Agenda 07/14/2020 Item # 9B (Ventana Pointe RPUD)07/14/2020
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item requires ex parte disclosure be provided by the Commission members. Should a hearing
be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an
Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated
area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by
changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural
(A) zoning district within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Overlay -Receiving Lands to a
Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as
Ventana Pointe RPUD, to allow construction of up to 77 detached single-family dwelling units on
property located on the south side of Immokalee Road, approximately two miles east of Collier
Boulevard, in Section 25, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 37.62± acres; and by
providing an effective date. [PL20180002669]
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (Board) review staff’s findings and
recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC)
regarding the above referenced petition, render a decision regarding this rezoning petition and ensure the
project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's
interests are maintained.
CONSIDERATIONS: The subject property is located on the south side of Immokalee Road,
approximately two miles east of Collier Boulevard Collier Boulevard, in Section 25, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 37.62+/- acres. The petitioner is requesting that the
Board of County Commissioners consider an application to rezone property from a Rural Agriculture (A)
zoning district within a Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Overlay-Receiving Lands to a Residential
Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district. The subject property is comprised of one parcel
owned by Carole Construction of Naples, Inc. This petition seeks to rezone the property to RPUD to
allow for the development of up to 77 detached single-family residential dwelling units at 2.05 (DU/AC)
for a project to be known as Ventana Pointe RPUD.
FISCAL IMPACT: The PUD Rezone (PUDZ) 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 PUD Rezone is approved, a portion of the land could be developed, and
the new development will result in an impact on Collier County public facilities.
The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 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 (GMP) as needed to
maintain the adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the
requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by
Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with
the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees
collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Please note that
impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning
Commission to analyze this petition.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The subject property is located on the south side of
Immokalee Road, along the west side of Richards Street, and along the north side of Sundance Street,
9.B
Packet Pg. 236
07/14/2020
approximately two miles east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in Section 25, Township 48 South, Range
26 East. This petition requests a rezone from A-RFMUO Receiving Lands, Rural Agricultural zoning
district and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay Receiving Lands, to Residential Planned Unit Development
(RPUD) to allow development of up to 77 single-family dwelling units - or, up to a maximum density of
2.05 dwelling units per acre (DU/A). The Ventana Pointe PUD rezone petition is contingent upon
approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment (GMPA) petition PL20180002668/CP-
2018-7. Based upon the analysis, the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the
GMP, contingent, in part, upon the companion GMP Amendment being adopted and going into effect. The
PUD Ordinance needs to provide for the effective date to be linked to an effective date of the companion
GMP Amendment. (see Attachment B - FLUE Consistency Review)
Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s September 20, 2019,
Trip Generation Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the
Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the then applicable 2018 and the current 2019 Annual Update
and Inventory Reports (AUIR).
Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states;
“The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications,
conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE)
affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with
consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve
any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in
the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the
current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment
that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service
Standard within the five-year AUIR planning period unless specific mitigating stipulations are
also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement
reveals that any of the following occur:
a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to
or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume;
b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or
exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and
c. For all other links, the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is
equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume.
Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and
submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant
impacts on all roadways.”
Staff finding:
According to the TIS provided with this petition, the requested PUDZ rezone proposes a maximum of 77
single-family dwelling units that will generate a projected +/- 79 PM peak hour, two-way trips that will
occur on the following adjacent roadway network.
The trips generated by this development will occur on the following adjacent roadway link:
Roadway Link 2018 2019 Current Peak Hour 2018 2019
9.B
Packet Pg. 237
07/14/2020
AUIR
LOS
AUIR
LOS
Peak Direction Service
Volume/Peak
Direction
Remaining
Capacity
Remaining
Capacity
Immokalee
Road
Collier
Boulevard to
Wilson
Boulevard
D D 3,300/East 681 362
Based on the 2019 AUIR’s, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the
proposed trips for this project within the 5-year planning period. Therefore, the subject rezoning can be
found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff has found this
project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site
consists of 35.47 acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 8.87 (25%) acres of native vegetation shall be
placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County.
GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land-use decisions, such as this
proposed rezoning. Comprehensive zoning staff is not recommending approval of the companion GMP
amendment. Staff’s recommendation for approval is only valid based on PUD consistency and
compatibility criteria if the Board approves the GMP amendment.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC
heard petition PUDZ-PL20180002669 on June 16, 2020, and by a vote of 5 to 0 recommended to forward
this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval with required changes to the PUD. There
are letters of opposition with this petition. As such, this petition will be placed on Regular Agenda.
At the June 16, 2020 CCPC meeting, the applicant has proposed adding new language in Ex hibit A,
Section II, Part II, of the PUD document in regard to sidewalks in the required perimeter landscape
buffers, which staff has accepted. This revision was added to the Ordinance.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is a site-specific rezone to a Residential Planned Unit
Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Ventana Pointe RPUD. The
burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent with all the criteria set forth
below. The burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners, should it consider denying the
rezone to determine that such denial 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 not.
1. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in
relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage,
sewer, water, and other utilities.
2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or
other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to
arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such
areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense? Findings and
recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney.
9.B
Packet Pg. 238
07/14/2020
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 Growth Management Plan?
10. Will the proposed RPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern?
11. 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?
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?
9.B
Packet Pg. 239
07/14/2020
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 facilities and services consistent with the levels of service
adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented
through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch.106, art.II], as
amended.
26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the RPUD rezone request that the
Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health,
safety, and welfare?
The Board 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 Board hearing as these items relate
to these criteria. The proposed Ordinance was prepared by the County Attorney’s Office. This item is
approved as to form and legality, and requires an affirmative vote of four for Board approval (HFAC)
RECOMMENDATION: If the Board approves the companion GMP amendment, then staff concurs
with the recommendation of the CCPC, which is reflected in the attached Ordinance and recommends that
the Board approve the applicant’s request to rezone to the RPUD zoning district.
