Loading...
HEX Final Decision 2024-34 HEX NO. 2024-34 AMENDED HEARING EXAMINER DECISION' DATE OF HEARING. INSTR 6573922 OR 6382 PG 3236 RECORDED 7/23/2024 12:23 PM PAGES 13 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND COMPTROLLER June 13, 2024 COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REC$112.00 PETITION. PDI-PL20230016103-Hacienda Lakes-Request for an insubstantial change to the Hacienda Lakes Mixed Use Planned Unit Development(RPUD), Ordinance No. 11-41, as amended, to decrease the minimum floor area size from 750 square feet to 650 square feet for multi-family dwelling units; and to remove the temporary 3:n�L 300 peak hour trip cap at the connection to Collier Boulevard by adding the following sentence to Transportation Commitment IV, "Upon the commitment of construction of Benfield Road [now known as Hacienda Blvd] for connectivity inn the north area, this restriction shall no longer be in effect." The subject±20-acre parcel is part of the±2,262-acre PUD; and sits on the east side of Collier Boulevard approximately 2,500 feet north of Hacienda Lakes Parkway in Section 14,Township 50 South, Range 26 East in unincorporated Collier County. GENERAL PURPOSE FOR THE PETITION. The petitioner asks for a minor change(PDI)to Ordinance No.2011-41,as amended,the Hacienda Lakes Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to reduce the minimum floor area requirement from 750 square feet to 650 square feet for multi-family residences and to adjust the wording of Transportation Commitment IV to eliminate the 3:00 P.M. 300 peak hour traffic restriction over the bridge link to the North Area from Collier Boulevard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Approval with conditions. FINDINGS. 1. The Hearing Examiner has jurisdiction over this Petitioner pursuant to Sec. 2-87 of the Collier County of Ordinances, Sec. 8.10.00 of the Land Development Code, and Chapter 9 of the County Administrative Code. 2. The public hearing for this Petition was properly noticed and conducted in accordance with all County and state requirements. 1 Amending&replacing HEX Decision 2024-34 to correct scrivener's error in Petition regarding 300 peak hour traffic restriction. Page 1 of 6 3. The public hearing was conducted electronically and in-person in accordance with Emergency/Executive Order 2020-04. 4. The Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) took place at Shepards of the Glades Church at 6020 Rattlesnake Hammock Road on May 21, 2024 at 5:30 p.m.,run by RVI Planning and Landscape Architecture. About ten people came to the NIM in person and another three joined on Zoom. They asked and answered questions about the density (unchanged), the apartment prices,and the nearby development. They also asked why the bridge's trip cap was being lifted and if Seven Shores would be done before Hacienda Blvd. The meeting ended before 6:00 P.M. 5. The public hearing was conducted in the following manner: the County Staff presented the Petition followed by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative,public comment and then rebuttal by the Petitioner and/or Petitioner's representative. There were no objections at the public hearing. 6. The MPUD has had five minor amendments (HEX 14-18, HEX 14-28, HEX 15-06, HEX 16- 20, and HEX 21-33), including allowing additional signage, reduced front yard setbacks for secondary front yards, and affordable senior housing. 