Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CCPC Agenda 03/17/2011 R & IAMP
CCPC REGULAR MEETING AGENDA MARCH 17, 2011 AGENDA REVISED"' COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, MARCH 17, 2011, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 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 - February 3, 2011, February 17, 2011 6. BCC REPORT - RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. PUDZ- 2009 -AR -14425 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 a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district to allow for development of up to 135,000 square feet of commercial development and /or a retirement community /group housing at a FAR of .60 and /or a hotel /motel of an intensity of 26 units per acre for a 23.33 + /- acre parcel to be known as the Addie's Corner MPUD located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] B. CP- 2008 -5, Petition requesting amendments to the Immokalee Area Master Plan and Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map, to make revisions to the entire Master Plan to include: increases to commercial acreage, industrial acreage, and allowable residential density; elimination of some existing designations; creation of a new designation for the Immokalee Regional Airport site; and, redesignation of approximately 103 acres to Immokalee Urban Area from Agricultural /Rural within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area as identified on the countywide Future Land Use Map. Additionally, the petition requests an amendment to Policy 6.2.5 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element to treat that portion of the Lake Trafford Camp Keais Strand System which is within the Immokalee Urban Area as Neutral Lands for vegetation retention, and to the Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Future Land Use Element to show the redesignation of the 103 acres to the Immokalee Urban Area. [Coordinator: Carolina Valera, Principal Planner] 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PUDA- PL2010 -854: Naples Daily News BPPUD. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 06 -49, the Naples Daily News Business Park Planned Unit Development (BPPUD), located at 1100 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida, by amending Section 2.9 of 06 -49 to allow a change in the plant materials in the landscape buffer; and providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner] B. This item has been continued from the February 17`" meeting: PUDA- PL2010 -388, Olde Cypress Development, LTD, represented by Chris Mitchell of Waldrop Engineering, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., is requesting a PUD Amendment for the Olde Cypress PUD. The PUD Amendment request is to reduce the project density from 1100 dwelling units to 942 dwelling units and remove the requirements of trails and a park (3.9 acres minimum) within the Olde Cypress PUD/DRI. The subject property is located in the Olde Cypress subdivision, Sections 21 and 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to DOA- PL2010 -1052 and PUDZ- PL2010 -1054) [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP] C. This item has been continued from the February 17'h meeting: DOA- PL2010 -1052, Olde Cypress Development, LTD and Vita Pima, LLC, represented by Chris Mitchell of Waldrop Engineering, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., is requesting a change to the previously approved Olde Cypress Development of Regional Impact DRI, in accordance with Florida Statutes, Subsection 380.06(19). The proposed modifications will remove the 3.9 -acre park requirement, add 63.9 acres into the DRI boundary, and amend Map H to incorporate this change. The subject property consisting of 602± acres is located in Sections 21 and 22, Range 48 South, Township 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to PUDA- PL2010 -388 and PUDZ- PL2010 -1054) [Kay Deselem, AICP, Coordinator] D. This item has been continued from the February 17'* meeting: PUDZ- PL2010 -1054: Vita Pima, LLC, represented by Christopher R. Mitchell, P.E. of Waldrop Engineering, P.A., and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., is requesting a Rezone from the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district with a Special Treatment (ST) Overlay for a project that is known as the HD Development RPUD, and the Agricultural (A) zoning district, to the RPUD zoning district to allow for development of a maximum of 125 single - family residential units and 33 multi - family units, and associated accessory uses. The 65.29± acre subject property is located along the north side of Immokalee Road (CR 846) approximately 330 feet east of Olde Cypress Boulevard in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to PUDA- P12010 -388 and DOA- PL2010 -1052) [Kay Deselem, AICP, Coordinator] E. PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674: Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from an Agricultural (A) zoning district with a portion of the real property in a ST overlay (Special Treatment) to a Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) zoning district with removal of the ST overlay for a project known as Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD. The project will allow development of a 500 seat church, a single family residence and preschool of up to 150 students along with other permitted and accessory uses commonly associated with a church and preschool use. The property is located at the corner of Learning Lane and Livingston Road in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 12 +/- acres and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS A. Watershed Management Plan Update Workshop — Summary of Existing Conditions [Coordinator: Mac Hatcher] 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 3/8/2011 CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp AGENDA ITEM 9 -A YOU RECEIVED THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT FOR THIS PETITION, PUDA- PL2010 -388, OLDE CYPRESS DEVELOPMENT, LTD IN YOUR PACKET FROM THE FEBRUARY 17, 2011 MEETING. FROM: AGENDA ITEM 9 -A Co L'fer County STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION, PLANNING AND REGULATION HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2011 SUBJECT: PETITION PUDA- PL2010 -388, OLDE CYPRESS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) COMPANION ITEMS: DOA- PL2010 -1052, OLDE CYPRESS DRI AND PUDZ- PL1054, HD DEVELOPMENT RPUD APPLICANT: Olde Cypress Development, Ltd. 2746 Professional Circle, Suite 1.201 Naples, FL 34119 REQUESTED ACTION: AGENT: Waldrop Engineering, P.A. Mr. Chris R. Mitchell, P.E. 28100 Bonita Grande Drive Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A. Mr. Richard D. Yovanovich 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an amendment to the Olde Cypress PUD to reduce the project density from 1100 dwelling units to 942 dwelling units and remove the requirements of trails and a 3.9 acre park within the Olde Cypress PUD. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The existing Olde Cypress PUD and Olde Cypress DRI contain approximately 538.1 acres. The proposed Development of Regional Impact (DRI) will contain approximately 602 acres with the inclusion of the HD Development/Vita Tuscana PUD and is located on the. north side of Immokalee Road (CR 846), east of its intersection with Olde Cypress Boulevard. The property lies within the Urban Estates Planning Community in Sections 21 and 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County. (See the location map and current PUD Master Plan on following page.) 01de Cypress PUD, PUDA- PL2010 -388 February 4, 2011 Page 1 of 14 LEE COUNTY 0 TUSCANY RESERVE Duaa PARNLM'D5 (DRI) WEST (DR I) NIRASOL 8 9 10 11 12 PELICAN V OUAIL HERITAGE BAY STRAND CREEK IER—A MRLASCL (ORI) (DRI) 18 a • 17 16 5 4 3 . Q. I■ • • PROJECT ST PARCEL ISC $ LOCATION �►� � ►� • ®,® �IIIii1QQi83iddQQQQII� '\�1QQQiiBItL� ��$ PELICAN gg QUAIL LONGSHORE LVtE MIRasOL STR AND V 11 (DRI) HERITAGE BAY C�TDN (DRi 20 22 (DRI) ES 1 9 23 24 ADOIE'S F EBOIJ Nis— PLAZA OOKE I 9o9L CORNER (P) /I gp NAPLESHMMOKALEE ROAD C.R. us) �p dG SUMMIT o � ¢ RICHIAND LAKES OVNOU9Kf6g6! 3 TUSCAN MALIBU 29 CAOEN CATS ESTATES 28 805�Y 30 LAKE UNIT 97 HERITAGE Z7 26 26 s RIGAB OREENS CRYSTAL —E "� •e9 a® ®I/6 IN HAMILTON (5) Ims LAKES WARM SPRINGS GREENS BRITTANY BAY APARTMENTS ® �� '� +IN' � � —DING ■QQQQQQQ� QQQQQQQ� BpMESL BUpR OAKS PCALERMD SUMMIT PLACE —.NALK IN NAPLES 31 32 (�) VANDERSILT ED < MILSNIRE GOLDDI GALE ESTATES 33 COUNTRY CLUB 38 0 PELCAN LAKES UNIT 96 34 }5 R (DRI) NAP CREEK BO %MOOD VIWOERBILT BEACH ROAD L9SGIpN NRLS BUCKS RUN MISSION CHURCH BNADEND VANDERBILT MUST CAROLINA vnucE VINEYARDS (DRI) NNEYAARDS Q O F ¢ 5 m 4 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES 3 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT 2 W 2 GOLDEN GALE ESTATES m UNIT 3 7 1 6 u UNIT 95 19 ••.111► � _ GOLDEN GATE BLVD, �IIIIIII�aml�ncs�� 7 8 9 0 11 12 12 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES MNEYARDS GOLDEN GATE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES GOLDEN GALE ESTATES UNIT 35 (MI) ESTATES UNIT 1 UNIT 4 UNIT 12 LOCATION MAP g ZONING MAP PETITION # PUDA -PL- 2010 -388 •. Qii' TERAnNA . Q. I■ • • ST PARCEL ISC �►� � ►� ®,® �IIIii1QQi83iddQQQQII� '\�1QQQiiBItL� ��$ � � '1$$'$1d'�83g ���`� m����'I111111�� li• 1 \l /I s rr�iliWYi "� •e9 a® ®I/6 IN I ® �� '� +IN' � � ■QQQQQQQ� QQQQQQQ� ••.111► � �QQi �IIIIIII�aml�ncs�� 1�� ■��� I „�„ WYNTREE 1111, = = _ =_= � .•, - = � " ~ _ O`er � �upllll►yNlllllllllll►�j� _ _ $ � _ _� 1!4 = = ZONING MAP PETITION # PUDA -PL- 2010 -388 N ]W 150 0 ]0p SGAIE EE SCALE: V . X., "'-7- '-� ............ DENOTES HERBACEOUS WETLAND CREATION AREA DENOTES WETLAND / UPLAND RESTORATION AREA r l7 DENOTES APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF FOX SQUIRREL PRESERVES. EXACT f LOCATIONS AND SIZE TO BE DETERMINED IN FIELD DURING CONSTRUCTION. TOTAL AREA TO BE 6.5 Ac. ./- DENOTES APROXIMATE LOCATION OF ELEVA TED GOLF CART BRIDGES. EXACT LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED IN FIELD DURING CONSTRUCTION. * SELECTIVE CLEARING IN THESE AREAS PERMITTED FOR GOLF COURSE PLAY n S � FUTURE ACCESS RP nn HOLE ASSOCIATES, � MONTEB a SLIRVINC. EXHIBIT A 9680PUD0 3738 -01P ENOINEERB- PLANNERS- 9URVEYORE ux �axsmxcn CYPRESS p.R PUD MASTER PLAN .L�. 00 itnP 715 IOIh Sbol South. Napls., fl. 34102 - Phom (94I) 261 - 4817 96.B0K8 1 aT i PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner proposes to amend Ordinance Number 2000 -37, the Olde Cypress PUD, to reduce 1100 dwelling units to 942 dwelling units and remove the requirements of trails and a 3.9 acre park within the Olde Cypress PUD. The removal of the 158 dwelling units from the Olde Cypress PUD will allow the proposed 158 unit HD Development RPUD (Residential Planned Unit Development), to be added to the Olde Cypress DRI. The property within HD Development RPUD will be added to the Olde Cypress DRI (Development of Regional Impact). The intensity density in Olde Cypress DRI will remain at 1100 dwelling units and the intensity of the DRI will not increase. During the original zoning application review and permitting, PUD Section 4.05.6 required a 3.9 acre park located within the PUD/DRI Boundary. According to the DRI and PUD Master Plans that were submitted with the application, the 3.9 acre park was proposed to be in two parcels located in the northeast corner of the Master Plan. The park location was approved in the original Olde Cypress PUD Ordinance No. 86 -75. The PUD was later revised in 1996 as a result of environmental permitting with governmental agencies. During the 1996 PUD amendment, the park use, nature trails, jogging trails, and bicycle trail uses along the eastern boundary of the PUD/DRI were excluded and residential development, including the required park acreage, were removed from the PUD and DRI Master Plans to reduce impacts to the environmentally sensitive area. The area along the eastern boundary was revised in the master plan to be wetland /preserve. However, the language in Section 4.05.6 of the PUD was never revised to remove the requirement of the park. This application will revise Section 4.05.6 of the PUD to remove the park requirement. The application also revises Section 3.02 of the PUD to make it consistent with the intent of the original revisions to the PUD. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Terafina PUD. East: Agricultural (A) zoning South: Immokalee Road and then Estates (E) zoning, Agricultural (A) zoning, and H.D. Development RPUD. West: Olde Cypress Boulevard then Longshore Lake PUD. 01de Cypress PUD, PUDA- PL2010 -388 February 4, 2011 Page 4 of 14 AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN G'VIP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map in the Growth Management Plan. The existing RPUD, approved in 2000 (Ordinance No. 2000 -37) included a provision for a park area on approximately 3.9 acres. This area is to be removed from park uses and returned to residential uses. This amendment will not affect the total. number of approved acres for commercial land uses (12.5), of residential units (1,100), or of density (2.09 du /ac). The table below illustrates the acreage figures, dwelling unit counts and residential densities involved in each part of the project: Ttl ACs Ttl DIJs Ttl Coml ACs non -Coml AC Gross Res] Density Existing DRI 538.1 1,100 12.5 525.6 2.09 DU/AC 01de Cypress PUD, PUDA- PL2010 -388 February 4, 2011 Page 5 of 14 Proposed DRI 602.0 1,100 12.5 590.9 1.86 DU/AC 01de Cypress PUD 538.1 942 12.5 525.6 1.79 DU /AC Vita Tuscana PUD 65.3 158 0.0 65.3 2.41 DU/AC The acreage increase is reflected in the Olde Cypress DRI, not in the Olde Cypress PUD. Although no additional residential units are proposed for the larger DRI, the total dwelling unit count in the Olde Cypress PUD is reduced. This smaller number should appear in Olde Cypress PUD documents. An approximately four -acre park area and its connecting nature trails are requested for removal, while the more than 176 acres of passive recreational areas, and bicycle paths and sidewalks remain part of the development. No issues present themselves with Objective 7 or its subsequent Policies. Conservation and Coastal Management Element: Environmental staff has evaluated the proposed changes to the PUD documents. The petition is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the GMP. 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 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 has reviewed the petition to address any environmental concerns. The proposed changes do not affect any of the environmental requirements of the GMP or LDC. A hearing was not required before the Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC) per Collier County Code of Ordinances Part One, Chapter 2, Article VIII. Division 23. — Environmental Advisory Council. 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. The project is subject to the conditions associated with a Water and Sewer Availability Letter from the Collier County Utilities Division. The project is subject to the conditions associated with a Solid Waste Availability Letter from the Collier County Solid Waste Department. Olde Cypress PUD, PUDA- PL2010 -388 February 4, 2011 Page 6 of 14 Parks and Recreation Review: The Parks and Recreation Department Staff has reviewed the petition. There are several things to consider regarding this park. The comnitment language is very vague. Originally, the park was shown on the Master Plan as two sepirate areas, one of which did not appear to have access —it was isolated in a project corner surr unded by preserve areas. Zoning and Land Development Review: Staff has reviewed the proposed change and has no objection. The proposed reduction from the maximum number of dwelling units by 158 dwelling units will allow the HD Development to be added to the Olde Cypress DRI so as not to increase the intensity of the DRI. While the 3.9 acre park was a commitment made by the original applicant when the property was first rezoned to a PUD, there is currently no code provision or regulation that would require a park at this location. However, several residents within Olde Cypress have indicated that they would like to have the park provided within the Olde Cypress community. There are several things to consider regarding this park. The commitment langi: Originally, the park was shown on the Master Plan of Ordinance Number 86 -' areas, one of which did not appear to have access —it was isolated in a project by preserve areas, as shown in the illustration below (highlighted for clarity): ------------------------------ i i i k i � ° 1 i d {.l G.il 4,5 L5 AZ 1 67 av ' �,5 go G.U. �y+ t t i ti i PliESERYA �eC-h1 f�7� IML/ i 1�7.a4►a w 5� t. rt n 01de Cypress PUD, PUDA- PL2010 -388 February 4, 2011 Page 7 of 14 16 is 22 PA R✓ i i i 4 e is very vague. as two separate ,ner surrounded The commitment does not state when the park is to be built, who is to maintain the park, or what amenities it is to contain. Must there be two parks in the increments shown, or is there discretion as to how the 3.9 -acre park commitment is to be fulfilled? Is it to be publicly (county) maintained or was it the intent for the developer or subsequent homeowners' associations to maintain it? Collier County adopted a Park Impact in. Ordinance number 88 -96, which became effective on December 22, 1988. This ordinance addresses the needs for regional and community parks. The county has not adopted any regulations that require developers to provide a neighborhood park. Regional and community parks are sited and controlled by the county; the County does not generally get involved in the siting or design of neighborhood parks, nor does the county maintain them. Whether a park is designated a regional or a community park is determined by the draw of the attraction. A park can be smaller, but have an attraction that draws persons from a larger area, thus it can be a regional park. This 3.9 -acre park would most likely not contain any attractor element such that it would make it function as a community or regional park. Currently Olde Cypress has developed as a golf course community with a golf driving range, tennis courts, a swimming pool, and fitness facilities. Therefore, the community appears to offer recreational opportunities as currently developed. However, whether the existing facilities meet the needs of the community is not for staff to ascertain. At the Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) held for the companion PUD amendments, there was no clear consensus from the attendees as to whether or not the park use should be eliminated. There was opposition voiced to the park's removal, while other attendees voiced support for the park's removal; other attendees did not offer an opinion. Since only approximately 100 persons attended the NIM, not all property owners attended. Staff has received and continues to receive correspondence, some of which is supportive of the park's removal and some of which is opposed to the park's removal. (Copies of correspondence received as of February 3, 2011 have been provided in the CCPC packets.) It appears that the park issue may be something best resolved by the property owners within Olde Cypress. If the commitment for the 3.9 -acre park is removed from the PUD, the development (Homeowner/Property Owners' Associations or the Developer) could still provide neighborhood park(s), as that term is defined in the LDC since a park is also an allowable principal use within the Olde Cypress PUD document, Ordinance Number 00 -37 Section 7.04.A.4. In the alternative, should the CCPC and the BCC determine that the park commitment should remain, staff recommends that clarification be provided to indicate that the park is indeed a neighborhood park, where the park is to be located; when it is to completed; what facilities it is to provide; who it is to serve —the public or only residents of this project (and all residents or just those within the gated community if that is where the park is located); who is to construct it; and who is to maintain it. Although not normally necessary for a neighborhood park, these clarifications are necessary if the commitment stays in the PUD, so staff has something measurable to ensure PUD commitments have been met. 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 01de Cypress PUD, PUDA- PL2010 -388 February 4, 2011 Page 8 of 14 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. 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 described, this amendment will reduce the project density by 158 units from 1100 dwelling units to 942 dwelling units. The amendment is also necessary to eliminate the inconsistency between the PUD Master Plan and the PUD document. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The amendment will reduce the project density from 1100 dwelling units to 942 dwelling units and remove the requirements of trails and a 3.9 acre park within the Olde Cypress PUD. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change will not adversely impact the living conditions in the neighborhood. However, several residents have expressed a desire to have the park provided within the Olde Cypress community. 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. Olde Cypress PUD, PUDA- PL2010 -388 February 4, 2011 Page 9 of 14 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed amendment will not affect drainage. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. Not applicable. No changes to the development standards are proposed. When meeting the standards, 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 regulations. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The proposed amendment to remove the required 3.9 acre park may be seen by some as a grant of special privilege to the developer. However, consistency with the FLUE is determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with FLUE are in the public interest. This PUDA has been found consistent with the FLUE. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The applicant alleges that the PUD has been developed and there is no space left to build a 3.9 acre park. Furthermore, the petitioner proposes to eliminate 158 dwelling units from the Olde Cypress PUD to allow the HD Development PUD to be added to the Olde Cypress DRI without increasing the intensity of the DRI. (See Companion items DOA- PL2010 -1052, Olde Cypress DRI and PUDZ- PL1054, HD Development RPUD. ) 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. Considering the recreational opportunities available to the residents, 169 acre golf course and country club, a golf driving range, a fitness center, a community swimming pool, and 4 tennis courts provide ample recreational opportunities, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD amendment is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood. Olde Cypress PUD, PUDA- PL2010 -388 February 4, 2011 Page 10 of 14 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 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. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.13.5 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 subject PUD is nearly developed. The reduction 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 within the Olde Cypress PUD. 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. Olde Cypress PUD, PUDA- PL2010 -388 February 4, 2011 Page 11 of 14 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. 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 internal or external compatibility. 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 exceeds 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. This PUD is over 25 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. This PUD is nearly built out and cannot accommodate expansion. S. 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. Olde Cypress PUD, PUDA- PL2010 -388 February 4, 2011 Page 12 of 14 As mentioned earlier, this PUD is existing and the reduction of residential units will conform with existing PUD regulations. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant duly noticed and held the required meeting on October 18, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. at the Olde Cypress Clubhouse, 7165 Treeline Drive, Naples, Florida. Approximately 100 people and the applicant, agent and County Staff attended the meeting. No commitments were made at this meeting. For further information, please refer to Attachment C: NIM Minutes. To date, approximately four letters of objection have been received. One letter of support has been received from the Olde Cypress Master Property Association. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for Petition PUDA- 2009 -742, revised on February 1, 2011. -STW RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDA- PL2010 -388 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval of this amendment. However, should the CCPC decide to recommend that the 3.9 -acre park commitment be retained, the following issues need to be addressed: 1. When the park is to be built — corm- nenced and completed; and 2. Whether it is to be a public or private park; and 3. Whether it is to be an active or a passive park; and 4. What facilities will be provided; 5. Who is to maintain the park; and 6. Where will the park be provided on site; and 7. Must there be two parks in the increments shown, or is there discretion as to how the 3.9- acre park commitment is to be fulfilled; and 8. If the increment issue is discretionary, who is to decide and when is the decision made. Olde Cypress PUD, PUDA- PL2010 -388 February 4, 2011 Page 13 of 14 PREPARED BY: YWM�4A &)�AMJWf-\- l (C IiCJ NANCY G A H, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPART E T LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GROWTH ANAGEMENT DIVISION REVIEWED BY: 1�- 4 � 1�eA /- 31- /i RAYMOND V. BELLOWS, O ING MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION 1 C7Z -�[ -fit[ LIAM D. L NZ JR., P.E., DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION APPROVED BY: 2-7-11 NICK CASALANGU DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE Tentatively scheduled for the March 22, 2011 Board of County Commissioners Meeting Attachments: Attachment A: Original Master Plan Attachment B: Ordinance Attachment C: NIM Minutes Oide Cypress PUD, PUDA- PL2010 -388 January 26, 2011 Page 14 of 14 IC i Attachment A Exhibit H Master Development Plan Bikellogging trail C Commercial 11.6 O Office (Commercial) 9.6 S.F. Single Family 41.8 V.T.H. Villasrrownhouses 32.3 G.A. Garden Apartments 50.2 MJJG.A. Moderate Income Garden Apartments 31.7 Golf Course 117.41 Preservation /Park 91.4 Roads 33.3 Water Management 80.8 TOTAL 500.11 Owners /Consultants Petitioner Immokalee Road Partnership & Greg Cabiness Project Engineers Hole, Montes & Assoc. Land Planner Julian Bryan Golf Architect Ward Northrup Water Quality Missimer & Assoc. Environmentalist Kevin Erwin Transportation Barr, Dunlop & Assoc. Legal Young, Van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Benton P.A. N TT�HE WW E 200' 400' 600' Scsle �— .I -1 /S o..t. ei.n I .,,.. HOLE, MONTES AND ASSOCIATEr, INC. Consulting Engineers and Surveyors Naples Bonita Ft. Myers a W Y a J O S U' Z O J TRACT7 LAKE, TRACTS ® TRACTS LAKE LAKE z —EA OUT PARCEL O LAKE TRACT„ UKE 8 107 TRACTS TRACi9 ® y `4 t /1 n O U wgcE O o a LAKE 9 ® � ,z 12 < RY nKE D 0 0 LAKE OUT PARCEL � _ • • �KE 3 ® D• • PROPOSEDLAND • TD BE ADDED Wt.SERVE• O COMMERCWL TRACT IS • • . . . NDT PART . . . m A C O C O H A T C H E E C A N A L IMM0KALEE ROAD (C. R. 846) LAKE PRESERVE (INCLUDES LAKE) TAKE 0 w L) N LAND USE SUMMARYbt& PRESERVE - HERBACEOUS WETLAND CREATION AREA OPRESERVE - WETLAND / UPLAND RESTORATION AREA 182.81 PRESERVE - FO.( SQUIRREL PRESERVES. 12.5± EXACT LOCATIONS AND SIZE TO BE 30.71 DETERMINED IN, FIELD DURING 194.51 CONSTRUCTION. TOTAL AREA TO BE 6.5 Ac. ®� 1.42 ACRES TO,(.T EXCLUDED FROM DRI 602.01 DENOTES APROXIMATE LOCATION OF ELEVATED GOLk CART BRIDGES. EXACT LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED IN FIELD DURING CONSTRUCTION. * SELECTIVE CLEARING IN THESE '4 N AREAS PERMITI'ED FOR GOLF COURSE PLAY 4 FUTURE ACCESS LAND USE SUMMARYbt& DESCRIPTION /PARCEL ACREAGE RESIDENTIAL (sP1 182.81 COMMERCIAL 12.5± ROAD R.O.W. 30.71 PRESERVE 194.51 GOLF COURSE, OPEN SPACE LAKES AND CLUBHOUSE SITE 181.51 TOTAL PROJECT 602.01 V11 U z � ax P—I ♦y-I - �zQ W Wu U O z Z N Z G UPMEA A MLPCHELl. P2. SET NUMBER: 195ME0701 SHEET: 2 W W Z� W '4 N 8d V11 U z � ax P—I ♦y-I - �zQ W Wu U O z Z N Z G UPMEA A MLPCHELl. P2. SET NUMBER: 195ME0701 SHEET: 2 ORDINANCE NO. 11- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2000 -37, AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTION I ENTITLED "STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE "; AMENDING SECTION 3.02 ENTITLED "GENERAL PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT "; AMENDING SECTION 4.03 ENTITLED "PROJECT DENSITY "; AMENDING SECTION 4.05 ENTITLED "RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND SCHEDULE "; AMENDING TABLE I ENTITLED "OLD CYPRESS LAND USE SCHEDULE "; AMENDING SECTION 5.02 ENTITLED "PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES "; AMENDING SECTION 7.02 ENTITLED "MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS "; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, The Olde Cypress PUD and DRI was originally approved as The Woodlands PUD and DRI; and WHEREAS, The Woodlands PUD and DRI master plans were revised to eliminate development on the eastern portion of the project including, but not limited to, the elimination of a park and road; and WHEREAS, when The Woodlands PUD and DRI master plans were amended to eliminate a park and road, the PUD document failed to delete certain references in the text to those improvements; and WHEREAS, Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. and Chris Mitchell, P.E. of Waldrop Engineering, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend Ordinance No. 2000 -37, to delete certain improvements from the Olde Cypress PUD. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENTS TO STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE Section I entitled "Statement of Compliance ", item 5 of Ordinance No. 2000 -37, as amended is amended to read as follows: 5. The Density Rating System of the Collier County Growth Management Plan permits up to 4 dwelling units per gross acre, for the subject property which is located in the Mixed Use Urban Residential Area. The gross density of ?:� 1.75 residential dwelling units per acre for OLDE CYPRESS, therefore, is Words straek through are deleted; words underlined are added. 