Prepared by: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Division
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Staff Report Ventana Pointe RPUD (PDF)
2. Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061720 (PDF)
3. Attachment B - FLUE Consistency Review (PDF)
4. Attachment C - Opposition Letters (PDF)
5. [Linked] Attachment D - Application and back up materials (PDF)
6. Attachment E - Waiver Applicant for hybrid quasi-judicial hearing- Ventana Pointe (PDF)
7. Attachment F - Revised Public Hearing Signs (PDF)
8. 11590 & 12022 - legal ad - Ventana Pointe PUDZ & GMPA (PDF)
9.B
Packet Pg. 240
07/14/2020
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 9.B
Doc ID: 11590
Item Summary: This item requires ex parte disclosure be provided by the Commission members.
Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area
of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning
classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district within the
Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Overlay-Receiving Lands to a Residential Planned Unit Development
(RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as Ventana Pointe RPUD, to allow construction of up
to 77 detached single family dwelling units on property located on the south side of Immokalee Road,
approximately two miles east of Collier Boulevard, in Section 25, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,
consisting of 37.62± acres; and by providing an effective date. [PL20180002669] (This is a companion to
Agenda Item #9A)
Meeting Date: 07/14/2020
Prepared by:
Title: – Zoning
Name: Tim Finn
06/17/2020 3:18 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning
Name: Ray Bellows
06/17/2020 3:18 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 06/17/2020 4:16 PM
Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Reviewer Completed 06/22/2020 4:45 PM
Growth Management Department Thaddeus Cohen Department Head Review Completed 06/22/2020 4:47 PM
Growth Management Department James C French Deputy Department Head Review Completed 06/23/2020 4:09 PM
County Attorney's Office Heidi Ashton-Cicko Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 06/24/2020 3:28 PM
Office of Management and Budget Debra Windsor Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 06/25/2020 8:18 AM
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 06/25/2020 9:40 AM
Office of Management and Budget Laura Zautcke Additional Reviewer Completed 06/28/2020 7:34 PM
County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 07/06/2020 9:05 AM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 07/14/2020 9:00 AM
9.B
Packet Pg. 241
TO:
FROM:
HEARING DATE: MARCH 5,2020
SUBJECT:
t C-oUnw
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COT]NTY PLANNING COMMISSION
ZONING DIVISION _ ZONING SERVICES SECTION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
PUDZ-PL2O 1 80002669; VENTANA POINTE
COMPANION ITEM : PL20 1 80002668 I CP -20 I 8 -7
Owner:
Carole Construction of Naples, Inc.
1100 Cypress Woods Drive
Naples, FL 34103
Contract Purchaser: Agent
RJH, II, LLC
7466 NW 5l't Way
Coconut Creek, FL 34073
Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP,
Vice-President
Hole Montes, Inc.
950 Encore Way
Naples, FL 34110
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an
application to rezone property from a Rural Agriculture (A) zoning district within a Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District Overlay-Receiving Lands to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD)
zoning district. The subject property is comprised of one parcel owned by Carole Construction of
Naples, Inc.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, approximately two miles
east of Collier Boulevard Collier Boulevard, in Section 25, Township 48 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida, consisting of 37 .62+l- acres (see location map on page 2).
PURPOSE/D ON OF PROJECT:
This petition seeks to rezone the property to RPUD to allow for the development of up to 77
detached single-family residential dwelling units at 2.05 (DU/AC) for a project to be known as
Ventana Pointe RPUD.
PUDZ-PL2O180002669 Ventana Pointe RPUD
Revised: February 26, 2020
Page 1 of 15
9.B.a
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Staff Report Ventana Pointe RPUD (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
o-(E
o)
.cEoN
ZoEE!,C'o-!
t'I
!
ll
t
li
I'
I'
t
I
i;
lr
I
I
I O)(o(o
c{ooo
@
oNJ(L
Lo
-o
E
=zc
.o
-_o(L
=
o_(I,
c
.o
(5ooJ
t2irourE
Eg
- -!repd!-.-
Ili\t:r\ llD
0'i6T)
1ltt
,al
(;{!nn
)t
a
(l.{tlt
\)(i {|fi irfl r rr!.rrll
Il-a
ol
ct
Page 2 oI 15PUDZ-PL201 80002669 Ventana Pointe RPUD
Revised: February 26, 2020
tr
I
ta
t\\
l9.B.aPacket Pg. 243Attachment: Staff Report Ventana Pointe RPUD (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
This section of the staff report identifies the land uses, zoning classifications, and maximum
approved densities for properties surrounding boundaries of Ventana Pointe RPUD:
North:Immokalee Road, a six-lane arterial roadway, and then developed residential,
with a current zoning designation of Heritage Bay PUD (1.30 DU/AC), which
is approved for single-family attached and multi-family residential units and
commercial development
East:Richards Street, a local road, and then sparsely developed with single family
residential, with a curent zoning designation of Rural Agriculture Mobile
Home Overlay within a Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Overlay-Receiving
Lands
South:Sundance Street, a local road, then undeveloped land with a current zoning
designation of a Rural Agriculture (A) zoning district within a Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District Overlay-Receiving Lands
West:Sparsely developed with single family residential with a current zoning
designation of a Rural Agriculture (A) zoning district within a Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District Overlay-Receiving Lands
PUDZ-PL20180002669 Ventana Pointe RPUD
Revised: February 26, 2020
Aerial (County GIS)
Page 3 of 15
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
HTIIIiAO' BAY
/
a.
'1, -. ,
9.B.a
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Staff Report Ventana Pointe RPUD (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is located on the south side of
Immokalee Road, along the west side of Richards Street, and along the north side of Sundance
Street, approximately two miles east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in Section25, Township 48
South, Range 26 East. This petition requests a tezone from A-RFMUO Receiving Lands, Rural
Agricultural zoning district and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay Receiving Lands, to Residential
Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to allow development of up to 77 single-family dwelling units
- or, up to a maximum density of 2.05 dwelling units per acre (DU/A). The Ventana Pointe PUD
rezone petition is contingent upon approval of the companion GroMh Management Plan
amendment (GMPA) petition PL201800026681CP-2018-7. Based upon the analysis, the proposed
PUD may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP, contingent, in part, upon the
companion GMP Amendment being adopted and going into effect. The PUD Ordinance needs to
provide for the effective date to be linked to an effective date of the companion GMPAmendment.
(see Attachment B - FLUE Consistency Review)
Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's September 20,
2019 Trip Generation Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation
Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the then applicable 2018 and the current
20i9 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR).
Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states;
"The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications,
conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element
(FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development,
with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall
not approve any petttion or application that would directly access a deficient roadway
segment as identffied in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that
is deficient as identified in the curuent AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway
segment or adjacent roadway segment that is curuently operating and/or is projected to
operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning
period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application
has significant impacts if the trffic impact statement reveals that any of the following
occur;
a. For linl<s (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project trffic is
equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume;
b. For linlrs adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project trffic is equal
to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and
c. For all other linlcs the project trffic is considered to be significant up to the point where
it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume.
Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon o mitigation plan prepared by the applicant
and submitted as part of the trffic impact statement that addresses the project's
significant impacts on all roadways. "
PUDZ-PL20180002669 Ventana Pointe RPUD
Revised: February 26, 2020
Page 4 of 15
9.B.a
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Staff Report Ventana Pointe RPUD (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
Staff finding:
According to the TIS provided with this petition, the requestedPUDZ rezone proposes a maximum
of 77 single-family dwelling units that will generate a projected +l- 79 PM peak hour, two-way
trips that will occur on the following adjacent roadway network.
The trips generated by this development will occur on the following adjacent roadway link
Based on the 2019 AUIR's, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate
the proposed trips for this project within the 5-year plaruring period. Therefore, the subject
rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth
Management Plan.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff has
found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element
(CCME). The project site consists of 35.47 acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 8.87 (25%)
acres of native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County.
GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions, such as
this proposed rezoning. Staff finds the proposed rezone to be consistent with the GMP subject to
the approval of the companion amendment to the GMP, PL20180002668/CP-2018-7.
Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria
upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code
(LDC) Section 10.02.13.8.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as
the "PUD Findings"), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission
Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's
recommendation. The CCPC uses the aforementioned criteria as the basis for their
recommendation to the Board, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning
or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the
heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers analyses in the below sections.
Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition to address
environmental concems. The property is located within Rural Fringe Mixed Use (RFMU) Overlay
PUDZ-PL20180002669 Ventana Pointe RPUD
Revised. February 26, 2020
Roadway Link 201 8
AI]IR
LOS
2019
AUIR
LOS
Current Peak Hour
Peak Direction
Service
Volume/Peak
Direction
2018
Remaining
Capacity
20t9
Remaining
Capacity
Immokalee
Road
Collier
Boulevard
to Wilson
Boulevard
D D 3,3O0/East 681 362
Page 5 of 15
STAFF ANALYSIS:
9.B.a
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Staff Report Ventana Pointe RPUD (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
Receiving Lands. The minimum PUD preserve requirement is 8.87 acres (25Yo of 35.47 acres);
the applicant has provided 9.63 acres of preservation onsite. No listed animal species were
observed on the property; however, the property has suitable habitat for various listed species. A
potential nesting site for Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) was observed in the
north-central portion of the site. Prior to the site clearing stage of the proposed development,
additional observations for Big Cypress Fox Squirrel nests will be needed. The proposed project
is located within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) consultation area for Bonneted Bat
(Eumops /loridanus). Three cavity trees where observed onsite with the potential to contain
Bonneted Bat; however, no evidence was found indicating the trees were being utilized. The
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) wildlife data indicates the presence
of Black Bear (Ursus americanusJloridanr.rs) in the area. A black bear management plan will need
to be included at PPL or SDP review. The subject property is located within core foraging ranges
for three Wood stork colonies (Mycteria americana). Consultation with FWS may be needed to
mitigate for impacts proposed onsite. The Environmental Data indicates the subject property falls
within FWS Secondary Florida Panther Habitat (Felis concolor coryi). There were no observations
of panther onsite; however, consultation with FWS will be required to obtain panther mitigation.
Additionally, Twisted Air Plant (Tillandsia /lexuosa) and Stiff-leafed wild-pine (Tillandsia
fasciculata), listed as a less rare plants, have been observed on the property and will be protected
in accordance with LDC 3.04.03.
Transoortation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance
with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval.
Utilities Review: The project lies within the regional potable water service area and the north
wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD). Water and
wastewater services are readily available via connections to existing infrastructure within adjacent
righfof-way, and sufficient water and wastewater treatment capacities are available. The
developer has committed to providing 8" water main stub-outs at the eastern and westem limits of
the southernmost intemal road right-of-way for future water distribution system connections.
Emergency Management Review Emergency Management staff has reviewed the petition for
compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this project.
Landscape Review: There are no deviations related to landscape. The buffers along Immokalee
Road, Richards Street, and Sundance Street are labeled 25' wide, which is 5' wider than the LDC
requirement. The buffer along the West is labeled 25', which is 15'wider than the LDC
requirement.
Parl<s and Recreation Review: Parks and Recreation staff has reviewed the petition for compliance
with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this project.
Historic Pre Review Historic Preservation staff has reviewed the petition for compliance
with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this project.
PUDZ-PL20180002669 Ventana Pointe RPUD
Revised: February 26, 2020
Page 6 of 15
A.ffordable Housinq Review: Affordable housing is not proposed for this project.
9.B.a
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Staff Report Ventana Pointe RPUD (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
School District: At this time, there is sufficient capacity within the elementary and middle
conculrency service areas and in an adjacent high school concurrency service area ofthe proposed
development. At the time of SDP or platting, the project will be evaluated for school concurrency.
Zoning Services Review: Staff has evaluated the uses proposed and their intensities, and the
development standards such as building heights, setbacks, and landscape buffers. Staff also
evaluated the building mass, building location and orientation, the amount and type of open space
and its location, and traffic generation/attraction of the proposed uses.
This request is a rezone from A-RFMUO Receiving Lands, Rural Agricultural zoning district and
Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay Receiving Lands, to Residential Planned Unit Development
(RPUD) to allow development of up to 77 single-family dwelling units - or, up to a maximum
density of 2.05 dwelling units per acre (DU/A). The Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay is a
companion GMPA, which will create a site-specific future land use Overlay. The proposed uses
within the Ventana Pointe RPUD will be consistent with the conditions in this Ventana Pointe
Residential Overlay. There are public facilities and services available consistent with the levels of
service adopted in the GMP, and as defined and implemented through, the Collier County
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.
