 2007 review comments for the referenced project. In atteadaIlce were Frank
Chinnici, PatriC'k White, Alan El Urfali, Laura Spurgeon, Melissa Zone, and John Podczerwin-
sky. The following issues were discussed:
,
In terconnections: Staff explained that the LDC mandates the request for interconnections I
among neighboring properties. Melissa provided all email correspondence between Sarah Spec-
,.
tor (attorney for Dr. Matthieu) and Nick Casalanguida, with a request for access. The applicant ,
I
and legal cOUllsel will address this correspondence. ,
Melissa and Jolm acknowledged the problems of cost and practicality of connections among the
many adjacent undeveloped parcels. John suggested showing conceptual access points labeled
with arrows, which will be subject to final determination and negotiation at the development Or-
der (PPL) stage. Staff recommended demonstrating if the connections are infeasible by provid-
ing documentation showing efforts to contact absentee owners, and evidence of turreasonable
land cost and lost value. We did not specifically go over the relevant Code section, which was
adopted in December 2006 and is provided below. This Code language includes criteria for
evaluating the practicality of intercOlmections, which we should integrate in our response to staff
comments.
Section 4.04.02;6.3. During the development or redevelopment of commercial or resi-
dential projects and all rezone petttlons shared access and Interconnection shall be re-
quired. Should the shared access or interconnection require the removal of existing park-
Ing spaces, the applicable development will not be required to mitigete for the parking
spaces. The County Manager or designee shall require the shared access and Intercon-
nection unless in the professional Judgment of the County Manager. or
Designee. one of the following craeria prohibits this requirement.
a. It Is not physically or legally possible to provide the shared access or Intercon-
nection.
b. The cost associated with the snared access or interconnection is unreasonable.
For this application unreasonable will be considered when the cost exceeds the
cost of a typical iocal road section or Is above 10 of the value of the Improve-
ments being made to the development.
c. The location of environmentally sensitive lands precludes It and mitigation is not
possible.
d. The abutting use Is found to be incompatible with the existing or proposed use.
Turn Lanes and Compensating Right-of-Way: At the development order application (PPL)
sabmittal stage, the applicant will submit a TIS in accordance with the County's TIS Guidelines
and Procedures as amended analyzing tllrn lane requirenlents in accordance with the Co\mty's
H:\2(1050000\20055835 ~ Br.utdDA (formerly Lepcy)\Correspondence\Mcmos'C7 -25-G7 . LKS and ASE re staff coordinotion.cloc
Pttgclof2
2350 Stanford Court. Naple., Florida 34112
(239) 434,0333. Fax (239) 434-9320
-~--_._~_._,---~ ..- --~--'.'- ---~_.., . -,..._.>.-_.~.-.- ,--
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 73 of 132
Brandon RPUD Meeting Memo Page 2 of2
July 27,2007
Right-of-Way Handbook:, 03-37. lfwarranted, the applicant may provide an eastbound right tUtTI
lane on Veterans Memorial Boulevard with compensating right-of-way along the north property
line. As for the proposed Livingston Road access point and due to the BCC Limited Access and
Constrained Roadway designation, a northbound right turn lane on Livingston Road will be re-
q~lired regardless of the TIS findings with no compensating right-of-way.
TIS Comments: Staff will accept the agreed to methodology and TIS format in accordance with
the previously adopted Guidelines and Procedures Resolution, 03-247. The project traffic im-
pacts on Livingston Road will be less than 3% and, therefore, no additional intersection analysis
will be required.
Transportation Language: Applicant agrees to include the latest approved Transportation lan-
guage in the PUD Commitments.
Sc:bedule: Melissa scheduled the petition for Planning Commission hearing on November 1 and
BCC hearing on December 11. The BAC meeting will need to be held September 5 or October 3
at the latest. Melissa mentioned that some Planning Commission members will scrutinize if a
year or more has passed since the Neighborhood Meeting, By subsequent emaiI COI1'espondence,
the applicant has determined to hold another Neighborhood Meeting before the Planning Com-
mission hearing.
We believe this fully documents our meeting and discussion regarding the referenced project. If I
you have any comments or questions, please contact us.
Copy: Patrick White
Alan Cruz
John Podczerwinsky
Melissa Zone
H:110050000IJOOJ5835 ~ BtltlldOrl (fonllfffly L!gaC)~lCorre8p(mdence.lMellW$VJ7-25-07 - LKS and ASE 1l! stflffcoordillnlioll.rfoc
Message Agenda Ite~~,185f2
February 2 ,2008
Page 74 of 132
From: Sarah Spector [Sarah.Spector@henlaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 29,20072:56 PM
To: ZoneMelissa
Cc: White, Patrick G.; Denis Noah
Subject: REVISED Della Rosa & Brandon RPUD Interconnections
Attachments: Melissa Zone Carr (8-29-07) v2.pdf
Mellssa-
I have made very minor changes to the previous letter I sent this morning to clarify a few Items. I would greatly appreciate
~ if you would substitute the attached letter for the letter I sent earlier. The copy of the lelter that will be coming in the mail
is the same as that attached to IJJ.ill e-mail, so it will be accurate.
Thank you,
Sarah
Sarah Spector
Altorney at Law
Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A.
1715 Monroe Street
P.O. Box 280
Fort Myers, FL 33902
Direct Dial: 239.344.1195
Direct Fax: 239.344,1549
Sarah.Spector@henlaw.com
www.henlaw.com
-[@
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
Henderson, Frankiin, Starnes & Holt, PA
The information contained In this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for
the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review.
dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
To reply to our e-mail administrator directly, please send an e-mail to adminlstrator((!lhenlaw,com
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: Pursuant to Treasury Department Circular 230, this is to advise you unless we otherwise
expressly state in writing, e-mail communications, including all attachments, from this firm are not intended or written to
be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties. If you wish to engage this firm to provide
formal written advice as to federal or state tax issues, please contact the sender.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sarah Spector
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:51 AM
To: 'melissazone@colllergov.net'
Cc: 'White, Patrick G.'; Denis Noah
iubject: Della Rosa & Brandon RPUD Interconnections
file:/lG:\Current\MZone\PUD\RPUD\AR-1 0171 Brandon RPUD (Legacy)\letters\REVISED Della... 1/24/2008
..._--~-_...~.~ ----_.'- --~---~...--.---, --..- -'----
Message Agenda IteFal1!e2l6f 2
February 26, 2008
Page 75 of 132
Melissa-
Please find attached a copy of the letter we discussed earlier in the month regarding my client's lack of access, The
original will be coming to you via U,S, mail shortly,
Should you have any questions regarding the attached, please feel free to contact me,
Thank you.
Sarah
file:IIG:\Current\MZone\PUD\RPUD\AR- 10171 Brandon RPUD (Legacy)\letters\REVISED Della,,, 1/24/2008
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
O Henderson IFranklin I7ISMonroeStreet . Fort Myi!ilQ..E1Impf 132
Post Offke Box 280 . Fort Myers. FL 33902
ATTORNEYS AT LAW Tel: 239344. I 100 . Fax;239.344.1200 . w'oVW,henlaw,com
Bonita Springs: . Sanibel
Roplyto
Sarah E. Spector
Direct Fax Number 239.344.1549
,I,d ~. '" CirectDiaiNurTtler299,344.1195
fI1;I'I1 ~ \;'J E.MBU: IlSrah.spectotOl'lenlaw.com
August 29,2007
VIA E-MAIL & US MAIL
Melissa Zone
Zoning and Land Development Review
Collier County Community Development
and Environmental Services Division
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
Re: Brandon RPUD & Della Rosa RPUD Interconnections
Dear Ms. Zone:
This firm represents Vladimir and Ketlely Mathieu, owners of 2.5 acre parcel of land
located east of Livingston Road, south of Veterans' Memorial Boulevard, and
approximately two (2) miles north of Immokalee Road in Collier County, Florida,
identified by Folio Number 00150600004 and STRAP Number 482513 048.0003A 13
(the "Property"). The following summarizes the ownership of the surrounding
properties:
Property Owner Property Information
North Page VI LLC Della Rosa RPUD (proposed)
Application Number: PUDZ2006-
AR9577
Project Number; 2006010044
South Frederick J. Pergjini Folio Number 00140760007 STRAP
Number 482513 027.0003A13
East Eastbourne Bonita LLC Brandon RPUD (proposed)
Application Number: PUDZ2006-
AR101?1
Project Number 2006040008
West North Naples Fire Folio Number 00149880000
Control District STRAP Number 482513 030.0003A 13
Henderson, Franklin. Starnes & Holt. P.A.
,~-----,"-"~- .._-,-----~-,,_. .__...._-~~,--,--~.- -.~- .-......-.
