CCPC Agenda 12/16/2010 Rccpc
REGULAR
MEETING
AGENDA
r.
GMP PETITION
CPSP- 2010 -2
DECEMBER 16, 2010
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2010,
IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM.
INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP
ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM
IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN
OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST
SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE
PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE
CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE
COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A
PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY
NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS 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 - November 18, 2010
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS —
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, providing for the establishment of a
Conditional Use to allow a golf driving ranee within an Agricultural (A) Zoning District pursuant to
subsection 2.03.01. A. l .c.17 of the Collier County Land Development Code for 29.6 acres of property located at
6500 Airport Road North in Section 12, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
[Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner]
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PUDA- PL2009 -742 Barefoot Beach Property Owners Association, Inc., represented by R. Bruce Anderson,
Esquire of Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A., is requesting an amendment to the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD, adopted
in Ordinance No. 85 -83, to relocate approved unbuilt dwelling units from area DC -1 "The Cottages at Barefoot
Beach" to Lely Barefoot Beach Unit One, Blocks A -K. The subject site is located on the south side of Bonita
Beach Road in Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
[Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner]
B. PUDZ- 2007 -AR -11381 Marsilea Villas, LLC, represented by Tim Hancock of Davidson Engineering, is
requesting a rezone from an Agricultural zoning district (A) and an Agricultural zoning district with a Special
Treatment Overlay to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district with
removal of the Special Treatment Overlay for a project known as Marsilea Villas RPUD to allow development
of up to 27 Single- Family dwelling units. The subject property, consisting of 10.25 acres, is located west of
Livingston Road surrounded by Royal Palm International Academy just north of Imperial Golf Estates,
Unit 5 in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy
Gundlach, Principal Planner]
C. Note: This item is being Continued to the January 20, 2011 CCPC meeting per staffs request.
CP- 2010 -11 Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element of the Growth
Management Plan, to modify the language of the Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial
Subdistrict to allow a grocery/supermarket, physical fitness facility, craftihobby store, home
furniture /furnishing store and department store use to exceed the 20,000 square feet limitation for a single
commercial use, up to a maximum of 50,000 square feet, for Parcel 1 (9.2+ acres, zoned Bradford Square
MPUD) only, and with the overall maximum development limitation of 100,000 square feet of commercial land
uses on Parcel l to remain; the subject portion of the Subdistrict is located at the northeast corner of
Vanderbilt Beach Road and Livingston Road in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East.
[TRANSMITTAL HEARING] [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner]
D. CPSP- 2010 -2, staff petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use
Map and Map Series (FLUE/FLUM), to: modify the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay
(B /GTRO); modify FLUE Policy 5.1; modify applicability of the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict;
update the Wellhead Protection Map; update the FLUM and Map Series to reflect annexations, etc.; make
FLUM boundary corrections in rural areas; and, add clarity, correct date errors, and make other non - substantive
text revisions. [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager]
10. OLD BUSINESS
A. Presentation of Watershed Management Plan update [Coordinator: Mac Hatcher]
B. Note: This Item is being Continued to the January 6, 2011 meeting per staffs request.
Continuation of Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance review and recommendation for approval [Coordinator:
Robert Wiley, Project Manager]
11. NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
12/8/2010 CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp
AGENDA ITEM 9 -A
Co L'ier County
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION, PLANNING AND REGULATION
HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2010
SUBJECT: PETITION PUDA- PL2009 -AR -742 — LELY BAREFOOT BEACH PUD
(PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT)
APPLICANT /AGENT:
Barefoot Beach Property Owners
Association, Inc.
195 Barefoot Beach Boulevard
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
REOUESTED ACTION:
Mr. R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire
Roetzel & Andress
850 Park Shore Drive
Trianon Centre, Third Floor
Naples, FL 34103
The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an
amendment to the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD, to re- allocate 15 approved unbuilt dwelling units
from area DC -1 "The Cottages at Barefoot Beach" to Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 1, Blocks A -K.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The Lely Barefoot Beach PUD is located on the south side of Bonita Beach Road (CR 865), just
over 1 mile west of Vanderbilt Drive (CR 901) in Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8, Township 48 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the location map on following page.)
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The purpose of this petition is for a minor amendment to Ordinance Number 85 -83, the Lely
Barefoot Beach PUD, to transfer approved 15 unbuilt residential units from one tract of land, DC -1
Cottage area, to another tract of land, Unit 1, Blocks A -K.
The Lely Barefoot Beach PUD is over 30 years old and is mostly built -out. This amendment is
necessary to eliminate the inconsistency between the PUD and the approved and recorded plat.
Lely Barefoot Beach PUD, PUDA- PL2009 -742
November 23, 2010
Page 1 of 12
IlGilli' ' �
.9
Z
LLl Q
F Q
vl U
O
n
m y'.
v � m
O m
4
W
W
J
GULF OF MEXICO
mIm
mw
avow
mtmnxutadnn
A30""�
O
n€
J
I3�3
Ip
Ff
_ and
3` OW
usa vat
iii
n
n
i
a
Pl
s
r
iWW`h i1iN� (Us. dt)
p
i
WZ
o
)
= s
o
gr
0
IL
lip
W
W
J
GULF OF MEXICO
mIm
mw
za, 4n
(we -) aniva i�ee
mmoo.,-.14
m
a.
a
c�
z
z
O
N
I.J.
S�
G
z
_O
F-
U
O
ti
rn
0
0
N
a
0
D
a
4t
L
eo""\
/O-N,
1
avow
mtmnxutadnn
A30""�
n3Xlas MWdtld
_ and
3` OW
usa vat
n
za, 4n
(we -) aniva i�ee
mmoo.,-.14
m
a.
a
c�
z
z
O
N
I.J.
S�
G
z
_O
F-
U
O
ti
rn
0
0
N
a
0
D
a
4t
L
eo""\
/O-N,
1
, MN
jg,
- Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 1, Blocks A-K
DC-1 "The Cottages at Lely Barefoot Beach"
_.-\ / JI
Ak
Site Plan
71E
HICKORY
BAY
iav
I
0 _RVA-
A;,"A
DC-1 "The Cottages at Lely Barefoot Beach"
_.-\ / JI
Ak
Site Plan
Site Plan
The DC -1 Cottage area was originally approved for 60 dwelling units but only 15 were built. This
proposed amendment re- allocates 15 of the unused 45 residential units from DC -1 to Unit 1,
Blocks A -K. The Plat for Unit 1 was approved in 1978 for 132 lots and all of the lots have been
sold. However, the PUD presently allocates only 91 dwelling units in Unit 1. This PUDA, if
approved, will allow 106 single - family home sites to be constructed within Unit 1, Blocks A -K.
The density and intensity of this PUD will not change as a result of this amendment. Furthermore,
this amendment does not propose any changes that would affect environmental, buffer, or drainage
issues. No deviations from the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) are being sought
with this amendment.
The petitioner is proposing an amendment Ordinance No. 85 -83, the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD
instead of adopting a new PUD by Ordinance and repealing that Ordinance.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: Bonita Beach Road (CR 865) and then the Lee County line.
East: Little Hickory Bay, with a zoning designation of Agriculture (A).
South: Wiggins Pass, with a zoning designation of Agriculture (A).
West: Lely Barefoot Beach PUD, then the Gulf of Mexico.
Lely Barefoot Beach PUD, PUDA- PL2009 -742
December 3, 2010
AERIAL PHOTO
Page 4 of 12
n
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element: The subject property is located within the Urban designated area
(Urban — Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) as identified on the countywide
Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Additionally, the site is within the
Coastal High Hazard Area and the Traffic Congestion Area. Within this designation, and in
accordance with the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE): a base
density of four (4) dwelling units per acre (du/a) is allowed, less one (1) du /a for lying within the
Traffic Congestion Area, resulting in an eligible density of 3 du/a.
The Lely Barefoot Beach PUD, originally approved in the late 1970's and well before the present
GMP, is approved for a gross density of 2.25 DU /A. The proposed amendment merely re- allocates
a portion (15 dwelling units) of the approved density internally — there is no change to the PUD
density. The FLUE does not regulate density on tracts within an overall development project.
FLUE Objective 7 and subsequent Policies regard Smart Growth principles derived from the
Toward Better Places, Community Character Plan for Collier County. Staff provides no analysis
as to compliance with these provisions as the PUD is platted and substantially developed.
GMP Conclusion: Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the
proposed rezone consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE).
� ANALYSIS:
Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria upon which a
favorable determination must be based. These criteria are specifically noted in Sections 10.02.13
and 10.02.13.B.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code and required Staff evaluation and
comment. 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 their
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to
support their action on the rezoning request.
Environmental Review: Environmental Services Staff reviewed this petition and determined that
the proposed amendment will not have any impact on environmental issues. Similarly, the
Environmental Advisory Council did not review this petition because the proposed changes do not
have any impact on environmental issues.
Transportation Review: Transportation Department Staff has reviewed this petition and the has
determined that the proposed amendment will not have any transportation impact.
Utility Review: The Utilities Department Staff has reviewed the petition and has no objection.
This PUD amendment does not impact the utilities provision (per the Statement of Utilities
submitted).
Zoning and Land Development Review: Relationship to Existing and Future Land Uses: A
discussion of this relationship, as it applies specifically to Collier County's legal basis for land use
Lely Barefoot Beach PUD, PUDA- PL2009 -742
November 23, 2010
Page 5 of 12
planning, refers to the relationship of the uses that would be permitted if the proposed zoning
action is approved, as it relates to the requirement or limitations set forth in the FLUE of the GMP.
The proposed change as noted previously is minor — to relocated 15 units from DC -1 to Unit 1,
Blocks A -K.
As previously noted, this site is located on the south side of Bonita Beach Road (CR 865), just
over 1 mile west of Vanderbilt Drive (CR 901). To the north is the Lee County line. The
remainder of the site is surrounded by water. To the east is Little Hickory Bay, to the south is
Wiggins Pass and to the west is the Gulf of Mexico.