Within the proposed Ventana Pointe RPUD boundaries, the minimum setback from Immokalee
Road is 50 feet. The minimum setbacks from Richards Street, Sundance Street, and westem
perimeter are 25 feet. The actual building heights are not to exceed 42 feet, and the zoned heights
are not to exceed 35 feet. To the north, the maximum building heights for single family homes and
townhomes is 35 feet within the Heritage Bay PUD. To the east, south, and west of the subject
property, the structures all have maximum heights of up to 35 feet. The proposed heights for
Ventana Pointe RPUD have an actual height of 42 feet and a zoned height of 35 feet. The proposed
heights within Ventana Pointe RPUD are compatible with the immediate neighborhoods as the
surrounding properties have a variation of maximum heights at or below the 35-foot zoned
building height threshold. As previously stated, a25-foot wide Type D Buffer is proposed along
Richards St on the east side, Immokalee Rd on the north side, and Sundance Street on the south
side. On the west side of the PUD, a proposed 25-Type A buffer is proposed along a neighboring
preserve. The Master Plan also illustrates a water management area. As such, these landscaping
buffers, preserves, and water management area will provide natural transitions around and within
the RPUD. The development standards will provide adequate setbacks, limitations on height, and
additional buffers to ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses.
PUD FINDINGS:
LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make
findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria in addition to the
findings in LDC Section 10.02.08":
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.
PUDZ-PL20180002669 Ventana Pointe RPUD
Revised: February 26, 2020
1.
Page 7 of 15
9.B.a
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Staff Report Ventana Pointe RPUD (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
)
3.
Water and wastewater transmission mains are readily available along Immokalee Road,
and there are adequate water and wastewater treatment capacities to serve the proposed
PUD. Drainage solutions would be evaluated in connection with SDP/platting and
construction permits.
Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitabilify of any proposed agreements,
contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly
as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing
operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or
maintained at public expense.
Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attomey's
Office, demonstrate unified control of the property.
Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of conformity with the
relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion
of this staff report (or within an accompanying memorandum).
The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may
include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering
and screening requirements.
As described in the Staff Analysis section of this staff report subsection Landscape Review,
staff is of the opinion that the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding
area. The Master Plan proposes the appropriate perimeter landscape buffers.
The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The RPUD is required to provide at least 60% of the gross area for usable open space. No
deviation from the open space requirement is being requested, and compliance would be
demonstrated at the time of SDP or platting.
The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the
Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time
of first development order (SDP or PlaQ, at which time a new TIS will be required to
demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project's
development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations
when development approvals, including but not limited to any plats and or site
development plans, are sought.
4.
5.
6.
PUDZ-PL20180002669 Ventana Pointe RPUD
Revised: February 26, 2020
Page 8 of 15
9.B.a
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Staff Report Ventana Pointe RPUD (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
7
The CCWSD has sufficient treatment capacities for water and wastewater services to the
project. Conveyance capacities must be confirmed at the time of development permit
application.
The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, including readily available County water
and wastewater mains, to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by
the petitioner, and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will continuously be
addressed when development approvals are sought.
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.
Three deviations are proposed in connection with this request to rezone to RPUD. See
deviations section of the staff report beginning on page 12.
Rezone Findings:
LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, "'When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and
recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners. . . shall show
that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the
following when applicable":
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistentwith the goals, objectives, and policies
of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan.
Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP.
2. The existing land use pattern.
The existing land use pattem (of the abutting properties) is described in the Surrounding
Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report. The proposed use would not change the
existing land use patterns of the surrounding properties.
The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
The properties that abut the project on all sides of the subject property are zoned PUD and
Agriculture and allow for residential uses. Therefore, the proposed petition would not
create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
The rectangle-shape boundary of the RPUD logically follows the external boundary of the
parcels assembled for the rezoning.
PUDZ-PL20180002669 Ventana Pointe RPUD
Revised: February 26, 2020
8
3
4
Page 9 of '15
9.B.a
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Staff Report Ventana Pointe RPUD (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
6.
7,
5.Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning
necessary.
The proposed rezone is not necessary but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC
provisions to seek such changes. It should be noted that the proposed uses are not allowed
under the current zoning classification.
Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
The proposed RPUD is not anticipated to adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or
create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of
peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during
construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety.
The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time,
i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation
Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first
development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project's development must comply
with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development
approvals are sought.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
The proposed RPUD request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area;
provided an environmental resource permit that addresses stormwater best management
practices, stormwater pollution prevention, urban stormwater management, on-site
stormwater treatment, and attenuation storage is obtained from the South Florida Water
Management District. County staff will evaluate the project's stormwater management
system, calculations, and design criteria at time of SDP and/or plat review.
Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
It is not anticipated this RPUD would reduce light or air to the adjacent areas.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent
areas.
This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or
external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including
zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination
is driven by market value.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development
PUDZ-PL20180002669 Ventana Pointe RPUD
Revised: February 26, 2020
9.
Page 10 of 15
9.B.a
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Staff Report Ventana Pointe RPUD (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
PUDZ-PL20180002669 Ventana Pointe RPUD
Revised : February 26, 2020
of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
Immokalee Road abuts the project to the north and staff does not anticipate this proposed
RPUD would serve as a deterrent to its improvement and other adjacent properties.
Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare.
Because the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed
amendment, then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when
they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed
change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is
further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans
are in the public interest.
Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
with existing zoning.
The proposed uses and development standards are not permitted, according to the existing
classification.
Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or
the County.
It is staff s opinion the proposed uses and associated development standards and developer
commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the
community.
Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed
use in districts already permitting such use.
The petition was reviewed for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not
specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition.
The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which
would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses
under the proposed zoning classification.
Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require considerable site
alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state,
and local development regulations during the SDP and/or platting processes, and again
later as part of the building permit process.
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 PIan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County
Page 11 of 15
9.B.a
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Staff Report Ventana Pointe RPUD (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended.
The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00
regarding Adequate Public Facilities (APF), and the project will need to be consistent with
all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except
as may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by County staff
responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and
those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted
with the commitments contained in the PUD Document. The concurrency review for APF
is determined at the time of SDP review.
18.Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners
shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
To be determined by the Board during its advertised public hearing.
DEVIATION DISCUSSION:
The petitioner is seeking three deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are
directly extracted from PUD Exhibit E. The petitioner's rationale and staff
analysis/recommendation is outlined below.