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
fy1elissaZeme Page 77 of 132
August 29, 2007
Page 2
At the present time, the Property; together with a large majority of the surrounding
properties which lie east of Livingston Road, a controlled access ro<idway, ,andsoutl1 of
VeterahsMemoiiaJ Boulevard, has no legal means of access. The Master Concept
Plan associated with Della Rosa RPl,lD shows acceSS to the Della Rosa property
directly from Livingston Road. Additionally, the MastetCohceptPlan associated with
the Brandon RPUD indicates that access to that project will he via both Livingston Road,
and Veterans Memorial Boulevard. However, neither of lhese projects have gone
befCiTe the Planning Commission for recommendation or the Board of County
Commissioners for consideration, TMerefore,we have turned to CollietCourity staff to
assist us in idenllfyingpbtential access points.
I have,spoken at length with Nick Casalanguida; Director.ofG'ollier County
Tr~nsp6rtation Planning, ri;!garding possible solytions tt> oUr acceSS issue. In OUTmost
recent cOmmunication QY electronic mail, Mr. Gasalanguida stafedthaHhe
Triiinsportation Planning Department will be recommending interconnections betWeen
the Della Rosa RPUD rights-of-way and the Brandon RPUD rigllts,.oH"'ay While
simultaneously providing access to' those land-locked parcels between 'tpe tWo
d$Ve1opmer,ts. As per Mr. Casal<\nguida,such interQonhectjo!'ts and sharedacces$
points are requirements of the Collier County Growth Management Plan andthe Collier
CoUilty Land Development Code. A copy of thee-mail siting is inclUded fotyout
review.
loan effort tofacliitate theinterconnection,to the Properly Mr. Casalangulcta si,Jggested
thatl contaPt Patrick Whitl;l, analt()rhey with Porter, Wright,.Monis &, Arthur. LLP
representing the applicant on the Brandon RPUD projecti ,have presented Mr. Whfte
with a Q()pyofthe enclosed exhibit which demonstrates a potential tie-hi to IheBrandon
RPUD roadway system by traveling Muth over the property owned by Frederick Pergjlni
to apointjusteastof Livingston Road ,(as, depicted by the red line) ("Option One"). We
hav('i also diScussed the option of traveling west over property owned by Mr. Mathieu
and tying intethe roadway system as.it heads north towards Veterans MemQrial
BoUlevard rOption Two"). However, Mr. While has indicated that Option TWo is the
less favorable of the two options, as it would require a roadway between what is
currently planned to be Single-family lots. While we have not reaCheda,n <!gre~m$ntas
to Whether Mr. White's client would permit either of the two proposals, Mr. White seemS
willing to work with us to ne,gotiate an arrangement to wtliqh both parltes are amenable;
Due to the fact that Option One set forth above would require an ,easement over
property owned by Mr. Pergjini,whichalso has no legal means 01 access. I have also
had a oonversation with him. At the present time, Mr. Pergjini is not interested in
atitl'Jbrizingan easement along the eastern boundary of his property. However, in our
telephone oonversation he indicated a willingness to entertainfufure proposals. As
slJch, I believe Option One is still a viable alternative whichsh,Quld be considered.
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
o/IE!Ii!l~i;I Z6ne Page 78 of 132
A~g.ust 29, 2007
P&ge3
Allnoughwehave only discussediwo options with surrounding property owners, I am
cartl;%iillhat thet~ a.ra roanYmOTEj options avall,able based ,on the fjl'lal,pllmapproYals for
bolhthe Della Rosa RPUD and the Brandon RPUD. As such,1 ask that you please
acce'Pttnis lettaras a. formal requElsfthat this letter pe anl!:lred iritoihEl i$cqrij fat bofh
thE! Della Rps,a RPUD and tI1e BranclpnRPUD and thataatatetn.E!ntt~(qing
inl,erconnections and access toland-lockEld parcels, including tnePrpperty owned by
hlY Client; be included in the, $taff r$port for bothprojElcts. In doing s6, I believe this wiD
provideanopportunity to expiore the range of possible accesspointsavaJiabie to my
client in conjunclion with theopliohs set forth above.
AdditionallY, I ask, thaI you provide l11e:-vith a copy of the 'staff repq~~pi'jo(toth~
Planning Commission meetings for both projects. As I understand it, tneOallaRosa
RPUD prOject v\iillJ:\e before the Planning Commission fqtrepqtntr!Elnl:la.tion at8:3QAM
on Seplembet20, ,2007 and before the, Collier County Board of County Commissioners
for CGlnsiqerationat g:OO AM on OctOber 23, 2007. Similarly, tneBry.ndq" RPUD prOject
will be before the Planning Commission for 'recommendation al8:30AMonNovember
1,Z007 t;l.IJd before the comer County Board of County Commissionersf,pr oO'ns!de~tioi1
at 9:00AM or:) Decembe,r11 ,2.007, I respecltftJlIyrequestlhat YOi,ll)iJtify me If iam
mistaken as to any ofthe limes and ,dates listed above.
ShOUld you navei\\i1yql.lesiions regarding lhiscorrespondence prtne regw:lsts sel forth
",boVe, plei'lSe feel free to t:ontaCltne directly. I greatly appreciate YOllr assistance with
this matter and lookfolWard ta workinQ with you in the nearfu e.
~
SES!
ce: Nic~Casalanguida (via U.S. mail)
Patrick G, White. Esq. (via E-rnaJI & U.S.
mail)
FrederickPergjini (via U.S. mail)
K:evinR. lottes, Esq.
Denis H.Noah, Esq.
--.--.,-- -. -~ ""~"'----'. . -----,-. . -
<nCON
COOM
O~
ON_
Z ,0
E~g:
2 CClI
-mOl
m:Jm Ol
'Cl~n. u. ~
CD "'0 .
",'" ffi....o ~
",u..
<( o/J oc;::<( ~
" Ow", .
~ OZN Ol
1- gQ: <:~:t 1
o:E wco......
g5 !::.UJ
1ms :g<( {f)MZ 0
...J O....u.. ~
',', ,il ~> ZeD .
B i;ll .
g::i CD.2 ~ ~
c~ E 'E.?;m ~
~ ii' 1f~ ~~ ::'fjoo~ .
E~>-e1S:~a. .
Il ~ .' .. ' '.tio -
i ..mSC"tt; ~
o f>>~ Ql";-N .
DC! 01 =: ~ ~ f3:tr: .
.fz~U}..Jzo g
"
.
..
E
~
~
I
,
~
c
.
I
~,g
-J!l
~e
ee-
,!..
_E
~.
~!t::
~6
e.
o.
,
ll"
i-,
"E
'E ~
~~
. .
-~
..
.!!!.=
~"
0",
0
<(
~
~
Q.
~
C
,
0
0
,iii
~
J:
.
~
,~
.
..
Q.
<(
~
.
0
e
"-
~
c
,
0
"
.
=
0
"
...
0
0
N
"
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 80 of 132
S$tahs;pec~or
Frori1~ casalanguidaNick[NickCasalanlluida@COllieI'gOv.neij
Serit,: WednesdaY, July 18, 2.0Q710i04 AM
To: S<ira,h ~p~9IPt'; GreeriilMlchaal
Cc: PoclczerwinskyJcihn; MarcaliaJeanne; Denis Noah
SUbject:ElE: LIVingston Road Access
Hi Sarah,
InlercOon...Gl'~n,sand;shared~ss,is a r...gujillQlerltih our~WlP<i!Jd ?rk41f'dPev,ilIoi>rriilntcDdl'l.J Will ask Mike
(3reeme our n..,w p~nniflg lIIaoage~tll reojiew thee:lllall ch<1ipbeloY,llindget ",,11l\oQi iWvilJoPrnant review project
marll:lgerJohn Po to IBvlewthe two appllc<lt!On~forz6nJngthat}'ou have t$f&lBnced. Rameinber aswedisclJSSEldYO(l
should bepreparedtoattendtheplanriing commlsslon'meetings and BCCmeetingSlo ask for lhe connections also.
We will work with theplaonersto make you/' wi'>l1esknoWn,
Mike, plel.lsetak&thl'! lead on this t$i:]u""tandwotbvitoAahl'l tolnqJude lbeseoollnections as, parl of oW ,
reoommendations,Al.so, please have John COntact the planners for these prolects and provide thelll a copy althee-mail
l:Jelow for \:he i'1ea,rings.