REZONE FINDINGS:
LDC Subsection 10.03.05.I. 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." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning
Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as
also noted below: Rezone findings are designated as RZ and PUD findings are designated as PUD.
(Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in non -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 GMP.
The Comprehensive Planning Department has indicated that the proposed PUD amendment is n
consistent with all applicable elements of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth
Management Plan (GMP).
2. The existing land use pattern.
This amendment will not affect the existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern will
remain the same.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
Not applicable. The districts are existing and established.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the
property proposed for change.
Not applicable. The districts are existing and established.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment
necessary.
As previously stated, this amendment is necessary to eliminate the inconsistency between the PUD
and the approved and recorded plat. The DC -1 Cottage area was approved for 60 dwelling units
but only 15 were built. The proposed amendment relocates rights to build 15 of the unused
Lely Barefoot Beach PUD, PUDA- PL2009 -742
November 23, 2010
Page 6 of 12
residential units from DC -1 Cottage area to Unit 1, Blocks A -K. The Plat for Unit 1 was approved
in 1978 for 132 lots and all have been sold, however the PUD presently allocates only 91 dwelling
units in Unit 1. This amendment will allow 106 single - family units in Unit 1, Blocks A -K.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
The amendment will not add more dwelling units, but will only allow for the transfer of 15
residential dwelling units from one residential tract to another residential tract. Therefore, Staff is
of the opinion that the proposed change will not adversely impact the living conditions in the
neighborhood.
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 proposed amendment will not adversely impact traffic circulation.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
The proposed amendment will not affect drainage. Furthermore, the residential sites are subject to
the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
The PUD requires compliance with building setbacks and single -story height restrictions as
identified in PUD document. When meeting these requirements, light and air will not be reduced
to adjacent properties.
10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent
area.
Staff is of the opinion this PUD amendment will not adversely impact property values.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
The adjacent properties as well as existing properties will continue to be developed in accordance
with the existing PUD regulations.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
Lely Barefoot Beach PUD, PUDA- PL2009 -742
November 23, 2010
Page 7 of 12
\
The proposed PUD amendment does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with ~
the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with
plans are in the public interest.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
with existing zoning.
The subject property can be developed within existing PUD regulations.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
county.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD amendment is not 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.
There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this
is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a PUD amendment. The
petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does
not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would ,.-....,
be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the
proposed zoning classification.
Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require site alteration and these
residential sites will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development
regulations during the building permit process.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as defined and
implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance.
The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate
Public Facilities for and the project. It must be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives
of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by county staff
that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and that
staff has concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted.
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall
deem important in the protection of the public health, safety and welfare.
To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing.
,.-....,
Lely Barefoot Beach PUD, PUDA-PL2009-742
November 23,2010
Page 8 of 12
~ PUD FINDINGS:
LDC Subsection 1O.02.13.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.
As previously stated, the property is already developed with residential uses. The re-allocation of
residential dwelling units should not have a negative impact upon any physical characteristics of
the land, the surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities.
Furthermore, this project, if developed, will be required to comply with all county regulations
regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities pursuant to Section 6.02.00 Adequate Public
Facilities of the LDC.
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.
~
Documents submitted with the application provided satisfactory evidence of unified control. The
PUD document and the general LDC development regulations make appropriate provisions for the
continuing operation and maintenance of common areas.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and
policies of the GMP (GMP).
County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives
and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis,
staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP.
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include
restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening
requirements.
The currently approved development, landscaping and buffering standards were determined to be
compatible with the adjacent uses and with the use mixture within the project itself when the PUD
was approved. Staff believes that this amendment will not change the project's compatibility,
both internally and externally, with the proposed re-allocation of residential dwelling units.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
~
The existing open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC.
Lely Barefoot Beach PUD, PUDA-PL2009-742
November 23,2010
Page 9 of 12
~
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
As previously stated, this PUD is over 30 years old and is mostly developed. The project
development must be in compliance with all other applicable concurrency management regulations
when development approvals are sought.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
The residential lots are already platted and are ready to accommodated construction/expansion.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in
the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting
public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.
As mentioned earlier, this PUD is existing and the re-allocated residential units will conform with
existing PUD regulations.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The applicant duly noticed and held the required meeting on October 27, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. at the
Lely Barefoot Beach Clubhouse, 195 Barefoot Beach, Bonita Springs, Florida. Approximately 24 "".........,
people and the applicant, agent and County Staff attended the meeting.
The applicant's agent explained the purpose of the PUD amendment is to correct a discrepancy
between the PUD and the recorded plat for the Beach Gardens (aka Lely Barefoot Beach Unit 1,
Blocks A-K). The PUD only authorizes 91 dwelling units to be constructed in the Beach Gardens.
However, there may be as many as 106 buildable lots in the Beach Gardens (132 lots were
originally platted).
Without the PUD amendment there could be some lot owners in the Beach Gardens who could not
build a home because the PUD limit of 91 dwelling units is less than the number of buildable lots
in the Beach Gardens area. After the 91 st home is built, any property owner who applies for a
building permit for a new home will be denied by the Collier County. (That is a first come, first
served basis.)
The PUD allows 60 dwelling units to be built in the area where the Cottages at Barefoot Beach are
located. However, only 15 were constructed, which left 45 dwelling units unused. Lely
Development Corporation, the original developer, owned the rights to those 45 units and assigned
them to Barefoot Beach Property Owners Association (POA).
The PUD Amendment will correct the conflict between the PUD and the Plat by re-allocating 15
authorized, but unbuilt dwelling units from the Cottages area to the Beach Gardens area. The PUD
application request is for 15 of the 45 unused dwelling units from the Cottages area to be re-
allocated to the Beach Gardens.
~
Lely Barefoot Beach PUD, PUDA-PL2009-742
November 23,2010
Page 10 of 12
~
Gene Winfieldt, President of POA, explained that the problem came to be as a result of original
developer's failure to allocate density correctly. Former Boards considered rectifying the problem.
However, it is an extremely difficult problem and a decision was made not to address it. Joe
Schmitt, former Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator, requested
that POA correct the problem by amending the PUD in order to avoid future problems.
The meeting concluded at approximately 6:45 p.m.
Synopsis provided by Bruce Anderson, Esquire, and edited by Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for Petition PUDA-2009-742, revised on
November 23,2010.
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning
Commission forward Petition PUDA-PL2009-AR-742 to the Board of County Commissioners
with a recommendation of approval of this amendment.
~
~
Lely Barefoot Beach PUD. PUDA-PL2009-742
November 24, 2010
Page 11 of12
PREPARED BY:
r'\
U CH, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
T OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
-1J~. (0) Q1)[Q
DATE
REVIEWED BY:
~(). ~JL-
RAYMO V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
It~.z.?--(O
DATE
II. 2. s.~ 201 ()
DATE
~
APPROVED BY:
/1- 3D .., /0
NICK CASALANGUIDA, DE TY ADMINISTRATOR
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
DATE
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
DATE
Tentatively scheduled for the February 8, 2011 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
Attachments:
Attachment A: Ordinance
~
Lely Barefoot Beach PUD, PUDA-PL2009-742
November 19, 2010
Page 12 of 12
.---
ORDINANCE NO. 10 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 85-83, AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING NO. 85-21, WHICH AMENDED NO. 77-48, THE
LEL Y BAREFOOT BEACH PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT (PUD) BY AMENDING THE TITLE PAGE;
BY AMENDING SECTION 3.2 TO INCREASE THE
MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS WlTmN BLOCKS A
THROUGH K OF BAREFOOT BEACH UNIT #1 BY 15
UNITS; BY AMENDING SECTION 13.5 TO DECREASE THE
MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS WITHIN DEVELOPMENT
CORRIDOR DC-I OF LEL Y BAREFOOT BEACH SOUTH BY
15 UNITS; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on September 27, 1977, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
Ordinance No. 77-48, as amended, which established the Lely Barefoot Beach Planned Unit
Development ("PUD"); and
WHEREAS, Bruce Anderson, Esquire of Roetzel & Andress, P.A., petitioned the Board
".-..." of County Commissioners to amend Ordinance No. 85-83, the relevant amendment to Ordinance
No. 77-48, the Lely Barefoot Beach PUD.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.2 TO INCREASE MAXIMUM
DWELLING UNITS.
3.2 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS
A maximum of 9+ 106 single family homesites may be constructed within platted Lely
Barefoot Beach Unit #1, Blocks A through K.
SECTION TWO:
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 13.5 TO DECREASE MAXIMUM
PERMITTED DWELLING UNITS.
13.5 MAXIMUM PERMITTED DWELLING UNITS
DC-I eo 45
DC-2 15
~
Underlined text is added; Struck through text is deleted.
Page 1 of2
Lely Barefoot Beach / PUDA-PL2009-742
Rev. 11/30/10
Attachment A
DC-3 12
DC-4 10
TOTAL 91 82
The maximum number of dwelling units permitted on individual corridors may not be
increased. Dwelling units may be transferred to Tracts H and 1.
~
SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
PASSED AND DUL Y ADOPTED by super-majority vote by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this _ day of ,2010.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
By:
, Deputy Clerk
FRED W. COYLE, Chairman
",-........
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
Steven T. Williams <.-i ~
J '10.\0
Assistant County Attorney 1\"
CP\1 O-CPS-O 1050\17
",-........
Underlined text is added; Struek through text is deleted.
Page 2 of2
Lely Barefoot Beach I PUDA-PL2009-742
Rev. 11/30/10
AGENDA ITEM 9-8
~
eo1Ntr County
L-~ _
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION, PLANNING AND REGULATION
HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 16,2010
SUBJECT:
PETITION PUDZ-2007-AR-I1381, MARSILEA VILLAS RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD)
APPLICANT/AGENT:
Marsilea Villas, LLC
475 Price Court
Marco Island, Florida 34145
Tim Hancock, AICP
Davidson Engineering, Inc.