7. The County's Land Development Code Sections 10.02.13.E.1. and 10.02.13.E.2 lists the criteria for an insubstantial change to an approved PUD ordinance. The Hearing Examiner acting in the capacity of the Planning Commission shall make findings as to the original application with the criteria in Land Development Code Sections 10.02.13.E.1. and 10.02.13.E.2.2 LDC Section 10.02.13.E.1 Criteria: 1. Is there a proposed change in the boundary of the Planned Unit Development(PUD)? The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there is no proposed change in the boundary of the PUD. 2. Is there a proposed increase in the total number of dwelling units or intensity of land use or height of buildings within the development? The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there is no proposed increase in dwelling units, land use, or height of buildings. 3. Is there a proposed decrease in preservation, conservation, recreation, or open space areas within the development in excess of five (5) percent of the total acreage previously designated as such, or five (5) acres in area? 2 The Hearing Examiner's findings are italicized. Page 2 of 6 The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there is no proposed decrease in these areas. 4. Is there a proposed increase in the size of areas used for non-residential uses, to include institutional, commercial, and industrial land uses (excluding preservation, conservation, or open space), or a proposed relocation of nonresidential land uses? The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there is no proposed increase in size of non-residential use areas and no relocation of non-residential areas. 5. Is there a substantial increase in the impacts of the development which may include, but are not limited to increases in traffic generation; changes in traffic circulation; or impacts on other public facilities? The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that there are no substantial impacts resulting from this amendment. 6. Will the change result in land use activities that generate a higher level of vehicular traffic based upon the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers? The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that any additional traffic generated from this amendment will be di minimus. 7. Will the change result in a requirement for increased stormwater retention, or otherwise increase stormwater discharge? The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the proposed changes will not impact or increase stormwater retention or increase stormwater discharge. 8. Will the proposed change bring about a relationship to an abutting land use that would be incompatible with an adjacent land use? The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects there will be no incompatible relationships with abutting land uses. 9. Are there any modifications to the PUD Master Plan or PUD document or amendment to a PUD ordinance which is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Element or other elements of the Growth Management Plan or which modification would increase the density of intensity of the permitted land uses? The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that no, County Comprehensive Planning staff determined that Ord. 11-41 was consistent with the Future Page 3 of 6 Land Use Element(FLUE) of the GMP. There will be no change in the density or intensity of development and no change in the list of permitted uses. 10. The proposed change is to a PUD district designated as a development of regional impact (DRI)and approved pursuant to F.S. § 380.06,where such change requires a determination and public hearing by Collier County pursuant to F.S. § 380.06(19). Any change that meets the criterion of F.S. §380.06(19)(e)2, and any changes to a DRI/PUD master plan that clearly do not create a substantial deviation shall be reviewed and approved by Collier County under this LDC section 10.02.13. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the question is not applicable as the petition itself does not raise the level of a regional impact. 11. Any modification in the PUD master plan or PUD document or amendment to a PUD ordinance which impact(s) any consideration deemed to be a substantial modification as described under this LDC section 10.02.13. The record evidence and testimony_from the public hearing reflects that no, this petition is for an insubstantial change to the Hacienda Lakes MPUD and seeks to decrease the minimum floor area requirement for multi family dwellings and to clam that Transportation Commitment IV is temporary and can be removed once the commitment is made to construct Hacienda Boulevard for connectivity in the North Area of the PUD. LDC Sec. 10.02.13.E.2 Criterion: Insubstantial change determination. An insubstantial change includes any change that is not considered a substantial or minor change. An insubstantial change to an approved PUD ordinance shall be based upon an evaluation of LDC subsection 10.02.13 E.1. The record evidence and testimony from the public hearing reflects that the petitioner is proposing to reduce the minimum floor area requirements for multi family dwellings from 750 to 650 square feet and to claribi that a developer commitment is, in fact, temporary. As such, it is an insubstantial change and successfully meets the criteria of LDC 10.02.13 E.1. Comprehensive Planning: Because this application is not adding uses or increasing the intensity of the previously approved uses in the Hammock Park MPUD, it is consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element: Environmental staff has evaluated the proposed changes to the PUD documents and found no issue with consistency. Page 4 of 6 Transportation Element: County Transportation Planning staff has evaluated the proposed changes. The changes present no transportation related issue with consistency. There is an internal road that links the northern and southern portions of the PUD, as well as additional access points on Collier Boulevard, which render the secondary, 300 PM peak hour trip cap to Collier Boulevard no longer necessary. There are no additional uses proposed, no changes that result in additional trip impacts, and no additional impacts on the adjacent roadways. Therefore, Transportation Planning staff finds the petition consistent with the GMP and recommends approval of the request. DEVIATION DISCUSSION. The petitioner is not seeking any deviations. ANALYSIS. Based on a review of the record including the Petition, application, exhibits, the County's staff report, and hearing comments and testimony from the Petitioner and/or the Petitioner's representative(s), County staff and any given by the public,the Hearing Examiner finds that there is enough competent, substantial evidence as applied to the criteria set forth in Sections 10.02.13.E.1 and 10.02.13.E.2 of the Land Development Code to approve the Petition. DECISION. The Hearing Examiner hereby APPROVES Petition No. PDI-PL20230016103,filed by Josephine Medina of RVI Planning+Landscape Architecture,representing Hacienda Lakes of