Thankyou,
Nick
fwm: SarahS.~r tlllaUt():~;lrah.Spector@henlaw.com]
Sent: wed 7/~8/~007 9:29 AM
T6: tasalanguidaNick
C<:; PodtZerWlnsky3cihn; MarceUaleanne; Denis Noah
" '
Subject: Uvirigston Road t\tces~
Nirik-
r9on;lj,hl!'l~I,~ved'Ol'njallyth~n~Ejd )totifQr'mEjaling'virjlh lJlebacki?i1' May 14. cllgEirdl@o'ufrirreril'S lahd-tockeo paro,el,east
of LiYji-ig~lonl'loMl!nd~ollll1 ofVeterafll>MemOr~I~"ulii<y"rCl,Tliellifori11ationyduprovldEidWil$ablJnd8l'\tiy hlllfllul"nd
has given Tl'l\lthe,PPJlQrt~l1ii)ttollpe/lkwith IhealtorneY for Easlbou'rneB()nita LLC;theaj;>plicanton tj1eLegaqyRPUD
wliic;h Ii; j\JSl southaM eastofmyclierit's paJcel.ThealtorriEiY"F'iiltiCk WhIte .wIth Pprtar Wrlght,tlaSin/Qrme(jme\:h/lt
you and JOljn,PodczeiWinslo/havel.lpproache(j his ,olient ,re~ilJ9intllrpop!lectlOns l>!!lw!lfilrl lI1e La,9l1cy'AF'UP, the
Ol'!Ua Rosa RPUD, anli those Qlherjahd'locked, parcels,inoludlhgour,cIJent'$, w~ichCl.lrren,!IYdo, n9tl:)llJo'C;' iegat a.c;cess.lo
eitherU\llnllstDt'jBoadorVe,ferllnsMemorial Boulllva~, Hqweyer. hlll:llsome~tionedlhathi$9U..,nl<:!()esn?tfeel " '
compelled to ,offer /Iece9S tl}'th\lland4oc,ked parcel.s gIVen ;tbafiWt thl'llthllGolhl!r CQUlli)t,?OT hasfiot J<lqulredsuch
intli'tOonnecti()!,,,,,as itffiilY dOlh.f()ugh theZgnlngapPI'9Vil"I, prpq~l>" nor hf1$ it Pfle:rEld. con99~sio/ls for dOlnllso,suchas
offering impa!<tfEle c:~ltsor tl)eIiJse. ThEl~fo~, ,f1U~ momel'j!. myc:li~rjtls sluck.ltfi~rn,Sas'fEastboumeBbiijtajs
amElnatl1e 10 ~iing,1!lOcssS, bUtllrs! needs to b~toldto dO $0; As such, l am writing ~tiinquiiaaslo whetherCollier
County DOTls goihgto: '
1. Raquiretha dewlOp$rsof IheprOposed L~acy FlPUDtopl1:Wlde acCessthlPUgb,1Ii~ r(!Z()J'ljng prpCElssandlor
2, ProvIde the odeval(jpersof the proj:iosoo Legacy RPUD with fmpactfaecred'rtsPtthe like jf'ilpi'OVfdes
interconnecliOns
it Is oUr oilenl;sldo/lltose!fle,th!SacoeseissuEiwi!houth<lvlng tolUesult f()r aJega1vvay of m,cesslty; Tl:iereloie,iit1y
f1ssistanr:et~ DOTean provide would begr13atly apprecialed.
Thank you.
Sarilh
Sarah Spector
f!,1'29rzOO7
-~-'-'-~_"- ..-~ -..'--.-. ---~-
Agenda Item I~o, 8B
February 26, 2008
A1tqmey ~l Law Page 81 of 132
Henderson, FrankUn, Starnes & Ho1t.P A
17t5MCll1roe Street
P.O. Box2aO
Folt,MYers, FL ,33902
DirectDiil.l: 239.344.1195
Direct Fax: 239;344,1549
Sarah.Spector@henlaw,com
www.henlaw.com
e HendersonIE~a~J!o
CONFIOENTIALITYSTATENlENT
Henderson, Franknn, Slames & Hon,p.A.
The informllllqpcontllinepin thistransmis~ionmllYC9l1tainprjvile~e,d ,andcoryfiqe"tiaiinfOrmil.tion. nis intandedohly for
the u~El?fthe person(~) namedllbOve. If you are not th'1intEinoodrecipient, you are hereby nOtified thtitany reView,
dis~erriihatiQry,,{jjlrtril:Jution or dupl!cliljon ,cif tt)is commUl)lc",lion is stTictlyprohibtted. If you, are hotihe intended recipient;
pleasecontaet the sender by reply e-mail and C1estroyall,copies of theeripinal message. '
T(Heply to 0 ure-mail ,administrator di reatly, please sentlan, a,mail to 1!QmJnistr.lt~!lehJ!'!YU;Q.n.t
!Rl;?C1RGUi.AR 230 NpTICE: PurSuant to Treasury Depar\rj1,mt Circular' 230, this is to advise you unless weolh'1rwise
eXpreSsly ~tata in writing, &:mall communications, including allattai:hmentS, 'from thlsfirtn are not intendedorwrillenlo
l:>e lise(l, and' oannot he used, for the purpose Of avoiding ,tax.-relatedpe'r'ialtie&.lf you wish toengage'lhis firm tQ prov(de'
formal written lldvlceas 'to federal oratate;tax issueS, plellseJ::ontacHhllsenctar. '
+"Orjginal Message- ,
From: MarcellaJeanne [mallto;JeanneMarrella@colliergov.net)
Sl!,rit: Tuesday; Apiil17, 2007 7:'18 AM
TO:,$al'1,lh Spectt>r
SubjE!(:t::FW:fW: Uv.ingsttln Ro$CIAc~5
$,arah: Please1>se response below Irom Nick.IIY(ju,need further asslstal1qe, please do nothesitate to contact
USe, }halikyou.
Jeanna Marcella
. Is Livingston Road a controlled access ROW or would we be able to C(jnstruct a,curbcul west 91 our
property ilwe were able to bbtain an aasemenffrom North Naples Fire Control7
Yes, Jtis,~on\l'oiled access. We wpuldstrlctly enforcelhe ~ss cl~:oflhEl roadtQ malntain the highestlev.elof
serviCljl, We always encour<lge and ,requlresharect!il~!lsswhell!lv!lr possible,
. Are you aware 01 plans for the North Naples Fire Control Proparty?
Yes.. they nave met with usinforrnally 10 (lisousstl1eirplan~bull ne.venotseenanactual subm1ttaltocla1l!'\:v1'I(Ie
we woUld encourage shared acces~. we cannot require it on site thalis for emergern::y sel'\licas unless tJi{! district
agrees.
. Is WteransMemorial B?ule\iartl,WhICh runs perpendiCular to LMngslOnRoad juslsQlilth qUbe liIe'diterra
developmllnt. ~ County-maintained ROW whioh we could use lor act:ess if we Were ab1e,to qbtain "I)
8f49f2007
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
ellsemen! from lhe four property mvner.liJ the north qfoul' parcel? Page 82 of 132
- Yes,we WOUldehcbtJrageyouto lakeacooss 011 ofVeteians Memorial Boulevard. I beiieveit isOdumy ROWand
we wouldmalntaih it after the warranty peii,odby th.edENelbpili:
In ,a messaged;lted 4/1 6/2007 4:29:57 PM Eastern Ollylight Time.,J,!>8nneMll/'Cellll@oplJiel'ilov,nef wh'tes;
Nick-
As follow-up tdlnytelePhQrTe message Ihis llft!imoon,itseems wehaveaclil,nlwliita parcel1h()Olli~[
County With no, a_ss. The,2.5 ;1orep!lj'Clol Is identified by Follq NUIl)ber OPl411200005, llis located just
easlolLivingStt:1I'l Ro.ad nortjJ .61 ImmokaleearyddJr&otIY'wi!stt:>f1neClllPa,I..th€J $trElnd$VIl1c1PrTleJr:it
Therelsa,;3.2l>acf'e! Pl1.rceJ (FcIIQ001119880000) be!\Yaer:i, the subirwt pllrcel andl..ivlOQSlQO R,cad that is
cwne<jby NoM f'JapleJs Fir.,Ccmtrol. Tl)Sf'e! are four p<lrQ9IS ~een tile slll>je()! PllfCala,nda ROW-that I
sqmelimassee,refel;ed to as VlOterans Memorial Bpul,ev;lrd. Wltltlhis iJJlormil1iOI), l,hai,lethefollowiiJg
questions:
. IsUvingston FlOadlll!Ontrolr.,(jllOCeSS FlQWor wouh;lwe~eJ&bl., locoo$frucl a,curbcufwest of
~urPr\lperty If'We~ere<lple to p,btain ~e<Wemerit Ir9m l'ilorlhN<lPles Fire Oontrol?
. AreyoUawaf'e! <if plamtfor the North Nafii$sFireControIProflerty?
· IsVelerntl\lMemoriial'B,ol1levard, Whillh runs peiPeiiqioular IQ livihgsto~ Road j~st solltho! the
Mediif,'n:!lc;level(lpmsni il yOlJnty-marnl8,lned R9W wfii6h we pouldl1se for access If we were able
tootitain;an 9aSemeiJ,lffom'il:1elolJr property6wner$ tofue north tif our parMI?
ObViciusiYWewl:luldlJke :!dJ1!aln access by thernost ,Urad rOQieP9ssi~,t)!Jt ~'1ftom!lkeoartaln that!t
is legal. AnYirHormallon you can provide ,on 'this ma,lleY would be graillly apprecialed.
Th!lnk you,
Sarah
Sse What's fiee at AOL.con'l.
8/2914007
.~,""._,-- ~,_..~ .--- .-"- . __" _m__
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 83 of 132
I-~I
~ tM
J,l, ~ ____"~___________~
, 'C ---,--,---- .-
--...-- _..t~ "
~ROW. , " ' '____
--- "- - I .'~' ,.
