CCPC Backup 02/04/2010 RCCPC
REGULAR
MEETING
BACKUP
DOCUMENTS
FEBRUARY 4, 2010
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4,
2010, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY
ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION
OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK
ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO
HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA
PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO
THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS
INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE
PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC
WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE
AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED
A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE
MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS 1S
MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON
WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 7,20 10
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS — JANUARY26, 2010
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: BD- PL2009 -1304, Barbara Karen Lehmann, Trustee of the Barbara Karen Lehmann
Declaration of Trust dated August 20, 1997, represented by Jeff Rogers of Turrell, Hall and Associates,
Inc., is requesting a 97 -foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 -foot limit as provided in section
5.03.06 of the LDC to allow a 117 -foot dock facility to accommodate two vessels. Subject property is
located at 27 East Pelican Street, legally described as Lot 31, Isles of Capri No. 1, Section 5, Township 52
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ashley Caserta)
B. Petition: PUDZ- 2007 -AR- 11320, Sembler Familv Partnership 442, represented by Robert Mulhere,
AICP of RWA, Inc. and R. Bruce Anderson, Fs'quire of Roetzel and Andress, requesting a rezoning from
Rural Agriculture (A) zoning to Mixcd -Usc Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to be known as
McMullen MPUD. The 19.32 acres Rural Agricultural zoned site is proposed to permit a mixed -use
development. The rezoning petition allows for a maximum of 185,000 square feet of commercial
development. The subject property is generally located one -half mile cast of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) on
Rattlesnake- Hammock Road Extension, the south one -half of the southeast one - quarter of the southwest
one - quarter of Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator:
Nancy Gundlach, AICP)
C. Petition: PUDZ- A- PL2009 -437, Sarecino, LLC, represented by Dwight Nadeau of RWA, Inc, is
requesting a rezone from Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) for a project that was known as
the Triad RPUD, to RPUD to allow development of a maximum of 40 attached single- family independent
living dwelling units and 100 assisted living facility units, care units or group housing units in a project to
be known as the Sarecino RPUD. The subject 10.751 acre property is located in the northeastern quadrant
of the intersection of Radio Lane and Palm Springs Boulevard in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator Kay Deselem, AICP)
D. Petition: PUDZ- A- PL2009 -734, Radio Lane Development LLC, represented by Dwight Nadeau of
RWA, Inc, is requesting a rezoning from Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to RPUD to
allow development of a maximum of 86 units which could he any combination of single - family attached or
multi - family on 10.75+ acres for a project currently identified as the MAC RPUD that will be known as the
Totino RPUD. The subject property is located on Radio Lane at the northwestern quadrant of the
intersection of Radio Lane and Palm Springs Boulevard in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP)
10. OLD BUSINESS
11. NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
I X21 / 10 CC PC Agenda /Ray Mellows /jmp
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held
by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) at
8:30 A.M., Thursday, February 4, 2010, in the Board of
County Commissioners Meeting Room, 3rd Floor, Ad-
ministration Building, Collier Government Center, 3301
East Tamiami Trail, Naples Florida, to consider:
Petition: BD- PL2009 -1334 Barbara Karen Lehmann,
Trustee of the Barbara Karen Lehmann Declaration
of Trust dated August 20, 1997, represented by Jeff
Rogers of Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc., is request-
ing a 97 -foot boat dock extension over the maximum
20 -foot limit as provided in section 5.03.06 of the LDC
to allow a 117 -foot dock facility to accommodate two
vegsels. Subject property is located at 27 East. Pelican
Street, legally described as Lot 31, Isles of Capri: No. 1,
Section 5, Township 52 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida.
All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard.
Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any
item. Expert witnesses shall be limited to 10 minutes
each. Persons who have been authorized to represent
a group or organization should limit their presentation to
ten minutes. Persons wishing to have written or graphic
materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must
submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the
respective public hearing. Written comments must be
filed with the Department of Zoning and Land Develop-
ment Review prior to February 4, 2010, in order to be
considered at the public hearing: All materials used in
presentation before the CCPC will become a permanent
part of the record and will be available for presentation to
the Board of County Commissioners, If applicable.
ze
I PROJECT
LOCATION
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the
CCPC will need a record of the proceedings pertaining
thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verba-
tim record of the proceedings is made, which includes
all testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to
be based.
Collier County Planning Commission
Collier County, Florida
Mark P. Strain, Chairman
howcase
T
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held
by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) at
8:30 A.M., Thursday, February 4, 2010, in the Board
of County Commissioners Meeting Room, 3rd Floor,
Administration Building, Collier Government Center,
3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples Florida, to consider:
PFsatitl4n: PUp�Al?L2449 -74, Radio Lane Develop-
ment LLC, represented by Dwight Nadeau of RWA,
Inc, is requesting a rezoning from Residential Planned
Unit Development (RPUD) to RPUD to allow develop-
ment of a maximum of 86 units which could be any
combination of single - family attached or multi- family
on 10.751 acres for a project currently identified as the
MAC RPUD that will be known as the Tofino RPUD.
The subject property Is located on Radio Lane at the
northwestern quadrant of the intersection of Ra-
dio Lane and Palm Springs Boulevard in Section 34,
Township 49 South, Range 20 East, Collier County,
Florida.
All interested parties are invited to appear and be
heard. Individual speakers will be Ilmited to 5 min-
utes on any item. Expert witnesses shall be limited to
10 minutes each. Persons who have been authorized
to represent a group or organization should limit their
presentation to ton minutes- Persons wishing to have
written or graphic materials included in the CCPC
agenda packets must submit said material a rninimum
of 10 days prior to the respective public, hearing. Writ-
ten comments must be filed with the Department of
Zoning and Land Development Review prior to Feb-
ruary 4, 2010, in order to be considered at the pub-
lic hearing. All materials used in presentation before
the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record
and will be available for presentation to the Board of
Countv Commissioners, if aoolieable.
i 1
[ N
I
m
-
iowpre
PROJECT
�ioA`iP
° i
LOCATION
1'
�" A
ma wel
wow
PROJECT
?,Sr
C`
HER
o
LOCATION
s
w,o¢, Pono
A2A o
�Q
a®
niit
E ,T•/
u r
�
i
l
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the
CCPC will need a record of the proceedings pertain-
ing thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which
includes all testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based.
Collier County Planning Commission
Collier County, Florida
Mark P. Strain, Chairman
111 4gonent Music ivi l < rr Dance
Fine Dining rtiviti` s Personals
WHERE TO GO, WHAT TO DO
FRIDAYS IN THE DAILY NEWS
napiesnevus.com/news/showcase
. NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held
by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) at
8:30 A.M:. Thursday. February h, 2010, in the Board
of County Commissioners Meeting Room, 3rd Floor,
Administration Building, Collier Government Center,
3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples Florida, to consider:
Petition. PUDZ- A- PL2009 -437, Sarecino, LLC, rep-
resented by Dwight Nadeau of RWA, Inc, is request-
ing a rezone from Residential Planned Unit Develop-
ment (RPUD) for a project that was known as the Triad
RPUD, to RPUD to allow development of a maximum
of 40 attached single - family independent living dwell-
ing units and 100 assisted living facility units, care
units or group housing units in a project to be known
as the Sareicino RPUD. The subject 10.751 acre prop-
erty is located in the northeastern quadrant of the
Intersection of Radio Lane rand Palm Springs Bou-
levard in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida.
All Interested parties are invited to appear and be
heard. Individual speakers will be limited to 5 min-
utes on any item. Expert witnesses shall be limited to
10 minutes each. Persons who have been authorized
to represent a group or organization should limit their
presentation to ten minutes. Persons wishing to have
written or graphic materials included in the CCPC
agenda packets must submit said material a minimum
of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. Writ-
ten comments must be filed with the Department of
Zoning and Land Development Review prior to Feb-
ruary 4, 2010, in order to be considered at the pub-
lic hearing. All materials used in presentation before
the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record
and will be available for presentation to the Board of
County Commissioners, if applicable.
s« t
NAPwN-
m
iowpre
w.
1'
�" A
PROJECT
C`
HER
o
LOCATION
C °F,
w,o¢, Pono
A2A o
i
l
� JP
� —
� z
�dY
1
M[5^tiLE,
11ATL
4
A
Wl,N1PY C
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the
CCPC will need a record of the proceedings pertain-
ing thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which
includes all testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based.
Collier County Planning Commission
Collier County, Florida
Mark P. Strain, Chairman
Basketball E x F'ootbaill M i r- w- Volleyball L:_ crrit :,e
Colff N- kilung ! s r ,a s Bas shall t 1 ac a: T Boxing
1: Rugby r i l i `track and (Field ;v
Sports
Competition. It doesn't got any better. Join us.
EVERY DAY IN THE DAILY NEWS
naplesnews.com/sports
10B • Sunday, January 17, 2010 • Naples Daily News
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held
by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) at
8:30 A.M., Thursday, February 4, 2010, =in the Board of
County Commissioners Meeting Room, 3rd Floor, Ad-
ministration Building, Collier Government Center, 3301
East Tamiami Trail, Naples Florida, to consider:
Petition: PUDZ_2007 -AR- 11320, Sembler Family Part-
nership 442, represented by Robert Mulhere, AICP of
RWA, Inc. and R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire of Roetzel
and Andress, requesting a rezoning from Rural Agricul-
ture (A) zoning to Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development
(MPUD) to be known as McMullen MPUD. The 19.32
acres Rural Agricultural zoned site is proposed to permit
a mixed -use development. The rezoning petition allows
for a maximum of 185,000 square feet of commercial
development. The subject property is generally located
one -half mile east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) on
Rattlesnake- Hammock Road Extension, the south
one -half of the southeast one - quarter of the southwest
one - quarter of Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26
East, Collier County, Florida.
All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard.
Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any
item. Expert witnesses shall be limited to 10 minutes
each. Persons who have been authorized to represent
a group or organization should limit their presentation to
ten minutes. Persons wishing to have written or graphic
materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must
submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the
respective public hearing. Written comments must be
filed with the Department of Zoning and Land Develop-
ment Review prior to February 4, 2010, in order to be
considered at the public hearing. All materials used in
presentation before the CCPC will become a permanent
part of the record and will be available for presentation to
the Board of County Commissioners, if applicable.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the
CCPC will need a record of the proceedings pertaining
thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verba-
tim record of the proceedings is made, which includes
all testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to
be based.
Collier County Planning Commission
Collier County, Florida
Mark P Strain, Chairman
Dennis d'Auvergne, Branch Manager, 2150 Goo-
Realpeople. Real result
IBERIABANK is new to the community, but an established
With 122 years of solid financial performance, our consery
to business has differentiated our Company from most ban
While other banks are promising safety and soundness, out
speaks for itself.
Dennis d'Auvergne is Branch Manager of the Goodlette Ro:
in Naples and has been in the banking industry for over sev
Dennis is just one of the familiar faces you know on the IBI
delivering extraordinary service each and every day.
Drop by to visit with Dennis or to learn more about our Coi
go to www.iberiabank.com.
kph', J cop IPI f(G.� 4%1-' Pio" �Ib y
op, o{ #)e Nap(ps 6ady kawn' s(,'oI jII -7h°)
iiiiii i
w.
PROJECT
LOCATION
xn.
.emn
rux
w -um.
ru
L
vn
^ 32
F
Lta._..�
_...
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the
CCPC will need a record of the proceedings pertaining
thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verba-
tim record of the proceedings is made, which includes
all testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to
be based.
Collier County Planning Commission
Collier County, Florida
Mark P Strain, Chairman
Dennis d'Auvergne, Branch Manager, 2150 Goo-
Realpeople. Real result
IBERIABANK is new to the community, but an established
With 122 years of solid financial performance, our consery
to business has differentiated our Company from most ban
While other banks are promising safety and soundness, out
speaks for itself.
Dennis d'Auvergne is Branch Manager of the Goodlette Ro:
in Naples and has been in the banking industry for over sev
Dennis is just one of the familiar faces you know on the IBI
delivering extraordinary service each and every day.
Drop by to visit with Dennis or to learn more about our Coi
go to www.iberiabank.com.
kph', J cop IPI f(G.� 4%1-' Pio" �Ib y
op, o{ #)e Nap(ps 6ady kawn' s(,'oI jII -7h°)
iiiiii i
AGENDA ITEM 9 -A
Collier County
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2010
SUBJECT: BD PL2009 -1304, LEHMANN DOCK
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owner: Barbara Lehmann
27 East Pelican Street
Naples, Florida 34113
REOUESTED ACTION:
Agent: Jeff Rogers
Turrell, Hall and Associates
3584 Exchange Avenue
Naples, Florida 34104
The petitioner is requesting a 97 -foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted
protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, which will allow
construction of a boat docking facility protruding a total of 117 feet into a waterway that is
520 feet wide to allow construction of a 117 -foot dock facility to accommodate two vessels.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is located at 27 East Pelican Street, legally described as Lot 31, Isles
of Capri No. 1, Section 5, Township 52 South, Range 26 East. Collier County, Florida. (See
location map on the following page)
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The purpose of the project is to remove the existing non - conforming boathouse and dock
facility and construct a new dock facility. The proposed facility will protrude a total of 117
feet from the property line and 89 feet from the MHW line into a waterway 520 feet wide,
and consist of an L- shaped dock leading to two lifts. The existing dock protrudes 96.2 feet
from the MHW line and crosses over the riparian line into the adjacent property's riparian
rights, as shown on the survey submitted by the petitioner.