Proposed Deviation #1: (Cul-De-Sac)
"Deviation I seeks relief relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J which prohibits dead-end streets
except when designed as a cul-de-sac and limits the length of a cul-de-sac to a maximum of 1,000
feet, to allow for an intemal roadway that culminates in a modified "T" design and which measures
2,425 feet from the entry gate to the modified 66T" cul-de-sac design."
Petitioner's Justification: This deviation has been previously granted. We are proposing an
emergency only egress to Richards Street, which should address any emergency access concerns.
Staff Analysis and Recommendotion: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved. Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation,
finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that
"the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the
community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation
is 'Justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such
regulations."
Ptqposed Deviation #2 (Rieht-of-Way Width)
"Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N Street System Requirements, which
requires a minimum right-of-way width of 60 feet for local roads to allow a width of 50 feet for
private roadways within the Ventana Pointe RPUD." I
PUDZ-PL20180002669 Ventana Pointe RPUD
Revised: February 26, 2020
Page 12 of 15
9.B.a
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Staff Report Ventana Pointe RPUD (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
Petitioner's Justijication: This deviation has been grantedfor many projects where the roads will
remain private. There is adequate width in a 50-foot cross sectionfor a private local road to allowfor
all necessary utilities, sidewalks and so forth. See LDC 60-foot and proposed S}-foot cross section
exhibits as provided in the Deviations/Justification Narrative in Attachment D.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation.' Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved. Zoning staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance
with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived
without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section
10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is'Justified as meeting public
purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations."
Proposed Deviation #3: (Sidewalks)
"Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.012.A.1 which requires sidewalks on both side
of a local street, to instead allow sidewalk on only one side of a local private street where a
development is located on only one side of the local private street."
Petitioner's Justification: This deviation has been previously granted in situations where
development occurs on one side of a local street only. In this RPUD, a portion of the entry road abuts
a preserve. In that location, a sidewalk on one side of the street will sffice.
Stalf Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved. Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation,
finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that
"the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the
community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation
is 'Justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such
regulations."
NEIGHBORIIOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The applicant conducted a NIM on June 12,2019 at the Peace Lutheran Church located at 9850
Immokalee Road. The meeting commenced at approximately 5:30 p.m. and ended at 6:30 p.m.
Bob Mulhere, the agent, conducted the meeting with introductions ofthe consultant team and staff,
and an overview of the proposed RPUD rezoning application, including the requested residential
uses, maximum allowable height, location of preserve areas, and access off Richards Rd. He also
outlined the rezoning process and opportunities to provide input at public hearings. Following the
Consultant's presentation, the meeting was opened to attendees to make comments and ask the
consultant team questions regarding the proposed development. The concerns in regard to traffrc
were access into Richards Rd, traffic onto Richards Rd, and maintenance of Richards Rd, making
a left going west onto Immokalee from Richards Rd, stacking of vehicles on Richards Rd, and
crowding on Richards Rd. Bob Mulhere said he would discuss these issues with County
transportation staff and that they were told by the County that they could not have access from
Immokalee Rd. The residents wanted a wall protecting these residents from the traffic off Richards
Rd. Other concems were water management and flooding, cramming homes in less than 40 acres,
P UDZ-PL2O180002669 Ventana Pointe RPU D
Revised: February 26, 2020
Page 13 of 15
9.B.a
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Staff Report Ventana Pointe RPUD (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
the attendees said they want access from Immokalee Rd and not Richards Rd, impact fees, and
existing berms. A copy of the sign-in sheet and NIM summary arc included in Attachment D.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) REVIEW:
This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did
not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section2-1193 of
the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attomey's Office reviewed this staff report on February 25,2020
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of
approval.
Attachments
A)
B)
c)
D)
Proposed Ordinance
FLUE Consistency Memo
NIM Materials
Appl ication/Backup Material s
PUDZ-PL20180002669 Ventana Pointe RPUD
Revised: February 26, 2020
Page'14 of 15
9.B.a
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Staff Report Ventana Pointe RPUD (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
PREPARED BY:
Zl za 1>-n
TIMOTHY , AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION
REVIEWED BY:
RAYM V. BELLOWS,MANAGER
DIVISION- ZONING SERVICES SECTION
APPROVED BY:
FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
Tentative Board of County Commissioners Hearing Date April14,2020
PUDZ-PL20180002669 Ventana pointe RpUD
Revised: February 19, 2020
2
DATE
DATE
-z.r/aa ,/r, =,DATE
Page 15 of 15
9.B.a
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Staff Report Ventana Pointe RPUD (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
9.B.b
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061720 (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
9.B.b
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061720 (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
9.B.b
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061720 (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
9.B.b
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061720 (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
9.B.b
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061720 (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
9.B.b
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061720 (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
9.B.bPacket Pg. 263Attachment: Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061720 (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
9.B.b
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061720 (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
9.B.b
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061720 (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
9.B.b
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061720 (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
9.B.b
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061720 (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
9.B.b
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061720 (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
9.B.b
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061720 (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
9.B.bPacket Pg. 270Attachment: Attachment A - Revised Proposed Ordinance - 061720 (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
‒ 1 ‒
PL20180002669, Ventana Pointe Residential PUD
Growth Management Department
Zoning Division
C O N S I S T E N C Y R E V I E W M E M O R A N D U M
To: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section
From: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section
Date: January 7, 2020
Subject: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review of Proposed Planned Unit Development Rezone
PETITION NUMBER: PUDZ-PL20180002669 [REV: 2c]
PETITION NAME: Ventana Pointe Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rezone
REQUEST: This petition requests a rezone from A-RFMUO Receiving Lands, Rural Agricultural zoning
district and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay Receiving Lands, to Residential Planned Unit Development
(RPUD) to allow development of up to 77 single-family dwelling units – or, up to a maximum density of
2.05 dwelling units per acre (DU/A).
LOCATION: The subject property is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, along the west side
of Richards Street, and along the north side of Sundance Street, approximately two miles east of Collier
Boulevard (CR 951), in Section 25, Township 48 South, Range 26 East.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The Ventana Pointe PUD rezone petition is contingent
upon approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment (GMPA) petition
PL20180002668/CP-2018-7.