....... I 8Vf\:'e!t ~
I, I __ R. ' ,..~,
i ) , :
'"e..:;.,...'........ ...............J
I . .:.,;~....,..~~f "tV. ..~.. 1\.1
, I ;.;:~....;1.":i.i,~ 81J ""', ,',
I '",," ,
'::;:'" 2tr~1
I !A!5EMlNr)
, ,
, ,
r R,
. - I
I' """,...... ( ,
.::'':.-.W'',L'-;, ..--1 I
, ' '.:''t'~_''i',W~";,,. III
I I ;.fj~~~:;~' I
'}:...."y...J:>.- I t
I I ,,)>:'tJ""'<".< 'I'
",,",c<",j,, I I
1 ".' , .
l Ii:
\ ' I Sf..,..".' ',I, ~
" , lREl\'m!iNT I ,:,!-,FPI.;.- ,t ~
\ . OV!RlI\y I ,~NTI ,~
<', , ,I. I (\lIlIl
\ ' ' I I I .
pRcf'CSa~ I
'(iA(~if :
t'> r--..! !
\'~.'~"'" \ V V' I ,
\~~ , I I
, "\~' A "
\ ~~ "', ' '" ,~:t--,
'-,~~ '" .I~I.", ,J,__ I
~~~ ,'," "'--''''"'7'I:''~'P "''1lr.iijr;]f' ,"'1;"" !
(!jy~-<",'\"" '~"",~ ~"','"~"~,,..:.iJJ,"',_,,,')' 'P" ',.if"C:llC:lll",.-'.i'iiP)",''/
'~':" "~' -"",-".-="., ."
.....t't"tH"bft"rJ.~, ,! ',~.',".,~1.R:,tl>-"~'''''',< "",~k[~,,'~."",I',',' ,,' !\~",jl,:::'I,("
.. ~,,,,~~,., ",');1,
.' __,', .,,", ,', ",_ ',_ h.::'~;I"
~I'",','.-~' .~-~' ~~l;,~ - VlI-f~~"'"'~'~"+'c,.__..~.~...~'~"O _...
". l> ". I'L h.l_ -, ...~"-,,, '
g ..)g;11i< \ (,.Y' , f'\ \ \;V'J f!. v. 4
!
~ U\jIlWlGTell~J;O_. ." PROJRCTLANDlIS;E' 1A1~ntl!!l';1(J;Y ~.
~ ~~..=::i~~ =-1'I*I.\ftl }:::~:~. ~ ~.~__
. :.:::r.;," ".,..,,',-,., ~..~~ .--a", ~1'A:tt~ lZJ ~~..
i:"-'~~~" ~ ~I\t;&- ~_UilW. - ----,
-' ~l:=:r~....:--=: ~:~~l':~ ~ ~-- _~
a __~.....,____, '" _,___, _ ~ __u _.,........_.
_r ==.~-~~...~ _~-Ktt'~, ,n,'~~ ~ J.....@ --
'i ~,UiII>~__~),""-" lIO'UlII'tt4I.'N:;.~:IM.ut:mlI'G8ACll4 ~I'tll_;' lE@. ~~. .~~
t' .._..._tMU~_fl: ~-
--........-....---..........
. . ~.'....-~:~~
---
r 1II000:,_PIJE8CRVC-ACAEAGER:AR,E APPROXfMA.TE -I\NI).S~TO fINAlPLAT'nNG'
'" "., --- ,- --
]l)H ,'C "t I sLlANDi:mmiD
IaASfllOUlrH.e~Il'A,~, ]-,' .l"""., ~ Dmo,~-~, n:, MAsr'E:R.P.LA:N,
CO~'CO_CNTY.'fL: " -" .. _ - : r)~ .-
ENGlf'lEERlN(i l%',.~ """" .
<D"'N
ll;IOM
O~
,,~
, 0
-~~
C '"
2cQ.l
-"''''
"',,'" 11
-O~!1. "- ~
".0 (/)0 ~
'" '" fB:!to
",LL lS.
<( ~12:,....<t e
~DUJlC'! .
f UO(f.lN ~
~1ro:(~:t .
a
~,:: - g~~a)WI"- ,s
11i l i.. rewV5;:;Z~ 5
mo::o"-u.C}l ~
ffi ,'" u.l" "ItLLZ"OCO .
.
.oJ j ,,;: ~ ',I o ~ c C'lt co .
ClZ ~:8;::~ e
;,; =j e 0.5: f/) ~
~" g ~.." K
:;lljljf~ QI;(!) lQ'- (!) .
'" "(/)
en: z uLi..o.. i
::)&t6~oo) c
z..,! :v:g ~
OQ)Il'ii;:::N .
00 Oil = i!: ~~oc ~
.fZtn.... 0 0
c
"
0
-
.
E
~
~
~
!l
"-
,
~
c
.
S
"
, .
85
.~
t:i~
ee-
.s
- ,,-"
~"
c,_
~15
~llf
,
JJ"
~'-
. .
",~
c t~
8s
. .
-~
" .
,.'"
" "
0"
0
<(
~
~
8-
.
"-
..-
c
,
0
'-'
~
..
'-'
.
'"
.
i
"
.
..
"
0
0
<(
i
~
.
"-
..-
c
,
<3
,.
~
;g
~
'"
,-
.--....-.-.,
.~,--,_. .,_.~-~,^
~-- --,-._.,.,,--_.__.-.-
Agenda Itelfflgo,l3flf 1
February 26, 2008
Page 85 of 132
From: Nan Sarkis [nsarkissian48076@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 9:30 PM
To: ZoneMelissa
Subject: landlocked homeowners
Dear Melissa:
My sisters and I are very upset to hear that as land owners of
PI #0014844001, our land will be landlocked by the proposed Brandon RPUD-Residential Planned Unit
Development. We are voicing our opposition
to this project, which does not include our parcel along with five other
parcels that are affected. Please review this project and take the appropriate action to stop the proposed
Brandon RPUD Development. We have
held on to this property hoping someday to be included in a
development not excluded from it. This property is our father's
legacy to use and we do not want to be excluded from this development and
become landlocked because of it. Thank you for all your efforts in advance.
<! --[if! supportEmptyParas] --> <! --[ endif]-->
Yours truly,
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Nargeze Sarkissian
19520 Butternut
Southfield, Ml 48076
1-248-557-1895
<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]-->
Amalia Harazian
8348 Salem
Dearborn Hts, MI 48127
1-313-278-0950
Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
file://G:\Current\MZone\PUD\RPUD\AR-10171 Brandon RPUD (Legacy)\letters\landlocked ham... 1/24/2008
Sep 24 07 03:38p Mohammed Rahman 239-596-1706 Agenda It.!ln1 No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 86 of 132
Mohammed M Rahman
13056 Vale wood Drive date 09/24/07
Naples f134119
Ph: 239-269-525& Fax: 239-596-1706
Email Rrahrnan42!iilao1.com
To,
Collier County
At: Miss. Melissa Zone
Ref: Oppose to the propose Branden RPUD
Dear, Miss Melissa.
I am a collier county tax payer; I am a resident of the county since
1986. [own the 2.5 acres parcel Id# O()l48360000 proposed Brandon RPUD will
Landlocked my property with out any access. If you look at proposed tax of this property
this year $ 5017.09 based on the value 0[$437,000 with out any access to the property it
should be worth with DQthing.
I oppose to this propose RPUD unless the builder come with a solution for the
six parcel property owner, Either to build us a access road to our property or short-cut
access road to their future plan road.
I hope your kind support for the property owner's are effected with this RPUD,
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.
~~ {fjyn
. '-' "(j.v-......--....;
Mohammed M an
'".._--,-^,~.,.. _..-,-----..._~ .~-~.__.<~_... o...._,__"<~._ - -"",,--~,-",,'-" -.-...--
Sep 24 07 03:38p Mohammed Rahman 239-596-1706 Agenda Ite~'~o, 8B
February 26, 2008
COLLIER TAXING AUTHORITIES NOTI~ b'F',jL
COLLIER GOVERNMENT COMPLEX -~ 2007 ~-
3285 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST PROPOSED
NAPLES, FL 34112-4996 PROPERTY TAXEf
DO NOT PAY
Parcel ID: 00148360000 Millage Area: 150 RE Use Code: 99 THIS IS NOT A SILL
Legal: 13 48 25 SW114 OF NE114 OF The taxing authorities which levy
SE1I4 OF NE114 2.5 AC property taxes against your property
will soon hold Public Hearings fa
adopt budge1s and tax rates for
I.. 11..1 ,,1...11...1 II ,J.,I..I., 1.1,1" ,11...1,1,1..11.. ,1..11 the next year.
-----'AUTO-5-DIGIT 34119 The purpose of thase
RAHMANL MOHAMMED & FAHMIDA P122284 T214 6248 Public Hearings is to receive
13056 VA EWOOD DR opinions from the general public
NAPLES FL 34119-6577 and to answer Questions on the
proposed lax change and bUdget
Prior To r.king Final ActIon.
Each laxing aull10rity may
Amend or Aller its proposals at
the hearing.
