CCPC Backup 08/06/2009 R
CCPC
REGULAR
MEETING
BACKUP
DOCUMENTS
AUGUST 6, 2009
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, AUGUST 6, 2009,
IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMlAMI 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 MAYBE 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
A V AJLABLE 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
MA Y NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
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 - JULY 2, 2009
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - JULY 28, 2009
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: BD-2009-AR-14226, John Cowden represented by Eric Schneider of Turrell, Hall &
Associates, Inc., requesting a 26-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot protrusion limit as
provided in Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code to allow a 46-foot boat dock facility that will
include one lift that accommodates two personal watercraft. Subject property is located at 413 San Juan
Avenue, Isles of Capri No.3 Subdivision, Lot 695, in Section 31, Township 5 I South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida, (Coordinator: Ashley Caserta)
1
B. Petition: PUDA-2008-AR-14090, LCS-Westminster Naples LLC, represented by Robert Duane, AICP,
of Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich and
Koester, is requesting an amendment to the Oak Grove PUD (Ordinance No. 98-71) to delete
approximately 6,13 acres. The subject property is located in Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida (Companion item to PUDZ-2008-AR-14091 and PUDA-2008-AR-14092)
(Coordinator: John-David Moss, A1CP)
C. Petition: PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, LCS-Westminster Naples LLC, represented by Robert Duane, AICP
of Hole Montes and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich and
Koester, is requesting a Rezone from the Orange Blossom Gardens Planned Unit Development (PUD),
the Oak Grove PUD, and the Agricultural (A) zoning districts to the Commercial Planned Unit
Development (CPUD) for a 764,524 square-foot continuing care retirement community (CCRC) to be
known as the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD. The approximately 29.25-acre subject property is located in
Section 1, Township 49 S, Range 25 E, Collier County, Florida. (Companion item to PUDA-2008-AR-
14090 and PUDA-2008-AR-14(92) (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP)
D. Petition: PUDA-2008-AR-14092, LCS-Westminster Naples LLC, represented by Robert Duane, AICP,
of Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich and
Koester, is requesting an amendment to the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (Ordinance No. 92-75) to
delete approximately 5,85 acres. The subject property is located in Section 1, Township 49 South, Range
25 East, Collier County, Florida (Companion item 10 PUDA-2008-AR-14090 and PUDZ-2008-AR-14(91)
(Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP)
E. Petition: PUDZ-2008-AR-12773, Collier Rattlesnake Inc., represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of
Q. Grady Minor Inc. and Rich Yovanovich, of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., is requesting a PUD
Rezone from Rural Agricultural (A) to Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to be known as the
Good Turn Center MPUD. The MPUD proposes a maximum of 100,000 square feet of commercial land
uses and/or a variety of skilled nursing care facilities uses with a maximum of 200 units on 9.50, acres. The
subject property is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, approximately 660 feet north of
Rattlesnake Hammock Road Section 14, Township 50 South and Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinator: Melissa Zone)
10. OLD BUSINESS
11. NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
]3, DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
8/6/09 cepe Agenda/Ray Bellows/cr
2
AGENDA ITEM 9-A
-
Co~T County
~
STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: JULY 16, 2009
SUBJECT: BD-2009-AR-14226, JOHN COWDEN BOAT DOCK EXTENSION
PROPERTY OWNERlAGENT:
Owner:
John Cowden
413 SanJuan Avenue
Naples, Florida 34113
Agent:
Eric Schneider
Turrell, Hall & Associates
3584 Exchange Avenue
Naples, Florida 34104
REOUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner is requesting a 26-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 46 feet into a waterway that is
340 feet wide.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is located at 413 San Juan Avenue, further described as Isles of Capri
NO.3 Subdivision, Lot 695, in Section 31, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier
County, Florida. (See location map on the following page)
PURPOSEIDESCRlPTION OF PROJECT:
The purpose of the project is to remov~ the existing dock and lift facility that protrudes 31,1
feet into the waterway and construct a new docking facility as shown within the application
submitted by Turrell, Hall & Associates. The proposed facility will protrude a total of 46
feet into a waterway 340 feet wide, and consist of an "L" shaped dock leading to a lift
accommodating two personal watercraft,
BD-2009-AR-14226
Revision: 6/18/09
- J-
n
n
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I fo-
r-J I CI)
,
I I ~ <(
cC
I m
I
I ,
I x
r- u ;---/
I I
I I .,.--------,~-
I:;; I
\:;Id: -I
I'i' ~Ir- R ~~
I 61lf)
I zl
I I w
I I z
'5
I I fo- 0
~, I CI) x
r-- ,
I <( ~
I ~
~ ~
I ~
~
I fo-
I CI)
~ , ,
I I < <(
I I r
I l ~
3
- I I
I <( ~
I
I "'
I ~
w
I ~
0
z
o
w
x
~
~
~
~
m
N
n
f0-
CI)
,
<(
J1.:JSOl H)<< /
I--
ii
"",i
!!~ ,
~(/
~(
ii
1i_"'!
!i- ~ "
~
ii. '
-c-
I!~
, l~ 1 1
" !
" , ~ -
~~
h>e'~'S]
<ll/V~31~0lI 1131110:)
,
~
o.
!
N
t)
'"
,
I
__-p;--" l__
1
I
I
I
_/--~-
c/ ~
o
1/ (/1
I"
. C
c--
/
a..
<t:
~
<.9
Z
Z
o
N
'"
N
~
,
c::
<:
'"
:5
N
o
"'
..
z
o
~
~
w
"-
a..
<t:
~
z
o
I-
<t:
()
o
....J
SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING:
SUBJECT PARCEL: The site is currently developed with a single-family home, zoned
RSF-3. The waterway abutting the property is zoned A-ST.
SURROUNDING:
North:
East:
South:
West:
Developed single-family home, zoned RSF-3
Waterway, zoned A-ST
Developed single-family home, zoned RSF-3
Developed single-family home, zoned RSF-3 and San Juan Avenue
Right-of Way
t~~'ourl~)'P-~r1y~..:..w..I.N~'!9
Aerial photo taken from Collier County Property Appraiser website.
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION:
Environmental Services staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting
of this request. Section 5.03,06(E)(11) (Manatee Protection) of the Collier County Land
Development Code (LDC) is applicable to all multi-slip docking facilities with ten (10) or
more slips. The proposed facility consists of one boat slip and is therefore not subject to the
. ptovISlon,s.efiliErS6Ctiort.----------- --- .... ..-------
BD-2009-AR-14226 - 3-
Revision: 6/18/09
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 (The previous LDC addressed
this situation in Section 2,6,21.3. That section was inadvertently omitted from the current
LDC. It will be incorporated into the LDC in an upcoming amendment in Section 5,03,06).
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 one boat slip with a lift
accommodating two personal watercraft, which is appropriate in relation to the 75-
foot waterfront length of the property.
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 (ML T). (The petitioner's
application and survey shOUld establish that the water depth is too shallow to
allow launching and mooring ofthe vesseI(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 12-foot
personal watercraft described in the petitioner's application at mean low tide.
3. Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on
navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channe!. (The
facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus
impeding vessel traffic in the channe!.)
Criterion met According to the drawing and application submitted by the
petitioner, the dock is located on a large, unmarked waterway and will not impede
navigation in any way. The dock to the north protrudes 43 feet into the water and
the dock to the south protrudes 52 feet into the water. Therefore, the proposed dock
would not encroacl1into-the-wat<lr--furtRMctnan the existing docks in~ar<la.--
BD-2009-AR-14226
Revision: 6/18109
-4-
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, the
waterway is 340 feet wide at the site as measured by aerial photo, The proposed
facility will occupy about 14 percent of the waterway width, and about 86 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 neighhoring docks. (The facility
should not interfere with the use oflegally permitted neighboring docks.)
Criterion met. According to the drawings submitted by the petitioner, the proposed
facility will not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. The proposed dock is
set back 27 feet from the north riparian line and 22 feet from the south riparian line.
Secondarv 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 not met. The applicant states that since the subject property is located in
a State designated Aquatic Preserve, dredging is not allowed, Although this is a
reason for the extension request, it is related to water depths. Therefore, this
criterion is not met
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, and will allow safe and reasonable access to the vessels.
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.)
BD-2009-AR-14226
Revision: 6/18/09
- 5-
Criterion met. The subject property contains 75 feet of water frontage, and the
combined length of the two personal water craft is 24 feet, or 32 percent of the
waterfront footage.
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 have a major impact on waterfront view
of neighboring property owners. The upland is vegetated along the south property
line, making visibility to this dock minimal. The proposed dock is similar to the
docks on the neighboring properties.
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 applicant, no seagrass was observed in or near the
project area.
6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection
requirements of subsection 5.03.06(E)(1l) of this Code. (If applicable,
compliance with section 5.03.06(E)(1l) must be demonstrated.)
Criterion met. According to Sections 3.2.3.4 and 4.6.3. of the Manatee Protection
Plan, the proposed dock facility will be for the mooring of two vessels at a single-
family residence and therefore is not subject to the Collier County Manatee
Protection Plan Guidelines. The application indicates that the facility will be
constructed per the manatee construction standards. The survey shows that the lot
has approximately 75 feet of shoreline and the proposed dock facility
accommodates one boat slip.
Staff analysis indicates that the request meets five 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
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.
BD-2009-AR-14226
Revision: 6/18/09
-6-
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report BD-2009-AR-14226 revised on
6/18/09.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above findings, staff recommends that the CCPC approve Petition BD-2009-
AR-I4226 subject to the following stipulations:
1. All docks, or mooring pilings, whichever protrude greater into the water,
regardless of length shall have reflectors and address numbers four (4) inches
minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides, prior to a Certificate
of Completion.
2. At least one (1 )"Manatee Area" sign shall be posted in a conspicuous manner
as close as possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway,
prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion.
3. 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 the issuance of a building permit.
4. 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 Pictures from site visit on June 10,2009
BD-2009-AR-14226
Revision: 6/18/09
- 7-
PREPARED BY:
~\.j LA-y-C L G:/IS'!I/C]
AS~{~~ CKSER;~E~IOR PLANNER DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
(, IZ'Jf,)~
RA YM D V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DA lIE I
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
~NE~;'~~ ;1/iL/~J
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
" -.. - V
.
H K. SCHMITT, A MINISTRATOR
MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
ti07
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK P, STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
DATE
Petition Number: BD-2009-AR-14226
Staffreport for the July 16,2009 Collier County Planning Commission Meeting
BD-2009-AR-14226
Revision: 6/18/09
-8-
Pictures from site visit on June 10, 2009
Standing in back yard, looking at existing dock, facing east.
Standing in back yard, looking at existing dock on neighboring property to the north.
Standing in back yard, looking at existing dock on neighboring property to the south.
Standing in back yard looking east across waterway and existing dock.
CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 09-_
RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2009-AR-14226 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 26 -foot extension
over the maximum 20 -foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06 to allow for a 46 -foot boat dock
facility in a Residential Single Family (RSF-3) zoning district, which facility extends into a
waterway in an Agricultural district with special treatment overlay (A-ST), 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-2009-AR-I4226, filed on behalf of John A. Cowden, as Trustee of the
John A. Cowden Revocable Trust dated January 25, 2008 by Eric Schneider of Turrell, Hall &
Associates, Inc" with respect to the property hereinafter described as:
Lot 695, Isles of Capri, Number Three, as described in Plat Book 3,
Page 66, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
- - De ana t!lesam@Tsnere-by aP~ for a26 f6Dtc)(tenswno[ iFooat--do-clcoyer llicrl1-axmmm20~-~--
foot limit to allow for a 46-foot boat dock facility in the Residential Single Family (RSF-3) zoning
lof2
district wherein said property is located, which facility extends into a waterway in an Agricultural
zoning district with special treatment overlay (A-ST), 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. At least one (1) "Manatee Area" sign must be posted in a conspicuous manner as close as
possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Completion,
3. 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.
4. 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
_,2009.
ATTEST:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Joseph K. Schmitt Mark P. Strain, Chairman
Community Development and Environmental
Services Administrator
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
Steven T, Williams
Asst.. COllntyAJtom~c~~~'~'I.
---_.._~.-.._-_.-----------,._--_...- ----,--- --.----.-.
09-CPS-00939/9 STW 6/26/09
20f2
NOTICE OF POSTING
Date to Code Enforcement: July 2. 2009
Petition Number: BD-2009-AR-14226
Petition Name: Cowden BD
Petition Planner: Ashley Caserta
General Location: is located at 413 San Juan Avenue. Isles of Capri No.3 Subdivision.
Lot 695. in Section 31. Township 51 South. Range 26 East. Collier County. Florida.
Sign(s) ReCeiye?1:' t:117 t!J7-/~OCj 1:oofl.-iV\.
Code Enforcement Officer: ~~"Z SM~ ~
Posted Date: cn~,5- ocr I~ '.\bf..if\
To Be Posted By: __ - ~ f~ .R.M.....,' \ "-\-ed. q V
I
Return Confirmation To: Heather Ramirez - Planning Technician Ext: 2930
I'
i':<; r.~
Please provide Zoning with photos of the signs posted on property
.....n'.ii~.
~G-se )\JLfYlCUe... Old 0.~Jl:) 0Jld
\e{)\ Q.C.e LU,- bv I\Q.I.0 O'e.-s.
. n_~------- '--,------- .--dVlFl~n~~=---~
c@
5
""""
.
-,
?'U
-..
~,
..:~
'..:1'
~..~
::il
---
,
::"
",~'
AGENDA ITEM 9-6
-
....
Co~T County
,_..._~",,;.StI!~~ .;#~__,.,~t.~1:'.I1:-~~._.__.
"",,,,__ 'ifIJlI"~ ~~~. ''''(j>_""",-,~_ "-""~'
STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
HEARING DATE: JUNE 18,2009
SUBJECT:
PETITION NO: PUDA-2008-AR-14090, OAK GROVE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) (COMPANION ITEMS: PUDZ-2008-AR-14091
SIENA LAKES COMMUNITY FACILITY PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (CFPUD) AND PUDA-2008-AR-14092 ORANGE
BLOSSOM GARDENS PUD)
PROPERTY OWNERlAGENT:
OWNER:
St Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church
7100 Airport Road
Naples, FL 34109
APPLICANTS:
Life Care Services (LCS) Development, LLC
400 Locust Street, Suite 820
Des Moines, lA 50309
Old Barn, Inc.
The Eunhee Bates Living Trust
1613 Chinaberry way
Naples, FL 34105
AGENTS:
Robert 1,. Duane, AICP
Hole Montes, Inc.
950 Encore Way
Naples, FL 34110
Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq.
Goodlcttc, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich
and Koester
4001 Tamiami Trail North
Naples, FI, 34 103
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an
application to amend Ordinance No. 98-71, the Oak Grove Planned Unit Development (PUD), to
remove 6.13 acres from the development so that the acreage might be added to the proposed Siena
Lakes CFPUD (companion item PIJDZ-2008-AR-14091) to the west I()f an assisted living facility.
PUDA-2008-AR- ] 4090, Oak Grove pun
July J 5,2009
ii
~...
oYO!I NDJ"'.~n _"!"
'"
o~
=>,
o..~
w
C',VC':>!
fr TL-_
"' ~5 --~--- - I PIE -==JD~~,
:=::^~ ., ".. ,~j ~ ~\\ \
" '. ". " l'Ii] '),[', \ ),1 )
, , {-'TIITlli / " '\_JLJ
., ,Y __L 1.11" ... "',~_ _,
;,: r , I~l' ! )/"n-z \"
- '/!i'" -\J\lI~'1\ >:e\ \1\
/t~)::YI'(D}i I:l[ f(~! I , '.
"1m T_ ~- Th jZll .
,Iltc0 ' - ->a'IIOlLv
_::n ~II j 1 - ..IE
~ ~ -1
~ '1 jJ r I J/; '"
i[2Z [ITIT~
'/.';'; '"''" """
j"-'~_JW"--'_3""'~'"
j~j~":~:~:=' ,"'"
~
"
0:;',;
=>".
o..~
.'I\'j<~ (" lO~ /_
#-
{ 1,I~i-il J-1 II J
" \ "'1 ,. ,f "
C_l] ~ _UI:- -1_1
I I ;__1
-- -I
i1 _ Ill: ,I: I, ~"
: ' --t "1 ! ~ 1 ~',
- -- w- iof - \ J
'"""""""'L.", ,/
---------:r.:,---;l *~ "I ~j _ ~ t::
'":;:;::~;:, J:E,k:::- ":'_,;=:- "iJ
!, -- '::"""""'-, r::~~C;\!'ll 1
~~~ 0, "~')tJO['___ ~ ~~ ~ .', ,_:_
rn I'''' If.2c.';r"""'""
"";j i I~!ll.;""."~~='
l,,'
I IJ1 I
t/
LJ~-m Ii;, j
~~rli ll,J --:, ~,:,;"
\., " '/
I' j;~ --,.,,/jl>{
!' \ ~ ifJg;, 1____
'". ",
/,! I '"':.' :1i ;
I " i~'i g, , ,
~ I ,,.: , i
~ I %'~;"'-'OH '>)."" I
I ~ I ,,,,is ~~~~>Na HNVS
il ".n," 1- --r 7 !,
'II i" I!" " i'"
ljl ~--;I . l~ '\ f' ","'CO"'
ill ~ J-'=: - _~JI~I ~ Ithlel! -j [- "i
c -, LiT:;'~l'~'"~Jli ir' !
'" 1- !~t 'lfo, 'If I" 'f .~.~,
., ., "1J G.,_. ~u__ ~,"
~:1 ..' -' -.... '.r---"(=jJ..- """d "',oS
- - - ~-/l -~~ --[+ \- -\ 'd I
,. lJ" Ii; l !,' I
t~ [" II ' " 'F I ;,
' II[ II ~; \ <~ II! i '_
l~~":_t -Ll -- t ~ 1 _
r, '1'1
i 11 I ;, I ,; _" "
il;"--:,t~
L i
":z
~g ~ ~ ;.;~
ffi--'4: (3
ZO(?
~(?
~1, ;:
u ~
!I'II
1_-
'"
0..
<(
~
<.9
z
z
o
N
o
m
o
~
'"
"'"
ro
o
o
N
"'"
o
=>
(L
..
z
o
f--
f--
W
(L
0..
<(
~
61
I-
<(
o
o
---l
'[
z_oo~
~ ~ "'
~ :,;
D'~
ww
II
UU
""""
f-I-
WlJJ ..
OC)u...:u..:~lI.;
D::::n:::~~::2'L
WIOOn:::n:::/Xo::
VlOOOOOO
:::J WW ..
:r:::r:u..:u..:,-,-:~
~~vivi(f}(f)
f-I-
f-f-
"" .~
(J) ~ (I) ~ ~
U) (J) U) '-- V '- U
~ u e g u g 0
U 0 U 0
o 0 OJ 0 n
~'-NrD,,"",:~
;:;) . N 'r-'""JnN
--f~N~r---:t"JCO
II II II II II II II
(f)WVlS:c.ri5_~
o . n:::O<CIr-
Z2~cr:WI--O
<(_'-.I lL. O....JOI-
r=!'>(.):::::><(Q
WIJ}a:lOLL
3: W a: '*
" .
"" Z
.-' 0
f-
Ul
'"'
Z
>
::J
. .
m m m
m m ~
m " m m m ~ ~
" c m m m m w w c u
w m ~ c C C C U U U 0
c C 0 U U U U 0 0
u u u 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 en
0 n aJ
o .....-mmmm;;) "" 0 n
"'t')N'--VN~,,! . '" 0 n
~r---: 'a:li.Or.-).--nv
CO-::tN ,...... r--. n ,
>-
a:
<
::i:
::i:
::>
CJ)
w
o
<
a..
CJ)
z
~
o
>-
a:
<
::i:
~
(J) II II II II II II II II
3:(/)(f)
I- UlviVlVl66ol--o
o ~<(ES~O::f=n::::i~
W <(wu.. <( 'O:::--.l
..., ...Jw5o: ~~I--t:J
o w 0 o~rnlL. 8 ~S:
:::::) a: W<( 02:::
"'0 0 ~ if) Of--
Oi3 or.nZ
'VC..... 0-1-- <:(Ulw
--::::IN Oz 000
~a..C Ii" crcriS]
<W"'''' '" ZWX
cO>~!2 ~0
00_0 ~~
00:::: ..!: zO:::
~C>O"Ct 50
c( IV.. ::::J
~ ~ U ... . "'c;,~~=f~~
---- :c: - - ---:c ~
r::-,.. ,illfi! . .T.T....mi(1 [
, 111. \r', . .J _ ---L un'
r:1:~'i'il_l :~cm:'l: ~ ;;!L if 111
t' !! :-~I"~=~) i," (( ,> i
I'i ,~\ ~ -~ ~'C~:, .' ,j <<_'\,,1,\ : ~!!! il'I' I.~I
,I \.:, \' I \\":' "Ii I,.
li~, \ ,{ \(;i, ii'i I i~II'I'I:
II "! 11'1\ I' ,) ~\ '-11
'Iii 'l fi,l II (I \~\~: 'i~I"
' .., ~ I , I
:1 1// ~.! L >~ ! I', _ I
" 'I. "l' , ]._~I
j! _u ----<1] " (' 'j /11'111
l,i"I' 11,1 I: h i'I:1
I I \\~ / (III I"
i' -\\.. Ii .II,! \\1\(..
:1 .~~ \ 'I /;;:1 \':'\\\"
III ,;.-" "~'~~ 1)1 # II' \\\~\~'
' " -- I' / /~/ I , .,
I :!' "'~~=-'_~ I \ \
II:! "'~==", , \ .
1'1" l, ,,' I !11~:i ''\-\\\...'
I'~ " I \ \\\,'1
I:: I ,! ,I, \\~,~.'
II 11 II t, Y \ "','
\1)) I" 1\ I \'"
II I . ! I'! ,\ 11'11'
I I ~ "'._.\
,j I - , - -~--- , __ _.1 -" .' I
ii -="-- -c--r , --::~--.c:.::-~.. ~ 0::~ II
L...~~.. , ,,,, ""e""c"", I
" I, ~~~'~~~i~~~~fl' I
">'" '\ " ,," " " ~""
'",,~-- II
>-
a:
<
::i:
::i:
::>
CJ)
I-
o
<
a:
I-
I NO>
(/)i.OOOQ)~v-
~ v-C~:;;:---:Lrin
~cri~~ro,.......-
N
:>
W
c::
'"
o
-
CO
-
II)
II II
<( 22 ~
l~J 0:3 0::::
~ E:D- <(
w nO":: --1
~ ~~ ~
en o(f) 0
--1 :2 <( V)
<( lJJ2 w
~ lY.o 0:::
I-- w:J *
mo.
~:i
Z
""<3
~[2
",,0
u...:u..:
uiui
~1-=O'~>5O
.
.
L
I
U
"'
"
I
U
~
'"
F
Q
""
m
~
'"
"'
~
ro
m
N
~ q! i :.,
I ~ i -
I '"
Ul
D
Z
""
F
w
"
~ ~
~ --
i ~ i 8
lUg
:II
h!
!Il
W
D
::)
--"
u
z
f-
o
Z
VJ
W
o
D
""
W
cr
""
Z
""
-,-'
",,0,..
=>0:
I-Wf-
o,f--
WCf.l~
<.>.."
Z::;X
o W
<.>c
=>
0,
.
.
d
;~ ~
~> --
~~
o. __
~m j
-I _
:2
~~ ~
'r ,
I!
z:
., ..~i
j'i'111
IiI.I
,.
Q
~
~
~
~
H.
,
!
,:! ~ 5
~U
I
~ !
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject PUD, consisting of 137.43 acres, is located in the northwestern quadrant of the Orange
Blossom Drive and Livingston Road intersection, in Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East,
Collier County, Florida (see location map on following page).
PURPOSEIDESCRlPTION OF PROJECT:
On September 8, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved Ordinance No. 98-
71 for the Oak Grove PUD, which established a 550 unit residential development (ultimately
named Bridgewater Bay) comprised of single-family, duplex and multifamily dwelling units at a
density of four units per acre with 60 percent open space. The applicant is proposing to amend this
ordinance to remove the westemmost 6.13 acres from the PUD (see aerial photograph below) and
the associated unbuilt 25 dwelling units approved for it, so that the acreage might be aggregated
with the property adjoining it to the west, which is proposed to be rezoned to the Siena Lakes
CFPUD to allow for an assisted living facility. Thc proposed changes to Ordinance No. 98-71 are
shown in strike-through and underline format in proposed ordinance attached to this report. No
other changes to the approved ordinance or to the PUD Master Plan are being requested.
AERIAL VIEW OF THE ACREAGE TO BE REMOVED
2
PUDA-2008-AR-14090. Oak Grove PUD
July 15,2009
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: Multi-family residences of the Lakeside community, zoned Citrus Gardens PUD
East: Multi-family residences of the Bridgewater Bay community and a stormwater management
pond, zoned Oak Grove PUD and First Baptist Church PUD, respectively
South: Orange Blossom Drive, then single-family homes and duplexes of the Walden Oaks
community, zoned Lone Oak PUD
West: Vacant land, zoned Agricultural
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 of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). This district is intended to
accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses, including mixed-use
developments such as Planned Unit Developments. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide
for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and
planned public facilities are concentrated,
Ordinance No. 98-71 approved the PUD at a residential density of four dwelling units per acre, or
550 dwelling units, on 137.43 acres. The 6,13-acre reduction of the subject property from 137.43
to 131.3 acres would reduce the subject property's maximum permitted residential density to 525
dwelling units, Currently, the subject property contains 524 residential dwelling units. Therefore,
pursuant to the Density Rating System of the Mixed Use District Urban Residential Subdistrict of
the FLUE, only one additional dwelling unit would be allowed to be built if the subject PUD
amendment (PUDA) were approved:
Approved (existing) PUD
Proposed PUDA
550 DU 1137.43 ACRES = 4 DUlAC
525 DU 1131.3 ACRES = 4 DUlAC
FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with and complementary to the
surrounding land uses as set forth in the LDC. It is the responsibility of the Zoning and Land
Development Review staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety to perform the
compatibility analysis.
Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed PUD amendment
consistent with the FLUE.
Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed this project and has noted
that the removal of 25 dwelling units from the PUD would not pose a net increase in the site-
generated traffic on the roadway network. Therefore, this petition may be deemed consistent with
the applicable policies of the Transportation Elernent.
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 10,02.13.8.5,
3
PUDA-2008-AR-14090, Oak Grove PUD
July 15,2009
Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and
Subsection 10.03.05.1, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (commonly
referred to as "Zoning 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
BCC, who in tum use the criteria to support their 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:
Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has determined that there are no
environmental issues associated with this application since all environmental concerns were
addressed at the time of the original rezone.
Transportation Review: Since the proposed petition would not result in additional site-generated
trips, the Transportation Planning Staff recommends approval of the PUDA. However, as a
condition of approval, is requesting a buildoutlc1oseout determination to be completed within 90
days of BCC approval for the portion of the PUD that is being annexed, which would allow
Transportation Planning staff to have documentation that no outstanding PUD commitments
remain and no more annual monitoring or tracking is necessary (see Exhibit C to the Ordinance,
"Conditions of Approval").
Utilities Review: This PUDA does not impact the utilities provision as no additional utilities are
required or proposed. As stated in the application, the Siena Lakes CFPUD companion item to this
petition incorporates utility provisions and a sketch for the land area being removed from this
PUD. Therefore, no new public utility issucs are associated with this PUDA.
Emergency Management Review: Since thc proposed amendment reduces the number of
approved dwelling units in the PUD, there would be 110 adverse impacts on the evacuation and
sheltering requirements for the County.
Zoning Review: The applicant proposes to remove 6. I 3-acre from the subject PUD so that the
land may be rezoned to the CFPUD zoning district for an independent and assisted living
retirement community. In order to do that, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed
deletion of land from the PUD will not result in the remaining land area's inability to meet its
zoning requirements, including developer commitments or, if any, conditions of approval.
As shown in the Conceptual PUD Master Plan approved with Ordinance No. 98-71, the subject
property makes up the extreme southwestern comer of Tract 111 and appears to have no functional
relationship with the remainder of the development. The Transportation improvements for the Oak
Grove PUD have been constructed, and all other developer commitments have been satisfied. The
applicant has also provided documentation demonstrating that the 6.13 rcduction in acreage would
not result in the remaining PUD area's cxcccding the allowable four dwelling unit per acre density
limit. Finally, permissible building setbacks in this area of the project would not be excecded, and
the lO-foot Type A landscape buffer rcquircd would be surpassed by an cxisting 15-foot Type B
buffer that would remain to separate the multi-family uses of Bridgewater Bay from the proposed
Sicna Lakes retirement community.
4
PUDA-2008-AR-14090, Oak Grove PUD
July 15,2009
LDC Subsection 10.02.13.8.5 states that, ''In support of its recommendation, the Planning
Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following
criteria" :
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to
physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water,
and other utilities.
The 6.13 acres to be removed from the Oak Grove PUD presently allow for multi-family
or single-family uses and, if the subject PUDA were approved, would be incorporated
into a new CPUD to the west of the subject property that is proposed for the Siena Lakes
retirement community. As noted in the "Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning" portion of
this report, to the east of the subject property are the multi-family uses of the Oak Grove
PUD and the First Baptist Church, also zoned PUD; to the north are the multi-family
uses of the Lakeside community; to the south are the single- and multi-family homes of
the Lone Oak PUD; and to the west is Agricultural-zoned property, which is proposed to
be rezoned to the Siena Lakes CFPUD. Access to the Oak Grove PUD would not be
affected by the subject proposal since it is already available to Bridgewater Bay residents
from Orange Blossom Drive and Livingston Road. Similarly, sewer and water services
are already readily available to the site. Therefore, the proposed amendment would be
appropriate in light of existing conditions in the area, The physical characteristics of the
land, the utilities in the surrounding areas and the traffic patterns (the latter with the
mitigation provided in the developer commitments of the Siena Lakes CFPUD
document), are all suitable to support thc proposed uses on the subject property.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreemenls, contract,
or other instruments, or for amendments in Ihose 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 al public expense. Findings and
recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney.
The subject property is under unified control as evidenced by the Statement of Unified
Control submitted with the application. There are no provisions for onsite public
facilities as part of the proposed request, so there are no such related agreements,
contract, or other instruments.
3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objeclives and policies of the growth
management plan. (This is to include identifYing what Sub-district, policy or other provision
allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that
Sub-district, policy or other provision.)
As previously noted, the subject property is located in the Urban-designated area, Mixed-
Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map, which permits
group housing. The proposed rezoning can also be found consistcnt with Policy 5.4 of the
FLUE, which requires that future development be compatible with the surrounding land
uses, since the subject property is surrounded by complementary multi-family residential
land uses.
5
PUDA-2008-AR-14090, Oak Grove PUD
July 15,2009
4. The internal and external compatihility of proposed uses. which conditions may include
restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design. and buffering and screening
requirements.
The subject property, once removed from the Oak Grove PUD and incorporated into the
Siena Lakes CFPUD to the west, would be compatible both internally and externally with
the proposed development. The IS-foot Type B buffer presently separating the two
developments wonld remain along the Oak Grove PUD boundary, and development
standards for the proposed Siena Lakes CFPUD would include enhanced vegetative
screening that exceeds the minimum requirements of the LDC, which would provide
compatibility between the adjoining multi-family land uses and thc proposed retirement
community.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed 10 serve the
development.
The land area to be removed from the Oak Grove PUD would not cause the pun to fall
below its 30 percent open space requirement.
6. The timing or sequence of development for Ihe purpose of assuring the adequacy of available
improvemenls andfacilities, both puhlic and private.
The subject PUD is built-out and adequate public and private improvemcnts have
already been constructed,
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion
Thc removal of thc subject property from the Oak Grove pun to incorporate it into the
Siena Lakes CFPUD is for the purpose of accommodating expansion in a manner
consistent with the FLUE. Furthcrmore, there are adequate public facilities for the
subject property and thc surrounding areas.
8. Conformity with PUD regulalions, or as 10 desirable modifications of such regulations in the
particular case, based on determination thai such modifications ofjuslified as meeting puhlic
purposes to a degree alleast equivalent to lileral application of such regulations.
The request would not cause the Oak Grove PUD to become inconsistent with the
regulations of its approving ordinance.
LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1.2 states, "When pertaining to Ihe rezoning of land, Ihe report and
recommendations to the planning commission 10 the Board of County Commissioners... shall show
that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the
following when applicable. " (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font):
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with Ihe goals, ohjectives, and policies and
future land use map and Ihe elements of the growth managemenl plan
G
PUDA-2008-AR-14090. Oak Grove PlID
July J 5,2009
The proposed change wonld be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and
Future Land Use Map and the applicable elements of the GMP. If approved, the severed
acreage would be incorporated into the proposed Siena Lakes CFPUD for a continuing
care retirement community, which is an allowed use throughout the urban area.
2. The existing land use pattern.
The existing land use pattern, as described on page 3 of this staff report, is conducive the
proposed request, as multi-family uses abut the property to the south, east and north.
3. The possible creal ion of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby dislricts.
The proposed amendment to this pun to remove 6.13 acres will not create an isolated
zoning district unrelated to adjacent or nearby properties.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on
the property proposedfor change.
The proposed zoning district boundaries are logically drawn.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment
necessary.
The majority of the parcels that comprise the proposed Siena Lakes project are zoned
Rural Agricultural at the present time yet are surroundcd by urban uses. This situation
reflects the changed conditions in the area and clearly demonstrates that agricultural
uses are no longer appropriate at this location, Therefore, removing the subject property
from the Oak Grovc pun and incorporating it into the proposed CFPUD would be a
suitable way to rectify this circumstance and result in a unified plan for one development
rather than two or more unrelated developments.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood
The proposed PUnA will not adversely influence living conditions in the ncighborhood,
based on the proposed Siena Lakes retirement community that the subject property will
become a part of and the development standards accompanying it (contained in the
documents of the companion Siena Lakes rezoning application).
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create
types of Iraffic 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 olherwise afJecl public safety.
As previously noted, the removal of 25 dwelling units from the Oak Grove PUD would
result in a net decrease in the site-generated traffic on the roadway network. The
companion item to this rezoning request, the Siena Lakes CFPUn, into which the subject
property will be incorporated, would be required to make improvements to the
7
PUDA-2008-AR-14090, Oak Grove PUD
July IS, 2009
intersection of Orange Blossom Drive and Airport Road in concert with other property
owners, and Certificates of Occupancy would not be approved until these improvements
are made. Therefore, the proposed change would not create or excessively increase traffic
congestion incompatible with surrounding land uses,
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
The Oak Grove PUD's drainage issues were addrcssed at the time of the original rezone.
The proposed Siena Lakes CFPUD would he required to comply with SFWMD
permitting requirements and constructed in accordance with all applicahle regulations,
so would not create a draina:.:e problem.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
Light and air to adjacent areas would not be reduced by the proposed PUDA.
J O. Whether the proposed change will adverse Iv affect property values in the adjacent area.
As described in this staff report, the removal of 6.13 acres from this PUD should not have
any effect on nearby property values,
II. Whether the proposed change will be a delen'enl 10 Ihe improvemenl or development of
adjacent property in accordance with exisling regulalions.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change should not be a deterrent to thc
development to the improvement or development of adjacent property. In addition, the
removal of the subject 6.15 acre site will be incorporated into the proposed Siena Lakes
assisted living facility. (See companion item: PUDZ-08-AR-14091)
12. Whether Ihe proposed change will constitute a granl of special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasted with Ihe public welfare.
The proposed request would not result in a grant of special privilege. The public interest
would be maintained as the proposed development is consistent with the FLUE.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with
existing zoning
There is no reason that the property could not be used in accordance with its existing
zoning. However, if approved, the severed acreage would be incorporated into the Siena
Lakes CFPUD whose boundaries are presently predominantly comprised of properties
that could not be used in accordance with their existing Rural A:.:ricultural zoning,
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale wilh the needs of the neighborhood or the
county.