1 of 4 Qlde Cypress PUD/ PUDA- PI.2010 -388 Rev. 1/24/11 Attachment B consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan density rating system. SECTION TWO: AMENDMENTS TO GENERAL PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT Section 3.02 entitled "General Plan of Development" of Ordinance No. 2000 -37, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: The general plan of development of OLDE CYPRESS is for a planned residential community carefully integrating a mixture of single family and multi- family dwelling units with a golf and country club, commercial, water recreational facilities and preserve areas. SECTION THREE: AMENDMENTS TO PROJECT DENSITY Section 4.03 entitled "Project Density" of Ordinance No. 2000 -37, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: 4.03 PROJECT DENSITY. The total acreage of OLDE CYPRESS is approximately 538.1 acres. The maximum number of dwelling units to be built on the total acreage is X1-00 942. The number of dwelling units per gross acre is approximately ?4 1.75. The density on individual parcels of land throughout the project will vary according to the type of housing employed on each parcel of land. SECTION FOUR: AMENDMENTS TO RECREATIONAL FACILTIES AND SCHEDUL E Section 4.05 entitled "Recreational Facilities and Schedule" of Ordinance 2000 -37, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: The following recreational facilities are scheduled to be constructed for the use of the residents of OLDS CYPRESS, although some of the facilities may be private in nature and require membership and membership fees. The schedule for development of these facilities relates to the absorption schedule of the project towards build -out. 1. Clubhouse and Golf Course with 18 holes, tennis and related country club facilities (125.14 acres); 2. Swimming pool; 3. Bicycle paths and sidewalks; Words strurk thFough are deleted; words underlined are added. 2 of 4 Olde Cypress PUD/ PUDA- PL2010 -388 Rev. 1/24/11 4. Passive recreational uses of wetlands and transitional areas (Preservation 176.2 acres minimum); where allowed by environmental permits. SECTION FIVE: AMENDMENTS TO TABLE I Table I of Ordinance No. 2000 -37, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: TABLE I OLDE CYPRESS LAND USE SCHEDULE LAND USE TYPE DWELLING UNITS RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL (165,000 sq. ft.)* GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, LAKES AND OPEN SPACES LAKE /PRESERVE AREA WETLAND PRESERVE, PARK AND WILDLIFE SANCTUARY *SEE ALSO SECTION 8.13 OF THIS ORDINANCE 44 942 Units 154.07 Acres 12.5 Acres 169.4 Acres 2.1 Acres 176.2 Acres SECTION SIX: AMENDMENTS TO SECTION V, GOLF COURSE Section 5.02 entitled "Permitted Uses and Structures ", item C.4a of Ordinance No. 2000- 37, as amended, is amended to read as follows: 4. Guest Suites a. The density of Guest Suites will be provided for out of the total number of dwelling units permitted in the OLDE CYPRESS PUD which is nine hundred forty -two (942) units. Words struak thrsugh are deleted; words underlined are added. 3 of 4 01de Cypress PUD/ PUDA- PL2010 -388 Rev. 1/24/11 SECTION SEVEN: AMENDMENTS TO MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS Section 7.02 entitled "Maximum Dwelling Units" of Ordinance No. 2000 -37, as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: 7.02 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS A maximum number of I-,M 942 residential dwelling units may be constructed on lands designated "R ". SECTION EIGHT: EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super - majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2011. ATTEST BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA to , Deputy Clerk FRED W. COYLE, Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Steven T. Williams Assistant County Attorney CP \10- CPS - 01044\20 Words stF�ug# are deleted; words underlined are added. 4 of 4 01de Cypress PUD/ PUDA- PL2010 -388 Rev. 1/24/11 Olde Cypress & Vita Tuscana Neighborhood Informational Meeting October 18, 2010 5:30 pm @ Olde Cypress Clubhouse Speaker: Rich Yovanovich — Coleman, Yovanovich, & Koester, P.A. Speaker: Chris Mitchell — Waldrop Engineering, P.A. Applicant: Brian Stock; Keith Gelder — Olde Cypress Development, LTD & Vita PIMA, LLC Rich Yovanovich: Good evening, my name is Rich Yovanovich, I am a local attorney in Collier County and I am one of the representatives for the applications that we are going to talk to you tonight about in front of Olde Cypress. With me tonight are several people: Brian Stock, Stock Development, the developer of Olde Cypress as well as Vita Tuscana, Keith Gelder with Stock Development in charge of the entitlement process for Stock Development, Chris Mitchell with Waldrop Engineering the project engineer. Two representative form Collier County that are reviewing our projects are with us today Nancy Gunlach who is reviewing the Olde cypress PUDA, and Kay Deselem who is reviewing the Vita Tuscana RPUD as well as the proposed Amendment to the Olde Cypress DRI. We are required to have a Neighborhood Informational Meeting under the county's process and required to record the meeting, summary meetings, provide minutes, and provide a tape of the meeting to the county. It would be helpful when you ask questions if you could speak you name so we can get it on the tape and not talk over each other. We have a couple of different petitions that I'll walk you through and answer any questions you may have regarding the petitions. It's probably better if you let me speak about all three of them because they are all intertwined. In front of the Olde Cypress community, there is a cleared area that was cleared by the previous developer. It is approximately 46 parcel that has been zoned the HD Development PUD. That property has been acquired by one of Brian's Stock's entity, Vita PIMA, LLC. Along with another 18 acres immediately to the west of the property. It is approximately a 64 acres property that we are in for a rezone of the existing HD Development PUD to the Vita Tuscana RPUD. The existing HD Development PUD was approved for 104 units (71 single family homes and 33 multifamily units). We are adding 18 acres to the project and requesting a total project density of 158 units and increasing the 71 SF to 125 SF. We are not touching the 33 MF units approved in the original HD development PUD. Brian's (Stock's) group doesn't own that parcel, so we are not changing the density. So that will remain the same. The first petition that we are going through the process is an amendment to the HD Development PUD. To rename it, to add the 18 acres, and to allow for 125 SF and 33 MT units. We are allowing for the ability to build two story SF homes, which is different from the original HD Development PUD. The minimum size of the homes must be at least 1,600 SF. There is some product that Stock is building in Lely Resort project that requires a 5 foot side yard setback, so we are trying to bring that product here. The change will be from a 6 foot side yard setback to a 5 foot side yard setback. So, that is the first petition that we are going through. The second petition that we are pursuing is an amendment to the Olde Cypress PUD. The Olde Cypress PUD was originally approved the mid- 1980s. When it was approved, it was approved for over 1,300 residential units. This was the original master plan approved in the PUD. The original project was supposed to have the project access on the east side of the project, not where the current access is on the west side as it is today. In 1996, when we got through the environmental permitting with the SFWMD 10/21/2010 Attachment C and the Army Corps or Engineers, a new master plan was approved for the project and the project density was reduced. All of the development that was formerly on the east side of the project was removed, including the reference to two parcels that comprised of 3.9 acre parks and natural trails that were referred to n the PUD document. In the new PUD master plan, you can see all the development went away on the east side, and unfortunately within the PUD text the reference to the park was not deleted. The 3.9 acre park remained in the text of the PUD document. The purpose that we are going through this amendment is to delete the reference to the 3.9 acre park and walking trails in the text. We are also reducing the project density originally approved for 1,100, subtracting out 158 units - which is the same number of units for the Vita Tuscana PUD. The third petition is an amendment to the Olde Cypress DRI. When the Olde Cypress DRI was approved, it was ultimately approved for 1,100 residential units. We are adding in the Vita Tuscana 64 acres into the Olde Cypress DRI and keeping the and keeping the Olde Cypress DRI density at 1,100. The way we are able to do that is to subtract 158 units from the Olde Cypress PUD to make up the difference. So, the third petition that we are asking for is to add the Vita Tuscana land, not increase the density, and add in the Vita Tuscana project. Those are the three petitions that are winding their way through the county's process. I don't know when our CCPC hearing will be for the three projects. We are hoping that it will be sooner than later to get them done and we'll are coordinating with Kay and Nancy to get them done. Our goal is to have them done while we are in season while people are here. The sooner the better so the developer to move forward with marketing for the Vita Tuscana project. That is an overview of what we are proposing on the three petitions. I'd be happy to answer any questions on any of the three petitions. Resident: Ok. First of all, I will limit my set of questions just to the first petition. You indicated that the units and 33 of those to be MF located additional on the 1.5 acres that Stock has yet to purchase. How can you get permission to build homes on property you don't yet own? Secondly, if you were to buy it, will Stock guarantee that the MF will not access to and from Treeline Drive. Finally, if Mr. Stock doesn't buy that piece of land, can the 33 MF units be built in the remaining acreage for the Vita Tuscana project. Rich Yovanovich: The answer to your question is that we are not asking for any changes to the MF parcel. We don't own it and don't have the right to make changes. We are not asking for the right to build on the 1.42 acres because that right already exists under the HD Development PUD. The existing zoning on this property is roughly from here (pointing) west. As you can see, there is a preserve area between the parcels, so the ability to access the MF from Treeline Drive will not happen. The permitting is complete and access to Treeline Drive from MF will not happen. To answer you last question, the most recent draft PUD we've submitted does not include MF in the Vita Tuscana project area, so that use would not be allowed. Resident: In the last meeting we had, I thought I heard Brian Stock, or one of his representatives, indicate that although the MF units are in the PUD, there was not any intention of building MF units. Now, it seems as if there is a plan on the MF. I'd like to know exactly what the plans are relative to the MF. Rich Yovanovich: I don't think that is what was said at the meting. I think what was said was that this roughly 1.5 acre site was where the MF product would probably go and that Brian (Stock) has no control over that. I believe the commitment was that there would be no MF in the area I just described as SF, so I don't think anything has changed since the last meeting regarding commitments. Obviously, we can't 10/21/2010 commit to anything on the MF since we don't own it. It is already entitled piece of property under the existing HD Development PUD. But as far as constructing MF in this SF area, the PUD document doesn't allow MF in that area. Resident: Whets the definition of MF for the purposes of the 1.5 acres? Rich Yovanovich: The definition that the county has for MF I believe is three or more units in one building. So if you have 3 or more units in one building, that is considered MF. Resident: How tall? Rich Yovanovich: Under the PUD document, it is 42 feet — 3 stories. Resident: You mentioned that there would be 2 story buildings in the SF area? Rich Yovanovich: Yes — we are asking for the ability to build 2 story SF homes. Resident: We are being told it would be single story, single family homes. They also mentioned specific models. Somewhere there is incorrect information. Rich Yovanovich: The PUD document that we've submitted allows for 2 -story SF homes, with a minimum of 1,600 SF. I don't recall the discussion of a height commitment at the previous meeting. Brian (Stock) has stated the majority of the homes will be single story. Resident: What were we told before? Brian Stock: I don't ever remember making a commitment that there wouldn't be two story homes. We plan to offer three different product lines; four of the five floor plans in each product are single story. The majority of our customers in the past have selected single story floor plans. Again, I don't ever remember making a commitment that there wouldn't be two story homes. Resident: The product line that you are talking about - what Lely comparable communities would you compare it to? Brian Stock: Martinique, Caldecott, & Cottesmore Resident: Just some clarifications. Brian Stock doesn't own the 1.42 acre MF site? Rich Yovanovich: Correct. Resident: Are you negotiating to purchase the property? Brian Stock: No. Resident: Is it owned by some other developer? Rich Yovanovich: Yes. It is owned by some other developer. 10/21/2010 Resident: What I don't understand is why amend the PUD on property that he doesn't own, isn't going to own, belongs to someone else, and will continue to be W. Rich Yovanovich: We are not amending that portion of the PUD document. We are only amending the portion of the PUD document that applies to the SF homes. There are 71 SF homes approved in the HD Development PUD. We are adding the 18 acres adjacent to the PUD to create a unified SF community. In doing that, we're going from 71 SF to 125 SF. The only other alternative is that if we don't amend the PUD is to develop the 18 acres as a stand alone project. An 18 acre parcel under the county's Urban land use designation we'd be entitled to build up to 72 total units (18 acres x 4 units /acre). It's more difficult to develop an 18 acre parcel as single family homes. So, the reality is that if this parcel was developed separately; it would probably be developed as multi- family product. So, the thought process was to add the 18 acres to the HD Development PUD to continue on with the concept of single family development. Resident: Is this development going to be built as spec or purchase? Brian Stock: Purchase. Resident: How long do you expect this development to last? Several years? Brian Stock: Hopefully the faster the sales pace will allow us to finish the community within three years or less, but we can't control the customers. Resident: Is the sole access to this community through the main gate? Rich Yovanovich: Yes. Just as it was when HD Development had the property. That hasn't changed. Resident: One clarification. You mentioned there was originally 6 foot setbacks for Vita Tuscan. Rich Yovanovich: The original setbacks for the HD Development PUD was 6 feet. We are requesting to change that to 5 feet. Resident: Because the side yard setbacks in Olde Cypress are 7.5 feet minimum. So that is quite a difference. I just want to clarify. The original project was not supposed to be part of our community. Rich Yovanovich: The original HD Development was a separate PUD. Resident: Can you explain the basis of the interpretation on the mapping changes and the removal of the park from the written documents? Rich Yovanovich: You have to go back and read the DRI document that references the parks. The DRI document specifically identifies where the two park parcels would be and it references them in the far northeast corner near the cypress area and intermediate W property. So there were two parcels, 1.7 and 2.2 acres combined make up the 3.9 acre park in the original DRI document. So, the exact location was identified in the DRI document. When we came back and went through the process later and determined that none of the development referenced in the DRI document no longer existed on the master plan. (because they were cross - referenced). It's my belief is that the county took care of the major issue, but missed the minor issue in the PUD, which was the PUD reference to the park. It was just missed as they were going through the process. It should have been deleted - just like the development density that was in that area was actually deleted - as the amendment occurred in 1996 to the PUD document and the DRI 10/21/2010 document. Then there is a reference that says if there are any inconsistencies between the original approval and the new approval in 1996 that the new approval prevails. Well, the original document references a park in the northeast corner which is clearly inconsistent with the new approval. So I just think it was missed through the process and that's why we're deleting the reference to the 3.9 acres. Resident: I believe 2 or 3 years ago, you were the individual that presented where the 3.9 acre park was going to go and there was some discussion about taking down part of the driving range — is that correct? Rich Yovanovich: Yes. Resident: If what you are saying is the truth, then why was there any effort to put a park in? Why was there discussion about it? Why was there a plan if there was no need for it? Rich Yovanovich: There was an attempt by the developer to give people a park that frankly they didn't have to give you. But in doing so, it was clearly not well received. I remember very clearly it being an unpopular decision on where to locate the 3.9 acres. We tried to fit it within the confines of the existing Olde Cypress project because, as you know, Olde Cypress is essentially built out. We couldn't find a location that was acceptable to everyone. So now we have to clean it up, because it's still there. People are still asking about the 3.9 acre park. It's our positions the 3.9 acre park is not an obligation so we are trying to clean up the documents so we can put this issue to bed. Because until the reference to the 3.9 acre park reference comes out of the PUD, people are going to continue to ask where it is. Resident: When people bought homes and Stock Realty was discussing the features that were to occur in the parks — do you have any concerns on liability? Rich Yovanovich: I'm going to focus tonight's conversation on the changes that affect the PUD document. I'm not here to have a liability discussion. I'm here to talk about the PUD and the park.... Resident: Same question. Rich Yovanovich: The history of the entitlements does not require a park. Resident: Basically, getting back to the questions that were just asked, based on the research and investigation I've done over the last two months - I spoke to approximately 17 county planners, lawyers, representatives, etc - I must respectfully disagree. In my opinion, that the fact that indeed those parks are located in the remote northeastern boundary were removed for the purposes of the remoteness and that they were preserves, in no way relieve the developer of the obligation to develop those parks and nature trails elsewhere in the 538 acres that they have yet to complete development on. And the reference that `they have been removed from the diagram, therefore, we no longer have an obligation' I would like to quote from the PUD 9.02B Section 9 - General Development Commitments — "the design criteria and layout illustrated from the Master Plan and development plan shall be understood as flexible to comply with all technical requirements and best use natural resources ". Accordingly, I'm sorry I for one am going to go to the Planning Commission with my research and to the County Council and ask them to please reconsider. I respectfully suggest that he does indeed still have the obligation and can satisfy that by putting the parks and a limited nature trail in Vita Tuscana as it becomes an extended part of the Olde Cypress PUD 10/21/2010 Resident: I would like to come back to the timeline of the DRI changes. You indicated that two documents were changed — the DRI and a drawing that changed? What were the dates on those documents? Rich Yovanovich: The amendment that changed the Master Plan was in 1996. The original DRI was approved in 1986. In 1986, this (pointing) was the DRI Master Plan. In the Master Plan, you can see the original location of the parks in the northeast corner. Interestingly enough, you couldn't ever access the park without going through the proposed MF development and through the preserve to get to the park areas. Resident: There was an amendment to the DRI done to remove the development and park — when did that occur? Rich Yovanovich: 1996. The map was changed at the same time. The main access was to the right (east). The county was then proposing to extend 951 all the way up along the east side of the project. The main access was to be on the east. Resident: Are you suggesting that the Amendment and the map were changed at the same time? Rich Yovanovich: Yes — they were done at the same time. There was a reduction of project density and the removal of the park areas that occurred in 1996. Both were changes at the same time. Resident: In 2007, when you were standing up here taking bullets, why didn't you say that at that time? Rich Yovanovich: Because at that time, we were hoping that you would accept an alternative plan. If I would have had my druthers, I would have said you not entitled. Resident: We live on Treeline Drive and according to the map that you handed out, it looks like edge of the property ends at about the fourth MY west of the driveway? Rich Yovanovich: There is no MF on this plan. Resident: Is this MF (pointing to SF area)? Rich Yovanovich: No. Those are different single family products. Resident: So, the colored portions is what Stock owns? Rich Yovanovich: Correct. Resident: The dark green is what? Rich Yovanovich: Preserve. Resident: Preserve and SFWMD flow way? Is that set in stone? Rich Yovanovich: Yes. It is permitted. Resident: Never to be touched? Because when it rains, we get 4 -5 feet of water. 10/21/2010 Rich Yovanovich: Correct. Resident: What are we doing with the property highlighted in white? Rich Yovanovich: It is NU. Resident: Is it close to the Dunkin Donuts to the east? Rich Yovanovich: Yes. Resident: How do you change the zoning on someone else's land? Rich Yovanovich: We are not changing anything. We are not changing the development standards on the W. Resident: You said it was zoned ag? Rich Yovanovich: That is the 18 acres next to the cleared land. Resident: Will the SF development be required to be social members of the club? Brian Stock: Yes. They will be required to be social members. Resident: The MF section... are any arrangements to be made for them to be part of the club? Rich Yovanovich: No. There has been no discussion. Resident: As far as landscaping — will that be the same quality as Olde Cypress? Rich Yovanovich: Yes. It will be consistent with Olde Cypress. The goal of the project is to have a nice SF development at the entrance of Olde cypress. Resident: So they will this community be considered part of Olde Cypress — not a separate neighborhood? Rich Yovanovich: Essentially, I guess so. Yes. From a practical standpoint — yes. Resident: Can you give me an explanation between the red and yellow colors on the site plans? Rich Yovanovich: They are all single family. The red is 50' lots and the orange is 60' lots. Resident: What are the security plans from Immokalee Road once this is all cleared to protect us in Olde Cypress? Rich Yovanovich: The canal and a perimeter landscape berm adjacent to the canal between Vita Tuscana and Immokalee Road. 10/21/2010 Resident: Fundamentally thought, you could walk right down the asphalt path and walk into Vita Tuscana? Rich Yovanovich: Yes, I guess you could. Resident So this is no longer a gated community? Rich Yovanovich: We'll need to talk about (security)? Resident: So, this is already not a gated community since you can walk down Logan Blvd and walk right in to Strada Bella. Resident: My name is Gary Lusher. I've been part of this community for several years since 2002. Obviously, the request for the establishment is growth which is totally understandable and a welcome addition to the community. But I was at the 2008 meeting and meetings before that. I think you realize there was an expectation of a park. What is the benefit to the homeowners and the community of Olde Cypress in not objecting to the elimination of the park and nature trails? What's the benefit to the homeowners? Rich Yovanovich: The benefit to the Olde Cypress community is that you will get this development at your entrance. A 125 SF community vs. the original 71 unit project with 33 MF and a separate 18 acre MF project at your entrance. You will get a higher quality project at your entrance. At the meeting two weeks ago, there was discussion not related to the re -zone documents about enhanced landscaping that will occur at the entry and additions to the clubhouse /fitness center areas that are all hand in hand in addressing what some people perceive as the loss of a park. There is going to enhancements to the fitness center, landscaping, and a much nicer development in our opinion than what could have been there had Brian (Stock) not made a commitment to buy this project and build SF rather than letting it go to another developer who could have built up to 72 MF units. We believe that tradeoff more than enhances the value of the Olde Cypress community's perceived loss of a 3.9 acres park. Resident: Excuse me. What is the value you put on these improvements and what value do you put on a 3.9 acre park. What is the value of getting a environmental park and nature trails? What dollar value? Rich Yovanovich: You are asking appraisal issues .that I cannot answer. Resident: At the last meeting, you said it was $100,000. Rich Yovanovich: Well, the landscaping we are proposing is more than $100,000, the fitness center improvements are doubling the size of the facility, and there is a lot of money related to that. Are you asking an exact value? Resident: So swapping 3.9 aces of park and the elimination of nature trails for a couple hundred thousand dollars? From the crowd: I don't think that is correct. I don't think you are doing this to swap out the park. You're doing this to enhance our properties in here and help you develop your property which would be a tremendous enhancement to the community as a whole (applause) Rich Yovanovich: Yes ma'am 10/21/2010 Resident: I just want to say that some people in the meeting in 2007 spoke out against the park and I just want to say that it doesn't represent the entire community. We have a lot of valuable space out here where we can see nature, we have the preserves. I don't see any value in the addition of the park and I'm glad Brian Stock is developing this property (applause) Resident: I just want to comment. Thank you for your reference on want vs. want. I want to know what is the benefit to Olde Cypress? As I understand, it is an enhancement to our community, the club, as well as intrinsic improvements to show progress on Treeline Drive. You've answered my question. Rich Yovanovich: Yes sir. Resident: I was finished until you mentioned the fact that the fitness center is basically part of the enhancement package — and it certainly is. And tangibly it will benefit us all. I've been here since 2003. That fitness center was discussed in 2005, before Mr. Stock had anything to do with Vita Tuscana. That fitness center — and I go there every day — is the smallest, most ill equipped, and frankly embarrassing fitness center in all of North Naples. I think in a depressed housing market it would be wise for any developer to improve that because it is an eyesore - so it can help him (and us) develop homes in Vita Tuscana. But to say that if he wasn't going to development Vita Tuscana is adequate for the remaining 466 of us. It's never been adequate. I would think it would be something a responsible developer would have done long ago after the sales center was moved from that area. So, I am impressed wit the new sales center and I think it will be excellent. However, I think it was due to us long before Vita Tuscana ever came up. Resident: Assuming the amendments shall past and construction occurs, this will be a multi -year project correct? Since it is at the entrance of Olde Cypress and there will be a lot of activity and construction — what if any plans are there to deal with a major construction area at our entrance. Screens, berms, etc. The construction will happen but it will also be pretty visible for people coming into the area. Is there anything you can do to modify that? Keith Gelder: Obviously, there will be a lot of construction activity. You've already got an existing landscape buffer at the entrance to the community. It's something we'll have to coordinate and address. It's something that we've been discussing lately how to manage that. Dump truck going through the front gate — it's something we'll coordinate. Is there anything that we can do at the driving range — cutting through before the gate, or after the gate? It's something we'll have to work through. We are responsible on all of our Lely Resort projects in terms of screening, cleanliness, and managing our jobsites. It's something that we are cognizant of and work through. Resident: I wasn't concerned about the details. I was mainly looking forward to a commitment from you to do whatever you can to minimize the construction. Keith Gelder: Absolutely. We'll have to manage our jobsites. Resident: I have a related question that has to do with a security concern. With that the open area not being gated or bermed - lots of people will be coming into and construction workers, etc. Keith Gelder: What we've always done on our jobsites is have a gated construction access. We'll take measures to restrict access the best we can. We'll take appropriate measures along Irmnokalee Road as well. 10/21/2010 Resident: Is the current owner of this property the same owner of the property Longshore? Rich Yovanovich: No. Totally different property. Resident: Who owns this? Rich Yovanovich: Vita PIMA, LLC. Brian Stock. Resident: Could somebody explain the difference of numbers — the Olde Cypress website states there `will be a low density environment of 650 homes to give you the ultimately luxury of space'. If you take 650 and subtract 426, then the 125 SF of Vita Tuscana, that leaves 99 open SF units somewhere. Is there a discrepancy and the number you have here? The Olde Cypress website states 650 homes —just in our community. If you take the numbers — they don't add up. It gives you an additional 99 units. The MF are not part of Olde Cypress. There are 99 possible units according to this (website). What is the discrepancy? It's off the Olde Cypress website. Rich Yovanovich: The Olde Cypress PUD was approved for 1,100. We are removing 158 units to take it to 942 units. That's what is approved in the zoning. I'm not sure what the website says. Resident: The Stock Olde Cypress website says 650 SF homes. Rich Yovanovich: That was prior to adding this 64 acres... Resident: I'm saying that in Olde Cypress there are 426 homes. Add 125, that's 551 — a difference of 99 units. I'm questioning where they might be coming in. Brian Stock: I understand what you're saying. As far as the numbers aren't adding up, we'll have to take another look at that. Steve DeAngelis: That information was put on the website was by the original board. It may be outdated. We'll have to update it. Resident: This is not the Olde Cypress Master website. I'm saying this is the Stock Olde Cypress website. Rich Yovanovich: Any other comments? Resident: Someone asked the question the berm on Immokalee and whether that would compromise our community and whether we are, in reality, a gated community. It seems it was not answered. Can you answer that concern? Rich Yovanovich: Right now the HD development calls for a landscape berm and buffer along Immokalee Road. That same concept is being carried on for the additional 18 acres. So, there is no changes in the access to the community form what was previously approved. Resident: We presently live in a gated community with certain security. Rich Yovanovich: Unless it is gated all the way around ?? We are not changing the accessibility. 