Taxing Authority YQur property taxes Yo.Ur"taxElB this year A public hearing on the proposed taxes rourtaXUthlSY""'j
If proposed budget If no budget chan~e
last year channe is made and budget will be held: is made
, 09106l2007.5:C5 P~ W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING,
3RD FLOOR BOA D ROOM. COUNTY
County 948.02 1458.50 GOVERNMENT CENTER 3J01 TAMlAMI TRAIL 1602.78
----_....-.-------- ---." ...--------- EABT, NAPLES. FLORIDA 34112 239-n4-8973 ...
Public Schools: ....... ,,,....,,.. -o911'1i2007:S:3C1P/{:'DFt MARTIi>iliiTHERKlNGJR" ,... ....., .
By state Law 73S.75 1218.88 ADMINISTRATIVE ENTER. 5n5 OSCEOU. TRAIL, 1245.48
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34109 239-377.0036
By School Board 642.50 1122.19 1083.21
--_.-., ..-----_.-- ---" ......--....-. .-." .-. -- .... 09l121':!OO7../i:i5PM.SDlfTlrF'LORIMWAi'iOR'" ",. ... ..." -.---
South Florida W.t.r
Mana9ement 131.63 210.61 ., MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AUDITORIUM, B-1 BLDG, 217.11/
33111 G\.IN,CLUB ROAD WEST PALM BEACH,
Dislrlct flQB.I!lA>>!Q5_651~W,O__...__ .00...... ,__ "
- - - - - -. . - - - - - - ~ . . .-. .----.------. - --- .-...---_.. --- ________.H .._____
Municipal Services 201_73 302.40 (SAME F'lACElTIME AS COUNTY MEETING) 3J2.B9
Taxing Urnl
,..--_...--_..- --... ... --..>-- .-. --.....-- -,.' .......-.".-... ..""-'" ,-,..." .. . .......-
Independent 0910412007-5:01 PM DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS, 600
Special Oistrlcls: NORTH RDIlo NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
Mosquiln GonlroI 17.00 'fl.7a 239-436-10 28.66
North Naples Fire 250.00 437.50 0910712007,5:30 PM NORTH NAPLES FIRE CNTRL 1\ 41265
RESCUE, 1885 VETERAi,'S PARK DR, NAPLES, FL .
'\foter~novaa-'-' ---------------." - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - -- ,~t~_23Q~~,3222",__,"_",.__""_.._o..,'" _"'""_,.",,.,,
-. ~ -. .-.
Debt Paymen1s: (SAME PLACEITIMEAS COUNTY MEETING) 65.63 I
Naples ZooICan'bbean 37_50 65.63
ConseNaljon Coll~r 17.23 28.61 (SAME PLACElTIME AS COUNTY MEETING) 28.81
--------------..-- ----------------- ---------"----~ -- --_._~-----------------------_.__._------_._---- -. ~ - ." - - - - - - - - - --
rotal P",perty 2,984.36 4,872.10 5,017.09
Taxes
COLUMN 1- COLUMN 2' For de1ails: 00 independen~ Sp'E!1}~ and voter approved debt, COLUMN 3'
conlac:yourla",oU_r at 39 774-8172.
TaxiM Year -2001>- -2007- IIWII~IIIII~IIIIII
Mar""t Value 250,000 437,500
(-) Save Our Homes Exempt Value 0 0
(=) Assessed Value 250,000 437,500 00148360000
(-) Homestead and other Exempt Valie 0 0
(=) Taxabla VBlue 250.000 437.50c} -See R"verse Side For Explanation
.Save OUI Homes" enm tvalua due: to c:a on assessmentinCte8ses.
.IF YOIl FEEL THE MARKET YALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY IS INACCURATE OR DOES NOTREA.ECT FAIR MARKET VALUE. CONTACTYOUR CQUIffi' PROPERTY APPRI\ISER r
(239.774-8141 .
.IF '/HE PROPERTY IIPPRAISER'S OFFICE IS UNABLE TO RESOCVE THE MATTER NJ TO MARKET VALUE. VOU MAY FILE A PETfTJON FOR ADJUSTIlI.ENT WITH THE VALUE
ADJUS~ENT BOARD: PETITlON FORMS ARE AVAILABLE FROM THE COlNTY PROPERlY APPRAISER AND MUST BE FILED ON OR BEFORE: FRIDAY SEPT. 7, 2007.
.YOUR fiNAl TAX BILL MAY CONTAIN NON-All VALOREM ASSESSMENTS WHICH !.lAy NOT BE REFLECiEO ON THIS NOTICE SUCH ASASSESSMENfS FOR ROI\OS, ORAlNAGE,
GARBAGE, FIRE. llGHTING, SEWER. OR OTHER GOVERNMENTAl SERViCES ANO FACILITIES WHICH UAV BE LEVIED BY YOUR COUNTY. CrTY, DR _SPEC/PI. DISTRICT.
h 239.596-1706 p.3
Sep 24 07 03:39p Mohammed Ra man Agenda Item No, 8B
Februarv 26, 0 8
J """,",~-'-- ....OIT.RRA (fp UDD I URBAN I age 88 of 132
t>o...l CC*'StMTINORlGMT~Vl1)1ll ~eSrDENTIAl
J"'I ~CJ.,'JlOoIEClt~~'TQItD.!Il: ____ _.;.._______
--~,
...- -".-. _...._~.._~-_.." ---..
-"~'- --" ~..-
, ... 10' TVl'iE "A'
~ , 8UF~
I __ __ _ I I
I ~ _ -- ~ I :
), ~ ~ ,II I
,,~ ~'_. "" ,
1 . ).eiIo1 _ . I \
, '. I URBAN I Y ... .1.....)A~,., ~ 1 I
I : f RESIDENTIAL - --' 1 ,
o '25 2.50 500 ,i ' , ~ R ' I
' , ~H: ~ j
SCH..E iN FEEl' r: i : R [ 'I cD I :
: i ~ \
I" _ -- -, I
I ; _ --... URBAN
I . . ... - .. REsroarrtAll'
'" ", .- ."'l I
':'.~',c,,' I: ...1
I :':2;Q'/'oA,C.:':-'.. " I :z I
I .~::.<. ~'..-'..~. ! j W t
~,:":\::'/;:~:::' I ~ rr':E I ...
,.... "'''' ==i- l u. UJ I
I ........ ,_ ,__,_' . ~
I . " ST-SPECl,;j,' I' uJ
\ f TREATMENT : I ;
: -.. i OVERLAY I! \ I
I I'"
\ ,'._ r ...' '.~~."'..',- 'k~r _~...._~ l I
I I 'ff~,t...".. >;'" :'~""'I' t I ...: I
I ":c;'!,!! ,':',.; .. \ : I
1 '""""..", I I
' ..,~~fJ;~!;~~L ______Jl___...~:J :
,"",J" " " '.." I I
;. ":'..~~';';:.~ l., .-"':..: I r
i I I
~ ,,..", I I
- , ,
lAND USE KEY ~ "" "'"
" ,
0, "",",OamAi.(Rl I
l'I __
,..V ...T1II'Q FamIly
- -ZerolotUno
l ~ ::..:::=;;:-=-::..;:..:.::......, /
o """""""_ ~
::. ~8J*e ~
8' ..w.lar MlIrIlIgemenl /Vf'IItIS . "~ ....
x -.Rt H FacIIttr '. p'euCAN
fZl -- -. ,.,"'~._. '.'" "i STRAND
~ '.....~.. ...." 'DRJ)
'S RPUJ) Iv1ASIER PLAN N01"eS' ,~ ." ......, ,\
a.. . ~ .... '-" ~~>"'" i
~ L,'jlbll'",-"'lhis-raoniIoI._dle.~b)m"A.. ....'-...... .".....-;:,.. """ . ,,:
Vi 1W1ll1~c;ubuql'"CI..illll~'l'h.bJiDllC:d~su1>jc.:l c:J ~AA.EA. .... '. . ',,',.'..:. ;;
- lodl1:.Sr'ptddT......Cl\~O".ull:rdlltricr..1II1~tJIbIn ~ -.:--. "., -':';"_! i: .
l:7' Itc:Iri~FUR>rtlMod.Uloe'~ ~ Wo\TEIlWlNAGEMEHrIlPa. '-.... "'" ,:>.... J
~ ... ...,...-.... ..:-, ......~~... i
>- .l.Oprr.~s:hIlJinl:l.Io\:d\"CIIIId__~"l:naocMiCVI~ Af'UDDOtIHOARV ..... . ".
1. -.c:1;ulllalYgtWlillb.t:OlrCIlllnG.~600"'tftI_~l _ _ _ faCUl'..cIJ:'.wlI\.Y
Y) 1~l)oelJpJIha.-.nm-bib:IDdDDlll"simUrlfllll!lt ~ 'ECTlAND US~
l' spee=.~~I.asi4e-f~.....ot~ _~..._.. ~ECW..~'JMEHTZCtE rn.""", c;
It'l \'c;G.lq&I~-. D~-,unn 2&.7fiNJI.