The proposal would not be out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood.
S
PUDA-200S-AR-14090. Oak Grove PUD
July IS, 2009
15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in
districts already permitting such use.
It would not be impossible to find other sites in the county in districts already permitting
the proposed use on the subject property.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and Ihe degree of site alteration which would be
required to make the property usable for any of Ihe range of potential uses under the proposed
zoning classification.
The subject property has been previously altered and is suitable for development.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facililies and services
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County growth management plan and as
defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code
ch. 106, art. II}, as amended.
The proposed development on the subject property would be accompanied by adequate
public facilities, including transportation improvements to the intersection of Orange
Blossom Drive and Airport Road so that it would operate at an acceptable level of
service,
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the board of county commissioners shall deem
imporlant in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
All issues have been addressed. However, as stated in their application, the applicants
would incorporate standards deemed appropriate by the BCC to protect the public
health, safety and welfare.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
(Synopsis provided by Cheri Rollins, Administrative Secretary)
The meeting was duly noticed by the applicant and held on May 12, 2009 at 6:00 p,m. at the
Italian-American Club. Eighty three people from the public attended, as well as the applicant, Mr.
Steve Nomes of Life Care Services, and his agents, Mr. Richard Y ovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette,
Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich and Koester and Mr. Robert Duane, AICP, of Hole-Montes, Inc.
County staff was also present.
Mr. Y ovanovich presented an overview of the requested rezone from the Orange Blossom Gardens
PUD, Oak Grove PUD and Rural Agricultural zoning districts to the CPUD zoning district for a
continuing care rctirement community, He also explained the requestcd companion amendments to
delete 'approximately 6.13 acres from the Oak Grove PUD and approximately 5.85 acres from the
Orange Blossom Gardens PUD. There was no opposition to the requested Oak Grovc PUD
Amendment.
The meeting concluded at approximately 7:30 PM.
9
PUDA-2008-AR-14090, Oak Grove PUD
July 15, 2009
As of the V>'fiting of this report, statT has received no letters of objection from the community
regarding this petition.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for PUDA-08-AR-14090 revised on July
15,2009.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffrccommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PUDA-
2008-AR-13494 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of
approval, subject to the following condition:
1. Within 90 days of BCC approval of the subject PUDA, the property owner shall complete a
buijdoutlcloseout dctcrmination for the 6.] 3-acres to be severed horn the PUD.
10
PUDA-200S-AR-14090, Oak Grove pun
July 15, 2009
PREPARED BY:
~/?~/ OJ
DATE I
JO A VI MOSS, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
7/Z71r~
SUSA . ISTE ES, AICP, DI CTOR I DA E
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
7 ~j /0/
/ DNTE
APPROVED BY:
~
o EPH K. SCHMITT, AD INISTRA TOR
MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT &
NVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
727/01
r)A TE
Tentatively scheduled for the September 15,2008 Board of County Commissioners Meeting,
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
DATE
Oak Grove PUDA-2008-AR-14090
II
qc.~
C 6.L11-
~~l-\QI-
Memorandum
To:
Board of County Commissioners
From:
Joseph K. Schmitt, Community Development &
Environmental Services Administrator
Date:
July 29, 2009
Subject:
Collier County Planning Commission Meeting Agenda
Enclosed is a copy of the agenda and staff reports for the Collier County Planning Commission
meeting scheduled for August 6, 2009. To my knowledge, there is one Land Use Petition item that
may have controversial issues this week.
Petition: PUDZ-2008-AR-14091. LCS-Westminster Naples LLC, Siena Lakes Continuing Care
Retirement Community CPUD is controversial in that there is some neighborhood
opposition. Three neighbors have complained about the denSity (.60 FAR and 340
independent units and 80 ALF beds); and the building height, which is a max of 60 feet.
Staff is recommending approval of the request, because the setbacks are much greater
than those normally required and the buffering has been enhanced. However, the
heights are indeed at the upper end of the spectrum for the neighborhood.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding any of these agenda items or the process
itself, as always, please do not hesitate to contact me.
cc: Jim Mudd, County Manager
G/admin/ memo jJoseph K. Schmitt/RB/cr
Community Development & Environmental Services
Stephen A. Nornes
Senior Project Development Mi'mager
".-
\~1'
"='~
LCS Development
-..~.__.__._-
Lle
3300 Fernbrook lane N Suite 225
Plymouth, MN 55447 '.
Phone: 763 553.7600
Fax 763 519.9145
Cell. 612 2099560
E-mail: nornes@LCSnet.com
Web: WWW.LCSnetcom
- -+-~-_._----._-_.
HNI
HOLE MONTES
ENGINEERS, PLANNERS, SURVEYORS
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
950 Encore Way
Naples, Florida 34110
TerryCole@HMeng,com
.. TIIIJ Cell, P.E,
Vice President
Phone: 239.254.2000
Fax: 239.254,2099
nf!l-
SECTION IV-l
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
Life Care Services LLC
The Manager
~cs Holdings, Inc.
(an Iowa for-profit
corporation)
I
Ufe Care Services
LLG
(an Iowa for-profit
limited liability
company)
Life Care Services LLC (Management)
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FORM
COMPLETE LISTING OF INCORPORATORS, OFFICERS,
DIRECTORS, SHAREHOLDERS (10% OR MORE), PARTNERS, PROPRIETOR,
MANAGEMENT COMPANY PRINCIPALS, ASSOCIATION MEMBERS, AND TRUSTEES
For All Individuals Listed Please Provide The FOllowing Information: Name / Company(ies) I
Title(s) / Residence / Bus. Address / and Ownership Percentage (if appropriate)
INCORPORATORS / OFFICERS / DIRECTORS / SHAREHOLDERS
Life Care Services LLC is an Iowa limited liability company that provides management services to
the applicant, LCS-Westminster Naples LLC. There are no directors or shareholders. LCS
Holdings, Inc. is the sole member. Please see attached list for officers.
PARTNERS I PROPRIETOR I MANAGEMENT COMPANY PRINCIPALS
Not Applicable
ASSOCIATION MEMBERS I TRUSTEES
Not Applicable
CERTIFICATION BY PREPARER
5-1- 0'1 Compliance Manager for Life Care Services, LLC
nalure, Position of Preparer and Dale (See Seclion IV-1 For Details)
OIR-C1471
REV 12/05
27
Life Care Services LLC
Title Name Residence Address Business Address
President & CEO Edward Robert Kenny 209 Tonawanda Drive 400 Locust Street, Suite 820
Des Moines, IA 50312 Des Moines, IA 50309
Executive Vice Joel Dean Nelson 3526 Timberline Drive 400 Locust Street, Suite 820
President & SecretarY West Des Moines, IA 50265 Des Moines, IA 50309
Senior Vice President Joseph Michael 3 Woodland Drive 205 Old Boston Post Road
Brucella Clinton, CT 06413 Old Saybrook, CT 06475
Senior V ice President Mary Elizabeth Bush 4853 Benthaven Drive E 107 N State Road 135, Suite 206
Bargersville, IN 46 I 06 Greenwood. OM 46142
Senior Vice President Rick Wayne Exline 1432 Thames Drive 107 N State Road 135, Suite 206
Greenwood, IN 46143 Greenwood, IN 46142
Senior Vice President Mmy Jean Harrison 1381 NW 131h Comt 800 NW 17'h A venue
Boca Raton, FL 33486 Delrav Beach, FL 33445
Senior Vice President Kent Charles Larson 12884 Clark Street 400 Locust Street, Suite 820
Clive, IA 50325 Des Moines, IA 50309
Vice President & Diane Caro I 8 j 61 Heather Bow 400 Locust Street, Suite 820
Treasurer/CFO Bridg~\'Iilt_e,__ Johnston, IA 50131 Des Moines, IA 50309
Vice President James Leonard Biggs 3555 Rolph Way 2530 Douglas Boulevard, Suite 1 10
EI Dorado Hills, CA 95762 Roseville, CA 95661
Vice President Richard Lawrence 500 Great Plains Drive 12503 Village Circle Drive
Funk House Snrinos, MO 63051 Sunset Hills, MO 63127
Vice President Craig Peter Goscha 7164 Pommel Place 400 Locust Street, Suite 820
West Des Moines, IA 50266 Des Moines, IA 50309
V ice President Mark Richard Heston 2305 NE Hanover Com1 400 Locust Street, Suitc 820
Ankeny, IA 50021 Des Moines, IA 50309
Vice President Brett Andrew Logan 10116 Standing Stone Court 10021 Park Cedar Drive, Suite 400
Charlott'2-NC 28210 Charlotte, NC 28210
V ice President Kevin Jay Meyer 3579 Moonbay Circle 800NW 17" Avenue
Wellingt!'fl,.EL 33414 Delrav Beach, FL 33445
V ice President Richard Lee Seibm1 4009 Baybeny COUl1 400 Locust Street, Suite 820
Urbandale, IA 50322 Des Moines, JA 50309
Vice President Dennis Leon Tabor 721 40'h Street 400 Locust Street, Suite 820
Wcst Des Moines, IA 50266 Des Moines, IA 50309
Assistant Secretary Rebecca Sue Stoll 1048 14'"Street SE 400 Locust Street, Suite 820
- Altoona,]A 50009 Des Moines,]A 50309
(No Directors)
AFFIDA VIT
STATE OF IOWA
COUNTY OF POLK
NAME OF APPLICANT:
LCS-WestminsterNaples LLC
I, Edward R. Kenny, after first being duly sworn, state nnder oath that I am the President
and CEO of LCS Naples, Inc., the chief manager of the applicant, LCS-Westminster
Naples LLC, and I hereby certify under oath to the truth of the following statements
concerning LCS-WestminsterNaples LLC ownership structurc.
L My company considers this information a trade secret that has value and provides
an advantage or an opportunity to obtain an advantage over those who do not know or use
it.
2. My company has taken measures to prevent the disclosure of the information to
anyone other than those who have been selected to have access for limited purposes; and
my company intends to continue to take such measures.
3. The information is not, and has not been, reasonably obtainable without our
consent by other persons by use of legitimate means. / 1 ~
4. Tho i"fu~,"oo '<"0< p,bhdy ".I,blo r#// / _,
) u;7 {/ J.~____
9ig'naturetritIe //
//president and CEO 9. LCS t!apks, Inc. the
Chief Manger of LCS- Wti~ninster Naples
. 1/
LLC -
Sworn to and subsclibed before me, a Notary Public, this the /51- day of /J7.:tf.J. ,
20QL, witness my hand at office in the County of Polk, State oflowa. ~
fjiiJ~\AL ~
2 ~
" .
lOW"
SARA L. BONER
COMMISSION NO. 707799
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
. - - -,.yOlO
u~(~a c':~ f!f}7ZL/z
NOTARY PUBLr
My commission expires---raJ1 U ()j~_ )f.__, J~~J
'-< -
F5~
o -
S 0
"d 00
S-
O
Vi
,,'
"
~
"
~
n
~
?5
o
""
~
~
o
'3.
o
~
n
"
&
.:a'
m
g
n
Ei
o
?5
o
""
~
"
8
"
o
~
"
o
"
~
'"
.:a.
m
g
n
a
~
o
~
..
'"
r<
0' 0
:l! f{'
.. ::S
:::;?"
8 ___ ~
;:;... S
3. ~ S.
...... g ~-
~~~
~ ~.e:
'< (1) ;:.
" '" "
o '"
i3
>cJ
g
'<
r<
r<
o
z
~
'g.
o
~
'"
~
~
'"
s
"
g.
o
~
~
~
~
~
~
"
'"
g-
o
"'
"
t:
~
(1)'
0
~ ..
..,
(1)
nC)~ CIl r<
~ 0
:l! 0 CIl
2':..CIl
(D Z ~, ~ >-l
"':5' Q " ~
(1) ~ 0 ~
~(~ 0 ~ 0 &
.. >cJ - <! 0 :l!
p .., (1) ~ 0 .. '" 0
Po' 0 ~U"l i3 ~""
(fq ~ 5' ~ - Y' tfj
- (D - 0 i3 0
V> .., " " 0 ~ 1Jl
6'!. '" 0 p
0 ,0 e 6'!. " tfj
>8 0'
- (j
ro.
'" gg
r<
r< >-l
0
-
::S
(1)
~
8
.-.. S'
~~
E;; ~
'"
8. lT1
'" '"
~'"
p.
<
~
~
~
'" 0
<0 '"
(D _
~ '"
os.:
~ (D
-
-
-
::S
(1)
~ ~ ~.
~~~
;.-......... t'"1-
~ 0 Cil
q5:~
" .. 0
O-CIl
i3 ~.
>cJ 8. z
g; (; ~
<....:::: p. (D
'"
r<
r<
o
N
V>
6'!.
-
~ 5:~
r ~ ~ I
~ ;$~
- ~
r<
"<1
-
00
V>
6'!.
-
~
~ 0
(1) g
~ ~
o~
~ (D
::S
(D
~ ~
~ 8
~ Er
~ ~
o -
~ ~ "-
rO
"<10
?:1
o
Q
l:='
-~:
~
~
~
-;:::;~
J:;:;: {j;'
S' 0
o :;l
(;;' l'
~"
n
:f1~
nO g
~ g &
()~. '"d
~ ~
~
-.J
V>
::?
o
-
Cl
g
~
E.. ~
ie-g'
rlI 8.
" ~
~
w
00
h
~
"'
'"
~
~
0.
0:
w
00
~
'"
o
"
00
h
~
~
"
~
'"
~
w
00
'"
-
n?:1
o>-J
?:1tr1
or<-
r< g
~ ~.
0'"
(fq
~~l"'~
f!l " ~ if
g. ~ ~. :::t
~ 8l ~ l-j
P" rn
~
S
5
o
u;'
~
GJ 9 0
<::S :";:';'0"
~ (\l ~ 0
~()-al>>.5(J'tl
11~ ~~O~
n q '"1 >-1 ~ ~
~ '--' ~ <;
o
:;;;
Z
t'j",
';d>-;
"'t'j
~Z
::tl>
",r<
>-J>
Eg~
0'"
>-J
cj
~
LCS Naples, Inc.
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FORM
COMPLETE LISTING OF INCORPORATORS, OFFICERS,
DIRECTORS, SHAREHOLDERS (10% OR MORE), PARTNERS, PROPRIETOR,
MANAGEMENT COMPANY PRINCIPALS, ASSOCIATION MEMBERS, AND TRUSTEES
For All Individuals Listed Please Provide The Following Information: Name 1 Company(ies) 1
Title(s) 1 Residence 1 Bus. Address 1 and Ownership Percenlage (If appropriate)
INCORPORATORS I OFFICERS I DIRECTORS I SHAREHOLDERS
LCS Naples, Inc. is an Iowa for profit corporation and is the chief manager of LCS- Westminster
Naples, LLC. The sole shareholder of LCS Naples, Inc. is Life Care Services Communities LLC.
Please see attached list for officers and directors.
PARTNERS I PROPRIETOR I MANAGEMENT COMPANY PRINCIPALS
Not Applicable
ASSOCIATION MEMBERS I TRUSTEES
Not Applicable
CERTIFICATION BY PREPARER
&_ \_ Oq Compliance Manager for Life Care Services, LLC
Ignalure, Posilion of Preparer and Dale (See Seclion IV-1 For Details)
OIR-C1471
REV 12105
27
LCS Naples, Inc.
Title Name Residence Address Business Address
President & CEO Edward Robel1 Kenny 209 Tonawanda Dlive 400 Locust Street, Suite 820
Director Des Moines, IA 50312 Des Moines, IA 50309
Executive Vice Joel Dean Nelson 3526 Timberline Drive 400 Locust Street, Suite 820
President & Secretary West Dcs Moines, IA 50265 Des Moines, IA 50309
Director
Senior Vice President Mary Jean Harrison 1381 NW 131n Court 800NW 17"' Avenue
Boca Raton, FL 33486 Delrav Beach, FL 33445
Senior Vice President Kent Charles Larson 12884 Clark Street 400 Locust Street, Suite 820
Director Clive, IA 50325 Des Moines, IA 50309
Vice President & Diane Carol 816 I Heather Bow 400 Locust Street, Snite 820
Treasurer/CFO Bridl1:ewater Johnston, JA 50131 Des Moines, IA 50309
Assistant Secretary Rebecca Sue Stoll 1048 14" Street SE 400 Locust Street, Suite 820
A1toona,~IA 50009 Des Moines, IA 50309
LCS Holdings, Inc.
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FORM
COMPLETE LISTING OF INCORPORATORS, OFFICERS,
DIRECTORS, SHAREHOLDERS (10% OR MORE), PARTNERS, PROPRIETOR,
MANAGEMENT COMPANY PRINCIPALS, ASSOCIATION MEMBERS, AND TRUSTEES
For All Individuals Lisled Please Provide The Following Information: Name I Company(ies) 1
TIlle(s) 1 Residence 1 Bus. Address I and Ownership Percentage (if appropriate)
INCORPORATORS I OFFICERS I DIRECTORS I SHAREHOLDERS
LCS Holdings, Inc. is an Iowa for profit corporation that is the parent of the organizations that own
15% of the applicant, LCS-Westminster Naples LLC. Please see attached list for officers and
directors. Edward R. Kenny with a 12.01% ownership interest is the only shareholder with more
than a ] 0% ownership interest.
PARTNERS I PROPRIETOR I MANAGEMENT COMPANY PRINCIPALS
Not Applicable
ASSOCIATION MEMBERS I TRUSTEES
Not Applicable
CERTIFICATION BY PREPARER
5-1- Dq Compliance Manager for Life Care Services, LLC
ignature, Position of Preparer and Dale (See Section IV-1 For Details)
OIR-C1471
REV 12/05
27
LCS Holdings, Inc.
Title Name Residence Address Business Address
President & CEO Edward Robert Kenny 209 Tonawanda Drive 400 Locust Sh.eel, Snite 820
Director Des Moines, IA 50312 Des Moines, IA 50309
Executive Vice Joel Dean Nelson 3526 Timberline Drive 400 Locust Street, Suite 820 ~-
President & Secretary West Des Moines, IA 50265 Des Moines, IA 503 09
Director
Senior Vice President Joseph Michael 3 Woodland Drivc 205 Old Boston Post Road
Director Brucella Clinton, CT 06413 Old Savbrook, CT 06475
Senior V ice President Mary Elizabeth Bush 4853 Benthaven Drive E 107 N State Road 135, Suite 206
Director Bargersville, fN 46106 Greenwood. OM 46142
Senior Vice President Rick Wayne Exline 1432 Thames Drive 107 N State Road 135, Suite 206
Director Greenwood, fN 46143 Greenwood, IN 46142
Senior Vice President Mary Jean Harrison 1381 NW 13" COUl1 800 NW Ii" A venue
Director Boca Raton, FL 33486 Delray Beach, FL 33445
Senior Vice President Kent Charles Larson 12884 Clark Street 400 Locust Street, Suite 820
Director Clive, IA 50325 Des Moines, 1A 50309
Vice President & Diane Carol 8161 Heather Bow 400 Locust Street, Suite 820
TreasurerlCFO Bridgewater Johnston, IA 50131 Des Moines, IA 50309
Director ri048 -j4'''Street SE
-,--~._._---- --,-- .-
Assistant Secretary Rebecca Sue Stoll 400 Locust Street, Suite 820
Altoona, IA 50009 Des Moines, IA 50309
Director Mark Richard Hcston 2305 NE Hanover Court 400 Locust Street, Suite 820
Ankeny, IA 50021 Des Moines, IA 50309
Director William Charles 4125 Bahia Isle Circle 800 NW 17" Avenue
Pickhardt Wellington, FL 33449 DelraYl3~."ch, FL 33445
Director Vice President Richard Lee Seibel1 4009 Bayberry Court
Urbandale, IA 50322
LCS- Westminster Naples LLC
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FORM
COMPLETE LISTING OF INCORPORATORS, OFFICERS,
DIRECTORS, SHAREHOLDERS (10% OR MORE), PARTNERS, PROPRIETOR,
MANAGEMENT COMPANY PRINCIPALS, ASSOCIATION MEMBERS, AND TRUSTEES
For All Individuals listed Please Provide The Following Informalion: Name 1 Company(ies) 1
Tille(s) 1 Residence 1 Bus. Address 1 and Ownership Percenlage (if appropriate)
INCORPORATORS I OFFICERS I DIRECTORS I SHAREHOLDERS
LCS-Westminster Naples LLC is an Iowa limited liability company that is the applicant for this
Provisional Certificate of Authority. LCS-WestminsterNaples LLC has two members:
Westminster-LCS Naples LLC with an 85% ownership interest in LCS-Westminster Naples LLC
aud LCS Naples, Inc. with a 15% ownership interest in LCS-Westminster Naples LLC. There are
no shareholders.
PARTNERS I PROPRIETOR I MANAGEMENT COMPANY PRINCIPALS
Not Applicable
ASSOCIATION MEMBERS I TRUSTEES
Not Applicable
CERTIFICATION BY PREPARER
10 -;;t- Oq Compliance Manager for Life Care Services LLC
gnature, Position of Preparer and Date (See Section IV~1 For Details)
OIR-G1471
REV 12/05
27
Westminster - LCS Naples LLC
Company -
Name Title Residenee Address Business Add ress
Robert Ten Eyck RTE Lansing CCRC Manager & 390 E. Wisconsin 270 East Westminster,
Lansing LLC Member Lake Forest, IL 60045 Suite 300
Lake Forest, IL 60045
George William GW Carroll VI LLC Manager & 108 Fremont Place 4929 Wilshire Blvd.,
Carroll Member Los Angeles, CA 90005 Suite 780
_._- - Los Angeles, CA 90010
Westminster-LCS Naples LLC
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FORM
COMPLETE LISTING OF INCORPORATORS, OFFICERS,
DIRECTORS, SHAREHOLDERS (10% OR MORE), PARTNERS, PROPRIETOR,
MANAGEMENT COMPANY PRINCIPALS, ASSOCIATION MEMBERS, AND TRUSTEES
For All Individuals Lisled Please Provide The Following Information: Name 1 Company(ies) 1
Tille(s) 1 Residence I Bus. Address I and Ownership Percentage (if appropriate)
INCORPORATORS I OFFICERS I DIRECTORS I SHAREHOLDERS
Westminster-LCS Naples LLC is a Florida limited liability company tl1at is an 85% owner of the
applicant, LCS-Westl11inster Naples LLe. Westminster-LCS Naples LLC has two members:
Westminster CCRC Investors LP with a 75% ownership interest in Westminster LCS Naples LLC
and Westminster Fund VII LP with a 25% ownership interest in Westminster-LCS Naples LLC.
There are no shareholders. The ultimate managers are Robert T.E. Lansing and George W. CalToll.
Please see attached.
PARTNERS I PROPRIETOR I MANAGEMENT COMPANY PRINCIPALS
Not Applicable
ASSOCIATION MEMBERS I TRUSTEES
Not Applicable
CERTIFICATION BY PREPARER
Compliance Manager for Life Care Services LLC
gnature, Position of Preparer and Date (See Section IV-1 For Details)
OIR-C1-471
REV 12105
27
Westminster Fund VII LP
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FORM
COMPLETE LISTING OF INCORPORATORS, OFFICERS,
DIRECTORS, SHAREHOLDERS (10% OR MORE), PARTNERS, PROPRIETOR,
MANAGEMENT COMPANY PRINCIPALS, ASSOCIATION MEMBERS, AND TRUSTEES
For All Individuals Lisled Please Provide The Following Informalion: Name 1 Company(ies) I
Title(s} 1 Residence 1 Bus. Address 1 and Ownership Percenlage (if appropriate)
INCORPORATORS I OFFICERS I DIRECTORS I SHAREHOLDERS
Westminster Fund VII LP is an Illinois limited partnership. Westminster Fund VII LP has a general
partner (Westminster Advisors VII LLC) that owns 0.984615% and 129 outside investors that own
99.015385%. Of the 129 investors the largest investor owns 8% of Westminster Fund VII LP,
which is less than 2% of the applicant, LCS-Westminster Naples LLC. None of the outside
investors of Westminster Fund VII LP have direct control over the applicant, LCS-Westminster
Napies LLC. Westminster Fund VII l.P has no shareholders.
PARTNERS I PROPRIETOR I MANAGEMENT COMPANY PRINCIPALS
Not Applicable
ASSOCIATION MEMBERS I TRUSTEES
Not Applicable
CERTIFICATION BY PREPARER
(., -ii!- 0 Compliance Manager for Life Care Services LLC
.gnature, Position of Preparer and Dale (See Section IV-1 For Details)
OIR-C1471
REV 12/05
27
Westminster CCRC Investors LP
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FORM
COMPLETE LISTING OF INCORPORATORS, OFFICERS,
DIRECTORS, SHAREHOLDERS (10% OR MORE), PARTNERS, PROPRIETOR,
MANAGEMENT COMPANY PRINCIPALS, ASSOCIATION MEMBERS, AND TRUSTEES
For All Individuals Listed Please Provide The Following Information: Name 1 Company(ies) I
TitJe(s) 1 Residence 1 Bus. Address 1 and Ownership Percenlage (if appropriate)
INCORPORATORS I OFFICERS I DIRECTORS I SHAREHOLDERS
Westminster CCRC Investors LP is an Illinois limited partnership. Westminster CCRC Investors
LP has a general partner (Wcstminster CCRC Advisors LLC) that owns 3.8642% and 99 outside
investors that own 96.1538%. Of the 99 investors the largest investor owns ]4.423] % of
Westminster CCRC Investors LP, which is less than 9% of the applicant, LCS-Wesnninster Naples
LLC. None of the outside investors of Westminster CCRC Investors LP have direct control of the
applicant, LCS-WestminsterNaples LLC. Westminster CCRC Investors LP has no shareholders.
PARTNERS I PROPRIETOR I MANAGEMENT COMPANY PRINCIPALS
Not Applicable
ASSOCIATION MEMBERS I TRUSTEES
Not Applicable
CERTIFICATION BY PREPARER
,,-;t _ Compliance Manager for Life Care Services LLC
gnalure, Posilion of Preparer and Dale (See Seclion IV.1 For Details)
OIR-C1471
REV 12/05
27
RTE Lansing CCRC LLC
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FORM
COMPLETE LISTING OF INCORPORATORS, OFFICERS,
DIRECTORS, SHAREHOLDERS (10% OR MORE), PARTNERS, PROPRIETOR,
MANAGEMENT COMPANY PRINCIPALS, ASSOCIATION MEMBERS, AND TRUSTEES
For All Individuals Lisled Please Provide The Following Information: Name J CompanY(les) I
Tltle(s) 1 Residence 1 Bus. Address 1 and Ownership Percenlage (if appropriate)
INCORPORATORS I OFFICERS I DIRECTORS I SHAREHOLDERS
RTE Lansing CCRC LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with two members: de Gelderse
Blom LP with a 25% ownership interest in RTE Lansing CCRC LLC and Robert T.E. Lansing is the
general partner of de Gelderse Blom LP; and Robert T.E. Lansing with a 75% ownership interest in
RTE Lansing CCRC LLC. There are no shareholders.
PARTNERS I PROPRIETOR I MANAGEMENT COMPANY PRINCIPALS
Not Applicable
ASSOCIATION MEMBERS I TRUSTEES
Not Applicable
CERTIFICATION BY PREPARER
Compliance Manager for Life Care Services LLC
nalure, Position of Preparer and Dale (See Section IV-1 For Details)
OIR-C1471
REV 12/05
27
GW Carroll VI LLC
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FORM
COMPLETE LISTING OF INCORPORATORS, OFFICERS,
DIRECTORS, SHAREHOLDERS (10% OR MORE), PARTNERS, PROPRIETOR,
MANAGEMENT COMPANY PRINCIPALS, ASSOCIATION MEMBERS, AND TRUSTEES
For All Individuals Listed Please Provide The Following Informalion: Name I Company(ies) I
Title(s) / Residence I Bus. Address / and Ownership Percenlage (if appropriate)
INCORPORATORS I OFFICERS I DIRECTORS I SHAREHOLDERS
GW Carroll VI LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with one member: George W. Carroll
who has a 100% ownership interest in GW Carroll VI LLC. There are no shareholders.
PARTNERS I PROPRIETOR I MANAGEMENT COMPANY PRINCIPALS
Not Applicable
ASSOCIATION MEMBERS I TRUSTEES
Not Applicable
CERTIFICATION BY PREPARER
1.-01 -0 Compliance Manager for Life Care Services LLC
nalure, Position of Preparer and Dale (See Seclion IV-1 For Details)
OIR-C1471
REV 12/05
27
AGENDA ITEM 9-C
d. .
Co~'" County
~ ~-- -
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: AUGUST 6, 2009
SUBJECT:
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091: SIENA LAKES COMMERCIAL PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD)
(COMPANION ITEMS: PUDA-2008-AR-14090 OAK GROVE PUD AND
PUDA-2008-AR-14092 ORANGE BLOSSOM GARDENS PUD)
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
OWNER:
Old Barn, Inc.
1613 Chinaberry Way
Naples, FL 34105
CONTRACT PURCHASER:
LCS- Westminster, LLC
400 Locust Street, Suite 820
Des Moines, IA 50309
AGENTS:
Robert L. Duane, AICP
Hole Montes, Inc.
950 Encore Way
Naples, FL 34110
Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq.
Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich and Koester
4001 Tamiami Trail North
Naples, FL 34103
REQUESTED ACTION:
The applicant requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a rezone of
the subject properties from the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD, Oak Grove PUD and Rural
Agricultural (A) zoning districts to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning
district for a "continuing care retirement community" (CCRC) to be known as the Siena Lakes
CPUD.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The 29.25-acre subject property is located on the north side of Orange Blossom Drive,
approximately 1,000 feet east of Airport Road (CR 31) and west of Livingston Road (CR 881), in
Section I, Township 49 South, Range 25 East (see location map on the preceding page).
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CeRC CPUD
July 21. 2009
,:1 .
:!iO.!~liJ
'l .1
I
L*
- .
I!
I~
!
..
r
~
.
"
05
::J'
c...~
Q
::J
0.
.
~
t;
..
o
,
;
.
Q /1:
::J
0.
\ \i
'-1 o t3~
i ::J"
I Q. g~
~
,.
'I
. '
I,
,
,
,
:;~:;:
'la'
1-
e ~ :::?
j-
~
s...
O~~^31()Oa N\IOOl
i
,
,
I
~
:::;;;
~ ~-
-,
L
,
;:::;:\ ~
i
i-
"' j!
i
Ii
,,"-.'~JS~;U"I
Sl.~i".l.S~3H-M
erro 'IIJNt'lO~" >O!> Ii::; ~
!iOOCWO S..lI= ~2 ;:~
!~
h!
~f~
~I 0._'
~~ ~~~
._~
" II
""" ~~0Il)lN'Yll.-"
,
"
I'
.'
,
,
~!J \
.!" .' I
,;h ,!. !,:! ! ~!l !
"1\ li1~~! ~g ~li ~~ \ 5! t; o.o:z ~
~" ilil~ ~; h !~~ \ ~1.;~ ! iil:!I! ~
iji ~~ ~fi f' ~ 1 ~~~ ~ ~~I ~
,! 0 II 11, !.i 0 . !
. i lfi ~ J/. "
_~" :_..::------L-~~!..~E 763.or 4-:-::---------=-=--::-=--,
~M!II!
~i~fi~
lei!' "
Ii! ~ ~ I
I
,
,
1~
,
,
: "
!
,
,
i! 1
:;i I
(I
,
,
~I
-,
.,
!I'
I >
l .
I,I! 0+
g~,.:: I
.,..-'1;'
'!l, '
i.....:.c .
~-~"-)o I r
! i :!1 I' ,r
h~
lill:" I'
~~~ ~~j
: ": l~ lig;
, !~" I ., ell-
: T -
; # i i
: /:i _ .
, ~:i ~
" : ";~~
I ; :....-r
, 1""3:51
\ \,,:(1
~ ~! "". I
I j ""I
\ \ iii'
, I"
I;,':'
, In
\ I'll
I : I
1 j'1
H
:::
,
,
,
,
"
f " NlI2"48".wW160llV
~11-" ,t ,~ · I
.,~ ~ - 'il;~ c::>j '5~
,..: "11" \' ,I !.,
% ,,~ r ~ '"Ii ~ 3'" ~
~i!J ~I"!!' !; " ! ,
< ,~~ < '"~... li:':" _"' UJ' >
~ ~~t. ~ i~g :s~~ ~H ~'" .. !?
~~" .,~,. ~~~ ~ ;:; 3 iil
~~ ~ 2~!;.., ~ c ~
-0/~~~ "-
i
I
. i
I . !
! . l
, i .
III
o
ffi
~ ~ .. oJ ~
"I'
I,;
,.'
~bi"
bili<
..~,.
3 ~
, .
. ! ~
liH
! . , .
" i ! !
Ii!;
~ ~ ~ i
.00
!!
~I
.'
J '1
~~i ! I.
Woo. , ~~
'Ii [ l"ilC
-, .,;"'
."
~
I ''I
; i! ., !
100 il<2: i! _
I 1';I~ 0
g! ~~tu;;1 '
" ! 'ill ,
~ f ~~~i~ ~~ ~
~ li! ~~~i;l" w.. l>ll ~
4 ~ , I,j!,'! ~, "l: i
n I "1,_ ,.! '
" '" w"'"!!1"' !l'
~ : :Iiii ,I 'I !
b ~ ~~~~: ;~ ~~ ~
Z . "II' ,~ 01 '
~ i ~~~.~ ~~ ~~ 8
~ f ~..ffi~~ ~~ i~ ~
~ ~ e~~f~ ~~ ,!,~ !~
~ ~z i~
~ < ~~ j~ ~~
o
!,
, ~
!.
,.
,
,.
"
"
"- ~
Ii ~ i
>
> !
0
.
0 l
Z
" .
"
< !
.
l , ,
i
, ~ i
,
! , ,
, ".
~ -" -:i: 3
~ ~ ~ ~ ljt ,.
, "
r; ~ ~ ~ ~
"::;-=>:1'"
~ ~ i1
iz......
~"II- "
~ ~:q
" ; ~
Ii
>
,
o
.
~
o
o
Z
~
i
i il ~ ; - ~ ; ~
'--"l"i"
!. !
!i ~ ~
,nn
WJoL:i!i'l
~ ~ ~ ,d
!n,s I
1-'''' ·
dllllll
II
"
51
Ii
'!
,-
II
'I
" I!
. I";;:!
~ .':.1 Og
-Ii., \'
~l:l~i ~~
~ ~~;; ~~
P-\1!C U
1!!J ii
5.,. II
'''' "
ft;~l:lm b~
i~l: ~~
,1:'; 1~
b ~Il'~~ e':g
.. ~o~ <3 !i":i
N ! <8<0
: i' g i 15
; I ~ i -
g 5
o
. ~
. . ~
II ~ l/ ti
. ~ I 0
. ~ N
,
-.!
ph
"I
Ii!
~
i :
. c
l..
, i
z
..
..J
"-
a: '7
wO
I-
",I-
..iii
::;j;
c~
:;;
0:
<.i
"
o
..
2~
OZ
~ffi~
~~~
."S
ewo
~~~
..u
"0
lliZs~
. <
"
e
o
Z
.~P"
'.,F
~.!~i~
'f"o,
. -I"
. C I'
~ <
In
! ., ~!
i!I;' ~i
',!ll ".
ii~lil~
'"" .1.