10/21/2010 Resident: But if you can walk in off Immokalee Road? Brian Stock: We are going to have to do some type of fence or security structure on Immokalee Road. At a minimum we'll have a security fence. Rich Yovanovich: Let us get back to you regarding security — fencing or not fencing. Resident: I would appreciate if you could get back to us. Rich Yovanovich: We will let your association know. Resident: One final question - the issue of the park. There has been an evolution of understanding whether the park issue was a legal obligation or wasn't an obligation. Stock trying to alleviate the issue. I believe that it wasn't voluntary unless there was a legal obligation. I still would hope that we as residents and also Stock can clarify to the Commission or Planning Representative what the legal requirements or obligations of Stock are relative to the park. We've heard it was a requirement, not a requirement, somebody mentioned it was an administrative oversight. That makes no sense to me. It's hard to believe. I would like for all parties to understand exactly what the legal aspects are with respect to. So we don't spin our wheels speculating. Rich Yovanovich: Let's just cut to the chase, we believe that this project and the improvements to the entrance more than offset the obligation to build a park. We can go back and forth all we want. We don't believe we have the obligation. We believe the proposed plan of development more than offsets the obligation of a park. I think there is probably a difference of opinion. Unless there is anything new, I would like to thank everyone for coming. ** *END OF MEETING * ** 10/21/2010 AGENDA ITEM 9 -13 VOU RECEIVED THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT FOR THIS PETITION, DOA- PL2010 -1052, OLDE CYPRESS DEVELOPMENT, LTD AND VITA PIMA, LLC IN YOUR PACKET FROM THE FEBRUARY 17, 2011 MEETING. AGENDA ITEM 9 -13 Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES - -LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION -- PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2011 SUBJECT: DOA- PL2010 -1052: OLDE CYPRESS DRI, (COMPANION ITEMS: PUDZ- PL2010- 1054 AND PUDA- PL2010 -388) PROPERTY OWNER &APPLICANT /AGENTS: Owner /Applicant Agents: Olde Cypress Development, Ltd and Vita PIMA LLC 2647 Professional Circle Naples, FL 34119 REQUESTED ACTION: Chris Mitchell Richard D. Yovanovich Waldrop Engineering, P.A. Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A 28100 Bonita Grande Drive Northern Trust Bank Building Bonita Springs, FL 34135 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 The petitioner is requesting an amendment to the Olde Cypress Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Development Order (DO), in accordance with Florida Statutes, Subsection 380.06(19). The proposed modifications will add 63.9 acres into the DRI boundary, amend Map H, and proposes to remove the 3.9 -acre park requirement. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property consisting of 602 acres is located along the north side of Immokalee Road, between an area approximately 330 feet west of Nursery Lane and Olde Cypress Boulevard, in Sections 21 and 22, Range 48 South, Township 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the location map on following page) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner is proposing to amend the DRI Development Order and the DRI Master Plan (Exhibit H) to add approximately 63.9 acres to the DRI. The 63.9 acres to be added is limited to the 45.2 acres of single - family area with an RPUD Zoning District designation that is known as the HD Development RPUD, and 18.7 acres of land with an Agriculture Zoning District designation that, in a companion project, is to be added to the HD Development PUD. The 1.42 -acre multi- family tract of the HD Development is not proposed to be added to the DRI as the applicant and agents in this petition do not own, control or have authority to make any changes to the multi- OLDE CYPRESS DRI: DOA- PL2010 -1052 Page 1 of 9 February 17, 2011 CCPC Revised 2/3/11 LEE COUNTY 0 RESERVE QUAIL PARKLANOS MIRASOL (ORI) WEST (.RI) 7 B 9 10 11 d WAIL CREEK TERATINA MIRASOL HERITAGE BAY PELICAN ',.^ 5 STRAND (wn) 1B a § 17 t6 14 s PROJECT LOCATION zzz PELICANe QUAIL LONGSHORE MIRASOL HERITAGE BAY STRAND 11 LAKE (am) CARLToN (DRI) L F 20 22 23 LAKES 9 4 (� ADUIE EBq.I P LAZAS C.R. 0451 COINER g� NAPLES- MAMOKALEE ROAD �F �} 0D SUMMIT OS RICHLAND LAKES UM GSTON NW N COW ES 29 _ A. GOLDEN GATE ESTATES 46 27 BpuEy 3 UNIT 97 HERITAGE CRYSTAL 26 PoCAS GREENS LAKE BREE2(a) HAMILTON (S) WDIGO LW(ES BRITTANY BAY APARTMENTS WARM SPRINGS GREENS STANDING BRISTOL BUTTCNWD00 MKS PRESERVE DANB PALERMO SUMMIT PLACE C ISLANDWALK cow IN NAPLES 32 (66I) VANDERBILT uANO z 31 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES 33 COUNTRY CLUB p WILSHIRE LAKES UNIT 98 34 —A 35 O PEUCAN g MARSH (DD) OAII WOLF CREEK BOKWOOO RMq! M„I`1S BUCKS RUN VANOLRIBILT BEACH ROAD MI590N CHURCH NDERBILT BRADfOiN VAS CAROLWA VILLAGE SWARE TRUST PRCRM WN(Dal) W n MNEYARD3 $ a (DPo) 4 3 2 5 GOLDEN GATE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES GOLDEN GATE ESTATES 6 ESTATES UNIT 2 UNIT 3 ku UNIT 95 e O GOLDEN GATE BLVD. �i GOLDEN GATE ESTATES VWEYARDS GOLDEN GATE ESTATES GOLDEN GATE ESTATES u GOLDEN GATE ESTATES .17 35 (ORI) UNIT 32 UNIT 1 UNIT 4 ] B 9 10 11 LOCATION MAP PETITION * DOA -PL- 2010 -1052 ZONING MAP s ? T CN ..® ........................ .................. . :f . D'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. .. ........... ........... ........ .......... ........ ......... O y d N ' pO .'.'.'.'.._. OUT PARCEL I M M 0 K A L E E R 0 A D (C. R. PRESERVE - FOX SOUIRREL PRESERVES. EXACT LOCATIONS AND SIZE TO BE w DETERMINED IN FIELD DURING CONSTRUCTION. TOTAL AREA TO BE 6.5 Ac, H- I-Q ACRES TRACT EXCLUDED FROM -1 CIO U DENOTES APROXIMATE LOCATION OF ELEVATED GOLF CART BRIDGES. EXACT zz¢ LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED IN FIELD a-�y DURING CONSTRUCTION. //11LL Qr W * SELECTIVE CLEARING IN THESE AREAS PERMITTED FOR GOLF ^� COURSE PLAY 7� QFUTURE ACCESS V A H LAND USE SUMMARY®& U DESCRIPTION I PARCEL ACREAGE ® RESIDENTIAL 1B2Ae COMMERCIAL 124Et ROAD R.O.W. 30,Tt PRESERVE 18I. t O URS GOLF CODCE,OPEN SPACE ISI 6s IAKES AND CLUBHW SE SITE TOTAL PROJECT 802.Ot wj W N 1 W PRESERVE - HERBACEOUS WETLAND CREATION AREA 4c:: PRESERVE- WETLAND /UPLANDRESTORATIONAREA PRESERVE - FOX SOUIRREL PRESERVES. EXACT LOCATIONS AND SIZE TO BE w DETERMINED IN FIELD DURING CONSTRUCTION. TOTAL AREA TO BE 6.5 Ac, H- I-Q ACRES TRACT EXCLUDED FROM -1 CIO U DENOTES APROXIMATE LOCATION OF ELEVATED GOLF CART BRIDGES. EXACT zz¢ LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED IN FIELD a-�y DURING CONSTRUCTION. //11LL Qr W * SELECTIVE CLEARING IN THESE AREAS PERMITTED FOR GOLF ^� COURSE PLAY 7� QFUTURE ACCESS V A H LAND USE SUMMARY®& U DESCRIPTION I PARCEL ACREAGE ® RESIDENTIAL 1B2Ae COMMERCIAL 124Et ROAD R.O.W. 30,Tt PRESERVE 18I. t O URS GOLF CODCE,OPEN SPACE ISI 6s IAKES AND CLUBHW SE SITE TOTAL PROJECT 802.Ot family tract. No increase in the number of units is proposed as part of this amendment to add additional land. The applicant has not specifically requested that the 3.9 acre park requirement be removed, claiming that the park requirement was removed in the 1996 amendment (see below) because park areas were omitted from Map H, the DRI Master Plan. However, the Southwest Regional Planning Council (RPC) and county staff do not concur with that statement believing that the park issue has never been publicly vetted, and that the omission of the park in the revised Map H did not constitute approval to remove the park commitment. Both county staff and the RPC believe the park issue should be addressed as part of this amendment. The DRI is located east of Interstate 75, and north of Immokalee Road (CR 846), in northern Collier County. Attachment I shows the project location. The Collier County Board of County Commissioners on November 6, 1986 approved the Woodlands Development of Regional Impact (DRI). The development order was appealed by both the RPC and the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). During 1987, the Board of County Commissioners approved two amendments to the DRI Development Order (DO), in order to address the two agencies' appeal issues. The project is currently approved for 1,100 residential units and 165,000 square feet (SF) of retail and office space, all on approximately 500 acres. The development is approved for five phases, ending in 2015. According to the 2010 Annual Monitoring Report to date, 360 single - family & 396 multi- family units have been constructed, the golf course is complete and the 165,000 SF of commercial is built out. According to the RPC, this project has undergone six amendments to date, as described below. On April 28, 1987, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 87 -96, which amended the development order's transportation conditions, based on the appeal of the development order by the RPC (see above). On September 15, 1987 Resolution (87 -207) was adopted, amending section a(4), finding of fact, to state a maximum square footage of permitted commercial retail development and to increase the total acreage of preservation areas and to set forth a revised land use schedule that did not increase the total amount of acreage or dwelling units previously approved. The two (2) development order amendments described above were adopted by Collier County to resolve appeals of the of the original Woodland's DRI development order to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission take by the Florida Department of Community Affairs and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. The Woodland's DRI development order became effective on November 7, 1990, the date on which the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission issued its final order of dismissal of the appeal. On November 1, 1994, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 94 -774, which extended the project's commencement and buildout/D.O. termination dates by four years and eleven months, to the currently approved commencement date of October 7, 2000, and the buildouthermination date of October 7, 2015. On October 22, 1996, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution 96 -482, which reduced the approved number of residential units from 1,460 to 1,100, and reduced commercial use from 200,000 square feet to 165,000 square feet and miscellaneous changes to the plan resulting from permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management. Also, the amendment removed a reserved road right -of -way from the east boundary of the DRI. The OLDE CYPRESS DRI: DOA- PL2010 -1052 Page 2 of 9 February 17, 2011 CCPC Revised 2/3/11 applicant was allowed to adjust the project's approved uses to incorporate the former right -of -way acreage. Miscellaneous changes were also made to drainage /water quality, transportation, vegetation and wildlife, wetlands, consistency with the comprehensive plan and fire by the deletion thereof On May 18, 1999, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approved changes to the Planned Unit Development Document for The Woodlands, to incorporate revisions to the project's development standards, and to allow mini- storage as a use within the commercial area. The development order was not amended. In December 1999, Resolution (99 -472) 28.69 acres was added to the eastern edge of Olde Cypress in Section 22. Lands to be added included a 2.1 acre archaeological preserve area. Standards were also incorporated in the development order to provide protection for archaeological resources. The gross density was also reduced from 2.2 to 2.1 dwelling units per acre. Minor adjustments in land use tabulations, along with other miscellaneous changes were made to the development order to accommodate the notice of change. On May 23, 2000, Resolution (2000 -155) was adopted to add 9.3 acres to accommodate the addition of the golf course driving range. The request also included a modification of the golf course/open space acreage from 161.7 to 168.3 acres, including lakes. The residential acreage was modified from 152.5 acres to 155.2 acres. No changes to the number of dwelling units, commercial floor area, phasing schedule, commencement date, or build -out date was requested. Subject site (outline is approximate) OLDE CYPRESS DRI: DOA- PL2010 -1052 Page 3 of 9 February 17, 2011 CCPC Revised 2/3/11 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL (RPQ: This petition was heard by the RPC on January 20, 2011. RPC staff prepared an analysis, a copy of which is attached to this staff report. In summary, RPC recognized that the proposed changes are presumed to be a substantial deviation under Sub - chapter 380.06(19), Florida Statutes. This presumption relates to the addition of land area to the DRI. The addition of land area to an approved DRI is addressed in under Subparagraph 380.06(19)(e)3., Florida Statutes, which reads as follows: Except for the change authorized by sub paragraph 2.f., any addition of land not previously reviewed or any change not specified in paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) shall be presumed to create a substantial deviation. This presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. The RPC evaluated the documentation provided by the applicant in the Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) application attempted to rebut the presumption of a substantial deviation. In reviewing the potential impacts of the proposed changes, Regional staff looked at two possible regional impacts from the changes. These were Transportation, and Vegetation & Wildlife. Also, a local issue dealing with a 3.9 acres park should be addressed by the county. The applicant provided a trip generation analysis, an aerial vegetation map, some conservation easement information and requested Big Cypress Fox Squirrel information. RPC determined that the proposed change would not result in any increase in intensity (no additional units or addition commercial square footage is proposed), the amount of traffic to be generated by the additional trips which according to RPC, equates to a 10.4% increase. The RPC report states: The 10.4 percent increase is less than the automatic substantial deviation trigger in Chapter 380.06(19)(b)15 stating: "A 15 percent increase in the number of external vehicle trips generated by the development above that which was projected during the original development of regional impact review. " Having rebutted trip increases proposed by the changes, no additional transportation impacts were identified for the proposed changes. Addressing the Vegetation and Wildlife issue, the RPC report states: The additional land area to be added was partly cleared (see Attachment II) already and has received an Environmental Resource Permit, which set aside a Deed of Conservation Easement for 1624 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. The remaining acreage (47.64) of the total 63.9 acres to be added will be developed as residential. A review of the NOPC indicates that copies of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) approved Big Cypress fox squirrel management plan and overall preserve management plan including a method of clearly identifying the preserve boundary must be incorporated into the development order amendment. Assuming these conditions are included within the development order amendment language the proposed changes will not have significant vegetation and wildlife impacts. OLDE CYPRESS DRL DOA- PL2010 -1052 Page 4 of 9 February 17, 2011 CCPC Revised 213/11 As noted previously, RPC, while recognizing that the 3.9 -acre park issue is a local issue not a regional issue, recommends that a decision be made regarding the park. The discussion in the RPC assessment states the following: Local 3.9 acre Park Issue --A 3.9 -acre park was part of the original DRI, P UD applications and Master Development Plan Map. Even specific language in the county's PUD exists to the affect of providing a 3.9 -acre park~ The local park issue should be addressed in this development order amendment to clear up the issue as to whether there will be a 3.9 acre park as required and shown on the original master development plan. We believe the condition is still a requirement of the development even if it was removed from the original master development plan during the 1996 amendment. RPC staff recommends acceptance of the proposed amendment if the following issues are addressed in the County's DRI DO: Copies of the FWC approved Big Cypress fox squirrel management plan and an overall preserve management plan including a method of clearly identifying the preserve boundary must be incorporated into the development order amendment. The local park issue should be addressed in the development order amendment to clear up the issue as to whether there will be a 3.9 acre park as required and shown on the original master development plan. The DRI DO contains language to address both issues. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS MCA): No comments have been received from this agency regarding the DRI DO amendment application. STAFF REVIEW: Zoning Review: Development parameters contained in DRI Development Orders are prerequisite to zoning actions that implement DRI approved land use authorizations. DRI Development Orders are structured to contain regulations that respond to relationships dictated by State Administrative rules. Specifically, those relationships and questions that an applicant is required to analyze and report on as part of their Application for Development Approval (ADA) are included in the DRI DO. The proposed amendment does add land area to the DRI, but it not change the overall approved uses nor increase the overall approved density or overall use intensity. County staff concurs with the findings and recommendation of the RPC in that no additional DRI review is required because of this amendment. Park Issue: As previously noted, the RPC has concerns about this issue but notes that it is a local issue, not a. regional issue. There are several things to consider regarding this park. The commitment language is very vague. Originally, the park was shown on the Master Plan, Map H of DRI DO # 86 -1 and Ordinance #86 -75 as two separate areas, one of which did not appear to have access —it was isolated in a project comer surrounded by preserve areas, as shown in the illustration below (highlighting added for clarity): OLDE CYPRESS DRI: DOA- PL2010 -1052 Page 5 of 9 February 17, 2011 CCPC Revised 2/3/11 -------------------------------------------------------------------- I 5 1 22 tl Aul" 6.5 At 4.5 A4. ST Ut 9"4 imul AW ----------------- t 12 DAIL I The applicant provided the following information in the DRI application materials (highlighting added for clarity): ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two areas in the northeast corner of the project totaling 3.9 acres, adjacent to the cypress preserve and accessed from the Moderate Income Garden Apartments provide additional active open space for community recreation facilities to supplement individual tract amenities. TABLE 27A.1 T�E W0CDL*M RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND OPEN SPACE Golf Course/Country Club Water Management Lakes Preservation Area Parks Recreation Areas --------------------------------------------------- 117.41 acres 80.8 acres 87.5 acres 3.9 acres to be determined TOTAL +377.21 acres ------------------------------------------------------------------- The commitment does not state when the park is to be built, who is to maintain the park,. or what amenities it is to contain. Must there be two parks in the increments shown, or is there discretion as to how the 3.9-acre park commitment is to be fulfilled? Is it to be publicly (county) maintained or was it the intent for the developer or subsequent homeowners' associations to maintain it? OLDE CYPRESS DRI: DOA-PL2010-1052 Page 6 of 9 February 17, 2011 CCPC Revised 2/3/11 Collier County adopted a Park Impact in Ordinance #88 -96, which became effective on December 22, 1988. This ordinance addresses the needs for regional and community parks. The county has not adopted any regulations that require developers to provide a neighborhood park. Regional and community parks are sited and controlled by the county; the County does not generally get involved in the siting or design of neighborhood parks, nor does the county maintain them. Whether a park is designated a regional or a community park is determined by the draw of the attraction. A park can be smaller, but have an attraction that draws persons from a larger area, thus it can be a regional park. This 3.9 -acre park would most likely not contain any attractor element such that it would make it function as a community or regional park. Additionally, the introductory paragraph from the DRI Application (provided on the previous page) indicates that this 3.9 -acre park was to "supplement individual tract amenities," suggesting that the scope of the park would be limited to a neighborhood park. Based upon that assessment, staff is of the opinion that the 39 -acre park would be for a neighborhood park. The introductory paragraph does note that the parks would "provide additional active open space ", but the term "active" is not defined in the context of the park commitment. Currently Olde Cypress has developed as a golf course community with a golf driving range, tennis courts, a swimming pool, and fitness facilities. Therefore, the community appears to offer recreational opportunities as currently developed. However, whether the existing facilities meet the needs of the community is not for staff to ascertain. At the Neighborhood Information Meeting (NM held for the companion PUD amendments, there was no clear consensus from the attendees as to whether or not the park use should be eliminated. There was opposition voiced to the park's removal, while other attendees voiced support for the park's removal; other attendees did not offer an opinion. Since only approximately 100 persons attended the NIM, not all property owners attended. Staff has received and continues to receive correspondence, some of which is supportive of the park's removal and some of which is opposed to the park's removal. (Copies of correspondence received as of 2/3/11 have been provided in the CCPC packets.) It appears that the park issue may be something best resolved by the property owners within Olde Cypress. If the commitment for the 3.9 -acre park is removed from the DRI, the development (Homeowner/Property Owners' Associations or the Developer) could still provide neighborhood park(s), as that term is defined in the LDC since a park is also an allowable principal use within the Olde Cypress PUD document, Ordinance No. 00 -37 Section 7.04.A.4. In the alternative, should the CCPC and the BCC determine that the park commitment should remain, staff recommends that clarification be provided to indicate that the park is indeed a neighborhood park, where the park is to be located; when it is to completed; what facilities it is to provide; who it is to serve—the public or only residents of this project (and all residents or just those within the gated community if that is where the park is located); who is to construct it; and who is to maintain it. Although not normally necessary for a neighborhood park, these clarifications are necessary if the commitment stays in the PUD, so staff has something measurable to ensure PUD commitments have been met. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5 -year planning period. Therefore, the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Mitigation is not required. OLDE CYPRESS DRI: DOA- PL2010-1052 Page 7 of 9 February 17, 2011 CCPC Revised 2/3/11 It should be noted that the number of units allowed by the approved DRI are not changing; only the unit type is changing as the adjacent PUD (HD Development) is incorporated into this DRI. However, an increase in trip generation is noted, and is a result of differing ITE calculations for Multi - family versus Single - family units. The most recent iteration of the trip generation comparison reveals that 33 net new (total two -way) trips are generated. Immokalee Road Impacts: The first concurrency link that is impacted by this project is Link 43. 1, Immokalee Road between I -75 and Logan Boulevard. Staff has calculated that the project generates 11 net new p.m. peak hour, peak direction trips, which represents a 0.29% impact. This segment of Immokalee Road currently has a remaining capacity of 1,325 trips, and is currently at LOS "C" as reflected by the 2010 AUIR. The adjacent concurrency link that is impacted by this project is Link 43.2, Immokalee Road between Logan Boulevard and Collier Boulevard. Staff has calculated that the project generates 6 net new p.m. peak hour, peak direction trips, which represents a 0.17% impact. This segment of Immokalee Road currently has a remaining capacity of 1,718 trips, and is currently at LOS "B" as reflected by the 2010 AUIR. No subsequent links beyond this segment of Immokalee Road are significantly impacted by this project. Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition to address any environmental concerns. This petition was not required to have a hearing before the Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC) as the preserves for the DRI were previously approved with the original approval of the both PUDs; there are no impacts proposed to the previously approved preserves. The DRI as a whole meets the minimum of twenty -five percent preservation acreage. The DRI acreage is 602 acres; 194.5 acres (32 %) has been preserved. The petition is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the GMP and staff recommends that this amendment petition be found consistent with the pertinent objectives, goals and policies of the CCME. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for this petition revised on January 31, 2011. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition DOA - PL2010 -1052 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval as described by the amending DRI Development Order resolution. However, should the CCPC decide to recommend that the 3.9 -acre park commitment be retained, the following issues need to be addressed: 1. When the park is to be built— commenced and completed; and 2. What facilities will be provided; 3. Who is to maintain the park; and 4. Where will the park be provided on site; and 5. Must there be two parks in the increments shown, or is there discretion as to how the 3.9- acre park commitment is to be fulfilled; and 6. If the increment issue is discretionary, who is to decide and when is the decision made. OLDE CYPRESS DRI: DOA- PL2010 -1052 Page 8 of 9 February 17, 2011 CCPC Revised 2/3/11 PREPARED BY: t '-9I► t KA D ELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEWED BY: Z'��'j CK RAY40ND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 0�� j , 0;L-01 -Zofl LIAM D. LO Z, J , P. ., DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPROVED BY: A" NICK CASALANG1 P M 9T, TRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE Tentatively scheduled for the March 22, 2011 Board of County Commissioners Meeting OLDE CYPRESS DRI: DOA- PL2010 -1052 February 17, 2011 CCPC Rev: 1/29/11 Page 9 of 9 y DRI REVIEW MEMORANDUM[ To: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: July 20, 2010 Subject. Olde Cypress Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Review PETITION NUMBER: DRI- PL2010 -1052 PETITION NAME: The Olde Cypress Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), as a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) REQUEST: The Olde Cypress RPUD Development of Regional Impact (DRI) proposes to add approximately 65.3 acres of land to the existing 538.1 -acre project, in accordance with the provisions of Florida State Statutes and the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). No changes are proposed that would affect the total number of approved residential units, phasing, commencement or build -out dates. The new acreage will be part of the companion Vita Tuscana PUD, while the existing acreage remains in the Olde Cypress PUD. LOCATION: The proposed, larger Development of Regional Impact (DRI) contains approximately 603.4 acres and is located on the north side of Immokalee Road (CR 846), east of its intersection with Olde Cypress Boulevard. The property lies within the Urban Estates Planning Community in Sections 21 and 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The 65.3 -acre subject property to be added to the Olde Cypress DRI has the future land use designations of Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict as depicted in the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). Approximately 46.6 acres of the subject site is derived from the former HD Development PUD (now Vita Tuscana) with approval for 104 residential units. This portion is presently an undeveloped Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). Another 18.7 acres presently outside either existing PUD would be incorporated in to the Olde Cypress DRI. This portion is presently undeveloped Rural /Agriculture District land. —1- Olde Cypress DRI Total Land Area of 603.4 acres Developed Land Area of 227.4 acres: ■ "R ", Residential Use Tracts of 184.2 acres — single - family residences and multi- family residences, up to 1,100 du; apportioned to 491 SF (45 %) and 609 MF (55 0/6); an overall density of 2.4 dwelling units per acre. 0 ■ "C ", Commercial Uses Tract of 12.5 acres — 165,000 sq. ft. commercial space; ■ "ROW", Public Right -of -Way Tracts of 30.7 acres — [Extending Olde Cypress Boulevard, northward from Immokalee Road] Undeveloped Land Area of 376 acres: • "P ", Preserve Uses Tracts totaling 194.5 acres. • "GC ", Golf Course, lakes, driving range and clubhouse tracts totaling 181.5 acres. The table below illustrates the acreage figures, dwelling unit counts and residential densities involved in each part of the project: Ttl ACs Ttl DUs Ttl Coml ACs non -Coml AC Gross Res'I Density Existing DRI 538.1 1,100 12.5 525.6 2.09 DU /AC Proposed DRI 603.4 1,100 12.5 590.9 1.86 DU/AC Olde Cypress PUD 538.1 942 12.5 525.6 1.79 DU/AC Vita Tuscan PUD 65.3 158 0.0 65.3 2.41 DUTAC Even with the acreage increase, no additional residential units are proposed for the larger DRI. Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff has determined the Olde Cypress DRI amendment can be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan, subject to the Olde Cypress PUD reducing its total approved dwelling units from 1,100 to 942, as shown in the table above. ON CITY VIEW cc: William Lorenz, PE Director, Land Development Services Department Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Services Section Mike Bosi, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Tony Russo, Jr., Senior Administrative Assistant, Public Utilities Planning & Project Management Dept. Chris D' Arco, Environmental Specialist, Stormwater & Environmental Planning Section Mike Greene, Manager, Transportation Planning Section FLUE File LQyviewDocumentsXomprhensive Planning Dept. Letters101de Cypress DRI- PUDTOA- P12010 -1052 Olde Cypress DRI.docx —2- Olde Cypress DRI THE OLDE CYPRESS (formally Woodlands) DRI DRI 903- 8485 -53 NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGE Background The DRI is located east of Interstate 75, and north of Immokalee Road (CR 846), in northern Collier County. Attachment I shows the project location. The Collier County Board of County Commissioners on November 6, 1986 approved the Woodlands Development of Regional Impact (DRI). The development order was appealed by both the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council ( SWFRPC) and the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). During 1987, the Board of County Commissioners approved two amendments to the D.O., in order to address the two agencies' appeal issues. The project is currently approved for 1,100 residential units and 165,000 square feet of retail and office space, all on approximately 500 acres. The development is approved for five phases, ending in 2015. According to the 2010 Annual Monitoring Report to date, 360 single- family & 396 multi - family units have been constructed, the golf course is complete and the 165,000 SF of commercial is built out. Previous Changes There have been six previous changes to The Olde Cypress /Woodlands DRI. On April 28, 1987, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 87 -96, which amended the development order's transportation conditions, based on the appeal of the development order by the SWFRPC (see above). On September 15, 1987 Resolution (87 -207) was adopted, amending section a(4), finding of fact, to state a maximum square footage of permitted commercial retail development and to increase the total acreage of preservation areas and to set forth a revised land use schedule that did not increase the total amount of acreage or dwelling units previously approved. The two (2) development order amendments described above were adopted by Collier County to resolve appeals of the of the original Woodland's DRI development order to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission take by the Florida Department of Community Affairs and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. The Woodland's DRI development order became effective on November 7, 1990, the date on which the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission issued its final order of dismissal of the appeal. On November 1, 1994, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 94 -774, which extended the project's commencement and buildout/D.O. termination dates by four years and eleven months, to the currently approved commencement date of October 7, 2000, and the buildout /termination date of October 7, 2015. On October 22, 1996, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution 96 -482, which reduced the approved number of residential units from 1,460 to 1,100, and reduced commercial use from 200,000 square feet to 165,000 square feet and miscellaneous On October 22, 1996, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution 96 -482, which reduced the approved number of residential units from 1,460 to 1,100, and reduced commercial use from 200,000 square feet to 165,000 square feet and miscellaneous changes to the plan resulting from permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management. Also, the amendment removed a reserved road right -of -way from the east boundary of the DRI. The applicant was allowed to adjust the project's approved uses to incorporate the former right -of -way acreage. Miscellaneous changes were also made to drainage /water quality, transportation, vegetation and wildlife, wetlands, consistency with the comprehensive plan and fire by the deletion thereof. On May 18, 1999, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners approved changes to the Planned Unit Development Document for The Woodlands, to incorporate revisions to the project's development standards, and to allow mini - storage as a use within the commercial area. The development order was not amended. In December 1999, Resolution (99 -472) 28.69 acres was added to the eastern edge of Olde Cypress in Section 22. Lands to be added included a 2.1 acre archaeological preserve area. Standards were also incorporated in the development order to provide protection for archaeological resources. The gross density was also reduced from 2.2 to 2.1 dwelling units per acre. Minor adjustments in land use tabulations, along with other miscellaneous changes were made to the development order to accommodate the notice of change. On May 23, 2000, Resolution (2000 -155) was adopted to add 9.3 acres to accommodate the addition of the golf course driving range. The request also included a modification of the golf course /open space acreage from 161.7 to 168.3 acres, including lakes. The residential acreage was modified from 152.5 acres to 155.2 acres. No changes to the number of dwelling units, commercial floor area, phasing schedule, commencement date, or build -out date was requested. Attachment II shows the existing Master Development Plan for the Olde Cypress DRI. Proposed Changes On June 28, 2010 a Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) was submitted to aggregate into the Olde Cypress DRI up to 125 single - family residential units and 33 multi - family units, and associated accessory uses, within the Vita Tuscana RPUD boundary. The developer proposes to add 63.88 acres to the existing DRI with no change in the total 1,100 number of approved units. The aggregation will not add density or units to the DRI. The water and sewer for this project will be provided by Collier County Public Utilities through existing infrastructure serving Olde Cypress and /or Immokalee Road. No changes are proposed to the phasing, commencement, or build -out dates. The additional acreage is planned for residential development. Attachment III shows the Proposed Master Development Plan Map with the additional land area and development plan. Regional Staff Analysis The proposed changes are presumed to be a substantial deviation under Sub - chapter 380.06(19), Florida Statutes. This presumption relates to the addition of land area to the DRI. The addition of land area to an approved DRI is covered under Subparagraph 380.06(19)(e)3., Florida Statutes, which reads as follows: "Except for the change authorized by sub - paragraph 21, any addition of land not previously reviewed or any change not specified in paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) shall be presumed to create a substantial deviation. This presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence." The NOPC application attempted to rebut the presumption of a substantial deviation by providing a trip generation analysis, aerial vegetation map, some conservation easement information and requested Big Cypress Fox Squirrel information. Character Magnitude, Location The Character of the DRI, as a residential development with some commercial uses, will not change. The magnitude and location of the DRI will change somewhat due to the additional acreage. Regional Goals Resources Or Facilities In reviewing the potential impacts of the proposed changes, Regional staff looked at two possible regional impacts from the changes. These were Transportation, and Vegetation & Wildlife. Also, a local issue dealing with a 3.9 acres park should be addressed by the county. Transportation Impacts A new trip generation calculation was provided, which indicated that a 10.4 percent increase in traffic may occur. This increase is proposed because the amount of single family units increased by 125 units compared to increasing the multi family by 33 units. There is no increase in the total approved 1,100 units. The 10.4 percent increase is less than the automatic substantial deviation trigger in Chapter 380.06(19)(b)15 stating: "A 15 percent increase in the number of external vehicle trips generated by the development above that which was projected during the original development of regional impact review." Having rebutted trip increases proposed by the changes, no additional transportation impacts were identified for the proposed changes. Vegetation & Wildlife The additional land area to be added was partly cleared.(see Attachment IV) already and has received an Environmental Resource Permit, which set aside a Deed of Conservation Easement for 16.24 acres of jurisdictional wetlands. The remaining acreage (47.64) of the total 63.9 acres to be added will be developed as residential. A review of the NOPC indicates that copies of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) approved Big Cypress fox squirrel management plan and overall preserve management plan including a method of clearly identifying the preserve boundary must be incorporated into the development order amendment. Assuming these conditions are included within the development order amendment language the proposed changes will not have significant vegetation and wildlife impacts. Local 3.9 acre Park Issue A 3.9 acre park was part of the original DRI, PUD applications and Master Development Plan Map. Even specific language in the county's PUD exists to the affect of providing a 3.9 acre park. The local park issue should be addressed in this development order amendment to clear up the issue as to whether there will be a 3.9 acre park as required and shown on the original master development plan. We believe the condition is still a requirement of the development even if it was removed from the original master development plan during the 1996 amendment. Multi] urisdictional Issues No multijurisdictional issues will result from the proposed changes. Need For Reassessment of The DRI There does not appear to be a need to reassess the DRI as a result of the proposed changes. Acceptance of Proposed D.O. Language Regional staff recommends acceptance of the proposed development order amendment language with the exception of the following conditions. Copies of the FWC approved Big Cypress fox squirrel management plan and an overall preserve management plan including a method of clearly identifying the preserve boundary must be incorporated into the development order amendment. The local park issue should be addressed in the development order amendment to clear up the issue as to whether there will be a 3.9 acre park as required and shown on the original master development plan. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. If the two conditions are incorporated in the proposed development order language above staff will notify Collier County, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and the applicant that the proposed changes do not appear to create additional regional impacts and that Council participation at the local public hearing is not necessary, unless requested by the County for technical assistance purposes. 2. Request that Collier County provide a copy of any development order amendment related to the proposed changes to the SWFRPC in order to ensure that the amendment is consistent with the Notice of Proposed Change. C WRpc. NY HENDRY COUNTY ATTACHMENT 1 GENERAL LOCATION MAP OLDE CYPRESS MONROE COUNTY ATTACHMENT It XXISTING DEVELOPMENT PLAN OLDE CYPRESS,_ N .tae Aw a aae DENOTES HERBACEOUS %=A/D CREATION AAEA OEw7W- WMAlD / 1AILADD RESTOAAWN AREA, LAND USE SUMMARY DESCRIPTION / PARCEL ACRES + /_ OF FOX SQUIRAM PPRESFRWR EXACT 15&Z' LOCATIONS AAD SM M SE AEYMUW" 12.5. W FEW DURING COSSIRUC7ICK TOTAL AREA TO BE AS An. •%' 23,8 D@DTES APROXA ArE LOCATION OF 178.2 ELEYATEO GOLF 'CART AAROER. EXACT • LOCAITON TO BE WMERAIWO At F6A 188.3 DfRRO CONSTAYAOTXIK * SLIEC77W CLEAAITO R THESE 538.1 AREAS PERAWMA O FOR QOLF COURSE PLAY 4 FUTURE ACCESS LAND USE SUMMARY DESCRIPTION / PARCEL ACRES + /_ RESIDENTIAL ® 15&Z' COMMERCIAL 12.5. ROAD R.O.W. 23,8 WETLAND PRESERVE 178.2 LAKE/PRESERVE 21 GOLF COURSE, OPEN SPACE, 188.3 LAKES AND CLUBHOUSE SITE TOTAL PROJECT 538.1 H H H H z EW 1GI�P-�1I rW V E c� ® k W 6 3a ® — W 9 2 N W _ • - _ PRESERVE HERBACEOUS WETLAND CREATION AREA p p99py_ ucr PRESERVE - WETLAND I UPLAND RESTORATION AREA f u PRESERVE - FOX SOUIRREL PRESERVES. _ EXACT LOCATIONS AND SIZE TO BE DETERMINED IN FIELD DURING CONSTRUCTION. TOTAL AREA TO BE 6.5 AC H- • O A 1.Q ACRES TRACT EXCLUDED FROM DRI U n OUT PARCEL _ . a IVI DENOTES APROXIMATE LOCATION OF a ® ELEVATED GOLF CART BRIDGES. EXACT W ® LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED IN FIELD { DURING CONSTRUCTION. * SELECTIVE CLEARING THESE f I F IF p AREAS PERMITTED FOR GOLF T�1 ! - COURBE PLAY w¢r ® - F Ill - - y T FUTURE ACCESS r 1 < U `v/ J _ LAND USE SUMMARYA U Y O DESCRIPTIONIPARCEL ACREAGE - ® RE9pEHTIAL 1B23i S RO R. .W. - 125t O ® ® - ROAD R.O.W. M.Ts PRESERVE 1913: CLUBHOUSE Y IGOLFCOURSE•OPEN SPACE 1e1.5: O SRE a IAREB AND CLUBN WEE SITE TOTAL PpOJECT BBt.Oi D O wt our i4S Q PARCEL D cry e� ® • - -• -_ ri �[ar.mra ,w®s H E p . C 0 C• • •A •C M A L •i.�.mw•nm nr��um�a. IMM OKA L EE R 0 A 0 (C. R. 6)7. GHI Cocohatchee tOV""MdlWffi-- and Rhodes Land Su"A basezi�bn Oh66j'nterpretoti r?fo I ' ;yandbrignidtrit an of $FWbilplunsdictioh ' a+ (0-2ac.) 517 525 N), -24 6,24 - - - - - - - - - - - .9 V I,!" ly %�1—� --Pjmjnvaolkfbykxolics (517550�1 ' 2 .. .. I-, Platwoods invaded Exotics f26-560 Y 62SE2-D ^h 201 . 0. 625E3� ne'R' inv'�dod,bkgiotic� Drained., Sit ev ll'e� ,eld'� 4d by sF6 MID. 74 `74 P E Mi. &SE" ONLY T otal N 625E3 -D 7 4'11E 6* Lb d FLUCCS, Description ResIcApnPa! Commercafand Semces 411E. 0 1 ac) GoArcol - Sarartvdterftf� nt . . . . . . . . . . . . . -- - ------- . . . 4, 0. 3 a 625E2-D .......... Cocohatchee tOV""MdlWffi-- and Rhodes Land Su"A basezi�bn Oh66j'nterpretoti r?fo I ' ;yandbrignidtrit an of $FWbilplunsdictioh ' a+ (0-2ac.) 517 525 N), -24 6,24 - - - - - - - - - - - .9 V I,!" ly %�1—� --Pjmjnvaolkfbykxolics (517550�1 ' 2 .. .. I-, Platwoods invaded Exotics f26-560 Y 62SE2-D ^h 201 . 0. 625E3� ne'R' inv'�dod,bkgiotic� Drained., Sit ev ll'e� ,eld'� 4d by sF6 MID. 74 `74 P E Mi. &SE" ONLY T otal t t DEVELOPMENT ORDER NO. 1I- RESOLUTION NO. I I - A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 86 -01, FOR THE OLDE CYPRESS DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE: AMENDING THE FINDINGS OF FACT SECTION TO REFLECT AN INCREASE IN THE OVERALL ACREAGE AND TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI - FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AND AMENDING THE MASTER PLAN, LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ADDED LAND AREA AND TO REMOVE THE PARK REQUIREMENT; SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF FACT; SECTION THREE: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; AND SECTION FOUR: EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDER, TRANSMITTAL TO DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida approved Development Order 86 -01 (the Development Order) on November 6, 1986, which approved a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) now known as Olde Cypress formerly the Woodlands Development Order; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the approval of Development Order No. 86 -01, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida approved several amendments to said Development Order; and WHEREAS, "Olde Cypress ", represented by Chris Mitchell of Waldrop Engineering, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A, has filed its application and Notice of Proposed Change (NOPC) to Development Order No. 86 -01, as amended, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit `B'; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, as the governing body of the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, with jurisdiction pursuant to Section 380.06, Olde Cypress/DOA- PL2010 -1052 Rev. 1/31/11 1 of Words strttek dw:e+i are deleted; words underlined are added. Florida Statutes, is authorized and empowered to consider proposed changes to the Olde Cypress DRI Development Order No. 86 -01, as amended; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners passed Ordinance No. on , which had the effect of amending the PUD zoning district for the Olde Cypress development previously approved in Ordinance No. 2000 -37; and WHEREAS, on , the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, in accordance with Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, having considered "Olde Cypress" application and Notice of Proposed Change to the Olde Cypress DRI Development Order No. 86 -01, as amended, and record made at said hearing, and having considered the record of the documentary and oral evidence presented to the Collier County Planning Commission, the report and recommendation of Collier County Planning Staff and Advisory Boards, the report and recommendations of the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC), the Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the following Olde Cypress DRI Development Order amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND MASTER PLAN Paragraph 4 of the Findings of Fact Section of Development Order 86 -01, as amended, for the Olde Cypress DRI is hereby amended to read as follows: The applicant proposes the development of Olde Cypress pursuant to the ADA, and the terms and conditions of this Development Order, as the same may be amended. The development consists of 538.1 602 acres which includes a maximum of 165,000 square feet of commercial retail on a maximum of 12.5 acres, residential development of 1,100 dwelling units on approximately 155 184.2 acres, approximately 176.2 acres of preservation area, and approximately 15.3 181.5 acres of lakes, open Olde Cypress /DOA- PL2010 -1052 Rev. 1131111 2 of 6 Words ask dffough are deleted; words underlined are added. space, an 18 -hole golf course and 2.1 acres of lake /preservation area to preserve archaeological resources. The general plan of development is depicted on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, although the acreages referenced therein and stated herein may vary somewhat to accommodate site conditions, topography and environmental permitting requirements. Paragraph 6 of the Findings of Fact Section of Development Order 96 -2, as amended, for the Olde Cypress DRI is hereby amended to read as follows: 6. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE: h. Prior to the issuance of any local development order to allow vertical construction for lands within the 63.9 acres being added in this amendment, the developer, or his assigns, will submit and receive approval of a Big Cypress Fox Squirrel Management Plan that includes an overall preserve management plan. Said plans must clearly identify a method to identify the preserve boundary. This submittal shall be made concurrently to RPC, DCA, FWC and Collier County. Paragraph 9 of the Findings of Fact Section of Development Order 96 -2, as amended, for the Olde Cypress DRI is hereby amended to read as follows: 9. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS: In "The Woodlands" ADA, numerous Commitments were made by the applicant to mitigate project impacts. Many, but not all of these commitments, are listed in this Development Order. Additionally, the ADA provided a Phasing Schedule that provided the timing basis for this review. If this phasing schedule is significantly altered by the applicant then many of the basic assumptions of this approval could be substantially changed, potentially raising additional Regional issues and/or impacts. Conditions: a. All commitment and impact mitigating actions provided by the applicant within the Application for Development Approval (and supplementary documents) that are not in conflict with specific conditions for project approval outlined above are officially adopted excepting any park requirements, as conditions for approval. Olde Cypress /DOA- PI,2010 -1052 Rev. 1 /31 /l1 3 of Words stmsk through are deleted; words underlined are added. SECTION TWO: FINDINGS OF FACT A. The real property, which is the subject of the proposal, is legally described as set forth in Exhibit `B ", attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof. B. The application is in accordance with Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes. C. The applicant submitted to the County a Notice of Proposed Change to a previously approved DRI known as Exhibit "C ", and by reference made a part hereof. D. The applicant proposes the development of Olde Cypress on 602 acres of land for residential /golf course and commercial development described in Development Order 86 -01, as amended. E. A comprehensive review of the impact generated by the proposed changes to the previously approved development has been conducted by the County's departments and the S WFRPC. F. The development is not in an area designated an Area of Critical State Concern pursuant Section 380.05, Florida Statutes, as amended. G. The proposed changes to the previously approved development are consistent with the report and recommendations of the SWFRPC. SECTION THREE: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order do not constitute a substantial deviation pursuant to Section 380.06(19), Florida Statutes. The scope of the development to be permitted pursuant to this Development Order Amendment includes operations described in the Notice of Proposed Change to a previously approved DRI. Exhibit "C" attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof. Olde Cypress/DOA- PL2010 -1052 Rev. 1/31/11 4 of 6 Words s#aek threugh are deleted; words underlined are added. B. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order fall within the parameters for extensions of buildout pursuant to Section 380.06(15)(g), Florida Statutes. C. The proposed changes to the previously approved development will not unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the objectives of the adopted State Land Development Plan applicable to the area. D. The proposed changes to the previously approved development are consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Regulations adopted pursuant thereto. E. The proposed changes to the previously approved Development Order are consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan. F. The proposed changes do not constitute a substantial deviation pursuant to Subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, SECTION FOUR: EFFECT OF PREVIOUSLY ISSUED DEVELOPMENT ORDERS, TRANSMITTAL TO DCA AND EFFECTIVE DATE 1. Except as amended hereby, Development Order No. , as amended, shall remain in full force and effect, binding in accordance with its terms on all parties thereto. This amended Development Order shall take precedence over any of the applicable provisions of previous development orders which are in conflict therewith. 2. Copies of this Development Order (Resolution) shall be transmitted immediately upon execution to the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Land and Water Management, and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, 3. This Resolution shall take effect as provided by law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. Olde Cypress /DOA- PL2010 -1052 Rev. 113 1 / 11 5 of 6 Words s#oek dweu are deleted; words underlined are added. I� This Resolution adopted this second, and majority vote. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK day of 2011, after motion, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk FRED W. COYLE, Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Steven T. Williams �1,� Assistant County Attorney ��s Attachments: Exhibit A - Map H Exhibit B — Legal Description Exhibit C — Notice of Proposed Change CP /10- CPS - 01045\37 Olde Cypress /DOA- PL2010 -1052 Rev. 1/3 ]/ 11 6 of 6 Words stmek Offeu g13 are deleted; words underlined are added. w ��o\ .� N G� I Y� e n ' I U M 0 K A L F F R O A D (C. R. a 4 W N PRESERVE- 11ERBALEOIIS Y/ETLAND CREATION AREA O �� K PRESERVE WETIANDf UPlANO RESTORATION AREA PRESERVE• FOR SOUMEL PRESERVES ENACT IOCATpNS ANOSRETDBE w DETERMNE0 4N FIE D DUiNO CONSTRUCTION.TOTALAREATOBE 6.5A q- 1, ACRES TRACT EXCLUDED FROM DR TTY^ U V 1V1 1 DENOTES rTl Q LS TI N COIF CARES ED I EXALT }LiyN-y]j '- OUINN GN Tb BE OET4RNINFD IN FIELD DURING CONSTRUCTION. * SELECTIVE CLEAP4 GIN THESE ¢ Hy AREAS PERNITTED FOR GOLF F COURSE PLAY > T W 4 FUTURE ACCESS T j F14 Q LAND USE SUWAARYAA �// J LFHCRIPIXIN IPMLEI ACREAGE ® REHX1fNRAL tw.H, Ld.R.ERCP1 133! l ROAD R.GW PRESERVE 191St O GCIF COARSE, OPFNHPAGE IHI,Ht wcesawcLUHNOUSE srre tote PROIFCt wxaa it -- — 1 I- L X W D ! Mak ME J I U M 0 K A L F F R O A D (C. R. a 4 W N PRESERVE- 11ERBALEOIIS Y/ETLAND CREATION AREA O �� K PRESERVE WETIANDf UPlANO RESTORATION AREA PRESERVE• FOR SOUMEL PRESERVES ENACT IOCATpNS ANOSRETDBE w DETERMNE0 4N FIE D DUiNO CONSTRUCTION.TOTALAREATOBE 6.5A q- 1, ACRES TRACT EXCLUDED FROM DR TTY^ U V 1V1 1 DENOTES rTl Q LS TI N COIF CARES ED I EXALT }LiyN-y]j '- OUINN GN Tb BE OET4RNINFD IN FIELD DURING CONSTRUCTION. * SELECTIVE CLEAP4 GIN THESE ¢ Hy AREAS PERNITTED FOR GOLF F COURSE PLAY > T W 4 FUTURE ACCESS T j F14 Q LAND USE SUWAARYAA �// J LFHCRIPIXIN IPMLEI ACREAGE ® REHX1fNRAL tw.H, Ld.R.ERCP1 133! l ROAD R.GW PRESERVE 191St O GCIF COARSE, OPFNHPAGE IHI,Ht wcesawcLUHNOUSE srre tote PROIFCt wxaa it -- — 1 I- L X W Rhodes &Rhodes Land Surveying, Inc. 28100 Bonita (Grande Driver Bute 107, Bonita Springs, Florida 34135 Phone (239) 405 -8166 Fax (239) 405.8163 DESCRIPTION OF A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 21 & 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA A PORTION OF SECTIONS 21 AND 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA: THENCE RUN N.00 °59'51 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 21, A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE N.00 °59'51 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 21 A DISTANCE OF 2560.17 FEET TO THE WEST ONE - QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 21; THENCE RUN N.01 °00'08 "W., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 21, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2659.99 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 21; THENCE RUN N.89 °04'49 "E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 21 A DISTANCE OF 2645.04 FEET TO THE NORTH ONE - QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 21; THENCE RUN N.89 °04'26 "E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 21, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2644.36 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 21; THENCE RUN S.00 055'09 "E., ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 21, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2663.26 FEET TO THE EAST ONE- QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 21; THENCE RUN S.00 055'37 "E., ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 21, FOR A DISTANCE OF 666.