Ol '1'U5' """""CUSSJPICA'D:lN '--"",",'"
III ~.a:P""'DlNl$CcrJlJM:sh:a1J1>e-~~i1lZllll-. ~ lAKES S.G3N>.J:
~ ~ lJlM)lJE;E~TION PRESERVE 13~AC:t
,... 4. wnIWtIkB~kf>L'D..Ml':4.lm.c.o~~ ROADSIROW 5,oC.rACa
o _lI~Ill:IrieVfdOVU'thcwbakcb>d'tI'JCltllLAlninlmlllll R AESJDli;N'JW.N'rS<.
~ '2P'...lIItWe"'"dati.WTl bc'ftIIIiGrd~\f:t(Jlattude.... JMPeRYlOUSI41.EA 12..31 N.>t.
;s. lIpl'alldJlRRl'Vl$in.CIOtIrCkl=t'/:'~LhConl..eo...,l.aId WJORACCeI8P01NT MlNIMUMOPENSPACE(W%} SOJr8J1Ct.
~ Del.'Cllllpnall OINk PO'J'ENJU.L lNTERcON
~~~~- rl ,'ItI!:HID-..:T'I'O"WiI-Pl.ATnl'IO IU;__~ PCINT~'rCCAmiRU, TOTALNETACREAGE 51.10Jet:
.Q...-..............~.......ITJIzJc.,1Jl1Ji0 F OFlDCBEC.C.D4.CI::UlI3)
o ~~_UM...cam.MID""'''''''rM~nclf(.'..r.e 204 UNITS~.1 AC. I::: 3.9Q UNITS peER-ACRE
~..tACOI'ru.'rM!~~m~AIrW"lVl!!I'VXt
~ caMIIMrY...~..mU,DC:l.P.UJI!ll,1
]Ol-IN -,--,;tJN BRANDONRPUD
2350 STANFORD COURT
~ \.t 1 NAPLES. FLORIO' J4112 MASTER. PLAN
PHONE (239) 434-0333
E N G I N E E R I N G FAX (239) '34-9J20 Err
(.e. #&4-2 It LB. #642 EX:.tBlt C
'.~"_.",~._-.."~~~.. "~---"._--, --"-,,~-,_.- --"...._'-
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 89 of 132
September 24, 2004
TO: Ms. Melissa Zone
Principal Planner
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples. Florida 34104
FROM: Mr. Daniel Marusik
62 3rt! Street Fn=C€/V~D
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
PI#OOI49600002 SfP 2 ( 2007
RE: Brandon RPUD ZONING DcA
Dear Ms. Zone: 'ARTMcNr
I was unable to attend the Neighborhood Infurmatioil Meeting on the 17d1 for the subject project.
I did have someone attend in my place and as reported to me, there wasn't any details provided
regarding what impact this plan would have on my property.
t
Now that I have looked at the drawing I have many questiOns. What will be buih between the
road and my property? Will a driveway or road be constructed to my property line? Will the
project border be fenced? There are so many questions I couldn't possibly list them aU in this
letter. I respectfully ask that you have the developer contactme to arrange a meeting so I can
evaluate their proposal.
-I am happy to see something is being done with the surrounding land and I am not necessarily
against the rezoning of the property. I am not sure why the developer bas not purchased my land
and made it part of their project. However, before I can endorse this particular RPUD, I ask: that
you and the County respect and protect my property rights imd my ability to sell this land for it's
present value.
Sincerely,
IJ~' J
:.-.;:-
, .,.,.. ,,"/ ,
", /,;;7~~ ~__,
Daniel Marusik
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 90 of 132
~"-
September 27, 2007
TO: Ms. Melissa Zone
Principal Planner
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
FROM: Raymond & Margaret Martyniuk
15821 Delaplata Lane
Naples, FL 34110
PI#00148440001
RE: Brandon RPUD
Dear Ms. Zone:
As a result of attending the informational meeting for the subject project held 09/17/07 we include the listed
below comments regarding our concerns for our property.
Acquisition of Property: We would like to know if there is a process that developers must follow when
they come into an area to purchase land for a project. We were never actually approached to buy our land
and when we did have it listed with a local realtor, he always suggested our land had little value. The County
didn't seem to think so, as assessments reflected a totally different picture. Can a realtor be working for the
developer and for the landowner at the same time?
Trespassing; My wife and I have never given permission for anyone to walk on our land and yet it has been
designated as a wetland full of cypress hedge and other undesirable vegetation. If that is the case, why are we
not provided drawings indicating the make-up of the land? Why aren't our assessments lowered to reflect the
land value the developer has determined? The State we come from trespassing is an egregious occurrence and
damages and fines are substantial.
Landlocking of Six Parcels: As you are aware, approval of this project as drawn would deny access to our
land. This is unacceptable to us and all of the landlocked landowners. All of these parcels represent a good
portion of our estates or retirement investments.
In conclusion, we have been treated unfairly in every preliminary aspect of this project. Whether not having
the same information as the developer to negotiate the sale of the land to not being part of the process to
determine the layout of the project. We live in Delasol and the community owns all our preserves.
Of course we cannot support the efforts ofthis developer, The attitudes of their Company representatives
reinforced they are going to have little respect for the owners of these properties who have been paying taxes
in some cases, for years to Collier County. We have to rely on you and the County Commissioners to do the
right thing and demand they respect our property rights or include our land in their proposal.
Raymond W. Martyniuk Margaret Martyniuk
~"'~'------'--'- --...-- ._-- -- --
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 91 of 132
Frederick J. Pergjini
60 Hillside Road
Greenwich, CT 06830
Tel:203-869-5986
September 5,2007
VIA Ceritfied Mail
Melissa Zone
Zoning and Land Development Review
Collier County Community Development
and Environmental Services Division
2800 N. Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
Re: Brandon RPUD & Della Rosa RPUD Interconnections and Access
to Land Locked Parcel
Dear Ms. Zone:
I, Frederick J. Pergjini, owner of2.5 acre parcel ofland located east of
Livingston Road and south of Veterans Memorial Boulevard in Collier
County, Florida identified by Folio Number 00140760007 and Strap
Number 482513027.0003A13 (the "Property") The Following is the
ownership of the surrounding properties:
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008 ,
Page 92 of 132
Property Owner Property Information
North Vladimir & Kattely Mathieu Folio Number 00150600004
Strap Number 482513048.0003A13
South Eastbourne Bonita LLC Brandon RPUD (Proposed)
Application Number: PUDZ 2006-AR 10171
Project Number 2006040008
East EastBourne Bonita LLC Brandon RPUD (Proposed)
West North Naples Fire Control District Folio Number 00149880000
Strap Number 482513030.0003A13
My property, together with several surrounding parcels has no legal means
of access, however interconnections and shared access points are
requirements of the Collier County Gwwth Management Plan and the
Collier County Land Development Code. I would like to turn to Collier
County Staffto assist me in identifying potential access points since neither
of these projects have gone before the Planning Commission for
recommendation and in addition please be aware that at the present time I
am under litigation with Eastbourne Bonita LLC also known as the
applicant of Brandon RPUD project for a "Breach of Contract".
I have received a copy of a proposal by Sarah E. Spector an attorney of the
firm Henderson/Franklin dated on August 29, 2007 representing Vladimir
and Kattely Mathiew, owners of2.5 acre parcel ofland identified by Folio
Number 00150600004 and Strap Number 482513048.0003A13 which is one
of the surrounding properties next to my property. Sarah E. Spector at the
suggestion of Mr. Nick Casalanguida Director of Collier County
TranspOltation Planning that Ms. Spector contact Patrick White, an attorney
with Porter, Wright, Morris and Arthur, LLP representing the applicant of
Brandon RPUD project also known as EastBourne Bonita LLC that I am at
the present under litigation for a "Breach of Contract". (Please see Exhibit
E-mail)
On the proposal that Ms. Spector submitted for filing of the record with the
Zoning and Land Development Review dated on August 29, 2007 and with
'".-..,-,-_..,.~-'".". W"~_ ,- ,...---'"'- ---',---
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26,2008
Page 93 of 132,
exhibit at the suggestion of Patrick White the attorney representing
EastBourne Bonita LLC for Brandon Project that I am at the present under
litigation for "Breach of Contract" favors "Option One" from" two possible
options" from traveling south over my property of2.5 acres (Frederick J.
Pergjini) to a point just east of Livingston Road. This option "Option One"
is unacceptable to me Frederick J. Pergjini because it favors the interests
and the agenda of Mr. White's client Eastbourne Bonita that I am
under litigation with for a" Breach of Contract" . There are so many
options available for access that EastBourne Bonita LLC with its 5 I acres of
the Brandon project RPUD will have to provide to surrounding land
locked parcel owners which are the requirements of Collier County Growth
Management Plan. (Please. see Exhibit Proposal of Ms. Spector)
On April 16, 2007 Sarah Specter the attorney for Mr.and Mrs. Mathiew
e-mailed and asked Mr. Casa1anguida, Director of Collier County
Transportation Planning Development how her client can gain access by the
most direct route possible and be certain is legal. ( See e-mail Exhibit)
On April 17, 2007 Ms. Jeanne Marcella provided the responses from Mr.