;;0:- <lli~ o~
0.'-- I"
..~ ~- ~ ('
1;"': :>:;ci~
n"l"
u
~
U
U
1lll
o
..001
tD
,..::r
tD
c:l
o
.-
t>E)
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The proposed facility would allow a maximum of 764,524 square feet of area comprised of
independent living units, assisted living units, a skilled nursing and memory (dementia) care unit
and 72,257 square feet of various amenities associated with these uses at a combined floor area
ratio (FAR) of 0.60. This item is a companion to PUDA-2008-AR-14090, the Oak Grove PUD,
and to PUDA-2008-AR-14092, the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD, which propose to remove 6.13
and 5.85 acres, respectively, from their PUD boundaries in order to add this combined acreage to
the subject CPUD. If approved, the new project would allow for a 29.25-acre CCRC that, as
described in the CPUD document, would provide one or more of the following dwelling unit types:
villas, multifamily apartments, and skilled nursing and memory care units. As a "continuing care"
community, residents would enjoy the ability to "age-in-place" as their health needs changed over
time, since meals, housekeeping services, transportation, social activities, nursing care, and
educational growth opportunities would be made available to them on-site.
According to Section 1.08.02 of the Land Development Code (LDC), the proposed CCRC would
be defined as a group housing unit, which includes assisted living and continuing care facilities.
The group housing proposed with this application would allow a maximum of 340 independent
living units, 20 assisted living beds, 45 skilled nursing beds and 15 memory care beds in a
community restricted to persons aged 62 years or older. A variety of associated accessory uses,
such as dining rooms, a bank, beauty shop, swimming pool, wellness center, medical office, et
cetera would also be provided for the exclusive use of residents and their guests.
As depicted on the preceding Master Plan, the CCRC would be comprised of multiple buildings
situated around a meandering lake system, which would feature as an integral component of the
site's design. The tallest buildings on the site, housing independent living units, would form a
central axis extending east to west between the project's two largest lakes. Each of these buildings
would be four-story, with under-building parking occupying the first floor, for an effective total of
five stories above grade. (One of these buildings, the most centrally located, would not have
understory parking, but rather five finished floors). The maximum zoned height of these structures
would be 60 feet with an actual height of 69 feet, including appurtenances. Five other structures,
also comprised of independent living units, would parallel the northern boundary of the site and
would be oriented towards the lakefronts to their south. These structures would be three-story with
a zoned height of 41.5 feet and an actual height of 48 feet. They would provide one garage parking
space on the first floor, with their remaining parking needs met by detached, one-story garages
located to the north of each building in order to separate these buildings from the adjacent multi-
family residences of the Lakeside community. In two-story structures in the northeastern portion of
the site, an auditorium, a "commons" (i.e., dining hall) and the assisted living and skilled nursing
and memory care units would be accommodated. These buildings would have a maximum zoned
height of 42 feet and actual height of 45 feet. The residential portions of these structures would be
built around private courtyards, while the auditorium would overlook a small .37-acre lake with a
deck. The commons area would provide access to both a lakeside swimming pool and a green for
badminton or croquet. Each of these uses would be interconnected by a network of pathways
linking a boardwalk, another lakeside observation deck, two putting greens, a trellised seating area
bridging the confluence of two lakes and, ultimately, the independent living units previously
described in the central and western portions of the site (see Exhibit C-5 of the CPUD documents
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21, 2009
2
for graphic illustrations depicting the character and quality of some of the site's recreation and
open space amenities). Usable open space on the site, including eight acres of undeveloped land,
would comprise 32 percent of the site's total acreage. However, when combined with the project's
proposed 5.18 acres of lakes, the overall open space increases to approximately 51 percent of the
site, which is well over the 30 percent requirement of the LDC.
As noted, the applicant is requesting a maximum FAR of 0.60, which is an increase of 0.] 5 FAR
from that permitted for group housing by Section 5.05.04.D.l of the LDC. The applicant has not
formally requested a deviation from this requirement, based on the CCPC's prior support and the
Board of County Commissioners' (BCC) ultimate granting of 0.60 FARs for group housing
facilities in the Napoli Village CPUD and the Vanderbilt Trust CFPUD, in which the BCC
determined the 0.45 FAR of the LDC to be an outdated threshold for modern group housing in
light of market demands for generally larger-sized units with a greater variety and number of
amenities, such as on-site dining, wellness facilities, and recreational uses.
AERIAL VIEW OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
South:
Multi-family residences of the Lakeside community, zoned Citrus Gardens PUD.
Multi-family residences of the Bridgewater Bay community and a stormwater
management pond, zoned Oak Grove PUD and First Baptist Church PUD, respectively.
Orange Blossom Drive, then single-family homes and duplexes of the Walden Oaks
community, zoned Lone Oak PUD.
North:
East:
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21, 2009
3
West: Vacant land of Orange Blossom Gardens PUD.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
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 of the GMP.
This district is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses,
including mixed-use developments such as PUDs. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide for
higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned
public facilities are concentrated. This designation also allows community facilities, such as the
proposed group housing facilty. Because group housing density is determined by FAR, it is not
subject to the density rating system.
FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with and complementary to the
surrounding land uses as set forth in the LDC. It is the responsibility of the Zoning and Land
Development Review staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety to perform this
compatibility analysis.
In reviewing for compliance with FLUE Objective 7 and subsequent policies regarding Smart
Growth principles, staff provides (in bold font) the following analysis:
Policy 7./.
The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their propertips 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's main entrance and a service entrance access are provided from Orange
Blossom Drive, a minor collector roadway.
Policy 7.2
The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle
congeslion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the needfor traffic signals.
The Master Plan, Exhibit C-I to the CPUD document, indicates access to all buildings and
vehicle parking areas via a loop road, which has two access points on Orange Blossom Drive,
as mentioned. Furthermore, this is a residential project with a mix of accessory uses to
support its residents, which would reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial
roads.
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.
The applicant has stated that it is not feasible to have shared access between the subject
property and the Lakeside community to thc north or to the Oak Grovc PUD to the east
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091. Siena rakes CPUIJ
July 21. 2009
4
because these are existing gated communities. However, tbe Master Plan does not show any
access to Orange Blossom Gardens PUD to the west either, which is presently undeveloped.
The applicant contends that access here was deliberately omitted in order to discourage
future residents from making turning movements in closer proximity to the Airport
Road/Orange Blossom Drive intersection than the proposed principal entrance, which would
be located approximately 90 feet further to the east. However, the applicant would provide a
24-foot wide public access running the length of the western property boundary to link the
Lakeside community to Orange Blossom Drive, as shown in Exhibit C to the CPUD
document (and committed to in Exhibit F, Section I, 1.). This roadway would also afford the
vacant Orange Blossom Gardens PUD to the east with a potential access to Orange Blossom
Drive at the time that it develops. However, in accordance with Policy 7.3, it is staff's opinion
that the provision of an interconnection from the project itself to all of the adjoining
properties would be more beneficial for the future residents of the CCRC and the
surrounding residential projects and St. Katherine's Church, especially since such an
interconnection is easily feasible.
Policy 7.4
The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of
densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types.
The Master Plan identifies a sidewalk system within the proposed development and with
connections to the existing sidewalk along Orange Blossom Drive. However, the applicant
has requested a deviation from the LDC provision requiring sidewalks on both sides of the
internal and adjacent streets. It is the applicant's contention that placement of sidewalks on
both sides of the entrance or internal access drives would have no meaningful purpose.
Comprehensive Planning staff disagrees and believes that providing sidewalks on both sides
would indeed serve a public health and safety purpose as well as further the objective of
Policy 7.4 (see the Deviations section on page 18 for Zoning and land Development Review
staff's recommendation).
Economic Element
Policy 1.2
Collier County will support the opportunity for development and establishment of hospitals,
nursing homes and additional medical relaled facilities in order to promote a continuum of care to
enhance the quality of life throughout the County.
The project proposes the development of independent living units and assisted living, skilled
nursing and memory (dementia) care units for persons aged 62 and over, which would
provide a continuum of care that allows residents to age in place.
Policy 1.4
Collier County will cooperate with state entities and other social service providers to encourage
the establishment of programs and facilities that assist the elderly population of the County.
The project proposes to provide a continuing care retirement community for County
residents aged 62 years and over.
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD 5
July 21, 2009
Policy 1.9
Collier County, in response to the current and projected needs of its residenls, will encourage a
diverse mix of housing types. sizes, prices, and rents.
The project proposes to develop a continuing care retirement community comprised of a mix
of independent living units, assisted living units and skilled nursing units of differing sizes
and rates.
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.
GMP Conclusion:
Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed CPUD rezone may be deemed
consistent with the Future Land Use Element.
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 1O.02.13.B.5,
Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and
Subsection 10.03.05.1, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as
"Zoning 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 BCC, who in turn use
the criteria to support their 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 Analvsis: All environmental issues have been addressed. The applicant was not
required to submit an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) for this project nor was a hearing
before the Environmental Advisory Council required because the site had been previously cleared.
However, because of the property's history of agricultural use since the 1960s and aerial
photographic evidence of the backfilling of a previous, third borrow pit, a limited Phase II
environmental assessment was required to determine if any of the backfill material contained
hazardous material or petroleum products. The results of the soil tests revealed insignificant
contamination associated with buried debris, and pesticide levels from the former agricultural use
to be either below the laboratory method detection limits or the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection's soil cleanup target levels.
Transportation Analysis: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the application to assess the
proposal's potential impact on rights-of-way and access, and offers the following:
Orange Blossom Drive Impacts: The first concurrency link that is impacted by this project is link
143, Orange Blossom Drive from Airport Road (0 Livingston Road. The project generates 48 PM
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes cpun
July 21. 2009
(,
peak hour, peak direction trips, which represents a significant 5.22 percent impact on Orange
Blossom Drive. This segment of Orange Blossom Drive currently has a remaining capacity of252
trips, and is currently at LOS "C" as reflected by the adopted 2008 Annual Update Inventory
Report (AUIR). No subsequent link of Orange Blossom Drive is significantly impacted.
Airport Road Impacts: The subsequent links of Airport Road, Segments 2.1 from Vanderbilt
Beach Road to Orange Blossom Drive and 2.2 from Orange Blossom Drive to Pine Ridge Road,
are impacted at 0.40 percent and 0.43 percent, respectively. Segment 2.1 has a remaining capacity
of 1,734 trips, and Segment 2.2 has a remaining capacity of 1,632 trips. Both are at LOS "c" as
reflected by the adopted 2008 AUIR. No significant or adverse impacts are identified by this
project on either segment of Airport Road.
Mitigation: The petitioner has committed to "pipeline" impact fees for both phases of the project,
and has agreed to pay the fair share of the improvements at the Orange Blossom Drive/Airport
Road intersection. Additionally, the petitioner has committed to reserve 40 feet of right-of-way
along the project's Orange Blossom Drive frontage for County purchase at a reduced price to
accommodate a future widening of Orange Blossom Drive.
In conclusion, Transportation Planning staff recommends approval of the petition, subject to the
development commitments contained in Exhibit F.
Utility Review: The Utilities Department has reviewed the application and has noted that the
proposed CPUD, per the 2008 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Update, is located within the
Collier County Water and Sewer District. There is an existing eight-inch water main on Orange
Blossom Drive, which is connected to a 16-inch water main on Airport Road. There is also an
existing 12-inch water main on Orange Blossom Drive to which the development proposes to
extend and connect. The County does not own sewer utilities in the right-of-way contiguous to this
project. However, there is an existing 16-inch force main on Airport Road. There is also an
existing six-inch force main at the intersection of Bridgewater Bay Boulevard and Orange Blossom
to which this development is proposing to extend and connect. It should be noted that any
developed portion of this project would be required to comply with Ordinance No. 2004-31, as
amended, and would be subject to the conditions associated with a Sewer Availability Letter from
the Collier County Public Utilities Division at the time of site development plan (SDP) or
preliminary plat review and approval.
Emergency Management: The Emergency Management Department staff has no objection to the
proposed CPUD but has noted that it would be located in a CAT 3 hurricane surge zone, which
requires evacuation during some storm events. While there is currently no impact mitigation
required, approval of this project in consideration of other development in the area would increase
the evacuation and sheltering requirements for the County.
Zoning Review: According to LDC Subsection 2.03.06.C.3, the Commercial Planned Unit
Development (CPUD) zoning district is construed to include the entire range of uses permitted in
the General Commercial (C-I) through Heavy Commercial (C-5) zoning districts, of which ALFs
are included. However, LDC Subsection 1O.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091. Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21, 2009
7
recommendation, the Planning Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's
compliance with the following criteria":
I. The suitability of the area for the type and paltern of development proposed in relation to
physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer,
water, and other utilities.
The nearby area is developed with or is approved for the development of residential
and church uses, which are compatible in nature with the proposed assisted living
facility. The development would be located on Orange Blossom Drive, a collector
roadway, with access to Airport Road, a principal arterial. In addition, the petitioner
has committed to several transportation-related improvements, as previously noted
above and incorporated into Exhibit F of the CPUD 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
CPUD document makes appropriate stipulations for the provision of necessary
infrastructure and for the continuing operation and maintenance of the facility.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Based upon Comprehensive Planning staff's analysis, the proposed rezone may be
deemed consistent with the Futurc Land Use Element, contingent upon Zoning and
Land Development Review staff's determination of compliance with all LDC
regulations for group housing uses. It should also he noted that group housing such as
the proposed CCRC is not governed by the Density Rating System of the GMP but by
the FAR requirements for group housing contained in the LDC.
The Master Plan does not show any interconnections to adjacent properties,
particularly to thc undeveloped Orange Blossom Gardens PUD to the west, even
though FLUE Policy 7.3 encourages such interconnections when possible. The
applicant contends that access to Orange Blossom Gardens PUD was deliberately
omitted in order to discourage residents of the proposed CPUD from using it to access
the Airport Road/Orange Blossom intersection instead of the proposed CPUD's
primary access point further to the east. However, finding this to bc inconsistent with
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21, 2009
8
the intent of FLUE Policy 7.3, staff has included a condition of approval in Exhibit G
of the CPUD documents requiring that an interconnection be provided along the
western boundary of the property. As shown on the Master Plan, the applicant has
already proffered a 24-foot public access easement running the length of the project's
western boundary, linking the Lakeside community with Orange Blossom Drive (see
Exhibit F of the CPUD documents, Section I, 1.). Therefore, in staff's opinion, au
excellent opportunity already exists to satisfy the requirement of FLUE Policy 7.3,
which at the time of the future development of the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD,
would result in an interparcel connection to that development and improve overall
pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation in the neighborhood.
As also noted by Comprehensive Planning staff, FLUE Policy 7.4 encourages new
developments to provide walkable communities, yet the applicant has requested a
deviation from the LDC provision requiring five-foot sidewalks on both sides of the
street. The applicant coutends that the placement of sidewalks on both sides of the
entrance or internal access drives would have no meaningful purpose. However, staff
believes that the sidewalks would serve a public health and safety purpose and further
the objective of this policy. Therefore, as discussed in the Deviations section of this
report, Zoning and Land Development Review staff is recommending denial of this
deviation unless a condition of approval is adopted to expand the width of the sidewalk
proposed on just one side of the street from five feet to six feet so that it could
comfortably accommodate multiple users.
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.
As depicted on the CPUD Master Plan included at the beginning of this report (and in
Exhibit C-I to the CPUD document), the proposed use would be separated from the
multifamily residential uses to the north and the multifamily residential and church
uses to the east by a IS-foot wide "enhanced" Type B buffer. This enhanced buffer
would provide 20 percent more trees than that required by the LDC and also include
canopy trees at an overall height of 16 to 18 feet at the time of planting, installed closer
on center than the required 25 feet, interspersed with Cabbage palm and Slash pine
clusters. The Cabbage palms planted would be staggered between 25 to 30 feet in
height; and the Slash pines would have an overall height of 14 to 18 feet. A six-foot high
masonry wall would also be included within the buffer, as required by the LDC. As
shown in the line-of-sight elevations 1-1 and 2-2, contained in Exhibit C-2 of the CPUD
document, these buffers would aid in screening the development from the adjoining
multi-family uscs.
In addition to these buffers, the three-story independent living units along the 'northern
property boundary have been broken up into five separate buildings in order to reduce
their visual impact as compared to the massing created by a single, monolithic building.
Similarly, the lowest-profile buildings on the site (approximately 42 feet in height),
comprised of the assisted living and skilled nursing units, the auditorium and the
PUDZ-2008-AR-/409/, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21, 2009
9
commons, have been strategically situated in this portion of the project where setbacks
from the adjacent properties are the smallest: 80-feet from the northern property
boundary shared by Lakeside and 90-feet from the eastern property boundary shared
by Bridgewater Bay. To the south, the existing single-family homes of Walden Oaks
would be buffered by a 20-foot wide enhanced Type B buffer, as shown in Elevation 3-3,
and further separated from the proposed development by a 100-foot setback and the
7S-foot width of the Orange Blossom Drive right-of-way. Due to this increased setback
area, the tallest proposed buildings (approximately 60 feet in height) have been laid out
parallel to this portion of the site.
To the west, adjacent to the proposed 24-foot public access easement and the vacant
land of the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD, a standard IS-foot Type D buffer would be
provided, as required by the LDC.
5. The adequacy of usable open .\pace areas in existence and as proposed to serve lhe
development.
Approximately IS acres, or 51 percent of the site's total area, would be retained as open
space, which exceeds the minimum 30 percent requirement of the LDC. Of this area,
5.18 acres would be dedicated to lakes, which are an integral design feature of the
CCRC's waterside environment. The remaining 9.45 acres, or 32 percent of the total
project area, would be dedicated to usable open space and include multiple courtyards,
walking paths, boardwalks, seating areas, two putting greens and a lawn for outdoor
games.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available
improvemenls andfacilities. both public and private.
As noted in the transportation-related Developer Commitments of Exhibit F, at the
time of SDP approval for Phase One of the project, the developer would be required to
pay the compulsory road impact fees and his fair-share of improvements to the Orange
Blossom Drive and Airport Road intersection as mitigation for the project's impacts. In
addition, a 40-foot of right-of-way reservation along the north side of Orange Blossom
Drive would also be required for the future four-Ianing of this facility, as described in
developer commitment 1.3 contained in Exhibit F to the CPUD document (for which the
developer would be compensated up to $150,000 at the time of the first building
permit). Finally, development of the project would have to be in compliance with
applicable concurrency management regulations at the time development approvals
were sought. Therefore, the timing of development would not be an issue if the
proposed rezoning were approved.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accummudare expansion.
As stated, the prOVISIOn of adequate public facilities would be required at the time
development approvals were sought. Furthermore, Transportation Planning staff has
determined that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Transportation Element
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUJ)
July 2 I, 2009
10
requirements of the GMP. Therefore, subject to the conditions of approval
recommended by staff and the developer commitments made by the applicant, the
subject property and the surrounding areas would bave the ability to support the
proposal.
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.
Proposed Development Standards for Principal Structures vs. C-3 Standards of LDC
1,672 feet
75 feet
830 sq. ft.
609 sq. ft
305 s . ft.
700 sq. ft.
nla
n/a
80 feet
100 feet
60 feet
90 feet
25 feet
35 feet
20 feet
50% of building
height; but :c25 feet
none
nla
60 feet
60 feet
41.5 feet
42 feet
42 feet
42 feet
50 feet
The project's development standards are contained in Exhibit B of the CPUD
documents. As ALFs are permitted in the C-I through the C-5 zoning districts, the C-3
zoning district was used as a benchmark to evaluate the proposed development
standards against the standards of the most similar conventional zoning district. As
illustrated in the table above, the proposed independent living units would exceed the
minimum floor area requirement of the C-3 zoning district by 130 square feet. The
CPUD would also provide setbacks for principal structures in excess of the LDC
minimum requirement of one half the building's height. Maximum zoned building
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 2/, 2009
11
height for the tallest buildings on the site would be 60 feet and four stories over parking
(i.e. five stories). Although maximum height in the C-3 zoning district is only 50 feet
(the C-4, zoning district, however, would allow heights of 75 feet), the applicant has
increased the CPUD's minimum setbacks to compensate for this greater height by
requiring setbacks to be least 50 percent greater than the standard required by the C-3
zoning district.
As illustrated in the following table, accessory structures would require either 25 or 40-
foot setbacks, depending on their location. Minimum distances between accessory
structures would be at least ten feet, and the maximum height would be 25 feet. These
standards, as shown below, are consistent with those required by the C-3 zoning
district.
Proposed Development Standards for Accessory Structures vs. C-3 Standards of LDC
25 feet
25 feet O-SPS
40 feet
25 feet
10 feet 0-10 feet
30 feet none
LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1.2 states. "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and
recommendations to lhe planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall
show that lhe 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 Growlh Management Plan.
As noted on page six of this report, Comprehensive Planning staff has found this
petition to be consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the GMP. The
property is designated Urban Residential Subdistrict, thc purpose of which is to provide
for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where
existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. Urban-designated areas of the
county contain a vast array of rcsidential and non-residential land Uf.es. The Future
Land Use Element (FLUE), Section I. Urban Designation (I) states that Urban-
designated areas are intended to accommodate community facilities such as churches,
group housing uses, schools and school facilities co-located with other public facilities
such as parks, libraries, and community centers where feasible and mutually
acceptable. As the proposed CPUD is for group housing for the elderly, and would be in
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPU[) 12
July 21, 2009
close proximity to the main campus of the Collier County Public Library, First Baptist
Church and St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church, this project would be consistent
with the FLUE of the GMP. Furthermore, FLUE Policy 5.3 discourages urban sprawl
to minimize the cost of expanding facilities by confining development to Urban-
designated areas of the FLUM and requiring changes in the Urban-designated areas to
be contiguous to an existing Urban-area boundary. As the proposed CPUD would be
infill development, it would achieve these objectives.
2. The existing land use pattern;
The subject site is bordered by the multi-family residences of Lakeside and Bridgewater
Bay, to the north and to the east, respectively. To the west is the Orange Blossom
Gardens PUD, which is sunsetted but is approved for similar multi-family development.
Across Orange Blossom Drive to the south are the single-family homes and duplexes of
Walden Oaks. The southeastern corner of the site also abuts the First Baptist Church
PUD. As such, the proposed use would be complementary to this existing land use
pattern.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts;
Approval of this CPUD would not create an isolated district. As noted above, the
subject site would be infill development surrounded by other PUDs approved for
residential uses. Furthermore, the proposed use is cited as an intended use in the
Residential Subdistrict of the GMP in which the project is located.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions
on the property proposed for change.
The subject property was created by the applicants' assemblage of available parcels in
the area. The aerial photograph on page three of this report highlights the boundary of
the subject property, demonstrating that it is logically drawn.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning
necessary.
Due to changed conditions in the area, the proposed CPUD would include the last
three remaining vacant parcels on Orange Blossom Drive west of Airport Road that
are zoned Rural Agricultural (A), as only one other A-zoned parcel, developed with St.
Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church by a Conditional Use, remains on this segment of
Orange Blossom Drive. All of the other properties have been developed with
residential PUDs and commercial or community facility (First Baptist Church) PUDs
to support these residential uses. Consequently, the property is ripe for develo"{nnent
compatible with these uses, such as the proposed CCRC.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood;
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes epUD
July 21,2009
13
The proposed CPUD would not adversely affect the living conditions in the
neighborhood. With respect to increased traffic, the developer would be required to
pay road impact fees and his fair-share of improvements to the Orange Blossom Drive
and Airport Road intersection to mitigate for the project's impacts; and to provide a
40-foot of right-of-way reservation along the north side of Orange Blossom Drive for
the future four-Ianing of this facility. Furthermore, development of the project would
have to be in compliance with applicable concurrency management regulations at the
time development approvals were sought. The proposed use would also be similar to
the existing residential uses in the surrounding neighborhood; and with the increased
setbacks, enhanced landscape buffers and the conditions of approval recommended by
staff, compatibility would be achieved.
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 projecled types of vehicular lraffic, including activity during construction phases of the
development. or otherwise affect public safety.
The applicant submitted the required TIS, which indicated the need for improvements
to the Orange Blossom Drive and Airport Road intersection. However, with developer
commitment I.5.b contained in Exhibit F to the CPUD document (to pay $1.4 million in
road impact fees upon the developer's pulling of the first building permit) for
construction of the necessary improvements, Transportation Planning staff has
determined that the project would not create any adverse traffic impacts, in
conformance with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. In addition
the developer has committed to providing 72,257 square feet of various indoor
amenities, including on-site dining; outdoor recreation areas; and twice daily shuttle
transportation services which, when combined with the required pedestrian
connections, would contribute to a substantial reduction of traffic levels.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem;
The proposed change would not create drainage or surface water problems since the
5.18 acres of lakes integrated into the project's design would function as a water
management system and prevent drainage problems on the site.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas;
The proposed CPUD would not seriously impact light and air on adjacent properties.
As previously stated, typical C-3 building setbacks are 50 percent of a building's
height. Yet for the project's 60-foot buildings, the tallest proposed, the setbacks from
the adjoining residential property boundaries would be a minimum of 100 feet from
'the southern property boundary (plus approximately 75 feet of Orange Blossom Drive
right-of-way); 90 feet from the eastern boundary; and 80 feet from the northern
boundary.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area;
PUDZ-2008-AR-1409/. Siena Lakes cpun
July 21, 2009
14
This is a subjective determination based upon a variety of circumstances that are
external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors
other than zoning; and zoning in and of itself mayor may not affect values, since value
determination is primarily driven by the market. Furthermore, although the project
would be consistent with the quality and character of the surrounding properties,
there is no guarantee that it would 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;
The proposed project would be infill development, as all of the adjoining properties
have already been developed with residential uses. Therefore, the proposal could 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;
As previously stated, the proposed CCRC complies with the Urban Residential
Subdistrict designation of the GMP, and with the developer's commitments and
conditions of approval recommended by staff, would also be consistent with the
applicable regulations of the LDC. Furthermore, land use applications are subject to a
public hearing process to insure that they do not constitute a grant of special privilege
and to ensure are compatible with other properties in the vicinity. Therefore, the
public's welfare would be assured.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with
existing zoning;
Being zoned Rural Agricultural, the majority of the property should not be used in
accordance with its existing zoning since it is in the Urban-designated area of the
FLUE and is surrounded by residential PUDs, rendering agricultural uses in this area
no longer appropriate. However, the other two parcels of the project, which are the
subjects of the companion PUD Amendments (PUDA-2008-AR-14090 and PUDA-
2008-AR-I4092), already permit residential development.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
County;
As noted in the "GMP Consistency" portion of this report, the density for group
housing is determined by FAR rather than the density rating system. Consistent with
common planning practice, a multiplier of four times the usnal residential density
range was used to determine the recommended density for the ALF. As the density
that would be permitted by the density rating system is four dwelling units per acre,
multiplying this number by the project's 29.25 acres results in a permitted density of
117 units. After applying the group housing multiplier of four, the recommended
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21. 2009
J 5
density for the CCRC project would be 468 units. Therefore, the applicant's request
for 340 independent units and 80 beds is less than the commonly recommended density
for a project of this size. The surrounding residential communities, not being group
housing projects, are indeed subject to the density rating system and permit the
following densities: Oak Grove PUD (Bridgewater Bay), four dwelling units per acre;
Lone Oak PUD (Walden Oaks), 6.32 dwelling units per acre; Orange Blossom Gardens
PUD, 3.42 dwelling units per acre; and Citrus Gardens PUD (Lakeside), 4.0 dwelling
units per acre.
The maximum height permitted by the adjacent zoning districts is as follows: 45 feet
for Oak Grove PUD; 85 feet for First Baptist Church PUD (this height is for the
"Building Two" only, as amended by Ordinance No. 99-78, with other buildings
limited to 65 and 35 feet); 30 feet for Lone Oak PUD; "two-stories" for Orange
Blossom Gardens PUD; and "three stories" for Citrus Gardens PUD. Although the
maximum zoned height of 69 feet proposed for the CPUD is generally higher than the
surrounding permitted heights, staff believes that the scale of the project has been
mitigated through its design, which 1) locates the tallest buildings central to the site
and then tapers the lower-profile buildings towards its periphery; 2) sets the tallest
buildings back 175 feet from the only neighboring single-family homes, which are
located to the south; 3) breaks up the mass of the three-story units along the northern
boundary of the site by locating them in five separate buildings to reduce their visual
impact; and 4) provides for enhanced vegetative buffers adjacent to existing multi-
family uses in order to screen the facility from these properties. Nevertheless, as
discussed later in this report, two area residents have expressed concern about the
project's scale and its compatibility with the surrounding property.
15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequale sites in the County for the proposed use in
dislricts already permitting such use.
There are potentially other sites already zoned to accommodate the proposed
development; however this is not the determining factor when evaluating the
appropriateness of a rezoning decision. The proposed CPUD was reviewed and deemed
compliant with the GMP and the LDC.
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 would require some site alteration. However, the subject site would
require only limited clearing to execute the proposed development plan due to its
former use as agricultural land.
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 Managemenl
Plan and as defined and implemented through lhe Collier County Adequate Public Facilities
Ordinance, as amended.
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUf)
Julv 21. 2009
16
As previously noted, the proposed CPUD petition has been reviewed by the
Transportation Planning Department and the Utilities Department, both of which have
recommended approval of the project finding that it would not have an adverse impact
on the levels of service for public facilities.
Deviations:
In Exhibit E of the CPUD document, the applicant requests approval of six deviations from the
design standards of the LDC and has provided justifications to support them. Staff has reviewed
these requests and offers the following analyses and recommendations:
Deviation I seeks relief from LDC Subsections 5.03.02.E.2 and 3, Commercial and
Industrial Districts, which require the provision of a prefabricated concrete fence or
masonry wall between residential and non-residential zoning districts; and that this fence
or wall be between six to eight feet in height and located a minimum of six feet from the
residentially zoned district.
Proposal: The applicant proposes to instead allow an existing six-foot wall extending
approximately 350 feet along the northern side of the property in the Citrus Gardens
PUD, to satisfy this requirement even though it is not located on the subject property nor
is it a minimum of six feet from the Citrus Gardens PUD.
Staff's Determination: Because the applicant would still provide the required six-foot
fence or wall a minimum of six feet from the Citrus Gardens PUD along the remaining
approximately 1,350 feet of this northern boundary, staff supports this deviation. Staff
does not believe that providing an additional 350-foot segment of fence or wall on the
subject property as required by the LDC would serve any purpose since it would merely
abut the existing wall on the Citrus Gardens PUD.
Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 6.06.02.A.2, Sidewalks, Bike Lanes and
Pathway Requirements, which requires five-foot wide sidewalks and standard bike lanes
to be constructed within public or private rights-of-way or easements internal to a site on
both sides of said rights-of-way or easements.
Proposal: The applicant proposes to provide sidewalks on just one side of the project's
internal rights-of-way, believing that providing them on both sides serves no meaningful
purpose.
Staff's Determination: The LDC provides four exceptions to the provision of sidewalks
on both sides of a project's internal rights-of-way (such as the site's being physically
constrained or having less than four dwelling units per acre, for example)-none for
which the subject property qualifies. Moreover, as noted in the GMP Consistency portion
of this report, FLUE Policy 7.4 encourages new developments to provide walkabl"il'
communities. As previously noted, Comprehensive Planning staff believes that sidewalks
on both sides of the project's internal rights-of-way would serve both health and safety
purposes for the elderly residents of the CCRC by encouraging walking to the adjacent
religious community facilities and commercial uses, thereby furthering the objective of
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091. Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21, 2009
17
this policy. Although Zoning and Land Development Review staff agrees, expanding the
width of the proposed sidewalk on one side of the street from five feet to six feet would
still achieve this objective by allowing a greater number of residents to simultaneously
use it, without the need to construct a second sidewalk on the other side of the right-of-
way. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this deviation, subject to the condition that
the proposed sidewalks be enhanced by providing six feet in width instead of just five
feet.
Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 4.06.05.N.l.a., Configuration of Water
Management Areas, which requires the naturalization of manmade lakes and water
management areas through the use of curvilinear edges but may allow an alternative
design if the design of the water management area is related to the architectural design of
the building.
Proposal: The applicant proposes to provide lakes that do not technically fulfill the
naturalized edge requirement of this provision, however notes that they would not be
visible from outside the project due to the required vegetative buffers and/or six-foot
fence or wall.
SlajJ's Determinalion: The proposed water management system clearly relates to the
project's overall architecture since the lakes would feature as a design element, as
evidenced by the number of proposed bridges, lakefront observation decks and
boardwalk. Because of this and the fact that the lake would not even be visible from
outside the boundaries of the CPUD due to the applicant's augmentation of tree material
by 20 percent over the LDC buffer requirements and the required fence or wall, staff
supports this deviation.
Deviation 4 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 6.06.01.0, which requires minimum right-
of-way widths of 60 feet for local roads, in order to allow a 24-foot wide right-of-way
within a private access easement along the western edge of the property.
Proposal: The applicant proposes to provide a right-of:way along the western edge of the
property that would be 36 feet narrower than the 60-foot width required by the LDC,
justifying doing so since there is hardly sufficient area to accommodate the two proposed
travel lanes and their associated drainage facilities for this proposed access road linking
Lakeside and the future developed Orange Blossom Gardens PUD to Orange Blossom
Drive.
StajJ's Determination: Staff considers the applicant's hardship necessitating the deviation
to be self-created, resulting from a desire to circumvent the intent of FLUE Policy 7.3. As
explained in the GMP Consistency portion of this report on pages four and five, Policy
7.3 encourages all new and existing developments "to connect their local streets and
their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments
regardless of land use type." However, because the applicant would prefer not to
interconnect the project with the Lakeside community to the north, which presently has
only one access point on Airport Road for its 396 units, he is requesting this non LDC-
PUDZ-200R-AR-/4091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21, 2009
18
compliant roadway as an alternative means of giving that development access in the
event of an emergency rather than allowing them access through the subject property; and
even though this non-compliant roadway would provide an interparcel connection for
Lakeside with the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD (when it eventually develops), the
applicant still refuses to connect the subject project to it, as encouraged by the GMP.
Therefore, because the proposed access would not provide interconnections from the
subject property to the neighboring projects, staff recommends denial of this deviation
unless the CCPC adopts staffs condition of approval requiring an interconnection point
to be provided along the western boundary of the property, thereby linking Siena Lakes
to the proposed access road and, in turn, the properties abutting it.
Deviation 5 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 6.06.02.A.I, Sidewalks, Bike Lanes and
Pathway Requirements, which requires five-foot wide sidewalks and standard bike lanes
to be constructed within public or private rights-of-way or easements adjacent to a site on
both sides of said rights-of-way or easements.
Proposal: The applicants request a waiver of this requirement for the non LDC-
compliant roadway requested in Deviation 4.
Staff's Determination: Pedestrian and bicycle access should be provided on at least one
side of the applicant's proposed access roadway so that independent-unit residents in the
western portion of the proposed CPUD, desiring to walk to the library or St. Katherine's
church, for example, would not have to walk approximately 750 feet in the opposite
direction in order to merely exit the project through its principal entrance/exit when an
access road would already be laying approximately 130 feet to the west, along the
project's boundary with Orange Blossom Gardens PUD. Because the hardship
necessitating this request is self-created due to the applicant's refusal to allow an
interconnection through the subject property, as explained in Deviation 4 above, staff
recommends denial of this deviation. Moreover, staff believes the request would
circumvent the objectives of FLUE Policy 7.3, which encourages the provision of
interconnections with adjacent land uses, and Policy 7.4, which encourages new
developments to provide walkable communities.
Deviation 6 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 4.06.02.C.4, Buffer Requirements, which
requires a 20-foot wide Type D landscape buffer adjacent to any external right-of-way.
Proposal: The applicants would like to reduce the buffer width required to 15 feet along
the 24-foot, non-compliant roadway proposed for the western boundary of the property.
Staff's Determination: Staff recommends denial of this deviation because the hardship is
self-created.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The meeting was duly noticed by the applicant and held on May 12, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. at the
Italian-American Club. Eighty three people from the public attended, as well as the applicant, Mr.