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AMBERTON, A CONDOMINIUM, ACCORDING TO THE DECLARATION OF CONDOMINIUM RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4278 AT PAGE 3396 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN N.89 006'04 "E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID CONDOMINIUM FOR A DISTANCE OF 656.66 FEET; THENCE RUN S.01 °01'19 "E. FOR A DISTANCE OF 1898.09 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF THE COCOHATCHEE CANAL (100 FEET WIDE)AS RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 43, PAGE 251 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN S.89 °09'07 "W., ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 659.81 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 21; THENCE RUN S.89 °09'28 "W., ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY, FOR A DISTANCE OF 660.31 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FAIRWAY PRESERVE AT OLDE CYPRESS, A CONDOMINIUM, ACCORDING TO THE DECLARATION OF CONDOMINIUM RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3866 AT PAGE 4006 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS AND TO THE EAST LINE OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4079 AT PAGE 1265 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN N.00 °56'04 "W., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID CONDOMINIUM AND EAST LINE OF SAID PARCEL, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1231.49 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL; THENCE RUN S.89 °08'07 "W., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL AND THE NORTH LINE OF A PARCEL DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4079 AT PAGE 1259 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS, FOR A DISTANCE OF 660.47 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4079 AT PAGE 1259 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN S.00 °5631 "E., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1231.23 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL AND TO THE NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF THE AFORESAID COCOHATCHEE CANAL; THENCE RUN S.89 °09'28 "W., ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 990.47 FEET TO THE EAST LINE A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN SHEET 1 OF 2 Exhibit B Rhodes & Rhodes I and Surveying, Inc. 28100 Banta Grande Drive, Suite 107, Bonita springs, Florida MI-35 Phone (239) 405 -8166 Fax (239) 405 -8163 OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3579 AT PAGE 3894 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE N.00-57'1 2"W., ALONG SAID EAST LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 224.51 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL THE FOLLOWING THIRTEEN (13) COURSES: (1) THENCE S.65 °23'20 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 43.57 FEET; (2) THENCE S.78 °26'13 "W., FORA DISTANCE OF 61.22 FEET; (3) THENCE S.80 004'25 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 45.57 FEET; (4) THENCE S.84 °27'31 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 31.15 FEET; (5) THENCE S.80 °09'47 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 30.89 FEET; (6) THENCE S.58 048'23 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 24.42 FEET; (7) THENCE S.54 °27'05 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 36.02 FEET; (8) THENCE S.40 °25' 12 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 33.11 FEET; (9) THENCE S.47 057'45 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 62.74 FEET; (10) THENCE S.50 °21'05 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 49.97 FEET; (11) THENCE S.68'22'05 "W., FORA DISTANCE OF 37.47 FEET; (12) THENCE S.42 018'38 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 39.61 FEET; (13) THENCE S.56 149'27 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 15.80 FEET TO THE AFORESAID NORTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF A 100 FEET WIDE DRAINAGE CANAL; THENCE RUN S.89 °08'23 "W., ALONG SAID NORTH RIGHT - OF -WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2528.93 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. LESS THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: DAVINCI ESTATES AT OLDS CYPRESS, A SUBDIVISION RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 35 AT PAGES 33 THROUGH 37, INCLUSIVE, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ALSO BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A PORTION OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA: THENCE RUN N.00 °59'51 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 21, FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE N.00 °59'51 "W. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 21, FOR A DISTANCE OF 2560.17 FEET TO THE WEST ONE - QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 21; THENCE RUN N.89 °06'45 "E., ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST ONE - QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 21, FOR A DISTANCE OF 660.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE RUN N.01000'01 "W., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID DAVINCI SUBDIVISION, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1330.06 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89 005'40 "E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID DAVINCI SUBDIVISION, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1321.51 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00 °58'40 "E,, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID DAVINICI SUBDIVISION, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1330.47 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89 °06'45 "W., ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID DAVINCI SUBDIVISION, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1320.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL AS DESCRIBED CONTAINS 602.04 ACRES, MORE OR LESS SHEET 2 OF 2 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS DIVISION OF COMMUNITY PLANNING BUREAU OF LOCAL PLANNING 2555 Shumard Oak Blvd. Tallahassee. Florida 32399 850/488 -4925 NOTIFICATION OF A PROPOSED CHANGE TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (DRI) SUBSECTION 380.06(1.9), FLORIDA STATUTES Subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes, requires that submittal of a proposed change to a previously approved DRI be made to the local government, the regional planning agency, and the state land planning agency according to this form. 1. 1, Brian Stock, the undersigned owner /autliorized representative of Olde Cypress Development, LTD & Vita Pima, LLC, hereby give notice of a proposed change to a (developer) previously approved Development of Regional Impact in accordance with Subsection 380.06(19), Florida Statutes. In support thereof, I submit the following information concerning the Olde Cypress DRI (f /k/a The Woodlands DRI) development, which. (original & current project names) information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I have submitted today, under separate cover, copies of this completed notification to Collier County, (local government) to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council, and to the Bureau of Local Planning, Department of Community Affairs. Date Exhibit C DOA- PL2010-1052 REV:1 OLDE CYPRESS DRI DATE: 6/11/10 Due: 7/2/10 2. Applicant (name, address, phone). Olde Cypress Development, LTD 2647 Professional Circle, Suite 1201 Naples, F134119 Contact: Keith Gelder (239) S92 -7344 3. Authorized Agent (name, address, phone). Waldrop Engineering, P.A. 28100 Bonita Grande Drive Bonita Springs, F134135 Contact: Chris Mitchell (239) 405 -7777 Olde Cypress DRI DOA- PL2010 -1052 submittted: 1 -12 -11 (this page only) 4. Location (City, County, Township/Range /Section) of approved DRI and proposed change. Olde Cypress Dri (F/K/A The Woodlands Dri) Naples, F134103 Section 21 & 22 /Township 48s /Range 26e 5. Provide a complete description of the proposed change. Include any proposed changes to the plan of development, phasing, additional lands, commencement date, build -out date, development order conditions and requirements, or to the representations contained in either the development order or the Application for Development Approval. Indicate such changes on the project master site plan, supplementing with other detailed maps, as appropriate. Additional information may be requested by the Department or any reviewing agency to clarify the nature of the change or the resulting impacts. No changes are proposed to the phasing, commencement, or build-out dates. The developer proposes to add 63.88 acres to the existing DRI with no change in total number of approved units. The additional acreage is planned for residential development. 6. Complete the attached Substantial Deviation Determination Chart for all land use types approved in the development. If no change is proposed or has occurred, indicate no change. Please See Attached 7. List all the dates and resolution numbers (or other appropriate identification numbers) of all modifications or amendments to the originally approved DRI development order that have been adopted by the local government, and provide a brief description of the previous changes (i.e., any information not already addressed in the Substantial Deviation Determination Chart). Has there been a change in local government jurisdiction for any portion of the development since the last approval or development order was issued? If so, has the annexing local government adopted a new DRI development order for the project? There have been five (5) development order amendments adopted by Collier County since the original "The Woodlands DRU' development order (Ord. 86 -1) was issued on November 6, 1986. The following is a description of the five (S) do amendments: (1) Resolution (87-96) adopted April 28,1987, amended section b(5)(a)(7) and (8), transportation, to clarify responsibilities of Collier County and the developer; amended section b(5)(b)(4), transportation conditions, clarifying and redefining criteria by which a substantial deviation shall be determined; (2) Resolution (87 -207) adopted September 15,1987, amending section a(4), finding of fact, to state a maximum square footage of permitted commercial retail development and to increase the total acreage of preservation areas and to set forth a revised land use schedule that did not increase the total amount of acreage or dwelling units previously approved The two (2) development order amendments described above were adopted by Collier County to resolve appeals of the of the original Woodland's DRI develompent order to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission take by the Florida Department of Community Affairs and the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. The Woodland's DRI development order became effective on November 7,1990, the date on which the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Comission issued its final order of dismissal of the appeal. (3) Resolution (94 -774) adopted November 1, 1994, extended the woodland's DRI commencement date and the buildout/termination date by four (4) years, eleven months (11) or until October 7, 2000 and October 7, 2015, respectively. Collier County remains the local government with jurisdiction over all portions of the Olde Cypress DAL (4) On October 22, 1996, the BCC amended the development order with resolution (96 -482) to reduce the number of dwelling units from 1,460 to 1,100 dwelling units and a reduction of the commercial use from 200,000 sf to 165,000 sf and miscellaneous changes to the plan resulting solely from permitting requirements of the South Florida Water Management. Also, the right - of- -way reservation on the east side of the Woodlands was eliminated. Miscellaneous changes were also made to drainagelwater quality, transportation, vegetation and wildlife, wetlands, consistency with the comprehensive plan and fire by the deletion thereof. (5) In December 1999, Resolution (99 -472) 28.69 acres were added to the eastern edge of Olde Cypress in Section 22. Lands to be added included a 2.1 acre archaelogical preserve area. Standards were also incorporated in the development order to provide protection for archaelogical resources. The gross density was also reduced from 2.2 to 2.1 dwelling units per acre. Minor adjustments in land use tabulations, along with other miscellaneous changes were made to the development order to accommodate the notice of change. (6) Resolution (2000 -155) adopted May 23, 2000 added 9.3 acres to accommodate the addition of the go f course driving range. The request also included a modification of the gooeourselopen space acreage from 161.7 to 168.3 acres, including lakes. The residential acreage was modified from 152.5 acres to 155.2 acres. No changes to the number of dwelling units, commercial f oor area, phasing schedule, commencement date, or build -out date was requested. 8. Describe any lands purchased or optioned within 1/4 mile of the original DRI site subsequent to the original approval or issuance of the DRI development order. Identify such land, its size, intended use, and adjacent non - project land uses within ' /z mile on a project master site plan or other map. Vita Pima, LLC recently purchased 65.29 acres directly adjacent (south) of the Olde Cypress DRl. The easterly 46.64 acre parcel is an existing RPUD (HD Development Ordinance #05 -65). The westerly 18.65 acres is currently zoned agricultural, Vita Pima, LLC has filed a concurrent PUD Amendment application with Collier County to rezone the entire 65.29 acres to RPUD. 9. Indicate if the proposed change is less than 40% (cumulatively with other previous changes) of any of the criteria listed in Paragraph 380.06(19)(b), Florida Statutes. The proposed change is less than 40% of any of the criteria listed in 380(19)(6), F.S. Do you believe this notification of change proposes a change which meets the criteria of Subparagraph 380.06(19)(e)2., F.S. YES NO X 10. Does the proposed change result in a change to the buildout date or any phasing date of the project? If so, indicate the proposed new buildout or phasing dates. No changes to buildout dates or phasing are proposed 11. Will the proposed change require an amendment to the local government comprehensive plan? The proposed change will not require any comprehensive plan changes. Provide the following for incorporation into such an amended development order, pursuant to Subsections 380.06 (15), F.S., and 9J- 2.025, Florida Administrative Code: 12. An updated master site plan or other map of the development portraying and distinguishing the proposed changes to the previously approved DRI or development order conditions. Attached 13. Pursuant to Subsection 380.06(19)(0, F.S., include the precise language that is being proposed to be deleted or added as an amendment to the development order. This language should address and quantify: a. All proposed specific changes to the nature, phasing, and build- out date of the development; to development order conditions and requirements; to commitments and representations in the Application for Development Approval; to the acreage attributable to each described proposed change of land use, open space, areas for preservation, green belts; to structures or to other improvements including locations, square footage, number of units; and other major characteristics or components of the proposed change; See attached Proposed Master Plan, Map H and Proposed changes to the Collier County Development Order. b. An updated legal description of the property, if any project acreage is/has been added or deleted to the previously approved plan of development; See attached legal description of the property to be attached to the Development Order. C. A proposed amended development order deadline for commencing physical development of the proposed changes, if applicable; No change. d. A proposed amended development order termination date that reasonably reflects the time required to complete the development; No change. e. A proposed amended development order date until which the local government agrees that the changes to the DRI shall not be subject to down - zoning, unit density reduction, or intensity reduction, if applicable; and No change. f. Proposed amended development order specifications for the annual report, including the date of submission, contents, and parties to whom the report is submitted as specified in Subsection 9J -2.025 (7), F.A.C. No change. 2010 NOTICE OF PROPOSED CHANGE SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION DETERMINATION CHART Type of Land Use Change Category Proposed Plan Original Plan Previous DO Change & Date Residential # of dwelling units 1,100 1,100 Ord. (2000 -03) Type of dwelling units: Single - family 491 296 195 Multi- family 609 804 (195) # of lots Acreage, including drainage, 184.20 155.20 29.00 ROW easements, etc. Site locational changes # External vehicle trips D.O. Conditions Open Space Acreage 181.50 168.30 13.20 (All natural vegetated and non- imervious surfaces) Site locational changes Type of open space D.O. conditions ADA representations Olde Cypress DAI / PUD Unit Summary Last Updated: 3/15/2010 Snbdivisicin Tot Lots. Built to Date N Strada Bella SF 18 17 94% Santorini SF 55. 55 100% Tetramar SF 55 55 100% Egret Cove SF 18 18 100% This Landing SF 55 55 100% Santa Rosa SF 27 27 100% Biscayne Place SF 8.. 8 100% Woodsed SF .130 125 96% Total SF Units 366 360 98% Subdivision Twe Total Units Built to Date fs Fairway Preserve MF 264 264 100% Amberton MF 312 132 42% Total NY Units 576 396 69% Olde Cypress DRI DOA- PL2010 -1052 email submittal 1216110 Olde Cypress DRI Total Units Built tq Date o Total Proposed Units 1100. 756 69% Oldc Cypress PUD Exi do MT Units 576. SF Units 366 Unallocated .. 15$ Total Units 1100 HD Development RPUD Existi PrMosed SF Units 71 125 Total Units 71 125 Total DRI Units Exist' Prof sed Olde Cypress PUD 1100 942 Vita Tuscana PUD 0 125 Total Units 1100 1067 Olde Cypress DRI DOA- PL2010 -1052 email submittal 12/6/10 Olde Cjpress DAI Transportation Summary FNistingUnit Mix Olde Cypress DRI DOA- PL2010 -1052 email submittal 12/6110 PM Peak Total ,Vt Units Hour Taps Tdga SF 296 1.0 296 MF 804 0.5 402 Total 1100 698 Fr posed Unit Mix PM Peak Total � Hour p SF 491 1.0 491 MF 576 0.5. 288 Total 1067 779 % Change in Total Trips 10.40% Olde Cypress DRI DOA- PL2010 -1052 email submittal 12/6110 AGENDA ITEM 9 -C YOU RECEIVED THE ORIGINAL STAFF REPORT FOR THIS PETITION, PUDZ- PL2010 -1054, VITA PIMA, LLC IN YOUR PACKET FROM THE FEBRUARY 17, 2011 MEETING. AGENDA ITEM 9 -C Coil'ier County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES - -LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION -- PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2011 SUBJECT: PUDZ- PL2010 -1054; HD DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) (COMPANIONS TO DOA- PL2010 -1052 & PUDZ- PL2010 -388) PROPERTY OWNER & APPLICANT /AGENT: Owner /Applicant Agents: Olde Cypress Development, Ltd. Chris Mitchell and Vita PIMA LLC Waldrop Engineering, P.A. 2647 Professional Circle 28100 Bonita Grande Drive Naples, FL 34119 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 REQUESTED ACTION: Richard D. Yovanovich Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Northern Trust Bank Building 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for a rezone from the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district with a Special Treatment (ST) Overlay, for a project that is known as the HD Development RPUD, and the Agricultural (A) zoning district, to the RPUD zoning district to allow for development of a maximum of 125 single- family residential units and 33 multi - family units, and associated accessory uses. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The 65.29± acre subject property is located along the north side of Immokalee Road (CR 846) approximately 330 feet east of Olde Cypress Boulevard in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map and proposed PUD Master Plan on the following pages) HD Development, PUDZ -PL 2010 -1054 Page 1 of 15 February 17, 2011 CCPC Revised (2) 1/31/11 LEE COUNTY 0 UBCANY RESERVE (DRI) WAR SY PARI(LAWS (DR) MWASOL 7 B 9 1D 11 12 VEIERRNS MEMORIAL BOULEVapO DUAR HERITAGE BAY PELICAN CREEK TERARNA MIRASDL (DRI) STRAND 16 17 16 15 14 13 (M8) a DA AND ESTATES IN PELICAN WAK LONG910RE OIDE CYPRESS MIRASOL 22 HERITAGE BAY AND F II LAKE (ORI) `EKE" 0R1> 20 z1 24 OLDE CYPRESS PROJECT 23 (D14) LOCATION NORTH EBOU PLAZA OOItE AGDICS CORNEA TIME FARM NAPLES41IQNQ LEE ROAD C.R.BCS) G § v SVYMS 8 61 MCHUND AKES LNINGS>(ON S 1 S MwBU TIIE LAKE 26 GOLDEN GATE ESTA/E5 28 27 cow 25 9GaEY 30 UNIT 97 28 BREEZs) 0 RIGAS GREENS CRYSTAL MO� TMEBT LAKE HAMILTON (S) NDIGO LAKES GRE ENS B11ARl BAY ARARTYENI9 - SPRNGS STANDING N9STOL BUTTON'M]OD PINES PRESERVE ."S PALERMO SUMMIT PLACE ISUNDWAIK cm m IN NAPLES 31 32 (M1I) VANDERBILT WILSHIRE G DEN GATE ESTATES 33 NW COUNTRY CLUB PELICAN LAKES UNIT B6 34 35 36 MARSH (DID) WWIP CREEL( BOXWOOD LRmnN BUCKS RUN VANOERBILT BEACH ROAD KLLS MISSION CHURCH BRADFORD VANDERBRT SDUARE TRUST PRCAM CAROLINA NL1A[E VNEYARD (OR8 MN(DRI) DRI) 4 3 Li 2 v 1 kv 5 GOLDEN GATE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES �i GOLDEN GALE ESTATES 6 F ESTATES UNH 2 . UNIT ] Z Vfs)W � UNIT 95 p GOLDEN DATE BOULEVARD GOLDEN GATE ESTATES 8 9 1D 11 12 UNIT 35 VMEYARDS GOLDEN GATE ESTATES GOLDEN GATE ESTATES GOLDEN CAIE ESTATES 7 (W) UNIT 32 UNIT 1 UNIT 4 LOCATION MAP 4 ZONING MAP PETITION # PUDZ -PL- 2010 -1054 F wLPREG6 GOLFCOUR6f otnE Cpar�caF muRfiE caxsE EXISTING TREELINE DRIVE PUD R.O.W. ®m vER IXw DEER ® RESIOV u W I I I I I I ,cT.FE i oRr nfiENnoN catFdd R I I RuNG R.,E g o coiF muse •, g Saa;IE FAM0.Y I ¢ iteee ►eee sees (OJECT LOCATION MA �mTtFe•G•dt,� _ _ NBF'6F2d'E y]F.,6 100' CANAL R.O.W. IMMOKALEE ROAD (S.R. 646) 145' R.O.W. 4-3 T — — T FfRA,EimeERM �Gw,oEFnGE SiEtFVY1G•,1:lOMH aGww�,wx I AGRIGUL,® FuO RE51�GfNRAI 1 .GR,mLT�RA.® Pw SRS -, 1 SECTION A A MNNtEHANCf A1D Rid. AmESS FARE,.BIf F��, EnsTw rwnd+Ai sauam RESIOEMaI SO R.O.W. I RE610EMAL p' LAND USE SUMMARY �, PE6YEMAGE OF �(ta; OF SeF[:LE FRwfxTMCi AREA 2T.,,z) OSI. 6 MuITSIMLLY TRACT aRE t?2z1 _ C� eN QY (68K OF 0.0.W.AfFA E.Ny u6 (OVEN mACT =1 65.t,x g� � W �• FI OF E%6RTNGNATNE VE(iETATON •,6a ACfES RFOUIREDI t _ 2zdM oar RETENTON taFE s e tYJTAL GROSS AiFA �W tWd% QIRRENT 2aNWGAMVtO USF RESGENMl P1A6 AGPoClRTUUt.vACaM W �mEG uvTS66�GAC.z.�G�tA< Rwcfn wTwo w �.• uFTS-0vilOtNt / � VALLEY e-�u,Eaxxen.RE RdR,a6� ti STABNIEO SiRlFAOf pdR bl �) TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION TYPICAL LAKE SECTION h� U 7� a H a W Q � � w a W a U Q LaVEMGE (AdtNG rnAOE•,s.oz 1 FROVrcE SfrreNCSai _ m6TRtXRIX1 ` tL M(lCHell•P.f. SECTION B —B .11 SET NUMBER: 19501 rMl z8 C� g� � W a � �W Z W o. Qo 8 e. h� U 7� a H a W Q � � w a W a U Q LaVEMGE (AdtNG rnAOE•,s.oz 1 FROVrcE SfrreNCSai _ m6TRtXRIX1 ` tL M(lCHell•P.f. SECTION B —B .11 SET NUMBER: 19501 rMl ING TRE UNEDRIVE A 7 CJ U ra, C) B& 1W CANAL R.O.W. - -- - -- - -- - -- JWOKALEE ROAD (S.R. 546)145' R.O.W. rl SECTION A-A LAND USE SUMMARY i Im. TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION TYPICAL LAKE SECTION SECTION 9:�. Q �Piz • o 1 s� ,/ ✓r fr KEYMAP NOTES .... ........_............ ,...,.. ,. o.�.,o.. .. ... ... ..... .... ... . .. _ ..... m n _ �o�._.. n � --- -- ---- ---I----- ----- ---- - - - - - -- SIDEWALK EASEMENT ----- ---- --- --- Q E� a O > � W W U Q Q x PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The HD Development PUD project was approved in Ordinance Number 05 -65 on November 15, 2005. A copy of the ordinance is included with the application materials. The subject site at that time consisted of 46± acres. The petitioner is seeking to add 18.7± acres of agriculturally zoned lands to the project. The original HD Development PUD was approved for a maximum of 104 dwelling units at a maximum density of 2.23 units per acre. The 104 units were to consist of a maximum of 71 single - family units and 33 multi - family units. This amendment proposes a maximum of 158 dwelling units which results in a density of 2.4 units per acre. The change will increase the number of units from 104 dwelling units (71 single- family and 33 multi - family units), to a total of 158 which will consist of a maximum of 125 single - family residents; the originally approved maximum of 33 multi- family units will be unchanged (see Exhibit A, Section D in the PUD document/ordinance.) In the companion amendment to the Olde Cypress PUD (PUDZ- PL2010 -388), the petitioner proposes to eliminate 158 dwelling units which will allow the HD Development to be added to the Olde Cypress DRI without increasing the maximum number of dwelling units allowed in the DRI. The companion amendment to the Olde Cypress DRI Development Order (DOA- PL2010- 1052) proposes to add the 63.9 -acre HD Development PUD into the DRI boundary. Currently the petitioner seeks to repeal Ordinance Number 05 -65 by adopting a new ordinance that allows the changes noted previously. The petitioner is also revising the property development standards as explained later in this report, the removal of an earlier affordable housing payment commitment, and the approval of two deviations that were not addressed in the 2005 action. The Master Plan for the proposed amendment depicts generalized areas of development and traffic circulation. When originally submitted, the petitioner proposed changing the project name from HD Development to Vita Tuscana. The petitioner abandoned that plan. The project has retained its original name of HD Development; however some documents in the application still have the Vita Tuscana name. Those references are for this project-111) Development PUD. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Treeline Drive, developed single- family residential uses, and a golf course/lake within the Olde Cypress project that was approved for a density of 2.1 units per acre (to be decreased to 1.75 units per acre if the pending DRI and PUD amendments are approved), with a zoning designation of PUD (Olde Cypress). The maximum building height limitations for this project are 35 feet for single - family attached and detached, zero lot line, two - family & duplex, and townhouse units; and 45 feet for multi - family dwellings (Ordinance # 00 -37). East: Preserve and developed commercial areas within the commercially designated area of the Olde Cypress PUD. Building height limitation for all commercial uses in the Olde Cypress PUD is 50 feet above grade. (Ordinance # 00 -37) HD Development, PUDZ -PL 2010 -1054 Page 2 of 15 February 17, 2011 CCPC Revised (2) 1/31/11 South: Immokalee Road, then six 5 acre Agriculturally zoned tracts, five of which are undeveloped; the developed Saturnia Lakes subdivision, approved at 3.13 dwelling units per acre, which has a zoning designation of PUD (Rigas PUD); the Heritage Greens golf course community, approved at a density of 2.1 units per acre, with a zoning designation of PUD (Ordinance #97 -13) West: Recreation tracts within the Olde Cypress subdivision, with a zoning designation of PUD (Olde Cypress) (Ordinance # 00 -37). Aerial Photo (subject site depiction is approximate) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject site is designated Urban/Urban Mixed Use District, as contained in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan. This designation allows a base density of four du/ac. The proposed density is 2.4 du/ac. Staff believes the project is consistent with FLUE Objective 7 and subsequent Policies 7.1 through 7.4 regarding Smart Growth principles for interconnections, loop road, sidewalks /trails, and various other Smart Growth principles. A complete analysis is the July 20, 2010 memo from Comprehensive Planning staff. A copy of that memo is attached. HD Development, PUDZ -PL 2010 -1054 Page 3 of 15 February 17, 2011 CCPC Revised (2) 1/31/11 Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's PUD Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) included in the application back -up material and the PUD documents to ensure the PUD documents contain the appropriate language to address this project's potential traffic impacts, and to offer a recommendation regarding GMP Transportation Element Policy 5.1. Those policies require the review of all rezone requests with consideration of their impact on the overall transportation system, and specifically note that the County should not approve any request that significantly impacts a roadway segment already operating and/or projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service (LOS) within the five -year planning period unless specific mitigating stipulations are approved. Transportation Planning staff has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the five -year planning period. Therefore, the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Mitigation is not required. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental staff has evaluated the proposed changes to the PUD documents. The PUD meets the minimum of twenty -five percent preservation acreage. The native vegetation on site is 64.9 acres; 16.23 (25 %) is required to be preserved. The petition is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the GMP and staff recommends that this amendment petition be found consistent with the pertinent objectives, goals and policies of the CCME. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning to CPUD. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as indicated previously in the GMP discussion. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff also recommends that the petition be found consistent with the CCME. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. ANALYSIS• Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (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 bases for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: HD Development, PUDZ -PL 2010 -1054 Page 4 of 15 February 17, 2011 CCPC Revised (2) 1/31/11 Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff is recommending approval subject to the Environmental condition contained in Exhibit F of the PUD document. A hearing was not required before the Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC) per Collier County Code of Ordinances Part One, Chapter 2, Article VIII. Division 23. — Environmental Advisory Council. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right -of -way and access issues. Transportation Division staff has recommended approval subject to the adoption of the Transportation Development Commitments provided in Exhibit F of the attached PUD Ordinance. Zoning Services Review: The petitioner has revised the Master Plan to remove the Tract designations, however the overall project design as to the location of the preserve areas and the general depiction of the single- family and multi- family dwelling areas remain essentially the same. The proposed Master Plan shows greater site development detail with lot lines depictions provided. The general configuration of the internal roadway system is also shown as well. This amendment proposes several changes to the property development regulations from what was approved in Ordinance Number 2005 -61 as shown below. ' The existing ordinance contains a footnote that circumstances, so there really is no change 2 No changes are proposed to the multi - family area; family unit type. allows the reduction to 18 feet in certain changes are only proposed for the single- The use list has been revised to exclude a clubhouse from the single - family residential area. The development standards contained in Exhibit B of the PUD documents reflect a design approach that would allow construction of a compact and clustered development. HD Development, PUDZ -PL 2010 -1054 Page 5 of 15 February 17, 2011 CCPC Revised (2) 1/31/11 Ordinance # 2005 -65 Amendment proposal 2 Lot Area 9,000 square feet 6,000 square feet Lot Width 60 feet interior 65 feet corner 50 feet for both Front setback 23 feet' 19 feet Side Yard Setback 6 feet for 1 story 7.5 for 2 story 5 feet for both Building Height 35 feet with a maximum of 1 story- -zoned height; no actual 35 feet zoned height, maximum of two Principal Buildings height provided stories Minimum Floor Area 2,400 square feet 1,600 square feet ' The existing ordinance contains a footnote that circumstances, so there really is no change 2 No changes are proposed to the multi - family area; family unit type. allows the reduction to 18 feet in certain changes are only proposed for the single- The use list has been revised to exclude a clubhouse from the single - family residential area. The development standards contained in Exhibit B of the PUD documents reflect a design approach that would allow construction of a compact and clustered development. HD Development, PUDZ -PL 2010 -1054 Page 5 of 15 February 17, 2011 CCPC Revised (2) 1/31/11 FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. However, staff would note that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses /densities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis might include a review of both the subject proposal and surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location, traffic generation/attraction, etc. Specifically, staff notes single - family residential building heights are proposed to increase from one story to two stories. As illustrated in the aerial photograph located on page 2 of the staff report, the surrounding zoning discussion of this staff report, and the Master Plan, the site is bounded to the north, east and west by the Olde Cypress project -- either preserve areas and commercial areas (east); or recreational uses (west); or roadway ( Treeline Drive), single - family homes or golf course area to the north. That project was approved at a density of 2.1 units per acre. Olde Cypress PUD appears to have been approved with uses similar to what was approved, and again proposed, for the HD Development PUD. There are no new uses proposed as part of this amendment to the HD Development. The proposed property development regulations for the single - family units in HD Development are similar to what is approved for single- family detached units in Olde Cypress as shown below: The PUD contains a footnote to allow a reduction to 10 feet for a garage and 20 feet the remaining structures if two parking spaces are provided in an enclosed side -entry garage Treeline Drive separates this project from all residential development in Olde Cypress except for a small portion along the north property line as shown below: HD Development, PUDZ -PL 2010 -1054 Page 6 of 15 February 17, 2011 CCPC Revised (2) 1/31/11 Olde Cypress as approved HD Development amendment proposal Lot Area 6,000 square feet 6,000 square feet Lot Width 60 feet 50 feet Front setback 25 feet 19 feet Side Yard Setback 5 feet 5 feet Building Height Principal Buildings 35 feet zoned height (no mention of actual height or number of stories) 35 feet zoned height with a maximum of 2 stories Minimum Floor Area 1,200 square feet 1,600 square feet The PUD contains a footnote to allow a reduction to 10 feet for a garage and 20 feet the remaining structures if two parking spaces are provided in an enclosed side -entry garage Treeline Drive separates this project from all residential development in Olde Cypress except for a small portion along the north property line as shown below: HD Development, PUDZ -PL 2010 -1054 Page 6 of 15 February 17, 2011 CCPC Revised (2) 1/31/11 In the previous zoning action, the developer of the HD Development agreed to provide an enhanced buffer to be placed along a portion of the northern property line. That commitment will remain, as explained in PUD document, Exhibit F.2.A. In any case, both projects will be developed with similar property development regulations as minimum standards. The density proposed for HD Development at 2.4 units per acre is somewhat higher than what is approved for Olde Cypress (2.1 units per acre), but staff believes roadway separation of Treeline Drive and the enhanced buffer will ameliorate any perceived incompatibility. It appears from the aerial photos and the plat for Olde Cypress, Unit 1 (Plat Book 32, specifically pages 3 and 5) that the lots developed in Olde Cypress are larger than the minimum allowed lot sizes, however both projects will be single - family use subdivisions, so the uses are compatible. The multi- family development area abuts a commercially designated area of Olde Cypress. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking two deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are listed in PUD Exhibit E. Deviation #1 seeks relief from I DC Section 6.06.01.0 that requires a local road right -of -way to be a minimum of 60 feet wide, to allow a 50 -foot wide right -of -way for roadways within the development. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant provided the following justification for this deviation: The internal rights of way shall be private and shall be maintained by the HOA. The proposed deviation allows for design flexibility as well as consistency with right -of -way widths approved for the HD Development RPUD. The reduced right -of -way width allows for single family development within the parcel. For these reasons, the proposed deviation will not negatively impact public health, safety or welfare. HD Development, PUDZ -PL 2010 -1054 Page 7 of 15 February 17, 2011 CCPC Revised (2) 1/31/11 Staff Analysis and Recommendation: This deviation would allow the developer to provide narrower roadways within the development. The HOA can control traffic via posted speed limits and project design. Since the roadways will not be county - maintained, staff does not object. Therefore, the deviation seems appropriate. Zoning and Land Development Review staff would recommend APPROVAL of this deviation, finding, that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #2 seeks relief from Collier County Code of Ordinances Chapter 22, Article 4, Section 22 -112.2 that requires a 4 to I slope to a depth of 10 feet from control, then a 2 to I slope to the bottom of the excavation, to allow for 4 to 1 slope to a depth of 7 feet from control elevation, then a 2 to 1 slope to the bottom of the excavation (20' maximum). Petitioner's Rationale. The applicant provided the following justification for this deviation: The proposed deviation allows for design flexibility for stormwater management features internal to the development and will not negatively impact public health, safety or welfare. Furthermore, the proposed deviation will not impact the form or function of the on -site lakes. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: This deviation would allow the developer to potentially get more fill from the lakes thus decreasing development costs. Staff does not object. Zoning and Land Development Review staff would recommend APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safetv and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is " iustified as meeting public nurooses to a decree at least eouivalent to literal application of such regulations." LDC Subsection 10.03.05.I.2 states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners... shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." 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. [Staff s responses to these criteria are provided in bold, non - italicized font]: PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): HD Development, PUDZ -PL 2010 -1054 Page 8 of 15 February 17, 2011 CCPC Revised (2) 1/31/11 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. Staff has reviewed the proposed amendments and believes the changes are compatible with the development approved in the area with the additional buffering proposed by the petitioner. Therefore, the commitments made by the applicant provide adequate assurances that the proposed change will not adversely affect living conditions in the area. Z. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Staff has provided an extensive review of the proposed changes and believes that the project will be compatible with the surrounding area. S. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6 The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Currently, the roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. In addition, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development`,x° approvals are sought. HD Development, PUDZ -PL 2010 -1054 Page 9 of 15 February 17, 2011 CCPC Revised (2) 1/31/11 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as road capacity, wastewater disposal system, and potable water supplies to accommodate this project 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. The petitioner is seeking two deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes the deviation 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 10.02.13.13.5.11, 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." Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report for a more extensive examination of the deviations. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.03.05. L 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" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The zoning analysis provides an in -depth review of the proposed changes. Staff is of the opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with neighborhood development with the additional buffering commitments provided by the petitioner. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed it at length in the zoning review analysis. Staff believes the proposed changes are appropriate given the existing land use pattern. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts, The proposed PUD rezone would not create an isolated zoning district because most of the subject property is already zoned PUD. The Agriculturally zoned parcels that are being HD Development, PUDZ -PL 2010 -1054 Page 10 of 15 February 17, 2011 CCPC Revised (2) 1/31/11 added demonstrate a reasonable extension of the PUD zoning in this Urban Mixed Use district per the GMP. The land to be added is bordered by the PUD zoned lands of Old Cypress to the west and north. . 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed district boundaries are logically drawn, bringing the agriculturally zoned land within the FLUE Urban Mixed Use District into a more urban zoning district. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary, per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes because the petitioner purchased adjacent agriculturally zoned land that he wishes to develop as part of the existing HD Development PUD. Without rezoning, the agriculturally zoned tracts could not be developed with the proposed property development regulations. 6 Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change, with the commitments made by the applicant, is consistent with the County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Therefore, the proposed change should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have other specific regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new developments. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this petition were approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. This project's property development regulations do not indicate that exceedingly tall structures would be included in the project; therefore the project should not significantly reduce light HD Development, PUDZ -PL 2010 -1054 Page 11 of 15 February 17, 2011 CCPC Revised (2) 1/31/11 and air to adjacent areas; thus the development proposed, if approved, should not negatively affect light and air permeation into adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; Properties around this property are already developed or developing now. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan which is a public policy statement supporting Zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; The property currently has two zoning designations — Agricultural and PUD. The tracts could be developed within the parameters of those zoning designations; however, the petitioner is seeking this rezone in compliance with LDC provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed rezone meets the intent of the PUD district and further, believes the public interest will be maintained. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; The petitioner proposes to develop single -family uses and multi-family uses and is proposing property development regulations similar to what is approved for the adjacent project. The GMP is a policy statement, which has evaluated the scale, density, and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban - designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the HD Development, PUDZ -PL 2010 -1054 Page 12 of 15 February 17, 2011 CCPC Revised (2) 1/31111 community. 1 S. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a particular zoning petition. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP as discussed in other portions of the staff report. 16 The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as it may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD document. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM). The NIM meeting was duly noticed by the applicant and held October 18, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. at the Olde Cypress Clubhouse. Please refer to the minutes provided by the petitioner's agent that are included in the application material. HD Development, PUDZ -PL 2010 -1054 Page 13 of 15 February 17, 2011 CCPC Revised (2) 1/31/11 COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for this petition on February 2, 2011. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ- PL2010 -1054 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval. 1'1 of 16 kHD Development, PUDZ -PL 2010 -1054 February 17, 2011 CCPC Revised (2) 1/31/11 PREPARED BY: jt� I av- AmjOk'-, > haq It I KAY bE4LEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEWED BY: RAYY40ND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES �r fs2 •C.t -2-01/ OPILLIATI D. LO NZ, JJY, .E., DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPROVED BY: (9; -- o� NICK CASALAN UID UTY ADMINISTRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the March 22, 2011 Board of County Commissioners Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN PUDZ -PL 2010 -1054 bruary 2 11 CCPC Revised 1/29/11 DATE IsafIS PageJ4Wlid0m 0 �4' Co er Co-r.�ri.ty CONSISTENCY REVIEW MEMORANDUM To: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: July 20, 2010 Subject. • Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Revieav PETITION NUMBER: PUDZ- PL2010 -1054 PETITION NAME: Vita Tuscana RPUD REQUEST: To rezone the 65.3 acre site from A, Rural Agriculture zoning district (approximately 18.7 acres), and HD Development PUD (approximately 46.6 acres) to RPUD, Residential Planned Unit Development, to be known as Vita Tuscana. The HD Development PUD is an undeveloped Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) approved for 104 residential dwelling units. The new Vita Tuscana RPUD would be incorporated into the Olde Cypress DRI. The Vita Tuscana Residential Planned Unit Development project entails up to 158 single - family residences and multi- family residences; apportioned to 125 SF (79 9/6) and 33 MF (21 9/6) for a gross density of 2.41 du /ac. An undeveloped right of way, a remnant of the existing HD development PUD is to be vacated. Another configuration has been designed for streets within the Vita Tuscana RPUD. LOCATION: The subject property is generally located in the northeast quadrant of the Immokalee Road (CR846) /Olde Cypress Boulevard intersection, lying adjacently south of the Olde Cypress PUD /DRI and adjacently north of Immokalee Road. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject site is designated Urban /Urban Mixed Use District, as contained in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan. This designation allows a base density of 4 du /ac. The proposed density is 2.4 du /ac. -I — Vita Tuscana RPUD The table below illustrates the acreage figures, dwelling unit counts and residential densities involved in each part of the project: Ttl ACs Ttl DUs Ttl Com'I ACs non -Com'I AC Gross Res'I Densit Existing DRI 538.1 1,100 12.5 525.6 2.09 DU/AC Proposed DRI 603.4 1,100 12.5 590.9 1.86 DU/AC Olde Cypress PUD 538.1 942 12.5 525.6 1.79 DU /AC Vita Tuscana PUD 65.3 158 0.0 65.3 2.41 DUTAC The acreage increase is reflected in the Olde Cypress DRI, and in the Vita Tuscana (fka HD Development) PUD. Although no additional residential units are proposed for the larger DRI, the total dwelling unit count in the Vita Tuscana (HD Development) PUD is increased. The new, larger number should appear in Vita Tuscana PUD documents. As currently proposed, the "158" number does not appear in the amended PUD Ordinance or other relevant locations in Vita Tuscana (HD Development) PUD materials. FLUE Policy 5.4 "New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code." Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. FLUE Objective 7 and relevant policies are stated below; each policy is followed by staff analysis. Objective 7. In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier Count, Florida, promote smartgrowth 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. The proposed PUD will be accessed from Treeline Drive, providing access onto Olde Cypress Boulevard, then onto Immokalee Road. Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to hep reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimise the need for traffic signals. The PUD Master Plan shows an internal access to the developed portion of the Olde Cypress DRI and includes a loop configuration of curvilinear streets. Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The PUD Master Plan includes such connection to Treeline Drive — internal to the Olde Cypress PUD /DRI. The Master Plan also illustrates interconnection between the Multi - Family Tract situated at the project's southeast corner and the adjacent Olde Cypress Preserve Commons commercial component. -2— Vita Tuscan APUD 1 `. Policy 7.4 The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, amcfacilities and a range of housingprices and des. The proposed PUD provides for more than 16 acres of preserved Native Vegetation/ Conservation Area (± 25 %), for a blend of single - family and multi - family housing opportunities, and for pedestrian access to the paths and sidewalks existing in the Olde Cypress PUD. Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff has determined the Vita Tuscana RPUD rezoning may be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. ON CITY VIEW cc: William Lorenz, PE Director, Land Development Services Department Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Services Section Mike Bosi, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Tony Russo, Jr., Senior Administrative Assistant, Public Utilities Planning & Project Management Dept. Chris D' Arco, Environmental Specialist, Stormwater & Environmental Planning Section Mike Greene, Manager, Transportation Planning Section FLUE File L'�Otyview DocumentsWomprhensive Planning Dept. Letters101de Cypress DRI- PUMPUM- PL2010 -1054 Vita Tuscana.dou -3— Vita Tuscan RPUD 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 ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) AND AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICTS TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS HD DEVELOPMENT RPUD, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 125 SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 33 MULTI - FAMILY UNITS AND ASSOCIATED ACCESSORY USES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD, EAST OF OLDS CYPRESS BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 65.29+/ - ACRES SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL AND REPLACEMENT OF ORDINANCE 05 -65; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Chris Mitchell of Waldron Engineering, P.A., representing Vita Pima, 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 real property more particularly described in Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, located in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) and Agricultural (A) Zoning Districts to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a 65.29 + /- acre project known as HD Development RPUD, subject to compliance with Exhibits A through F, attached hereto and incorporated herein and by reference made part hereof. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in HD Development / PUDZ- PL2010 -1054 Revised 2/07/11 1 of 2 Ordinance Number 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is /are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Ordinance 05 -65, adopted on November 15, 2005, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, is hereby repealed in its entirety and replaced with these provisions. SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super- majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2011. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal suffici: DRAFT BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Steven T. Williams Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A - Permitted Uses Exhibit B - Development Standards Exhibit C - Master Plan Exhibit D - Legal Description Exhibit E - Deviations from the LDC Exhibit F - Development Commitments CP\10- CPS - 01043 \40 HD Development / PUDZ- PL2010 -1054 Revised 2/07/11 2 of 2 FRED W. COYLE, Chairman EXHIBIT "A" LIST OF PERMITTED USES HD DEVELOPMENT RPUD PERMITTED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Single- Family dwelling units. 2. Multi- Family dwelling units. Any other principal and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). B. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses customarily associated with Permitted Principal Uses including but not limited to: 1. Customary accessory uses and structures including carports, garages, and utility buildings. 2. Clubhouse/Recreation uses and facilities, for areas designated as Multi- Family on the PUD Master Plan, including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, fishing docks, walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings, and basketball/shuffle board courts. 3. Gatehouse 4. Essential services, including interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities. 5. Water management facilities. 6. Any other accessory use and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals, pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). HD Development RPUD - PUDZ- PL2010 -1054 Page 1 of 11 Last Revised: 02/04/11 C. Preserve Area Uses: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for the preserve area depicted on the RPUD Master Plan other than the following: 1. Passive recreational areas. 2. Biking, hiking, and nature trails, and boardwalks. 3. Water management structures. 4. Native preserves and wildlife sanctuaries. 5. Any other conservation related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals, pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). D. Development Density 1. A maximum of 125 Single - Family Residential dwelling units for all Single - Family tracts within the HD Development RPUD. 2. A maximum of 33 Multi - Family. 3. A maximum of 158 dwelling units shall be constructed in the Residential Areas of the project. The gross project area is 65.29 ± acres and the residential density maximum shall be 2.42 units per acre. HD Development RPUD - PUDZ- PL2010 -1054 Page 2 of 11 Last Revised: 02/04/11 EXHIBIT "B" DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HD DEVELOPMENT RPUD Development of the HD Development RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to, final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit, and preliminary work authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district shall apply. Table I below sets forth the development standards for residential land uses within the HD Development RPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. Front yard setbacks in Table I shall be measured as follows: 1. If the parcel is served by a public or private right -of -way, the setback is measured from the adjacent right -of -way line. 2. If the parcel is served by a non- platted private drive, the setback is measured from the back of curb or edge of pavement. If the parcel is served by a platted private drive, the setback is measured from the road easement or property line, whichever is more restrictive. TABLE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Standards Single Family Multi Family Minimum Lot Area 6,000 SF (per unit) N/A Minimum Lot Width 50' (1) N/A Front Yard Setback 19' (2) 15' Side Yard Setback 1 Story 5' 7.5' 2 Story 5' 10' 3 Story N/A 12.5' Rear Yard Setback Principal Structure 20' (30' adjacent to Olde 20' Cypress PUD) Accessory Structure 10' (20' adjacent to Olde 10' Cypress PUD) PUD Boundary Setback Principal Structure N/A 20' Accessory Structure N/A 10' Lake Setback (3) 20 1 20' Preserve Area Setback Principal Structure 25' 25' HID Development RPUD - PUDZ- PL2010 -1054 Page 3 of 11 Last Revised: 02/04/11 Accessory Structure 10' 10' Distance Between Structures Main/Principal 1 Story 12' 15' 2 Story N/A 20' 3 Story N/A 25' Accessory Structures 10' 10' Maximum Height Principal Building (Actual) 40' with a max of 2 story N/A Principal Building (Zoned) 35' 42' with a max. of 3 stories Accessory Building (Actual) 25' N/A Accessory Building (Zoned) 20' 20' Clubhouse Building (Actual) N/A N/A Clubhouse Building (Zoned) N/A 38' Minimum Floor Area 1600 SF 650 SF for 1 Bedroom 900 SF for 2 Bedrooms 1000 SF for 3 Bedrooms 1. May be reduced on cul -de -sac lots and lots on the inside part of the curved streets by 25 %. 2. The front yard setback for side - loaded garages may be reduced to 18', with the home remaining at 19', where the applicant demonstrates that 2 vehicles can be adequately parked on a double -wide driveway without overhanging on the sidewalk located at the edge of the right -of -way. The back of sidewalk location, per the PUD cross - section, will be located a minimum of 4 Feet from the ROW line to ensure 23 Feet from the back of sidewalk to the garage face for a front load garage. 3. Lake setbacks are measured from the control elevation established for the lake. A. PRESERVE AREA REQUIREMENTS 1. A minimum of twenty -five (25) percent of the viable native vegetation (64.9 acres), as described in Section 3.05.07.B of the Land Development Code, shall be provided on -site, including both the under -story and the ground cover emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible. A total of 16.23 acres is required to be preserved. B. LAKES 2. Lake slopes shall be 4 to 1 from control elevation to a depth 7 feet below control elevation. The allowable lake slope from seven feet below control to the lake bottom (a maximum of 20 feet total depth) is 2 to 1. HID Development RPUD - PUDZ- PL2010 -1054 Page 4 of 11 Last Revised: 02/04/11 | | | . . . �. . | - | | | : | '| / |�/'-----------------��--'- . . ' ` x �N 0 x ` . . | | | | . . | | | | \ ' � . . | | | | � u ' | ' ' | �. .� | .� . | � | | | � / | | J X' | 1 | / N | ` HD DEVELOPMENT RPUD CLoNo VITA pEWA, LLC. mmMAmER PLAN mMBo "C" 8IJ Development RPUD-PDDZ'PI2O]O']O54 Last Revised: 02/04/11 o -MEN I 'Emnal V| | | | --� | | | | | � | . . �| | | . . | | All �. . . . | | . .� . . ca | �| | | | . | . . . . | | . | | . . . . | | ~ | ---~ | | | | . | . . . | �| �| | ---- ( �. . . ! co oil ' ` x �N 0 x ` . . | | | | . . | | | | \ ' � . . | | | | � u ' | ' ' | �. .� | .� . | � | | | � / | | J X' | 1 | / N | ` HD DEVELOPMENT RPUD CLoNo VITA pEWA, LLC. mmMAmER PLAN mMBo "C" 8IJ Development RPUD-PDDZ'PI2O]O']O54 Last Revised: 02/04/11 o -MEN I 'Emnal EXHIBIT "D" LEGAL DESCRIPTION HD DEVELOPMENT RPUD Property Description: A parcel or tract of land situated in the State of Florida, County of Collier, lying in Section 21, Township 48 south, Range 26 east and being further bounded and described as follows: Commencing at southwest corner of the southwest quarter of Section 21, Township 48 south, Range 26 east, thence n.00 °59'51 "w. along the west line of the southwest quarter of said section for 100.00 feet to the northerly right -of line of a 100 feet wide drainage canal as described in deed book 43, page 251 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida; thence n.89 °08'23 "e. along said northerly right -of way for 330.14 feet to the southeast corner of Tract 13 of Olde Cypress, Unit One, a subdivision recorded in Plat Book 32 at pages i through 11, inclusive, of the public records of Collier County, Florida; thence continue n.89 °08'23 "e. along said northerly right -of -way line for 330.14 feet to an intersection with the west line of the west half of the east half of the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of said section 21 and to the point of beginning; thence n.00 °59'15 "w. along the west line of said fraction for 1230.24 feet to the northwest corner of said fraction and to the southerly line of the aforesaid Olde Cypress, Unit One subdivision; thence n.89 °07'34 "e. along the southerly line of said subdivision for 1981.51 feet; thence n.89 °08'07 "e. along the southerly line of said subdivision for 330.24 feet to the northeast corner of the west half of the west half of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said section 21; thence s.00 °57'12 "e. along the east line of said fraction and along said subdivision line for 1230.83 feet to the aforesaid northerly right -of -way line of a 100 feet wide drainage canal; thence s.89 °09'28 "w. along said northerly right -of -way for 330.16 feet to the east line of the southwest quarter of said section 21; thence s.89 °08'23 "w. along said northerly right - of -way line for 1980.86 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel contains 65.294 acres, more or less. HD Development RPUD - PUDZ- PL2010 -1054 Page 6 of 11 Last Revised: 02/04/11 EXHIBIT "E" LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC FOR THE HD DEVELOPMENT RPUD Deviation No. 1: The Applicant is requesting a deviation from Land Development Code (LDC) Section 6.06.01. O to allow for a 50' right -of -way internal to the proposed development. This Section of the LDC requires that a local road right -of -way be a minimum of 60 feet wide. Justification: The internal rights of way shall be private and shall be maintained by the HOA. The proposed deviation allows for design flexibility as well as consistency with right -of -way widths approved for the HD Development RPUD. The reduced right -of -way width allows for single family development within the parcel. For these reasons, the proposed deviation will not negatively impact public health, safety or welfare. Deviation No. 2: The Applicant is requesting relief from Collier County Code of Ordinances Chapter 22, Article 4, Section 22 -112.2 to allow for a 4 to 1 slope to a depth of 7 feet from control elevation, then a 2 to 1 slope to the bottom of the excavation (20' maximum). This Section of the Ordinance requires a 4 to 1 slope to a depth of 10 feet from control, then a 2 to 1 slope to the bottom of the excavation. Justification: The proposed deviation allows for design flexibility for stormwater management features internal to the development and will not negatively impact public health, safety or welfare. Furthermore, the proposed deviation will not impact the form or function of the on -site lakes. HID Development RPUD - PUDZ- PL2010 -1054 Page 7 of I 1 Last Revised: 02/04/11 EXHIBIT "F" DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS HD DEVELOPMENT RPUD 1. ENVIRONMENTAL A. The flow - way /cypress slough (FLUCCS Code 621) shall be preserved as shown on the PUD Master Plan. 2. LANDSCAPE A. The required 10 -foot Type A buffer required along the northern property line shall be 20 feet wide from the western property line a distance of approximately 1160 feet, where Treeline Drive diverts from the east -west alignment to head northwest, as depicted in Exhibit C PUD Master Plan. The plantings will be consistent with Exhibit G Olde Cypress South Buffer. 