Naples,LLC, with respect to the property located at the east side of Collier Boulevard, approximately 2,500 feet north of Hacienda Lakes Parkway, the property is in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, in unincorporated Collier County, for the following: • An insubstantial change(PDI)to Ordinance No. 2011-41,as amended,the Hacienda Lakes Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to decrease the minimum floor area size from 750 square feet to 650 square feet for multi-family dwellings and to modify language to Transportation Commitment IV to remove the 3:00 P.M. 300 peak hour trip limitation over the bridge connection to the North Area from Collier Boulevard. Said changes are fully described in the PUD Revised Text attached as Exhibit "A" and the MPUD/DRI Master Plan attached as Exhibit `B", and are subject to the condition(s) set forth below. ATTACHMENTS. Exhibit A—PUD Revised Text Exhibit B—MPUD/DRI Master Plan Page 5of6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION. The subject ±20-acre parcel is part of the +2,262-acre PUD and sits on the east side of Collier Boulevard,approximately 2,500 feet north of Hacienda Lakes Parkway.The property is in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, in unincorporated Collier County. CONDITIONS. • All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. DISCLAIMER. Pursuant to Section 125.022(5)F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. APPEALS. This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered. An appeal of this decision shall be done in accordance with applicable ordinances, codes and law. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. July 12, 2024 Date Andrew Dickman, Esq., AICP Hearing Examiner Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT "A" TABLE I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SINGLE CLUB HOUSE/ ZERO LOT TWO FAMILY/ MULTIFAMILY SETBACK FAMILY LINO DUPLEX TOWNHOUSE DWELLINGSRECREATION DETACUED IIUXIS Principal Structures Minimum Lot Area 4,800 SF 4,000 SF i 3,500 SF per 1,800 SF per lot I acre 10,000 SF Minimum Lot Width 40' 35' 35'per lot 18'per lot or unit 150' N/A i 15'or'A 15'or'A BH, 15'or'BH, 15'or'A BH, 15'or'A BH, 15'or'A BH, Minimum Distance From BH, whichever is whichever is whichever is whichever is whichever is MPUD Boundary** whichever is greater. greater. greater. greater. greater. greater. 20',or 15' 20',or 15' 20',or 15' 20'or'A BH, with side Front Yard Setback load with side with side 20' whichever is N/A garages load garages load garages grcatcr. Side Yard 5' 0'or 10' 0'or 6' 0'or 6' ''A BH N/A 15'or%,BH, Rear Yard 15' 15' 15' 15' whichever is N/A greater From Preserve 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' Maximum Zoned Height 35' 35' 35' 45' 75' 40' Maximum Actual Height 42' 42' 42' 50' RS' 50' Floor Area Minimum(SF) 1200 SF 1000 SF 1000 SF 900 SF 17450 SF I N/A 15'or Minimum Distance Between 12' 10' 12' 12' 'A SBH SBH, Principal Structures whichever is greater Accessory Structures Front SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS Side SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS Rear 5' 5' 5' 5' 5' 10' From Preserve 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' Minimum Distance Between Accessory Structures on 0'or 10' 0'or 10' 0'or 10' 0'or 10' 0'or 10' 0'or 10' same lot , Minimum Distance Between Accessory and Principal 0'or 10' 0'or 10' 0'or 10' 0'or 10' 0'or 10' 0'or 10' Structures on same lot Maximum Zoned Height SPS SPS SPS SPS 35' SPS Maximum Actual Height SPS SPS SPS SPS 35' SPS IS'or%. 