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21. 2009
19
Steve Nornes of Life Care Services, and his agents, Mr. Richard Y ovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette,
Coleman, Johnson, Y ovanovich and Koester and Mr. Robert Duane, AICP, of Hole-Montes, Inc..
County staff was also present.
Mr. Y ovanovich presented an overview of the requested rezone from the Orange Blossom Gardens
PUD, Oak Grove PUD and Rural Agricultural zoning districts to the CPUD zoning district for a
continuing care retirement community. He also explained the requested companion amendments to
delete approximately 6.13 acres from the Oak Grove PUD and approximately 5.85 acres from the
Orange Blossom Gardens PUD.
There was no opposition to the requested Oak Grove PUD or Orange Blossom Gardens PUD
amendments, however there were concerns expressed regarding the subject petition. Questions
asked were as follows:
I. How many parking spaces would be required for this project? The petitioner replied there
would be 608 parking spaces, with the majority underground.
2. Where would staff and guest parking be located? The petitioner stated that the facility
would employee 140 full time employees who would park near the assisted living
facility. Guests would park near the homes of the residents they were visiting.
3. Will the service road be both an in and an out road? The petitioner replied that it would
be.
4. One participant asked why the service road could not be located on the other side of the
property. The petitioner replied that there was a minimum intersection distance
requirement that could not be met if they moved the road to the other side of the property
and added that there would only be, on average, two services trucks per day coming into
the property.
5. Participants asked if Airport Pulling would be extended to four lanes. The petitioner
replied that this project is not going to result in four lanes and no traffic signals would be
install ed.
6. The participants from the Lakeside community asked if the inter-connect road would be
built joining their community with this project. The petitioner stated that if the inter-
connect road was built it would need to be built by the Lakeside Community (as noted in
this report, the petitioner has since agreed to build the road). The Lakeside participants
were very receptive to that answer, as they did not want the inter-connect road built.
7. One Bridgewater resident asked if the lake between this project and Bridgewater would
be filled in. The petitioner replied that the lake in question was actually on the Fust
Baptist Church property, and would not be filled in.
8. The same resident asked what the building heights would be on the multi-story buildings.
The petitioner stated that the tallest building would be 67 feet and five stores. This
PUDZ-2008-AR-1409/. Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21, 2009
20
resident felt that this was too tall for the neighborhood. The petitioner stated that these
building would be built closest to Orange Blossom Road and landscaping would screen
the taller buildings.
The meeting ended at approximately 7:30 p.m.
Staff has received several letters of objection from neighboring property owners, attached as
Appendix I.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney's Office has reviewed this staff report, revised on July 23, 2009.
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning
Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-12248 to the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval, subject to the stipulations incorporated
into the CPUD document and restated below:
I. Irrespective of that shown on the CPUD Master Plan contained in Exhibit C-I, a vehicular and
pedestrian interconnection shall be provided along the western boundary of the property to
connect the project with the 24-foot public access road.
2. Rather than five-foot sidewalks on both sides of rights-of-way or easements internal to a site, as
required pursuant to LDC Subsection 6.06.02.A.2, only a six-foot sidewalk shall be required on
just one side of said streets.
3. All water and wastewater utilities constructed or extended within the public right-of-way shall
be conveyed to, owned by, and maintained by the Collier County Water-Sewer District, and
shall be required to be appropriately sized to service parcels that installation will affect.
4. Any cost of relocation, changes, or modifications to the existing utilities required or incurred
during the road improvements within the Orange Blossom Road right-of-way are the sole
responsibility of the developer.
Zoning and Land Development Review staff also recommends that the CCPC deny Deviation 4,
Deviation 5, and Deviation 6 as requested by the applicants, finding the singular hardship
necessitating them to be created by the applicants' refusal to provide interconnections to adjacent
communities, and antithetical to the purpose and intent of FLUE Policies 7.3 and 7.4 of the GMP
and/or inconsistent with the provisions of the LDC.
APPENDIX:
I. Letters of Objection
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091. Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21, 2009
21
PREPARED BY:
~/!WJ~
JOmd"AVID MOSS, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
7/~~~6{
I DA E
REVIEWED BY:
7 2.3 -0'7
RAYMO V. BELLOWS, ONING MANAGER DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
'117. /~ 7-25-01
USAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
7J,G
PH K. SCHMITT ADM ISTRA TOR / DATE
MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Tentatively scheduled for the September 15, 2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
DATE
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, Siena Lakes CPUD
July 21, 2009
22
Blank
APPENDIX 1
MossJohndavid
From: Ruthi Zenk [RuthiZ@comcast.net]
Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2009 1224 PM
To: MossJohndavid
Subject: Sienna Lakes
May 16, 2009
Re: Sienna Lakes PUD rezoning
To: John-David Moss, Collier County Department of Zoning
From: Ruth Zenk, Lakeside resident, J-206
As to the rezoning request, I feel that there are many more negatives than positives in
allowing to developer to move forward.
1) The density is very high, even though this is allowed for the type of residents that
will occupy the buildings. Consequently there will be more autos, delivery trucks,
repair men, visitors, mail trucks, etc. than there would be with a low density PUD.
Orange Blossom Drive is not built with turn lanes necessary for that type of traffic.
2) A 69 foot, 5 story building is simply not appropriate in the middle of lower
residential buildings. A building that high should be placed in an area that has mixed
usage and/or on a main highway closer to the city where there are other mid-rises. It
is not a good comparison to quote the height of nearby churches and hotels.
It seems the developer is asking for the maximum allowed and then expecting you to
stretch the rules for his other desires. Orange Blossom is a needed "cut-through"
road and was never meant to have "commercial" type of entrances on it ....such as
the wider section west of Airport Road that has the library entrance.
During my 33 years in Naples, over 20 have been spent in real estate with half of
those working for developers. I understand their problems and all that it takes to put
together a project to be proud of I have seen all the good successful projects and all
the flawed mistakes. Usually a mid-rise is built where there is wonderful view. This
building at Sienna Lakes would be looking over all the lower roofs in the
neighborhood. Who would want to pay a premium to be on the 4th floor? I suggest
that the developer find a more appropriate site for his project.
I strongly hope that you will deny the rezoning of Orange Blossom Gardens.
5/18/2009
Page I of I
MossJohndavid
To: shirley lindenbaum
Subject: RE: Siena Lakes
From: shirley lindenbaum [mailto:shirleylkside@embarqmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:55 AM
To: MossJohndavid
Subject: Siena Lakes
As a resident of Lakeside (for the past 20 years) I wish to express my concern about the proposed
development adjacent to our property called Siena Lakes. I attended the open forum to hear their "spiel"
which was done quite professionally and overwhelmingly. I was amazed at the density planned for such
a small area and the height of the bldgs. I also attended, years ago - the open forum for the proposed
development directly across from Lakeside on Airport Rd. now called Sao Grato and at that time the
height for all bldgs was 3 stories. Why should a 5 story structure now be allowed? The speakers in
regard to Siena Lakes tried to come across as "good neighbors" but when asked if they could downsize
their plans their response was "financially it could not be done" so greed is their motivation, not "good
neighbors". Please, in your deliberation, consider the high density proposed and the impact on the
established neighborhoods.
Thank you for your time and efforts.
Shirley Lindenbaum
Vice President, Lakeside Carriage Homes
2781 Citrus Lake Drive, #101
Naples, FL 34109
email: shirleylkside@embarqmail.com
239-566-9483
5/19/2009
07/27/2009 12:07
7048725310
MMHL
PAGE 01
CHRISTOPHER J. & KATHRYN E. MARTIN
351 SHILOH ROAD
STATESVILLE, NC 28677
704-872-1775
FAX 704-872-6310
FAX TO: John~David Moss
Principal Planner
Collier County Planning Commission
FAX NUMBER: 239-643-6968
DATE: 7/27/09
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER LETTER: 4
Following is a copy of a July 22 letter sent to you by Richard
Zelinka and Cindy Grossman regarding the Siena Lakes project.
As property owners in Building D, Unit 103 on Citrus Lake
Drive, we agree with the objections noted in this letter:
.using assisted living units to leverage the construction of
conventional residences
.buildings that are out-of~scale (height) and incompatible with
the surrounding neighborhood
.exceptions and deviations from zoning or code requirements
The requests in the final paragraph of this letter should be met
by the Collier County Planning Commission, and any future
plans proposed for building should be in compliance with the
zoning, codes and requirements for our area.
Thank you.
Chris and Kathy Martin
Pages following: 3
J~1 27 09 10:03a
Cind~ L. G~ossman
617-969-8441
Richard Zelinka
Cindy Grossman
Email: rcz1@rcn.com
July 22, 2009
John-David Moss
Principal Planner
Collier County Planning COlmnission
2800 North Hor~eshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Re; Sie,!la Lakes C~RC Cpu.:O (PetitiQI).PUD7.-20_0.8-A R- J 40.212
Dear Mr. Moss:
Wc Own unit F202 at 271 1 Citrus Lake Drive and arc among the property owners at
Lakeside who will be most affectcd by the Siena Lakes project.
As we arc unable to allend the hearing scheduled for August 6. we are writing to expre"
our serious concerns regarding two very troubling aspccts (lfthe Siena project; the
proposal to construct a series of interconnected 5-story buildings across the width of the
~ile, and the absence of an cffective visual barrier to screen Lakeside from thesc
oversized buildings.
The Siena pr\)ject will contain 420 living uniL~. Less than 20% ofthesc will be assisted
Jiving units. Over 80% of the units (including all thosc in the 5-story buildings) will bc
independent Jiving units (that is, condos or rcntal units). In your March 13,2009 letter to
the dcveloper you noted that the Siena project looks morc like condos wi th an ALF
(a..~sjsted living facility) wmponent than an ALl' with an ILF (independent living facility)
component. We agrec. It is obvious that the Siena project is primarily a conventional
condominium development with a relatively small assisted living facility component.
Accordingly, any exceptions or deviations from zoning or code rcquirements ba~ed on
tile project being an assisted living facility should be granted with utmost caution and
limited lo what is appropriate for a project with only a 20% ALF component.
As noted in the stalTreport (the "Report") of the Collier County Planning Commission
(the "Commission"), the maximum height of tbc buildings permitted in the surrounding
residential communities are as follows: 45 leel at Bridgewater Bay, 30 feet at Walden
Oaks and th.rcc stories at Lakeside. Therefore, the 5-story buildings proposed for Siena,
which will be 69 feet high according to the Rcporl, will Jar ex.cecd the height of any
building in the surronnding communitics. These 5-story buildings will dominatc the
landscape and be visible from many of thc homes in the area. Clearly, thcy will be out of
scale with the existing neighborhood.
{GO<)1l795;2}
p.2
Jul 27 09 10:03a
Cind~ L. Grossman
617-969-8441
p.3
Not only will these 5-s1ory, buildings excccd thc maximum building heights in the
adjacent communities, they will also substantially exceed the 50-foot building height
allowed in the C-3 zoning distl;et which, according to the Report, Willi used by the
planning staff as the "benchmark" to evaluate the proposed development standards for the
Siena project.
We find no ba~is f(lr the Report's conclusion that th<lse excessive building heights,
significantly greatcr thtUl allowed in thc surrounding community and in the "bcnchmark"
zoning district, havc been mitigated by the placemcnt of thc buildings and by the
"enhanced" vegetative buffer.
First, the developer's plan shows the five-story buildings massed in a line from cast to
west across the southern portion of the Siena property. Although broken up mid-way by a
couple of lower buildings, they essentially form a wall creating a visual barrier that is not
mitigated in any meaningful way by the addition~l set-backs. The Siena parcel is small
and the homes in the surrounding communities we close to its boundaries; hence no
amount of additional set-back can rcally mitigate the visual impact of buildings that arc
11lmost 70 feet high.
Second, though we wdcome the developer's proposal for an "enhanced" vegetative
buffer, the proposed plantings appear to be inadequate, and scem designed more to screen
the low-rise buildings at Siena from the two and three-story buildings at Lakeside th~1l to
screen Lakeside Yrom the five-story buildings at Siena. The developer proposes to install
trees 1 S feet high and eloser on centcr than thc required 25 feet, ~nd to providc 20% more
trees than the minimum requirement. A tree 18 feet high will do little to screen a building
that is 69 Icet high (50 feet highcr than the tree). Even if the tree grew to 30 feet, it would
still be almost 40 Yeet lower than the building roofline. Moreover, the line-oi~sjte
elevations contained in Exhibit C-2 ofthc dcveloper's CPUD document show only that
the proposed buffer would aid in screening the three-story buildings at Siena from
Lakeside. There are no elevations showing that the buffer would serecn Lakeside from
the 5-story buildings. To mitigate the effects of the increased building heights at Siena,
plantings would have to reduce the visibility of the upper floors of the 5-story buildings.
Nothing is offercd to show that the proposed vegetative bufj", will do this.
As noted in the Report, the Commission is required to consider proposed zoning changes
in relation to various criteria, including whether the proposed changes will adversely
intlucnce living conditions in the neighborhood (criterion 1/6) and whether the requested
changes arc out of scale with the needs orthe neighborhood (criterion Ii 14). The Report
coneludes that these lwo criteria will be met because the placement of the buildings,
increased set-backs and enhanced vegctative buiTers achieve compatibility with the
neighborhood and mitigate the scale of the project. The facts recited in this letter (which
arc tak('~1 fTOl11 the Report) do not support the Commission's conclusions and we urge the
Commission to reconsider them.
We do not oppose rezoning the Siena site to permit an assisted living facility or
conventional residences. Wh~t we Q.Q oppose is allowing thc developer to llse 80 assisted
180911795; 2)
Jul 27 09 10:03~
Cind~ L. Gro55m~n
617-969-8441
10.4
living units to leverage the con~tTllction of 340 conventional residences in oversized
buildings that arc ollt-of~scale and incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The
legitimatc intercsts ofthc community and sound planning principles must not be
sacrificed to the developer's de:;;re for maximum profits.
We request that the Commission revise its fllldings to reflect the facts in its own Report,
and that any approval of the Siena Lakes project be conditioned on a re-design that will
bring the project into scale with tbe surrounding neighborhood, protect the site from over-
development a~ required by the Land Development Code, and cause the PUD's Ma~\er
Plan to be in true compliance with the criteria applicable to the requested rezone.
V cry truly yours,
;1?~~~
Richard Zelinka Cindy Grossman
(B(J9Il7~~; 2)
07/27/2009 11:05
5085405102
UPS STORE
2895 Citrus Lake Drive
Bldg. 0 #202
Naples, FL 34109
July 26, 2009
John - David Moss
Principal Planner
Collier County Planning Commission
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Re: Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD (Petition DUDE - 2008 - AR - 14091)
Dear Mr. Moss:
We are the owners of unit 0202 at the above address, and will be unable
to attend the hearing on August 6th. We are concerned about the impact of the
referenced project on the surrounding communities as noted in the letter to you
from R. Zelinka/C. Grossman dated July 22, 2009.
We would like to add our support to their letter and also request that any
approval of the Siena Lakes project be conditioned on a redesign as noted therin.
Respectfully yours,
&9~
S~cYO~
Sheryl L. O'Neill
PAGE 01
S_ent by
7/24/2009 52112 PM
P5gel012
July n. 20W
John-David Moss
Principul J>tann~r
Collier County l'llllIJling Commission
2800 Nom, I.j,m;eshoc Dr;""
NlIj>l~s. VI- ~4104
Re: Si~ll~,J,~~..c.c&};'~CPUD.fJ:clitiCll PUI)?,-2008-AR.14091)
Dear Mr. Moss:
^~ we are "!I.ble to ath.'fld the hearing ~hcdultd for August 6, we are v.Tilhlg lil. ~;rpress
<lur s~rjoLl. cOflt:cms regurdillg twO) wry llOuj,ling..a:ipl...:ols of the Siena project: lhe
pcropo$alto COll~tnlCl a series of inlerconnecled 5-~tory huildings lICross the \\~dth of the
site. and Ihe absence of an clicctive vj~ual barrier III sereen Lake~id" from these
uV.TSi...cd buildings.
The Siena project will contain 420 living units. l.css tllDl) 20% ofthcoo will b~ a><;istcd
thing units. Over 80% of the units (indudingall those in me S-story buildings) ".~ll ~
in.dependenllivinl;\ units (thaI is. condo; or r~lltal w}its), in your Mardin. :20091ener 10
lhe dc\'eloper YOll noted thai the Sietlll proJecllooks IDClfC like condos with al1 AI.!'
(as.<isled living fadlity}compCln<mllhllJ'l an Ar.F with an lLF (indcpendcnlli\'ing- facilily)
cl'mpOllcm. We "\,'Tec. [t is obvioll5 that the Siena project is primarily a cnllventional
condomilliu.m development Wilh a relatively small assisted living facllity eomponenl
l\cc~rdj_ngty !:.my. cxc~pt,i(u-\$ ()rdc viations: from - zoni ng.. (lTcode rcquiremcnt~ _ b~JS.CdDil
Ihe project being an ...~sistcclli\'ing facilily should he granted with UU110.t Ctllll;on ood
limi1ed to what is appropriate for a projeC1 v.ith only a 20% ALf: component
As nuted in Ihe sta!l repofl (the "Report") of the Collier CUllllly Plannins C"mmi..ion
(the: "Comrnlsslon'-).1.fie:maxrmumnelgm', or me DUlJQIIlS'SIX=rmiueU iu ti..:;~u~ Juwldhlj:i;
reshlentilll communities are as [ollows: 45 I<<t 111 8ridgewllt<:r Bay. 3-0 fectal Walden
Qak. nncI three sloric~ .t Lakc~ldc. Tb<rc-lbrc, the $-SIOry buildings proposed for Siena.
which ~ ill be 69 fcol high according 10 Ihe Report, ,,,ill far cxceerlthe height of any
\lU! Iding in the surrmmding communities, The5C 5-.1(1)' buildings will dominate the
lamJscapc and be visible lrom many of the home. in tlle a.-ea. Clearly. they will be OUI oj'
scale wilh thc ""isr;!I!? neighborhooJ.
;-';01 0111y will these 5-S:QfY. buildings exce"d the max;[!lUJn building hdghls in the
adj<ll:"nl comml.l!liti<:-,_ they w ill also sllbslll.ntially exceed the SD-foOI. building hcighl
allowed In Ill.., C-J ~(1ning district whitn. llccordinllto tile RCjlurl, wall Ul>t:d by the
planning ""ff a'~ the "bendllnark" to C\-alUllle the propo~ed de~elopment standards laf the
Siena project.
\Ve find flo t>asis f<>r tIle Rc!,,>n's "Mldu.;Ull thillth= c';:;:.sive bllilding heig.hts.
si.gniii.cllPtly gr;:;lt~r thM ll.i]{lwed in th~ surrnunding community and in the "benchmark"
zoning dislricl.l11l.\'~ been mitigated by Ih" pjacem~J1l ,,1' the buildings and by the
'"enhiloccd-' vegetatIve bulrcr.
,
fi!:;!, the devcloper'5 plan shows the live-slory buildings massed in a line fwm east!(l
wc.t ,."ross Ihe S"\;L~em ponion oi the Sicna propet1);. Alth<:>ugh b",ken up mid .wa)' by a
couple ,,1' lower huildings. they csscmiJllly limn a wall cr~lI\in!!, II "iStllil barrier that is not
mitj~l~d in any mCllningntl way by tll~ additional scl-ba,ks. The Siena partel is small
and lhe homes in the surrounding communilic, = close to i1s boundaries; hclK-C no
amolln! ofaddiliollal set-back Cill! reall)' mitig.8tc the v;sUtlI impact of buildings thnt:>re
3,1 rnnsl70 feclhlgh
Sent by:
712412009 52358 PM
Page 2 of 2
..__.. _"__N', ._- .,...:--~.-
S<:CQnd, l.h<lugh w~ wale<>tll~ tho devl..-mpel'"'s pl'('J>O:!a1 j'Jr un "enllllnced" vegetative
llllff..-r.lhe proposed p!antina:> appear III b" illllll\><jl"'te, lmd seem designed more It) ~rll1:n
!he low.rise buildings at Siena from the [WI> W thIVe'51"')' blln~ings at Lakeside than II}
screen Lakeside from !he fiw-$toI)' buildings at Siena. The developer prCJ~ to inslllJ.!
It~~ 18. f~1 high Ind <'105"ol.-r 011 \:cnler than lhc required 25 leel, llIld 10 provide 20% lTlor.:
trc,>s than the minimum ,"q<limn",,!' A tree 18 ff:\.'1 high ",cllut> little to screen II building
lhatis 69 feel high (,50 It.'CI higher than !he tr~). Even iflbe lree grew to 30 feet. it would
still be almosl4o feet lower Ihw;1he building roc>f line. Moreover, ,he lil1<>-oj:she
d",,,alWns cOl\ta'ncd ill Exhibit C.~ oflhe .fe\'c!opct's(:P{:D documellL ~how (lnly that
Ihe propl,ls~. h~ft'f "'<luld ;lid in ~'Cfeening Ilu: Ull'e~"S10~' lll1ikl Illgs ill Sictl~ frum
Lakeside. Th= arena ell<Vatil!l"L~ lih(ming mill 111.: buffer would scroon Lakcide fTom
the 5-SlDey buildillg.~. T {I mitigate the effect! of lhe inel\.'llsed building heights at Skna,
planlings WCllld have to fl.lc!ue.e the visibility <If the llpper lloors; I}r the 5.$101}' buitding.~.
Nothing is (Offered 10 show Ibat the proposed vegcllltne buffer wHi do this.
As lIoted in the Report, me Commis~i!>!l is requited 00 eOlwdt.-r pro~ed lIming cnang..'S
in relation w vuri()U~ l.,"1'iteria, indtlding whether Ille pr<lllf'scd chllnge~ \.\illlldv<:=ly
inl1uen~e li"';og c,mditkms in the ndlilhboroood (c6Ierionli6) and whf..1her the reque'l<~d
chi!Ilg"s.u" out()t' scale with the ne.:ds ofllienei,ghbomood (criterion #14). l~'le Report
Cf..ll1dudcs th~tlhe;,-e 1\,;'U cr,itena will b<: me! beca.' ISC lit< placente!ll 01" till: buiklings.
increased ~t-lta<,'ks uml enhanceJ vegel.!lli\'1: PI;flhsl1chkYc compatibility with Ille
nl'iJ;bb<:ll:hood and rnltignte tltc >I(:fllc afthe projeCl. The j;,cu ~ilo::d ;nlh..l.tlcr (which
Me u.ken from till' Report) ,,'<I not.~llppon the Commissiou's conclusions and we 1lrgC lhe
Commis"iult l() rccnnsidcr (oem.
We' Jo not appose re;;:oning the Siena site to permit an assisted living facility or
=OllV~Ol!j}~1 r~id~.nces. \Vbat we@ oPl>ose is allowing 11'l<: developer to use StlllSsisted
living 111111:, to leverage the consl11lcliQn 0040 c!ll\venlional residcDCt'S in o"oo;i;,.:d
\luildin&., lh..t ale Ollt-<:>j:SL-a}e :md incompatible with ihOi< ~urroundillg n~jghborh,,<>d. The
legitimate interests .of the communiI)' and :lCIll.~d plomning pdncipks must not be
sacrificed (0 Lhc dcwh,pcr's de:<ire for maximum profits.
We requ<stthat the Conunission revise its findiIll!i' to reflect the facts in i\$<1\>m Report,
and that Wly approval orlllC Sicrull-<ikes project b~ oo!lditioned 011 a rc:-&sign that will
brlnglbc project into ~al" \\-ith the slltrounding noighb<'>rl1ood. prolcct the silt: frollle>,>,er-
development as rcquircli by rho, Lund Developmt'l1t Code, and cau;o: the l'llO'$ Mas1er
Phm to be in Ime compliance with Iht> criteria lIpplicablc to the requ~'Sll)d I"CWa..
:r.i
, ,
7)~./'
".. ./.;;:.,.... ~<<,
..
L~'L,-Z'\"z:I,," ',' - "" ,',/ U,'t. '" .l"'~,
. ..!/.-.L':. "-0-'-/""-- -k"-,~,---",-;,,
" .... "C',"-'-i' 'v\.. .(.1
.. ~"""
........,c.,
~~~~-~'
""A
(,0.( "1-,/1:.,~<6.~'
~<:,/: ~l <{)-',~J
,~, /N 9'/(_
/ \:,i~,~ot,,L
tI
....
,,)
,/-, _ -;/ _ ,='1<'
, ,./ P,,' ,1,,- J',,",
./"'"\;,:.,.....-t"""'.--.,."".;..-. <..(,.~i(:",
Page I of I
MossJohndavid
From: EPCantor@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 12:20 PM
To: MossJohndavid
Subject: Bridgewater Bay Community
Hi John
Please note my position in opposition to the location of the Service Entrance you are
proposing for the east end of the development on Orange Blossom Drive.
The Service Entrance will interfere with the quality of life for Bridgewater Bay home
owners if it is adjoining that community. If however it is positioned on the west end of
the development next to St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church, the service road will
be next to an open area not even near the church and not near anyone's home.
This should not be a difficult change to make in your building plans. It is however of
major concern to your future neighbors living in Bridgewater Bay Community.
Thank you very much for your serious consideration of this matter. I plan to attend the
Hearing scheduled for Thursday, August 6,2009 at the Government Center.
Copy to BWB Property Manager
Copy to BWB Property Owners Association
Ellie Cantor
3021 Driftwood Way
Bridgewater Bay #3103
Naples, FL 34109
Phone: (239) 594-1091
7/27/2009
FROM Bill WAGNER INVEST. SW. FL. INC. PHONE NO. 2395918971
Jul. 25 2009 07:41PM Pi
FAX TO: 239-643-6968
John-David Moss
Principal Planner
Collier County Planning Commission
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
July 26, 2009
Dear John-David Moss,
I am the president of Lakeside Gardens A, Condo Association. Our association consists of 108
families living in 108 condos. More people and more condos than any other association in
Lakeside.
While all of Lakeside is affected by this new project, my owners are the most affected because
our back fence adjoins their property. It is THEIR buildings we will see day in and day out and
the out of place, taller buildings for the first time, in this area.
I attended the first open forum where the Siena people had their say. We vigorously objected to
the height and the density, among other things, at that meeting, We still feel that no other
location anywhere near Lakeside has a height of five stories. I am an occupant at this location
for 19 years. I should know.
We are very concerned that something is being shoved down our throat Perhaps not a
gentlemanly way of saying something, but I am truly annoyed at this point. Annoyed because
the original open meeting was held after the MAJORITY of our people left for their summer
homes, to benefit the builder. We are disturbed by the fact that the second meeting is STILL
being held when people are not totally here. Again benefiting the builder.
Then I read the changes the planning commission made and I wonder if any of us have a voice
in this project at all.
Many of our people who live here year round are against the Siena Lakes project, as presently
proposed, for the reasons stated. Others, not present, will have to voice their objections by U.S.
mail.
Page I of2
MossJohndavid
From: Leo Milotte [Ieomilotte@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 157 PM
To: MossJohndavid
Subject: SIENA LAKES eCRC CPUD Correction Letter
To: John David Moss, Principal Planner, Community Deveiopment & Environmental Division
From: J. Leo & Ellen M. Milotte
3039 Horizon Ln #2107
Naples, F. 34109
We, the above, object to the 'as is' project to be known as "Siena Lakes" for the following reasons.
1. The density request of .60 ratio vs. LDC .45 for the county, as it is now, is unreasonable. This
request is not compatible at the state density ratio. It does not fit this land surrounded by
residential neighborhoods with a much lower ratio. The density ratio should be no more than
the .45; the request by the partitioner of .60 is too high!
2. Height does not conform to any buildings in the area. The government buildings across Airport-
Pulling Road and the Carlisle Residence do fall within a residenial background. The Greek church
should not have been used as a comparable. The Baptist school height is actually a 3-story
building and a decorative parapet with a mounted cross and is .05 (1/2) miles away; again, not a
good comparable.
3. The plan for a delivery road to the property on the East end of Orange Blossom we consider a
serious problem for excessive noise and traffic. A statement made by the interested party was that
there would be approximately "2 deliveries a day"--this is not practical for this size facility serving
so many people. We have concerns about the number of deliveries, waste management and/or
hazardous medical pick-ups. We consider this to be an obstruction to our right for quiet and safety
in a residential area.
Respectfully submitted,
Leo and Ellen Milotte
7/27/2009
MY-. .9 MY-s. CVtotJc'eJOVt~SO~
89 Hamilton Avenue
Watertown Ct 06795
860.275.6995
917.488.7405
4-Aug-09
John-David Moss
Principal Planner
Collier County Planning Commission
2800 Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Re: Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD (Petition) PUDZ-200B-AR-14091
Dear Mr. Moss,
We own unit B-102 on Citrus Lake Drive.
We are unable to attend the scheduled meeting of August 6 and we have very
serious objections to the planning of this project as proposed.
Our most serious objection is the planned height of this community of
interconnected buildings each one being of 5 stories.
This five story building height exceeds all maximum building heights in the
surrounding community; will most certainly surpass the C-3 Zoning benchmark of
50 ft; and to be blunt in laymen's terms, will be totally out of character within the
surrounding community.
The justification that the height of these buildings will be mitigated by a couple
of lower buildings placed midway between the 5 story building residences is
insufficient to counteract this affront in zoning.
Also, we find no plausibility in the staff report ("The Report") of the Collier County
Planning Commission that the excessive heights of these buildings will be
mitigated by the placement of the buildings as noted above and by "enhanced
vegetative buffer".
Buildings that are obviously higher than all other surrounding buildings in the
community are in fact, higher, than all other buildings regardless of a midpoint
separation by lower height buildings! Nothing can change this reality.
And the proposed screening of these excessively tall buildings from the Lakeside
community is destined to be ineffectual. Our understanding is that trees 18 ft in
height are proposed. Even if these trees double in height, they can not come
close to screening out buildings that will ultimately be 50-70 ft. tall. And it is also
our understanding of the plans that this screening is improperly placed be it in the
area of the lower height buildings and not the 5 story buildings. What specific
buffer is going to screen the 5 story buildings?
-.,."",.:,
Please recognize that we do not oppose the re-zoning of the area for a
combination assisted living/residential community.
But we strongly object to one that does not fit into the existing environment of the
community and that will adversely affect the living conditions of the community.
. Towering buildings 50- 70 ft high do not have a fit with in our community.
They change the character and landscape of the area entirety too much.
. They adversely affect the living conditions of the community by
overpopulating what is actually a small geographical area.
. And they are blight unto the Lakeside community in what will be a visual
blockade right in our back yard limiting the horizon; reducing exposure to
sunlight and; reducing proper vegetation for both ecological and aesthetic
purposes.
My husband and I will both be in Naples at the end of August and we would like
to meet in person with any committee/persons if necessary to help get this
project on the rig ht road.
We are very disappointed in the report as submitted by the Commission. We
have always been so impressed by the quality and care taken in the
development of Naples' properties through out the 20 years we have been
visiting and living in Naples and to where we will shortly retire.
We strongly urge the Commission to re-vise its findings and for any
continuums of this project to be conditioned upon a revised desiqn that
will conform in scale to the surrounding community.
Regards,
Choyce and Cheryl Johnson
o
'""
NNZr'CN::::
~ R ~ ~ ~ ~ .....
..............""0 ~ -........ (')
I I 10--0 (tl <"+ ........::r
Vl\O(DrJ:iO;:l pj
0'\ ........ Vl ..... I (J (tl
0'\ 0 "'I'j 0.......... .....__
OoN=-t'ilo2Ro
........ww wr.n
~~ ~ ~ ~
~\O C'tlrJj
c:: u~
..., -
:;t 0
(1)9:\J
-
-
"'
"
'"
'"
.0
:,
'"
:,
~
'"
~
'"
"0
!:::
~
~
<<
o
'"
0'
...,
<<
o
Ei
n
o
:::
en
0:
(1)
...,
"'
-
0'
'"
~~~::c
o 0 2 ~
'0 '0 n "',
o C'D .-+ P
en ::4. Ei 00
$J: '-<: (tl 'J1
....... ~ ~
5'; ~ ~
r:n en (l) M-
.-I-~"""t::r
2<< O\~
~ 0 0 ~
Ei"'<P:r.
(tl 0- ~ (i"
::r n .-+ ::3
JJ. ~ ~ 0
;:::r-(tl,-,<,,+
...... :::n _. 0
~ en '0
g,zo..'O
0.. >-t ~ @
0.. (1) i3 (1)
(tl <: ~ 0..
::i (D'::t..-+
~. ~ n 0
q.-l-~e-
(jj" 5--< (tl
$""Q ~'it
~ ~ ~ ~
~ g5 ra'"g
-"' '"
g S' a ~
0.. <: :::
::s -'~.'-+
o t1l <"+ 0
-:l'!i:l"">+;
gag.;.
::l ;:; ('D (D
~.::r' (tl "0
~ ('D g a
g ~ ii'll
:l'!oe;~
;::t." ~ (tl .-+
i:l""!;:"'i:l""
-' "'
g. S' ..... .-+
(l) (JQ ~ a
v;v
ca@o~
~ e; ~ 0
::r:"":E;
g. ~ ::r n
~ 8 e g
,-<~;'o..
o '"1 (1) 0
c (1) 0.. ~
>-i .- (tl ~.
n::r:::"
o "' ~. i3
~.i ~. ;;
en g.
~. ~ S'l::'
o 0 i-t u
::l t:: .-+- -<
::r 0: 0 (tl
'""'~S'
VlC{SjrDa
~ gas:-
):l: ~(D
~ ~>-i '"0
('D ~ g. a
o...-+t'il""O
.-+- ::r (/) 0
o (1) N' en
0.."'0 (I) (tl
","" 0..
n; ...2. 0 VI
. (1) >+;
~g.s
"' (1) ...,
en <<
~ ~ S' >-0
o 0 (tl (t
~:l'!,,~
::r.......::::C'tl
. g g S'
~ :l'! 0..
!;: (1) "'
~$Xl::+
g d ~
en_i:l""
..'<' 0 (tl
o ~ 0..
<: - "'
ggr"
g.(tl~
a ~ :
Il :3 $"
..., (1) _
o';;l i3
o..~<<
o ::0"
H-.i 00 ;::.
~.~~
(D 0 p;I
, >+;:::
"","0..
<:;",-
(D 2. ~
~ S' s
(=C. (1)
<: r' ...,
(1) '" (1)
_ ","00
::r (l) E;
e? g?, 0.-
~ 0.. S'
g.('DUQ
(D :l'! _
~i:l""0
" _. i3
o n 0
S i:l""::t
- 0"' 0
<< 0
"' 8- ::;L
::: (1) en
o..~5
'-<: .-+ ~
o i:l"" ...,
Ei (1) S'
n"Q 00
Og,gg
o _
i:!. r6 if
i2 0.. ~
..... ""0 if
o ..., 0
~ ...2.-<
i:l"" (D (D
"' n ...,
< ;+ (tl
(D",,<p
0..<:;...,
o (D (D
::: i:l"":::
(1) '" n
~ -< 8-
..., (D
(D en '0
'" (D (0
P (D C.
~ ::s ::to
","_0
"' i:l"":::
0"' (D .
(r(D;p.
~. a r.n
o ""<<
0"' (1) 0
S'," '"
!=l @ S.
65 ~ :::::
::: "' en
~ a ~
S' '" q;
00 5. 0
g:. ~ a
~
~
f4'
...,
'"
J.=r
t:I
(D
"'
...,
~~
" "
r g
~
CIl
,,'
L.,El
~ i
~ ~
0:
"
o
o
~ fi
"
~ 0
00 ."
V. Co
b
'" ""
0.. ~
g a:
" 0
"
v. ."
1;3 e3
t;'.J
IV
o
o
00
~
:;:
o
'"
-
~
<
,,'
"
:>
~
:E
"
cr
."