BD PL2009 -1304 - 1 —
Revision: 1/08/10
R a
" O
R
w
�g x
R x a
rve l
- -" - E
fit w
6 � I
1..L
CCQ
/C
v
Z
Z
O
N
d
Q
z
O
Q
U
O
J
a
0
m
z
0
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
SUBJECT PARCEL: The site is currently developed with a single - family house, zoned
RSF -4
SURROUNDING:
North: Snook Bay, zoned Agricultural with Special Treatment Overlay
East: existing single - family house, zoned RSF -4
South: existing single - family house, zoned RSF -4
West: existing single - family house, zoned RSF -4
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION:
Environmental Services staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting
of this request. Section 5.03.06.E.I I (Manatee Protection) of the Collier County Land
Development Code (LDC) is applicable to all multi -slip docking facilities with 10 or more
BD PL2009 -1304 -3—
Revision: 1/08/10
slips. The proposed facility consists of two boat slips and is therefore not subject to the
provisions of this section.
STAFF COMMENTS:
The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) shall approve, approve with conditions,
or deny, a dock facility extension request based on the following criteria. In order for the
CCPC to approve this request, it must be determined that at least four of the five primary
criteria and four of the six secondary criteria have been met.
Staff has reviewed this petition in accordance with Section 5.03.06 and finds the following:
Primary Criteria
1. Whether the number of dock facilities and /or boat slips proposed is
appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and
zoning of the subject property. Consideration should be made of property on
unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of
transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate;
typical single - family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi - family
use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island
docks, additional slips may be appropriate.)
Criterion met. The proposed facility consists of an L- shaped dock and two boat
slips, which is appropriate in relation to the 60 -foot waterfront length of the property
and single - family home.
2. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the
general length, type and draft as that described in the petitioner's application
is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (MLT). (The petitioner's
application and survey should establish that the water depth is too shallow to
allow launching and mooring of the vessel(s) described without an extension.)
Criterion met. According to the survey submitted by the petitioner, the water depth
at the site is too shallow, without an extension, to accommodate the two vessels
described in the petitioner's application at mean low tide. The surveys submitted
with the petitioner's application shows that water depths at the site are too shallow
to launch a vessel without an extension. Dredging is not appropriate at this site due
to the Special Treatment Overlay.
3. Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on
navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The
facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus
impeding vessel traffic in the channel.)
Criterion met. According to the drawing submitted by the petitioner, the proposed
dock will not have any impact on navigation within any adjacent channel. The
BD PL2009 -1304 -4
Revision: 1/08/10
waterway at this site is 520 feet wide from MHW to MHW, and the dock will
protrude 89 feet from the MHW line. Neighboring existing docks protrude similar
distances and therefore this dock will not protrude into any marked, navigable
channel.
4. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the
width of the waterway, and whether a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway
width between dock facilities on either side is maintained for navigability. (The
facility should maintain the required percentages.)
Criterion met. According to the information provided by the petitioner and as stated
above, the waterway is 520 feet wide at the site as measured from MHW to MHW
on an aerial photograph. The proposed facility will protrude 89 feet from the MHW
line and will occupy about 17 percent of the waterway width, and about 83 percent
of the width will be maintained for navigability.
5. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the
facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility
should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.)
Criterion met. The proposed facility will not interfere with the use of neighboring
docks. Setbacks, as shown on the drawings submitted with the application, meet the
LDC requirement of 15 feet. The proposed facility will encroach a shorter distance
into the water than the existing dock.
Secondary Criteria
1. Whether there are special conditions not involving water depth, related to the
subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and
location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special
condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline
reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.)
Criterion met. The proposed dock was designed to leave the existing mangroves
along the shoreline undisturbed.
2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the
vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of
excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should
not use excessive deck area.)
Criterion met. As shown on the drawings submitted by the petitioner, the deck area
is not excessive. The proposed dock has significantly less deck area than the
existing dock.
BD PL2009 -1304 -5 —
Revision: 1/08/10
3. For single - family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel, or vessels in
combination, described by the petitioner, exceeds 50 percent of the subject
property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage
should be maintained.)
Criterion not met. The subject property contains 60 feet of water - frontage, and the
length of the two vessels in combination as proposed in the application is 50 feet, or
83 percent of the waterfront footage. However, the two vessels would only exceed
50% of the water - frontage if they were moored lengthwise and parallel to the
shoreline. The applicant has designed the dock so the vessels are moored side -by-
side, both parallel to the shoreline, and the impact would be 50% of the water -
frontage when considering the 30 -foot vessel described in the application. It is
staffs opinion that the request meets the intent of this criterion.
4. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront
view of neighboring property owners. (The facility should not have a major
impact on the view of a neighboring property owner.)
Criterion met. The proposed dock will not impact the view of any neighboring
property owners. The existing dock and boathouse will be removed, and the
proposed dock will not protrude as far into the waterway, thus decreasing the impact
on neighboring property owner's views of the water.
5. Whether seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. (If
seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06(1) of the LDC
must be demonstrated.)
Criterion met. According to the application submitted by the petitioner, there is no
known seagrass bed within 200 feet of this facility.
6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection
requirements of subsection 5.03.06(E)(11) of this Code. (If applicable,
compliance with section 5.03.06(E)(11) must be demonstrated.)
Criterion met. As noted above, the proposed facility consists of two slips and is
therefore not subject to the provisions of subsection 5.03.06.E.11. The application
indicates that the facility will be constructed per the manatee construction standards.
Staff analysis indicates that the request meets all of the five primary criteria and five of the
six secondary criteria.
APPEAL OF BOAT DOCK EXTENSION TO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS:
As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the CCPC takes action, an aggrieved
petitioner, or adversely affected property owner, may appeal such final action to the Board
of "Zoning Appeals. Such appeal shall be filed with the Community Development and
BD PL2009 -1304 -6—
Revision: 1 /08/ 10
Environmental Services Administrator within 30 days of the action by the CCPC. In the
event that the petition has been approved by the CCPC, the applicant shall be advised that
he /she proceeds with construction at his /her own risk during this 30 -day period.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for BD- PL2009 -1304 revised on
January 12, 2010 - STW.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above findings, staff recommends that the CCPC approve Petition BD
PL2009 -1304, subject to the following stipulations;
Corresponding permits, or letters of exemption, from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, shall be
provided to Collier County prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Reflectors and house numbers of no less than four inches in height shall be
installed at the outermost end, on both sides of all docks or mooring pilings,
whichever protrudes the furthest into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Completion.
All prohibited exotic species, as such term may now, or hereinafter, be
established in the LDC, shall be removed from the subject property prior to
issuance of the required Certificate of Completion, and the property shall be
maintained free from all prohibited exotic species in perpetuity.
Attachments: A. Resolution
B. Application
BD PL2009 -1304 -7—
Revision: 1/08/10
PREPARED BY:
ASHLEY CASERTA, SENIOR PLANNER DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
NICK CASALANGUIDA, INT STRATOR DATE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE
Petition Number: BD PL2009 -1304
Staff report for the February 4, 2010 Collier County Planning Commission Meeting
BD PL2009 -1304 8 --
Revision: 1/08/10
DATE
RAYMONP V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
LLIAM D. LO NZ J ., P.E., DIRECTOR
DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
NICK CASALANGUIDA, INT STRATOR DATE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE
Petition Number: BD PL2009 -1304
Staff report for the February 4, 2010 Collier County Planning Commission Meeting
BD PL2009 -1304 8 --
Revision: 1/08/10
CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 10-
RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD- PL2009 -1304 FOR AN
EXTENSION OF A BOAT DOCK ON PROPERTY
HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such
business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC)
(Ordinance 04 -41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular
geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat
docks; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has
held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of a 97 -foot extension
over the maximum 20 -foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06 to allow for a 117- foot boat dock
facility in an RSF-4 zone for the property hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and
arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 5.03.06;
and
WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this
Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters
presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of
Collier County, Florida, that:
Petition Number BD- PL2009 -1304, filed on behalf of Barbara Karen Lehmann, as Trustee
of the Barbara Karen Lehmann, Declaration of Trust dated August 20, 1997 by Jeff Rogers of
Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter described as:
BD- PL2009 -1304
REV. 1/12/10 1 of2
Lot 31, Isles of Capri No. 1, as per plat thereof, as recorded in Plat
Book 3, Page 41, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida
be and the same is hereby approved for a 97 -foot extension of a boat dock over the maximum 20-
foot limit to allow for a 117 -foot boat dock facility in the RSF -4 zoning district wherein said
property is located, subject to the following conditions:
1. All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrude the greater into the water regardless of
length, shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the
outermost end on both sides, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion.
2. Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented to Collier County prior to issuance of a
building permit.
3. All prohibited exotic species, as such term may now or hereinafter be established in the
LDC, must be removed from the subject property prior to the issuance of the required Certificate of
Completion and the property must be maintained free from all prohibited exotic species in
perpetuity.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this
Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
Done this ,__ day of 2010.
ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Nick Casalanguida Mark P. Strain, Chairman
Community Development and Environmental
Services Administrator
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
Steven T. Williams
Assistant County Attorneys ,11. 0
CP\09 -CPS- 00995 \9
BD- PL2009 -1304
REV. 1112/10 2 of 2
C u U
D U
NOTICE OF POSTING
Date to Code Enforcement: January 6, 2010
Petition Number: BD- PL2009 -1304
Petition Name: Lehman BD
Petition Planner: Ashley Caserta
General Location: is located at 27 East Pelican Street legally described as Lot 31 Isles of
Capri No. 1, Section 5, Township 52 South Range 26 East Collier County Florida
Sign(s) Received By: DL) `� �9l �U
Code Enforcement Officer: z V- __sC9
Posted Date: I I C�
d
To Be Posted By: January 16, 2010
Return Confirmation To: Heather Ramirez — Planning Technician Ext• 2930
Please provide Zoning with photos of the signs posted on property
Return this form and photos to Heather Ramirez
I -lo-t0
F"
°a
o °
s 9 m
a _ u
m o o n
o ^
ry
u
Q
v
Z
Z
O
N
�l
G
Z
_O
Q
U
O
J
a
0
m
x
z
0
w
a
PRO
rU
�n
' S
rq
m
a ^
c
/
Q
v
Z
Z
O
N
�l
G
Z
_O
Q
U
O
J
a
0
m
x
z
0
w
a
zIH /,m 11 �k�lfilt��
{i
to I
r
IN
,�� ' � 1 1 riv
4 t4 €�, `k I .•.}
Q
�/.. i
11 ( C4 {i
s
yG
�w N tits
'7
t bi w�4..
}
MWv f
e
r
IN
t
4zx • z
r
t bi w�4..
}
MWv f
1 ��
e
r
tiee.
4zx • z
r
�..
-
1
Y
1 ��
e
tiee.
r
F
-
Y
1 ��
N
p A.
; f
-.
'lf) :�XE ►E
S
0 10 20 40
SC;7CE 9N SEE?
PROPOSED LIFT
EXISTING DOCK
30' 2
5' -�
2
i a
J
Z 240'
SLOPED
a
RAMP SLOPES DOWN 1:12 /
TO TERMINAL PLATFORM /
15'
PROPOSED DOCK
(TERMINAL PLATFORM
APPROX. 150 SQ FT)
89'
4'
117'
MANGROVE FRINGE-
APPROX MHW
BOTTOM OF SLOPE J /
TOP OF SLOPE
SITE ADDRESS:
27 WEST PELICAN ST.
NAPLES, FL 34113
IV ff, MOM
/ BOTTOM OF SLOPE /
/"—�TOP OF SLOPE ( /
NOTES:
<> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY
/ AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.
<> ALL DATUM SHOWN HEREON IS REFERENCED TO MLW.
<> APPLICANT OWNS 60 L.F. OF SHORELINE.
<> EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE (TO BE REMOVED)
APPROX 1,353 SQ. FT.
<> PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE APPROX 437 SQ. FT.
<> PROPOSED AREA OF TERMINAL PLATFORM APPROX. 150 SQ FT
<> DOCK DECKING TO BE 5.0' ABOVE MHW.
<> WIDTH OF WATERWAY APPROX 520' (MHW TO MHW)
<> TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM MHWL: 89 FT.
<> TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM PROPERTY LINE: 117 FT.
<> TERMINAL PLATFORM DECKING TO BE 4 FT. ABOVE MHW.
<> TIDAL DATUM: MLW = -0.5' NGVD, MHW = +1.5' NGVD.
<> SURVEY COURTESY OF "COURT GREGORY SURVEYING, INC.'
SURVEY DATED: 04 -07 -05
Tullell Hall &Associates Inc.
Marine & Environmental Consulting
3584ExchangeAve.SuiteB. Naples, FL 34104 -3132
Email: tuna @tucrell- associates.com Phone: (239) 643 -0166 Fax: (239) 643 -6632
L E H M A N N DOCK
PROPOSED DOCK DESIGN
DESIGNED:
T.T.T.
REVISION:
TABNAME:
PROPOSED
BY:
BCB
N/A
SHEET:
2 OF 4
�DFZAWN
EATED:
02 -01 -10
N/A
SCALE:
1'=20-
NO.:
0617
N/A
SECTION- 05 TOWNSHIP- 52 S RANGE-26E
MHW (1.5- NGVD)
O.0' NGVD
MLW ( -0.5 NGVD)
89'= TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM PROPERTY LINE (69' REQUESTED BDE) y-
48.0'
SLOPED
PROPOSED RAILING
(BOTH SIDES)
F1
2
PROPOSED LIFTS I 4.0' I -. --
_ _ PROPOS ED
DOCK
"'M . ru�lrurcm 4.0' '
EIGHT TO BE A MIN
OF 4 0' ABOVE MHW PROPOSED LIFTS
WRAP ALL PILES WITH PVC°;
?�
FROM 0.5' BELOW BOTTOM
�-
TO 1.0' ABOVE MHW
�O, f
Y NOTES:
— THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY
AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.