3530 Kraft Road, Suite 301
Naples, Florida 34105
~
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a rezone of
the subject 1O.25:t acre site from the Rural Agriculture (A) zoning district with a Special
Treatment Overlay (A-ST) to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district
with removal of the Special Treatment Overlay for a project to be known as the Marsilea Villas
RPUD.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is located approximately Y2 mile west of Livingston Road and approximately
1.5 miles north of Immokalee Road. It is surrounded by Royal Palm International Academy PUD
to the north, east and west; to the south is Imperial Golf Estates Unit 5, in Section 13, Township 48
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See Location Map on following page.)
PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
~
This petition seeks to convert 10.25 acres of vacant, undeveloped land zoned Rural Agricultural
(A) to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). The PUD proposes the development of no
more than 27 single-family detached residential units with a density of 2.63 dwelling units per
acre. The buildings will not exceed two stories and will have a zoned height of 35 feet and an
actual height of 47 feet. Ingress/egress is currently gained from one access point at the recently
Marsilea Villas RPUD, PUDZ-2007-11381
December 6, 2010
Page 1 of 16
2 .~
0
W
I-!;(
(j) 0
0
-'
0..
<(
~
g (9
" Z
c( ~
;; Z
~
.., 0
Ii. ~
tJ) N
a:
Q~
:::l~
cq
a:i!l
~I
i1tn
c~~ I
~!l~ I
..
_J
I
I
~ ~
Q " ~
:::l i ~ i
Q. ~ " i
~ ~
is ~ \1
~ ~ "
g~
Q.c
a:!
:nvos OJ. .LON / -.-
-
~~ S S
~~ :~ el*
0 N~= C
"" N m"~ ~~
.~ " n~~ ~! U1
~lii ~5 N~~
~W a= i " ~ ~
I~
NOUlNILNffi.l ~o
sn1:l AHi.NIlOO 11' .:f'lOO SOOaM. SS3l:lciA.:l ~~
~"
1-2
00 i~
w-
-,!;( ~! lO
~ 00 ~~
a:O ~~
11..-,
i~
~ g~
!i 5
'"
~h- ;ll ~ ~
~:z"'"
>-
f-
Z
;:)
0 <
U ~
~
~
w ~
w ::
-J
!
<i
8-
ana
avOl:l3L.L31Oooo
3~\f ocr
~
'"
~
<
~
z
Iii
~~
i!~
(U'.S'n) 11Vt1J. 1M'1W\f.L
TAMlAMl
41
~
N
~~i ~
~lD___
00
C')
~
~
,
a::
<(
l"-
e
e
N
N ~
0
::l
c..
'It:
Z
0
r-
I-
UJ
c..
0..
<(
~
z
o
I-
<(
()
o
....J
~
~\
I-
~
~~ ~ffi
""'w ::Is:
~j!: Hl
~~ ~~
ii!w Cz:
tit: ~~
81 ~~
WW ;ii!~
mrt I'Z'
e~ l!!8
,. ~ !:l;
~~ ~~ -l
em ~~ ~
;~ i~ffi ~ a
t:~ ~~~ ~>- >-
~~ ~:g ~~~ g
~D..o.f3og :lEe..> .-
en zw~ ~::CL ~<( g
~ ~e~ ~*~ ~ ~
<_r= >~(,) ~!~ ~ \oJ
~ ~ > ~og Q0W 0 ~
1 nJ~~f~~~~:l~ r':-~"'~-~l
- C' "lot;$:" "}..". ~ 81.................. I <!PRESERVE .~
~ lFfi~~-L~~~~l~:f~lli fi""'-> --=~l' :
~~ i q ~Iii ~llJ l\lJ.' en !. I
o ~---!. It- en en ~ 'y i-- W ': - Co w
~ Iii I': '" , "" I: I . ~ '"
ifU) -Ij ..g r' I ~ W u.. ~ .. ~o~
~ I Ii ' '!!!. ~ " Ii ri: 13!5
o _I: --.J ,I"--.J : w ~ < II - ln~m
:@ IH <( :!<>- <( \j ~...s
:! I- I: ~!il ...J ...... :i
Ii z : ~~ ol! C"! '11
,I W : 8::5 ~
II I c( m -H
:i EJ 0 EJ ~ -
II \
,: en' /I
:! '.....-----r.----~------------- -----,,/ j
:1 LU . ~ ouJJ i
:j 0:: :~ N3 j
I: . 9 I
!l 0:: : ~ !
I: 10 EJ :
n : ~ <r- !
ll~;a! <El 110 i
m~ :1 o~e; f(;l !
'<'" " "0'" ~ :
~ote II !;(~8:~ '
>-~u.., It-~"'<e
~~~ - q >~8~
;j I',!il.. m
i:1 ~~~
- I:
Ii
..
<J:
wt-
~~
"':.:
~~
-';S:
Ow
~~ci
::;;_w
z~Q
-::>>
::;;00
~t5~
~a~
",<t-
t-",en
mw~
o::~a:::
8~8
00::0
WU.W
C>(t)Cl
ii"'ii
<U.<
"0"
fn~~
~m~
~rg
~~~
..:wu
_l<" ..:
~~~
1 ~:
~ ~:
o
W
t-
Z
<
~ :~
"'~
-,0-:
~~
(/J~
wo
>..;
ffio
mc13
0::0
0..0
0""
wo
t-t-
~~
0..0
WO::
0::0
wO
~~
!:QW en ::!:zl--W
~~ ~<f~S58
"'ili ;1;6;1;50..::
C3a::WCJ):E~-J~UJ
~~~~~~~~~
~~r&:~~~~z~
~m~g;~~~~lD
W ~ (3 a w ~ t-.ir g; uj
~D..-1w>-~~D..=-1-
~~~~~(J)m~:n~
wl--t5wa::=!~a..a:~
tt~<(H:~~w~M:l~
~E~i$~~~<i~~
w~<(w!:!:ffi~~::!w
a..o~Q.oCJ)a:::--Ja::
~gffi~~~ffi~~~
@d~~i:;5~ft<~~
~~g:::s~t:~t5~~
N
en
w
0::
~
~
ci
~
<
::>
o
w
w
~
0::
~
W
t-
e;;
--'
il ~
~
o
w
o
[fi~~
(Ja..
<0
Q.w
U)~
5~
o
w
~
~
~
--...
I-
Z
0 :::J
~ en
w
u
<(
a..
rn
C\l
.:i
>< ~
<( f2
:2
rg
Z
:::J
W ,...
...I ~
! ...J
<(
1=
(!) z
z w
I 0
wCi5
cnw
Q.:::J~
<1
U
.!!. co m ,... it) lO
~ lO ~ C'! C\l
cO ci ci
......
<
.:i
~
f2
w
...I
~ ...J
I- ~ w
W I- ~ ~
U) Z
;:) w
0 w w
Q Ci5 rn w u..
~ w ~ u..
~ ~ ~ :::J
a.. /XI
~
en
<
w
!il
w
ii:
w
en
ll!
0..
ol!
0::
o
--,u.
<:.:
~~
;1;t-
o::w
0.. en
o::w
0> .
u.a::f3
",Wo::
;f~~
",0::0
tu~~
en-t-
~ u)~
a::~o::
~~2
Woen
ff~~
lnl-()
Nen<(
i
,..:
z
w
:l!:
w
en
<
w
w
o
z
<
z
W
t-
Z
<(
::;;
w
:.:
<
....
u.;
:l!:
....
D........'.... 0"
'-..'.:' ...
~ ~ """.:, . . .
fi1,.",
<(00
>-<'"
~~~
","'-
..;
.,;
.;
:J.
z
o
;::
<
IE>-
o~~
::>zo
0..-<
:l!:o
;;'<
0..
....
<
>-
~
EJ
: u.. t- ~"z
- -----------t----~-~Q~~-------
!i~... ~ <cW MC)ffli=~ D::>-ffi
;~~_J g ~~~ lJl~~~15 ~!illil
wli~ ~~~ lr:ffienfjjm Q~::
26 ~~m ~w~aio ~5~
<1 - ~"'~
;,:,. Ct~~dj~,~~": ,
--;,- , -_._j"".f~-~;-~Z->~4--
1~*a_6 G~) . .:!~:'t_~,-Q-\:<
. . W~ ^
.., <( ..
...2J.2 ~%. ".
;..~.'\
fa\'Nol.~
1t~'\\'
SOh.: ''......< CI
. ., M~C;'
,- CX~r~~-w.,. i' _Q~i\01 ~~"~-"'~"1 0'.
.. ...... <t>I' :i'
QaIf <:wi -l ~..'.~~ ~""l.
~."._,-~~:~~_D: rhh
ci
a:
Zz
~Q
(/)t;
C)w
~Z~
;?:Z
~8~
Ws:
(/)0
~a:
o
a:
a.
<1
ol!
Fi~O!/~~'.
fJ{
, ,.~
..~
:lIIir'i'
......
1!rY_~
3L
J.Q3rw9t~~ O<<llRll ~mpantLOl)-iO.~l.I8\OC\d\B&KHlOSIlWI.~~8IIfPW\..z
~~;)~
:E:
'"
-'
<
Z
o
!;'
ffi~
Ot-W
~~~
:l!:o
:J.<
0..
<i!
,.
o
0::
d
z..
-~
....
,,~
Z~
i~..
1&1 .~
1&1 :l "
Z~!
_Z...
.11 ~ fJ
V:;c-
=~~=
Z~511
O~~d
U)C"Z
aiie
- N,.
> -Z
..ll:!l!:
.... C> 0 :IE
a5! i: 8
WZ!::.'
0:
CIl:
ae~
~c.
o~
~
:::a:
~<4
_t-
t:z
U
o
..J
~
~,.
o:;:l
~~~
0''''
..o"'~
ffi~~ .