That GMPA will establish the Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay, and was approved on October 22, 2019
for Transmittal by the Board of County Commissioners with the following Subdistrict language (in part),
followed by staff analysis in brackets:
1. Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay
a. The Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay is located on the south side of Immokalee Road,
approximately two (2) miles east of Collier Boulevard (approximately one (1) mile east of
the Urban Boundary) and consists of 37.62± acres. The Overlay is within the Rural Fringe
Mixed Use District (RFMUD) and is designated as Receiving Lands
b. Development within the Overlay shall adhere to applicable RFMUD Receiving Lands
standards and regulations, except where otherwise stated in this Overlay and subject to the
following:
(1) Primary access shall be via Immokalee Road.
(2) Dwelling units shall be limited to single family detached.
9.B.c
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Attachment B - FLUE Consistency Review (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
‒ 2 ‒
PL20180002669, Ventana Pointe Residential PUD
C. The maximum density shall be 77 dwelling units.
D. Density shall be achieved as follows:
(1) Base Density: 0.20 dwelling units per acre*; and
(2) Additional density may be achieved as follows:
a. A density bonus of 0.1 units per gross acre in the Overlay shall be allowed for
preservation of on-site native vegetation exceeding, by at least 10%, the minimum
LDC required native vegetation retention amount. The density bonuses provided for
in LDC Section 2.03.08.A.2.a.(2)(b)ii. shall not be applicable in this Overlay; or
b. Through the redemption of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) as set forth in
LDC Section 2.03.07.D.4.; and,
c. For each full TDR credit redeemed pursuant to Paragraph b. above, one additional
dwelling unit shall be granted if:
i. The purchaser of the TDR credits enters into a contract to purchase TDR credits
from Sending Lands that have not severed TDRs as of the date of the contract and
the owner subsequently severs the TDR credits prior to closing on the sale of the
TDR credits; or
ii. Such TDRs are granted in accordance with LDC Section 2.03.07.D.4.c.ii.a) ‒
Environmental Restoration and Maintenance Bonus credits or from LDC Section
2.03.07.D.4.c.ii.b) ‒ Conveyance Bonus credits.
* Within this Overlay, for the purpose of calculating the final total number of dwelling
units, a fractional unit shall be converted upward if one-half or more of a whole unit, or
downward if less than one-half of a whole unit, to the nearest whole unit value.
E. Perimeter Landscape buffers shall be a minimum of twenty-five feet (25’) in width and shall,
at a minimum, meet the requirements for a Type “B” buffer set forth in LDC Section
4.06.02.C.2.
[These provisions, by Resolution 2019-206, were transmitted to the Florida Department of Economic
Opportunity and the review agencies in accordance with Chapter 163.3184(3), Florida Statutes.
After review of the Transmitted amendment within each reviewing agency’s authorized scope of review,
the DEO [who assigned review no. 19-05ESR], as well as the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP), Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services/Florida Forrest Service,
Florida Department of State/Bureau of Historic Preservation, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), and Southwest Florida Regional
Planning Council (SWFRPC), rendered their comment letters indicating “no comment” or “no adverse
impacts found” or the agency did not respond. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
conducted a planning level analysis and rendered comments within their authorized scope of review,
but did not express any concerns regarding this project.
There have been no revisions from the Subdistrict language transmitted by Resolution 2019-206. The
adoption of companion Growth Management Plan amendment (GMPA) petition PL20180002668/CP-
2018-7 is scheduled for this same hearing.]
9.B.c
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Attachment B - FLUE Consistency Review (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
‒ 3 ‒
PL20180002669, Ventana Pointe Residential PUD
REVIEW OF PUD and PUD-RELATED DOCUMENTS:
Relevant FLUE objectives and policies are stated below, followed by staff remarks.
Future Land Use Element Policy 5.6 requires new developments to be compatible with the
surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff
as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff notes that in reviewing the
appropriateness of the requested uses/intensities on the subject property, the compatibility analysis is
to be comprehensive and include a review of both the subject property and surrounding or nearby
properties with regard to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building
heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural
features, amount and type of open space and location, traffic generation/attraction, etc.
The County recognizes Smart Growth policies and practices in its consideration of future land use
arrangements and choice-making options. FLUE Objective 7 and Policies 7.1 through 7.4 promote Smart
Growth policies for new development and redevelopment projects pertaining to access,
interconnections, open space, and walkable communities. Each policy is followed by preliminary and
partial review staff observations and comments [in bold italicized text].
Objective 7:
Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing
development character of Collier County, where applicable, and as follows:
Policy 7.1:
The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting
collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection
spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [The Ventana Pointe Master Plan (Exhibit C,
updated to 1/3/2020), depicts a subject property that fronts Immokalee Road (classified as a major
arterial road). The subject property comprises a length of Richards Street, which is an unclassified
two-lane undivided (private) roadway. The Master Plan depicts direct connection to Immokalee
Road as its main point of entry, and a second connection to Richards Street with a point of
“stabilized emergency egress only.” No emergency ingress is proposed or depicted.]
Policy 7.2:
The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle
congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [The
Ventana Pointe Master Plan (Exhibit C, updated to 1/3/2020), depicts direct access to Immokalee
Road for the 2,400 ft.-long dead-end street from which all parcels within the project have internal
access.]
Policy 7.3:
All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or
interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use
type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the
Transportation Element. [The property abuts a road on the north, and along roads on the east and
south sides. Opportunities are present to connect the project’s local streets with adjoining
neighborhoods via the local roads along the east and south property lines and to the property to
9.B.c
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Attachment B - FLUE Consistency Review (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
‒ 4 ‒
PL20180002669, Ventana Pointe Residential PUD
the west. The Master Plan depicts no interconnection with adjoining parcels to the west and no
(non-emergency) connection to the two abutting local roads.]
Policy 7.4:
The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of
densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [With respect
to how this development responds to the County’s future plans in providing a walkable
community generally, submittal document RPUD Deviations and Justifications (unlabeled exhibit,
updated to 11/22/2019), propose sidewalks on one side of the 20 ft.-wide local street where
residences are built only on one side. As with prior projects with single -loaded streets, staff has
no objection. It is unclear, however how sidewalks are intended to reach the existing sidewalk
located on the near side of Immokalee Road. No plan depicts or provisions propose how sidewalks
will be provided where residences are built on neither side of the local street.