<> ALL DATUM SHOWN HEREON IS REFERENCED TO MLW.
APPLICANT OWNS 60 L.F. OF SHORELINE.
<> EXISTING OVERWATER STRUCTURE (TO BE REMOVED)
APPROX 1,353 SO. FT.
< PROPOSED OVERWATER STRUCTURE APPROX 437 SQ. FT.
<> PROPOSED AREA OF TERMINAL PLATFORM APPROX. 150 SQ FT
<> DOCK DECKING TO BE 5.0' ABOVE MHW.
<> WIDTH OF WATERWAY APPROX 520' (MHW TO MHW)
<> TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM MHWL: 89 FT.
<> TOTAL PROTRUSION FROM PROPERTY LINE: 117 FT.
<> TERMINAL PLATFORM DECKING TO BE 4 FT. ABOVE MHW.
<> TIDAL DATUM: MLW = -0.5' NGVD, MHW = +1.5' NGVD.
<> SURVEY COURTESY OF "COURT GREGORY SURVEYING, INC.'
SURVEY DATED: 0407 -05
Turrell Hall 0. Associates Inc. DESIGNED: T.T.T. REVISION: TAB NAME: SE;AA
UL1 V111 Hall O(, Associates, lVJ1 ittV L E H M A N N O C K DRAWN BY: BBB N,A I.N..- M61ine & EDV lroll nent8l Consult ng CREATED: 02_u _10 N A NA 3584 Exchange Ave. Suite B. Naples, FL 34104 -3732 SECTION A -A Joe NO.: N17 NtA FJaII: Nae�WB¢�- aS50L'1816.000 Plbu¢: (2i9) G4) -61 GG FBx: (2i9)64.i�i(i32 SECTION -OS TOWNSHIP -52S 28E
AGENDA ITEM 9 -B
CoL[ier County
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2010
RE: PUDZ- 2007 -AR- 11320, MCMULLEN MIXED -USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOP-
MENT(MPUD)
The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) heard the McMullen MPUD petition at its
March 5, 2009 hearing. The petition was granted a continuance so the petitioner could provide
Market Demand Study to address land use consistency with the Future Land Use Element as
noted in the original Staff Report. In addition, the petition was continued because of noise and
sign concerns bought up by representatives from the neighboring Swamp Buggy Grounds. As a
result, the CCPC directed the petitioner to submit a Market Study and to meet with the Swamp
Buggy representatives to resolve the noise and sign concerns.
The petitioner has submitted the attached McMullen MPUD Market Demand Study dated April
16, 2009, and revised September 14, 2009, prepared by Fishkind & Associates, Inc.
Comprehensive Planning Staff has reviewed the document and found that the study
undercounted the existing, vacant office space and potential office space authorized in other
PUDs. However, the petitioner and Staff have decided to "agree to disagree" on the Market
Demand Study data and to proceed to CCPC hearing, where the issue will be vetted.
The petitioner has also communicated with Swamp Buggy representatives regarding the noise
and sign issues. Regarding the noise issue, Swamp Buggy representatives are seeking an
exemption from the noise ordinance. The amendment to the noise ordinance is proposed to be
heard at the February 9, 2010, Board of Collier County Commissioners (BCC) hearing.
Furthermore, prior to entering into a sales contract with potential care unit residents, the
petitioner has also committed to provide a disclosure statement regarding the noise associated
with Swamp Buggy Races. The petitioner has also eliminated the previously proposed 48 multi-
family dwelling units that could have been adversely impacted by noise from the motor sports
within the Swamp Buggy grounds.
In addition, the Swamp Buggy representatives expressed concern about their sign located at the
intersection of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake - Hammock Road. The sign will be impacted
Page 1 of 5
PUDZ- 2007 -AR -11320
January 11, 2010
by the reconstruction of the intersection which is being funded by the adjacent developments,
one of which is the McMullen MPUD. Since the petitioner does not own the land where the sign
is located, they have recommended that the Swamp Buggy representatives contact the property
owner, George Bauer, to address their sign issues.
Around the time of the CCPC hearing date, two other issues arose. One is a concern about storm
water from the proposed McMullen MPUD site. The other is a question as to why the
Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) was not included in the Transportation
Impact Statement (TIS). The storm water issue has been resolved; the existing South Florida
Water Management District (SFWMD) permit mandates that the storm water is contained on -site
prior to discharging to the west of the McMullen site.
Regarding the TCMA issue, Transportation Staff has noted that the McMullen MPUD is not
located on any of the constrained roadways within the TCMA. In addition, the two roadway
segments that would be most impacted by the McMullen MPUD are currently under design or
construction. These roadway segments will have adequate capacity within the five year planning
period. In addition, the petitioner will be providing their fair share contribution towards the
Collier Boulevard/Rattlesnake Hammock intersection improvements and will be donating right -
of -way as well.
As discussed above, the petition has changed slightly since the last CCPC hearing. The multi-
family residential use has been removed and child day care service has been added.
Finally, Staff has also revised the Rezone Findings (Attachment G) and the Future Land Use
Element (FLUE) Consistency Review (Attachment F) to reflect staffs analysis of the Market
Demand Study and the elimination of the residential land use. (See attached).
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
Because it has been one year since the first NIM meeting, the agent/applicant duly noticed and
held another required NIM on December 9, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. at the Edison College auditorium.
In attendance were the applicant's team and county staff. There were no people from the public
present.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the supplemental staff report PUDZ- 2007 -AR- 11320,
revised January 8, 2010.
SUMMARY:
Staff had previously recommended denial of the petition in the original staff report dated March
5, 2009. However. the original Staff recommendations of approval have been addressed in the
Page 2 of 5
PUDZ- 2007 -AR -1 1320
January 22, 2010
revised McMullen PUD, revised January 21, 2010, and the recommendations are subsequently
removed. (The reason for removal is bolded in parenthesis):
1. Amend Exhibit A McMullen MPUD "Permitted and Accessory Uses" to identify support
medical uses (within the '/4 mile distance from the hospital). (Exhibit A has been amended to
identify support and medical uses).
2. Amend Exhibit C McMullen MPUD "Master Plan" to depict and clearly identify (with
striping or cross - hatching) only that area within the Y4 mile distance that is eligible for support
medical uses. (Exhibit C has been amended to depict the area within the '/a mile support
medical uses).
3. The owner, or its successors and assigns, shall construct a berm and sound wall totaling 12 feet
in height along the PUD property boundary adjacent to the Swamp Buggy grounds no later than
when the residential development or care unit development receives its first certificate of
occupancy. (Staff has concluded that disclosure statement regarding the noise associated
with Swamp Buggy Races that will be entered into with the potential care unit residents is
sufficient).
4. In all sales documentation and literature for the sale of any portion of the PUD property, the
owner, or its successors and assigns, shall disclose to potential buyers the location of the Swamp
Buggy grounds. (Staff has concluded that disclosure statement regarding the noise
associated with Swamp Buggy Races that will be entered into with the potential care unit
residents is sufficient).
5. All buildings and structures for residential and care unit development shall be designed and
constructed to be soundproofed with a sound level reduction (SLR) of 35. The soundproofing
may be accomplished by building design, choice of construction materials, and execution of
construction detail in accordance with generally accepted architectural and acoustic standards.
(Staff has concluded that disclosure statement regarding the noise associated with Swamp
Buggy Races that will be entered into with the potential care unit residents is sufficient).
The CCPC also requested that the following revision be made to the Master Plan at its' March 5,
2009 hearing; It has since been superseded by a revision to the Master Plan which removed Tracts
A and B and resulted in a single tract:
6. Vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle interconnection shall be provided between Tracts A and B
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the CCPC forward the McMullen MPUD to the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval.
Page 3 of 5
PUDZ- 2007 -AR -11320
January 22, 2010
PREPARED BY:
u/
NANCY G I)tA H, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
ENGINEE G, VIRONMENTAL,
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND ZONING SERVICES
REVIEWED BY:
'/� Y. _
RAYD ND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL,
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND ZONING SERVICES
LLIAM D. LOKENZ, 6r., P.E., DIRECTOR
ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL,
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING AND ZONING SERVICES
APPROVED BY:
NICK CASALANGUIDA, I ADMINISTRATOR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN, CHAIRMAN
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
Page 4 of 5
PUDZ- 2007 -AR -1 1320
January 22, 2010
I`0-10
DATE
1- 22— 10
DATE
D l - 22- to
DATE
- L)�--16
DATE
DATE
Page 2 of 3
From: ashton_h [ mailto :HeidiAshton @colliergov.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 12:33 PM
To: Podczerwinskylohn; Anderson, Bruce
Cc: GundlachNancy; WilliamsSteven; StrainMark
Subject: McMullen PUD
John and Bruce,
Per my meeting with Mark and staff this morning, the following is proposed language to
replace Commitment A.4 in Exhibit E:
No further development orders shall be issued for this McMullen PUD until the bridge /canal
crossing described in Section 5-51 of Ord 07 -30, Hammock Park Commerce Centre PUD, is
constructed.
Note that at this time, Owner, Sembler Family Partnership #42, Ltd., is also the owner of
adjacent property known as the Hammock Park Commerce Centre PUD.
(Section 5.05.E reads: The developer shall construct, at its sole expense, the canal crossing
suitable for expansion and consistent with a four lane design for the north half of the
Rattlesnake Hammock future extension approach to CR 951. The canal crossing shall include
all appropriate turn lanes.)
Please let me know if you are supportive of this change.
Heidi Ashton -Cicko
Heidi Ashton -Cicko
Assistant County Attorney
Land Use Section Chief
Phone (239) 252 -8400
Fax (239) 252 -6300
J'do, Rocca Law, e -ma➢ addresses are putic ecord, . i( you do nct a ty:ru, s , ad address ' d In respowse to a pub` ,records r,.taesL do 'Mt
.id electronic ms1 to thl e Iry. Intend " rlxah ft ,c >'p telc rkr rie or 'r. wdtino
Any federal tax advice contained herein or in any attachment hereto is not intended to be used, and
cannot be used, to (1) avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) support the
promotion or marketing of any transaction or matter. This legend has been affixed to comply with U.S.
Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.
Please consider the environment before printing this e -mail.
Visit us online at: www.sembler.com
NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachment to this e-mail message contains confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you
are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate this e-mail or any attachments to it. If
2/3/2010
Tfio m 40-cy'S
SEWBUE?_ 0,6wMwIl
S8 S 8 c evvTV -vu- /fvEpv v Ll
ST. 4Z%k4 6�-G� F�a�l Arri
3370 —1
-12-) -381 -�aoo x3o�3
3ENDA ITEM TITLE:
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: hJ
PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PROR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD.
AME: s ADDRESS:
3 PRESENTING: PETITIONER: OTHER:
)LLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE No. 07-24 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
ICLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD)
E BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, 4T" FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING, 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, F
YOU ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR.
AGENDA ITEM 9 -C
CoiLie-r County
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2010
SUBJECT: PUDZ- A- PL2009 -437; SARECINO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (RPUD)
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owner: Sarecino, LLC
c/o WXZ Development
22720 Fairview Dr., # 150
Fairview Park, Ohio 44126
REQUESTED ACTION:
Agent: Dwight Nadeau
RWA, Inc.
6610 Willow Park Dr., Suite 200
Naples, FL 34109
The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a rezone
of the subject site from the Residential Planned Development District (RPUD) to RPUD for a
project that was known in the original PUD rezoning as the Triad RPUD that will now be known
as the Sarecino RPUD.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The 10.75± -acre subject property is located in the northeastern quadrant of the intersection of
Radio Lane and Palm Springs Boulevard in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida. (See location map on following page)
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The Sarecino RPUD proposes to be marketed as a senior living development that would include 40
attached single - family independent living residences, and an Assisted Living Facility (ALF) tract
that would be developed with a 100 -unit ALF in a 72,000 square foot structure. The ALF tract
proposes to utilize a floor area ratio (FAR) of up to 0.60, which relates to a minimum tract size of
approximately 2.76 acres, pursuant to the petitioner's explanation. The ALF Tract proposed in the
RPUD is approximately 2.88 acres. The independent living residences will be designed in the
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -437 Sarecino RPUD Page 1 of 17
Revised 1/15/10
LL
cQc
fG
v
Z
Z
O
N
a
c4
C
Z
_O
Q
U
O
a
N
a
of
a
z
O
F-
w
a�
0
�
r a
8
o
�
�
o
a m
N
LL
fC
l —
cc n
n3
rf
o a
wa
o
u
v
LL
cQc
fG
v
Z
Z
O
N
a
c4
C
Z
_O
Q
U
O
a
N
a
of
a
z
O
F-
w
a�
0
oa
l —
cc n
n3
rf
o a
wa
o
u
If ll1
r
LL
cQc
fG
v
Z
Z
O
N
a
c4
C
Z
_O
Q
U
O
a
N
a
of
a
z
O
F-
w
a�
W" U"M
A o6 -
la i n-i w
"g-4
'hgya Egg,
E5
a, 1 1 F1 F
A
\---------------------- - - - - --
GVAa In - - O- E S�)MdS d
- - - - - �I- - - - - - - - - �J- - - - --- VUV- - - - - - - - - - -
--------------
�G
- ------------
- -----------
•.... ........ ..........
------------
> ---------- ..t- .........................