:I ;2'"
u o~
~~~
:X::oz
~o
:x::~
E-<:;;!
renamed and vacated Entrada Avenue. (petition numbers PL-2009-2385 and PL-201O-1595)
~
The Master Plan as provided on the previous page of this Staff Report depicts generalized areas of
development, water management, and traffic/pedestrian circulation. The Master Plan also shows
that 6.58 acres will be residential area, 1.27 acres will be lake area, .51 acres will be buffer area,
and 1.89 acres along the north boundary of the site will be set aside as a preserve area. Notes on
the Master Plan reinforce the petitioner's intention to comply with code for 60 percent open space,
landscaping, preservation area and project design.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: Vacant, undeveloped with a zoning designation of Royal Palm International Academy
PUD, a mixed-use educational and residential PUD approved at 3.4 dwelling units per acre.
East: Vacant, undeveloped with a zoning designation of Royal Palm International Academy
PUD, a mixed-use educational and residential PUD approved at 3.4 dwelling units per acre.
South: A park, then single-family dwellings; zoned RSF-3 (Residential Single-family) at 3
dwelling units per acre.
West: Vacant, undeveloped with a zoning designation of Royal Palm International Academy
PUD, a mixed-use educational and residential PUD approved at 3.4 dwelling units per acre.
~
~
AERIAL PHOTO
Marsilea Villas RPUD, PUDZ-2007-11381
December 6.2010
Page 4 of 16
..
~ GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): Comprehensive Planning has found the proposed rezone
consistent with the FLUE. For further reference, please see Attachment B: Future Land Use
Element Consistency Review Memorandum, dated June 18, 2010.
As to Policy 6.5, the Historic Archeological Preservation Board recommended approval of the
Historical Survey waiver request as the site is not located in an area of historical/archaeological
probability.
Transportation Element:
Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has
determined that this project can be found consistent with policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element
of the Growth Management Plan.
Livingston Road Impacts:
The first concurrency link that is impacted by this project is Link 51, Livingston Road from
Immokalee Road to Imperial Drive (Lee County Line). The project generates 13 PM peak hour,
peak direction trips on this link, which represents a 0.4 percent impact on Livingston Road.
This concurrency link reflects a remaining capacity of 2,039 trips in the adopted DRAFT 2010
~ AUIR (Annual Urban Inventory Report) and is at Level of Service "B."
Conservation and Coastal Management Element:
This project is consistent with the objectives of Policy 2.2.2 of Objective 2.2 of the Conservation
and Coastal Management Element of the GMP in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality
and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing interconnected dry detention area(s), lake(s) and
a wetland(s) to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events.
The site is a residential development larger than 5 acres in size in a non-coastal high hazard area.
Per Policy 6.1.1, the site is required to preserve 15 percent of the native vegetation on the property.
The site contains 4.98 acres of native communities. As a result, the site is required to preserve
0.75 acres. The project is proposing to preserve 1.23 acres of native vegetation and 0.66 acres of
non-native areas. As such the site meets the standards of Policy 6.1.1.
In accordance with Policy 6.1.1(2), the Marsilea Villas project has aligned the preserve along the
northern property boundary. This will allow for the largest contiguous core area and reduce the
interface between the preserve and development. A portion of the preserve will include restoration
in all three strata and the remainder will include preservation of species in all three strata.
In accordance with Policy 6.1.1(4) (V) a, the alignment of the preserve along the properties north
boundary provides a wildlife corridor for movement of species between the project and the off-site
_____ Royal Palm Academy preserve west of the property. Protected species were not observed on site.
However, this can be used for any wildlife that may exist in the area.
Marsilea Villas RPUD, PUDZ-2007-11381
December 6, 2010
Page 5 of 16
ANALYSIS:
~
Staff 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 I., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as
"Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The
CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the 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 Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
document to address any environmental concerns. Staff recommends approval.
Transportation Review: Transportation Department staff has reviewed this petition and has
recommended approval subject to the petitioner accepting responsibility for maintenance of the
roadway serving this project. The petitioner has agreed and this commitment is included in PUD
Exhibit "F' "Developer Commitments."
Utility Review: The Utilities Department staff has reviewed the petition and has stated that this
project is located within the Collier County Water/Sewer District and is subject to the conditions
associated with a Water and Sewer Availability Letter from the Collier County Utilities Division. ~
Any portions of this project to be developed shall be required to comply with the current
Ordinance 2004-31, Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures.
Currently, County potable water and sanitary sewer transmission mains are not in close proximity
to this development. The extension is the sole responsibility of the Developer. All water and
wastewater utilities constructed or extended within the Public right-of-way shall be conveyed to,
owned by, and maintained by Collier County Water-Sewer District.
The distance from Livingston Road to the new development is approximately 2,920 feet. The
nearest water and wastewater utility locations are on Livingston Road. Per GIS, there is an
existing 16-inch force main and 16-inch water main on Livingston Road.
Historic Preservation Review: As previously stated, the Preservation Board recommended
approval of the Historical Survey waiver request.
Emergency Management Review: The Emergency Management staff has reviewed the petition
and has stated that the Marsilea Villas RPUD 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 PUD increases the evacuation
and sheltering requirements for the County slightly.
Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) District Review: The proposed residential development is
within the Veterans Memorial Elementary, North Naples Middle, and Gulf Coast High School ~
attendance boundaries. It is estimated that the proposed project will generate a total of 10
Marsilea Villas RPUD, PUDZ-2007-11381
December 6, 2010
Page 6 of 16
,...-....
students: 4 elementary, 3 middle and 3 high school. At this time there is not sufficient capacity
within the Elementary and High School Concurrency Service Areas (CSA). There is sufficient
capacity within the Middle School CSA. At the time of site plan or plat, the development will be
reviewed for concurrency to ensure there is capacity and that the levels of service standards are not
exceeded. At that time, the most current student enrollment will be used and the capacity within
adjacent CSA's will be evaluated if necessary. This analysis should not be considered a reservation
of capacity or a determination of concurrency.
Zoning and Land Development Review: As depicted on the PUD Master Plan, aerial photograph,
and the surrounding zoning discussion, the site will be separated from the Royal Palm
International Academy PUD to the north by a l00:t foot wide preserve area. The site will be
buffered from the proposed athletic fields of the Royal Palm International Academy PUD to the
east by a 15-foot wide Type B Landscape Buffer. The site will be separated from the single-
family residences in Imperial Golf Estates to the south by an existing 20 to 60-foot wide park. To
the west the site is separated by a designated preserve area located within the Royal Palm
International Academy PUD.
REZONE FINDINGS:
~
LDC Subsection 10.03.05 I. 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." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires
the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the
additional criteria as also noted below: Rezone findings are designated as RZ and PUD findings
are designated as PUD. (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in non-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 GMP.
The Comprehensive Planning Department has indicated that the proposed PUD amendment is
consistent with all applicable elements of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth
Management Plan (GMP).
2. The existing land use pattern.
As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed in the
zoning review analysis, the neighborhood's existing land use pattern can be characterized as mixed
-use residential. There is residential zoning to the south. To the west is a preserve; to the north is a
lake and to the east is a school. The land uses proposed in this PUD petition should not create
incompatibility issues.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
~
The subject parcel is of sufficient size that it will not result in an isolated district unrelated to
adjacent and nearby districts. It is also comparable with expected land uses by virtue of its
consistency with the FLUE of the GMP.
Marsilea Villas RPUD, PUDZ-2007-11381
December 6, 2010
Page 7 of 16
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the ~.
property proposed for change.
The district boundaries are logically drawn as discussed in Items 2 and 3 above.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment
necessary.
The growth and development trends, changing market conditions, specifically the development of
the site with residences, and the development of the surrounding area, support the proposed PUD.
This site is located within an area of development with a mixture of institutional and residential
uses projected for constructions. The proposed PUD rezoning is appropriate, as limited in the PUD
document and the PUD Master Plan based on its compatibility with adjacent land uses.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
The proposed change should not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood
because the existing neighborhood residences are buffered by the location of the preserve area and
the project buffering and screening. In addition, the development standards and landscaping
requirements contained in the PUD document are intended to mitigate any adverse impact to the
living conditions in this neighborhood if the proposed rezoning is approved.
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.
~
Evaluation of this project took into account the requirement for consistency with the applicable
policies of the Traffic Element of the GMP and the project was found consistent with those
policies. Additionally, the transportation commitment is contained in Exhibit "F' of the PUD
document.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
The proposed development will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore, the project is subject
to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
The proposed PUD will be required to meet building setbacks and single-story height restrictions
as identified in PUD document. When meeting these requirements, light and air will not be
reduced to adjacent properties.
~
Marsilea Villas RPUD, PUDZ-2007-11381
December 6, 2010
Page 8 of 16
----.. 10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent
area.
Staff is of the opinion this PUD amendment will not adversely impact property values. However,
zoning by itself mayor may not affect values, since value determination by law is driven by
market value.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
Property to the south of the subject site is already developed. The basic premise underlying all of
the development standards in the Land Development Code is that their sound application, when
combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives
reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or
development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a
deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan, a public policy statement
supporting Zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this
----.. fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the
FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with
plans are in the public interest.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
with existing zoning.
The subject property can be developed within existing Zoning.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
county.
Staff is of the OpInIOn that the proposed PUD is not out of scale with the needs of the
neighborhood. Furthermore, the proposed development complies with the Growth Management
Plan (as stipulated), a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land
uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban designated areas of Collier County.
15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in
districts already permitting such use.
There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this
is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The
petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does
~ not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition.
Marsilea Villas RPUD, PUDZ-2007-11381
December 6, 2010
Page 9 of 16
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would ~
be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the
proposed zoning classification.
Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require site alteration and these
residential sites will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development
regulations during the building permit process.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as defined and
implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance.
The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate
Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of
the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that
is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and that staff
has concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted.
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall
deem important in the protection of the public health, safety and welfare.
To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing.