Nick Casalanguida to the attorney Ms. Spector with the following responses
(Please, see e-mail Exhibit) that County Transportation Planning
development can and would strictly enforce the access class of the road,
obtaining easement from North Naples fire Control, obtaining easement
from Veterans Memorial Boulevard which can be used for access if able to
obtain easement. By the way County Transportation would encourage Mr.
and Mrs. Mathiew client of Ms. Spector to take access off of Veterans
Memorial Boulevard which it is County row and would maintain it after the
warranty period by the developer. (see e-mail Exhibit)
Other options traveling west over the property of Mr. Mathew, or east, or
north are more favorable. There are many options with surrounding
property owners and there are many more options available based on the
final plan approvals for both the Della Rosa RPUD and the Brandon RPUD.
As such I believed "Option One" proposed by Mr. White which serves
the interests and agenda of his client Eastbourne Bonita LLC that I am
under litigation to Ms. Spector for her client is not a viable alternative
with all future possible options mentioned above.
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 94 of 132
As such, I ask that you place this letter as a formal request to inquire that
Collier County DOT is going to require interconnections with those other
land -locked parcels from Eastbourne Bonita LLC, the applicant on the
Legacy RPUD and Della Rosa RPUD :
I ask that this letter be entered into the record for both Brandon RPUD and
DellaRosa RPUD.
1 . Require the developers of the proposed Legacy RPUD to provide
access through the rezoning process.
Please, I would like that you provide me with a copy of the staff reports
prior to Planning commission meetings for both projects of Della Rosa
RPUD and Brandon RPUD.
-
Sincerely
Frederick J. Pergjini
CC: Nick Casalanguida (via U.S. mail)
Sarah Spector Esq. (via U.S. mail)
Patrick G. White, Esq. (via U.S. mail)
John Podczerwinsky (via U.S. mail)
.. .."~- -_..-- ."'- ..---.-....--- ...
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26,2008
Page 95 of 132
Ms Melissa Zone September 26, 2007
Principal Planner
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review A 12 C !::'-
2800 North Horseshoe Drive {J~ t.::/I/I2D
Naples, Florida 34104 e..[ - , ,
;ZON! " /001
~~~ ~,
rMtNr
The purpose of this letter is a follow up to our phone conversation earlier this week on
our opposition to the rezoning of the 51.1 acres to the southeast of the intersection of
Livingston Road and Veterans memorial Boulevard iil section 13, Township 48 South,'
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. This development would totally land lock our
2 Y, acre parcel which has a legal description as follows: 13 48 25 NW1/4 ofNEII4 of
SEII4 ofNEII4 2.5 AC OR 1317 PG 1410, It is our understanding that five other
property owners will also be land locked.
Last year we paid taxes of $2984.36. This year our taxes will be $4,872.10 with the
proposed budget change or $5,017 without a budget change. Ifwe are left with a land
locked parcel, the justification of retaining this land becomes questionable. Having been
one of the initial investors in this property nearly fifty years ago, we would be most
disappointed if this conflict wasn't resolved to be mutually beneficial to all concerned
parties.
Our request is that the developer reach out to those of us on the peripheral edge and
include us in their development. We know that economics come into play in any
development, but the place for fairness and doing the right thing is never out of vogue.
This approach would also eliminate a future development which may not fit as well into
the community,
Your support will be much appreciated. Should this mediation require a trip to Collier
County to help resolve this issue, we will make ourselves available.
S~, "-
.e:~/~ ~ /!
Mr. And Ms. Richard Govig
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 96 of 132
SIX LANDLOCKED LANDOWNERS
Proposed Brandon RPUD
PI# 00149120003 PI#00149040002
Robert & Barbara Chervenak J an F orszpaniak
2923 Birchwood Street 430 Cove Tower Drive-Apt 803
Trenton, MI48183-3681 Naples, FL 341 10-6089
(sister has interest-Constance M. Butler)
PI#OO 150720007 PI#00150240008
Haleakala Capital Partners Ltd Richard & Jeanette Govig
Mark Nichols 8475 E. San Marino Drive
2335 Tamiami Trail N - Suite #402 Scottsdale, AZ 85258-2446
Naples, FL 34103-4458
PI#OO 14844000 I PI#OOl48360000
Amalia Harazian Mohammed & Fahmida Rahman
8348 Salem Lane 13056 Valewood Drive
- Dearborn Heights, MI 4127 Naples, FL 34119-8577
(sister has interest-Nargeze Sarkissian)
(sister has interest-Margaret Martyniuk)
__^_..M_..__~'~_____^. ..'-~_.~ ------
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 97 of 132
lR~w.1
<@tM
J l---T-------- ~=------------- .
-----
~~ -
--- -- IUmR 1 l) 'lP- 000
i : R ~lIIftD
I j _ __ :
I " "...,.;..::.-~~,....:~. I ,0' T'tllE -",'
I .....:.ioi.l-..'f... 1
, I ..;,~!!~~~.;:.~~ IlIlFFER ,
I I ~'~'I ~II
I t II
, ,
r R:
: ,ltesl !
I ,"""f.;f.?;, '-~-l( ,
>," "~"'>,-' I I
~ ;gi~;~ 1"\'
\ ::.~~:~:'~:;.-:f'~ \ 'I'
" ",'h..," I: 1
\ .........0Al.,~ ~"
TlU!ATNENT 1 Ffl'L. I ~
. ""'""". 1'1 =
( , I, 1, I (DRij
\ %t. PR.O?,0, S, '~, r tb \
te6-ite-~ i
" -":':..\:'" ~VD \: 'I'
\ ,~"
, "\:,'\; Q) , :-"r~
''',~ , I..~I, ,-.J I
'::.-~"'''- " v'-9':"'Jl'~1Jlnr: ""C'/ )
~~ ~ ",'''',,-,i<"~'~'fu~~,(:ill {"-"<iCY /
l ~:''''>~~:::<Ll'li/!!ilq ",W'iN[[ii);1 .///
- \YObb$'eOl ~~~r~""-"'::",- F-..:;!T",i
" ---.:::::.>. ""'~- '" " ~~ I
--....."'" ;'~~", ",..
-~... ._..~~~f~~-<'~.'~...--.............._-
1 ____>lOf'Et< ~1..AtmlW!: IANlHISI'!fQ;V ~_
'" '
>< I,..__-.......'o~....... =,w.fI;l ~= =CI'li ~ --
; :::~e::-=='::!:: -... IUlAOt.."".....,. m -'"'"--
I __~<r.._. ~ .....1lQl .lMI.oIUoo --
II! =l~..~=~ ~~~ ~-= ~... , -~- --
!. -----....--- , ' .--- ----~- ---
. - -.-...-..--. lO'U,I.lll!Ti.DIaI..aI: 11,10,... ..0,...... , tI --
fi-~- -,"'" ,,' -,.,.........-
, 1___"__"'- ;tlI~.IAC..U!lIMTllI'8llACRli' ~t-+ UICI _....~
. " --
..-...---....-
-.-..---
I ==::::::::.:::::.-:::
NOTE:. PReSERVE-ACREAGES ARE APPROXlMA.'IE AND SU8J6CTTO FINAl PLATTING.
~1.'''fA"l..C. Ill] iN~~;)N ~=~ B~p~
cotLlEIl.COUNTY,Ft.. . . 7:.~~
ENGINEE'RING ,&:et'....,... ..."', .
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 98 of 132
To: Ms Melissa Zone
Principal Planner
Deparlment of Zoning and Land Development Review
2800 Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida, 34104
Enclosed please find petitions regarding Brandon RPUD Master Plan application from
The Links Homeowners Association in The Strand.
Daniel Ghareeb
President, The Links Homeowners Association
RECEIVED
DEe 1 7 2007
ZONING DEPARTMENT
- '--..-.--.-.-. _..,----_.,.._<._~~...__..__.
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 99 of 132
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light property,
and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County officers and
employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required as
a condition of County approvals,
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATURES: /~ /./ ~
fJ~~ j), ~
t01/~~ C4
~/;)r ~I/o
.,
.
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 100 of 132
--"
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area. in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
~~~
,--..-.--.--.,--, -- ----.-- ._--,-~~ -.-....-..-.-.-
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 101 of 132
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATURES: A-/V'ArV7 (f},... 1"'- Jvn:.1 iJ ~ ,
<
1J71/14Z'~,.I7
r,Oq,),. f-~w~ &.~.
,..., , ...'. -..' ,- .~ ,. -..... ..."" "
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26,2008
Page 102 of 132
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated; September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATURES: r C/rI/JCe
'vale---
-".-.-.._.- __.,_._--..-.,,_.._.~'.~'.._~,_.__.__m ,-,...,._.~---_.- , -, -,._~
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 103 of 132
PETITION
We the wldersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intmsive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
N'lples, Florida
SIGNATURES:
~'i_D:7' 'th, dJk/~d1 ~
J dit M. Kleinman - 6035 Fairway Court
f~~l,{:/t- '-- J2.