------------------------
------- -------
: ------ -- --- -- - -
C
N
0
N)
(o c:)
---- --------- --------
- - -----------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
---
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
)
I II
SARECM, LLC
SARECINO
DXX [A
EXHIBITC
RPUD
vuu
CONSULTING OAEl9bl&
V Y.L JL
MASTER PLAN
fashion of a multi - family development that will provide for the opportunity to construct small,
attached single - family land uses with each residential unit being marketed and sold with a platted
lot. The independent living residential units will be attached side by side, and /or back to back in
groups, and arranged in a linear fashion with no more than fourteen units combined into one
structure.
The Master Plan indicates that the ALF tract would be located near the intersection of Barot
Drive and Radio Lane with the other housing types located north of that encircling a recreational
tract (RA). A water retention lake is shown nearest the southwestern property boundary near
Radio Lane and the Palm Springs Boulevard intersection. The preserve Tract (P) is shown along
the northern property boundary adjacent to the existing platted lots of the Palm Springs Village
subdivision. The preserve area is shown in essentially the same configuration as was approved
in Ordinance No. 05 -11 for the Triad PUD.
Single - family structures are proposed to be one story in height not to exceed 24 feet in zoned
height, and not to exceed 30 feet in actual height. The ALF structure is proposed to be two
stories, not to exceed 35 feet zoned height, and not to exceed 40 feet in actual height. Any
clubhouse or recreational structures are limited to a one story height not to exceed 35 feet in
actual height. Any ALF structure would be set back from tract boundaries —front, side and
rear --a minimum of 40 feet. The single family units, as proposed by the petitioner will function
as zero lot line units with a 510 foot setback. Any clubhouse /recreational structures would be
setback 5 feet from any lot line. The exceptions to these setbacks are that all principal structures
would be setback 25 feet from the preserve.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: Palm Springs Village Subdivision, partially developed residential subdivision, with a
zoning designation of RMF -12(7)
East: Saddlebrook Village, a multi - family residential development approved at 12.9 units per
acre, with a zoning designation of PUD ( Saddlebrook Village PUD in Ord. No. 98 -16)
South: Radio Lane, then a convenience store with gas pumps, with a zoning designation of C -3
West: Palm Springs Boulevard, then undeveloped land with a zoning designation of PUD
(MAC RPUD in Ord. No. 05 -50) This parcel is also proposed for rezoning from RPUD
to RPUD [to be known as Tofino RPUD] in Zoning Petition PUDZ- A- PL2009 -734)
Current zoning allows up to 86 multi - family units.
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -437 Sarecino RPUD Page 2 of 17
Revised 1/15/10
AERIAL OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is located within the Urban
designated area (Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) as identified on the
countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the GMP. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict
permits residential uses such as Group Care Facilities, and a variety of non - residential uses.
Furthermore, Policy 5.8 of the FLUE states that Community Facilities and Group Care Facilities
are allowed within the Urban designated area. Within this designation, and in accordance with
the Density Rating System provisions of the FLUE, a base density of four (4) units per acre
(DU /A) is allowed.
The Triad RPUD was approved on February 22, 2005 by Ordinance No. 05 -11, and deemed
consistent with the GMP. It was subsequently amended on May 24, 2005 through Ordinance No.
05 -23 to correct a scrivener's error related to the wording of a development commitment not to
pursue a rental apartment complex. No changes to approved density are proposed and the GMP
has not been revised to affect density calculations used to determine consistency in 2005.
Relevant provisions and policies are stated below (in italics); each policy is followed by staff
analysis (in bold).
Policy 2.2. of the Public School Facilities Element (PSFE): "The County shall consider the
following residential uses exempt from the requirements of school concurrency: "... "C. Any
amendment to any previously approved residential development order that does not increase the
number of dwelling units or change the dwelling unit type (e.g. single-family to multi family). "
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -437 Sarecino RPUD Page 3 of 17
Revised 1/15/10
(The proposed amendment does not change the approved density. However, changes in the
unit type are proposed. Therefore, the proposed PUD amendment is not exempt from the
requirements of school coneurrency.)
FLUE 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
project does not front collector or arterial roads.)
FLUE 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. (Exhibit C, Master Plan on page 2 of 6 of the PUD documents depicts access
to all tracts areas via loop roads, which connect to an access point onto Palm Springs
Boulevard.)
Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets
and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless
of land use type. (Criterion met. Exhibit C, Master Plan on page 2 of 6 of the PUD
documents depicts a pedestrian access point onto Palm Springs Boulevard, which is
depicted to connect to Radio Lane to the south. In addition, Exhibit C depicts a pedestrian
connection to adjoining properties to the east and west of the project site. Interconnection
to the north is not feasible as the property abuts single family lots.)
Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities
with a blend ofdensities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and
types. (Criterion met. The Master Plan depicts a sidewalk system within the proposed
development that interconnects to Palm Springs Boulevard. In addition, sidewalks are
proposed to be built along Palm Springs Boulevard and Radio Lane, which provides
pedestrian connection from the project to adjoining neighborhoods to the east and west of
the project site.)
Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic
Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network will have
sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the five -year planning period upon
provision of mitigation. Therefore, the subject application can be deemed consistent with Policy
5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element: Environmental staff has evaluated the
proposed changes to the PUD documents. No changes are proposed to the preserve selection
from the 2005 rezoning action; that petition was deemed consistent with the applicable
provisions of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the GMP and staff
recommends that this amendment petition be found consistent with the pertinent objectives,
goals and policies of the CCME also.
GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as
this proposed PUD rezone. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of
consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval,
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -437 Sarecino RPUD Page 4 of 17
Revised 1/15/10
approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the
FLUE and FLUM, and any other relevant GMP elements such as the Transportation and
Conservation and Coastal Management Elements is a portion of the overall finding that is
required. In conjunction with the PUD and Rezoning Finding provided later in this report that
address FLUE Policy 5.4, staff believes the petition is consistent with all relevant GMP elements.
Therefore, staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the overall GMP.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria
upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection
10.02.13.13.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD
Findings "), and Subsection 10.03.05.I, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report
(referred to as "Rezone Findings "), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's
recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to
the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its action on
the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the
heading "Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis." In addition, staff offers the
following analyses:
Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
documents to address any environmental concerns. This petition was not required to submit an
updated Environment Impact Statement (EIS) nor was a hearing before the Environmental
Advisory Commission (EAC) required since the previously approved EIS was less than 5 years
old and approved preserves are not proposed to be impacted.
The rezoning action in 2005 addressed environmental requirements triggered by the potential
land uses; no changes are proposed to the Preserve area shown on the Master Plan. The preserve
area from the 2005 rezoning has already been placed in a conservation easement. The petition
includes a commitment to retain that easement as noted below (PUD Exhibit F Environmental
Section):
The developer shall retain the 1.35 acre preserve as recorded in Collier County's Official Records
Book 3996, Pages 3495 -3500.
Stormwater Management Review: Stormwater Management Review Staff (Engineering) has
reviewed this petition and has not voiced any concerns or offered any comments.
Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
document and Master Plan for right -of -way and access issues. Transportation Division staff has
resolved all outstanding transportation issues with the petitioner. Transportation staff's
recommended stipulations are, therefore included in this recommendation. The applicant has
incorporated Transportation Division staffs revisions in the PUD document, and Transportation
Division staff recommends approval subject to the Transportation commitments contained in the
PUD document.
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -437 Sarecino RPUD Page 5 of 17
Revised 1/15/10
The proposed PUD document contains the following transportation commitments
L The developer shall construct a five foot sidewalk on the east side of Palm Springs
Boulevard from the project entrance, south to connect to the existing sidewalk on Radio
Lane at the time offirst SDP or Plat approval.
2. At the time of SDP or Plat approval, the property owner will be responsible for a
Proportionate share contribution to the improvements relating to the increased capacity
created in the MGG -15 drainage Swale.
Utility Review: The Utilities Department has reviewed the application and has noted that the
proposed PUD, according to the current 2008 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Updates, is
within the Collier County Water - Sewer District Service Area. Per County GIS, there are
existing 16 -inch and 12 -inch diameter water mains on Radio Lane. There is an existing 6 -inch
force main on Radio Lane which is connected to an existing 14 -inch force main on Davis
Boulevard. At the time of the SDP, this project is subject to the conditions associated with a
Water and Sewer Availability Letter from the Collier County Public Utilities Division. Water
distribution, sewage collection and transmission facilities to serve the project are to be designed,
constructed, conveyed, owned, and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance
2004 -31 and 2007 -60, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations.
Emergency Management Review Emergency Management staff provided the following
comment: This PUD is located in a CAT 3 hurricane surge zone which requires evacuation
during some hurricane events.
Parks and Recreation The Public Services Division did not voice any concerns or offer any
comments regarding this petition.
Affordable Housing Review The petitioner did not evaluate nor is he proposing mitigation to
offset any housing demands that may be created by the rezone action.
Zoning, Review: Staff has evaluated the uses proposed and their intensities and /or densities; the
development standards such as building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers; building mass;
building location and orientation; the amount and type of open space and its location; and traffic
generation/attraction of the proposed uses. Staff notes that the existing single- family and two -
family development to the north (Palm Springs Village) will be separated from use activity on
this site by the preserve area. The single family independent living units (ILU) would be most
proximate to Palm Springs Village. The proposed 30 foot actual building height for the ILU will
be less than the 50 foot allowed in the RMF -12 zoning district that governs Palm Springs
Village.
The Saddlebrook PUD established the maximum building height for principal structures within
that project at 35 feet, which again, is higher than what is proposed for the subject property. The
petitioner has agreed to place no more than fourteen zero lot line ILU within any one building to
limit the project's massing and scale. The ALF use has been sited furthest from the Palm Springs
Village units.
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -437 Sarecino RPUD Page 6 of 17
Revised 1/15/10
According to LDC Subsection 2.03.06.C.1, the RPUD zoning district is intended "further the
general purpose of a planned unit development district set forth above as it relates to residential
areas. The principal use of any residential planned unit development is for human habitation in
permanent and /or seasonal year -round dwelling units." Supplement this definition from what is
set forth above to reflect "The goal is to relate the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district
and the uses permitted within a PUD to defined zoning districts within this LDC and to establish
appropriate uses and performance standards within this PUD, which are similar to those allowed
by the most similar district(s)." The uses proposed are all either totally residential in nature as in
the ILU, or quasi- commercial residential uses as in the ALF which provides housing, i.e.,
"human habitation in permanent" structures, albeit with additional amenities provided with a
commercial enterprise overseeing the operation. The PUD document (Exhibit B) contains
operational requirements for the group housing units (ALF) that will ensure that the use serves
the needs of those persons over 55.
PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.11.5 states that, "In support of its
recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance
with the following criteria" " (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font):
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to
physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer,
water, and other utilities.
The abutting tracts are developed with residential development. The proposed uses in this
project are compatible with the proposed ILU and ALF use, given the property
development regulations proposed and the massing and siting limitations shown on the
Master Plan. The development is located on Radio Lane, a local roadway, with access to
Radio Road and Davis Boulevard (from Radio Lane), principal arterial roadways. In
addition, the petitioner has committed to several transportation- related improvements, as
previously noted above and incorporated into Exhibit F of the RPUD documents, to ensure
that the project would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding roadway network.
The project would also be required to comply with County regulations regarding drainage,
sewer, water and other utilities. Therefore, the site is suitable for the proposed
development.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may
relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance
of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense.
Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's
Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the developments will be
required to gain platting and /or site development approval. Both processes will ensure
that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and
maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -437 Sarecino RPUD Page 7 of 17
Revised 1/15/10
County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals,
objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based
on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the
overall GMP. It should also be noted that group housing such as the proposed ALF use is
not governed by the Density Rating System of the GMP but by the FAR requirements for
group housing contained in the LDC.
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include
restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening
requirements.
The development standards, landscaping and buffering requirements contained in this
petition are designed to make the proposed uses compatible with the adjacent uses. The
staff analysis contained in other portions of the staff report support a finding that the uses
proposed in this petition will be compatible, both internally and externally. Additionally,
the Development Commitments contained in the PUD document provide additional
guidelines the developer will have to fulfill.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the
LDC.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and,facilities, both public and private.
Currently, 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. In addition, the project's development must
comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development
approvals are sought.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
This PUD amendment will not adversely change the previous BCC findings that the subject
property and surrounding areas can accommodate expansion.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in
the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting
public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.
The petitioner is seeking three deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the
purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06A).
This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and
deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -437 Sarecino RPUD Page 8 of 17
Revised 1/15/10
required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes all the deviations
proposed can be supported, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the
petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements 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 deviations are "justified as meeting public purposes to
a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Please refer to the
Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report for a more extensive examination of the
deviations.
Rezone Findinas: LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1. 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" (Staffs responses to these
criteria are provided in bold font):
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the
Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan.
As noted in the GMP Consistency portion of this report, the proposed development
standards revision would not affect the project's prior consistency finding. The project
remains consistent with the goals and objectives of the FLUE and the applicable portions
other elements. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with
the GMP.
2. The existing land use pattern,
As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and
discussed in the zoning review analysis, the neighborhood's existing land use pattern can
characterized as mixed use residential. There is residential zoning to the north, east and the
west; to the south, across Radio Lane, is a convenience store with gas pumps. The uses
proposed in this petition should not create incompatibility issues.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts;
The proposed PUD rezone would not create an isolated zoning district because the subject
property is already zoned PUD. Additionally the zoning boundary mirrors the existing
property ownership boundary.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions
on the property proposed for change.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed district boundaries arc logically drawn.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning
necessary.
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -437 Sarecino RPUD Page 9 of 17
Revised 1/15/10
The proposed change is not necessary, but the proposed rezoning appears to be
appropriate for this location based upon the site's FLUE designation.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood,
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change, with the commitments made by the
applicant, is consistent with the County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future
Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Therefore, the proposed change should not
adversely impact living conditions in the area.