PUD FINDINGS:
",..........,
LDC Subsection 1O.02.13.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 nearby area is developed or is approved for development of a similar nature. The petitioner
will be required to comply with all county regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other
utilities. In addition, the commitments included in the PUD exhibit adequately address the impacts
from the proposed development.
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.
Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office,
demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain
platting and/or site development plan approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate
r"..
Marsilea Villas RPUD, PUDZ-2007-11381
December 6, 2010
Page 10 of 16
~ stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, and maintenance of infrastructure will be
provided by the developer.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and
policies of the GMP.
County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives
and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis,
staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP.
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include
restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening
requirements.
The development standards, landscaping and buffering requirements contained in this petition are
designed to make the proposed uses compatible with the adjacent uses. The staff analysis
contained in the staff report support a finding that this petition is compatible, with the proposed
uses and with the existing surrounding uses. Additionally, the Development Commitments
contained in the PUD document provide additional guidelines the developer will have to fulfill.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
~
The open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
Currently, the roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this
time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation
Element consistency review. In addition, the project's development must comply with all other
applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
If "ability" implies supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal system, potable water
supplies, characteristics of the property relative to hazards, and capacity of roads, then the subject
property has the ability to support expansion based upon the commitments made by the petitioner
and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development
approvals are sought.
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.
~
Marsilea Villas RPUD, PUDZ-2007-11381
December 6, 2010
Page 11 of 16
The petitioner is seeking two deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose ~
and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06 A). This criterion
requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for
this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar
conventional zoning district. Staff believes the deviations proposed can be supported, finding that,
in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements
may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community"
and LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h., the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviations are "justified
as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such
regulations." Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report below for a more
extensive examination of the deviations.
Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking two deviations from general LDC requirements
and has provided justification in support of the deviations. Staff has analyzed the deviation
requests and provides the analysis and recommendations below:
Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 6.06.02 A.l., Sidewalks, and Bike Lane and
Pathway Requirements, which requires sidewalks on each side of a right-of-way terminating cul-
de-sac where there are more than 15 units fronting on said right-of-way, to allow for a sidewalk to
be constructed along one side of the proposed road. The proposed pathway encircling the proposed
lake will tie into the sidewalk adjacent to the road, achieving pedestrian circulation throughout the
site.
Petitioner's Rationale: This deviation seeks to provide a sidewalk on one side of the proposed 50' "-.....,,
private right-of-way. The LDC requirement to have a sidewalk on each side of this smaller and
private right-of-way in the planned residential community is unnecessary to fulfill the intent of
being pedestrian friendly. The applicant has proposed as an alternative to provide a pathway
encircling the proposed lake that will tie into the sidewalk adjacent to the road as a compromise to
the LDC requirement.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends
approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has
demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety
and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h., the petitioner has demonstrated
that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations."
Deviation # 2 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 6.06.01 0., which requires right-of-way for local
roads to be at least sixty feet (60') wide, to allow a minimum fifty foot (50') right-of-way or
roadway width for all project streets in the Marsilea Villas RPUD.
Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation that the LDC
required 60-foot right-of-way width is excessive and in order to conserve development area 50
feet is appropriate. The deviation would allow for a 24-foot wide drive with an additional 26 feet
of area for drainage and'utility easements, as well as a pedestrian walkway.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends ~
approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has
Marsilea Villas RPUD, PUDZ-2007-11381
December 6, 2010
Page 12 of 16
.-..... demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety
and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h., the petitioner has demonstrated
that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations."
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION l\1EETING (NIM):
First NIM:
Synopsis provided by Lisa Koehler, CDES Public Information Coordinator:
The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM for Marsilea RPUD Rezone on
November 26,2007 at 6:00 p.m. at North Naples Middle School. Approximately ten people from
the public attended, along with the applicant's team and county staff. Tim Hancock and Fred
Hood gave an overview of the proposed rezoning request.
The public's comments, questions, and concerns focused on buffering requirements, building
height, and preserve requirements.
The applicant's agents explained the project would be meeting the county's development standards
relating to storm water, traffic, and landscaping and that the project was still 2-3 years from being
developed.
~ Issues clarified by the agent were as follows:
1. The proposed rezoning would allow a maximum of 27 single family homes on 7.1 acres and
the remaining acreage would be preserve, water managements, streets, etc. They also clarified
after questions by the public that this would be single-family detached homes, not condos or
townhomes.
2. They would be maximizing preserve requirements by placing the preserve on the west side of
the property next to Royal Palm Academy preserve.
3. There will be a minimal impact on traffic and utility infrastructure.
4. They clarified that the maximum building height would be 35 feet which would allow for two
living stories.
5. A ten foot buffer is required and will be provided and they would consider adding a wall if the
neighbors desired one.
The meeting adjourned at 6:30
Second NIM:
Synopsis provided by Lea Derence, Technician:
,--.
The meeting was duly noticed by the applicant and held on October 1, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. at the
Collier County Public Library. Seven property owners attended, as well as the applicant's
Marsilea Villas RPUD, PUDZ-2007-11381
December 6, 2010
Page 13 of 16
representative, Tim Hancock, of Davidson Engineering, and county staff.
~
Tim Hancock gave an update on this project as it had been almost two years since the last
neighborhood information meeting. He explained that the access issue had been resolved and the
legal right of access for the project now exists from Livingston Road to the project site in
cooperation and in partnership with Imperial Golf Estates. Currently, the road is in the process of
being designed and constructed.
Mr. Hancock further explained that 27 homes are planned on each side of a single road. The
project will mirror a lot of the design standards of Imperial Golf Estates, such as, building height
being limited to 35 feet. The project doesn't contain affordable housing and is not subsidized.
Base density for this site is four units per acres. However, the project density will be 2.6 units per
acre which is comparable to the density of Imperial Golf Estates.
Additional assets noted by Mr. Hancock are as follows:
1. A 1.27 acre lake on the property that will handle storm water. All storm water on-site will
discharge to the west through the preserve to the historic surface flow-way then to the Gulf of
Mexico.
2. A preserve area of 1.89 acres.
~
3. A buffer that will be added between the school and project site.
3. A walkway or pathway that will be installed between Royal Palm Academy and the project
site.
The property owners in attendance had no questions or concerns.
Meeting ended at approximately 5:50 p.m.
Third NIM:
Synopsis provided by Fred Hood, of Davidson Engineering and edited by Nancy Gundlach, Collier
County Principal Planner:
The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the second NIM for Marsilea RPUD Rezone on
November 10, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. at the Collier County Regional Headquarters Regional Library.
Three people from the surrounding community attended, along with the applicant's project
manager and the County Planner.
Mr. Hood described the PUD application scope. The following are the points he discussed:
1. That the original plan discussed at the previous NIM is still intact.
2. That the application has been in review for several years due to a myriad of private negotiations
and additional application reviews. ",.-....,
Marsilea Villas RPUD, PUDZ-2007-11381
December 6, 2010
Page 14 of 16
~ 3. The application for rezone is to allow for no more than 27 single-family residential units to be
developed on the subject property.
4. The project will be sufficiently buffered from neighboring properties.
5. A preserve area in excess of the County requirement has been proposed.
6. Mr. Hood also informed the public that an application to vacate a 30-foot portion of an old
access easement along the southern edge of the subject property would be heard the next day at
the Board of County Commissioner's meeting.
The meeting ended at approximately 5:46 pm.
ENvmONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION:
The Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC) heard this petition on January 6,2010, and voted
unanimously to approve it with the following stipulations:
1. Within one year of clearing of the exotic vegetation in the preserves, a report shall be submitted
to County Staff providing evidence, including photographs, showing if re-vegetation is
occurring naturally or not within the preserves. If re-vegetation is not occurring naturally, then
additional re-vegetation measures may be required. The petitioner has agreed to submit a re-
~ vegetation planting plan at the time of application for plat or SDP and this is included in PUD
Exhibit "P' "Developer Commitments."
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-11381,
revised on December 3,2010.
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning
Commission forward Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-11381 to the Board of County Commissioners with
a recommendation that the rezoning request from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to
RPUD is approved.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Ordinance
Attachment B: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review, dated June 18,2010
Attachment C: EAC (Environmental Advisory Committee) Staff Report
~
Marsilea Villas RPUD, PUDZ-2007-11381
December 6, 2010
Page 15 of 16
PREPARED BY:
~
CH, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
T OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
~\ (~ ~
DATE
REVIEWED BY:
C;t/~ it-----
RAYMO V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
waLI~~=rOR
DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
/I L-z 'f iJO
I DA
It - 1,4 - ZoIO
DATE
~
APPROVED BY:
~~~
NICK CASA A GUIDA, PUTY ADMINISTRATOR
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
11-, ~ -lo
DATE
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
DATE
Tentatively scheduled for the February 8, 2011 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
Attachments:
Attachment A: Ordinance
~
Marsilea Villas RPUD, PUDZ-2007-11381
November 24, 2010
Page 16 of 16
ORDINANCE NO. 11-_
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
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 AN
AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT AND AGRICULTURAL
ZONING DISTRICT WITH A SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY
(A-ST) TO "RPUD" RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT WITH REMOVAL OF THE SPECIAL
TREATMENT OVERLAY, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO
27 SINGLE F AMIL Y DWELLING UNITS FOR THE PROJECT
KNOWN AS THE MARSILEA VILLAS RPUD, LOCATED WEST OF
LIVINGSTON ROAD (CR 881), IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CONSISTING OF 10.25 +/- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Tim Hancock, of Davidson Engineering, Inc., representing Marsilea Villas,
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 13,
Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from an Agricultural (A)
Zoning District and Agricultural Zoning District with a Special Treatment Overlay (A-ST) to
"RPUD" Residential Planned Unit Development, with removal of the Special Treatment
Overlay, to allow development of up to 27 single family dwelling units in accordance with the
Exhibits attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibits A through F. The
Marsilea Villas, LLC / PUDZ-2007-AR-11381
Rev. 12/03/10 Page 1 of2
Attachment A
..