3. TRAFFIC The development of this PUD shall be subject to and governed by the following minimum stipulations. A. Payment in Lieu of 6 -foot sidewalks and 4 -foot bike lanes for Immokalee Road frontage shall be required. The amount shall be determined utilizing FDOT's 2008 Transportation Costs, as amended. Payment shall be required prior to PPL approval. B. Any negotiations relevant to "fair share" payment(s), or reimbursement(s), from any and all other neighboring developer(s) /property owner(s), that directly benefit from said traffic signal(s), will be determined based upon percentage of usage /impact. The Developer, his successor, or assign(s) agrees to contribute proportionate far share payment(s) toward traffic control improvements at the following intersections: 1. Treeline Drive at Olde Cypress Boulevard/Logan Boulevard Extension 2. Olde Cypress Boulevard at Immokalee Road The improvements may include, but shall not be limited to, signal installation or improvement of existing signalization, and turn lane improvements. Payment shall be required within 90 days of the County's request, or upon inclusion of improvements in a development order such as an SDP or Plat, or when warrants are considered met as a result of the project's traffic. Proportionate share must be calculated based on percentage of this project's impact on the operating capacity of the improvements. Payment shall be made to the entity responsible for construction/ maintenance/ ownership of the improvement(s). HD Development RPUD - PUDZ- PL2010 -1054 Page 8 of 11 Last Revised: 02/04/11 For any improvements constructed by the Developer, and for any rights of way or Public Access easements contributed by this development to Collier County, the Developer, his successor, or assign(s) agrees to retain responsibility to operate and maintain said conveyances until such time that the Board of County Commissioners formally accepts ownership and maintenance responsibility for of the improvements. C. A sidewalk easement is required as depicted on Exhibit H, Vita Tuscana Easement Requirements, for the existing sidewalk/pathway servicing the existing control structure for the Cocohatchee Canal. The granting of the sidewalk easement will not require additional buffer width for the landscape buffer required adjacent to the canal right -of- way. Plantings shall be placed within the remaining width of the 20 foot landscape buffer. If the area cannot be effectively planted, no plantings shall be required for the length of the easement. The sidewalk easement shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the county within 90 days of the County's request, or upon inclusion of improvements in a development order, such as an SDP or Plat. D. A boardwalk easement is required as depicted on Exhibit H, Vita Tuscana Easement Requirements, to allow for an elevated boardwalk adjacent to the surface water management weir providing controlled discharge for the adjacent slough to the Cocohatchee Canal. The easement shall be 15 feet wide and taper to the boundary within 50 feet of the end of the weir. The granting of the boardwalk easement will not require additional buffer width for the landscape buffer required adjacent to the canal right -of- way for portions of the buffer within the developable portions of the PUD. Plantings shall be placed within the remaining width if the 20 foot landscape buffer. If the area cannot be effectively planted, no plantings shall be required for the length of the easement. The Developer will cooperate with Collier County as the land owner in securing the necessary permits for the construction of the boardwalk. The Developer shall not be financially responsible for the permitting, wetland mitigation or construction of the boardwalk. The boardwalk easement shall be provided by the developer at no cost to the county within 90 days of the County's request, or upon inclusion of improvements in a development order, such as an SDP or Plat. HD Development RPUD - PUDZ- PL2010 -1054 Page 9 of 11 Last Revised: 02/04/11 wo 10 I I OVERALL BUFFER PLAN eaoie: r = w' GOLF COURSE BUFFER PLAN usoa I.- r� TREELINE DRIVE BUFFER PLAN • � sws;t• =io II GOLF COURSE PLANT LIST ary SNa BdwN°ne Cmman� 6pedaroUOn Ware ay a sym 6domaol Wma camamn ammo s -ftuon Nettie 6� Bolenlal Noma e.0 4.mrs �pmmprlNm SrodAma'� Na11ve eN. P.Yn .�. ire e:w..•m ew Bdenkel Nerve caa �evu�wa�°..m� aiu Ory SYm Sdemcd Wine n Na- SMdflr aon Na . rr�il r Grey letruNma Oy Qty sYm Bdenkel Name Gammon Name aPedfitrtlon NetWe m ban 9emoer.° erv..nem inl.�aufer r.r+ra °air. f Wm °• 9Wnaa• r v GnWlOOO'vina 0.thm xeaa Babnloel Wnla Common Wme x.gnlµ.np. awN R^ Spedlketlon I° nIP Wtlw v e 8� BpbnlcelWme Common Name 9F xMluxn� armr°�4ma.ar.SEE�PWea Spwft.mn on 6PEm Nobs r� TREELINE DRIVE BUFFER PLAN • � sws;t• =io II TREELINE DRIVE PLANT LIST ary SNa BdwN°ne Cmman� 6pedaroUOn Ware ory 6� Bolenlal Noma e.0 4.mrs �pmmprlNm SrodAma'� Na11ve eN. P.Yn .�. ire Ory� im m ew Bdenkel Nerve caa �evu�wa�°..m� aiu Gammon Nero '6P- lcaaon N.- lae.m. u• v � ym Bdenkel Nome t+vr.e. ayrw x � Nerve S�peammlbn NaNVe rr�il r Grey letruNma Oy fiym Bdedaal Nerve Cmdxm Nxe Spedllwtlan Ndm iw ss war xtro°.°�Maox.ew. ac �wne oaecace it r r a 0 e1• O t—N O_ O N O _C iN •Gy �a PRESER AREA Q �l \ I ' - ---------------------------- - - - - -- ---------------------------------------------- --------------------------- --------- - - -- ------------------- PROPERTVS"DAW(".) � E%ISfINO COCOWITCXEE CANAL -------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- - + BOARDWALK EASEMENT KEYMAP PROPERTYBWNOARY (fTP.) , I II 11 11 I� I ) EIOSTWO COCOHATCNEE CANAL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I � ------ - - - - -- L__J ----------------------------------------------------- SIDEWALK EASEMENT ` n NOTES �q IN Z a W � x a a O �a W U A Id ■_ �1 O O O a N a Y O O O _O y � 5 w I � A 1 / rroposeo Kesidences OVERALL BUFFER PLAN Scale: 1" = 50' R GOLF COURSE BUFFER PLAN UScale: 1 "= 10' �1GOLF COURSE PLANT LIST TREES Qty Sym Botanical Name Common Name Spedfication Native 21 CS Cessia sumttensis Glaucous Cassia 8' -10' as 4'spd. N 82 PE Pinus elliottii Slash Pine 12' -14' oa x 56 spd, 2.5' rat Y 21 QV Querous virgintana Live Oak 16 oa x 8'spd, 4' cal Y PALMS PALMS Qty Sym Botanical Name Common Name Specification Native 82 SP Sabal Palmetto Cabbage Palm 8'11'14' ct cut head Y SHRUBS SHRUBS Qty Sym Botanical Name Common Name Specification Native 82 SER Serene repens Saw palmetto 10 gallon 24' Y 345 TRD Td;,sacum dacti'dera Fakahatchee Gnsss 3 gallon 24' Y GROUNDCOVERS 225 GAL Galphemia gratis Thryalis 3 gallon 2D' Qty Sym Botanical Name Common Name Specification Native 5,182 NEP Nephrolepis sop. Sword Fern 1 gallon 18" Y MISCELLANEOUS 121 IVN Ilex spp.'Shiling' Ilex S.Mlings 3 gallon 16' Qty Sym Botanical Name Common Name Specification Notes 25,976 SF Irrigation To be field verified by contractor. SEE PLANS OR SPECS Qty Sym Botanical Name Common Name Specification 25,976 SF Mulch Pine Straw 3" thick 7,538 SF Irrigation To be field verified by conbaxor. SEE PLANS OR SPECS Proposed Residences E A TREELINE DRIVE BUFFER PLAN Scale: 1" = 10' r� TREELINE DRIVE PLANT LIST TREES Qty Sym Botanical Name Common Name Specification Native 39 CS Cass® surrattensis Glaucous Cassia 8' -10'oa x4'spd Y 5o MC Myrira ceriers Wax Myrtle ek 6' mutt Y 22 OV Quarcus Niginiane Live Oak 16' oa x S' spc, 4' d Y PALMS Qty Sym Botanical Name Common Name Specification Native 5o SP Sabal palmetto Cabbage Palm 8', 11', 14' a cut head Y SHRUBS Qty Sym Botanical Name Common Name Specification Native 193 BOU Bougart vilea'hslen johnson' Dwarf BougainMlea 3 gallon 20' N 369 CES Corwceryus ere twe ser. Sher Buttonwood 10 galon 48' Y 225 GAL Galphemia gratis Thryalis 3 gallon 2D' N GROUNDCOVERS Qty Sym Botanical Name Common Name Specification Native 121 IVN Ilex spp.'Shiling' Ilex S.Mlings 3 gallon 16' N MISCELLANEOUS Qty Sym Botanical Name Common Name Specification Notes 7,538 SF Irrigation To be field verified by conbaxor. SEE PLANS OR SPECS 7,538 SF MuIh Phe Straw 3'thick I /I / / 3� �D 3 F 40 rN4 5 ao� U e F a = o U e � o to a U N / Z J S pn 9 H X53 �Ls ome QO' `aPP C7 a t x w V � Q a � c � ° > E Q o O U- ° a) > LL. O w p w Q i Q- C) z a Z (D W g W 0�/ 111 U- U- Z) m `^ U V C m W E W 2 = M / Al 4L� PRESERVEAREA -------------------------------- BOARDWALK EASEMENT V� v� � PROPERTY BOUNDARY (TYPJ -_-----__ --- --_- -_-------------------_----------_------------------------_------ SIDEWALK EASEMENT . � ° z � - cu � � SET NUM BE?-- 195-Dl-Ell SHEET wi z � - cu � � SET NUM BE?-- 195-Dl-Ell SHEET AGENDA ITEM 9 -13 C O) G7'' C 014Hty STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES- -LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION -- PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: MARCH 17, 2011 SUBJECT: PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674: GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES CFPUD PROPERTY OWNER & APPLICANT /AGENT: Owner /Applicant Agents: Grace Romanian Baptist Church D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Mr. Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Naples, Inc., c/o Adrian Roman 3800 Via Del Rey Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 3000 Orange Blossom Dr #4 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Northern Trust Bank Building Naples, FL 34109 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for a rezone from an Agricultural (A) zoning district with a portion of the real property in a ST overlay (Special Treatment), to a Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) zoning district with removal of the ST overlay. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The 12± acre subject property is located at the corner of Learning Lane and Livingston Road in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map and proposed PUD Master Plan on the following pages) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The project known as Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, will allow development of a 500 -seat church, a single - family residence, and preschool of up to 150 students along with other permitted and accessory uses commonly associated with a church and preschool use. Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674 Page 1 of 16 March 17, 2011 CCPC Revised: 3/2/11 ROAD Jya NORTH N -LES RESEAACX a IECHN0.0CY PARK 'I SOAKSO1 7/0 CLUB US- 41/,ROOINS PASS ROAD r15 I IMPERIAL NEST 22 COLUER TRACT 22 (ORI) MARS27 I a PELICAN H (DIN) LEE COUNTY "– NAPLES- IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R.948) 29 MALIBU GOLDEN RATE ESTATES LAKE UMIT 9] s 8 2 SANDING I �5 PELICAN a PELICAN d MA RSN (DAI) At Y 32 35 WALGREENS U 36 g 3VALSHIRE GOLDEN CATS ESTATES – UNIT 9B MARKER KE 111 PELIC RAIR `AK" 's VIONEVAN \ PLAZA 1 () VANI ERBILT BEACH ROAG IEMDMA PARK TUSCANY WAIL MM7ISRRA BRADFORD NANDERSILT RESERM`. WEST 11 ZZ O 12 (DRI) 7 �5 8 MNEY -OS (D.) SQUARE TRUST PEZZE1Ry0 DI CRELO 6 �j MEDITERRA GARDENS 13E I AREA 'REMNB MEMORIAL BDULEVRRO WNEYARDS PROJECT I 8.53 AC. I L ORMA r LOO ION SANDALWOOD- i UK6 BR -oaN Lu O g MACE ROMANIA 1 tAWL B WAIL 1APTI DF N 115 CHILI RCH 1s CREEK 14 ROYAL PAL4 13 ^ n PEMC- 17 CASTLEWOOD AT IMPERML INTERHASONAL ACADEMY ✓ STRAND SIE ES LINES - BRANDON (OR[) `d ES MARSIUEA VAS W R G f� MADEIRA A WAIL LONG9 NORTH 23NPER PELICAN s(OR[)D (� y LAKE NAPLES BLVD. OFFICE 24 CARLTON 3 2D MEDICAL MEDICAL SW PROF. K IuenoucuT W LLOUGHBY GARDENS LAKES 19 E 13C "– NAPLES- IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R.948) 29 MALIBU GOLDEN RATE ESTATES LAKE UMIT 9] s 8 2 SANDING I �5 PELICAN a PELICAN d MA RSN (DAI) At Y 32 35 WALGREENS U 36 g 3VALSHIRE GOLDEN CATS ESTATES – UNIT 9B MARKER KE 111 PELIC RAIR `AK" 's VIONEVAN \ PLAZA 1 () VANI ERBILT BEACH ROAG IEMDMA PARK A NON -5T 7��Ll25 FWNTAIN BRADFORD NANDERSILT I___ ST 3 ^� PARK BRIGHTON MNEY -OS (D.) SQUARE TRUST H�LY "– NAPLES- IMMOKALEE ROAD (C.R.948) 29 MALIBU GOLDEN RATE ESTATES LAKE UMIT 9] s 8 2 SANDING I �5 PELICAN a PELICAN d MA RSN (DAI) At Y 32 35 WALGREENS U 36 g 3VALSHIRE GOLDEN CATS ESTATES – UNIT 9B MARKER KE 111 PELIC RAIR `AK" 's VIONEVAN \ PLAZA 1 () VANI ERBILT BEACH ROAG 1 IEMDMA A NON -5T FWNTAIN BRADFORD NANDERSILT I___ ST PARK BRIGHTON MNEY -OS (D.) SQUARE TRUST H�LY MONTEREY MEN LANEAS GARDENS 13E I AREA NNEY -05 WNEYARDS I 8.53 AC. I 13A r (qtl) (5 Ilfu -lr/ u RAGE Lu O g 2 GARDENS d GARDENS DDm 1 tAWL B 5 �k 3 0 sv I(SI RPUD SLEEPY 0011 SIE ES LINES 13F I BRANDON AREA SITE LOCATION XOLLOW W R G f� 1 LOCATION MAP PETITION # PUDZ - 2005 - AR - 8674 ZONING MAP A NON -5T F7 I___ ST I RPUD A I DELLA ROSA NON –ST 13E I AREA —ST — I 8.53 AC. I 13A AREA L ST J 4.12 AC. I I Cu — — NON –ST Eal A RPUD 13F I BRANDON AREA SITE LOCATION G f� A AC A TRACT B PUD ROYAL PALM INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY 13C I I A AREA 4.25 AC. NI r— I I� E-RADA AVENUE 20 21 22 100 RSF -3 zm IMPERIAL CIRCLE oa M '' DERA 24 z3 Tae xox 1n 1W 21B T9 2x0 121 'A IOB 109 119 203 R 21 27 10] 1Po LOCATION MAP PETITION # PUDZ - 2005 - AR - 8674 ZONING MAP UNDEVELOPED ZONED: A, AGRICULTURE im THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. ALL ACREAGES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL. ACCESS TO LEARNING LANE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT. LEGEND OB .1GPAIE C GUN ROYAL PALM ACADEMY ZONED: ROYAL PALM ACADEMY PUD S a] 2010 a- -_ -W W � 4 W LL W 3 09 OR 01 0I RENSE Ti FRM1 RPUO TO RPUO RENSE Si TE ANO ACCESS PaiNTS SU . . . . _ . PRESERVE - 10 O6 ] /2P /Ofi aETA1N 321 VEOETARON AREA MfftEASE PRESERVE RE -RWIE ROW ARMMO Si OKRLAY sU sU _ i SINGLE ` ✓ �^�� FAMILY `� W J — — — — — I \ G :I 0 PART OF LIVINGSTON ROAD 0 I°. 1 CF ■ RIGHT -OF -WAY CS A 0 1 I : ZONED: A. AGRICULTURE yip I CHURCH AND RELATED USE v UNDEVELOPED ZONED: A, AGRICULTURE ! r DEVELOPMENT AREA I IN 90 BUFFER PER LUC LAKE IN SITE SUMMARY: I 1L CF = 7.2t ACRES IN \ •y ROW = 1-3:t ACRES i LAKES PRESERVE = 1.01 ACRES \�0�. = 1.8t ACRES ■ I ' \ \ BUFFERS = .7t ACRES CF ��. TOTAL SITE = 123 ACRES • I I I \F.p� • I I I CF PRESCHOOL RESIDENTIAL I DWELLINGS: 1UNIT IN I DEVELOPMENT ^� CHURCH: PRESCHOOL: 500 SEATS 150STUDENTS G I it FUTURE CHURCH EXPANSION AND AREA i I RELATED USE, PARKING AND OUTDOOR \ \ OPEN SPACE: I 1 , RECREATION AREA REQUIRED: 3.6t ACRES (30 %) PROVIDED: 3.6t ACRES (30%) �L / --- - - - - -- - -- — — — — — — — —,�� • — — — — — — — — iron• uuinnn■ ui■ uuuuui — — — — — �D €BbF�ER�Ei�L6C •u.•.•.n•u.•...n•ulu.nnn•uin•u�n ■innn•.• uluuul•.•ui 15' WIDE BUFFER PER LDC ■in• • •ui•u u...... •ui•i•uu�•mn•um•uuuuui LEARNING LANE im THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. ALL ACREAGES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL. ACCESS TO LEARNING LANE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT. LEGEND OB .1GPAIE C GUN ROYAL PALM ACADEMY ZONED: ROYAL PALM ACADEMY PUD S a] 2010 a- UPOA]E NASRR PLAN FOR CHURCH USE WOATE nRE BLOCK AN0 AERIAL SU su 3 09 OR 01 0I RENSE Ti FRM1 RPUO TO RPUO RENSE Si TE ANO ACCESS PaiNTS SU 2 10 O6 ] /2P /Ofi aETA1N 321 VEOETARON AREA MfftEASE PRESERVE RE -RWIE ROW ARMMO Si OKRLAY sU sU FUTURE POTENTIAL INTERCONNECTION TO LEARNING LANE, SUBJECT TO ACCESS APPROVAL FROM COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 9annA SPm1a. ua.s4].l u° C8 ROMANW RWISST CHURCE GradyMinor Fa INP.M 219.699.4399 Aonh Pon a41.42R_wR9 n.pl. 23914442197 EXHIBIT C CI AI Engineer Land Sumay9rs Planners w Landscape Archlteor MASTER PLAN f.FAT.OFAIRR. NI OnoS151 w C- F.AelR.la Ra0.i151 • RIVR.'16CR LC 2awaxuo d C]RaV AIInnT RnR Aa.S1NINlex, P.A. 3aM1 Vlz MI Rey. m1na SP"P FL 34134. UNDEVELOPED ZONED: A, AGRICULTURE This petition was originally submitted seeking a rezone to RPUD for a project proposed to be named Hilton Hills RPUD. That project proposed a maximum of 48 dwelling units or a maximum of 200 assisted living or continuing care retirement community units in accordance with the RPUD Master Plan as submitted on June 2, 2008, and as summarized below: o 7.0 acres or 58.3% for residential; o 1.3 acres or 10.8% for right of way; o 1.4 acres or 11.7% for a lake; o 1.8 acres or 15.0% for preserves; and o 0.5 acres or 4.2% for buffers /other open space The current PUD and Conceptual Master Plan, last revised August 2010, proposes the following land uses: o 7.2f acres of CF (limited to church/house of worship with a maximum of 500 seats; a single family home, and maximum of a 150 student pre - school) uses o 1.3± acres of right -of -way; o 1.0± acres of lakes; o 1.8f acres of preserve; and o 0.7± acres of buffer area. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Undeveloped 6.5f acre tract with a zoning designation of Rural Agricultural East: a triangular tract, which is part of the right -of way for Livingston Road and then Livingston Road; then the undeveloped Brandon RPUD, approved for 4f units per acre with mixed residential uses. The maximum building height limitation for the tallest structures is 50 feet /3 stories (zoned) and 55 feet /3 stories (actual) (Ordinance # 08 -13) South: Learning Lane, then the undeveloped 163± Royal Palm International Academy, a mixed use project that was approved for a maximum of 3.4 dwelling units with a cap of 550 units, and a 50 acre education, social religious and recreation tract for a maximum of 1,250 students through high school. Campus structures can be built to a maximum of 50 feet and residential structures are limited to 45 feet/three story maximum building height. The tract has a zoning designation of PUD (Royal Palm International Academy PUD (Ordinance #03 -54) West: Undeveloped 10± acre tract, then North Naples Middle School both with a zoning designation of Rural Agricultural Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674 Page 2 of 16 March 17, 2011 CCPC Revised: 3/2/11 E resr4 vq0 Aerial Photo (subject site depiction is approximate) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict as depicted in the Future Land Use Element [FLUE] and on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan [GMP]. The Urban designation allows community facilities such as churches and child care centers (pre- schools) — the uses proposed in this PUD. In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold text]. Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, 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. Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674 Page 3 of 16 March 17, 2011 CCPC Revised: 3/2/11 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. [Exhibit C, the PUD Master Plan, depicts direct access to Livingston Road, an arterial road per the Transportation Element.] 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. [There is no street system for the project proposed. Nonetheless, Exhibit C, the PUD Master Plan, depicts a drive /parking lot aisle in a looped configuration with a single access point on Livingston Road.] Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. [There is no street system for the type of project proposed. A potential connection to Learning Lane (runs along the south side of the site and ends at entrance to North Naples Middle School to the west) is depicted on Exhibit C, the PUD Master Plan, and labeled as "future potential interconnection to Learning Lane, subject to access approval from Collier County School District." Though this note on Exhibit C implies the applicant would attempt to gain approval from the School District for that connection (and application materials state the petitioner is seeking this approval from the School Board), staff believes it should be explicitly stated as a developer commitment on Exhibit E to attempt to gain approval. At the next development order, the applicant would have to provide the connection or evidence of unsuccessful good faith efforts to gain approval for the connection. The proposed on -site preserve area precludes interconnection to the undeveloped lands to the north zoned A, Rural Agricultural. The proposed lake (water retention area) precludes interconnection to the west, unless it is reconfigured; given the small size of the site, reconfiguration may not be possible /feasible. Further, if the connection to Learning Lane occurs, then the benefit of an interconnection to the west would be lessened.] 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. [For the most part, this policy is not applicable since this is not a residential project. The required open space is depicted on Exhibit C, the PUD Master Plan. Also, since there is no requested deviation, sidewalks will have to be provided per the LDC. ] Review of PUD Document Exhibit E, List of Developer Commitments: The petitioner needs to add a commitment to: seek approval from the Collier County School District for a connection to Learning Lane; and, to construct that connection during the initial development phase of this project, if approval granted, OR, if approval not granted, to provide evidence to the County of good faith efforts to obtain that approval and of the School District's denial. Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUD may not be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. One PUD revision is needed as noted above. [It is acknowledged the petitioner wishes to proceed to public hearings to vet this issue.] Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674 Page 4 of 16 March 17, 2011 CCPC Revised: 3/2111 Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's PUD Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) included in the application back -up material and the PUD documents to ensure the PUD documents contain the appropriate language to address this project's potential traffic impacts, and to offer a recommendation regarding GMP Transportation Element Policy 5.1. Those policies require the review of all rezone requests with consideration of their impact on the overall transportation system, and specifically note that the County should not approve any request that significantly impacts a roadway segment already operating and /or projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service (LOS) within the five -year planning period unless specific mitigating stipulations are included with any project approval, as follows: 1. Staff asked the petitioner's agent to add a Developer's commitment to Exhibit E of the PUD during the 9123110 review, but that comment was not addressed in the final submittal. As a stipulation of approval, a commitment to limit the maximum trip generation of this site to that which has been analyzed by the [final] TIS must be stated in Exhibit E. 2. The location of the driveway connection to Livingston Road depicted on Exhibit C is not acceptable. If connection to Livingston Road is to be made, the access point shall be located at this project's nearest north- easterly location that is not within the preserve area and consistent with the County's Access Management Resolution 01 -247. As a stipulation of approval, the connection point must be relocated to a point consistent with the County's Access Management Resolution (See attachment #1). 3. The church must agree to provide traffic control personnel for peak traffic events (such as Church services). Transportation Planning staff has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the five -year planning period, if the stipulations noted above are adopted. Therefore, the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) with the mitigation proposed. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental staff has evaluated the proposed changes to the PUD documents. Environmental review staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning to CPUD. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is inconsistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as indicated previously in the GMP discussion. The proposed rezone is inconsistent with the GMP Transportation Element unless the proposed mitigation is adopted. Environmental staff recommends that the petition be Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674 Page 5 of 16 March 17, 2011 CCPC Revised: 3/2/11 found consistent with the COME. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found inconsistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP unless the proposed Transportation stipulations are adopted as part of any approval. ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (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 "). An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff is recommending approval subject to the Environmental condition contained in Exhibit F of the PUD document. The Environmental Advisory Council Board (EAC) approved the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project on November 5, 2008. The project site consists of 12.16 acres of native vegetation that generally consists of pine flatwoods, palmetto prairie, and hydric pine flatwoods. A minimum of 15% of the existing native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. The proposed 1.82 -acre upland preserve area is located in the northern portion of the project site. No listed species were found on site and preliminary Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methods (UMAM) scores for the 4.60 acres of on -site wetlands were below 0.65. The wetlands on site are heavily infested with exotic vegetation including Melaleuca and Brazillian pepper. The project will result in impacts to 100% (4.60± acres) of potential South Florida Water Management District ( SFWMD) jurisdictional wetlands. Impacts to the jurisdictional wetlands shall be mitigated for through the SFWMD permitting process at the first development order. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right -of -way and access issues. Transportation Division staff has recommended approval subject to the adoption of the proposed Transportation Development Commitments listed on page 7 of this report. The Transportation Planning Staff has identified the following issues: TIS Comments: Staff has delayed the review of peak hour church impacts until the SDP is submitted. At such time, operational impacts will be required at the intersections of Learning Lane /Livingston, as well as Veterans Memorial /Livingston. Extension of the turn lanes is anticipated due to operational impacts. Access Management: 1. Connection to Livingston is legally allowed, but not recommended. See staff note 2. Connection to Livingston Road shown on PUD Master Plan is not allowed in the proposed location. The only connection location consistent with the access management policy is immediately south of the area labeled 'preserve' along Livingston Road. This distance will not comply with the required 1320 -foot spacing on a class 2 arterial, but Transportation staff recognizes the need to preserve the most sensitive lands within the Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674 Page 6 of 16 March 17, 2011 CCPC Revised: 3/2/11 project. It will not be allowed any closer to the Learning Lane intersection and the applicant shall provide compensating right -of -way (ROW) as required by the LDC whether it is in conflict with the preserve or not. This is another reason the project should be required to connect to Learning Lane as the Learning Lake driveway would completely avoid the preserve area. Refer to spacing requirements listed in Res. 01 -247. These location criteria will be enforced at SDP. * Note: Public use of the fire district's [proposed] emergency -only median opening north of this project driveway is prohibited, and will be recognized during the submittal of the future SDP for this project. The church will not be allowed to use the emergency- only median opening. General Staff Notes: We feel that the intention of the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) in declaring Livingston Road as a class 2 roadway was to protect against creation of multiple unnecessary driveways, to create safer traffic flow, and to protect the capacity and design integrity of this multi - million dollar corridor. Allowing even right in/right out (RI/RO) where it is not absolutely necessary is contrary to that directive found in Res. 01 -247. However, Transportation Staff offers approval of this application, with a recommendation that the primary access be through Learning Lane. Livingston Access: The current regulations allow the applicant's proposed access to Livingston Road; however, staff has concerns about that access. Recognizing that the application presented here is conceptual in nature, Transportation Planning staff can agree that the Livingston Road access generally complies with the technical allowances of the Collier County Access Management Policy (CCAMP; Res. 01 -247); but Staff does not feel the application is consistent with the intent of the resolution, or the Transportation Element Growth Management Plan. The proposed access connection to Livingston Road (which is defined as a "Class 2; Limited Access Roadway" in the adopted Access Management Policy) is found to be technically feasible (if the connection point is moved to the north where it would be allowed, based on distance from the Learning Lane intersection), but it will be highly impractical. The impacts presented by a driveway connection at this location are mostly seen at SDP and the accompanying ROW permit. Turn lanes (new or lengthened), operational impacts, and limitations precluding a new median opening from serving this project result in identification of future problems at the SDP stage. Because of this, County Transportation Staff has endeavored to obtain permission for an access connection to the adjacent "Learning Lane" roadway; an access driveway under the control of the Collier County School District. Conceptual approval from the School District (stated by Tom Eastman) allowing connection to this roadway has been obtained by County Staff. This access provision was presented to the applicant, and Staff requested that the applicant abandon pursuit of direct access to the limited - access Livingston corridor. The request was refused by the applicant on multiple occasions, citing `unreasonable' cost requirements from the school district. Staff feels that the cost of direct connection to Livingston is far greater in both known, and unidentified, costs. The proposed primary access to Livingston Road would create the following concerns: Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674 Page 7 of 16 March 17, 2011 CCPC Revised: 3/2/11 1) No left -in or Left -out access will be allowed. This would mean that all traffic either entering, or exiting this site and travelling in an eventual northbound direction would be required to make a U -turn movement instead of using a signalized access through Learning Lane. 2) Operationally, the southbound (SB) Left -turn pocket at Learning Lane /Livingston Road signalized intersection is not long enough to accommodate significant peak -event loads that are commonly associated with Churches. The SB Left -turn pocket will need extensive expansion. 