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create
types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or
projected types of vehicular traffic, 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. This project was evaluated for GMP consistency as shown in that section of this
report. In addition, 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 change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the
LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce
the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Any proposed water management and drainage
system will need to be designed to prevent drainage problems on site and be compatible
with the adjacent water management systems. The PUD document Exhibit F,
Transportation #2, includes the following stipulation to further address drainage:
At the time of SDP or Plat approval, the property owner will be responsible for a
proportionate share contribution to the improvements relating to the increased capacity
created in the MGG -15 drainage swale.
Additionally, the LDC and GMP have other specific regulations in place that will ensure
review for drainage on new developments.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas;
If this petition were approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the
applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. This
project's property development regulations would encourage compact development thus
the developed project should not significantly reduce light and air to adjacent areas; thus
the development proposed, if approved, should not negatively affect light and air
permeation into adjacent areas.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area,
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -437 Sarecino RPUD Page 10 of 17
Revised 1/15/10
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. There is no guarantee that the project will be
marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations;
Properties around this property are already partially developed. The basic premise
underlying all of the development standards in the Land Development Code is that their
sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and /or
subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in
deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed
zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasting with the public welfare;
The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan which is a public
policy statement supporting Zoning actions when they are consistent with said
Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant
of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public
welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with
existing zoning;
The property already has a PUD zoning designation and could be developed within the
parameters of that zoning ordinance; however, the petitioner is seeking this amendment in
compliance with LDC provisions for such amendments. The petition can be evaluated and
action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the
proposed rezone meets the intent of the PUD district and further, believes the public
interest will be maintained.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
County;
As noted previously, the proposed rezone boundary follows the existing PUD zoning and
property ownership boundary. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the
scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban -
designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards
and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the
needs of the community.
15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in
districts already permitting such use.
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -437 Sarecino RPUD Page 11 of 17
Revised 1/15110
There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed;
however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a
zoning petition. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP
and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition.
The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP as discussed in other portions of the staff
report.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would
be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the
proposed zoning classification.
Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site
alteration and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state,
and local development regulations during the site development plan approval process and
again later as part of the building permit process.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and
as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance,
as amended.
The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00
regarding Adequate Public Facilities and the project will need to be consistent with all
applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as it
may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that
is 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.
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board oJ'County Commissioners (BCC)
shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing.
Deviation Discussion The petitioner is seeking three deviations from the requirements of the
LDC. The deviations are listed in PUD Exhibit E with the petitioners' rationale provided to
support each deviation provided in the Narrative & Basis for Approval document that is included
in the application material. Deviations are a normal off shoot of the PUD rezoning process
following the purposed and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC Section 2.03.06
which says in part:
It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity,
innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or redevelopment
of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs .... may
depart from the strict application of setback, height, and minimum lot requirements of
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -437 Sarecino RPUD Page 12 of 17
Revised 1/15/10
conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum standards by which flexibility
maybe accomplished, and while protecting the public interest ....
Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.03.02.A.9., related to alteration of ground where a
fence or wall is to be installed, which prohibits alteration of existing ground levels for the purpose of
increasing the height of a proposed fence or wall, to allow fences or walls to be installed on top of water
management impoundment berms no greater than 18 inches above the crown elevation of the nearest
existing road.
Petitioners' Rationale and Staff Analysis: The petitioner states this deviation is needed because it
will provide for a barrier to separate vehicular movement on Radio Lane and Palm Springs Blvd.
from the proposed water management lake adjacent to those rights -of -way. The petitioner states:
nominal ground alteration in the location of proposed fences and walls provides for an
efficient use of the development land area and is consistent with the 25 -year storm
elevations as permitted by the South Florida Water Management District....
This deviation was approved as part of the 2005 PUD rezoning action; the petition seeks to
perpetuate that approval. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated.
Recommendation. Staff believes the alternative proposed in this deviation will be adequate.
Zoning and Land 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."
Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 6.06.0l.B., related to streets in subdivisions, that
requires subdivisions to have rights -of -way for streets, to allow private streets to be provided in
access easements rather than platted rights -of way.
Petitioners' Rationale and Staff Analysis: The petitioner states this deviation is needed because
Both of the development scenarios are compact in design, and the desire to plat the
individual lots necessitates the use of access easements rather than right -of -way tracts
as is required by LDC. This deviation from LDC requirements is innocuous given that
the internal streets will function more as driveways, similar to condominium projects,
and will be privately maintained by the future homeowners association. The platting
of the lots intended to be sold in a fee simple manner, including the independent senior
living or residential units will provide a greater sense of pride in ownership and will
be consistent, and compatible with the neighboring subdivision to the north.
The deviation is an oft- sought alternative. The LDC Section 6.06.0l.0 allows developers of any
type (zoned) project to seek alternatives pursuant to LDC Section 6.06.01.0 at the time of
platting. Those requests must be accompanied by "documentation and justification for the
alternate section based on sound engineering principals and practices." These alternative designs
are often sought as part of the zoning process so the developer can have some assurances that the
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -437 Sarecino RPUD Page 13 of 17
Revised 1/15/10
proposed Master Concept Plan is viable if the Master Plan siting was calculated using an
alternative design. The PUD deviation process provides a way for the petitioner to acquire that
assurance without being required to submit the alternative design in compliance with LDC
Section 6.06.01.0 later.
Staff concurs with the applicant's assessment of the situation for this particular project. Staff sees
no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated.
Recommendation: Staff believes this deviation can be supported. Zoning and Land
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."
Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.D.3.b that requires 0.75 parking spaces per
assisted living, to allow an alternative parking ratio of 0.5 parking spaces for each assisted living
unit.
Petitioners' Rationale and Staff Analysis: 'fhe petitioner provided a November 23, 2009, letter
from "Senior Living Solutions Group, a purported developer and operator of ALF projects in
several states and multiple locations. The letter indicates that it has been this entity's experience
that a i space for every 2 resident parking space requirement ratio would exceed the demand.
The letter supports that claim noting that "residents almost never have cars, and the average age
upon admission is 86 years and almost 50 percent of residents have some level of dementia."
The petitioner's agent has supplied additional information in support of the 0.5 request (see the
Narrative Statement).
Staff has done some research regarding the ALF parking space requirements in neighboring
communities and has determined that other communities have less stringent parking space
requirements that seem to work. Lee County LDC (Sec. 34 -2020) notes the following allowance:
Living units which do not contain customary cooking facilities within the individual
units but instead have a central kitchen for food preparation and where meals are
served in a central dining area or individual rooms must calculate parking requirements
as follows: one parking space per four residents or four beds (whichever is greater),
plus ten percent.
What the petition is seeking would provide more spaces than that Code, but somewhat less than
Collier County's Code. The compromise seems adequate. Staff concurs with the applicant's
assessment of the situation for this particular project. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this
deviation request is accommodated
Recommendation. Staff believes this deviation can be supported. Zoning and Land
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
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -437 Sarecino RPUD Page 14 of 17
Revised 1/15/10
may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community,"
and LDC Section 10.02.13.13.51, 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."
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The Neighborhood Information Meeting for the Sarecino PUD petition was duly noticed by the
petitioner's agent and held on October 28, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. at the Comfort Inn located at 3860
Tollgate Boulevard. Thirty (30) people attended as well as the applicant's team (Dwight Nadeau,
RWA, Inc., Scott Gillespie, WXZ Development, Reed Jarvi, Omega Consulting, and Anna Rosa,
RWA, Inc.). Kay Deselem, Principal Planner, Collier County Zoning Department was the
project facilitator.
Kay Deselem began the meeting by explaining the NIM process, her role as facilitator and
advised all present that the project file is available for review in her office at 2800 North
Horseshoe Drive. Staff also noted that if the petitioner makes any commitments during the
meeting, they will become a part of the record.
Dwight Nadeau presented an overview of the project giving a description and location and
showing a conceptual plan. The project is a 10.75 -acre parcel that was originally zoned as the
Triad PUD and approved for 86 dwelling units. The name is changing, but no increase in density
is proposed. The proposed project will be a senior housing development consisting of 40
independent living units and 100 assisted living units.
Scott Gillespie explained that the proposed development will consist of single - family living units
which will be attached cottages with their own front yards with approximately 900 square feet of
living space, but will be a minimum of 750 sq. ft. An artistic rendering of the proposed cottages
was shown. They will be platted, leased and managed dwelling units offering a la carte services
to the residents. Ms. Deselem informed the residents that these are not commitments, only
ideas. The assisted living facility will be an approximate 72,000 square feet 2 -story building
consisting of 100 units. Mr. Gillespie explained that the senior living project is proposed but if
it does not market well, a mirror of the Tofino project will be developed.
One resident asked if this is a considered a commercial project. Mr. Nadeau explained that is it
permitted as institutional and that commercial is not provided for in this PUD.
A question was asked about a service entrance. The developer responded that he is not
proposing a service entrance at this time.
The residents expressed concerns over traffic impacts on Palm Springs Boulevard since it is a
two -lane road. Reed Jarvi, Omega Consulting Group, explained that the applicant has provided
the required traffic study that was conducted in June 2009. The study showed a total of 393 trips
daily. With the Tofino project this would be approximately 1,000 additional trips per day on
Palm Springs Boulevard. He explained that even though the traffic counts were done in June
when the traffic is lighter, the count data is adjusted for peak season.
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -437 Sarecino RPUD Page 15 of 17
Revised 1/15/10
The residents stated that the street is not safe. Mr. Jarvi informed them that the Transportation
Department has a Neighborhood Traffic Management Program that allows for traffic control
devices on local public streets and encouraged the residents to contact the Transportation
Department. One resident stated that the CAT buses are using a gravel shoulder to circle around
on Radio Lane. Mr. Nadeau stated that he contacted the Alternative Transportation Modes
Department and was informed that a new CAT shelter will be constructed at the eastern end of
Radio Lane closer to Barot Drive.
One resident questioned the financial requirements for the assisted living facility. Mr. Gillespie
responded that there would be no up -front fees, these are leased private pay units; it is not a
hospital bed facility. The residents would be provided assistance in bathing, dressing and
preparation of meals only. "There will also be transportation provided for residents. Ms.
Deselem pointed out that this information is not a part of the PUD document.
The residents proposed to have a core group of 6 or 8 residents to meet informally with Mr.
Nadeau and the developers to discuss other interests of the community. Ms. Deselem advised the
group that if other meetings are held to include her so that information can be included in the
staff report.
The meeting ended at approximately 7:25 p.m. The petitioner and the agent have held
subsequent meetings with some of the neighbors. A group of neighbors submitted a letter of
support dated December 16, 2009, a copy of which is included in the application materials.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for this petition revised on January 15,
2010.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDZ- A- PL2009 -437 to the BCC with a
recommendation of approval.
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -437 Sarecino RPUD Page 16 of 17
Revised 1/15/10
PREPARED BY:
KAY DESELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
AND ZONING SERVICES
REVIEWED BY:
RAYMOND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
AND ZONING SERVICES
WILLIAM D. LORENZ, JR., P.E., DIRECTOR DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
AND ZONING SERVICES
APPROVED BY:
NICK CASALANGUIDA INTERIM ADMINISTRATOR DATE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Tentatively scheduled for the March 9, 2010 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -437 Sarecino RPUD Page 17 of 17
Revised 1/15/10
PREPARED BY:
KAY DVSELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER D TE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
AND ZONING SERVICES
REVIEWED BY:
RAYM D V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
AND ZONING SERVICES
LLIAM D. LO NZ, J ., P.E., DIRECTOR DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
AND ZONING SERVICES
APPR D BY:
NICK CASALANGUIDA INTERIM 4b INISTRATOR DATE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Tentatively scheduled for the March 9, 2010 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -437 Sarecino RPUD Page 17 of 17
Revised 1/13/10
a�
wW
U m
Z o
O
U>
00
oN
X
r s
m
L
El LTOPP ® - fi
Ana_ :415
FLOOR TROSSES CL 1JOOD FRAMING LOOD DECK - -. � I W Z
17X17 GBS POST- v C
- z a
O°
C> W
O o
� X
PRELIMINARY CROSS SECTION *- �
---------------
--------------------------------
---43LJLD GUT U4LL rOK PAHab
GARAGE
cauW, myr,.
po
AREA CALCULATIONS.
GROUND FLOOR LIANG:911
MAIN FLOOR UYING: 511
TOTAL LIVING: 1422
GAP-4CjE. 547
PORCH! 203
TOTAL: an
I
1400 CONCEPT
WXZ DEVELOPMENT
I I ���� �� 4 601
E3R, 3
DOORU", RECESWD TO 52'
CRAWL SPACE
TOP OF [2x12 POOT15 A' 44
AREA CALCULATIONS.
GROUND FLOOR LIANG:911
MAIN FLOOR UYING: 511
TOTAL LIVING: 1422
GAP-4CjE. 547
PORCH! 203
TOTAL: an
I
1400 CONCEPT
WXZ DEVELOPMENT
I I ���� �� 4 601
WXZ/Sareceno, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company
WXZ Development Inc.
WXZ Development Inc.. an Ohio corporation
Officers
James R. Wymer
Maria Wymer
David L. Swindell
James R. Wymer
Renee Seybert
James R. Wymer
Stockholders
James R. Wymer
Xenophon Zapis
Maria Wymer
Leon X. Zapis
Donna Thomas
Renee Seybert
Manager
100%
President
Vice President
Vice President of Development
Secretary
Assistant Secretary
Treasurer
Orangetree Properties, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company
50%
1%
11.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
Mark R. Munsell Revocable Trust Member 32.33%
John V. Goodman Revocable Trust Member 33.33%
Kenneth B. Liffman Revocable Trust Member 33.33%
Mark R. Munsell Manager 1 %
Kimolos II L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
Kimo Isle Ltd, and Ohio limited liability company General Partner
1 %
Xenophone Zapis (Manager - 100 %)
Smarogda Zapis Irrevocable Trust No.