Robert J. Kleinman, Jr. - 6035 Fairway Court
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 104 of 132
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Flodda Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
p~~~ JOOS; ~RtJ~ ~. NfdflLl5j A- ;;Lf-I/O
1d?S" ~RcJ c.:r NMI,;';; FL JI./-Ild
.- --"~"."-----""'-'-"- -~.. -_.-. ,'----,'-.', ----..--
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 105 of 132
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of V eteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: Septernber,2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATURES:
..--/6~ --.!!. ~Mflo. J
~o~:L /:L~~'
~ .....--..--...d
-.:;<;."'" /J ./>//l',;;r /k/V.() /Z' /::?
:;~~:~~/A.;t/;;:
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26,2008
Page 106 of 132
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single fumily house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in cormection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
Weare not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATURES~~;& . t'od:;,3,! 1 (lr- )r.~~
/J( A./, 'f-. ~ ~
.....
.~"._--,-,- -".- -..--..-.<> ,..------- ..'--
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 107 of 132
PETmON
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
Weare not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals,
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
-."
SIGNA "-
:5 0/;.
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 108 of 132
,-
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial.Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposeddeli'elopment to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, butonly seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNA~~ ~.1 "
<./ .
B~tkp 1:( 9fn0StVJh
-
.-.->., -""._~.~".__..., ,',-~-,-_..
Aqenda Item No, 88
'February 26, 2008
Page 109 of 132
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNA~ ~ 1: ~ cG
_ '{/ 72-
/?Ill, ~a//'c.v'e?t/ C.f-.
Agenda Item No, 88
February 26, 2008
Page 110 of 132
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single filmiI.y house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side ofthe Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
,./ C. ~luu
SIGNATURES: Cl>-U..)'2.~ Cl...AA..Q.~
? p/? /,4,1(( I....J 11->' CoLJ,t,
7/76 L/IoIK.s AT -t;./I.p ~.e~rtll\
.._-".... .,,'-. ---.--.. ..~,-~-~.~" - ..._-_......__..,,,~.. --,_._,------'_.,...
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 111 of 132
PETmON
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light property,
and south of Veteran' s Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County officers and
employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landSGllpe buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live,
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required as
a condition of County approvals,
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, FIOlida
SIGNATURES: Maurice G, Levine & Marcia D, Levine
r
~
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 112 of 132
--
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATURES: v';/~ .
:if tptJ{) 1- ,Ahd~ ~
______~""_..._m -- ~,. -~. --"".....-- __"_____0_ ----
aJroN ~
roOC'?
,O~ Q ~
ON- \j
Z ,0 ~
"' 0>_ "-
EN~ CQ) ~ ~
Q) >-~ "i:: :: ""
===cum ~O ~
"'::1m _u
'O~ro Em ~ '"
c"'o.. ~ ~ l\:::
Q) Q) "':; C "-
rnLL Q)- .9 " ....
<{ E'" '" 0 c:,; "-
0Q) .J.. Q) U " '"
....
.c::" 3~ '0 ~ '"
CT
...-Q) EQ) 'lo
",- Q)!= c '-..j
->, ,Q
0.0 .c::.c:: '" ~~
Q) - 0 "C ~ JI"j:
~_ Q)'- C ('l ~
._ CD ~.r:.
~..c:c m~ 8 ~
-0 E
E-o,., ,S '" ~
~ffig ~ m gj ~
Q):m& 5iffi ~ /
WOn:J E<b .~ "'-
sEe ~~ ~ "
s:,Q)J!l .Q; Q)
:2E a.. G>'- a...
~tn '- ij) ~ ~
E~c:JB "'O.!Y .-
.!~fd ~u ~
.!!~:a (I)~ ~ \
~ CU 0 8..-,= -g
->::> eO", '
(f)-a. c: - ~ 1"--
z '" 0 It: 0.._ Q) Ill'
Q .,,~ C ~ -g ~ p ~
f-coo....co.J:: " .
i= 2!w"g '00 0 ~
.... .-.... >-
~ w-gl!! Q)a; 0> " ' c.
nnH ~ ~~ ~
en a..:5 Q) p! >- -
-"'e'- Q)O -
.S o.!= :; E 15 .~
-J .... 8 CD"O .....
.,~,., C C E C\ ~
~:::;g .2'" - . ~
_ r::: co (/) C ""'::
o~c u,~ Q,) ,,)
$ lii 8 g'= E
c:~c :O::O:E 0. ~
0)0-- CO) ..Q
:gQ. , .!!l-- ., ~
(/) f/) o..(/) > t
Q)R:SG> t-..... Q)
~:g ~ 0 5 ~ ~ \~
c:..Q.Q Q:)C .c:
ELL- 0. It:: 0 - .... ~
-o~~ E,~ ~ g~ ~
CD_'C Q)W C N
c: 0 c: a.::J:.c ~ '
O>Q)'" ~.P 0 Q) '"
._ c Q) .c
~:2~ 0)'- 15' E to ..
cDU)<D "OUJ "0 (j)
"'0_0 CU> 0 j!!"l::W
cf1HE ~~ o. 0.. 0 0:
='mo <<Sct) c:~ t8 LL ::l
~C1l~ ~g' ~~ .. gf !;(
-.s:J -:;:0 me ~ - z
~ c 0 0-= (l) c.. ....... 0.. 0
o () ~ E s g- ~ ~ Ci5 ..~'
....
~
"
....
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 114of132
-
PETITION
.
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live,
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
~~ NJ><IlI.es )';L J 4-11 0
' '~ ~,t)O~ ~~~\AM~ 0 II II
.. ...._..__.-~-,. ~--,._.~. ------ -....~~. -_._---,.~
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26,2008
Page 115 of 132
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals,
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
.,-,---. .....~.---- .'.-.._-_.. ... .- ._-.,.__._._._.._--~..--._.__._--_.._-".' .~-_. ..--..-
SIGNATURES:
-~~q-
__n.. _.__m 'H_"'"
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 116 of 132
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the eastside of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
,
-'-"--~-~.'" ..-.- -~- " .""--~~.'-" .-
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 117 of 132
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007 () c.ftp hu...-I ) 'Z-o o<i-.
Naples, Florida
4fl\ltRES ~y,.~- b"~5 Pfh~~ C -t:. rM.. oU.'JV w -
4.c f1o.L- Et-I/AY..L-
R....... -lv&~~eb.
~ 0 "4- F1l1'J<-"-'7 c.'C.
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 118 of 1 32
-,
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
~
SIGN~~;;~
"---- -----".. ~."---_._. '
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26,2008
Page 119 of 132
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live,
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATURES:
~~~~I~ ----...
Agenda Item No, 88
February 26, 2008
Page 120 of 132
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the, east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
Weare not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
-.'-""--,.- '.'-"-~"." ..."'..._---....-~.," ,--
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26,2008
Page 121 of 132
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings alongtl1e east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
Sl~RES/~g~~ ~ '7/ ~~-;.". C!T
/r 4 #',
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 122 of 132
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in co~on with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildillgs less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
c.-r.
, (
t:!:D
,- -,,---,--_...- -- ,_._~,.-..-_--~,~- h""""""'__ "-"..~'--"- ---"~----~.
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 123 of 132
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live,
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATURES:
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26,2008
Page 124 of 132
,~
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
chanacter with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
~~
.--,-_.-., -" ~~-- --"._-_.-- -..--
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 125 of 132
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATURES:
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 126 of 132
-
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house community
of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light property, and south of
Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County officers and employees, in
connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side ofthe proposed development to make
the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in character with
the area in which we live.
Weare not obj ecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required as a
condition of County approvals.
Dated; September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATURES:
W~~~ ~o ')9 ~1 ~<fJ\t t. "'r
~~ ~~ ( (
r
.._-~._._-- -"..., -~."...- -~-"--'- ---.-
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 127 of 132
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNATURES: ~ , g;~ Yr[~oto
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 128 of 132
-
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
~~
..'
... -_...._.,~ _.~_..
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26,2008
Page 129 of 132
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the proposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live,
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals,
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIGNA1URES:
{;er~7:1
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 130 of 132
-
PETITION
We the tmdersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of thepmposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live,
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals,
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
SIG~, ~
?;, ;;~;.: ~
. _.~--~-" ,-, "-----------
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26,2008
, Page 131 of 132
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the propQSed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
"
Agenda Item No, 8B
February 26, 2008
Page 132 of 132
-
PETITION
We the undersigned being residents of The Links At the Strand, a single family house
community of 54 homes bordering on the east side of the Florida Power & Light
property, and south of Veteran's Memorial Blvd, hereby request that Collier County
officers and employees, in connection with the Brandon RPUD Master Plan application,
require a landscape buffer or plantings along the east side of the pmposed development to
make the multi-story buildings less intrusive on our sight lines and more aesthetic and in
character with the area in which we live.
We are not objecting to the development, but only seeking to have landscaping required
as a condition of County approvals.
Dated: September, 2007
Naples, Florida
:J (l / PJ /1 07 ., b c) j)-- ,c()...iY()Jw (. { IV u.;t /U
~ f::> d- Of - 600~ f0~
-,
~._.~
...~._.-.~,--_.- '. ,'<'" - ~- '~----"'--'-' """.~_.-'- -..----.-.-