15'or''BH 15'or'BH 15'or'A BH 15'or'A BH 15'or''BH Minimum Distance From BH whichever is whichever is whichever is whichever is whichever is MPUD Boundary•• whichever greater greater greater greater greater is greater SPS: Same as Principal Structure LL:Lot Line BOC:Back of Curb Paseo:A pedestrian only access way to and from residences. N/A:Not Applicable BH:Zoned Building Height SBH:Sum of Building Heights **Principal and Accessory Uses shall not protrude or encroach into any required landscape buffer Hacienda Lakes MPUD Words struck thro gh are deleted; PL20230016103 Words underlined are added Last Revised: March 21, 2024 Page 21 of 75 of construction, and shall include the fair market value of the land or easement when the Owner conveys the road right of way to the County, free and clear of liens and encumbrances. Fair market value has been determined to be$30,000 per acre. This improvement and the area allowed to develop upon completion of this improvement are depicted in Figure 3, below. Fifty percent (50%) of the cost of this improvement is deemed a site-related improvement. ilium f-Hulenda lakes DM•Cammltmen$NI - - MUM71{� CaLtlnl tanee/Twn bne, ' _ is lma w N/fernwbeCovtextedthcomuv N O �. d iikd^renl 0ariaai,'Comthmidd ra Author,Segment I.kneW CoetN / E.; Mea Pra o wy O, kped 0 Ana to be Oardimod ICalmat&NOV 7 ' STOP !t k _ `; 'ir i IlatUenaYl H • k.:. u '1l AdMi I ,..Q21:R1 �� A\ Raw.,la ? Ne4Mandal ►odn lip. j i rod A ,:!' \;.•- --I� A Willa rains line Eminent NORTH AREA IV. With no improvement other than a bridge to be constructed by the Owner, at its sole cost and without road impact fee credit, over the water canal that runs parallel to C.R.951 at the northern project site access, the Owner shall be allowed to develop Residential Pod C (not to exceed 300 PM peak hour trips at the connection to C.R.951. Upon the commitment of construction of Bentield Ino known as Hacienda Blvd] for connectivity in the north area, this restriction shall no lon er be in effect . This improvement and the area allowed to develop upon completion of this improvement are depicted in Figure 4, below.At no time will the County accept ownership of this bridge. This improvement is a site related improvement. Hacienda Lakes MPUD Words utruck thfeug'h-are deleted; PL20230016103 Words underlined arc added Last Revised: March 21,2024 Page 58 of 75 EXHIBIT " B " I k IANGUSE SVAIMARY -;JE �1 DE fD ATOR NANO US! ACREAGE �� CONNERG 71.162 ACRES 1 AL 'COMMEACW.WIGS ENCUMBERED sr PUBLIC ROW TRACT"2$IE ACRES G� 'A' ATTRACTION 17.77E ACRES •R' RESIOEMIAL 447Nt ACRES -SP. BUSINESS PARK 35302 ACRES 'P' PRESERVE ISNIIEACRES 'PE' PUSUCEACIUIY Ent ACRES E• P. 14 - 'Kr JUDEARSOR DEARS 71,SL ACRES Y' •C SCHOOL IS Nt ACRES •PIIE • TLSER 'WV REMOENTIATMEOMAL USE MIL ACMES VE 'Rove P1MUS ROW/EASEMENTS TO On ACRES TOTAL 7262.144 ACRES i66 ' DCCWDPLDIOTAL CI MaE TWO ACREAGES EOWIa TK AC[MIT CENIFA ACREAGE CI MO EJRtVOt n[I AGKAOE TWIN TOTAUIM PRORCTMG AI IT II NOMOEO Al The UMiMAMI 61 Y10MTMCT vclYtL.nO T.+EoxRwRw I11 :::: e JEGENDN f .-i- A ATTMCRp11MCi ^ i © �'I i p....4 R \t I R E R • • • c • COYY[RMl Y R U R 1Nlw lwM.o _• • I. ME[[RY[TMCI y 1t 9 •NI KO AI PE • PVEUc7A41TUSWACT RailI IV �.yl R _ PRESERVE 'A '"] •'• man ovun WWW Itrot r M11K E R . .y�.•�. . . ITRACT I : auKKxB . - PAW_ -/'�..yam •\ ./•• _ •- Row • POEM RON/TASENEIRS 4 J _ JRfreV11 C . AEcV_ /i: V DM v1.1 Y (ry jam,.:, ACClaa GSLMEIIn NM PROPOSED OS vaunalCI... 9 1 ` At1RgI.TRI y ' winnow a• .,,mNor VaMt I (((��� ,M:. 