9 Limited Partner
24.75%
Lee Zapis (Trustee -100 %)
Smarogda Zapis Irrevocable Trust No.
10 Limited Partner
24.75%
Donna Thomas (Trustee -100 %)
Smarogda Zapis Irrevocable Trust No.
11 Limited Partner
24.75%
Maria Wymer (Trustee -100 %)
Smarogda Zapis Irrevocable Trust No.
12 Limited Partner
24.75%
Renee Seybert (Trustee -100 %)
WXZ/Tofino LLC an Ohio limited liability company
WXZ Development Inc.
James R. Wymer
WXZ Development Inc., an Ohio corporation
Officers
James R. Wymer
Maria Wymer
David L. Swindell
James R. Wymer
Renee Seybert
James R. Wymer
Stockholders
James R. Wymer
Xenophon Zapis
Maria Wymer
Leon X. Zapis
Donna Thomas
Renee Seybert
Managing Member 10%
Member 90%
President
Vice President
Vice President of Development
Secretary
Assistant Secretary
Treasurer
Oranoetree Properties LLC an Ohio limited liability company
50%
1%
11.5%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
Mark R. Munsell Revocable Trust Member 32.33%
John V. Goodman Revocable Trust Member 33.33%
Kenneth B. Liff man Revocable Trust Member 33.33%
Mark R.Munsell Manager 1%
Cleveland -Radio Lane, LLC, an Ohio limited liability companv
See attached Exhibit A
EXHIBIT A
Initial Capital
Member
Contribution and
Name and Address
Value
Units
4XX2XY, LLC
0.35294
23520 Chagrin Boulevard Suite 255
Beachwood, Ohio 44122
Thomas F. Adomaitis
0.4412
The Players Club at Quail Hollow
11105 Caddie Lane
Concord Twp., Ohio 44077
Charla Sheehan Bernstein
0.4412
5646 Vintage Oaks Circle
Del Ray Beach, Florida 33484 -6419
Robert B. Bernstein
3.0882
5646 Vintage Oaks Circle
Del Ray Beach, Florida 33484 -6419
BHGH LLC
8.824
Attn: Gerald E. Henn
8292 South Todd Avenue
Warren, Ohio 44481
Simon Caplan, c/o Cresco
0.4412
3 Summit Park Drive, Suite 200
Independence, Ohio 44131
CF Ranch Properties, LLC
3.5296
Attn: Mark or Gary Mintz
5533 State Road
Cleveland, Ohio 44134
David Cole, Cole Family II Limited,
loom
1.10294
Managing Member
3330 Somerset Drive
Shaker Heights Ohio 44122
Jeffrey D. Cristal
qNW
0.8824
23300 Stanford Road
Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122
Julia A. Domiano, Trustee U /T /A Dated
SINNAk
2.6472
11 -14 -2003
Julia A. Domiano Trust
29999 South Woodland
Pepper Pike, Ohio 44124
Page 1 of 5
I;
Member
Name and Address
Jeffrey H. Friedman
Courtyard Towers
1141 Swallow Avenue, Penthouse
Marco Island, Florida 34145
Jerrold S. Gideon
32389 Pinebrook Lane
Pepper Pike, Ohio 44124
Robert T. Glickman
1800 Midland Building
101 W. Prospect Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
Robert Greenberger
60 Ridgecreek Trail,
Moreland Hills, Ohio 44022
Ray Gurnick
Seaway Bolt
P.O. Box 908
Columbia Station, Ohio 44028
Kosek, Joseph
6634 Westview Drive
Brecksville, Ohio 44141
Lee A. Passel]
21912 Westchester Rd.
Shaker Heights, Ohio 44122
Martin A. Lesser, MD
2420 Castilla Isle
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Steven B. Lesser
1320 SW 21st Avenue
Boca Raton, Florida 33486
Gail A. Liffman, Trustee of the Gail A.
Liffman Revocable Trust Agreement
dated 7 -3 -02
275 Orange Tree Drive
Orange Village, Ohio 44022
Initial Canital
Contribution and
Value
Page 2 of 5
Units
2.6472
0.4412
0.8824
3.5246
1.7648
0.4412
0.8824
0.4412
0.4412
0.8824
Initial Capital
1.7648
Member Contribution and
Name and Address Value
Units
Dave Lowman ANN=&
0.8824
17411 Lakeside Trail
Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44023
0.4412
Martin E. Lowy ANEW
0.8824
36125 Spatterdock Lane
Solon, Ohio 44139
0.8824
Mitchell H. Macknin and Anne K. dw�
0.4412
Macknin, Joint Tenants In Common
With Right of Survivorship
0.4412
936 Rollingwood Road
Highland Park, Illinois 60035
McCarthy, Daniel R., Trustee of the Aku� 5.2944
Daniel R. McCarthy Revocable Trust
Dated 12 -8 -87
1800 Midland Building
101 W. Prospect Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
McCarthy, Evelyn, Trustee of the W40MR
1.7648
Evelyn McCarthy Trust dated 9 -26 -05
1800 Midland Building
101 W. Prospect Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
Dori Nagar A40W
0.4412
170 West End Avenue Apt. 24P
New York, New York
Steven N. Nobil 10001b%
0.8824
9150 South Hills Boulevard Suite 300
Broadview Heights, Ohio 44147
Radio Lane Sunrise, LLC 41OW&
0.4412
2625 Deborah Drive
Beachwood, Ohio 44122
Radio Lane Management LLC =Imp
0.09064
Attn: Mark R. Munsell
23520 Chagrin Boulevard Suite 255
Beachwood Ohio, 44122
Cynthia Reisenfeld low
3.5296
3659 Green Road
Beachwood, Ohio 44122
Page 3 of 5
i
Member
Name and Address
Mark Schwartz
G & S Metals
3330 E. 79th Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44127
SMG Real Estate Investments, LLC
17544 Lakesedge Trail
Bainbridge, Ohio 44023
E. Roger Stewart
1800 Midland Bldg.,
101 Prospect Ave., W.
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
Steven J. Sweress
790 Lake Trail
Aurora, Ohio 44202
Tom Cook
B & T Express
400 Miley Rd.
North Lima, Ohio 44452
Steve Wisenberger
3659 Green Rd.
Beachwood, Ohio 441222
James Wymer
31019 Bel Air Circle
Westlake, Ohio 44145
Matthew Wymer
31019 Bel Air Circle
Westlake, Ohio 44145
ZapCap Radio Lane, LLC
Attn: Leon Zapis
26202 Detroit Road, Suite 300
Westlake, Ohio 44145
LDJMDMM Holdings LLC'
Attn: Mark R. Munsell
23520 Chagrin Boulevard Suite 255
Beachwood, Ohio 44122
Initial Capital
Contribution and
Value
Page 4 of 5
Units
2.6472
0.4412
0.4412
1.10294
2.206
[FIV l8
3.2647
0.2647
14.1175
7.2223"
Initial Capital
Member Contribution and
Name and Address Value
Units
SMG Real Estate Holdings LLC*
7.2222
Attn: John V. Goodman
17544 Lakesedge Trail
Bainbridge, Ohio 44023
GDA Invesments LLC*
7.2222*
Attn: Kenneth B. Liffman
1800 Midland Bldg.
101 Prospect Ave., W.
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
McCarthy, Evelyn, Trustee of the* 410W
33333*
Evelyn McCarthy Trust dated 9 -26 -05
1800 Midland Bldg.
101 Prospect Ave., W.
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
TOTALS: VINNOW
100
i I
* The Units issued are intended to be a grant of a "profits interest' in the Company within the meaning of Revenue
Procedures 93 -27 and 2001 -43; provided, however, for federal income tax purposes and for all purposes of this
Agreement, each of the identified Members shall receive zero (0) credit to their Capital Accounts and each Member
shall not share in the fair market value of the Company's net equity as of the date hereof with respect to the Units
granted to such Member.
N:Uients\MuweII\CleveIwd -Radio lane LLC\Doce \Operating AGR- 112105AM
Page 5 of 5
AGENDA ITEM 9 -D
Coi[ier County
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2010
SUBJECT: PUDZ- A- PL2009 -734; TOFINO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (RPUD)
PROPERTY OWNERIAGENT:
Owner: Radio Lane Development LLC
5770 Shirley Street
Naples, FL 34109
REOUESTED ACTION:
Agent: Dwight Nadeau
RWA, Inc.
6610 Willow Park Dr., Suite 200
Naples, FL 34109
The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a rezone
of the subject site from the Residential Planned Development District (RPUD) to RPUD for a
project that was known in the original PUD rezoning as the MAC RPUD that will now be known
as the Tofino RPUD.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The 10.75± -acre subject property is located in the northwestern quadrant of the intersection of
Radio Lane and Palm Springs Boulevard in Section 34, Township 49 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida. (See location map on following page)
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The Tofino RPUD proposes an attached single- family dwelling unit/zero lot line product type
that will have a multi - family land use look, but allow each residential unit to be marketed and
sold with a platted lot. The petitioner provided the following description of the proposed project
in the Narrative Statement:
The residential units will be attached side by side, or in some instances back to back in
groups, and generally arranged in a linear fashion with no more than ten units
combined into one structure. While there will be two living levels in each residential
unit, the units will be approximately the same overall height as a single - story, single -
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -734 Tofino RPUD Page 1 of 16
Revised 1/15/10
A A
p
—IT I
PUD
SIF
I �H:16
,
PUD
FP oa"i 11
I—J R F 12M W
SITE
LOCATION
PUD
u
C-2
C-3
C-3
3
RMF-12(10)
PUD
oe rPIID�
LOCATION MAP ZONING MAP
PETITION # PUDZ - PL - 2009 - 734
GOLDEN
GATE
ar
CITY
wpy
MA.—
A A
p
—IT I
PUD
SIF
I �H:16
,
PUD
FP oa"i 11
I—J R F 12M W
SITE
LOCATION
PUD
u
C-2
C-3
C-3
3
RMF-12(10)
PUD
oe rPIID�
LOCATION MAP ZONING MAP
PETITION # PUDZ - PL - 2009 - 734
OPEN SPACE SUMMARY
REQUIRED (AC) PROVIDED (AC) I PERCENTAGE
5.45 6.45 6076
LAND USE SUMMARY
TRACT
LAND USE
I ACREAGE
I UNITS
I R OF SITE
TRACT R
RESIDENTIAL
9.09 S ACRES
86
85F
TRACT RA
RECREATIONAL AREA
0.34 t ACRES
0
a%
PRESERVE TRACT
PRESERVE
1.32 3 ACRES
0
12%
TOTAL:
10.75 2 ACRES
86
1002
NATIVE VEGETATION
REQUIRED NATIVE PRESERVE
AND VACATED CALLE DEL RAY) AND BLOCK 5 (LOTS
(8.80 • 0.15 1.J2)
'.32 ACRES
PROVIDED NATIVE PRESERVE
1.32 ACRES
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: EXISTING 30
ALL OF BLOCK 1 (LOTS 1 -7), BLOCK 3 (LOTS 1 -6
EASEMENT
AND VACATED CALLE DEL RAY) AND BLOCK 5 (LOTS
1 -7 AND VACATED CALLE DEL RAY), PALM SPRINGS
PLAZA, UNIT NO. 1, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT
PUD, WOODSIDE
THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PUT BOOK 8, PAGE 21,
PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
LANES (DEVELOPED)
MASTER RPUD PLAN NOTES:
PROPERTY
1. WITHIN THE RPUO BOUNDARIES THERE WILL BE A
MINIMUM OF 60 R USABLE OPEN SPACE.
BOUNDARY 1
2. THE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON
THIS PUD MASTER PLAN SHALL BE CONSIDERED
CONCEPTUAL M NATURE. 15' TYPE "B"
3. THE DESIGN, LOCATION, AND CONFIGURATION OF LANDSCAPE BUFFER -,
THE LAND IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE DEFINED AT
EITHER SDP OR CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND PLAT
APPROVAL,
4. SURVEY INFORMATION DERIVED FROM RHODES k
RHODES (AND SURVEYING, INC, BOUNDARY SURVEY
DATED JUNE 16. 2009. E
DEVIATIONS:
(D DEVIATION #1 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LUC
SUBSECTION 5.03.02.A.9., RELATED TO
ALTERATION OF GROUND WHERE A FENCE OR
WALL IS TO BE INSTALLED, WHICH PROHIBITS
ALTERATION OF EXISTING GROUND LEVELS FOR
THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING THE HEIGHT OF A
PROPOSED FENCE OR WALL, TO ALLOW FENCES
OR WALLS TO BE INSTALLED ON TOP OF WATER
MANAGEMENT IMPOUNDMENT BERMS NO GREATER
THAN 18 INCHES ABOVE THE CROWN ELEVATION
OF THE NEAREST EXISTING ROAD.