~
o
"
~
...,
~b>
~
"
~
~
"
g;
"
~ ~
g- 5'
~ <
'" ~'
g "
o ~
i E'
~ 11
g; '<
~ J
!~
"" "
l~
~ ~
""
~ ~
- "
~~
~
~
a
0.
in'
""
'"
'<
"
Si
~
"
"
~
'"
q
I
CIl
"
R
~
0.
~
U>
N
o
o
'"
IV
U>
w
."
~
[J
"
El
~
1ti
~
it
;<i
"
""
'"
r:
r:
"
r:
r:
'1:
c
t;
~
'1:
"
g
o
"
'1:
[3
N
,
IV
o
o
00
~
:;:
o
'"
-
~
~'
1:'
""
'"
8
g,
-Ii
...,
o
~
l';
0.
L:~
(~
l!t'"
)(
.,
~
o
0'
~
"
~
:r
"
.c;
i
'"
i
"
g,
,,'
~
(JO
o
<
~
""
"
~
I
f
~
'"
~
S'
cr
o
"t
CIl
,,'
El
d'-
IV
o
l:
1f
'"
;f
o
IV
o
o
o
fi
d'-
IV
o
(')
."
e3
';"
N
0 [/
'"" "
t~
"
"
~
.9
"
~ 00 n OJ U
to i:l"" CD "1;
CD I (D !a- c
;+ III '3.. ;U c
0 ;;l, CD t:'
:;; S Y' '" IV
_::l III 0
::l '- ~ 0
~ ~ 0 C- oo
S !" ;;..
C) ::l en :;0
(J) c: 0 -
-J ro ::: .0-
to 0
'" '"
"
::;,
::;,
o
'"
'"
'"
A
'"
~
o
o
.-
~
~
~
l
"
g,
,,'
~
~
"'
iil
<:!.
"
~
~
'\'l
~
*
CIl
q
"
~
g:
o
~
CIl
,,'
"
"
>R
o
IV
o
'"
.9.
"
"
~
IV
o
8
t;'.J
IV
o
o
00
~
John-David Moss
Principal Planner
Collier County Planning Commission
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, Florida 34104
RE: Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD Petition PUDZ-2008-AR-14091
Date: August 4, 2009
Dear Mr. Moss;
My wife and I are owners of Lakeside Unit B-103 2571 Citrus Lake Drive Naples. We have been
owners of this unit since 1989. We watched the development of the whole area progress very
nicely. We were impressed with the planning of the Collier government in protecting
established neighborhoods. But in reference to the above application I have to express my
displeasure and concern over the proposed height ofthe buildings, 5 stories. Nothing in our
area is over 3 stories. The approval of a structure of that height would be completely out of the
norm for our area and be detrimental to the property values of our complex which abuts the
proposed 60 plus foot high buildings. Nothing in our area including the beautifully developed
Ritzz-Carlton Golf community approaches this height.
I would ask that you reject this proposal and send it back for redesign to something more
conforming to the present scale of the neighborhood.
Thank you for your consideration and concern.
Sincerely,
Michael Santogatta
Ann Santogatta
239-566-8189 (home)
203-910-2369 (cell)
r' ," r'i~-
,jUd,(. t-.-
Jllv
(!.J 0, /9,""v 9".3~-
vG.Ld r!.~iJ- i yJ rt /,{; 30'
~J- :>1 ~', c< 00 Cf
l)u. ),'-If.r-; -.0tJ.-a~4! V)L~:
yJ ~t~"d rP-L.."U;<./1"1.LV
6>-fL..J!'."-., ~~ yJ~0U:.;1' Lh-.~~.,
.~Fo6 /7- JJ~~A11..
';;1...o~L FL. -3 '110 L{.
(J3A13JJ~
~~.~:
V.-?~0 ~ :!!~~/\,.<,'c~,c'0c..L ~
~ J <-)!~u r' / 1 ~7~' ',y' 7~'~
~oL.J. /~ ~ ~<-.c ,3( '-IL.~ /p-L~.. .
W'^r ~J.4( A.0.0 ~J @J")>0h~'-J
.0:L"'_t'~~ c.c.~L. u-0Z.~ CL 5~<LZ-7 ~d
~l.~ ~..x- ..-I~/...t~ /~,-,. ~ ~
.~ .t!-~u.,~;l(~ c~ "?-"VL..-~ A:?~J
- .
'J ~-v<.""--<-J .
(];e ~~~~,,(. d ...(..{..L,J-u L -4 ,;:?..-tv
U~~k~ f--0i-a ~/1. ---IL-<~ /~~
'. <.J ,".
J-;; ""'" /..<v cz..-. .,/f .J__ .
/,...{r~.^L.n,~ rUA-<J;" j1--f. ./.;i:
j/t-
>1 c-:~ ....-?A-,,2 /../J-;o;;<--..a X,j ~--Z /:Ji-R."1 t.Lt.Y.A'--./
" ;;,7
;<,:.-bt--/J_~_
-0/.
, I
rz .1'; / . ; ,rc4....? ., I) ",
,- v ,..J~ A-J---<.~ '-d../ / '. <- -.-:,,--,,1' ----f.::..!J-,. -? .__ fr
/(--~.
xi~"'_-7'~~_.-{~/{~-r.--
. , " /'''''''' ':'. \'''"
'/.'~A1 >'~....l. .t- .r"V:' ~. /(J/j" j ,
~------
/ '
Eduardo N. Lucotti
Maria D. Lucotti
2895 Citrus Lake Drive
Naples, FL. 34109
July 27, 2009
John-David Moss
Principal Planner
Collier County Planning Commission
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
Re: Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD (petition PUDZ-2008-AR-14091)
Dear Mr. Moss:
My husband and I own Unit 0-301 at Lakeside Gardens "A" and are very
toubled concerning the Siena project: i.e. overbuilding, maximum height
restrictions, and a narrow two-way street (Orange Blossom) as the main entrance.
Attached is copy of letter from Richard Zelinka and Cindy Grossman which is self
explanatory and we are in full agreement.
Yours Truly,
cl:c.o /I1fi./. !.zW1 s-'').,/1 . /"11 L/ ---r---7:'
~/// tUt.d.- ~ ~d./<.AJ ( /(
Eduardo Lucotti Maria Lucotti r
;,;-, -"""':"-'''-':_-.~'';'''-''':''''~- -
RECE1\1F c"",
\;
Jul 30 09 02:52p
SHIPMATES
239 -5~D -c4"!leJ
p.l
July 30. 2009
FAX TO:
Mr. John-David Moss
Pri ncipal Planner
Collier County Plaruting Commission
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples. FL 34104
FAX NO:
239-643-6968
Dear Mr. Moss:
This will serve as my TC!:ipOnSe due by July 30, 2009 regarding the Siena Lakes Project. I am attaching a
let.ter from lwo Lakeside residents, who have done ex1ensivc researcl\ which also reflects many army own
opinions and thoughts.
I am also pU7Jlcd by the designated deadlines which have been imposed on the conununities located close
to the project.. Many residents of Lakeside were gone during the initial meetings which left them unable
to express their opinions and ask important questions.
Thank you"
Marilyn Coates
Lakt:sidc Gardens A Associarion
John-David Moss
Principal Planner
Collier County Planning Commission
2800 North Horseshoe Drive
Naples, FL 34104
RECEIVED
AIiR "3 200C,
July 26, 2009
Dear John--David Moss,
I am the president of Lakeside Gardens A, Condo Association. Our association consists of 108
families living in 108 condos. More people and more condos than any other association in
Lakeside.
While all of Lakeside is affected by this new project, my owners are the most affected because
our back fence adjoins their property. It is THEIR buildings we will see day in and day out and
the out of place, taller buildings for the first time, in this area.
I attended the first open forum where the Siena people had their say. We vigorously objected to
the height and the density, among other things, at that meeting, We still feel that no other
location anywhere near Lakeside has a height of five stories. I am an occupant at this location
for 19 years. I should know.
We are very concerned that something is being shoved down our throat. Perhaps not a
gentlemanly way of saying something, but I am truly annoyed at this point. Annoyed because
the original open meeting was held after the MAJORITY of our people left for their summer
homes, to benefit the builder. We are disturbed by the fact that the second meeting is STILL
being held when people are not totally here. Again benefiting the builder.
Then I read the changes the planning commission made and I wonder if any of us have a voice
in this project at all.
Many of our people who live here year round are against the Siena Lakes project, as presently
proposed, for the reasons stated. Others, not present, will have to voice their objections by U.S.
mail.
0::
<<:
,
00
o
o
N
N
Cl
;:J
0..
o
N
~
u
'"
'0'
~
0..
o
N
::.
Og
'"
in
~
o
:E
"
]
:g
'"
~
a
.a
~
'"
'"
g
,;
@>
~
"0
'<
~
.t
-
'"
o
.".
~
<<:
,
00
o
o
N
N
g
0..
ti
'"
'0'
~
0..
'"
"
'"
Vi
~ ';:'
[sO) ~
.S
8 <l
S a
o 0
;..@
8 j ~
i g ~
.~~ ~
..c ~ "
.~ CL> 0
..c !9 ] "'"
.j3.= 0 ~
-... :> -.
" " "&
~ ~ ~ ]
:: 8 U r:n
'" "
" '"
%l, u
~ ~
~]
~ u
i5~
~
Q,
:ij
~
'"
~
o
U
~
1
x
,.~.I
~_J
>-)
]
"
~
o
"-<
t
'"
B
;..
0.
~
,.,.
;..
fr
~
'I-
~
";:l
u
'"
t::
o
u
~
0.
~
'B
8
~
iJ
j
"
~
~
'"
;t
'"
o
o
N
~
'"
~
00
"0
~
~
'"
C/]
~
~
"-<
<:;
f-<
-
'"
o
.".
-
~
<<:
ob
o
o
N
~
0..
-
"
'"
"0'
~
0..
g'l
'"
in
(;
u
iJ
'"
ti li
.~ (.)
~ ~
Bl
.-.
.".
u
o
~
-
'"
o
.".
~
<<:
ob
o
o
N
N
g
0..
!;j
..5
'"
"
'"
in
'"
'"
0..
.0
'"
:3:
~
<<:
"
'"
:>
c
'n;
~
en
...:
:2
~
OJ
Ol
Cl
-E
~
a.
o
~
Ol
"0
UJ
E
-
t5
Ol
.~
a.
UJ
E
-
o
c:
0>
'w
Ol
"0
<.>
-=
'0
Ol
a.
UJ
Ol
=
-
o
Ol
~
'"
:=
'"
0>
c:
'B
ro
0>
Ol
~
~
o
<.>
Ol
.0
>.
E
Ol
u
Ol
~
UJ
UJ
o
:2
...:
:2
=
'ji:
c:
o
~
UJ
~
o
U
"0
'"
.c
Ul
,:;!.
!J!
'"
.c
>.
C
o
!J!
'"
.c
"0
c:
'"
"0
c:
'"
.0
UJ
::J
.c
>.
:2
Qj
.c
15
>.
c:
'"
c
'"
.c
-
~
J!1
2
Ol
.0
c:
o
'w
UJ
E
E
o
()
g>
'c
o
N
Ol
=
ji:
"0
c:
'"
1:-
'c
::J
E
E
o
u
=
ji:
~
Ol
13
'"
~
'"
.c
u
-
o
'5
o
o
UJ
,!!1
E
o
~
-
ro
>
o
~
a.
a.
'"
-
o
"0
C
:;;;
Ol
E
o
UJ
"0
~
'w
u
Ol
~
"=
-E
Ol
E
a.
o
~
Ol
"0
o
E
'5
a.
Ol~
.0 <:-.
c:=
'" '"
0-
x~
J!1_
o.c:
E Ol
0>
o Ol
1:-C:
o~
w(ij
<.n()
"'.t!
:=0':
o Ol
.c.c
"0 -
ffi~
1i)~
Qi~
-g,,,
::J.~
- >
o Ol
C:.c
c-
rl"
UJ
UlO>
:J .S;
'-"0
\1)=
sI5
>.
"0
'"
Ol
~
ro
"0
'"
.c
C
~
a.
o
~
Ol
"0
UJ
:s
ro
=
"0
Ol
C
'0
a.
a.
'"
UJ
'0
Ul
~
Ol
~
'"
Ol
S
~
::J
o >..c
"OQ')_
~ Cii ~
o > UJ
-rom 5
s:>.<v
nH3
'" Ol '"
-C..=Q)
ell Ctl -=
s.!!1 0
UJ
-o~~
g;.?:
..c :!::: __
o~-
..oa>Qj
~"O:g
'Q;~ :fl
c:o-",
Ol.c '"
.c~...J
- 0
C.o '"
O.c UJ
'5 ,2' ::J
o.~E
.~ co e
:!:::.9';;;
c "0 ~
.- "0 ......
~ ro t)
- >. '"
UJ_ UJ
Ol C a.
.cOo
-=..c
~.~ VJ
C _ Ol
~ij=
CTEO
~ a.:;
c..Q Q)
o Ol Ol
u>-=
"0 Ol UJ
c"O Ol
",UJ.c
:c-
~1- m
g? . 0
Q)~o
"0:="0
.S; -& ffi
Ol'-
UJ .c: "0
"'"0 '"
Ol '" 0
boa::::
.s a::: g>
(l) 0):=
:5~"5
(I) "50..
,- a. 1:
-'0
~ t a. .
"0' & .~ "0
...... '- <( Cll
0.<( 0.=
UJ ::J-'"
E~~Qi
_COmO)
0;;:; := 0
(/) '>,J 0......
~m....g>
cv Q) U,-
....cUwO
...... :J'C CJ)
00-+--00
mg~ro
"- ....... 3:
oBa3-
&(])~E
"O~O>
Q) 0 Q) ::J
.cCi.>0
+-' >< m..s:::
:2Q)..c,:::
3: >. - .
~ 0
"05-o!E
~ E ~ ~
g- E "00 ......
00...... Q}
OoCii:E
.
.
,
,
.
ro
>.
-
'c
::J
E
E
o
o
Ol
=
-
o
UJ
C
Ol
"0
'w
Ol
~
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
c
<
Ol
.c
-
C
Ol
UJ
Ol .
~ -
o.C
Ol Ol
~ E
Ol c:
UJ 0
'" ~
(l) .~
0: Ol
Ol
0,:5
,S; 0
w-
Ol"O
E~
Q) 'S
.c UJ
- UJ
15:':
Ol '"
.0=
>.C
= 0>
~ '00
o Ol
~a3
Ol ~
a.'"
.8'5
.!!:!~
.0 :!::'
J!l :=
.~ "E
'" '"
B~
-
~ 0
",0>
Ol-
:!2 g
UJ
Ol
-'"
'"
...J
13
Ol
"i5'
~
_a.
o Ol
UJ.c
~ -
Ol"O
.oc:
E '"
OlE E
Ol
>."0
C"O
'" C
E '"
~,~
.w
Ol Ol
:= E
~C0
Ol-
~rg
::J 0>
1: ::J
o<{
t:~
::J_
N
'-<
o
FW: Siena Lakes
Page 1 of2
MossJohndavid
From: Mary Ann Costello [costelloma@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 20094:37 PM
To: MossJohndavid
Cc: etcostello@gmail.com; 'Mary Florence Miller'
Subject: RE: Siena Lakes
Thanks for sending this John,
My husband and I object to the approval of this project for several reasons:
1) The placement of the service road - next to Bridgewater Bay - will cause noise and distract from the
peacefulness of our community. It could be placed on the western end of the property and not hinder
anyone.
2) The density of the proposed population - Looks like a condo project (340 units) to us with a small
assisted living component (80 units).
3) The height of the proposed building structures. A five story bUilding is NOT consistent with the
surrounding neighborhoods and would adversely affect the value of the properties adjacent to this
proposed development.
4) In the document (which I have read Cover to cover) "you" touch lightly on whether or not this will affect
the land values of surrounding neighborhoods. In fact the wording is really sad and underwhelming.
Was it possible for you to get professional opinions from banks and real estate people to assess this
potential disaster to the neighborhood? There is no way that is cannot effect us adversely.
We will attend the meeting tomorrow and voice our concerns louder.
By the way I don't understand how a requirement for 5 feet wide sidewalks on both sides of the street can be
replaced with one 6 foot sidewalk on one side of the street and still be called equal. Seems like 10 feet width
will allow the passage of more foot traffic than 6 foot width. Not exactly sure how you all decided that one.
Respectfully submitted
Mary Ann and E. Thomas Costello
3244 Sundance Circle
Bridgewater Bay
Naples, FL. 34109
From: MossJohndavid [mailto:JohndavidMoss@colliergov.netj
Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 3:36 PM
To: costelloma@gmail.com
Subject: FW: Siena Lakes
From: MossJohndavid
Sent: Thursday, July 30,2009 11:02 AM
To: 'EPCantor@aol.com'; 'Andrew Dickman'; 'Leo Milotte'; 'shirley lindenbaum'; 'Ruth! Zenk'
Cc: 'parepantry@comcast.net'
Subject: Siena Lakes
<<siena lakes report.pdf>>
8/5/2009
Print
Page I of I
Naples Daily News Naples Daily News 07/19/2009 Local
(5-0719nd01b009.pdf.0) Page B09
PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by
the Colli... Cc>unty P1onn;ng Commission (CCPe) at ~
A:M.. Thursday. Auaust G. 2009, in the Board of County
Commissioners Meeting Roon'l. 3rd Roor. Administration
Building, CCitrter Government Center, 3301 EaSt Tamiami
TraiL Naples Florida, to consider.
Petition: PUDA~200B-AR-14D90 LCS-Westminster
Naples LlC, represented by Robert Duane, AICp, of
Hole Montes. Inc. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of
Goodlette. Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich and Koes~
ter, is requesting an amendment to 1he Oak Grove
PUD (Ordinance No. 98-71) to delete approximately
6.13 acres. The subject property is located in Section
1, Township 49 South. Range 25 East, Collier County,
I=lorida (Companion Item to PUDZ-200B-AR-14091 and
PUDA.2008-AR-14092).
AJI 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 wi1h the Department of Zoning and Land Devel-
opment Review prior to August 6. 2009, in order to be
constderedat the public hearing. All materials used in
presentation before the cepe will become a permanent
part of the recotdand will boe available for presentation to
the Board of County Commissioners, if applicable.
"--
-.
''crof,~~
,="
--
..,
"
}
~
.
i
"
G~N~n;ElI1~IDI
iiiJf,.l
\I~~1ICWl
vr,,,,,
.
I
.
-~,
..j
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the cepe
will need .8 reCord of the proceedings pertaining thereto,
arid therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim I9cordof
the proceedlilgs is made, which includes all testimony and
evidence upOn which the appeal is to be based.
Collier County Planning Commission
Conier COunty, Rorida
Mark P. Strain, Chairman
No '91152584 --4!l~
July 20, 2009 Powered by TECNAVIA Copyright @ 2009 Naples Daily News 07/19/2009 3:38 pm
http://naplesdailynews. fl.newsmemory .com! ee browser/frame/check. 3 3 24/php-scri pt/print.... 7/20/2009
ORDINANCE NO. 09
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED,
THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,
WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE
APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE
HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM THE
ORANGE BLOSSOM GARDENS PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD), OAK GROVE PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING
DISTRICTS TO A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW A
CONTINUING CARE RETJREMENT COMMUNITY FOR A
PROJECT KNOWN AS THE SIENA LAKES CCRC CPUD,
LOCATED IN SECTION I, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF
29.25", ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Robert Duane, AICP of Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard Yovanovich, Esq. of
Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, PA, representing LCS-Westminster Naples LLC petitioned
the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described
real property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
SECTION ONE:
The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section I,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, in Collier County, Florida, is changed from the Orange
Blossom Gardens Planned Unit Development (PUD), Oak Grove Planned Unit Development
(PUD) and Agricultural (A) Zoning Districts, to a Commercial Planned Unit Development
(CPUD) known as the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD in accordance with Exhibits A tluough G,
..~__ . .. a1ta1:h~u=iIeret(JcarJ:(hncorporated-herein and-by-reference- made-part-her-eof~.he..appr,()priate----.
____.____._..________m..n ---------
PUDZ-2008-AR-14091
REV. 7127/09
Page 1 of2
--,--,,---,-,'---'-"--'-~-
zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier
County Land Development Code, is/are bereby amended accordingly.
SECTION TWO:
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of !be Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this _ day of
,2009.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
, Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form and legal
sufficiency:
Heidi Ashton-Cicko
Assistant County Attorney
Attachments:
Exhibit A - List of Permitted Uses
Exhibit B - Development Standards
Exhibit C-I - Master Plan
Exhibit C-2 - Line of Sight
Exhibit C-3 - Landscape Buffer Elevations
Exhibit C-4 - Cross Sections and Details
Exhibit C-5 - Site Amenities
Exhibit 0 - Legal Description
Exhibit E - List of Requested Deviations
Exhibit F - List of Developer Commitments
Exhibit G - Conditions of Approval
CPI08-CPS-00919\25
PlJDZ-2008-AR- 1 4091
REV. 7/27/09
Page 2 0[2
EXHIBIT A
LIST OF PERMITTED USES
Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD
Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs)
CCRCs offer several services in one location, which gives people the chance to stay in one place
even if their needs change as they age. These services may include nursing care or other health
services, meals, housekeeping services, transportation and emergency assistance and also a
variety social activities and educational opportunities on the CCRC campus. The CCRCs shall
also provide residents with a contract that says the CCRC will offer residents with housing and
services for life.
PERMITTED USES
A maximum of 764,478 square feet shall be permitted. No building or structure, or part thereof,
shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following:
Residential uses for persons aged 62 and over shall be permitted consisting of 340
independent living units and an assisted living facility comprised of 20 assisted living
beds, 45 skilled nursing beds and 15 memory (dementia) care beds.
A minimum of 72,000 square feet of various associated amenities shall be provided so
residents may age in place. Personal support services shall also be provided to the
independent living residents.
Density shall be permitted at a combined maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.60.
A. Principal Uses:
1. Independent living units (ILU). Units such as houses, duplexes, town houses or
apartment residences for residents who do not require special medical assistance;
however, the same services offered to the dependent population shall be made
available if they choose to use them.
2. Assisted living units (ALU). Assisted living is a long-term residence that provides
care in a residential setting. It is designed for those who need help in their day-to-day
lives but who do not require 24-hour skilled nursing care.
3. Alzheimer Special Care or Memory Care Units (SCU). SCUs are usually a floor or
units inside of a much larger ALU to meet the special needs of residents with
dementia.
4. Skilled Nursing units Facility (SNF). A residence that provides a room, meals, and
help with activities of daily living and recreation. Residents would generally have
p!ly.siGal oflfienllilptoblemsthatkggp therrtfr6ffiTi,.;Ing ontheir6"'ifaIid~lagigfdtij~~
usually require daily assistance.
July 22, 2009
5. Any other commercial or professional use which is comparable in nature with the
foregoing list of permitted uses and consistent with the purpose and intent of the
district as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals, pursuant to the LDC.
B. Indoor Accessory Uses, Structures and Amenities:
I. The following uses shall comprise a minimum of 10.75% of the total floor area of the
project (approximately 72,257 square feet):
Lobby;
Administrative Offices;
Housekeeping;
Public Restrooms;
Coat Room;
Main Dining Room;
Cocktail Lounge;
Private Dining;
Central Kitchen;
Bank;
Postal Outlet;
Library;
Game/Card Rooms;
Business Center;
Billiards Room;
Arts Studio;
Beauty/Barber Shop;
Resident Social Director's Office;
Receiving Room;
Nurse Practitioner's Office;
Woodworking Studio;
Convenience Store;
Coffee Shop;
Ice Cream Parlor;
Auditorium;
Exercise Studio;
Physical Therapy;
Physician Office;
Locker Room and Showers;
Swimming Pool (enclosed);
Aerobics/Group Fitness Room;
Resource Center/Classroom;
Massage/Spa Therapy;
Beauty Salon (AL& SNF);
Exercise Physiologist Office;
Resident Services Director's Office;
Resident Services Staff's Office.
July 22, 2009
C. Outdoor Accessory Uses, Structures and Amenities:
I. Parking facilities; covered loading dock; guard house; outdoor recreational facilities
such as swimming pool and deck and similar facility; walking trails; signs and water
management facilities; hardscape, seating, trellis and decks; lawn games - croquet,
badminton and lawn bowling; deck and trellis; putting greens; courtyard, garden and
landscaping; swimming pool and deck.
D. Miscellaneous Accessory Uses, Structures and Amenities:
1. Any other accessory and related use that is determined to be comparable in nature
with the foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals, pursuant to the process outlined
in the LDC.
July 22, 2009
EXHIBIT B
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD
Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Siena Lakes CCRC
CPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections
of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SOP or subdivision plat.
I. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIXED USE DISTRICT
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES ACCESSORY USES
MINIMUM LOT AREA N/A N/A
MIMINUM FLOOR AREA:
ALU* 609 sq. ft. N/A
SNF 305 sq. ft. N1A
ILU 830 sq. ft. N/A
MINIMUM SETBACKS
3-, 4- and 5-story structures
From south property line I 00 feet 25 feet
From west property line 60 feet 40 feet
From east property line 90 feet 25 feet
From north property line 80 reet 25 reet
All other structures 25 feet 25 reet
INTERNAL ORNE 10 reet o reet
SETBACKS (from edge of pavement)
LAKE SETBACKS 20 reet (except where adjacent to 20 reet
boardwalk)
MIMINUM DISTANCE 35 reet N1A
BETWEEN STRUCTURES
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
ALU (2 stories)* 42 reet ZH and 45 reet AH
SNF (2 stories) 42 feet ZH and 45 reet AH 30 feet ZH
ILU (3 story) 41.5 reet ZH and 48 reet AH 35 reet AH
ILU (4 story) 60 reet ZH and 69 reet AH
!LU (5 story, incl. parking) 60 reet ZH and 69 reet AH
Commons (2 story) 42 feet ZH and 45 feet AH
* ALU-Assisted Living Units (which includes Memory Care Units)
SNF-Skilled Nursing Facility
ILU-lndependent Living Units
ZH = ZONED HEIGHT
AH = AeTUAL HEIGHT
II. LANDSCAPING STANDARDS
I. To provide an enhanced buffer, trees shall be installed at less than 25 feet on center (OC) to
allow for clustering to provide a more effective hl~lffer _____ ~_~_.
2. The quantiIY ofIrees proposed shall be an add1l10nal LO%over what is reqUlreQ
June 23, 2009
3. Tree heights shall exceed the required lO-foot overall height (OAH) minimum. Canopy trees
shall be at 16-18 feet OAH and Slash Pines 14-18 feet OAH. Cabbage Palms shall exceed the
required 10-foot clear trunk (CT) minimum by specifying 15-20 feet CT with an additional
10 feet of crown.
4. Plantings shall occur on both sides of the required buffer walls with the additional plantings
being installed on the residential side of the walls. Ultimately, this will create a staggered
"green wall" to effectively screen the buildings.
The type D buffer along the western property line shall meet LDC requirements. The following
standards have been added to each buffer along the north, east and south property lines (see also
Exhibits C-2 and C-3 for further details):
NORTH PROPERTY LINE
15-foot wide Type B buffer with trees spaced no greater than 25 feet OC and a single row hedge
of 10 gallon material, at a minimum of 5 feet in height (HT) with a 3-foot spread, placed a
maximum of 4 feet oc.
:+:1672 linear feet (LF) = 67 Trees, 418 Shrubs required
81 Trees, :::418 Shrubs provided, using lesser spacing
EAST PROPERTY LINE
15-foot wide Type B Buffer with trees spaced no greater than 25'OC and a single row hedge of
10 gallon material, at a minimum of 5 feet HT with a 3' spread, placed a maximum of 4' OC.
:+:728 LF = 30 Trees, 187 Shrubs required
36 Trees, :::187 Shrubs provided, using lesser spacing
SOUTH PROPERTY LINE (Enhanced Type B buffer to be installed vs. the required Type D
buffer, for improved screening)
IS-foot wide Type B buffer with trees spaced no greater than 25 feet OC and a single row hedge
of 10 gallon material, at a minimum of 5 feet HT with a 3-foot spread, placed a maximum of 4
feet oc.
:+:1677 LF = 67 Trees, 420 Shrubs required
81 Trees, :::420 Shrubs provided, using lesser spacing
WEST PROPERTY LINE
IS-foot wide Type B Buffer with trees spaced no greater than 25'OC and a single row hedge of
10 gallon material, at a minimum of5 feet HT with a 3' spread, placed a maximum of 4' Oc.
:+:721 LF = 30 Trees, 187 Shrubs required
36 Trees, :::187 Shrubs provided, using lesser spacing
July 22, 2009
,
Ii: !
illl.!l! III \ II Ijli!!~ !
II ~Il i'I'II~ Ii! \ :!\ ,1.1;1 ,il I
il! . III ,1,1 <0> !
10'/ .
'Il _j__ I, 80)~!.".!"1!: rl3.ol" ~___-----:::':'::'-_-__,
------
'.1
lim
II"
:!Il
lill
"<..,,~
j1~~
l!i-i"" Ja
~; 'II
! I!;
: i~:
: in
. II;
i ~ !
! ~ I Ii Ii
HPnl
Jlllnl
ill
~ Ill, 100
i X'w
, ' ~ . .
II ~ i -
,
-i l?: ~
i,' ~. ~
I ~ I ~
pi,
iii
z
..
..J
Il.
""
I!! "
(1)1-
"il
2;:
.X
Ow
~
0:
<.i
~ .. .. ..
, .
Ii II
. .
II 1'; ;1
II!!! e
~hl" Ii U
~. II I ~
~i !WPIl ds
~ t I! I ! ! I Ii ldl
. 'J 3
:i!1 ;;g
Ii ; i ; ~ i i JiPI
L.. ,. .iillh
j! I ; Ii, ; I ill~'!1
~ !I,I I'll ,I
~ 1'1- 'II! l!!'d!
.f "" rJ
"I '.'
v..... '...._,...",. _ ~ ....,...._ --...,__. .., ...........'_ D~_~e_......'",_,""'''
,
,
,
,
,
,
/ I
'II '
\ , . J
'$~g~ \ f /1----1
Ih'll: ! ~ \ ,/ !ll
I' i~ Ii" ': I I
" ~ 11 <C \ ,': I
a f;~ '! \ " I I
itllll!1 I \(t'~---1
lilli!il!ll! ill ~ \" \
I., " \, ~ ~ \~--1
hllil!:'\ !' 7 I
1.11111. II, ,
1'1'11111 !II I lIti
ith~ Ii; :II! ~
IUUIi'I! il II 1111 ~ ~
'1Iiilll I n II r
IIlill(h d! 11 h I
,lilli<lIil i rl,. '".w,,;, J i
!il',bij! ,,\\ i\ \ !
'!III'l, ,::.~,>-).,-,- I
ih,l Ii! ~lli'i,,111..(
ri " \
" .
;;: <I 1'"
o 'I . .
F fIr '
::;
W
...J
W
~
,It 0
'IIi z ,
III! [jJ d
I" I- "l'
1i!1 ~ E !!
il'~ 3 ~ ~
!(t ...J. I
Ii!;.! - I~:'
!!'Ii , __
:ik :" ,
i~ll! I' ,
.'111 '~
llbll l~--,
~.~
: 11!1I!!
1 : i~1 :
i 1 :
. -t:::~::r:-
, , ,
' , ,
' , ,
' , ,
' ,
, ,
, ,
, ,
: ,
_I
- .
\
'\
\
! \
II: i
, I
\ : 1
\-M---~-l
I l \
1./ I I
j I \
.aj 1___-\.
Jj r ,
, "
I ~ wi
! ~I 2(
I ! Ii
J nil I,
. 'I
~: I"
: ..II
i\ : l :11
if" 4,.-. ~.,c(i'--t II 11111
l~-_';"'!l,: lIli' I' n Iii
r I . ~ I.", "'1
'I ~ !;~ r, ~h
II H .
~ ~
i, 1'1
~ f-- <,,;,1,\\ ,t
i 'I "'.,1 \ _~~._ /)
" ::-'7i/j'/
" ',' ." ....' t-/- ---'J<
'i-}ii#.4t. , I!
1<1 lit':; <':.~ i
~ ! ~ -~/.$" --v
z
o ;
~ I-I
GJ I
...J I
W I
l-
(/) -
us ~l
@ ~
g~
W-::
::JW
;j~
----- {J
II
!'
III ,
,
I :
,
) ,
, ,
/' :
,
, ,
,
I -{)
,
'iJ
. - ~
I l--- , _
I '__
- -"J
_-.!_- ---- _ <l _ _
N ~w
.:\ .
pi,
,l---....I ~ ~
/ I f ~ I ;;
,I I I I ~ I ~
i I
~ \. !I I, :111
~ \ I I Iii
J: \ I
'I'\Y'-~ l
r C:'{i\\\VjJ' h
.: 0~'h ...+1/" u ..
't "'/ ,1;1 I
---------<"':: >', ,~ . II,
'1- \"'..! M )0,-:)( I
-.'/ :
' I:
: 1;1 I
I ~ :i' _
I II!
i I~"~.
I Ii
I 1'1 I
I ! !L-1
Xr II Ii ilil \
! \ .f Illl'l
I i I~!!! ill! '\
!;~ ;':1 ') III
'il ;-~twj\ \1 ,
f~! I ___.:"'1\. . ~
--+-~-- 1111.
. .1
1'1'1
'II I
, ,
lL
~Pl
P~!
I
'"
J,
z
o
~
GJ
...J
W
I
I-
::J
o
(f)
o
W
I-
~~
1-.
(/) c.
~~
,
, '8
8:8:8:
I It:
\ ! Ij ~!
I It.. ~ I
! : ~ : --
t:::~::::~::--
, , ,
' , ,
' , ,
' , ,
' , ,
: : :
' , ,
' , ,
' , ,
' , ,
' , ,
' ,
,
-iJ
...",
"',
!2o
Ill...
U.iii
0-
'"
W)(
%w
::;
"~'E
" Ji
i~.!i
!Ijll
@
II
!'
oQ
o
~
o-'i
cD
~
'.....
otD
-~.~,-:;-;;-,."."",",....
,
/
/ \\ 'I
, \ ,
~ \\ II ,I I \ i I
i \ r~j \--\ ~l
I \ /: I I I
., \\-L~-1 L~'.,
"" ' :"
'I" \, i ~ ~I"
~ ' ' ,,'
~ \-1 ~ i'
,"I al " I~
illl ill, i 1,,::1 ~ lill ~
IIi!! III r: 'F ; ','::7::"" ,\ -f .n II III
;!" 'I > "',: I i".. t,
i! ! ili : i I lIJi if rin
II i I "
.~r'\"\i'V ! a I:
'" .' 'I ,\, !' I" I"
~'" " , \I, J' ! J :
","777')V1r' I { ,I. 'i "':'1/"'
'";,,i'i!"~' a~'~ \ 1\ ,I
",.,t1t..'\ \:i:-/, '.: /;)r\ j
'; ~ilr" ~ -.
_ nt5",'-'n~~ II
--'.;:: I " -I
.. >
fij I !
If*r
g~
U)"
~~
~ .~
" 8 , .
~ i ~
I e ~
I ;j I "
-18
~ N
:11
1'1
,II
/---l
, '
/ l
( I
i ( II !
! \ lj 1
:J \ I
r.8,:\r,!,~~\~_111 ~
1:"/tl1O,',," ~
"I, II' ~
."ULj;,;-j \ ~
ri i W t')
II 0:: 0
! I ~ U
1 I II! ~ Ul
i III!
tr! !ll~
~! 'u ,II I HUI
II III! III I ~Jh;
~ .!uUlII \1 l
1 i~ f In I
iilf1'~ -', I Sil
~___~. n z~
II i
iI-l- - I I'
! . .
l Ii~
~:f- ~
09
i
ft
.-
t>€>
J' , i I
1lll'jl! .