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 DUL Y ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ,2011.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
By:
, Chairman
, Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
Heidi Ashton-Cicko
Assistant County Attomey
0(~\O
\~'?
Exhibit A - Permitted Uses
Exhibit B - Development Standards
Exhibit C - Master Plan
Exhibit D - Legal Description
Exhibit E - List of Requested Deviations from LDC
Exhibit F - Development Commitments
CP\07-CPS-00700\SO
MarsiIea Villas, LLC / PUDZ-2007-AR-I1381
Rev. 12/03/10 Page 2 of2
~
EXHIBIT B
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Table I (Exhibit B) below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the
proposed Residential PUD (RPUD) Subdistrict. Standards not specifically set forth
within this application shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect
as of the date of approval of the site development plan (SDP) or subdivision plat.
TABLE I - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
-...
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SINGLE F AMIL Y
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES
MINIMUM LOT AREA 6,000 SF
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 60 feet (interior lot) 70 feet
(comer lot)
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 1,000 SF (I story) 1,200 SF
(2 story)
MIN. FRONT YARD 15 feetl
MIN. SIDE YARD 7.5 feet
MIN. REAR YARD 20 feet
MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 15 feet
MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT (NOT TO EXCEED 35 feet (zoned)
2-STORIES) 47 feet (actual)
MIN. PRESERVE SETBACK 25 feet
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
FRONT S.P.S
SIDE S.P.S
REAR 10 feet
MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN PRINCIPAL AND 10 feet
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 35 feet (zoned)
47 feet (actual)
MIN. PRESERVE SETBACK 10 feet
I. In no case shall there be less than a clear area of23 feet between the back ofthe sidewalk and the face of the garage door,
-
SF = Square Feet or Foot
S,P.S, = Same as Principal Structures
Marsilea Villas RPUD
Revised: November 30,2010
Page 2 of7
"
~
BH = Building Height
GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth below shall be understood to be in relation
to individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures. Condominium and/or homeowners'
association boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development standards.
The minimum setback shall not be less than seven and a half feet (7.5') and the combined setback between
principal structures shall be at least fifteen feet (15'). At the time of the application for subdivision plat
approval for each tract, a lot layout depicting minimum yard setbacks and the building footprint shall be
submitted.
~
~
Marsilea Villas RPUD
Revised: November 30, 2010
Page 3 of7
Q)w I.oQ :i. "
'" ~.= ~;i~
~ ~~ z>;e ~
~ ~..;;;~;; w
~ :l :t~ww ~
eo t~t~~;
'" ~~~;;oti1 ..
~ ~
!J!r~5e~ '"
:L ..
~ ~'l'~ll!~:;; Ii!
~;~~~~ !
'" i~i5i~~ g
:i W?;~Ill!6a::
w ~c~~~*
~ l'Jffil/: ll! !5
~ id;~ii c
ro' "
~: E! ~
0 ..J~a. jooo
z - '"
...
o
~~ ~
lft~
uQ..
fo
rnW
~~ ~
o
W
0::
o
~
....
Z
::l
in
W
o
c(
Q..
(/)
N
.:.J
X ~
~ ~
~
~
...
!:!.
W
...I
III
~ ~
Z W
- 0
Imia
&:l.::l0::
~
EXHIBIT C
MASTER PLAN
w w U~ iii
<" w~ ~ ~
iE &1 ~~ :!i!<IJ ifU
U ~~ !; ~ ;zi~ !;!I I~I;
5~8 ~~ -:z uj _~tlfOo
U~!~ ~~ ~ ~~ :il~ I
~~Q; :?~~~;;; Uo ~, a ai
~tJ~ "lile: h i ;:\w Illlli ~15
m~~ ~!~ ig Ie U~ Jb~i. ~ 5
5~8 ~;;:;; @1? ~ ~~~ ~h! Iii ~> ~.
~~~ UI ~~ ~ ~j~ <3. 1:5; I~I i~! gi ~s~
I:~ ~~~ :;~ 3 ~~~ "'f uU h! ~ ~. ~h
i ~.~ <i ~i hU n~ g ~
: ._j~'___ ~i ~; ~ ~ ~
rT~'J~rm!f~~~~lir-l"~---~-~'----'l
~ l"'''IH~a.m''''''l!I~''''li.i>l''''"''''~ . <tPRESI'IIVE I
L-f,rUtU['ili~~F~~Fi~;t .=- - -->J
i l:l 'll" il4~1 ..../;;>i .. i'
~i~ ~,' "~tl!. rr( ~i ::; :t:~-_/ w 0:: ,.1 -".;,,:. : ~~~
; i:: ! f ;:;. ~ y i :'; ft ~~
.. ,,' i....J I . I!! .......... "I <j<;
:i!; i ::!; II :!~ ~ ,... , j
~ i! ! ffi 1 i Ii ~ ~ j u I
L L 8 i 91 ~J ,--j,--~-_______~_j j j o~~
Q;;:~ L I,. ff11 b,'," '. ~ .ri~
~ i ~ 1 i 0:: : ~ ,,~, I r.
l< i ,,; j J . : ~ :! ~
;t' '..", :'"] 1 if
,. I, : .... . & r.:1 .
~ i I \ !!l b ~
i: ~;t \ <l! ~~r-=---- ~ ~, !
n~~ ~ ~Uj, "-''---. i N -" . ~ :~.m
~~"i:k~~:': 8 ~;jffil: R.
"'5 .. r ;.all I: ~~~-.:- Q.~ I
I, Sf I l :; ~ ~.. '. I ~ _-
~~h~,~'~7?7~/''//7Ck.d.1
, u. ~ !a:z --t
-. L~ '~g~z~'~ g"'if!- .
~" .. ~~L1 ~~ n. c
~ ~ . '-1l-~. ~~~~g ~
3 ! ~;;i w~ffi~ ~~~
J ~~ ~:r~ ~~i
~' Ol~~ ~~ffl
0:, ~~~ ~~~
<; ~f= ~:f~
~. DCl "'-')
"'. '," I'"
~ ,- ..1 ii~~l
If,' l:.:.:J
...
t~ :! ·
~ I!:
&.5~
.-~~:
:~a!
I;' . n -1 1 ~~~-
r; ~ i-~~;
~~~j ~~~
U
III 0> w;~
co ...
i It) <<! "!
cO '0
... ... 0...
.:.J
~
~
w
! -'
~ W
w &: ~
(/) z
;:) W W W
0
Q ii.j (/) W LL
S w :.c LL
W 0:: ~ ::l
0:: Q.. CD
Marsilea Villas RPUD
Revised: November 30,2010
g
~z
....Q
~t
~~ i
::i 5,"
cu-
l}:~
~a::
o
a::
lL
-E
~
~
E,...~...
..
d
Zs
-.l
Ii
i~1
lUoi ~
Iii
o~a.
Z~~
IU~ I
IlIi
e Ie
~ii~
aiU
Wz,
0'
a~
~I
Q:
~
11.,
<.
:o!
~i",
-jf-:
~!Z
U'
oj
...JJ
~
...
85
S !!3
o~~
!i~l'rt.
:>Z"in
~~It
=~~
~(,,;
=3:
....
~
Page 4 of7
~
EXHIBIT D
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE WEST ~ OF THE SOUTHWEST 1,4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1,4 OF THE
SOUTHWEST 1,4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AND
THE EAST ~ OF THE SOUTHWEST 1,4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1,4 OF THE
SOUTHWEST 1,4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
SAID PARCELS CONTAIN 446,670 SQUARE FEET OR 10.25 ACRES MORE OR
LESS.
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS OF RECORD AND
TAXES FOR CURRENT AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS
~
r
Marsilea Villas RPUD
Revised: November 30,2010
Page 50f7
-"
~
EXHIBIT E
LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC
1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.l Sidewalks, and Bike Lane
and Pathway Requirements, which requires sidewalks on each side of a right-of-way
terminating cul-de-sac where there are more than 15 units fronting on said right-of-
way, to allow for a sidewalk to be constructed along one side of the proposed road.
The proposed pathway encircling the proposed lake will tie into the sidewalk adjacent
to the road, achieving pedestrian circulation throughout the site.
2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.0, which establishes the
minimum right-of-way widths to be utilized, to establish that all internal roadways
shall be subject to a 50 foot right-of-way configuration.
,,-..
~
Marsilea Villas RPUD
Revised: November 30, 2010
Page 6 of7
"-....,,
EXHIBIT F
DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL
A. The minimum native preservation requirement shall be 0.75 acres (4.98 acres
existing indigenous vegetation x 15% = 0.75 acres to be preserved). The proposed
native vegetation preserved per the master concept plan is 1.89 acres (1.23 acres
of native area + 0.66 acres non-native area)
B. Perimeter berms and swales shall be located on the development side of the
preserve boundary.
C. No structures or berms shall be placed between on-site and off-site preserves.
D. Native plantings in all three strata shall be required to be added to the preserve
areas where there is removal of non-native and/or nuisance vegetation. A planting
plan shall be submitted at the time of application for plat or SDP immediately
following the approval of the rezone.
1.2 UTILITIES
All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure
the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities in compliance with
applicable regulations in effect at the time approvals are requested.
/""""\
1.3 TRANSPORTATION
At no time shall the County be required to accept maintenance responsibility for the
roadway serving this project.
,..........
Marsilea Villas RPUD
Revised: November 30, 2010
Page 70f7
i
~
cafMr County
Memorandum
To: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section
From: David Weeks, AlCP, Growth Management Plan Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section
Date: June 18,2010
Sub.iect: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review - 2nd memo
PETITION NUMBER: PUDZ-2007-AR-I1381
PETITION NAME: Marsilea Villas
REQUEST: Rezone the 10.25 acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural (A) to Residential PUD
(RPUD) for the development of27 single-family residential units, at a gross density of2.63 DUlAC.