Submittal documents also propose deviations to allow the 20 ft.-wide dead-end street‒sidewalk
combination to extend more than 2,400 feet – a length inconsistent with the County’s recognized
policies and practices.
With respect to how this development provides a blend of densities and a range of housing prices
and types, submittal documents are provided that allow only one type of dwelling unit and
uniform lot sizes.
With respect to how this development provides common open space, submittal document, Exhibit
C, RPUD Master Plan depicts an “optional amenity area” as common open space in addition to a
preserve area.
With respect to how this development provides civic facilities, submittal document, Exhibit C,
RPUD Master Plan depicts and other materials allow, community amenities and recreational uses
that sometimes function as civic facilities, e.g. polling place.]
Emergency Preparedness:
a) In order to reduce the likelihood of threat to life and property from a tropical storm or hurricane
event, community facilities, schools, or other public buildings shall be designed to serve as storm
shelters if located outside of areas that are likely to be inundated during storm events, as indicated
on the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surge from Hurricane Map for Collier County. Impacts on evacuation
routes, if any, must be considered as well. Applicants for new residential or mixed use developments
proposed for Receiving Lands shall work with the Collier County Emergency Management staff to
develop an Emergency Preparedness Plan to include provisions for storm shelter space, a plan for
emergency evacuation, and other provisions that may be deemed appropriate and necessary to
mitigate against a potential disaster.
b) Applicants for new developments proposed for Receiving Lands shall work with the Florida Forest
Service and the Managers of any adjacent or nearby public lands, to develop a Wildfire Prevention
and Mitigation Plan that will reduce the likelihood of threat to life and property from wildfires. This
plan will address, at a minimum: project structural design; the use of materials and location of
structures so as to reduce wildfire threat; firebreaks and buffers; water features; and, the impacts of
prescribed burning on adjacent or nearby lands.
9.B.c
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Attachment B - FLUE Consistency Review (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
‒ 5 ‒
PL20180002669, Ventana Pointe Residential PUD
The petitioner submitted a Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan, as outlined in “b” above and
incorporated implementing provisions into the PUD Document. These implementing provisions
appear in Exhibit F, Development Commitments, including Exhibit F-1, depicting “Defensible
Areas”.
CONCLUSION:
Based upon the above analysis, this proposed PUDZ may not be deemed consistent with the FLUE.
However, the petition may be deemed consistent if and when the companion GMP amendment petition
(PL20170004419/CP-2018-1) is adopted and goes into effect. The PUD Ordinance needs to provide for
the effective date consistent with the effective date of the companion GMP amendment petition.
Comments:
1. This petition may only be deemed consistent with the FLUE if the companion GMP amendment
petition (PL20180002668/CP-2018-7) is adopted and goes into effect.
2. The PUDZ Ordinance needs to provide for an effective date to be linked to the effective date of the
companion GMP amendment petition.
PETITION ON CITYVIEW
cc: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Zoning Services Section
David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section
G: Comp\Consistency Reviews\2019\PUDZ\
\\bcc.colliergov.net\data\GMD-LDS\CDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviews\2020\PUDZ\PUDZ-PL2018-2669 Ventana Pnte R2c_FNL.docx
9.B.c
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Attachment B - FLUE Consistency Review (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
FinnTimothy
From:
Sent:
€c:
Subject:
SchmidtCorby
Monday, June 17, 2019 10:17 AM
Christina Cook
FinnTimothy; SawyerMichael
RE: Ventana Pointe RPUD
Thank you for your inquiry. The applicant's representatives, Hole Montes will provide us with the audio recordinq of the
Neighborhood lnformation Meeting (NlM) within a short time, along with the list of those addresses where notifications were
sent. The specific requirements for these notifications can be found in the Land Development Code (LDC) available for
viewing online, at the Zoning Services website of Collier County.
The remainder of your concerns have been noted and shared with Mr. Finn, (also in attendance at the NIw) and with Michael
Sawyer, of the County's Transportation Planning Section, who typically reviews these petitions.
239.252.29U
Corby.Schmidt@colliercountyfl.gov
From: Christina Cook <cxcook77@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June L4,2OL9 4:O7 PM
To: SchmidtCorby <Corby.Schmidt@colliercountyf l.gov>
Subiect: Ventana Pointe RPUD
June 14, 2019
Re: Ventana Pointe RPUD (PUDZ-P120170002559)
Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay GMPA
(GMPA-P120180002668 / CP -2Or8-7
HM File No: 2018.53
Dear Corby Schmidt, AICP,
I am writing regarding the above, Ventana Pointe, development. Our neighbor, Colleen Wood, received a letter dated
May 28,2019 from Hole Montes lnc. advising her of a Neighborhood meeting which would be held on June 12,2OLg.
Today, June L4,2019 was the first I heard of this letter or meeting. I checked around with 6 other neighbors today from
Krape Road and none of us received the letter in addition to the 5 on Richard Road that did not receive letters!
Apparently, this was questioned at the meeting and someone stated that the letters "had been mailed". Were these
letters certified? How can they prove they mailed them? When our business must send notices to costumers
we send certified mail to prove they were indeed sent. Shame on Hole Montes lnc. for not showing due diligences in
assuring ALL property owners were properly notified.
To:
When the public hearings are scheduled, neighbors will be mailed notification letters and sign(s) will be posted - after which
time correspondence should be directed to myseli Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples,
34104. All correspondence however, is best handled through email messages directly to the address below. lt is always
recommended that individuals prepare for, and present information under testimony before the Planning Commission and
Board of County Commissioners when hearings take place. Thank you.
Corby Schmidt, AICP
Principal Planner
1
9.B.d
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Attachment C - Opposition Letters (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
The Property Owner of Krape Road will not sit idly by while a corporation attempts to take away our privacy,
rights and safety. Richards, Krape Road and the 2 connecting lanes have been maintained solely by its property owners
for over 30 years. Traffic to exit said roads onto lmmokalee Road is already so treacherous that we called the county
regarding all the "beautification" of the medians and obstructing our view of traffic. I leave with our 2 children EVERY
day at 7:15am and I can tell you that adding even 20 more cars to that morning traffic attempting to turn west bound
will be a catastrophe. ln case you are unaware, between both Richards and Krape Road there are 2 landscaping
businesses, t horse jumping business, and 1 moving company who ALL send large trucks with long trailers out into town
every morning between 5 and 8am. Not to mention all the dump trucks that enter and exit Foggs Nursery a few hundred
feet west of Richards Road off lmmokalee Road.