!I, i 1
lillllll
ii~~111
lIi,llM
t~ I '!l
I'ilmd
!1!UIi1i,'
Id.,!1
t!.il'llr
,il!lliiU
i'lfl'lli~
illlilliill I
II I
ml
:;;
z
o
~
...J
W
~
o
U)
o
w
~~
!- "
0)"
::JW
;j~
~
,
~
z
o ,-I
~ !l.fl
...J
w
I
Ii:
'Ib ~ "
IUI ~ II
loli ,h l
Ii !-'
iil~ ~ ':
i.l~ ;j ~
IKlwg
IIi!;
~illi
axil!"
-"II
i~!hl
s
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
: I
Ill!
! ll'll! Ii!
, ,. i' ' '
, , 3' ' '
: ' ' : :
::::F::~::::~:::- ! !
: : ' i '
: : i '
: : : --0
_' 1:~_==L~~~o"
, ,
8l8!8
! lUll! I,
I I I i"
.::T:::~::::[:---
: : :
l I I
1 : :
, ' '
: : :
I I :
: : :
I ] :
!Ill
i!
III !
1'1
,I.
.~ --. --,-
..~... .,~........u<. _.....,., .~,....",'-,..""...,,.,......._..."'...~.~_~
!,
l'!
Ili!l
! Ill'
,[ i!ll
II ill!
"11"1'
'I"l!
, I lid
,. ~'!I
'.~i:~ wBfy
i~h ~"'~
.IIK!
~ 'I!il
I
I !l!
! I ~
II
II
l
~!I
"
->!~
,
,
<J- !~
. l~
g:
t A~
!
-
I'
..
!'J.
~'
,
u
.
,!~I'IG ,--
~ "-
I !_
! ! .J" ;~
' -
~ t~
, I.
I .~
, >,
t,
!;
I'
i'J.
I;
" ~
!; ,
i~ ~~
I
'j I
'i~ U
!" Ii
II I
!ll~_.
. ___n ,.<.;, _
____ ..., _ u _
d
'!
Ii
,
.
!
~~ h!
~u I"
~~ ad
., ,
,
r'----;='
I ; ji
~~ I
. 1-
, .i Ii i'J.
;, ! -
, '-
/ '0 i
g lb!~
~ l!!dl___~~
i Ib~
~ Ih
1
i
If
, 11
I
,
1_.
'I,
!.~
:ii II!';
Ii IHi
p
~.
J.
II 1
I
~ .... o4l<l)
! f ~ .
'lq.
I ~ .
Ii ~ i ~
pl,
III i
"
.J
a
I;;
Q
"..
.u
~t::
O!!!
i=:J:
<>l;j
~
Ol
Ol
o
a:
<>
.'I'~
iti'j
~i~l
I
r
I!I
"_~..1\'C.''''''''''''.
~.""""_.,,,",
,~..""....
...." ox,..,
" "
. ~ t 15
" I I"
~ " ~
u ~
t .d ~ ;:::
'" Iq~
'"
0
E III
E
0
() l'i
'" ",
'"
"
:;;
1::
<'5 '"
w
'" 1ft
'" @ !!U\
" 1:'
.5 zO
Qj Wt-
~ :=;-
..!!l
:I:
@ w><
t-w
1ii
'" f~~'~
'" j~ill
"
'" !I!d
'"
"
i!!
(!)
III
II ,I
, .J
ri .
C,)
~
C,)
C,)
]
" oS
i!!
<( g
~
"i! .-
l- cE>
'"
,m
:>
@
~
'"
'"
o
E
E
o
()
'"
'"
"
"
-"
"
-'
~
'"
"
()
e
gJ
E
'"
"
~
.$
Cii
'0
"
:2
"
'"
]
,
i'
.tl
,
,
,
i:~=~::-~==-=--=-.___
.,
,
i
,.,.....-..........~...- -..... ,,-~ "'''._-~......~,-"",..._-,..."",,--..
Exhibit D
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A PART I]F SECTION I TaVNSHIP 49 SOUTH RANGE i!5 EAST COLLICR COUNTY, FL/JRlOA, BEING
~ PARTICULARL y !1f:SCRI8ED AS FDLLavS.
CCIHHrNC[/I/G AT THE: \ICST 1/4 OF SECTiON 1 TavNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE i!5 EAST. COLLIER
COUNTY FLC1IllDA; TI-CNCE: SOUTH l19'i!8'15' EAST. ALONG THE: CDlTER CF SAID SECTllJN I. A
DISTANCE CF :568.40 FE:F:T. to THE THE N01?rHVEST CORNER OF THE: LAND /JESC8IlJCD IN THE:
OFFICIAL Ilf:CORIIS BtD( ~96, PAGE: 2S21. IT THE: PUIJL/C ~DS iT CDLLJD? CDUNTY
FL/J1WJA; THENCE: C(JNTINUtNG SOUTH sg'ZS'15' EAST, ALJJNG . SAID CENTf:H SECTI(JN LIIC, AND
THE: /O?TH LINE CF SAID /1f:S(;Rl1IED LAND, 34.51 reET. TU THf; N(}IlTfCAST
CURNE:R OF SAID lCscnJlt:D LN(1h r. SECT/ON LINE, SOIfTH otrZ'1'IZ'
EAST. ALUNG THE: E:AST LINE: OF SAID IT 519.51 FE:ET, TU .TfC
P(JINT CF BFGINNlNlP THV>ICE CONTI THE: /JESC"RIJJE:D LAND; ra
THE: SauTHE:AST CI:RNE:R. I1F SAIP L D T/OV V/TH THf; NORTHER!. Y
LINE: (T THE LeSS SJ]UTH 30 reo AS os JJ(XJK i!696, PAGE: i!527.
I1F THE: PUBLIC RCctRDS OF COLL R 89'i!3'07' VCST, ALJ:IiG
SAID NCRTH LINE. A DISTANCE OF 3 CT/OV \I/TH THE:
VES TERL Y LINE IT SAID J)E:SCRI/J, D T. ALCI<<i SAID \;'["ST
LINE. A DISTANCC OF 240-65 FEE; ISTIWCE [JF 33518 rEET.
TO THE: POINT CF BEGINNING. SA/ rPi. OR LESS.
:.- \ r~ J
\,,'':""\ '!h. i Sf
'" PART OF SEe T/ON I TOVNSHiP 49 SOUTH RANGE i!5 EAS T CGLLlER COUNTY. FLDRiTJA, 8E:ING
MORE: P4RT/CULARL Y DESCRIBED AS FGLLOVS.
crrw,pJcTNG AT THE VEST 1/4 (JF" SECTION J TOWNSHiP 49 SCRiTH, flANGE i!5 EAST. CGLL/ER
Cl1UNTY FLORiTJA, THENCE SOUTH 89'28'15' EAST, ALONG THE: CENTER or SAiD SECTIfX{ i. A
DISTANcE CF :16840 rEE:T. ra THE: P(Ji(:fT fl( HtI;[~1V!i SAID PtJJNT BUNG THE: /O?THVEST
CClRNER CF TfC LAND l1CSCRI8E:D IN TfC I1FflCIAJ.. COI?OS 1JOOK i!696. PAGE i!5i!7, ElF TfC
PUBLIC ilf:r;IJRDS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA; THENCE COVTINU/NG. SOUTH 89'ZS'I5' EAST, AL~
SAID aNTER SECTIflN LINE:, AND THE: NUfTH LINE: CF SAID /JESCRI8E:D LAN11, A DISTANCE OF
334.51 'FrET, ra TfC NfJRTfCAST C(}I<NE:'R OF SAID IJf:Sr;RiJlt:JJ LANDI TfCNCE LEAVING SAID
CENTf:R SECTIflN LINE, SOUTH Oi!'29'Ii?" EAST, ALONG TfC CAST LINE ET SAID !1f:SCRI//CD LAND. A
JJ.ISTANCE: OF 519.51rEET, THCNCC NOR. TH 89' ~DISTAN;E: ET 33S.18 FEET. TO A
POINT IT INTE:RSECTI(]N V[TH THE: VESTE .. CRI//CD LAND; TfENCE NIJlTH
02'24'$6- VEST, ALCI<<i SAID VEST L fJ:Er m TfC PGINT (T
lIE:G[NNING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINING frCS _E OR ~ '\.
. -. ~ - \
iIIe wen \l1l8-h&~; Infi'. \Ie tit ..t _wQU&l:,* '-'41. lit tIIII
IIOCtbftat o"'-qIJ4lrwr fa ... tI\1I'Ipf",~ ff'( If41,
hoW..... 1, l'_'"ip U .. .C01UlIt OCIIIIltl)', rJ.orlCk,
1... tb. 1000tb 10 r"1i t to....oa . ~l ny ~..
8ubjeat to real =*.ta- I .. ~or 2000:.0 - and n.. r..u1.oUOIle
i.IIpO_R by go"'~ -1 ~orl'ts:.:......J...~lC &Ad. ..._t.. o~
reoord: and out-. - 1-119 oif";"'"'-wte.ra;pd - .r. \ r bt.... l~ aoy.
I ~1 /~ ~-.. ~..\
'fh "'rth...t 1/. ..f the "'rJ:ll~ ~. _of th. Iclutll*." 1/. of
'eoUoR 1, !_h1p U .~\. ...~, 1....~ ........10 the
::'~~::~:~r~.~~~'" :-.- ~:~..:~
~wbJVO""'_ .- ." . _._ ,.._tiAd...~t:.a~
record; and out. 11. . 1 r1 to, if any.
,-.., A ,L.t
Al*Wlol_lJilltJD_boiIfa llpll'loflQo $olllIlwllIl \IIi Ors~ I, ToWilalUp49 South.lWIae 2S Eat.
01J1Ier COllIIy, FIddlIllllDd tllllila.~ ~,. detcribed .. tOltOwa:
C'~.ftI. tJ)O HoRbWCl& oomer orlQo Southwat \IIi orSectio.t I, Towa.Ilip 49 South.RIQe is $1st.
COIIier~, PIon4a;
thence.SciIfJl It __ 26' rr BIll I,
~..""'. ortlie pme1 herein dClIGl'i
Ibeaee M111i'1J'i"i aloa& iii.
.-- South 2 dear- 39' ..
theaoe... Did
tbeDce'" tIld
parcel '-'In deten'bed.. Leu
lin" or the Soutbwect l( to the Poilll of
Baat326.98f'ect;
fOrqo BIoaom Road;
.S !CIOt;
oJ fcot to Iho Pobst oC8<lairWna oCthe
fUso Soutbwoot.
larI cIMcm'bed
'/:" _ . r ~\)"\.
C....._~ at dIo NOI1b.woat cocrscr of thO .r.isi(\.I (1ft I, Towncbip 49 SollUl, lWlac n eat,
CoUi. Couaur. J!1orida;
IhcoGo SWaai It doar- 26' '1" But 1,999.28 teet Wq lhltNotth IlIiO ofthllSO~ ~ to Ow rou. oC
8llJI....rnJ or tbo pirGOlluniD dcriarlbcd:
0Iallc0 """tlrtui11llll.ollallid Nodh IlDo South 89 d~ 26' 57" BaIt 12691 feet;
Ibeaee South 2 ~41' 13" But m.Gllllottotbo ~ ot~ ~ Ri1ad:
dloace aIoq.aald cetadJDo Nod1i89 doar-13' )2".Wect 321.51 teet;
Ibeaee .....Aid..... NotCh 2.... 39' 01" W..1PU'.fM tv _ PQiftl 018....'11'.... of the
parcel ~~ Leullld except the South 30 COat.
The E..t Y. of the Northe..t Y. of the Northe.st Y. of the Southwest Y.
of Section 1, Town.hlp 49 South, Range 25 E.st, Collier County,
Florida, L.ss Road Right of W.y
and
Th. E..t 15.98 feet of the We.t Y. of the Northea.t Y. of the Northe..t
Y. of the Southwest Y. of Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25
Ea.t, Collier County, Florida, L Road Right of Way
C ~RCOrrA:
ontalnlng 6.1 Acre v< V
o 1';;
EXHIBIT E
LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC
Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD
1. A deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.E. 2. and 3, which requires that a wall and/or
fence be a minimum of six (6) feet in height and a maximum of eight (8) feet in height and that it
be located a minimum of six (6) feet from a residentially zoned district. This deviation is to
allow a currently existing six foot wall located on the Lakeside of Naples at Citrus Gardens PUD
(north of the subject property) satisfy the requirement and not require the construction of an
additional wall). (See proposed CPUD Master Plan.) (Deviation No. I.)
2. A deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, to require a sidewalk on only one side of the
proposed internal access drives and entrance to the project as shown on the CPUD Master Plan.
(Deviation No.2.)
3. A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.05.N.I.a, Configuration of water management areas,
which requires the shape of a manmade body of water, including retention and detention areas,
to be designed to appear natural with curvilinear edges. See "Body of Water Shapes" Figure Y in
subsection 4.06.02 D. to allow an alternative design where the lakes are internally related to the
proposed building envelopes as shown on the Master Plan. (Deviation No.3.)
4. A deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01.0, which requires a width of 60 feet for a private
roadway, to allow a private roadway width of 24 feet within an access easement along the
western edge of the property. This easement will provide two lanes for access to the Lakeside of
Naples at Citrus Gardens PUD. (Deviation No.4.)
5. A deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.I, which requires sidewalks on both sides ofa
local street that is adjacent to the site, to allow the 24-foot wide, two lane access drive located on
the western edge of the property to have no sidewalks. (Deviation No.5.)
6. A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02. CA, which requires that a Type 0 landscape
buffer of 20 feet in width be provided adjacent to any road right-of-way, to allow the required
buffer to be reduced to 15 feet along the 24-foot wide roadway access easement located along !be
western property line. (Deviation No.6.)
June 2, 2009
EXHIBIT F
DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS
Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD
1. TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS
I. Within 30 days of the issuance of the first building permit, the developer shall
provide a non-exclusive public access easement, 24 feet in width, along the west
property line and shall construct a two lane access road (as outlined in no. 6
below). There shall be no maintenance responsibility and no cost to the County.
2. Compensating right of way will be conveyed to Collier County, at no cost, in the
form of an easement as shown on the CPUD Master Plan.
3. The 40' right of way reserved to construct the additional lanes along Siena Lakes
Orange Blossom Drive frontage will be conveyed to the County in exchange for a
negotiated value of not to exceed $150,000; which excludes the value of
compensating right of way within the reservation that is required for the necessary
turn lane. Conveyance of the reserved right of way shall occur within 30 days of
issuance of the first building permit. Any additional right of way outside of the
40' required to construct turn lanes along Orange Blossom Drive frontage will be
conveyed to the County in fee simple and at no cost to the County.
4. The developer agrees to provide, at no cost to Collier County, any necessary
temporary construction easements needed to perform the following work along
Orange Blossom Drive, including but not limited to: driveway restoration, utility
connections, slope and backfill, and drainage.
5. Payment of Road Impact Fees:
a. Road impact fees will be paid once the SDP for phase one is
approved according to LDC provisions. A COA for phase one
would be issued at this time.
b. Payment of road impact fees for phase one and phase two upon
pulling the first building permit. These payments would total
approximately $1,400,000. Phase one by itself is approximately
$1,000,000. Accordingly, the developer is pipelining their road
impact fees in advance of the County code requirements. Upon
-~c=~c=c====p~4td.h~~D1i~iJTlra~ fees _ th~c.})f~~ct\V~ll.J:1e_\,~s_ted, all_m_m
July 27. 2009
impact fees will be considered fully paid and a COA for phase two
would be issued.
c. Prior to approval of the first building permit, the developer agrees
to pay fair share of the Airport Road/Orange Blossom Drive
improvements, not to exceed 5.31 % of the total cost of the
intersection improvements as determined by the County's
estimated project costs.
6. The developer agrees to obtain a temporary construction/fill easement from the
Greek Orthodox Church, prior to CO of the first building. If the easements are not
obtained from the Greek Orthodox Church, the developer shall employ alternative
design and construction techniques that allow for the 24' access drive to be
constructed without encroaching onto church property. The developer will
dedicate and construct an ingress and egress drive to the Lakeside development to
provide access to and from Orange Blossom Drive. The developer shall not be
responsible to construct or maintain gates that would control access to the
Lakeside PUD. The ingress and egress drive will be 24 feet wide and in
accordance with Exhibit E deviations and commitment I above, for which
sidewalks are not required. The developer, and the adjacent property owner to the
West, shall not be precluded from connection to the ingress and egress drive,
provided that proportionate share for maintenance is contributed by any party
accessing the easement. Prior to application for the first Certificate of Occupancy,
the Developer agrees to construct (or provide a bond covering the cost of
construction) the 24' wide roadway when the necessary easement is obtained. If
provided, the bond requirement shall not expirc less than five years from the date
of issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. The bond shall be subject to any
third-party maintenance agreement(s) related to this casement.
7. Upon the developer fulfilling the obligations above, the developer may apply for
COs as appropriate. The developer is responsible for self managing all payments
and conveyance at the times outlined in this exhibit. From the time of the first
SOP the developer shall provide updates on the status of the building permits
every 6 months. If any of the conditions have not been met no COs will be issued
until conditions have been met to the satisfaction of the County.
8. All items as listcd in this exhibit shall be clearly identified in the SOP for phase
one.
-----~-"~---_..,_..--_..
- n_ _ ___ _____
July 27, 2009
II. CONTINUING CARE DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS
The developer of the independent living units and retirement community, its
successors or assigns, shall provide the following services and/or be subject to the
following operational standards:
I. The facility shall be for residents 62 years of age and older.
2. There shall be on-site dining for the residents.
3. The uses on-site shall be for the exclusive use ofresidents and their guests
on a continual basis.
4. Daily morning, afternoon and evening group transportation services, by a
20-24 seat community passenger bus or a private car shall be provided for
residents for the purposes of grocery and other local shopping, church and
medical office visits shall be provided on a daily basis.
5. There shall be an on-site manager or activities coordinator to assist
residents with their individual needs. This manager/coordinator shall also
be responsible for arranging trips to off-site events as well as planning for
lectures, movies, music and other entertainment for the residents at the on-
site clubhouse on a daily basis.
6. A wellness center shall be provided on-site. Exercise and other fitness
programs shall be provided for the residents on a daily basis. The facility
shall be in operation at the time of issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy for the first habitable structure.
7. Each unit shall be equipped with pull cords designed to notify emergency
service providers in the event of a medical or other emergency.
8. Each unit shall be designed to accommodate residents with physical
impairments (handicaps) as required by the applicable building codes and
federal law and regulation.
III. LANDSCAPING AND SITE DESIGN
I. Buffer areas and walls shall be constructed in accordance with Exhibit C-3,
landscape buffer elevations.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL_
July 27,2009
I. The minimum native vegetation retention is 20 native trees. A maximum
of five cabbage palms can be used towards the requirement; the remaining
shall be native canopy trees. The native trees may be relocated into the
proposed buffer areas.
V. PUD CLOSE-OUT DETERMINATION
I. A PUD build-outlclose-out determination shall be filed for the Oak Grove
PUD by the developer prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
for Siena Lakes for lands that were removed from the Oak Grove PUD
and incorporated into the Siena Lakes CPUD.
July 27, 2009
EXHIBIT G
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PUDZ-2008-AR-1409I
July I, 2009
1. Irrespective of that shown on the CPUD Master Plan contained in Exhibit C-I, a vehicular
and pedestrian interconnection shall be provided along the western boundary of the property
to connect the project with the 24-foot public access road.
2. Rather than five-foot sidewalks on both sides of rights-of-way or easements internal to a site,
as required pursuant to LDC Subsection 6.06.02.A.2, only a six-foot sidewalk shall be
required on just one side of said streets.
3. All water and wastewater utilities constructed or extended within the public right-of-way
shall be conveyed to, owned by, and maintained by the Collier County Water-Sewer
District, and shall be required to be appropriately sized to service parcels that installation
will affect.
4. Any cost of relocation, changes, or modifications to the eXlstmg utilities required or
incurred during the road improvements within the Orange Blossom Road right-of-way are
the sole responsibility of the developer.
----_._-~--
- - - - ----...-
---- --------"-
r
,
i AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
,
~I e~./J, W.v; ((;Jj1mpJuial I1l1fl/Je A [Ci'~2AITEM NUMBER:
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
f- p/tl)lt .
? tL-V2 - ?:a!fi ~ A-/C...
1'-10 (( /
PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PROR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD.
, / ~n Mt-YJ/afbv' t:3Rkt '
NAME: mM'Y A-Y)Y) ~6~1t~ ADDRESS: _?:A.-Irt- .'5'</d~~"L ~ / /v...~/""..d/ fl, 3~/o9
REPRESENTING: PETITIONER: o-eJf OTHER:
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE No. 07-24 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT
THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING, 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FL.
You ARE LIMITED To THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE To ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
5
c>p- '1
I .._ (....,....,
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
/'/
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PROR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD.
)//
1./ i_ / i..
ADDRESS:
I
NAME:
REPRESENTING: PETITIONER:
",J
, I
'/ ,F
-OTHER:
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE No. 07-24 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT
THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING, 3301 EAST T AMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FL.
You ARE LIMITED To THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE TO ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR.
/' ~
v~)..,J,tJ1 fUj)2
,~ ~ C Y- '-I- k~ _ I '-/-a '-I (
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
S t, -,) (w~'I+- )
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PROR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD.
, 'I ! ( ) :+I,). I (\ ( \
NAME:C..'h,'\ 'f~\\ktt'tc. ADDRESS: 3n3>1 '~o{\S'~, '--\1 '"1'("'\
REPRESENTING: PETITIONER: OTHER: +-ft.-ff t' y' ,:3V1d 1C> ~ ,.it y
'54-/69
I
I~C:J
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE No. 07-24 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT
THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, W, HARMON TURNER BUILDING, 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FL.
You ARE LIMITED To THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE To ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR.
"-'-'''1
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
,
, (- f1 {, ;r-.. \ \.;15
",,/
I' 0; ,',
J
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
NAME:
PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PROR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD.
, 'I' . / " /
ADDRESS: .; : / ~7 J<t I 'rr J -j~ it,'j'/c";;- L i' )1" il
"
, ,1,1
, " ' l
/-...... ' I .J '.-.i;./Jl, .
I.I('~
REPRESENTING: PETITIONER:
OTHER:
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE No. 07-24 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT
THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, W, HAI'l""^, T"c.,,,c c, '" ~,.,~ ~M" _, _
--,
-'uD'
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: ..1
o.A...,C
)p~J
V
.4,{:. 1 ~ 0 7 I
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: .
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PROR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD.
/' ,j . /-,:Y (' 0\ ^
NAME: C~~y 0'\ ~SS/O ADDRESS: 0.2 ( ;/ "l'!reI l../1[( .ii,- -1-'lu.J-----
I '
I
,
REPRESENTING: PETITIONER: OTHER:
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE No. 07-24 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT
THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING, 3301 EAST T AMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FL.
You ARE LIMITED To THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE To ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR.
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PROR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD.
NAME: ~NN& jJi/~-s ADDRESS: 31./)4 CAVIJyMJ IA/Jt, JJ,L-e.c..
REPRESENTING: PETITIONER: 51. KffTllfRrflJt.. GOG OTHER:
fL,
.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE No. 07-24 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT
THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING, 3301 EAST T AMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FL.
You ARE LIMITED To THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE To ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR.
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
[(; ~ (,rrfvt
'1 . ," )1 6"
('\-M-~ 1Y\f.c:t [)....w, b O~(IJ.,... 'i7w,.1iA AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
'G ~.
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY '-'~ L-kC(
Cf'rs, c, ~
PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PROR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD.
I-k It h A Hie"
NAME:
REPRESENTING: PETITIONER:
ADDRESS: "iSI:\\ ~~l ~. W i;b I, M;e.i<;, ~L
OTHER: <;" t c.tht 1"1 bI'~ t<< ILk {( (~ ~
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE No. 07-24 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT
THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING, 3301 EAST T AMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FL
YoU ARE LIMITED To THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE To ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR.
,
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
f)0V.
f).., .J-1~A' , f.?-O.f\-Z .,e,."..,
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
PLACE COMPLETED FORM ON THE TABLE LEFT OF THE DIAS IN THE BOARD ROOM PROR TO THE SUBJECT BEING HEARD.
NAME: :;:JC1 c I! /,,(/1L/[ ~11 I?-As ADDRESS: ~ 5' If 1?lL/T1'J~..u .#~iJ>....
REPRESENTING: PETITIONER: OTHER: 51-. ,~~ a , &?o/J~ O;;lj,.il~
. C~~
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE No, 07-24 REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT
THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, W. HARMON TURNER BUILDING, 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FL.
You ARE LIMITED To THREE (3) MINUTES FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND ARE To ADDRESS ONLY THE CHAIR.
AGENDA ITEM 9-D
-
Co~'" County
- ~---
STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
HEARING DATE: AUGUST 6, 2009
SUBJECT:
PETITION NO: PUDA-2008-AR-14092, ORANGE BLOSSOM
GARDENS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) (COMPANION
ITEMS: PUDZ-2008-AR-14091, SIENA LAKES COMMERCIAL
FACILITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) AND PUDA-
2008-AR-I4090, OAK GROVE PUD)
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
OWNERS: APPLICANTS:
St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church, Inc LCS-Westminster Naples, LLC
7100 Airport Road 400 Locust Street, Suite 820
Naples, FL 34109 Des Moines, IA 50309
Old Barn, Inc.
The Eunhee Bates Living Trust
1613 Chinaberry way
Naples, FL 34105
AGENTS:
Robert L. Duane, AICP
Hole Montes, Inc.
950 Encore Way
Naples, FL 34110
Richard D. Y ovanovich, Esq.
Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich
and Koester
4001 Tamiami Trail North
Naples, FL 34103
REQUESTED ACTION:
The applicants are requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an
application to amend sunsetted Ordinance No. 92-75, the Orange Blossom Gardens Planned Unit
Development (PUD), to remove 5.85 acres from the PUD so that the acreage might be added to the
proposed Siena Lakes Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CPUD) to the east
(companion item PUDZ-2008-AR-14091) for an assisted living facility. It should be noted that St
Orange Blossom Gardens PUDA-2008-AR-14092
July 27, 2009
" '),.~
Q ~
~.J ::J ; ..
0. g .
~ I Q^
::J' 0...
a.,
I , 0
, <(
. ! I -
~ (-, ... :2:
\~ I ('--~l Q
::J
a.
t r , (9
, ~O--_ ~ 0 z
.. V- ~ _._ B -
____________ ~ S! , Z
~ e
~ 0
,
z --"---- - Q ~ 0
Q ~ 0 I '1 ~- .~ ~
::J 0 w-
1:::1;:( ~f\ g~- N
c.. ~ ",0
~ 0 ~
J ,
h
~ ::::
..
,
gn"tO ~"...r,,"," "'" j!<
<00>1I\ '<<"'''''' ~2
Sl-"'-".$~31Hl
~f-
1 ~!;i~ ~
!,
jl
o ,li1J
! /1
1,"
, '
I!
j;~
,
CI ~ ""
::J ' ~
a. ~ ~
:ntJSmlON /
-
i
,
,
~
~~
~ a;
I
. "
!~ ' I'
\--!--;r," .
I E:l: iJ
, ,
~~i :
o I '
Ii . !
, >
~~~
'",
,"
'" a t;l ~
-la,
,
~;;::::
.. Q~-
,"
8 !
, <
! "
..'ltlVI\3~""""'"'\
"".M1nOu
g
:l:::;
I-
i!"
"'-'J"'1S~3.iN,l
~
,-
" i!
"
-~i
!
Ii
Ib~
,. .!tn
jj.i!
I i; Ii
!!-
>-z
00
w - .
o\< I
~o
..0
J
I.
~:!J-m., > ~--
'::15 ~l:l li i Ii
.....'" i~ ,,~
> Ii
'-
';~
- r
\!!
i:l ~~
~I ~~
..
I!
Ii
,',
,
I'
f''; L,._
"~~'iJ
'~J'
".
l~.
Ii ,,_
~"- ~!~
I~
n ,
~ Ii' E~~
~t \ ~!I
--+.
,
I-
!
l
,
lz
w w !=
: 9 ~ N_
~ 0 (') 0
i"
Oh"'VIMlIfo'll".lN'tS
t 0...
!;' ~:::: <(
.'
j ::'2:
""3.lV~S~~'
Z
, 0
'I
-
I-
OlfOtjNOlS""'1M1 <(
0
L 0
" .
i- . --I
i IIi
" 11
i
~,
"
N
'"
o
..
~,
'"
o
o
N
""
o
::J
(L
..
z
o
l-
I-
W
(L
"
E
~
"
o
~
r-
(
\
C~URCH
40NED
AtU/CU
\
\
'"
D
~
B
-0
0:
E
'f
'"
<;
m
8
N
~
~
c
"
"
e
F TURE
n.
"
'"
"
n.
~'"
~ --", \
~ \
~ \
~ \
o
:: -...... --1
~ ,----
LONGVlEW
(PUD)
~-----
--
LONGVlEW
(PUD)
I
I
I
ItJM
_llJ/IIlIS._
LAKESIDE OF NAPLES AT CITRUS GARDENS
(PUD)
=-=-===
CITRUS LAKE DRIVE
-=
= =-== ~ ~.
-=
=-======~
f 15' WIDE TYPE 's' J-=::\ i
, LANDSCAPE SUFFER \ \
, FUTURE I I
\ DEVELOPMENT AREA I \
I A DETAILED MASTER \ \
I PLAN MUST BE I
I APPROVED BY THE I I
I COUNTY PRIOR TO I I
I ANY DEVELOPMENT ,
\ OCCURRING I \
I, \
EXISTING I
LAKE
CCESS \ I
I \
EXISTING DRAINAGE
I OUTFALL TO AIRPORT \ \
I ROAD CANAL ,
\ ORANGE BLOSSO~! \
~ GARDENS../ I
\~--tPttDJ-- \
\ 5.85 Ac.:!: I
\-- 15' WIDE TYPE 's' I
I LANDSCAPE SUFFER -;
I r 10' WIDE TYPE 'D' I
I LANDSCAPE SUFFER I
L -= :- -=--_ -= =.l::- :-_ -=-=- -= :- J
40' ROAD RESERVATION
-----------~---
I I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
\ ZO~ED
I
I
\
PORTTON OF ~:
ORANGE BLOSSOM ~\
GARDENS (PUD)
TO BE REZONED :
\
I
I
\
I
I
\
24' WIDE PUSLlC
ACCESS EASEMENT
NOTES:
1, FUTURE USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO
BE DETERMINED IN FUTURE P.U,D. AMENDMENT.
2. NO NATIVE VEGETATION IS REQUIRED TO BE
PRESERVED.
950 Encore Way
Na)>I... FL. 34110
Phon.: (239) 254-2000
Florida C.rilflcat. of
Authorization Na.1772
o
120
I""""'_.....~~
SCALE IN FEET
Orange Blossom Gardens
PUD Master Plan
Exhibit "A"
CHECKED BY :
R.LO.
DRAWN BY :
JON
DATE :
1108
PROJECT No.
2007.115
CAD FllE NAME:
... lotatamp
EXHIBIT - ITEM
10f'1
Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church has authorized the removal of the 5.85 acres from the PUD
but is not a participant in this PUDA.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject PUD, consisting of 11.7 acres, is located on the north side of Orange Blossom Drive
and approximately 600 feet east of Airport-Pulling Road (CR-31), in Section I, Township 49
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (see location map on following page).
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
On October 19, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved Ordinance No. 92-75
for the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD, which established a maximum 40 unit multi-family
residential development at a density of 3.42 units per acre, which has remained unbuilt. The
applicant is proposing to amend this sunsetted PUD to remove the easternmost 5.85 acres (see
aerial photograph below) and the associated 20 dwelling units approved for it, so that the acreage
might be aggregated with the property adjoining it to the east, which is proposed to be rezoned to
the CPUD zoning district for the Siena Lakes assisted living facility. The proposed changes to
Ordinance No. 92-75 are shown in strike-through and underline format in proposed ordinance
attached to this report. No other changes to the approved ordinance or to the PUD Master Plan are
being requested. It should be noted that St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church,
AERIAL VIEW OF THE ACREAGE TO BE REMOVED
Orange Blossom Gardens PUDA-2008-AR-14092
July 27. 2009
2
the owner of the remaining 5.85 acres of the subject PUD (to the west of the subject parcel) has
undetermined plans for the use of their property. Although the PUD has sunsetted and, therefore,
would require a PUD Amendment (PUDA) or a new PUD Rezone to re-activate it, the proposed
PUD document for the subject petition has been revised to adequately address the broader issues
directly related to it, such as the legal description, ownership information and permitted density,
which would remain at 3.42 dwelling units per acre (or 20 units instead of the previously approved
40 units). However, per the County Attorney's Office, a provision has been included in Section 2.6
of the proposed document requiring the owners to amend the PUD when they are ready to develop
the property and, at that time, to address specific information relative to building envelopes, design
standards and the location of access points.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: Multi-family residences of the Lakeside community, zoned Citrus Gardens PUD
East: Vacant land, zoned Rural Agricultural
South: Orange Blossom Drive, then single-family homes and duplexes of the Walden Oaks
community, zoned Lone Oak PUD
West: St. Katherine Greek Orthodox Church and vacant commercial land, zoned Rural
Agricultural and Longview Center PUD, respectively.
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 of the Growth Management Plan. This district is intended to
accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses, including mixed-use
developments such as Planned Unit Developments. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide
for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and
planned public facilities are concentrated. Within this designation, and in accordance with the
Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), a base density of four units per
acre is allowed.
As previously noted, the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD was approved on October 19, 1992 by
Ordinance No. 92-75. This approval was the result of a rezone that was initiated by the County in
accordance with the Zoning Re-evaluation Ordinance. The maximum gross density of 3.42 units
per acre (or 40 units) was approved at that time of the PUD's approval even though such density
was not consistent with the three units per acre limitation of the Density Rating System for
properties within the Traffic Congestion Area (a one dwelling unit per acre density reduction from
the allowed four units per acre of the Urban designated area is normally required). However,
because the increased density was deemed necessary to allow a development compatible with the
surrounding properties, the 3.42 units per acre density was approved.
Approved (existing) PUD density: 40 DU 'C 11.68 acres = 3.42 units/acre
Proposed PUD amendment density: 20 DU~' 5.85 acres = 3.42 units/acre
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 states: "New developments shall be compatible with,
and complementary to, the surrounding land uses as set forth in the Land Development Code." It is
Orange Blossom Gardens PUDA-2008-AR-14092
July 27, 2009
3
the responsibility of the Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their review of the
petition in its entirety to perform the compatibility analysis.
Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed amendment
consistent with the FLUE of the GMP.
Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed this project and has noted
that the removal of 20 dwelling units from the PUD would, obviously, not pose a net increase in
the site-generated traffic on the roadway network. Therefore, this petition may be deemed
consistent with the applicable policies of the Transportation Element.
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.B.5,
Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and
Subsection 10.03.05.1, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (commonly
referred to as "Zoning 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
BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support their 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:
Environmental Review: According to aerial photography, the property was cleared in 1973; no
native vegetation has grown back since that time. Environmental Services staff has determined that
there are no environmental issues associated with this application as all environmental concerns
were addressed at the time of the original rezone.
Transportation Review: Since the proposed petition would not result in additional site-generated
trips, the Transportation Planning Staff recommends approval of the PUDA.
Utilities Review: According to the current 2008 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Updates, the
project location is within the Collier County Water and Sewer District Service Area. There is an
existing 16-inch water main and 20-inch force main on Airport Pulling Road. At the time of site
development plan approval (SOP), this project would be 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 Nos.
2004-31 and 2007-60, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations.
Emergency Management Review: Since the proposed amendment reduces the number of
approved dwelling units in the PUD, there would be no adverse impacts on the evacuation and
sheltering requirements for the County.