~
LOCATION: The site is located approximately ~ mile west of Livingston Road and approximately
1.5 miles north oflmmokalee Road, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. It is surrounded
by Royal Palm International Academy PUD to the north, east and west; adjacent to the south is
Imperial Golf Estates Unit 5.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban
- Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the
Growth Management Plan (GMP). It is also within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency
Management Area, as identified in the Transportation Element of the GMP. Relevant to this petition,
this Subdistrict permits residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of four (4)
residential units per gross acre, and recreation and open space uses.
FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area.
Compr~p.ensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of
the petition in its entirety.
Since this project is within Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area, the following
policies shall be addressed for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable.
Policy 6.3
In order to be exempt from link specific concurrency, new residential development or redevelopment
within Collier County's designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (I'CMAsj shall
utilize at least two of the following Transportation Demand Management (I'DM) strategies, as may be
applicable:
aj Including neighborhood commercial uses within a residential project.
~
Page 1 of3
Attachment B
'-;
b) Providing transit shelters within the development (must be coordinated with Collier County
Transit).
c) Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connections to adjacent commercial ~
properties.
d) Including affordable housing (minimum of 25% of the units) within the development.
e) Vehicular access to adjacent commercial properties.
[Staff Comment: Neither the PUD master plan nor the PUD document, nor the application addresses this
issue. Therefore, this project win be subject to link specific concurrency. Comprehensive Planning Staff
defers to Transportation Planning Staff for determination of consistency with the Transportation
Element.]
Policy 6.4
All rezoning within the Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (I'CMAs) is encouraged to be
in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Any development contained in a TCMA, whether
submitted as a PUD or non-PUD rezone shall be required to be consistent with the native vegetation
preservation requirements contained within Policy 6.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management
Element.
[Staff Comment: This project was submitted as a PUD. Comprehensive Planning Staff defers to
Environmental staff for more detailed review for compliance with CCME requirements.]
Policy 6.5
All new development, infill development or redevelopment within a Transportation Concurrency
Management Area is subject to the historical and archaeological preservation criteria, as contained in
Objective 11.1 and Policies 11.1.1 through 11.1.3 of the Conservation and Coastal Management
Element.
[Staff Comment: This project site is undeveloped with no improvement. Comprehensive Planning Staff
defers to Zoning Services staff for more detailed review for compliance with historical and archaeological
preservation requirements.]
,,-....,
In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier
County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects,
where applicable.
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.
[Staff Comment: As depicted on the master plan and TIS, the project does not abut an arterial road, but
the proposed new road will connect to an arterial road, Livingston Road.]
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.
[Staff Comment: As depicted on the Master Plan, a single access point onto a new road connecting to
Livingston Road is provided to this 27 unit project. Given the small size of the project, a loop road may
not be feasible, and is not shown on the PUD Master Plan or conceptual Water Management Plan.]
Policy 7. 3
All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their ~
interconnection point with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type.
Page 2 00
i
I
:
[Staff Comment: An onsite preserve is to be located along the northern boundary (with a proposed
sidewalk interconnection through it to the property to the north). Property to the south is developed with
~ single family homes abutting the subject site. Land to the west is a preserve within the Royal Palm
International Academy PUD, and land to the east is depicted as recreation area on the Master Plan of
that same PUD. Accordingly, road interconnections to surrounding properties are not 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.
[Staff Comment: Given the small size of the project, there is minimal opportunity to provide different
types of housing or blended density. This project does show lake and preserve areas and, since no
deviation is requested, will be required to provide open space per LDC requirements. Exhibit E indicates
a waiver for sidewalk requirement on both sides of cul-de-sac; it is to be replaced with requirement to
provide sidewalk on one side of street, to provide pathway around the project's lake, and to connect that
pathway with the street side sidewalk. Based upon the alternative language and small size of the project,
staff finds this acceptable.]
CONCLUSION:
Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the Future Land
Use Element.
(ON CD PLUS)
~
cc: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Services Section
Mike Bosi, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Section
CD PUDZ-2007 -AR-11381 Marsilea Villas - memo #2
G:IConsistency Reviews\20071PUDZ
by-dwI6-18-10
~
Page 3 00
. .
~.#.
~
Item VLA.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF Januarv 6. 2010
I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT
Petition No.: PUDZ-2007-AR-I1381
Petition Name: Marsilea Villas
ApplicantlDeveloper: Marsilea Villas, LLC
Engineering Consultant: Davidson Engineering
Environmental Consultant: Boylan Environmental Consultants
II.
LOCATION
~
The site is located west of Livingston Road and approximately 1.5 miles north of
Immokalee Road in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier
County, Florida.
III.
DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
The subject site is surrounded by Royal Palm International Academy PUD to the
north/east/west and adjacent to the south is Imperial Golf Estates Unit 5. The
adjacent land to the North is currently vacant PUD, to the south is RSF-3 (Single
Family Homes), to the east is PUD (Vacant), and to the PUD (Vacant). The
present land use is vacant land, and the proposed use of the property is Residential
Subdivision.
ZONING
DESCRIPTION
N - PUD
Royal Palm International Academy
S - RSF-3
Imperial Golf Estates residential subdivision
E - PUD
Royal Palm International Academy
W-PUD
Royal Palm International Academy
~
Attachment C
EAC Meeting
"
Page 2 of 12
.~
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The petitioner is requesting to rezone 10.25 acres from the A (Agriculture) and A-
ST (Agriculture-Special Treatment) Zoning District to the Residential Planned
Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District at a density of 2.63 dwelling units per
acre for a maximum of 27 dwelling units.
V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY
A. Future Land Use Element
The subject property is designated Urban (Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban
Residential Subdistrict), and is within Transportation Concurrency Management
Area (TCMA), as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth
Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits
residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of four (4)
residential units per gross acre and recreation and open space uses. This project
requested a density of2.6 units per acre. ~
FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the
surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to
Zoning and Land Development Review as part of their review of the petition in its
entirety .
Since this project is within Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management
Area, the following policies shall be addressed for new development and
redevelopment projects, where applicable.
Policy 6.3
In order to be exempt from link specific concurrency, new residential
development or redevelopment within Collier County's designated Transportation
Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) shall utilize at least two of the
following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, as may be
applicable: (Staff Comment: This project mav be subject to link specific
concurrencv. Comprehensive Planninf! Staff defers to Transportation Planninf!
Staff for a findinf! of project consistencv with these measures)
~
....
EAC Meeting
Page 3 of 12
a) Including neighborhood commercial uses within a residential project.
b) Providing transit shelters within the development (must be coordinated
with Collier County Transit).
c) Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connections to adjacent
commercial properties.
d) Including affordable housing (minimum of 25% of the units) within the
development.
e) Vehicular access to adjacent commercial properties.
Policy 6.4
All rezoning within the Transportation Concurrency Management Areas
(TCMAs) is encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD).
Any development contained in a TCMA, whether submitted as a PUD or non-
PUD rezone shall be required to be consistent with the native vegetation
preservation requirements contained within Policy 6.1.1 of the Conservation and
Coastal Management Element. (Staff Comment: This project was submitted as a
PUD. Comprehensive Plannim! Staff defers to Environmental staff for more
detailed review for compliance with CCME reauirements)
In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development
character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new
development and redevelopment projects, where applicable.
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. (Staff Comment: As depicted on the master plan and
TIS, the project does not abut an arterial road, but the proposed new road will
connect to the arterial road, Livim!ston Road. The provision of the proposed
ril!ht-of-wav will serve as the connection of the Imperial Golf Estates and
Marsilea villa to Livinl!ston Road. A sidewalk connection will be provided from
the proposed development to the proposed ril!ht-of-wav)
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. (Staff Comment: As depicted on the Master Plan. a
sinl!le access point onto a new road connectinl! to Livinl!ston Road is provided
to this 27 unit project. Given the small size of the project, a loop road mav not
be feasible, and is not shown on the PUD Map or conceptual WM Plan)
"
EAC Meeting
Page 4 of 12
r--....
Policy 7.3
All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local
streets and their interconnection point with adjoining neighborhoods or other
developments regardless of land use type. (Staff Comment: Neither the PUD
master plan nor the PUD document. nor the application addresses this issue.
The petitioner needs to amend the PUD Master Plan and Exhibit F.
Development Commitments. to provide and commit to interconnect with
ad;acent pro;ects or provide credible explanation/rationale whv such is not
possible or 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. (Staff Comment: Given the small size of the pro;ect.
there is no opportunity to provide different types of housinf! or blended density.
This pro;ect does show lake and open space. However. Exhibit E indicated a
waiver for sidewalk requirement: the petitioner needs to explain how this will be
consistent with the provision of walk able communities.)
CONCLUSION:
Based upon the above analysis, staff cannot determine the proposed rezone is
consistent with the FLUE as more information is needed, as noted above.
Depending upon the petitioner's response, the PUD Documents/Master Plan may
have to be revised.
~
B. Conservation & Coastal Mana2:ement Element
Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the
Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging
into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality
standards.
To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and
cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed
in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an
attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water
(discharge) to the estuarine system.
This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to
mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing
interconnected dry detention area(s), lake(s) and a wetland(s) to provide water
quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events.
~
EAC Meeting
Page 5 of 12
~
Policy 6.1.1 .... "native vegetation shall be preserved on-site through the
application of the following preservation and vegetation retention standards
and criteria"...
The site is a residential development larger than 5 acres in size in a non-coastal
high hazard area. Per Policy 6.1.1 the site is required to preserve 15% ofthe
native vegetation on the property. Per Collier County's definition of native
vegetation, the site contains 4.98 acres of native communities. As a result the
site is required to preserve 0.75 acres. The project is proposing to preserve
1.23 acres of native vegetation and 0.66 acres of non-native areas. As such the
site meets the standards of Policy 6.1.1.