4....P6-'-eg...‹7.*\PIIESERVE ( c C NRw �) L R 1 L/ .TRACT•' vnlTiono _ - • -E• ' ---\\\FF}--- rtrs Sri-A=i I. -44-- V tr - az"'�-4 RUCH On•ill IME[11 ifii. 1 MOVIK RMOM oo'Gw N �2 _- - ! �,,• ^� AbtCYMI - - - - yi6MW[�A.A)4WA1[.uw.A N4CKM! { .•yam:,{��y� \,,,,,,..,, '. • MARIr,UII - _ fur '%l ••.. •• - - 1lliClV�.--• i �1 ] HIIY�./YYI 11NM114f �� }f1 — i�REsERVE- —•— — — —•—•—• — �_:- - -TaACL- - - - .. — — .... _ _ _ W1l IN4tND ..... —- — VW Ab.IMM! warencnre yWO V,E l444MV 4E...IIn ,, 4R Aa,./ - - -•-• • e w44a �, - - - - --- --• _ [4M INndmuo.[e NAM ROHM,.,I4.CN[ •-•- - - -- 'A' 41•64YI a:T.CM, w 4owlw MU .0. tI 1 IYIKCs,4e IS I,i.PM •• -•• - - - - - AAOIN,OR2 rNfOIVE 1$4111+CK1 VC..... - _ - _ A4LlltRil UCMAOlO MAIM IKUIf 1APf, e�•• r MEfA,f ZV _ _ __± __ __ _ .•. - - - -• - "rune ,I.QIC ROM GIEW,rI AKI ADM _ - - _-_ .. _.. _ _ -_ - _ _ _ _ A-.. ••.al_•"•• CAIPW _ _ _ _ __ AN4MM! PaSTrw•_ 6 -•IERBlERV!'- -- - - - .• _-- - ,ear,.vel .fx'1. _ _ �( •nit14[1 n MIK e M, RO.141:14 Id4.ne.t.m1YC0.1G -- - - -- yRfir• - - - - -- --- -T �J�CC r 9Q .YOMI.IM a .ge.w[n NGun - - -- - - - - - - - - - - --MO _ _ . xi a3 .Kw r..e, iI 149f11Q1.1.�w.e.,. — — — — — — — —— - - -- - - - - -- - PRESERVE' r A . An4rnO.RAO - - - - - -- - - ------ •. .- - _- _ TRACT . I▪ ' .. r r AN1.MM1 ♦NIKMM! NYC l.arelt4n.e,] YK(.RY(O VCl.601(O P.M• . AMeewnunw .R V"til��T if•Igt f1IK II.74.9 , III. �Wa"�e;:�� . ..I i i I II t. t i ! LI HACIENDA LAKES NATIVE PRESERVE SUAIMARY �I ESCRIITR)N TIITAL IIRRAN A FROIECT AREA (n N1IM7.57 '� 270111 61107 ID127 MAXIMUM DENSITY AND INTENSITY `'' •I1N•SITE NATIVE VEOlTATq}I 1171.71 = 1 11a1111.1111111NATIVE lp4LNNan);MI 1F1)0 1061V RESIDENTIAL DENSITY.TINS MPUD S 702 707 SHAM T UNITED i0 UIIT FEROROS!ESIDENTIAL CITE THE t7 )I 1a11RRNHRi1m AmS I MIaIJeMAiLI 000 UMiS RESIDENTIAL EOWTES TOATHER S OF 071 DN£WNO LIFTS PER S ACRE THE 11 0.11 000 1,760 RESIDENTIAL WINS ARE EITHER SINGLE OR MULTOFAANLY WITS AS DEFINED IN THE \.." f' 4L TNt NA1PX1m Mt11N nnOW WNSUIOmAUooO I I01 101 (DC.NO MORE THAN 1.772 MULTFANLY UNITS MAY DE CONSTRUCTED IN THE ENTIRE PUN usIDONAI M>MONIONIIMMTOLPfAL70NR100 1.iJ CARETAI(ER'S RESIDENCES 511ML BE DEDUCTED FROM THE 1,700 ENT ALLOCATION.A • e07 I C0 1 W MINIMUM OF 25 RESIDENTIAL UNITS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE RAN TRACT.MO A NATIVE v[OC7At@NTRN R/IXIIRFJ.IFNT CALCUUTNNs IN17.NA 2A S7 MINIMUM OFI7 RESIDEJITLAL UMIS SHALL E CONSTRUCTED IN TRACT C.THE BALANCE OF FD THE VTOC TOR IH TEH REMIT/MU NATIVE YRESCRVE IJI1N THE RESIDENTIAL GWELUNO UNITS GENERATED PROS TRACT C(17 WITS)MUST SE 11'• • CONSTRUCTED IT EITHER THE PAW TRACT,OR OH A PORTION OF TRACT R.?ANON • REQUIRED NATIVE VEOlTAT11H •Y1109 7171 •SISJO ONETNIRD OF ONE MITE OF THEBOUIIMgY OFTMCTC �'�PRESERVED NA7N6 VFORATNIN.. 1101.13 AS 01 0MOr1AIM MAmSNOUAYILL_N pOM1NY• ONUI WIC WECONMERS10N FACTORS TII7AI.YMESEHVY.ARM alp RESIDENTIAL DE NSW:1.0 RESIDENTIAL MT EQUATES TO 4 SENOR HOUSING LINTS MOT C/) Nit Tl 17 o/ 170107 TO EXCEED 450 SENORHOUSINO UNITS IN ME ENTIRE POOH UP 101,1520E 711E TOTAL 1,7E0 RESIDENTIAL lAITS MAYBE MATI.FAMRY AS OEFNED Ill THE UIID DEVELOPMENT NATIVE PRESERVE REQUIREMENT ROC SUBSECTION 70502 E 2011JOF 50%LWTMN COMMERCIAL INTENSITY:HACIENDA LAKES IS INTENDED TO BE DEVELOPED TNTH A tV�e�jl THERE/ADO SENDING LANDS EXCEE036oX OF ME TOTAL PROJECT REARM MIXTURE OF GOMMEACLLL LAUD USES THAT INCLUDE 017,500 SQUARE FEET Of OR OS! SENDING LANDS.THEREFORE,OVER EOA Of THE TOTAL PROJECT R1MUD SENDING FLOOR AREA OF AMOR DUES,50603 