Zoning Review: The applicant proposes to remove 5.85 acres from the subject PUD so that the
land may be rezoned to the CPUD zoning district for an independent and assisted living retirement
community. In order to do that, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed deletion of land
Orange Blossom Gardens PlJDA-2008-AR-14092
July 27, 2009
4
from the PUD would not result in the remaining land area's inability to meet its zoning
requirements. Despite being less than the normally required ten acres for a PUD, the remaining
5.85 acres to the west of the subject property would still be able to be developed under the "infill"
provision ofLDC 4.07.02.A.2. As previously noted, the owners of the property have undetermined
plans for its uses ultimate configuration. Therefore, the proposed PUD document that would
govern the property if the subject petition were approved has been structured to require the owners
to amend the sunsetted PUD when they are ready to develop and, at that time, to provide more
specific information relative to building envelopes, design standards and the location of access
points. Nevertheless, the applicants have addressed the PUD's reduction in acreage and decreased
the corresponding number of permitted dwelling units accordingly, from 40 units per acre to 20
units. They have also revised the PUD's legal boundaries and ownership information, as necessary.
LDC Subsection 10.02.l3.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the Planning
Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following
criteria" :
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to
physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water,
and other utilities.
The 5.85 acres to be removed from the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD presently allow for
multi-family uses and, if the subject PUDA were approved, would be incorporated into a
new CPUD to the east of the subject property that is proposed for the Siena Lakes
retirement community. As noted in the "Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning" portion of
this report, the residential uses of the PUD would be compatible with the adjacent uses.
Access to the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD would not be affected by the subject
proposal since, at the time of site development plan (SDP), it would be made available to
Orange Blossom Drive. Mitigation for traffic impacts would also have to be addressed
and the developer would have to pay the PUD's fair share of roadway improvements on
the surrounding network, based upon site-generated trips. Sewer, water and other utility
services are already in close proximity to the site. Therefore, the property is suitable to
support the multifamily uses for which it was originally approved.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract,
or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to
arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such
areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and
recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney.
As determined by the County Attorney's Office, the subject property is under unified
control. Although the owner's of the western 8.58 acres of the subject PUD, St.
Katherine's Greck Orthodox Church, was asked but decided not to participate in this
PUDA, the owner of the 8.58-acre subject parcel, Old Barn, Inc. has been found to be
legally authorized to act without the church's consent based upon an agreement they
entered with the church.
Orange Blossom Gardens PUDA-2008-AR-14092
July 27, 2009
5
3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth
management plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub-district, policy or other provision
allows the requested uses/density, andfully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that
Sub-district, policy or other provision.)
As previously noted, the subject property is located in the Urban-designated area, Mixed-
Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map, which permits
the group housing proposed for the site. The proposed rezoning can also be found
consistent with Policy 5.4 of the FLUE, which requires that future development be
compatible with the surrounding land uses, since the subject property is surrounded by
complementary multi-family residential land uses.
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include
restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening
requirements.
The subject property, once removed from the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD and
incorporated into the Siena Lakes CPUD to the east, would be compatible both internally
and externally with the proposed development, As previously noted, the owners of the
remaining 5.85 acres of the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD would be required to amend
the subject PUD before they could develop it, at which time provisions for internal and
external compatibility would be required.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas In existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The land area to be removed from the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD would not obviate
the PUD from fulfilling its obligation to provide 60 percent of open space as required of
residential developments pursuant to LDC subsection 4,02.01.D1.B.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available
improvements and facilities, both public and private
The subject PUD, at the time it was amended, would be required to provide adequate
public and private improvements.
7. The ability of the subject property and olsurrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
The removal of the subject property from the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD to
incorporate it into the Siena Lakes CPUD is for the purpose of accommodating expansion
in a manner consistent with the FLUE.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations. or as to desirable modifications olsuch regulations in the
parlicular case, based on determination that such modificalions of justified as meeting public
purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.
Orange Blossom Gardens PUDA-2008-AR-14092
July 27, 2009
6
The request would not cause the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD to become inconsistent
with the regulations of its approving ordinance.
LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1.2 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. " (StafPs responses to these criteria are provided in bold font):
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and
future land use map and the elements of the growth management plan.
The proposed change would be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and
Future Land Use Map and the applicable elements of the GMP. If approved, the severed
acreage would be incorporated into a CPUD for a continuing care retirement community,
which is an allowed use throughout the urban area.
2. The existing land use pattern.
The existing land use pattern is conducive the proposed request, as multi-family uses
abut the property to the south, east and north.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
The remaining PUD boundaries would not create an isolated zoning district unrelated to
adjacent or nearby properties due to its consistency with the FLUE of the GMP. If the
subject PUDA were approved, the severed land would be included in a PUD with other
residential uses.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on
the property proposed for change.
The proposed zoning district houndaries are logically drawn.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment
necessary.
The majority of the parcels of the Siena Lakes CPUD are zoned Rural Agricultural at the
present time yet are surrounded by urban uses. This situation reflects the changed
conditions in the area and clearly demonstrates that agricultural uses are no longer
appropriate at this location. Therefore, removing the subject property from the Orange
Blossom Gardens pun and incorporating it into the proposed CPUD would he a suitable
way to rectify this circumstance and would also result in a unified plan for one
development rather than two or more unrelated developments.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood
The proposed change would not adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood, based on the proposed Siena Lakes retirement community that the subjcct
Orange Blossom Gardens PUDA-2008-AR-14092
July 27, 2009
7
property will become a part of and the development standards accompanying it
(contained in the CPUD documents of the companion Siena Lakes rezoning application).
7. Whether the proposed change will creale 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.
As previously noted, the removal of 20 dwelling units from the Orange Blossom Gardens
PUD would result in a net decrease in the site-generated traffic on the roadway network.
The companion item to this rezoning request, the Siena Lakes CPUD, into which the
subject property will be incorporated, would be required to make improvements to the
intersection of Orange Blossom Drive and Airport Road in concert with other property
owners, and Certificates of Occupancy would not be approved until these improvements
are made. Therefore, the proposed change would not create or excessively increase traffic
congestion incompatible with surrounding land uses.
8. Whelher the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
The Orange Blossom Gardens PUD drainage issues were addressed at the time of the
original rezone. The proposed Siena Lakes CPUD would be required to comply with
SFWMD permitting requirements and constructed in accordance with all applicable
regulations, so would not create a drainage problem.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
Light and air to adjacent areas would not be reduced by the proposed PUDA.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change would not adversely impact property
values in the adjacent area.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent 10 the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
The PUDA would not be a deterrent to the development to the improvement or
development of adjacent property. In fact, if approved, the PUDA would enable the
development of the adjacent property with a retirement community.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
The proposed change to the existing PUD would not result in a grant of special privilege.
The public interest would be maintained as the proposed CrUD is consistent with the
FLUE and GMP.
Orange Blossom Gardens PUDA-2008-AR-14092
July 27, 2009
8
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with
existing zoning.
There is no reason that the property could not be used in accordance with its existing
zoning. However, if approved, the severed acreage would be incorporated into the Siena
Lakes CPUD whose boundaries are presently predominantly comprised of properties
that could not be used in accordance with their existing Rural Agricultural zoning.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
county.
The proposal would not be out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood.
15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in
districts already permitting such use.
It would not be impossible to find other sites in the county in districts already permitting
the proposed use on the subject property. However, the proposed change is only to reduce
the size of the existing PUD.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alleration which would be
required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed
zoning classification.
The subject property has been previously altered and is suitable for development.
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 [Code
ch. 106, art. II}, as amended.
The proposed development on the subject property would be accompanied by adequate
public facilities, including transportation improvements to the intersection of Orange
Blossom Drive and Airport Road so that it would operate at an acceptable level of
service.
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the board of county commissioners shall deem
important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
All issues have been addressed. However, as stated in their application, the applicants
would be willing to incorporate standards deemed appropriate by the BCC to protect the
public health, safety and welfare.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
(Synopsis provided by Cheri Rollins, Administrative Secretary)
The meeting was duly noticed by the applicant and held on May 12, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. at the
Orange Blossom Gardens PUDA-2008-AR-14092
July 27, 2009
9
Italian-American Club. Eighty three people from the public attended, as well as the applicant, Mr.
Steve Nornes of Life Care Services, and his agents, Mr. Richard Y ovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette,
Coleman, Johnson, Y ovanovich and Koester and Mr. Robert Duane, AICP, of Hole-Montes, Inc.
County staff was also present.
Mr. Yovanovich presented an overview of the requested rezone from the Orange Blossom Gardens
PUD, Oak Grove PUD and Rural Agricultural zoning districts to the CPUD zoning district for a
continuing care retirement community. He also explained the requested companion amendments to
delete approximately 6.13 acres from the Oak Grove PUD and approximately 5.85 acres from the
Orange Blossom Gardens PUD. There was no opposition to the requested Orange Blossom
Gardens PUD Amendment.
The meeting concluded at approximately 7:30 PM.
As of the writing of this report, staff has received no letters of objection from the community
regarding this petition.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney's Office has reviewed this staff report, revised on July 23, 2009.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PUDA-
2008-AR-14092 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of
approval.
Orange Blossom Gardens PUDA-2008-AR-14092
July 27, 2009
10
PREPARED BY:
~~M~
JOHN AVID MOSS, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
~/zl/di
DATEl
REVIEWED BY:
,
TU.Oor
V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE
NT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
~ '11J.}S~ ',-2-3-09
/SUSAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
71:3lJ9
dATE
H K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR
MUNITY DEVELOPMENT &
IRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Tentatively scheduled for the September 15,2008 Board of County Commissioners Meeting.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
DATE
Orange Blossom Gardens PUDA-2008-AR-14092
11
Print
Page 1 of I
Naples Daily News Naples Daily News 07/19/2009 Local
(3-0719nd01b009.pdf.0) Page B09
PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE OF
PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held
by the Collier County Pfanning Commission (CePC) at j:3O:
A.M.. THURSDAY. AuGUST 6. 200Q, in the Board of COUI'ity
Commissioners Meeting Room, 3rd Floor, Administration
Building, Collier Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami
Trail, Naples Florida, to consider:
PUDA-2OOl-AR-14092, LCS-Weslminster Naples LLC.
represented by Robert Duare, A1Cp, of Hole Monies. Ire.
ard Richa!d 0 YovanoW;h, Esq, d Goodlette, Coleman,
Jomscn, Y""""""ich ard KoesUlt; is requesting an amend.
manlle the Orange I.Ilos5om Gardens PUD (Ordinance
No. 92-75) le delete approximately 5.85 acres. The sLb-
ject property is IocaIed in Section 1, To1M"lShip 49 Sou!h,
Range 25 East, Collier Comly, Fbrida (Co~n item
to PUDZ-200S-AR-14091 and PUDA-200S-AR-14090).
AU interested parties are i nvilad' 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 reprEl$&nt
a group or organization should limit their presentation to
ten minutes. Persons wishing to havs written or graphic
materials included in the cepe 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 Devel~
opmant Review prior to August 6, 2009, in order to be
considered atttle public hearing. All materials used in
presentation before the cepe will become a permanent
part of the record and will be available for presentation to
the Board of County Commissioners, if applicable.
--
1111(......
_roo C18)
".........
,~,
PROJEO~J
LOOATION_
::J'!:!
y"f4"-
,
,
~ ,.- I
'""""" ... .,..;--
- ......~ I ,.,
"0l0.,,; :,~''-
", '= . -=- 12"..,.
,__I I ~~.~~
- J_o I'-I; ill
~JI.IlIIll '
-~~
,
,
~ ~""'IE"""Yf~
, "";' ~
- .1oI1.D1
.....-- .....:......
,lGJ"5u:""" "'"G!"'.
~~~i': I T
AAy person who decides to appeal a decision of the cepc
will need B record of the proceedings pertaining thereto,
and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record 01
the proceedings is made. which includes all testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal is to bl; based.
Collier County Planning Commission
Collier County, Aorida
Mark P. Strain. Chairman
No 231152583 Jutv 19 2009
July 20, 2009 Powered by TECNAVIA Copyright @ 2009 Naples Daily News 07/19/2009 3:38 pm
http://naplesdailynews.f1.newsmemory.com/eebrowser/frame/check. 3 3 24/php-script/print.... 7/20/2009
ORDINANCE NO. 09-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE
NUMBER 92-75, THE ORANGE BLOSSOM GARDENS PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD); PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS
TO SECTION I TO REMOVE 585 ACRES FROM THE PUD;
PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO SECTION II TO ADD
SECTION 2.6 TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-75 TO REQUIRE A
FUTURE PUD AMENDMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTNE DATE.
WHEREAS, on October 19, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners approved
Ordinance Number 92-75, which established the Orange Blossom Gardens Planned Unit
Development (PUD) zoning classification; and
WHEREAS, the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD has sunsetted in accordance with
Section 1O.02.13.D. of the LDC; and
WHEREAS, LCS Development LLC, represented by Robert L. Duane of Hole Montes,
Inc., and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Goodlette, Coleman, Johnson, Yovanovich &
Koester, P.A., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the Orange Blossom
Gardens PUD to remove approximately 5.85 acres from the PUD and has authority to make
such request by agreement with owner; and
WHEREAS, the owner, St. Katherine's Greek Orthodox Church has not participated in
this PUD.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
SECTION I:
AMENDMENTS TO SECTION I, ENTITLED "STATEMENT OF
COMPLIANCE" OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-75, THE ORANGE
BLOSSOM GARDENS PUD
Wards struek through are deleted; words underlined are added.
Page 1 of 5
Section I of the Development Plan (also known as the Planned Unit Development Document),
previously attached as Exhibit A to Ordinance Number 92-75, the Orange Blossom Gardens
POO, is hereby amended to read as follows:
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, DESCRIPTION AND STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
1.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to set fOlih the location and ownership, and to describe the
existing condition of the property proposed to be developed under the proj ect name of Orange
Blossom Gardens.
1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The El/2 of the NEl/1 of the NWI/1 of the S'NI/1 and the Wl/2 of the NEl/1 of the N\VI/1
of the SWI/1 of Being a part of Section I, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida, and, more particularly, described in Exhibit "C".
1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
The subject property is currently under the ownership of LOflc Ollie Ltd. SL Katherine's Greek
Orthodox Church, Inc.
1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY AREA
A. The project site contains .J.+"7 5.85 acres (+). It is located on the north side of
Orange Blossom Drive approximately 671' east of Airport Road. Orange
Blossom Drive intersects Airport Road approximately 1-1/2 miles north of Pine
Ridge Road.
B. Current zoning is POO. The parcel is bounded on the south by Orange Blossom
Drive then land zoned POO, Planned Unit Development (Lone Oak), on the east
by private property zoned A. Rural Agricultural, and on the northwest by private
property zoned A CU, Rural Agricultural, on the southwest by land zoned POO
(Longview Center), and on the north by land zoned POO (Lakeside of Naples at
Words strn.el~ tms'Hgh are deleted; words underlined are added.
Page 2 of5
Citrus Gardens). The property is within the Collier County Water and Sewer
District and Collier County Water Management District #7.
1.5 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
The subject property has been farmed. About 4Q 60% of the .J...l-o-7 5.85 acres has been used as
a borrow pit. which noVl eovers approximatoly 4 1/2 acres of the sito and extends off tho
property to the west. Less than 30 feet east of tho oast proporty line a bono"," pit r.ms along
90~(' (+) of the property line. The land directly nOlih of the site has been used in the past for
agrieultural purposes and as an exea-'lation site (borro'.... pit) but is now de'leloped with a
residential project aroand a Soil types found on the site are: Arzel1 sand (approx. 60%), and
Immokalee fine sand (approx. 40%). (Soil characteristics are from the USDA soil survey of
Collier County dated March, 1954.)
1.6 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
The Orange Blossom Gardens Planned Unit Development IS consistent with the Collier
County Growth Management Plan for the following reasons:
A. The project site is designated Urban Residential on the Future Land Use Map and
in the Future Land Use Element. The permitted uses in this PUD are permitted in
the Urban Residential Area. Properties designated Urban Residential are
permitted a base density of up to 4 units per acre. The property is located within
the Traffic Congestion Area resulting in the reduction of I unit per acre (from 4
units/acre to 3 units/acre). An interconnection with adjacent properties is not
feasible. No other provisions of the Density Rating System to add or subtract
density are applicable. Therefore, a density of 3 units per acre conforms to the
Density Rating System contained in the Future Land Use Element. The Board of
County Commissioners has determined a density of 3.42 units/acre (40 units) is
necessary so as to allow a development compatible with surrounding properties.
B. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses in accordance with Policy
5.4 of the Future Land Use Element.
Wards struek ilirs1:Igh are deleted; words underlined are added.
Page 3 of 5
Elevations within the project site range from 10.5 (+) to 11.5 (+) with the average grade being
11.2. Three auger borings within the project site failed to find bedrock. The borings were
discontinued at a depth of 19 feet.
Vegetation consists of scattered second-growth pine trees, some small Wax Myrtle shrubs,
grasses and Brazilian Pepper. The area appears to have been cleared for agricultural use. Four
shallow swales run the length of the propel1y n011h to south.
Water management for the project will utilize a swale through property to the northwest to
convey lake overflow from st0I111 runoff to the Airport Road Canal. A baffled weir will limit the
discharge rate to an amount acceptable to the Collier County Water Management Department.
SECTION II
AMENDMENTS TO SECTION II TO ADD SECTION 2.6 TO
ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-75 TO REQUIRE A FUTURE PUD
AMENDMENT
Section II of the Development Plan (also known as the Planned Unit Development Document),
previously attached as Exhibit A to Ordinance Number 92-75, the Orange Blossom Gardens
PUD, is hereby amended to add Section 2.6 to read as follows:
2.6 FUTURE PUD AMENDMENT
In accordance with Section 10.02.13.D of the LDC, a PUD Amendment to this PUD Ordinance
or a rezone shall be required prior to any development of this PUD including the possible
amendment of the development standards in Section 3.4 and revisions to the PUD Master Plan in
Exhibit "A" to solidify the future plans for development of this PUD.
SECTION III: EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
Words struck tmsl:lga are deleted; words underlined are added.
Page 4 of5
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this
day of
,2009.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
, Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
\A(\'~('\
\""
')..-
Heidi Ashton-Cicko
Assistant County Attorney
CPI09-epS-0092016-HF Ae
W DIds s!rusk through are deleted; words underlined are added.
Page 5 of5
'"
E
"'
o
o
~
,---
\
\
C~URCH
40NED
AtU/CU
\
\
>-
~
~
!!
o
n:
E
:j
'"
o
m
8
N
<5
N
~
o
:>
x
e
"-
:>
o
=>
"-
~'"
~ --~ \
~
~ \
~ \
~ \
: ---- ~
~ "--- ---
LONGYlEW
(PUD)
~-----
--
LONGYlEW
(PUD)
LAKESIDE OF NAPLES AT CITRUS GARDENS
(PUD)
""""""",---
CITRUS LAKE DRIVE
--
""""""",-_.-- ~
..."..,.:=====-_.-'~
f 15' WIDE TYPE 'B' J- \ -;
\ LANDSCAPE BUFFER \ \
\ FUTURE I I
\ DEVELOPMENT AREA I \
\ A DETAILED MASTER \ \
\ PLAN MUST BE \
\ APPROVED BY THE I I
I COUNTY PRIOR TO I I
\ ANY DEVELOPMENT I
\ OCCURRING I I
1\ \
EXISTING I
LAKE
CCESS \ I
I \
EXISTING DRAINAGE
OUTFALL TO AIRPORT \ I
ROAD CANAL I
\ ORANGE BLOSSO~ \
~ GARDENS./ \
1--------J.D.Hn\---..--' \
\ \' "''''1 \
\ 5.85 Ac.:t \
\-- 15' WIDE TYPE 'B' I
\ LANDSCAPE BUFFER i
I r 10' WIDE TYPE '0' I
L _~NDSC::~:F:R _ -= ~ J
40' ROAD RESERVATION
I
I
I
ltM
IIIIIIIIISR.lIIIIl5-9Il\('IlIIS
950 Encore Way
N"J"le.. FL 34110
Phone: ~239) 254-2000
Florida Certificate of
Authorization No.I772
----------~---
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
\
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
24' WIDE PUBLIC
ACCESS EASEMENT
Orange Blossom Gardens
PUD Master Plan
Exhibit "A"
o
r-_.........~
120
SCALE IN FEET
CHECKED BY :
R.L.D.
DRAWN BY :
.ION
DATE :
1108
PROJECT No.
2007.115
CAD mE NAME:
... otatamp
E>>lIBIT - ITEM
1 OF 1
EXHIBIT JIB"
A PMT OF Sf:CTION / TaWNSH/p 49 SaUTH RAN(jf; e5 E:AST CaLLlE:R C{}{JNTY. FUJRllJA, SnNG
MGRE: PMt1CUL.,4I?L Y DE:SCRlSE: D AS FOLLaWS.
ClJl+IENcING, AT THE: WE:ST //4 lJF SE:CTION / TWNSH/P 49 saUTH, RANGE: i!5 E:AST, caLlE:R
CtlUNrr; FUJRI/J,4; THE:NCE: SOUTH s.'res'ls' EAST. ALllNG THE: CE:NTE:R lJF SAID SECTION 1. A
DISTAM;E: OF 568.4tJ FE:E:T. TO THE: POINT flF lJfXjlNNING SAID paINT lJE:lNG THE: IVl1RTINE:ST
CCJRNr.R OF THE LAND DCSCRIJJE:D iN THE flFFlClAL ReCORDS lJ/1(JK i?696. PAGe i!5i?7. OF THE
PUlJL.lC RE:CORDS OF C/JLLlER C{}{JNTY FLORIDAI THENCE: CONTINUING .SG/jTH 8'}'28'15' EAST, ALlJN(j
SAID C~.N "N.;TE:R s.eCTION LINE:. AND THE: NlJRTH UNe OF SAID /JE:SCRIBED LitHO, AD/STANCE: flF .
334.:U reEf, ra THE: NORTHEAST CORNER flF SAID /JE:SC1?.lBCD LANDI THENCE LEAVING SAID
OE:NTE:~ SECTION UNO:. SI:1UTH (/i!'i?'J'If?" EAST. A/..lJNG THE EAST LINE: OF SAID DF:SCRIBCD LAND, A
DisTANCE: OF 519.51 reo. THENCE IVl1RTH 89' . DIsTANCe llF 335.18 NIT. Ta A
Pfl1NT tT INTE:RSeCTION \11TH THI': VEST!: ' 'lBCD LIWIJ; T1-CNCE: HaiTH
02'2>4'56' VeST. ALlJNG SATD VEST LI'!Rf~. ITT TO TfC PfJINT llF
Bt:GINN/NG. SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 4: )t RE:S Hl1RE: OR L
/ /
.. .
ALONG W/TH:
A PART flF SECTION / TOWNSH/P 49 SOUTH RANGE e5 EAST COLLIER CaUNTY. FLORIlJA. BE/NG
MQl?E PART/CULARL Y DE:SCR/IIED AS FaLLOWS.
CaMHENqN(j. AT THE: W,EST 1/4 OF SECT/ON / TWNSHlP 49 SOUTH. RANGE: 25 EAST, caLIER
C/1f.JNrf rLl!J81JJAJ THENCE SOUTH 89'28'/:;' CAST. ALllNG THE CENTER lJF SAID SECTll1N I. A
DISTANCE: OF S/$/1.4() FEO. TO THE THE NIJfWNEST CORNER OF THE LAND DESCRI!JCO IN THE:
llFFlClJU. ReCORDS BCk;JJ( ~696, PAGE 2527. OF THE: P/JlJLIC RECfl80S lJF COLLIeR ClJIJNTY
FL[fRlfJAJ rf/t.NCE: cO/iIrlMulf:/G SlJUTH g<J'28'I5' CAST. At.0/Vfj . SAlll CE:NTE:R SF:CT/ON LINE:. AND
Tf/t.Nf!!fllH L.lNE iT SAf.JJ BCSCRIlJE;D LlWO, 34.$1 FE:ET. TO THE N(1RrHEAST
CORNtR (JF $Aip DF:SCRIlJE:11 LAt/O; THE:N 'R SECT/ON LINE, SfJfJTH 02?'J'I2'
E:AST. AJJJM;i THE EAST LINE: lJF SAIO llF $19.51 FEET, TO.THE:
PIlJl'T EEflt:GIl!!1'!ll$7i; THENCE: CONTI (;I'K} THE: DF:SCRIKD l..IWO; ra
THE: SOOTf;/fiASTCORNER, OF SAUl L 11 Tim WITH THE: NORTfCRL Y
LINE lJF THE LtZSS SOOTH 3Q FEET AS 1JS JJtXlK 2696, PArE 2527.
GF THf;PUJlL 1C ReCORDS GF C/JLL R 89'23'07' VE:S T. Al..lJNG
SAID NCRTH LINE. A D/STAtiCE: 1JF :J 'R "CTl1JN \11TH TIC
'WESTERLY LiNE GF SA/D DESCf?I80 ~ . ..., T. ALClNG SAID \lE:ST
UNE:. A DISTANCE llF l!4Q.6$ FEE ; T. A ISTANCE: llF 3:J5.JB FEET.
TO THE: PfJINT IT BEGINNING. SAI rP(o S f/lJ OR LESS.
~\ .* ) .0.5
'1\." 'Y. _ \J
"~l~-___.. \\\
....JliF {'IRC~
.....--,~~
AGENDA ITEM 9-E
-
Co~r County
- ~- ~
STAFF REPORT
TO:
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
HEARING DATE: AUGUST 6,2009
SUBJECT:
PUDZ-2008-AR-12773; GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT:
Owner: Collier Rattlesnake, LLC
3838 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300
Naples, FL 34103
Agent(s): D. Wayne Arnold, AICP
Q. Grady Minor, Inc.
3800 Via Del Rey
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Richard D. Yovanovich
Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A.
4001 Tamiami Trail N., Suite 300
Naples, Florida 34103
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a rezone of
the subject site from the Rural Agriculture (A) zoning district to the Mixed-Use Planned Unit
Development (MPUD) zoning district for the Good Turn Center MPUD.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject MPUD is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (CR-95 I), approximately 660
feet north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR-864), located in Section 14, Township 50 South,
Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on following page)
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The subject property is approximately 9.5ct acres and is in the Mixed Use Activity Center
Subdistrict. The proposed rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a MPUD
zoning district is to allow development of commercial, general and medical office, group housing,
Page 1 of 15
PUDZ-2008-AR-12773
Revised: 7120109
=
, , "
,
,~
1"
::!
, 1 l~
,- 1~
1~ GJ ,
>-z .~ i
.. . I .
,- , 00
, , w- I
'!;o
, 00
'" g:g
i
,\ I .II_ "
i I -
-~
i ,~"""
, .!
I' ! II
~~o jl -,
'r i ,-
, , ',- ~I
1!
-
! l
,
..
.-
z
o
w-
>-!;o
000
'3
..
~
01
'?
()
o
::>
0.
()
WN't")
(I~~ .tr~) O~~^.TInoij nnlOJ
o
o
..
c ~ ~
0. ~. II
,I \
i
~
~
j
,
.
i i,j
,t
"
~~
~~;/ N ~~
~ill
..
L>G~J
l'i"d'j.oLI
a..
e:(
~
(!)
Z
Z
o
N
'"
....
....
N
0:
..
'"
o
o
N
,
N
o
::>
0.
'It
Z
o
I--
I--
W
0.
a..
e:(
~
z
o
l-
e:(
o
o
....J
!
"
5
.
Q'
::> ~ ~
0.,
,
~
~~o
,
!
~
o
0.
<
o
,
.
VW31S
"'''''0.1101'< /
z-
and light retail land uses with a maximum of 100,000 square feet of commercial land uses and 200
institutional housing units such as assisted living or continuing care centers.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North:
East:
Vacant, with a zoning designation of Heavy Commercial District (C-5)
Florida Power & Light easement and power lines, with a zoning designation of Rural
Agriculture (A)
Vacant, with a zoning designation of Harnmock Park Commerce Centre (CPUD)
Mixed-Use development with residential, golf course and commercial/office development
and Collier Boulevard (CR-951) Right-of-Way, with a zoning designation of Naples
Lakes Country Club PUD
South:
West:
Aerial Photo with subiect properly Highlighted
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Mixed Use Activity
Center (MUAC) Subdistrict (Activity Center No.7) of the Urban Commercial District, Urban
Designation, as identified on Future Land Use Map and Map Series. Outside the MUAC, to the
PUDZ-2008-AR-12773
Revised: 7/20/09
Page 2 of 15
west of Collier Boulevard (CR-951), lies the Urban Residential Subdistrict, and; to the east of
Collier Boulevard (CR-951), lies the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict.
Relevant to this petition, Mixed Use Activity Centers are intended to be mixed-use in character;
developed at a human scale; pedestrian oriented; interconnected with abutting projects; and,
permit a full array of commercial uses, residential uses, institutional uses, hotel/motel uses,
community facilities, and other urban land uses subject to numerous criteria in the Future Land
Use Element. The mixture of land uses proposed for the Good Turn Center does not include a
residential component.
This MPUD also proposes to include group housing uses such as assisted living facilities,
independent senior housing for persons over age 55, continuing care retirement community, and
nursing home uses.
The Mixed Use Activity Center concept is designed to concentrate almost all new commercial
zoning in locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and
disorganized patterns of commercial development, and to create focal points within the
community.
Factors to consider during the review of a MUAC rezone petition are as follows:
. The amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed commercial
uses, within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two road miles of Mixed Use Activity
Center. (The proposed development is located within Activity Center No.7. Less than 60,000
square feet is presently developed of the 530,000 square feet approved for commercial
development on zoned commercial land within the Activity Center - only II percent of
development potential is realized. Within a two mile radius, just 244,356 square feet is presently
developed of the 1,616,500 square feet approved for commercial development on zoned
commercial land - only 15 percent of potential is realized. More specific commercial analysis
was submitted with the MPUD rezone petition, and is covered below.)
. Market demand and service area for the proposed commercial land uses to be used as a guide
to explore the feasibility of the requested land uses. (A market study was submitted with this
application. The site is presently zoned Rural Agricultural (A). Further, the MPUD document
proposes commercial, general and medical office, group housing, nursing home, and light retail
land uses that appear to be compatible to the existing commercial zoning in Activity Center No.7
and a two road mile area. More specific commercial analysis was submitted with the MPUD
rezone petition, and is covered below.)
The petitioner's consultant, Fishkind & Associates, Inc., prepared and submitted a Retail
Demand Analysis for the subject parcel, utilizing 2005 Commercial Inventory data. As defined
in the petitioner's analysis, the subject's primary market area was determined to be within a two
mile radius from its location and the study focused on the projected future supply and demand of
the trade area.
Page 3 of 15
PUDZ-2008-AR-12773
Revised: 7/20/09
The petitioner surveyed the existing supply and demand of retail space in the primary trade area.
Their inventory included general merchandising, traditional retail uses, eating and drinking
establishments, personal services, etc.
The market conditions study utilizes a drive-time analysis to select and evaluate demographics
used in their commercial demand model. The population and market area studied extends to
approximately a 20-minute drive time - the general area for a community retail center.
. Growth is projected to increase to approximately one and one-quarter (1.25) times the
population of the community retail center market area during the period 2007 to 2015. This area
is projected to grow from 48,904 households in 2007 to 61,421 households in 2015 - an increase
of 12,517 households, according to the consultant's proprietary model.
The projected household income for these 48,904 households in 2007 is $61,516, and then
increases to $62,775 for the 61,421 households in 2015. These figures are calculated out to
provide a demand figure given in square feet of commercial space and in acres. The consultant
concludes that this market has demand for an additional 108,751 square feet of community retail
center market commercial space.
Fishkind summarizes, 'the results of this analysis demonstrate that there is current need for
additional community serving retail space in this market. The timing of the project would
immediately satisfY a portion of that net demand".
FLUE Objective 7 and its applicable policies (Smart Growth - Community Character Plan)
require that new development be pedestrian oriented, show traditional neighborhood design,
provide interconnections (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle) to nearby residential areas, and to
nearby commercial areas (pedestrian, bicycle). The petitioner generally agrees with these
requirements through statements provided in the application materials, providing a design
proposal sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood, according to Policies 7.1 through 7.5,
included below for reference:
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
Conceptual Master Plan indicates access to Collier Boulevard (CR-95 I), an arterial road, at the
project's southern boundary.)
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. (A loop road is not depicted on the Conceptual Master Plan and might not be
expected given the conceptual master plan layout and relatively small size of the property
combined with its rectangular configuration. Only a single access point is proposed onto Collier
Boulevard (CR-951); all other proposed access points will be from the proposed local road from
interconnection with adjacent commercial developments.)
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
PUDZ-2008-AR-12773
Revised: 7/20/09
Page 4 of 15
of land use type. (The Conceptual Master Plan allows for two (2) "potential" vehicular and
pedestrian interconnects between the proposed Good Tum Center MPUD and the Hammock
Park Commerce Center CPUD to the south, and the commercially-zoned land to the north of the
project; but the interconnections themselves should be absolute and expected to be part of the
SDPs/PPLs.)
Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities
with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and
types. (Being a proposed Mixed-Use PUD, there are no residential densities, however, the
development standards and conditions for the institutional housing are expected to be consistent
with other similar types of developments. Details of designing Good Tum Center MPUD as a
walkable development are expected to be part of the SDPs/PPLs; sidewalks will be required as
no deviation from sidewalk requirements is requested.)
Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's original
Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and, pending review of the revised TIS to be delivered July 23,
2009, has determined that this project can be found consistent with policies 5.1 and 5.2 of the
Transportation Element of the GMP.
GMP Conclusion: Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed MPUD rezone
may be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE).
ANALYSIS:
Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a
determination must be based. These criteria are specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC)
Sections 10.02.13 and 10.02.13.B.5. The staff evaluation establishes a factual basis to support the
recommendations of staff. The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) uses these same criteria
as the basis for the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in tum use
the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. These evaluations are provided on page 7
of this staff report.
Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the MPUD
documents to address any environmental concerns. All environmental issues have been
addressed. The applicant was not required to submit an Environment Impact Statement (ElS) for
this project, nor was a hearing before the Environmental Advisory Council required, because the
site is below the 10-acre size threshold requirement for tracts located landward of the coastal
management boundary. Furthermore the site is not located within a Special Treatment (ST)
overlay area, and for this reason the rezone is consistent with the LDC and GMP.
Transportation Review: Transportation Department Staff has reviewed the petition and notes the
following:
Collier Boulevard (CR-95I ) Impacts: The first concurrency link on Collier Boulevard that is
impacted by this project is Link 34, Collier Boulevard (CR-951) between Davis Boulevard and
Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR-864). The project generates 161 PM peak hour, peak direction
Page 5 of 15
PUDZ-2008-AR-12773
Revised: 7/20/09
trip on this link, which represents a 4.9 percent impact on Collier Boulevard (CR-951) upon
reaching build-out condition.
This concurrency link reflects a remaining capacity of 1042 trips in the adopted 2008 Annual
Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) (adopted late 2008) and is at Level of Service "B". In the
fifth year this concurrency link will reflect a remaining capacity of 419 trips.
The second concurrency link on Collier Boulevard (CR-951) that is significantly impacted by
this project is Link 35, Collier Boulevard (CR-951) from Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR-864)
to Tamiami Trail (US-41). The project generates 74 PM peak hour, peak direction trip on this
link, which represents a 2.2 percent impact on Collier Boulevard (CR-95I) upon reaching build-
out condition.
This concurrency link reflects a remaining capacity of 1,161 trips in the adopted 2008 AUIR and
is at Level of Service "B". In the fifth year this concurrency link will reflect a remaining capacity
of 858 trips.
Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR-864) Impacts: The first concurrency link on Rattlesnake
Hammock Road (CR-864) that is impacted by this project is Link 75, Rattlesnake Hammock
Road (CR-864) between Collier Boulevard (CR-951) and Santa Barbara Boulevard (Polly Ave).