Policy 6.1.1 (2) "The preservation of native vegetation shall include canopy,
under-story and ground cover emphasizing the largest contiguous area
possible. "
~
In accordance with Policy 6.1.1(2) the Marsilea Villas project has aligned the
preserve along the northern property boundary. This will allow for the largest
contiguous core area and reduce the interface between the preserve and
development. A portion of the preserve will include restoration in all three
strata and the remainder will include preservation of species in all three strata.
Per Policy 6.1.1(3) the onsite preserve areas will be placed in a conservation
easement or mechanism allowed by the LDC at the time of the next
development order.
Policy 6.1.1 (4) (V) a "Selection of the preserve areas shall reflect the
following criteria" ... "Areas known to be utilized".,. "or that serve as
corridors for the movement of wildlife shall be preserved and protected in
order to facilitate the movement of wildlife through the site, "...
In accordance with Policy 6.1.1(4) (V) a the alignment ofthe preserve along
the properties north boundary provides a wildlife corridor for movement of
species between the project and the off-site Royal Palm Academy preserve
west of the property. Protected species were not observed onsite. However,
this can be used for any critters that may exist in the area.
~
Policy 6.1.1 (7) (c) "Where native preservation requirements area not
accommodated, the landscape plan shall re-create a native plant community in
all three strata (ground covers, shrubs and trees), utilizing larger plant
materials so as to more quickly re-create the lost mature vegetation. 11
EAC Meeting
Page 6 of 12
~
Despite meeting the native vegetation preservation requirements the project is
providing an additional portion of the preserve in a non-native community.
The Marsilea Villas project is doing this in order to align the onsite preserve
with a portion of the offsite preserve area. Unfortunately this area contains low
quality vegetation. Per Policy 6.1.1(7) (c) the project is proposing to plant this
preserve area with native species.
Policy 6.1.1: 9 "Preservation areas shall be interconnected within the site and
to adjoining offsite preservation areas or wildlife corridors. "
Per Policy 6.1.1(9) "Preservation areas shall be interconnected within the site
and to adjoining off-site preservation areas or wildlife corridors." The
placement of the Marsilea Villas preserve along the northern property boundary
allows the project to create a contiguous interconnected preserve with off-site
preservation areas and wildlife corridors.
Policy 6.1.4 "Prohibited invasive exotic vegetation shall be removedfrom all
new developments. " ....
Per Policy 6.1.4 all exotic vegetation is being removed and a long-term
maintenance plan will be in effect. An inspection will be done at the next
development order and prior to certificate of occupancy.
~
Policy 6.2.1 "As required by Florida Administrative Code 9J5-5, 006(1) (b),
wetlands identified by the 1994-95 SFWMD land use and land cover inventory
are mapped on the Future Land Use Map series. These areas shall be verified
by jurisdictional field delineation, subject to Policy 6.2.2 of this element, at a
time of project permitting to determine the exact location of jurisdictional
wetland boundaries, "
Policy 6,2.2 "Wetlands shall be defined pursuant to Section 373.019 Florida
Statues. The location of jurisdictional wetland boundaries are further
described by the delineation methodology in Section 373.421 Florida Statues.
Per Policy's 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 the wetlands were verified on June 29, 2007.
Policy 6.2.3 "Collier County shall implement a comprehensive process to
ensure wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands are protected and
conserved. " .......
The property is consistent with Policy 6.2.3 whereas the land use designation
on the property based off the future land use map is urban residential.
~
EAC Meeting
Page 7 of 12
~
Policy 6.2.4 "Within the Urban designated area, the County shall rely on the
wetland jurisdictional determinations and permit requirements issued by the
applicable jurisdictional agency. This policy shall be implemented as
follows:" ....
Policy 6.2.4 states that in urban designated areas where permits issued by the
agencies allow for impacts to wetlands and require mitigation, it will be
deemed to meet the protection and conservation of wetlands objective. The
Marsilea Villas project is providing offsite mitigation for impacts to wetlands
as required by SFWMD during the permitting process.
Policy 6.4.3 " The countyshall assist to assure compliance with all State and
Federal Regulations pertaining to endangered and rare species living in such
"shared" ecological systems. "
The project is in accordance with Policy 6.4.3 a protected species survey has
been conducted on the property for endangered and rare species. During the
survey on September 7, 2006 and the follow-up May 22, 2007 no protected
species or signs thereof were identified
~
Policy 7.1.2 "Within areas of Collier County, excluding the lands contained in
the RLSA Overlay, non-agricultural development, excluding individual single
family residences, shall be directed away from listed species and their habitats
by complying with the following guidelines and standards: "....
Per Policy 7.1.2 a listed species survey was conducted on the property. This
survey was in accordance with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission (FFWCC) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
guidelines. During the species survey no listed species or signs thereof were
observed.
Policy 7.1.4 "All development shall comply with applicable federal and state
permitting requirements regarding listed species protection. "
The project is going through the state and federal permitting process and will
comply with Policy 7.1.4.
Policy 11.1.2 "There shall be no loss of historic or archaeological resources
on County-owned property and historic resources on private property shall be
protected, preserved or utilized in a manner that will allow their continued
existence. " ... .
~
'~'t
EAC Meeting
Page 8 of 12
/""""\
The Marsilea Villas project is in accordance with Policy 11.1.1 and Policy
11.1.2 as the State Division of Historical Resources has been consulted in order
to determine if a cultural resource survey will be required
Policy 11.1.3 "If, during the course of site clearing, excavation, or other
constructional activities an archeological or historical site, artifact, or other
indicator is discovered, development activities at that specific archaeological
site shall be immediately stopped an the appropriate agency notified" ....
The project is also in accordance with Policy 11.1.3 during the permitting
process a clause in regards to historical resources is included in the permit.
This clause states that if any artifacts are unearthed or discovered during site
work that work shall stop immediately and the states division of historical
resources will be contacted.
VI. MAJOR ISSUES
A. Stormwater Mana2ement
The SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit for Marsilea Villas was applied for
on March 30, 2007 and received application number 070330-12. The last
response from the developer's engineer was received by SFWMD on November
23, 2009.. This report is being written before that response is due back to
SFWMD.
/""""\
Section 8.06.03 0.2. of the Collier County Land Development Code states "The
surface water management aspects of any petition, that is or will be reviewed and
permitted by South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), are exempt
from review by the EAC except to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated
stormwater to be discharged into Preserves as allowed in Section 3.05.07." For
this project, treated storm water will be discharged into the wetland preserve.
The main water management system consists of a series of water quality swales
connected to a single water management wet detention area (lake) that provides
water quality retention/detention and peak flow attenuation. It is a standard
system.
The site sits in the Imperial Outfall Drainage Basin which has an allowable
discharge rate of 0.15 cfs per acre (Collier County Ordinance 2001-27), but it
discharges west through the Cocohatchee River Basin which has an allowable
discharge of 0.04 cfs per acre.
/""""\
EAC Meeting
Page 9 of 12
~
B. Environmental
1. Site Descrivtion
The property totals 10.25 acres and includes 1.43 acres of uplands and 8.82 acres
of a various quality wetlands. The site contains 1.43 acres of Pine Flatwoods,
2.34 acres of Brazilian Pepper Wetland, 2.93 acres of Melaleuca Wetland, 1.53
acres of disturbed Cypress, and 1.97 acres of Pine-Cypress-Cabbage Palm
2. Wetlands
The proposed project will impact approximately 6.93 acres of wetlands. The
project will preserve approximately 1.89 acres of wetlands. The preserve will
connect to the adjacent Royal Palm Academy preserve. Per the request of
SFWMD the preserve area includes a portion of the higher quality wetlands along
the northern property boundary. Onsite mitigation and offsite mitigation will be
provided for impacts to the wetland and will be permitted through SFWMD as
required.
,-..
The onsite mitigation will include the preservation and restoration of 0.66 acres of
exotic dominated wetlands. These areas will be mechanically cleared and planted
with native desirable species. The property will also preserve and enhance 1.23
acres of mixed forested and cypress wetlands.
3. Preservation Requirements
The site is a residential development larger than 5 acres in size in a non-coastal
high hazard area. Per Policy 6.1.1 the site is required to preserve 15% of the
native vegetation on the property. Per Collier County's definition of native
vegetation, the site contains 4.98 acres of native communities. As a result the site
is required to preserve 0.75 acres. The native vegetation being preserved is 1.89
acres, including 1.23 acres of native vegetation and .66 acres of non-native
vegetation area to be restored.
4. Listed Svecies
~
The Protected Species Survey indicated no known FFWCC I USFWS listed
species inhabiting the site. The listed species which have the highest likelihood of
occurring on the property are the listed wading birds and Big Cypress fox squirrel.
A protective species survey was conducted on September 7, 2006. The survey
was conducted during mid afternoon between the hours of 1 pm and 3 pm. No
listed species were identified on the property. Per the request ofthe Collier
..
EAC Meeting
Page IO of 12
~
County an update to this survey was conducted on May 22,2007. No protected
species were identified. County staff visited the site and did not observe and
protected species. The habitat onsite is very disturbed and infested with exotic
vegetation.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of Marsilea Villas PUDZ-2007-AR-I1381with no
stipulations.
~
~
. '
."
EAC Meeting
~
Page 11 of 12
PREPARED BY:
STAN CHRZAN SKI, P.E.
ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
~~y)~~
SU ER ARAQ E'
SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
/6 l1L03
DATE
/) -/10-- [!1
DATE
~/?' ..
MELIssf~.bt::5~--- 6,&;/0. ..206,9
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
,..-..
~
EAC Meeting
..
Page 12 of 12
r--..
REVIEWED BY:
M SON
CIP ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
ERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
/2-1(;-01
DATE
~p ~\A~ A 1]-/7-0<]
~~rltq/ENjhr:,P.E. DAlE
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR
~7. wiL
STEVE WILLIAMS
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY
~
/;J.'{'7.G9
DATE
APPROVED BY:
J SEPH K. SCHMITT
OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATOR
~... /PrJ"?
~
"..........,