O2 DEVIATION /2 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC
SUBSECTION 6.06.01.8., RELATED TO STREETS IN
SUEDMSIONS. THAT REQUIRES SUBDIVISIONS TO
HAVE RIGHTS -OF -WAY FOR STREETS, TO ALLOW
PRIVATE STREETS TO BE PROVIDED IN ACCESS
BOUNDARY S69*54'20 "W 620.34' UNIT 1, PLAT BOOK
a� O%, %- a -0 O Q a a 0 0 0 0 0 a A 6A a a 0 -a 4 0 -° I
A A A A a 6 A d a a d d d a d A 0 I
aaa0 °dadada44 0°dad6 AP, PRESERVE TRACT d d d 0 6 6 0 a d d 0 a d a
d d d a d d d d d d THE NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVE MAY BE
d a o ° 0 d °d d a°° d a° d d° d a° 0 d SUPPLEMENTED WITH ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS TO
SATISFY BOTH LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS f ° a ° 0
AND NATIVE
I_1
PRESERVE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LDC.) d a a d d Q a d d a 0 0 D I
d a d o 0 o d d d a d a o Q a d d d d d u D a a o 0 o a d d a a a o o Q o Exls }I t;i so'
d d 0 a 0 0 a d O d d d 0 0 d O d d Q a d d 4 Q a 0 d a O d O d 0 0 0 RIGHTf- E -WAY
4.934.9 o I
j I
I:
25 SETBACK F
25 SETBACK
^ `t . --------- y......... ..
e
i ; T i ; r o 1
.- .......y ......r. -A 1 1 1
10' TYPE "D" D
1 1 I LANDSCAPE BUFFER f-
I
1 1
RPUD, TRIAD
I I 1 ...... ....... 1
G-) (UNDEVELOPED)
U)
ci
- i TRACT TRACT IN F-
f -- __ O
i i i C
1 F `
.•► i � 1 I � � RA Oj 6' WALL i °o I� D
I 1 I
620 L.M.E. I
lit jiT� i I.. LEGEND:
I
I I I I BULH HLW A/
I 1 1 1 1 1 R�TvNvNG WALv
I I
F`
I-- EXISTING PRESERVE
« I I I C I iB
.................
PLAT 800K 8, PACE 21,
I a -- EKISTING PAVEMENT
1
L.......... °..........
�-
I PROPERTY BOUNDARY
M. ...... -- PROPOSED CENTER LINE
1 1
I I I 1 I I I ......•••• -- PEDESTRIAN ACCESSWAYS
1 1
______________________{ 4 I I i. -- DEVIATION
PROPOSED 1 �� 7 j:
PUMPSTATION -- ----- �------- - - - - -- y- - - - - - -. - 1 I H -- INGRESS /EGRESS
LOCATION ~ D
— 6' WALL 1
i
589'5420 "W 596.08' 2B' SETBACK - - D 20' TYPE "D" B 20' L.M.E.
-'- -� LANDSCAPE
x � BUFFER PROPERTY �/ 9
. -- -.- - _.._ - -- - -_ ___ —,r.. _ --
n BOUNDARY -
a _ : - -- - -- --- '�� a— - - --
�SECTION LINE
RADIO LANE
I �
}5m5
HER
� R
` z 1
Tn►
PO4
S
O
O 0.
a
J
2
�a
> w
Q
@ � Z
I o
-
g a
family home with high ceilings (i.e.. less than 30 feet). The project design is intended to
minimize vehicular movement near the primary accesses to the residential units by using
motor courts to access two -car garages that would be in the rear of the units. The motor
court, in many instances, will define front yards for establishing setbacks, with the
primary accesses to the residential units being from a paseo, " or pedestrian only
access way that is intended to be shaded with canopy landscaping materials.
The Master Plan indicates that the dwelling units are proposed to be located in two different
manners identified as Scenarios A and B as provided for in the PUD document. The overall
project will only have one access point onto a county roadway and that will be to Palm Springs
Boulevard. No access is proposed to Radio Lane. A recreational tract (RA) is depicted to the
south of the access point along the Palm Springs Boulevard right -of -way. A water retention lake
is shown adjacent and south of that RA tract. The preserve Tract (P) is shown along the northern
property boundary adjacent to the existing platted lots of the Palm Springs Village subdivision.
The preserve area is shown in essentially the same configuration as was approved in Ordinance
No. 05 -50 for the MAC PUD.
Single - family structures are proposed to be two stories in height not to exceed 24 feet in zoned
height, and not to exceed 30 feet in actual height. Any multi - family structure is proposed to be
two stories, not to exceed 40 feet zoned height, and not to exceed 45 feet in actual height. Any
clubhouse or recreational structures are limited to a one story height not to exceed 35 feet in
actual height. Any multi- family would be set back from tract boundaries —front, side and rear —
a minimum of 20 feet. The single family units, as proposed by the petitioner will function as
zero lot line units with 510 foot setbacks. Any clubhouse /recreational structures would be
setback 5 feet from any lot line. The exceptions to these setbacks are that all principal structures
would be setback 25 feet from the preserve.
This project was rezoned in 2005 from C -1 and C -2 to RPUD. The prior commercial zoning
designations allowed the petitioner to utilize the Conversion of Commercial 'Zoning provision of
the GMP which would have permitted the petitioner to seek a density of up to 16 units per acre.
At that time, the petitioner sought and received approval of a density of 8.0 units per acre, or a
maximum of 86 dwelling units. This rezoning will not increase that density.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: Palm Springs Village Subdivision, partially developed residential subdivision, with a
zoning designation of RMF -12(7)
East: Palm Springs Boulevard, then undeveloped land with a zoning designation of PUD (Triad
PUD in Ordinance No. 05 -11) That parcel is also proposed for rezoning from RPUD to
RPUD (to be known as the Sarecino RPUD) in Zoning Petition PUDZ- A- PL2009 -437)
South: Radio Lane, then a convenience store with gas pumps, with a zoning designation of C -3
West: a bowling establishment, with a zoning designation of PUD (Woodside Lakes PUD)
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -734 Tofino RPUD Page 2 of 16
Revised 1/15/10
AERIAL OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is located within the Urban
designated area (Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) as identified on the
countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to
this petition, this Subdistrict permits residential uses such as Group Care Facilities, and a variety
of non - residential uses. Furthermore, Policy 5.8 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) states
that Community Facilities and Group Care Facilities are allowed within the Urban designated
area. Within this designation, and in accordance with the Density Rating System provisions of
the FLUE, a base density of four (4) units per acre (DU /A) is allowed.
The Mac RPUD was approved on September 27, 2005 by Ordinance No. 05 -50 and deemed
consistent with the GMP. No changes to approved density are proposed and the GMP has not
been revised to affect density calculations used to determine consistency in 2005.
Relevant provisions and policies are stated below (in italics); each policy is followed by staff
analysis (in bold).
Policy 2.2. of the Public School Facilities Element (PSFE): "The County shall consider the
following residential uses exempt from the requirements of school concurrency: "... "C. Any
amendment to any previously approved residential development order that does not increase the
number of dwelling units or change the dwelling unit type (e.g. single-family to multi family). "
(The proposed amendment does not change the approved density. However, changes in the
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -734 Tofino RPUD Page 3 of 16
Revised 1/15/10
unit type are proposed. Therefore, the proposed PUD amendment is not exempt from the
requirements of school concurrency.)
FLUE 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
project does not front collector or arterial roads.)
FLUE 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. (Exhibit C, Master Plan on page 2 of 6 of the PUD documents, depicts access
to all tracts areas via loop roads, which connect to an access point onto Palm Springs
Boulevard.)
Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets
and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless
of land use type. (Criterion met. Exhibit C, Master Plan on page 2 of 6 of the PUD
documents depicts a pedestrian access point onto Palm Springs Boulevard, which is
depicted to connect to Radio Lane to the south. In addition, Exhibit C depicts a pedestrian
connection to adjoining properties to the cast and west of the project site. Interconnection
to the north is not feasible as the property abuts single family lots.)
Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities
with a blend ot'densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and
types. (Criterion met. The Master Plan depicts a sidewalk system within the proposed
development that interconnects to Palm Springs Boulevard. In addition, sidewalks are
proposed to be built along Palm Springs Boulevard and Radio Lane, which provides
pedestrian connection from the project to adjoining neighborhoods to the east and west of
the project site.)
Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic
Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network will have
sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the five -year planning period upon
provision of mitigation. Therefore, the subject application can be deemed consistent with Policy
5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element: Environmental staff has evaluated the
proposed changes to the PUD documents. No changes are proposed to the preserve selection
from the 2005 rezoning action; that petition was deemed consistent with the applicable
provisions of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the GMP and staff
recommends that this amendment petition be found consistent with the pertinent objectives,
goals and policies ofthe CCME also.
GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as
this proposed PUD rezone. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of
consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -734 Tofino RPUD Page 4 of 16
Revised 1/15/10
FLUE and FLUM, and any other relevant GMP elements such as the Transportation and
Conservation and Coastal Management Elements is a portion of the overall finding that is
required. In conjunction with the PUD and Rezoning Finding provided later in this report that
address FLUE Policy 5.4, staff believes the petition is consistent with all relevant GMP elements.
Therefore, staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the overall GMP.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria
upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection
10.02.13.13.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD
Findings "), and Subsection 10.03.05.I, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report
(referred to as "Rezone Findings "), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's
recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to
the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its action on
the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the
heading "Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis." In addition, staff offers the
following analyses:
Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
documents to address any environmental concerns. This petition was not required to submit an
Environment Impact Statement (EIS) nor was a hearing before the Environmental Advisory
Commission (EAC) required because the previously approved EIS is less than 5 years old.
The rezoning action in 2005 addressed environmental triggered by the potential land uses; no
changes are proposed to the Preserve area shown on the Master Plan. The petition includes a
commitment to retain that preserve as noted below (PUD Exhibit F Environmental Section):
The developer shall retain the 1.32 acre preserve as recorded in the AMC RPUD
Stormwater Management Review: Stormwater Management Review Staff (Engineering) has
reviewed this petition and has not voiced any concerns or offered any comments.
Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
document and Master Plan for right -of -way and access issues. Transportation Division staff has
resolved all outstanding transportation issues with the petitioner. Transportation staff's
recommended stipulations are, therefore included in this recommendation. The applicant has
incorporated Transportation Division staffs revisions in the PUD document, and Transportation
Division staff recommends approval subject to the Transportation commitments contained in the
PUD document.
The proposed PUD document contains the following transportation commitments:
1. At the time of SDP or Plat approval, the property owner will be responsible for a
proportionate share contribution to the improvements relating to the increased
capacity created in the MGG -15 drainage swale.
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -734 Tofino RPUD Page 5 of 16
Revised 1/15110
2. At the time of first SDP or Plat approval, the developer shall construct a five foot
sidewalk on the west side of Palm Springs Boulevard from the project entrance, south
to connect to the existing sidewalk on Radio Lane associated with the entrance to the
Woodside Lanes bowling alley.
Utility Review: The Utilities Department has reviewed the application and has noted that the
proposed PUD, according to the current 2008 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Updates, the
project location is within the Collier County Water - Sewer District Service Area. Per County
GIS, there are an existing 16 -inch and 12 -inch diameter water mains on Radio Lane. There is an
existing 6 -inch force main on Radio Lane which is connected to an existing 14 -inch force main
on Davis Boulevard. At the time of the SDP, this project is subject to the conditions associated
with a Water and Sewer Availability Letter from the Collier County Public Utilities Division.
Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission facilities to serve the project are to be
designed, constructed, conveyed, owned, and maintained in accordance with Collier County
Ordinance 2004 -31 and 2007 -60, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations.
Emergency Management Review: Emergency Management staff provided the following
comment: This PUD is located in a CAT 3 hurricane surge zone which requires evacuation
during some hurricane events.
Parks and Recreation: The Public Services Division did not voice any concerns or offer any
comments regarding this petition.
Affordable Housing Review: The petitioner did not evaluate nor is he proposing mitigation to
offset any housing demands that may be created by the rezone action.
Zoning Review: Staff has evaluated the uses proposed and their intensities and /or densities; the
development standards such as building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers; building mass;
building location and orientation; the amount and type of open space and its location; and traffic
generation/attraction of the proposed uses. Staff notes that the existing single - family and two -
family development to the north (Palm Springs Village) will be separated from use activity on
this site by the preserve area. The proposed actual building heights for the residential uses will
be less than the 50 foot allowed in the RMF -12 zoning district that governs Palm Springs
Village. The Woodside Lakes PUD for the existing bowling establishment does not have a
maximum building height. The petitioner has agreed to place no more than ten attached single -
family residential units within any one structure to limit the project's massing and scale.
According to LDC Subsection 2.03.06.C.1, the RPUD zoning district is intended "further the
general purpose of a planned unit development district set forth above as it relates to residential
areas. The principal use of any residential planned unit development is for human habitation in
permanent and /or seasonal year -round dwelling units." LDC Subsection 2.03.06.A states the
following:
The goal is to relate the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district and the uses
permitted within a PUD to defined zoning districts within this LDC and to establish
appropriate uses and performance standards within this PUD, which are similar to those
allowed by the most similar district(s).
The uses proposed are residential in nature. The PUD document (Exhibit B) contains typical
examples to reflect how the proposed structures will be designed to fit on site.
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -734 Tofino RPUD Page 6 of 16
Revised 1/15/10
PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.11.5 states that, "In support of its
recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance
with the following criteria" " (Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold font):
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to
physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer,
water, and other utilities.
The Palm Springs Village is developed with a mix of two- family and single - family
dwellings. The proposed single - family attached and multi - family uses of this project will
be compatible with the existing residential uses. The lots in Palm Springs Village will be
separated from structures in this project by the preserve area as well.
The development is located on Radio Lane, a local roadway, with access to Radio Road and
Davis Boulevard (from Radio Lane), principal arterial roadways. In addition, the
petitioner has committed to several transportation- related improvements, as previously
noted above and incorporated into Exhibit F of the RPUD documents, to ensure that the
project would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding roadway network. The
project would also be required to comply with County regulations regarding drainage,
sewer, water and other utilities. Therefore, the site is suitable for the proposed
development.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may
relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance
of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense.
Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's
Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the developments will be
required to gain platting and /or site development approval. Both processes will ensure
that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and
maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals,
objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based
on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the
overall GMP.
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include
restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening
requirements.
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -734 Tofino RPUD Page 7 of 16
Revised 1/15/10
The development standards, landscaping and buffering requirements contained in this
petition are designed to make the proposed uses compatible with the adjacent uses. The
staff analysis contained in the staff report support a finding that this petition is compatible,
both internally and externally, with the proposed uses and with the existing surrounding
uses. Additionally, the Development Commitments contained in the PUD document
provide additional guidelines the developer will have to fulfill.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the
LDC.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
Currently, 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. In addition, the project's development must
comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development
approvals are sought.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
This proposed PUD Amendment will not adversely impact the previous BCC finding that
the Subject property and surrounding areas can accommodate expansion.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in
the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting
public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.
The petitioner is seeking two deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the
purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06A).
This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and
deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be
required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes the deviations
proposed can be supported, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the
petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements 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 deviations are "justified as meeting public purposes to
a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Please refer to the
Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report for a more extensive examination of the
deviations.
Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1. 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
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -734 Tofino RPUD Page S of 16
Revised 1/15/10
proposed change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staffs responses to these
criteria are provided in bold font):
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the
Future Land Use Map and the elements of'the Growth Management Plan.
As noted in the GMP Consistency portion of this report, the proposed development
standards revision would not affect the project's prior consistency finding. The project
remains consistent with the goals and objectives of the FLUE and the applicable portions
other elements. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with
the GMP.
2. The existing land use pattern;
As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and
discussed in the zoning review analysis, the neighborhood's existing land use pattern can
characterized as mixed use residential. There is residential zoning to the north and east. To
the west is an existing bowling establishment; to the south, across Radio Lane, is a
convenience store with gas pumps. The uses proposed in this petition should not create
incompatibility issues.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts;
The proposed PUD rezone would not create an isolated zoning district because the subject
property is already zoned PUD. Additionally the zoning boundary mirrors the existing
property ownership boundary.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions
on the property proposed for change.
The proposed PUD Amendment will not alter the existing PUD boundaries that the BCC
previously determined to be logically drawn.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning
necessary.
The proposed change is not necessary, but the proposed rezoning appears to be
appropriate for this location based upon the site's FLUE designation.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood,
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change, with the commitments made by the
applicant, is consistent with the County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future
Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Therefore, the proposed change should not
adversely impact living conditions in the area.
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -734 Tofino RPUD Page 9 of 16
Revised 1/15/10
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create
types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or
projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the
development or otherwise affect public safety.
The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this
time. This project was evaluated for GMP consistency as shown in that section of this
report. In addition, 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 change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the
LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce
the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Any proposed water management and drainage
system will need to be designed to prevent drainage problems on site and be compatible
with the adjacent water management systems. The PUD document Exhibit F,
Transportation #2, includes the following stipulation to further address drainage:
At the time of SDP or Plat approval, the property owner will be responsible for a
proportionate share contribution to the improvements relating to the increased capacity
created in the MGG -1 S drainage Swale.
Additionally, the LDC and GMP have other specific regulations in place that will ensure
review for drainage on new developments.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas;
If this petition is approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the
applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. This
project's property development regulations would encourage compact development thus
the developed project should not significantly reduce light and air to adjacent areas; thus
the development proposed, if approved, should not negatively affect light and air
permeation into adjacent areas.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area;
This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results which may be internal or
external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors
including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value
determination is driven by market value. There is no guarantee that the project will be
marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations,
Properties around this property are already partially developed. The basic premise
underlying all of the development standards in the Land development Code is that their
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -734 Tofino RPUD Page 10 of 16
Revised 1/15/10
sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and /or
subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in
deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed
zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasting with the public welfare;
The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan, as stipulated for
approval, a public policy statement supporting Zoning actions when they are consistent
with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not
constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to
be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public
interest.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with
existing zoning;
The property already has a PUD zoning designation and could be developed within the
parameters of that zoning ordinance; however, the petitioner is seeking this amendment in
compliance with LDC provisions for such amendments. The petition can be evaluated and
action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the
proposed rezone meets the intent of the PUD district and further, believes the public
interest will be maintained.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
County;
As noted previously, the proposed rezone boundary follows the existing PUD zoning and
property ownership boundary. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the
scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban -
designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards
and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the
needs of the community.
15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in
districts already permitting such use.
There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed;
however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a
zoning petition. Additionally, the subject site is already zoned for residential uses and the
petition does not propose to increase the density in this amendment. The petition was
reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not
review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed rezone is consistent
with the GMP as discussed in other portions of the staff report.
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -734 Tofino RPUD Page 11 of 16
Revised 1/15/10
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would
be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the
proposed zoning classification.
Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site
alteration and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state,
and local development regulations during the site development plan approval process and
again later as part of the building permit process.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and
as defined and Implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance,
as amended.
The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00
regarding Adequate Public Facilities and the project will need to be consistent with all
applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as it
may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that
is 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.
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safely, and welfare.
To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing.
Deviation Discussion. The petitioner is seeking two deviations from the requirements of the
LDC. The deviations are listed in PUD Exhibit E with the petitioners' rationale provided to
support each deviation provided in the Narrative & Basis for Approval document that is included
in the application material. Deviations are a normal off shoot of the PUD rezoning process
following the purposed and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC Section 2.03.06
which says in part:
It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity,
innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or redevelopment
of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs .... may
depart from the strict application of setback, height, and minimum lot requirements of
conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum standards by which flexibility
may be accomplished, and while protecting the public interest ....
Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.03.02.A.9., related to alteration of ground where a
fence or wall is to be installed, which prohibits alteration of existing ground levels for the purpose of
increasing the height of a proposed fence or wall, to allow fences or walls to be installed on top of water
management impoundment berms no greater than 18 inches above the crown elevation of the nearest
existing road.
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -734 Tofino RPUD Page 12 of 16
Revised 1/15/10
Petitioners' Rationale and Staff Analysis: The petitioner states this deviation is needed because it
will provide for a barrier to separate vehicular movement on Radio Lane and Palm Springs Blvd.
from the proposed water management lake adjacent to those rights -of -way. The petitioner states:
.... nominal ground alteration in the location of proposed fences and walls provides for
an efficient use of the development land area and is consistent with the 25 -year storm
elevations as permitted by the South Florida Water Management District... .
This deviation was approved as part of the 2005 PUD rezoning action; the petition seeks to
perpetuate that approval. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated.
Recommendation: Staff believes the alternative proposed in this deviation will be adequate.
Zoning and Land 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."
Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 6.06.01.B, related to streets in subdivisions, that
requires subdivisions to have rights -of -way for streets, to allow private streets to be provided in
access easements rather than platted rights -of way.
Petitioners' Rationale and Staff Analysis: The petitioner states this deviation is needed because
Both of the development scenarios are compact in design, and the desire to plat the
individual lots necessitates the use of access easements rather than right -of -way tracts
as is required by LDC. This deviation from LDC requirements is innocuous given that
the internal streets will function more as driveways, similar to condominium projects,
and will be privately maintained by the future homeowners association. The platting
of the lots intended to be sold in a fee simple manner, including the independent senior
living or residential units will provide a greater sense of pride in ownership and will
be consistent, and compatible with the neighboring subdivision to the north.
The deviation is an oft - sought alternative. The LDC Section 6.06.0l.0 allows developers of any
type (zoned) project to seek alternatives pursuant to LDC Section 6.06.01.0 at the time of
platting. Those requests must be accompanied by "documentation and justification for the
alternate section based on sound engineering principals and practices." These alternative designs
are often sought as part of the zoning process so the developer can have some assurances that the
proposed Master Concept Plan is viable if the Master Plan siting was calculated using an
alternative design. The PUD deviation process provides a way for the petitioner to acquire that
assurance without being required to submit the alternative design in compliance with LDC
Section 6.06.01.0 later. Transportation Division staff historically support these deviations for
PUD projects when roadways are proposed to be private. The right -of -way widths required by
the LDC are based upon county maintained roadways and the required infrastructure that needs to
be placed in that right -of -way. Private enterprise has more leeway in the placement of drainage
and other required infrastructure, thus a wider right -of -way is not necessarily required. Staff
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -734 Tofino RPUD Page 13 of 16
Revised 1/15/10
concurs with the applicant's assessment of the situation for this particular project. Staff sees no
detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated.
Recommendation: Staff believes this deviation can be supported. Zoning and Land
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."
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The Neighborhood Information Meeting for the Tofino PUD petition duly noticed by the
petitioner's agent and held on October 28, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. at the Comfort Inn located at 3860
Tollgate Boulevard and was duly noticed by the applicant. Thirty (30) people attended, as well
as the applicant's team (Dwight Nadeau, RWA, Scott Gillespie, WXZ Development, Reed Jarvi,
Omega Consulting and Anna Rosa, RWA). Kay Deselem, Principal Planner, Collier County
Zoning Department was the project facilitator.
Kay Deselem began the meeting by explaining the NIM process, her role as facilitator and
advised all present that the project file is available for review in her office at 2800 North
Horseshoe Drive. Staff noted that If any commitments are made during the meeting, they will
become a part of the record.
Dwight Nadeau presented an overview of the project giving a description and location and
showing a conceptual plan. He stated that the name of the PUD will change, but that no increase
in density is proposed. The project will consist of attached single - family residences that are no
taller than 2 stories or 35 feet in height. The front yards will have no vehicular activity; parking
will be in the rear. Vehicles will access 2 -car garages at the bottom of the first floor in the rear of
the residence. All vehicles will be out of sight except for parallel guest parking along the
driveways. There will be no open parking in the motor courts.
Scott Gillespie explained that the developer does not want to develop something generic or
common, but rather something more of a Key West style that will be different, appeal to people
and be at an attractive price point. The price range is proposed to start at $240K and upwards to
low $300K. No custom built homes will be offered; the development will have a community
theme with curb appeal. The homes will consist of 6 basic floor plans from 1600 square feet to
2200 square feet in size, not including the porch or garage.
Mr. Nadeau showed an exhibit of the PUD master plan indicating access points lining up at Palm
Springs Boulevard. The plan includes a lake amenity for water management, various courtyards
and a 1.32 acre preserve. The entrance to the project from Palm Springs Boulevard will be gated
with a key card access. This is likely to occur when the last units are sold. The construction
entrance for the project will be Radio Lane.
The residents had concerns about traffic congestion on Palm Springs Boulevard as it is a two -
lane road. Reed Jarvi, Omega Consulting Group, explained that the applicant has provided the
required traffic study which was conducted in June 2009. The study showed 53 peal, hour trips
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -734 Tofino RPUD Page 14 of 16
Revised 1/15/10
with a total 564 trips daily or 6 trips per unit per day. There are 86 units approved. The project is
still under review by the Collier County Transportation Department and the Collier County
Comprehensive Planning Department who does the Growth Management Analysis. The
applicant has committed to providing a sidewalk along Palm Springs Boulevard.
There were also concerns about water management since the Palm Springs Subdivision has
experienced some flooding problems. Mr. Nadeau explained that berms will hold water onto the
Tofino property, but they will not be receiving water from other lands. In addition, a drainage
ditch on the east side has been cleaned up by Collier County. The bottom basin for the Tofino
property is at Radio Lane, I -75 is the top of the Palm Springs Subdivision basin and between I -75
and Magnolia Pond Drive is another basin. Everything ultimately outfalls into the Golden Gate
Canal. Collier County has asked the developer to participate in doing improvements to the
middle segment between I -75 and Magnolia Pond Drive. They will be working with the County
to improve the drainage. Mr. Nadeau recommended the residents may also want to contact John
Podczerwinsky, Transportation Planning Department, regarding drainage improvements.
One resident inquired as to who will be responsible for the upkeep of the property. The applicant
replied that during construction the developer will be responsible and after the completion of the
project it will be turned over to the homeowner's association.
One resident expressed concern about what would happen if the market failed. Mr. Gillespie
explained that they will build a model center and a variety of models, but will not build homes
on spec. They will be careful about building out too far ahead. Timeframe for breaking ground
on the project is projected to be early summer 2010 with a model sales center proposed to open
in early 2011. Construction tmeframe will be dependent upon the market.
One resident inquired if a wall will still be built from the northeast corner as was provided for in
the MAC PUD. Mr. Nadeau quoted from the MAC PUD Ordinance which stated that the
development will contribute 50% of the construction cost of the fence or construct 50% of the
length of the fence. The Tofino developers will work with the Palm Springs residents to see
what they want this time.
The meeting ended at approximately 6:30 p.m. The petitioner and the agent have held
subsequent meeting with some of the neighbors. A group of neighbors submitted a letter of
support dated December 16, 2009, a copy of which is included in the application materials.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for this petition revised on January 15,
2010.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDZ- A- PL2009 -734 to the BCC with a
recommendation of approval.
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -734 Tofino RPUD Page 15 of 16
Revised 1/15/10
PREPARED BY:
66� &",4)Ll r ro o
KAY SELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER bATE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
AND 'ZONING SERVICES
REVIEWED BY:
//1�14_ 7' 3 70
RAY ND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
AND ZONING SERVICES
J �u o; - 74 -ic
AM D. LO NZ, , .E., DIRECTOR DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
AND ZONING SERVICES
APPROV
NICK CASALANGUIDA INT . M ADMINISTRATOR DA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Tentatively scheduled for the March 9, 2010 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -734 Tofino RPUD Page 16 of 16
Revised 1/14/10