SOME FEET OF DROSS FLOOR AREA OF MEDICAL 1� •• TAROS SHALL BE THE REQUIRED RUIN.NATIVE VE0ETA710NMEA OFFICE USES,20.001 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF GENERAL OFFICE USES, \Q Z1 ' COMPUMCE VATH LOC SUBSECTIOl110507 H.IA,REQUITES NATIVE VEGETATION 140.000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF SUMNESS PARK LAND USES,AND 135 • PLANTING ENHANCEMENT OFAMINIMUM OF 127/ACpE3 OF THE PROJECTS IMF HOTEL R001.45. • • SUBDISTNCT PRESERVE TRACT.COMPLIANCE\'ATM 100H OF THE NATIVE IN IMP EVENT SHALL INC PROJECT EXCEED 7,171 PM PENT HOUR TRIPS.SUCH FEET ULI OF Q VEGETATION PNEBERVATIONREQUIREMENTSNAILBEACHIEVEDT/DIWGH TARP.LONEGENERATION USES CAP WAS OSS SQUARE• FEET OF MEDICAL OFFICE LAND USES,20600 • • DEFICIENT NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVE ACREAGE IN THE URF SUBDISTRICT GROSS SQUARE FEET OF S LAND .APRIM OFFICE UAO USES,110,06E GROSS SQUARE FEET OF PROJECT LANDS AS IS PROVIDED FOR THROUGH THE AOOPTEDSUPAMEIRIMENT. p�S SSTUDENTSSS K 115 HOTEL•ROOMS,NOT TO EXCEED 10,000001 GROSSESQUARE FFEEET.NM MPUD MASTER PLAN NOTES: SINOLE.FATILY UNITS AND 1050 MULTIFAMLY HARTS.HOWEVER,THE HOTEL SHALL NOT (...)COUNTIATEO MATH THE BusNEES PARK THE OP"RAGTIME BEBE DEVELOPED SIXJARE MOT AD OARSICNESS PARK SLIT SE SEVELOPDAS AS I. WTNN THE MPUD BOUNDARIES THERE KILL BE A MURMUM OF 601l USEABLE FACILITY SIIAILNOTT EXNO CEEDDTHE MAXIMUM COINGY 140.0000RO ST PUSUC SQUARE FEET ALLOW SUCH ED IN WW OPEN SPACE. 7. THE FACILITIES NlDIMPROVENENTU SHOWN ON ME POD MATTER PLAN SHALL THAT TRACT' 7 DE COHSIDEREO CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE. THE DEVELOPER SVIES AT A ONE 10 HALL BE ALLOWED TO COVERT RETM LAND OF DUES TO OFFICE tA1 E 1 THE DESIGN,LOCATION,ANDCONFIGUA MX IIO1 OF THE LAND IMPROVEMENTS, ALLOCATION PROVIDED ONLY IF TIE CONVERTED USE ISM ALLOWED USE INLTHE TRACT. TAKES.ARMOR ENTRY POINTS SHALL SE OEFIHEOAT EITHER SDP OR THE DEVELOPER SHALT OE ALLOWED 70 LWDLLY CONVEX'THE HOTEL DEVELOPMENT OOMSSQUARECONSTflUCTION PLANS ANOPUT APPROVAL SQUAREOPPORTUNITY OF 135 N NOT TO EXCEED 226(10 SQUARE FEET TO 60,000 SE 4. IF THE ROAD EASEMENTS IN THE PETITION PL2 02 10 0 026 6 7 ARE VACATED BY THE FEET OFOUSONEF PA (DLANDUNS 6ES. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,THEN THESE ACCESS CONNECTIONS ARE Al).EXISTING USES AND FACILITIES IN ME ATTRACTION AND AWOL DEPUTY TRACTS ALLO0£0.IF THE PETITION FOR VACATION IS NOT APPROVED.T)IEN THESE SENSENIORLL IIOUSNGOT MAINSTEIT TY.THE INTENSITY IT OF A Y SENIOR W E CM. ACCESS CIT C•2 F IONSME NOT ALLOWED HAVEOA MAXIMUM IFLOORIAREA RAPAITIO MIFMI OF O.A.THE DWELLING HOUSING lAST CAP IS ONLY 6 SEE EXHIBIT C3 FOR NORTH AREA DEVIATION LOCATIONS INTENDED 70 WAIT THE MATTER OF SINGLEFANLY MD MULTIFMIRY RESIDENTIAL UNTO AS 71105E LINTS ARE DEFINED IN 1NE LANOOEVELOPMENT OUCH THE DEVELOPMENT MAY INCLUDE IN EXCESS OF 11E0 RESIDENTIAL LINTS If SOME ARE DEVELOPED AS SENIOR HOUSING LINOS WIN THE EXCEPTION OF SENOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT RI THE C COMMERCIAL TRACT, CONVER SENIO HOUSING UNITS MAUI SE DEVELOPED THROUGH THE h.irm.i....r TIN OF RESIDENTIAL LAND USES.RESIDENTIAL LINTS SHALL SE ALLOWED FOR CONVERSKIN TO SENIOR HOUSING UNITS BASED ON THE LAND USE CONVERSION FACTORS .............- MOVE HOWEVER.1 SINOLEFANILY DWELLING LINT EQUATES TO 1 SINGLE'FAMILY STYLE INDEPENDENT LIVIIIG UNTO.IN NO INSTANCE SHALL GREATER THAN 450 SENIOR HOUSING UNITS BE DEVELOPED Ill THE MPUD. TOTAL PROJECT INTENSTY.IN NO EVENT 9141 TN!PROJECT EXCEED 5,575 PM PENT HOUR TRIPS.