The project generates 87 PM peak hour, peak direction trip on this link, which represents a 2.7
percent impact on Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR-864) upon reaching build-out condition.
This concurrency link reflects a remaining capacity of 2,550 trips in the adopted 2008 AUIR and
is at Level of Service "B". In the fifth year this concurrency link will reflect a remaining
capacity of2,254 trips.
The second concurrency link on Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR-864) that is significantly
impacted by this project is Link 74, Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR-864) from Santa Barbara
Boulevard (Polly Ave) to County Barn Road. The project generates 74 PM peak hour, peak
direction trip on this link, which represents a 3.2 percent impact on Rattlesnake Hammock Road
(CR-864) upon reaching build-out condition.
This concurrency link reflects a remaining capacity of 1,578 trips in the adopted 2008 AUIR and
is at Level of Service "B". In the fifth year this concurrency link will reflect a remaining
capacity of I ,345 trips.
Utilitv Review: The Utilities Department Staff has reviewed the petition and notes the following:
The MPUD is located within the Collier County Water-Sewer District boundary, and is subject to
the conditions associated with a Water and Sewer Availability Letter from the Collier County
Utilities Division. All portions of the project to be developed will be required to comply with
Ordinance No. 2004-31, as amended. According to the County's Geographical Information
System (GIS), there are existing 36-inch and 20-inch water main pipes on Collier Boulevard
(CR-95 I), and an existing 12-inch force main pipe on Collier Boulevard (CR-95 I), and a 20-inch
force main pipe on Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR-864).
PUDZ-2008-AR-12773
Revised: 7/20/09
Page 6 of 15
Emerf!encv Manaf!ement Review: The Good Turn Center MPUD is located in a Category 3
hurricane surge zone, which requires evacuation during some hurricane events. While there is
currently no impact mitigation required for this, it should be noted that approval of this MPUD
increases the evacuation and sheltering requirements for the county.
Zoning Review: This request is consistent with adopted land use plans for Collier County, which
recommend a mixture of uses to include residential land uses as well as community facility and
retail land uses. The proposal includes mixed-use development that consists of non-residential
use and assisted living facility or continuing care center in the same structure or in separate
structures, on the same lot three stories over parking. The project as proposed meets the
standards specified in Exhibit B of the MPUD Ordinance.
The site plan accompanying this petition (Exhibit C of MPUD Ordinance) shows a general layout
for approximately 100,000 square feet of commercial land uses and independent senior housing
units for persons over age 55 at a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.6 not to exceed 200
units.
Improvements proposed for the site include:
. Thirty (30) percent of the site will be set aside for open space.
. There will be a 20-foot wide Type D Buffer along the existing canal which abuts Collier
Boulevard (CR-951) to the western boundary line.
. There will be a 10-foot wide Type A Buffer along the northern, southern and eastern
boundary line.
. There will be a 0.42010 acre preserve that is 15 percent of the existing native vegetation on-
site and will be adjacent to the southern property's preserve.
. Access will be a shared access point on the southwest corner to Collier Boulevard (CR-
951) with the Hammock Park Commerce Centre CPUD.
. The petitioner has potential road interconnects along the northern and southern boundary
of the property.
The proposed rezone to MPUD is consistent with the GMP and LDC and because the
surrounding property is zoned for a mix of residential and commercial land uses the Good Turn
Center MPUD is in harmony with the land uses recommended for Mixed Use Activity Centers
(Activity Center No.7). Based on staffs review of the adjacent existing and anticipated land
uses, the proposed MPUD is compatible with the surrounding zoning and land uses.
Compliance with Sub-section 1O.02.13.B.5. of the LDC: Planning commission recommendation.
The planning commission shall make written findings as required in section 10.02.08 of the
LDC, and shall recommend to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) either approval of the
PUD rezoning as proposed; approval with conditions or modifications; or denial. In support of its
recommendation, the planning commission shall make findings as to the PUD master plan's
compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in section 10.02.08.
aJ 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.
Page 7 of 15
PUDZ-2008-AR-12773
Revised: 7/20/09
The subject property is located in the Mixed-Use Activity Center Subdistrict, Activity Center No.
7 which is intended to be mixed-use in character; developed at a human scale; pedestrian
oriented; interconnected with abutting projects; and, permit a full array of commercial uses,
residential uses, and institutional uses. The applicant provided a Retail Demand Analysis as part
of the application to demonstrate the demand for additional commercial development within the
Activity Center No.7.
In addition, the ingress/egress access and traffic analysis in the TIS was utilized for the trip
generation of commercial uses that could be developed on the subject site as well as for the
continuing care retirement community that could be developed on the subject site. The surface
water management system will utilize on-site water quality treatment and attenuation, and the
outfall of the system will be to the CR-951 canal. All utilities, potable water and sewer are
available. For these reasons the proposed rezone will be compliance with all the Level of Service
(LOS) as recommend by the GMP. The subject petition has been reviewed by the appropriate
staffs that are responsible for oversight of the LOS spelled out in the GMP.
b) Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they
may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and
maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public
expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation
with the county attorney.
Documents submitted with the application provide evidence of unified control.
c) Coriformity of the proposed MPUD with the goals, objectives, policies and the Future
Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan.
On page two (2) of this staff report, the Comprehensive Planning Department provided a detailed
analysis of how this project meets the goals, objectives, policies and FLUE of the GMP.
d) 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 Good Turn Center MPUD has been designed to optimize internal and external land use
because of the development standards contained in the MPUD Ordinance, and the requirements
for buffering and screening in Section 4.06.02. What is shown in Table 2.4, Table of Buffer
Requirements of the LDC, shall be required for all new development.
e) The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The amount of usable open space for the Good Turn Center MPUD is at least thirty (30) percent
of the gross area and this project will meet the minimum requirement of the LDC.
PUDZ-2008-AR-12773
Revised: 7/20/09
Page 8 of 15
f) The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements andfacilities, both public and private.
Any future development will have to adhere to the transportation commitments contained in the
MPUD Ordinance as well as be in compliance with all other applicable concurrency management
regulations when the development approvals are sought to assure the adequacy of available
improvements and facilities.
g) The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
The development of the subject site is timely because supporting infrastructure such as capacity
of roads, wastewater, and utilities are currently available. When the developer comes in to
expand the project, it will be reviewed again for supporting infrastructure, and must be in
compliance with all LOS standards to accommodate the expansion.
h) Conformity with PUD regulations, or as 10 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 Good Turn Center MPUD development standards are contained in Exhibit B of the MPUD
documents and a portion is provided in the comparative chart below. Given that assisted living
facilities or continuing care centers are permitted in the C-3 zoning district, the C-3 zoning
district was used as a point of reference for the evaluation of the proposed development
standards.
An analysis of the chart below indicates that the height and minimum yard setbacks for the
proposed MPUD project are similar to the development standards within the standard C-3 zoning
district that permit the proposed uses. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that the proposed
development standards for principal and accessory structures would meet or exceed the standards
of the C-3 zoning district. These development standards are also typically used in a Mixed-Use
Activity Center.
Comparative chart of
Good Turn Center MPUD and Commercial Intermediate (C-3) Zoning District
Prini:ipal Structures ,rl"!JP!Js~d Proposed .' C-3
..,.. .. .
CoJ:iJ.mercialTract AJ,F* orCCC** . .
Minimum Lot Area 5,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width 75 feet 100 feet 75 feet
Minimum Setbacks 50% of the
Front 25 feet 25 feet building height,
Side 25 feet 25 feet but not less than
Rear 40 feet 40 feet 15 feet
Min. Distance between 20 feet or 1"2 sum of 20 feet or 1"2 sum of
Structures building height building height none
Setbacks from Preserve 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet
Page 9 of 15
PUDZ-2008-AR-12773
Revised: 7/20/09
Maximum Zoued Building 3 stories over parking, 3 stories over parking,
not to exceed not to exceed
Height 45 feet 45 feet 50 feet
Maximnm Actual Building 3 stories over parking, 3 stories over parking,
Height not to exceed not to exceed
55 feet 55 feet
Accessory Structure.s Proposed Proposed C-3
COI1lIll~t~i~ftrllct ALF or CCC .
Minimum Setbacks 50% of the
Front 25 feet 25 feet building
Side 15 feet 15 feet height, but not
Rear 10 feet 15 feet less than 15
feet
Setbacks from Preserve 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Min. Distance between 20 feet or Y, sum of 20 feet or y, sum of
Structures building height building height
Maximum Building Height 25 feet 25 feet
· Assisted Living Facility
.. Continuing Care eenters
Compliance with Sub-section 10.03.05.1 of the LDC: Nature of requirements of planning
commission report. When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations of
the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners required in 10.02.12 D. shall
show that the planning commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to
the following, when applicable:
1) Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies
and future land use map and the elements of the growth management plan.
The Comprehensive Planning Department has provided a detailed analysis on page two (2) of
this report, on how this petition is consistent with all applicable elements of the GMP. The
property is located within the Mixed Use Activity Center (MUAC) Subdistrict (Activity Center
No.7) of the Urban Commercial District, Urban Designation, as identified on Future Land Use
Map. This district is intended to accommodate a variety of land uses including commercial uses
and community facilities.
2) The existing land use pattern.
The subject property abuts a vacant parcel with a zoning designation of Heavy Commercial
District (C-5) along the north. Adjacent to eastern property line is a Florida Power & Light
easement, with a zoning designation of Rural Agriculture (A). The southern property abuts the
Hammock Park Commerce Centre (CPUD) which is undeveloped. Alongside the western
boundary is an existing canal and ROWand Naples Lakes Country Club PUD that is an
approved mixed-use development.
PUDZ-200B-AR-12773
Revised: 7/20109
Page 10 of 15
3) The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
The subject property is a rectangular shaped lot of sufficient size (9.501: acres) and does not result
in an isolated district umelated to adjacent and nearby districts because the rezone request
conforms to the requirements of the Mixed Use Activity Center (MUAC) Subdistrict (Activity
Center No.7) and therefore the project is consistent with the FLUE.
4) Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposedfor change.
The boundaries of the Activity Center No.7 have been delineated on the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM) and the subject parcel was deemed to be logically drawn during the GMP adoption of
the Mixed use Activity Centers Subdistrict.
5) Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment
necessary.
The proposed MPUD is not required at this time however, the request is reasonable because the
property owners are unable to develop their property in accordance to the Mixed use Activity
Centers Subdistrict without a rezone of the subject property.
6) Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
The current development standards and landscape buffering requirements contained the MPUD
Ordinance are designed to ensure the least amount of adverse impact on the adjacent
developments.
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 Transportation Department staff has reviewed the petitioner's request and indicated that the
impacts associated with commercial, medical office, group housing, and retail land uses with a
maximum of 100,000 square feet of commercial land uses and 200 institutional housing units at
the proposed intensity are acceptable.
8) Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
The developer has to adhere to all County Ordinances related to paving, grading, site drainage
and utility plans for this project in addition to being subjected to the Concurrency Management
System of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. The developer is also required to provide a
copy of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permits prior to any
construction drawing approvals.
Page11of15
PUDZ-2008-AR-12773
Revised: 7/20/09
9) Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
The development standards for Good Turn Center MPUD are similar to the development
standards for the C- 3 zoning district, as depicted in the comparison chart on page 9 of this staff
report. During the site development process (SDP) the developer will have to provide detailed
plans for the exterior and interior lighting. The project will be designed in accordance to LDC
standards to enhance compatibility of the commercial and residential uses through such measures
as, but not limited to, minimizing noise associated with commercial uses; directing commercial
lighting away from residential units; and separating pedestrian and vehicular access ways and
parking areas from residential units, to the greatest extent possible. Street materials, signage, and
lighting will be complementary and the same throughout the project's access ways.
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. Since property valuation is affected by several factors including
zoning, zoning by itself mayor may not affect the values of the adjacent area.
11) Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
The proposed MPUD will not result in deterrence to the adjacent properties. The master plan
indicates an access to the arterial road fronting the project, and potential interconnections with
adjacent properties along the northern and southern boundary line, which could redirect traffic
internally to reduce congestion on Collier Boulevard (CR-95I). Furthermore, the buffer
requirements in conjunction with the preserve area and setbacks, and the proposed development
standards combined with the site development plan (SDP) approval process, provides assurance
the project will be built in accordance with existing County regulations.
12) Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
The proposed MPUD is consistent with the FLUE and the goals and objectives of the GMP as
well as adhering to the development regulations set forth in the LDC. Since the applicant has not
requested deviations from the LDC, no special privileges are being sought.
13) Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
with existing zoning
The subject property has a zoning designation of Rural Agriculture (A), and this zoning district
does not meet the intent of Activity Center No.7 of the FLUE. Therefore, any use permitted by
right in that zoning classification would continue to be permitted on the subject property with no
further legislative action, and subject only to the site plan requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
14) Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
county.
PUDZ-200B-AR-12773
Revised: 7/20/09
Page 12 of 15
During the review of the first development order, staff will evaluate the appropriateness of the
requested commercial uses and senior housing on the subject site. The review will include a
review of both the subject proposal and surrounding or nearby properties as to allow the
appropriate development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, water
management), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, and type of
open space and location and traffic generation. Furthermore, the applicant has not requested
deviations from Section 5.05.08, Architectural and Site Design Standards of the LDC. For this
reason the structures wi]] be of a similar architectural scale to existing neighborhood
development and will not be out of scale with the surrounding area.
15) Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in
districts already permitting such use
There are many sites that are already zoned to accommodate the proposed development; however
this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a rezoning decision. The
proposed MPUD was reviewed and deemed compliant with the GMP and the LDC.
16) The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which
would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under
the proposed zoning classification.
The extent of the site alteration will be determined through extensive evaluation by federal, state,
and local development regulations during any site development plan approval 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 wi]] have to meet all applicable criteria describe in the PUD Ordinance, as well as all
the regulations set forth in the LDC and the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.
18) Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall
deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
This will be determined by the BCC during the advertised public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
The EAC did not have to hear this petition.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The meeting was duly noticed by the applicant and held on Marcb 4th at 5:30 p.m. at the
Comfort Inn. Seven property owners from Naples Lake Country Club attended, as well as the
applicant's team Wayne Arnold and Sharon Umpenhour of Q. Grady Minor, Rich Y ovanovich of
Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., and county staff. Of those who spoke, the majority of
Page13of15
PUDZ-2008-AR-12773
Revised: 7/20/09
comments and concerns related to the new development's potential uses. Mr. Arnold explained
that medical professionals have expressed interest due to the proximity to the new hospital and
that there is potential for an assisted living facility and senior housing as well as retail. Mr.
Arnold doesn't feel the uses will be offensive and stated that there will be no outdoor activities.
Naples Lake resident, Dick Spangler, said that he is worried about an assisted living facility like
Manor Care on Rattlesnake-Hammock Road being built on this property and wants to see a
quality type institution instead. Mr. Y ovanovich stated that Manor Care pre-dated architectural
standards and those architectural standards will apply to this project. Mr. Spangler also wanted to
know if there were specific items that the applicant envisioned not having, such as billiards and
motorcycle rentals. Mr. Arnold stated that because of the proximity to Rookery Bay, it is possible
that there will be moped and bicycle rentals.
Naples Lake resident, Barb Anderson, expressed concern over institutional uses. She doesn't
want to see institutional care for the homeless, a detox facility, or low-income housing. Mr.
Arnold suggested that the property owners email him a list of the types of uses they are against
and he will bring these concerns to the owner.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for PUDZ-2008-AR-12773 revised on
July 23,2009.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PUDZ-
2008-AR-12773 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval
subject to the conditions of approval that have been incorporated into Exhibit E, List of Developer
Commitments.
Attachments: A. Retail Demand Analysis
B. Traffic Impact Statement (TIS)
C. Protected Species Survey
PUDZ-2008-AR-12773
Revised: 7/20109
Page 14 of 15
PREPARED BY:
7- (j-02tXJ9
MELISSA ZONE, P IP AL PLANNER DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
[). ~ 11------- 7-('-01
RA ND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
.~A...Lh Yh.~ 7/ZI/07
SUSi\N M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
7;4" ?
K. SCHMITT ADMINISTRATOR DAtE '
UNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Tentatively scheduled for the October 13,2009 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
DATE
Page 15 of 15
PUDZ-200B-AR-12773
Rev: 7/9/09
ORDINANCE NO. 09-_
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS
AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR
THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE
APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE
HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A
RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO
A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO
BE KNOWN AS THE GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD,
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF
100,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL LAND
USES AND/OR A V ARlETY OF SKILLED NURSING
CARE F AC!LITY USES WITH A MAXIMUM OF 200
UNITS, IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CONSISTING OF 9.5+1- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor, Inc. and Richard Yovanovich of
Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., representing Collier Rattlesnake LLC, petitioned the
Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real
property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE:
The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 14,
Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Rural
Agricultural (A) Zoning District to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning
District for the 9.5+1- acre project to be known as the Good Turn Center MPUD, to allow
construction of a maximum of 100,000 square feet of commercial land uses and/or a variety of
skilled nursing care facility uses with a maximum of 200 units in accordance with the MPUD
Document, attached hereto as Exhibits "An through "En and incorporated by reference herein.
lof2
The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as
amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly.
SECTION TWO:
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this ___ day of
,2009.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
By:
, Deputy Clerk
DONNA FIALA, Chairman
Approved as to form and
legal sufficiency:
DRAfT
Heidi Ashton-Cicko
Assistant County Attorney
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Permitted Uses
Exhibit B: Development Standards
Exhibit C: Master Plan
Exhibit D: Legal Description
Exhibit E: List of Developer Commitments
CPI09-CPS-00970\5
20f2
EXHIBIT A
FOR
GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD
PERMITTED USES:
A maximum of 100,000 sq. ft. of commercial land uses and up to 200 group housing units shall
be permitted. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land
used, in whole or in part, for other than the following:
Commercial Tract - C
A. Principal Uses:
1. Administration of economic programs
Groups 9611 - Administration of general economic programs
9621 - Regulation and administration of transportation programs
9631 - Regulation and administration of communications, eiectric, gas,
and other utilities
9641 - Regulation of agricultural marketing and commodities
9651 - Regulation, licensing, and inspection of miscellaneous
commercial sectors
2. Administration of environmental quality and housing programs
Groups 9511 - Air and water resource and solid waste management
9512 - Land, mineral, wildlife, and forest conservation
9531 - Administration of housing programs
9532 - Administration of urban planning and community and rural
development
3. Administration of human resource programs
Groups 9411 - Administration of educational programs
9431 - Administration of public health programs
9451 - Administration of veterans' affairs, except health and insurance
4. Agricultural services
Groups 0781 - landscape counseling and planning
5. Amusement and recreation services
Groups 7911 - Dance studios, schools, and halls
7991 - Physical fitness facilities, including tanning salons
7999 - Amusement and recreation services, not elsewhere classified,
including only golf driving range, judo/karate instruction,
moped1motorcycle rental, bicycle rental, and yoga instruction
6. Apparel and accessory stores
Groups 5611 - Men's and boys' clothing and accessory stores
5621 - Women's clothing stores
5632..- Women's accessory and specialty stores, except adult oriented
stores shall be prohibited
5641 - Children's and infants' wear stores
5651 - Family clothing stores
5661 - Shoe stores
5699 - Miscellaneous apparel and accessory stores
7. Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations
Groups 5531 - Auto and home supply stores
Exhibits A-E (Rev 8).doc
Page 1
AR-12773 / GTMPUD
5541 - Gasoline service stations
8. Automotive repair, services and parking
Groups 7514 - Passenger car rental
7515 - Passenger car leasing
7532 - Top, body, and upholstery repair shops and paint shops
7533 - Automotive exhaust system repair shops
7534 - Tire retreading and repair shops
7536 - Automotive glass replacement shops
7537 - Automotive transmission repair shops
7538 - General automotive repair shops
7539 - Automotive repair shops, not elsewhere classified
7542 - Carwashes
7549 - Automotive services, except repair and carwashes
9. Building materials, hardware, garden supply, and mobile home dealers
Groups 5211 - Lumber and other building materials dealer
5231 - Paint, glass, and wallpaper stores
5251 - Hardware stores
5261 - Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores
10. Business services
Groups 7311 - Advertising agencies
7313 - Radio, television, and publishers' advertising representatives
7319 - Advertising, not elsewhere classified
7322 - Adjustment and collection services
7323 - Credit reporting services
7331 - Direct mail advertising services
7334 - Photocopying and duplicating services
7335 - Commercial photography
7336 - Commercial art and graphic design
7338 - Secretarial and court reporting services
7352 - Medical equipment rental and leasing
7371 - Computer programming services
7372 - Prepackaged software
7373 - Computer integrated systems design
7374 - Computer processing and data preparation and processing
services
7375 - Information retrieval services
7376 - Computer facilities management services
7377 - Computer rental and leasing
7378 - Computer maintenance and repair
7379 - Computer related services, not elsewhere classified
7383 - News syndicates
11. Membership organizations
Group 8661 - Religious organizations
12. Depository institutions
Groups 6011 - Federal reserve banks
6019 - Central reserve depository institutions, not elsewhere classified
6021 - National commercial banks
6022 - State commercial banks
6029 - Commercial banks, not elsewhere classified
6035 - Savings institutions, federally chartered
6036 - Savings institutions, not federally chartered
6061 - Credit unions, federally chartered
Exhibits A-E (Rev 8).doc
Page 2
AR-12773 / GTMPUD
6062 - Credit unions, not federally chartered
6081 - Branches and agencies of foreign banks
6082 - Foreign trade and international banking institutions
6091 - Non-deposit trust facilities
13. Eating and drinking places
Groups 5812 - Eating places, including indoor and outdoor entertainment,
subject to the Collier County Noise Ordinance
14. Educational services
Groups 8243 - Data processing schools
8244 - Business and secretarial schools
8249 - Vocational schools, not elsewhere classified
8299 - Schools and educational services, not elsewhere classified
15. Engineering, accounting, research, management, and related services
Groups 8711 - Engineering services
8712 - Architectural services
8713 - Surveying services
8721 - Accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping services
8731 - Commercial physical and biological research
8732 - Commercial economic, sociological, and educational research
8733 - Noncommercial research organizations
8734 - Testing laboratories
8741 - Management services
8742 - Management consulting services
8743 - Public relations services
8748 - Business consulting services, not elsewhere classified
16. Essential services (Section 2.01.03 of the LDC)
17. Executive, legislative, and general government, except finance
Groups 9111 - Executive offices
9121 - Legislative bodies
9131 - Executive and legislative offices combined
9199 - General government, not elsewhere classified
18. Food Stores
Groups 5411 - Grocery stores
5421 - Meat and fish (seafood) markets, including freezer provisioners
5431 - Fruit and vegetable markets
5441 - Candy, nut, and confectionery stores
5451 - Dairy products stores
5461 - Retail bakeries
5499 - Miscellaneous food stores
19. General merchandise stores
Groups 5311 - Department stores
5399 - Miscellaneous general merchandise stores
20. Health services
Groups 8011 - Offices and clinics of doctors of medicine
8021 - Offices and clinics of dentists
8031 - Offices and clinics of doctors of osteopathy
8041 - Offices and clinics of chiropractors
8042 - Offices and clinics of optometrists
8043 - Offices and clinics of podiatrists
Exhibits A~E (Rev 8).doc
Page 3
AR-12773 / GTMPUD
8049 - Offices and clinics of health practitioners, not elsewhere
classified
8071 - Medical laboratories
8072 - Dental laboratories
8082 - Home health care services
8092 - Kidney dialysis centers
21. Holding and other Investment offices
Groups 6712 - Offices of bank holding companies
6719 - Offices of holding companies, not elsewhere classified
6722 - Management investment offices, open-end
6726 - Unit investment trusts, face-amount certificate offices, and
closed-end management investment offices
6732 - Educational, religious, and charitable trusts
6733 - Trusts, except educational, religious, and charitable
6792 - Oil royalty traders
6794 - Patent owners and lessors
6798 - Real estate investment trusts
6799 - Investors, not elsewhere classified
22. Home furniture, furnishings and equipment stores
Groups 5712 - Furniture stores
5713 - Floor covering stores
5714 - Drapery, curtain, and upholstery stores
5722 - Household appliance stores
5731 - Radio, television, and consumer electronics stores
5734 - Computer and computer software stores
5735 - Record and prerecorded tape stores
5736 - Musical instrument stores
23. Insurance agents, brokers and service
Group 6411 - Insurance agents, brokers, and service
24. Insurance carriers
Groups 6311 - Life insurance
6321 - Accident and health insurance
6324 - Hospital and medical service plans
6331 - Fire, marine, and casualty insurance
6351 - Surety insurance
6361 - Title insurance
25. Justice, public order, and safety
Groups 9211 - Courts
9221 - Police protection
9222 - Legal counsel and prosecution
9224 - Fire protection
9229 - Public order and safety, not elsewhere classified
26. Legal services - Group 8111
27. Membership organizations
Groups 8611 - Business associations
8621 - Professional membership organizations
8631 - Labor unions and similar labor organizations
8641 - Civic, social, and fraternal associations
8651 - Political Organizations
Exhibits A-E (Rev 8).doc
Page 4
AR-12773 / GTMPUD
28. Miscellaneous retail
Groups 5912 - Drug stores and proprietary stores
5921 - Liquor stores
5932 - Used merchandise stores, including only antique stores
5941 - Sporting goods stores and bicycle shops
5942 - Book Stores, excluding adult oriented stores
5943 - Stationery Stores
5944 - Jewelry Stores
5945 - Hobby, toy, and game shops
5946 - Camera and photographic supply stores
5947 - Gift, novelty, and souvenir shops
5948 - Luggage and leather goods stores
5949 - Sewing, needlework, and piece goods stores
5961 - Catalog and mail-order houses
5962 - Automatic merchandising machine operators
5963 - Direct selling establishments
5983 - Fuel oil dealers
5984 - Liquefied petroleum gas (bottled gas) dealers
5989 - Fuel dealers, not elsewhere classified
5992 - Florists
5993 - Tobacco stores and stands
5994 - News dealers and newsstands
5995 - Optical goods stores
5999 - Miscellaneous retail stores, not elsewhere classified
29. Miscellaneous services
Group 8999 - services, not elsewhere classified
30. Non-depository credit institutions
Groups 6162 - Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents
6163 - Loan brokers
31. Personal services
Groups 7212 - Garment pressing, and agents for laundries and drycleaners
7221 - Photographic studios, portrait
7231 - Beauty shops
7241 - Barber shops
7291 - Tax return preparation services
32. Public finance, taxation, and monetary policy - Group 9311
33. Real estate
Groups 6531 - Real estate agents and managers
6541 - Title abstract offices
6552 - Land subdividers and developers, except cemeteries
34. Security and commodity brokers, dealers, exchanges, and services
Groups 6211 - Security brokers, dealers, and flotation companies
6221 - Commodity contracts brokers and dealers
6231 - Security and commodity exchanges
6282 - Investment advice
6289 - Services allied with the exchange of securities or commodities,
not elsewhere classified
35. Social services
Groups 8331 - Job training and vocational rehabilitation services
8351 - Child day care services
Exhibits A-E (Rev 8).doc
Page 5
AR-12773 / GTMPUD
"'''-_.._..~_.-__~,_^..,~,._,._. -.~<_ ~ _.......,","_._~u._~..'_,,_'_.,..M."
8399 - Social services, not elsewhere classified
36. Veterinarian service - Group 0742
37. Video tape rental - Group 7841, excluding adult oriented sales
B. Accessory Uses/Structures:
1. Signs, water management, essential services, covered parking, nature trails, indoor
and outdoor recreational facilities. Signage shall be permitted in accordance with the
standards of the Land Development Code (LDC).
2. Other accessory uses and structures customariiy permitted for a principal use.
Community Facility Tract - CF
A. Principal Uses:
1 . Health services
Groups 8051 - Skilled nursing care facilities (Assisted living facilities,
independent living facilities for persons over age 55, continuing care
retirement communities, and nursing homes (maximum FAR of 0.6, not
to exceed 200 units))
B. Accessory Uses/Structures:
1. Signs, water management, essential services, covered parking, nature trails, indoor
and outdoor recreational facilities. Signage shall be permitted in accordance with the
standards of the Land Development Code (LDC).
2. Other accessory uses and structures customarily permitted for a principal use.
3. Beauty and barber shops, resident dining (including serving of alcohol), and other
personal services related to assisted living facilities, independent living facilities for
persons over age 55, continuing care retirement communities, and nursing homes.
The uses are limited to use by residents and their guests.
Preserve Tract
A. Principal Uses:
1. Passive recreation and walking trails.
Exhibits A-E (Rev B). doc
Page 6
AR-12773/GTMPUD
EXHIBIT B
FOR
GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the MPUD. Standards
not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the Land
Development Code in effect as of the date of approval of the Site Development Plan (SDP) or
Subdivision plat.
TABLE I
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIXED USE DISTRICT
10,000 square feet
100 Ft.
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES _ .
,"_'" "<'dn n :':".'1<.:,;i: '.',,;
MINIMUM LOT AREA
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH
MINIMUM SETBACKS (External)
Front
Side
Rear
MINIMUM SETBACKS (Internal)
Internal Drives/Right-of-
wa /Pro e Lines
Preserve
MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN
STRUCTURES
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
25 Ft.
25 Ft.
40 Ft.
25 Ft.
25 Ft.
40 Ft.
10 Ft.
10 Ft.
25 Ft.
20 Ft. or Y, sum of Building heights'
25 Ft.
20 Ft. or Y, sum of Building
hei hts'
Zoned Height - 3 stories over
parking, not to exceed 45 Ft.
Actual Height - 3 stories over
arkin not to exceed 55 ft.
FAR 0.6
MAX. GROSS LEASABLE AREA"
Zoned Height - 3 stories over parking,
not to exceed 45 Ft.
Actual Height - 3 stories over parking
not to exceed 55 ft.
100,000 Sq. Ft.
MINIMUM SETBACKS (External)
Front
Side
Rear
MINIMUM SETBACKS (Internal)
Internal Drives/Right-of-
wa /Pro e Lines
Preserve
MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN
STRUCTURES
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
25 Ft. 25 Ft.
15 Ft. 15 Ft.
15 Ft. 15 Ft.
OFt. Oft.
10 Ft. 10 Ft.
SP.S SP.S
25 Ft. 25 Ft.
*whichever is greater
""Applies to commercial and office uses. Any use subject to an FAR will be subject to the square feet permitted under
that FAR
S.P.S.: Same as Principal Structures.
Exhibits A-E (Rev 8).doc
Page 7
AR-12773 / GTMPUD
w
.
o~
~z
~<
Ou
u<
.>
o
<~
<0
o
oz
~>=
zo
Ox
NW
,9~ 'Ii..:>: 3 .It,,O:.oo N
I
I
I
I
1:I3:J.o:lne '" 3dAJ. 30IM.o~
..
it
0 u.
0
< U
W
.
~ U
W
0
"
~
:g
< "
u 31
ffi
,
,
0
u
S
<~ wi
wz
I<
.0
,.
u> w
w
...
w ~I
0 z I
0
I
\ ~
. .
~ \ ~
~ I ~
~z
<z
>=8 . w
z. I ~
~~
~3; I ~
I
I
I
I
ffil
~,
.
~ l
~ I
'.
~ \
I
.~~, .
.: <~~"
. ::~~:
<
,
"
o
~
~
~
,
u
~
""1
w
z
"
.
.
lli- <0
~I S
z
~,
~
91
,
2\
I
.~
"
~.
w
~
z
z
o
o
ffi
e
<
< >.
w I ~
~ z
z
0
~llil u
ffi
u. ~lt e
~~I z
U ~~
eo
U iiiz
ew
~~
l:E3:1:J.(1l3C3dAJ.301M.oZ
.gB'H:r
3 .9o;;,Zr.oO N
7VNV:J ~NI1SIX3
,l~n..T
3 .9<:;,ZLOO N
---().\fM .:10 lH9NJ ,gU)
nHVA nnOR ~nn70:J
~ ~ .
~~~
~~~
i:J::<
<00
zuu
:i
o
o
z
~
5j
~
o
o
.
.
~
iii
u
w
o
ffi
,
,
o
u
.
.
~
.
u~
~:;
,u
<<
z>
C
o
o
.0
oz
~i=
zo
ax
Nw
u
<
o
"
.
o u
< <
. .
. "
~~:;-
N
o
~ ,
;f~"
~f.:~~ffi
~~~~~
~:::~;~
"'uw.......J
.-' -,!:( N 0-
..:'.H1_ u-
e
~
J'fM-.lJ-JIDH
~rAhD-1H:J18
~
<
z
u:~
0<
z>
<0
;([
o'
e<
""
wo
uo
z.
00
Uw
w,
7>=
~~
wO
.w
<Z
e'
z.
ww
.e
ww
00
<w
zo
<a
'e
.0
w-
ez
~~
.u
t3~g
e
o
z~
\
\ \
I
\ \ \
\ \ \
\ \
-\ -\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \ \
\ t \
-.J \
\ ~
, \ @l~:
~\ ~\~ \ ~ .
i' ~ \ ~
~ i\ ~ ~\ II';!
~ \ ~\ ~i~~
"" - ~; ~
u.
"'
e
.
,
~
z
e
"
w
U
z
<
o
.
o
-B-
<
zo
-e
wZ
ow
0'
eO
!2~
wO
~o
Oz
wO
I"
H
r:?5
o.
00
wz
~~
<e
"
z
"''''
..
< .
'00
.Oe
~8_~
",88
W_N
.
o
~
~~
-.
e<
~~~
WH
'00
~~~
-~o
~~5
Cl~r
zw.
o::E=>
~.o
Son::
.uo
>>.
000
>>.
m
!5
!ii
'"
~
'"
tl
'"
!3
h
z
S
.
"
~
.
<
,
o
"
.
'i'
x
w
"
D
D
"
,
"
~I
:,
~~
o.
r
,
i'" .
. ~~ ~ 1"
!~H ~
c
h
o
"
~
",
"0
'"
h
t..:l '"
.'1
t~
..
u~
~.I
l'
,;;~
~;
~g
i'
,
.
I
!
EXHIBIT D
FOR
GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,
RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 00032'56" EAST
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 14 FOR A DISTANCE OF 669.64 FEET;
THENCE RUN NORTH 87"18'49" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.16 FEET TO THE EAST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD 951, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE POINT OF
BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN NORTH
00032'56" EAST ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 334.85
FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 87"17'55" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,237.58 FEET;
THENCE RUN SOUTH 00031'41" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 335.16 FEET; THENCE RUN
SOUTH 87"18'49" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,237.68 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING, CONTAINING 9.503 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
Exhibits A-E (Rev 8).doc
Page 9
AR-12773/ GTMPUD
.'^"~"--"-'-"-'-_"'--,"-'--" .'_.*'....~.,""""'._""'_~__._w~,____.~_,
EXHIBIT E
FOR
GOOD TURN CENTER MPUD
LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
Regulations for development of the Good Turn Center MPUD shall be in accordance with the
contents of this MPUD Document and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management
Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations
relate. Where this MPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the
provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply.
1. TRANSPORTATION
A. The owner agrees to contribute its fair share toward the following intersections with
planned improvements that are within the developments significant impacts: a)
Rattlesnake Hammock at Collier Boulevard; b) Collier Boulevard at Davis Blvd; c)
Rattlesnake Hammock at Grand Lely Drive; d) Rattlesnake Hammock at Polly
Avenue. All fair share payments shall be completed prior to the issuance of the first
certificate of occupancy.
B. The Good Turn Center MPUD shall share access to CR-951 with the Hammock
Park Commerce Centre PUD.
2. PLANNING
A. The Good Turn Center MPUD will have an integrated and common building
architectural style. Where multiple buildings are constructed within the MPUD, all
buildings shall be constructed using like exterior building materials and color palate.
Exhibits A-E (Rev 8).doc
Page 10
AR-12773 / GTMPUD