Please advise as to whom the Krape Road Property Owners, and should it come to it, their attorneys should send
correspondences to in regards to this very important and timely matter. I have
Very truly yours,
Michael and Christina Cook
1820 Krape Road
Naples, FL34720
(239)216-8805
(239)229-6269
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. lf you do not want your e-mail address released in response lo a
public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. lnstead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
2
9.B.d
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Attachment C - Opposition Letters (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
FinnTimothy
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
SchmidtCorby
Friday, June 21, 20191'l:10 AM
BrownCraig
FinnTimothy
FW: VENTANA POINTE DEVELOPMENT
I fowuardthis letter, from a neighbor oblecting to an aciive petition you are likely reviewing, as a reminder. After attending the
neighborhood information meeting I drove the gravel road bordering the property. A bobcat paced the road in front o{ ie
until it crossing onto the property. Neighbors stopped to show me photos of bear, bobcat and panther on or crossing onto the
properiy... and lhaveyetto lookattheenvironmental informationyou'reabouttoscrutinizeand reporton fortheGMPAstaff
reporl.. Just making you aware, as these animals and their habitat were not discussed previously ?nd not highlighted until now.
(fhis CMPA has a compan ion rezoneto prep for too,)
Thanks,
Corby Schmidt, AICP
Principal Planner
From: EDWARD Dl NOVA <jednova @em barqma il.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 5:43 PM
To: McDa nielBill <Bill. McDa niel@colliercountyfl,gov>
Cc: SchmidtCorby <Corby.Sch midt@col liercountyfl.gov>
Subject: Fwd: VENTANA POINTE DEVELOPMENT
From:'Jednova" <jednova@embarqma >
To: "Bill McDaniel" <Bill.McDaniel@colliercountyfl.qov>
Cc: "corbyschmidt" <corbyschmidt@collierqov.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18,2019 9:05:51 PM
Subject: VENTANA POINTE DEVELOPMENT
Dear Sirs,
My name is Ed Dinova collier county resident from early 1970's, so like many have seen great
changes, some good some bad, june 12 the neighborhood info meeting was held for Ventana Pointe
residential community slated to develope approx 40 acres near our small community of private land
owners. The small community consists of handful of residents from Richards street and Krape street
that have lived in peace for many years enjoying our unique area. However change was inevitable,
starting with olde fl golf to south, lamarada to west,
everglades to the south, calusa pines to the south, another 500 acres to the east. I am sure when
you all look at the map you will see the fishbowl that is being created of the lands that we call home.
When the Ventana Pointe development is finished it will sandwich my small 5 acre parcel along with 3
others, so now we are surrounded, the natural water shed/flow has already been altered many years
ago from listed developments, the residents in this area just deal with it. Knowing that this land
developer has the right to develope his land. We all that have made this area our home did so with
1
9.B.d
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Attachment C - Opposition Letters (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. lf you do not want your e-mail address released in response lo a
public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. lnstead, contact this office by telephone or in wriling.
2
the assumption that the 1 dwelling per 5, then the 1 dwelling per 1 would at least keep our area rural
in the midst of the cluster home boom. The Pine Ridge area would be a good example. This
development will open the door to several other small 2040 acre parcels in the area. Without even
GETTING INTO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT, and the affect on our water wells, hurricane shelter
shortages, the impact on the value of parcels, nobody would ever want to buy sandwiched in between
cluster neighborhoods ! and the watershed debate it just makes no sense to permit such a small
development in this area. lt just does not fit the area. I asked a question at the meeting why such a
small cluster community instead of buying at least the rest of adjacent lands, the response was " that
would cost money" , well if finances are a issue maybe they should fold now. There just seams to be
a lack of respect to the existing land owners in not just our area of concern but all over the rural areas
of collier county. Though we can't stop development we can at least let the people trying to manage
the groMh " hey we live here to". . Any questions feel free to contact me. Thanks for your time.
ed dinova
239 566 5184
iednova@embarqmail.com
9.B.d
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Attachment C - Opposition Letters (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
March 1, 2020
Dear collier county commissioners,
Attached is a letter I sent to commissioner Mcdaniel about Ventana Pointe development, advised to
open communication after june 12 neighborhood meeting. lwas able to watch recording of commission
meeting where project was approved, Since then public notice signs where put up and I have received
letters from planner dept. about being heard at public meeting march 5,why the notice? The project
was already approved. Some comment made at last hearing where project was already approved,
commissioner asked is there no public comment? Just in response to that commissioner, from all the
residents of the area is, why bother when the commissioners have already disregarded the
recommendations of its own staff and the staff of planning dept that this project should not be
approved, The public around here feels there is nothin8 but deaf ears when it comes to common sense
about this project. Example, at the last hearing commissioner stated- I GUESS 76 MORE CARS ON
IMMOKALEE ROAD REALLYWILL NOT MATTER- REALLY!, first of all how many households only have one
car. This is really about common sense when lookinB at the growth of this county, and again I will state
that this development does not fit the exiting area, with some common sense changes this whole area
would be a great opportunity to develop at the right time. l, along with most residents in thls area know
we have no voice in the long run but want this commission board to know WE LIVE HERE TOO.
RESPECTIVLY SENT,
COMMENTS/qUESTIONS feel free to contact me at 239 566 5184
ED DINOVA
9.B.d
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Attachment C - Opposition Letters (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
9.B.f
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Attachment E - Waiver Applicant for hybrid quasi-judicial hearing- Ventana Pointe (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
9.B.gPacket Pg. 282Attachment: Attachment F - Revised Public Hearing Signs (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
9.B.g
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Attachment F - Revised Public Hearing Signs (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
9.B.g
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Attachment F - Revised Public Hearing Signs (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
9.B.hPacket Pg. 285Attachment: 11590 & 12022 - legal ad - Ventana Pointe PUDZ & GMPA (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))
9.B.h
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: 11590 & 12022 - legal ad - Ventana Pointe PUDZ & GMPA (11590 : Ventana Pointe (PUDZ))