3) A SB right turn lane will be required regardless of the warrants. The right -of -way (ROW) handbook requires right turn lanes on all median separated roadways. Compensating ROW will also be necessary. 4) The nearest [legal *] U -turn north of the site is at Veterans Memorial Parkway, 2,000± feet to the north. Use of this U -turn by northbound (NB) traffic attempting to enter the site will cause traffic to use nearly an additional mile of roadway before reaching the destination. This impact does not support the objective of reducing Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT). * -An interim median opening has been approved for emergency use of the local Fire District on the opposing side of Livingston Road near this location. An emergency- use -only signal may be installed. The median opening will prohibit general public use at all times, because it is not consistent with the County's access management policy for class 2 roadways. Transportation Planning staff continues to encourage the applicant to work with Collier County Public Schools for connection to Learning Lane. Due to traffic circulation, site development costs, environmental impacts, vehicle miles travelled, safety on the public roadway, and use of existing traffic control devices, it is a benefit to both the applicant and travelling public for this site to connect to Learning Lane and utilize an existing signalized intersection vs. creating a new connection to Livingston in a curve that creates site distance hazards and vehicle weave conditions that put the public at risk. Transportation staff offers the following stipulations for consideration by the CCPC: 1. The project shall be limited to a single driveway connection to Livingston Road. That access point shall be located at this project's nearest north - easterly location that is not within the preserve area consistent with the County's Access Management Resolution 01 -247; and 2. The owner, successor or assigns shall provide trained and qualified traffic control personnel for peak traffic events (such as Church services, weddings or any other large event) to monitor and direct traffic entering and exiting the site. If primary access for this site is taken via Learning Lane, then this condition shall not be applicable to intersection signal operations during peak events. Instead, the owner shall coordinate peak hours of site operation with the County's Traffic Operations Department to ensure proper timing of the traffic signal; and Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674 Page 8 of 16 March 17, 2011 CCPC Revised: 3/2/11 3. The development within this project shall be limited to 132 (unadjusted) total two - way PM peak hour trips as determined using the Institute of Traffic Engineer's Report (ITE) 8rh edition. For the purposes of calculation of the weekday PM peak hour trip generation for this PUD, the lesser of weekday PM peak hour trips as calculated in the ITE Report, titled Trip Generation, 8rh edition or the trip generation as calculated in then current ITE trip Generation Report shall be utilized; and 4. If this project obtains an access connection to Learning Lane at any time, then the driveway connection serving the project at Livingston Road shall be reduced to right in only. The petitioner's agents have not agreed to these stipulations. Zoning Services Review: The Master Plan shows the location of the preserve area, a lake and the church development area, the single - family home site, and the preschool area. Another area is shown as future church expansion and related uses, parking and an outdoor recreation area. Buffers are shown, as is a potential interconnection to Learning Lane. Access to the site is shown approximately in the middle of the site's frontage along Livingston Road. The proposed Master Plan shows greater site development detail with lot lines depictions provided. The general configuration of the internal roadway system is also shown as well. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses /densities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis might include a review of both the subject proposal and surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location, traffic generation/attraction, etc. The applicant proposes to provide a 50 -foot wide front yard setback, a 25- foot -wide side yard setback, and a minimum 15 feet of rear yard setback. Also proposed is a 25- foot -wide distance between structures. Zoned height cannot exceed 50 feet and actual height cannot exceed 60 feet to the top of the roof, except that a cupola, spire or steeple can be a maximum of 72 feet tall. These standards are not in conflict with surrounding allowances for same. As illustrated in the aerial photograph located on page 2 of the staff report, the surrounding zoning discussion of this staff report, and the Master Plan, the site is bounded on all sides by undeveloped land. To the north the undeveloped property has a zoning designation of Agricultural; to the east is Livingston Road and then the undeveloped Brandon RPUD; to the south is Learning Lane, then the undeveloped Royal Palm Academy project with a zoning designation of PUD; to the west is undeveloped land that has a zoning designation of Agricultural, then the North Naples Middle School, also with a zoning designation of Agricultural. Staff provided the maximum building heights and densities of the surrounding PUD approved projects in the Surrounding Zoning Information Section of this staff report. Staff is of the opinion that this project will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674 Page 9 of 16 March 17, 2011 CCPC Revised: 3/2/11 CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Staff has reviewed the proposed rezone and believes the uses and property development regulations are compatible with the development approved in the area. The commitments made by the applicant provide adequate assurances that the proposed change will not adversely affect living conditions in the area. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and /or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP only if the stipulations proposed by Transportation Planning staff are adopted. 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. Staff has provided a review of the proposed uses and believes that the project will be compatible with the surrounding area. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6 The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674 Page 10 of 16 March 17, 2011 CCPC Revised: 3/2/11 Currently, the roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time. In addition, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. However, Transportation staff has voiced concerns about the impacts this project might have upon the traffic on Livingston Road and has proposed stipulations to address traffic concerns. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as road capacity (with the limitation noted above), wastewater disposal system, and potable water supplies to accommodate this project 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. The petitioner is not seeking any deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06A). Therefore, 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 is not required. 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" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The zoning analysis provides an in -depth review of the proposed changes. Staff is of the opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with the CCME. Staff also believes the petition is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with neighborhood development; however, the petition is not consistent with other FLUE policies as discussed on page four of this staff report. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed inconsistent with the FLUE of the GMP unless the stipulations proposed by Transportation Planning are adopted. Transportation Planning staff has reservations about the project's potential impact upon traffic circulations and has offered stipulations to address the Transportation issues. Staff believes the petition can be deemed consistent with all elements of the GMP only if the stipulations are included in any recommendation of approval. 2. The existing land use pattern; Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed it at length in the zoning review analysis. Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674 Page 11 of 16 March 17, 2011 CCPC Revised: 3/2/11 Staff believes the proposed rezone is appropriate given the existing land use pattern. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The proposed PUD rezone would not create an isolated zoning district because lands to the east and south are also zoned PUD. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed district boundaries are logically drawn, bringing the agriculturally zoned land within the FLUE Urban Mixed Use District into a more urban zoning district. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed rezone is not necessary, per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such the rezone to allow the owner the opportunity to develop the land with uses other than what the existing zoning district would allow. Without rezoning, the agriculturally zoned tracts could not be developed with the proposed uses or with the proposed property development regulations. 6 Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Staff is of the opinion that if the stipulations being requested by staff are adopted, then the proposed rezone should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time. However Transportation Planning staff has reservations about the project's potential impact upon traffic circulations and has offered stipulations to address the Transportation issues. Staff believes the petition can be deemed consistent with all elements of the GMP only if the stipulations are included in any recommendation of approval. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed rezone should not create drainage or surface water problems because the LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have other Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674 Page 12 of 16 March 17, 2011 CCPC Revised: 3/2/11 specific regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new developments. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this petition were approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. This project's property development regulations do not indicate that exceedingly tall structures would be included in the project; therefore, the project should not significantly reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; The proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; The proposed rezone does not constitute a grant of special privilege. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; The property currently has a zoning designation of Rural Agricultural. The tract could be developed within the parameters of that zoning designation; however, the petitioner is seeking this rezone in compliance with LDC provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed rezone meets the intent of the PUD district and further, believes the public interest will be maintained. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; The petitioner proposes to develop primarily church /place of worship and preschool uses and has proposed property development regulations to allow establishment of those uses. The GMP is a policy statement, which has evaluated the scale, density, and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban - designated areas of Collier County. Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674 Page 13 of 16 March 17, 2011 CCPC Revised: 3/2/11 Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community if the Transportation Planning staff stipulations are adopted. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a particular zoning 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 considerable site alteration and this project would undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as it may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD document. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The NIM meeting was duly noticed by the applicant and held October 4, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. at the North Naples Middle School. Mr. Arnold, agent for the applicant, opened the meeting at 5:45 p.m. In attendance was Kay Deselem representing Collier County, Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. attorney for the applicant and Adrian Roman representative for the applicant, Romanian Baptist Church of Naples, Inc. At the time the meeting began, one adjacent property owner was in attendance, Mr. Frank Pitt. A sign -in sheet was provided at the entrance of the meeting room Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674 Page 14 of 16 March 17, 2011 CCPC Revised: 3/2/11 and Mr. Pitt signed in. Aerial photographs of the site and surrounding area, and a copy of the conceptual site plan were displayed. Mr. Pitt requested business cards from all of the representatives, which were provided to him. Mr. Arnold gave a brief explanation of the rezone application, project location, and description of the proposed uses. Due to the size of the meeting, it was keep informal and Mr. Arnold and Mr. Yovanovich discussed the project with Mr. Pitt answering questions regarding access, proposed uses, size of development and surrounding compatibility. Mr. Arnold invited Mr. Pitt to contact him or Ms. Deselem with further questions or if he would like copies of any document that had been submitted with the application. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:05 p.m. [submitted by the petitioner's agent] COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for this petition on February 25, 2011. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval if the following Transportation Stipulations are added to the PUD document. 1. The project shall be limited to a single driveway connection to Livingston Road. That access point shall be located at this project's nearest north - easterly location that is not within the preserve area consistent with the County's Access Management Resolution 01 -247; and 2. The owner, successor or assigns shall provide trained and qualified traffic control personnel for peak traffic events (such as Church services, weddings or any other large event) to monitor and direct traffic entering and exiting the site. If primary access for this site is taken via Learning Lane, then this condition shall not be applicable to intersection signal operations during peak events. Instead, the owner shall coordinate peak hours of site operation with the County's Traffic Operations Department to ensure proper timing of the traffic signal; and 3. The development within this project shall be limited to 132 (unadjusted) total two - way PM peak hour trips as determined using ITE 81h edition. For the purposes of calculation of the weekday PMpeak hour trip generation for this PUD, the lesser of weekday PM peak hour trips as calculated in the ITE Report, titled Trip Generation, 8'h edition or the trip generation as calculated in then current ITE trip Generation Report shall be utilized; and 4. If this project obtains an access connection to Learning Lane at any time, then the driveway connection serving the project at Livingston Road shall be reduced to right in only. Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674 Page 15 of 16 March 17, 2011 CCPC Revised: 3/2/11 PREPARED BY: 4 KA SELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DEPA TMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEWED BY: RAYMON V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 4LLIAM DZ, JR., P.E., DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPROVED BY: NICK CASALA aC&U, D DMINISTRATOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION DATE Z- Z3 -1l DATE DATE -�) -3 -i1 DATE Tentatively scheduled for the May 24, 2011 Board of County Commissioners Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674 Page 16 of 16 March 17, 2011 CCPC Revised 2/22/11 16812 i RESOLUTION NO. 01- 2 4 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING THE POLICY FOR ACCESS MANAGEMENT FOR ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROADWAYS IN COLLIER COUNTY WHEREAS, Collier County is the second fastest growing metropolitan area in the United States; and WHEREAS, with this growth is an increase in both traffic volumes and accessibility to the county roadway system; and WHEREAS, Collier County has adopted a Growth Management Plan pursuant to the requirements of Section 163.3161 et. seq., Florida Statutes, which Plan, under Policy 7.1 of the Traffic Circulation Elements, mandates that a policy be adopted for access management of the roadways of Collier County; and WHEREAS, access to arterial and collector roadways must be planned and controlled so that the safety, capacity and operating conditions of the roadways will not be adversely impacted; and WHEREAS, Collier County has adopted by resolutions the specific designation for Livingston Road and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) as controlled and limited access facilities. NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT the Access Control Policy as contained in Resolution No. 92 -442 as adopted on August 1 g, 1992, is rescinded and replaced as contained in the attached Exhibit "A ", Pages 1 through /,L, inclusive, and hereby adopted and this policy shall be implemented on adoption of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the appropriate staff of the Transportation Services Division, with concurrence of the appropriate staff of the Development Services Division, are hereby directed to apply this Policy in the development of roadway improvement projects and review and permitting of all development projects. This Resolution adopted after motion, second, and majority vote. DATED: "�� G, zoo / AT'i 6ST; BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSSIONERS :!r,ft pC'ls, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Attest as to Chairman's tames D. er, PhD., Chauvtan stgmtere only. Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: aeque a Hubbard Robinson 04her County Attorney 16812 EXHIBIT "A" A POLICY ESTABLISHING THE COLLIER COUNTY ACCESS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROADWAYS SECTION ONE: PURPOSE This Policy replaces that established by Resolution No. 92-442 for the access classification system and standards to implement regulation and control of vehicular ingress to, and egress from, arterial and collector roadways. The implementation of the classification system and standards is intended to protect public safety and general welfare, provide for mobility of people and goods, and preserve the functional integrity and capacity of arterial and collector roadways. To the extent that Collier County has jurisdiction to do so, all limited- access, controlled access, arterial and collector roadway facilities shall be assigned an access classification and access standard. These standards shall be the basis for developing access management plans for county roadway improvements and modifications, and for roadway or driveway connection permitting. SECTION TWO: DEFINITIONS 2.01 Arterial — A signalized roadway that serves primarily through traffic and secondarily abutting properties and that generally has signal spacing of two miles or less. 2.02 Classes — categories of arterials primarily grouped by signal density. 2.03 Collector — A street providing land access and traffic circulation service to a residential, commercial or industrial area. Secondarily provides for local through traffic. 2.04 Connection — a driveway, street, turnout or other means of providing for the right of physical access to or from a public roadway. For the purposes of this resolution, two one -way connections to a property may constitute a single connection. 2.05 Connection Spacing — the allowable distance between connections, measured from the closest edge of pavement of the first connection to the closest edge of pavement of the second connection, exclusive of radii, along the edge of the traveled way. 2.06 Controlled Access — means access, median openings, and traffic signals are highly regulated. 2.07 Corner Clearance — distance from and intersection of a driveway or street connection and a limited- access, controlled access, arterial or collector facility. This distance is measured from the closest edge of pavement of the connection, measured along the traveled way. The closest edge of pavement shall be with existing lanes or future lanes, including turn and merge lanes, where a roadway segment is part of an adopted five -year plan. 2.08 Directional Median Opening — an opening in a median that is restrictive to movements made from or to the major roadway including the limitation of left -turn in, left -turn out, no U -tam, U -turn only, or combination of the above. 2.09 Division — the Transportation Services Division of Collier County administered by the Transportation Administrator or his/her duly authorized representative. 2.10 Full Median Opening — a median opening designed to allow for all movements to and from a major roadway. U -tums may be prohibited at full median openings. 2.11 Intersection — an at -grade connection or crossing of local, collector, arterial, controlled access or limited access roadways that may be either public or private. 2.12 Medians — areas, preferably at least ten feet wide, painted, raised or grassed, that separate opposing - direction, mid -block traffic lanes and that, on arterials, contain turn lanes that allow left tuning vehicles to exit from the through lanes. 2.13 Median Opening Spacing — the allowable spacing between openings in a median to allow for crossing of opposing lanes of traffic to access other roadway facilities, property access or provide for U -turn movements. The spacing distance shall be measured from centerline to centerline of openings along the traveled way. Page 1 of 7 16"b12 2.14 Permitting Authority — Project Review Services of the Development Services Division or other duly designated authority of Collier County with all provisions of this Resolution as it applies to connection and its attendant permitting process, being reviewed and approved by the Transportation Services Division of Collier County, 2.15 Reasonable Access — the number of direct or indirect connections necessary to provide ingress and egress to the limited access, controlled access, arterial or collector facilities from abutting properties and local roadways based on the Access Management standards, roadway operations and type and intensity of land use. The applicant may submit site - specific information that the applicant deems pertinent to the Permitting Authority's review of proposed connection permit application_ 2.16 Service Road — a public or private street or roadway, auxiliary to, and normally, but not required to be, parallel to a controlled or limited access facility, which has a primary purpose to maintain local road continuity, provision of access to adjacent parcels or development and minimizing the number of connections to a limited or controlled access facility while maintain property access rights. 2.17 Signal Spacing — the allowable spacing between adjacent traffic signals on limited access, controlled access, arterial and collector facilities as measured from centerline to centerline of the signalized intersections along the traveled way. 2.18 Significant Change — a change in the use of the property, including land, structures or facilities, or an expansion of the size of the existing structures or facilities which will cause at least a 25 % increase in additional new trips, either peak hour or daily, entering or exiting the site or which is projected to exceed 100 trips per day more than the existing use, whichever is less. The number of trips shall be determined using the most current edition of the "Trip Generation Manual" of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Where such additional traffic is proposed or projected, the property owner shall contact the Permitting Authority to determine if a new permit application or modification to an existing permit shall be required. If the Permitting Authority determines that the increased traffic generated by the change in use does not require modifications to the existing permit or existing access connection, a new permit application shall not be required. 2.19 Traveled Way — the portion of the roadway for the movement of vehicles, exclusive of shoulders. 2.20 Turn Lane — that portion of the roadway dedicated to the turning movement (left-, right -, or U- turning) of vehicular traffic onto or off of the through traffic lanes to adjacent streets or developments. A turn lane must be long enough to accommodate enough turning vehicles to allow the free flow of the through traffic. SECTION THREE: CONNECTION PERMIT REOUIREMENTS 3.01 Connection permit applications on all public roadway facilities shall be reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Ordinance 82 -91, as amended or superseded (Collier County Construction Standards for Work Within Rights -of -Way) and this Policy. Access classifications and design standards are shown in Table 1 and are further defined and described in Section Four of this Policy. 3.02 Existing permitted connections, existing median openings are not required to meet the standards of the assigned classification. Such features shall generally be allowed to remain in place unless for safety, operation or protection of the roadway capacity deemed necessary to modify or close by Collier County. These features shall be brought into reasonable conformance when new connection permits are granted, following significant changes in property use, or as changes to the roadway design occur. 3.03 A property that cannot be permitted access consistent with the standards for the classification assigned to that particular roadway segment and which has no other means of reasonable direct or indirect access as determined pursuant to the connection permit process, shall be issued a Page 2 of 7 16"612 1 conforming permit by the Permitting Authority for a single connection pursuant to this Policy. If additional connections are requested and approved, they shall be considered non-conforming and shall contain restrictions and/or removal provisions. 3.04 Access class standards represent desirable requirements for each access class. As segments of roadways are analyzed and connection permits are applied for, the ultimate goal is to exceed these standards thereby providing for the preservation of the capacity, safety and general welfare of the traveling public. 3.05 The connection and median opening spacing standards specified in this policy may not be adequate in some cases. Greater distances between connections and median openings may be required by the Permitting Authority to provide sufficient location specific traffic operations and safety requirements. In such instances, the Permitting Authority shall document, as part of the response to an application submitted pursuant to this Policy, a justification based on traffic engineering principles, as to why such greater distances are required. 3.06 When a full median opening is constructed or reconstructed to allow for opposing left turns or 13- turns only, these openings shall be considered as one opening. 3.07 Adjacent properties under the same ownership shall not be considered as separate properties for the purpose of applying the standards associated with the access class of the adjacent roadway segment, but shall be deemed to be one parcel. Applicants requesting connections for one or more adjacent properties under the same ownership may, however, as part of the permit application process, request that the properties be considered individually for connection permitting purposes. Such requests shall be included in the permit application and shall provide specific analyses and justification of potential capacity decrease, safety and operational hazards associated with the compatibility of the volume, type, or characteristics of the traffic using the connection. Such properties and single ownership properties with frontage exceeding the standards of the assigned class may not be allowed, pursuant to the permit application process in this Policy, the maximum number of connections, median openings or signals based on the spacing standards. The total number of connections allowed will be the minimum necessary to provide reasonable access. Leasehold interests existing prior to the effective date of this Policy or a bonafide contract for sale may be considered as separate ownership from the parent tract for the purpose of this Policy. Such leasehold interests or contracts may not, however, be the sole criteria for determining separate ownership for purpose of implementation of this policy. 3.08 The speed criteria referred to in Table 1, Access Classification and Standards, means the posted speed limited for the roadway segment either existing or the established design posted speed limit for facilities identified for improvement or not yet in existence. 3.09 Corner clearances for connections shalt meet or exceed the connection spacing requirements for CIassifications 2 through 7. However, a single connection may be placed closer to the intersection for the circumstances set forth in Sections 3.09.1, 3.09.2 and 3.09.3 following and pursuant to the permit application process of this Policy. 3.09.1 If, due to property size, corner clearance standards of this Policy cannot be met, and where joint access which meets or exceeds the applicable comer clearance standards cannot be obtained with a neighboring property, or, in the determination of the Permitting Authority, is not feasible based on conflicting land use or conflicting traffic volumes /characteristics, then comer clearance measurements in Table 2 may be used to permit connections. Such properties, for the purpose of this Policy, are called "isolated comer properties ". 3.09.2 In cases where connections are permitted under criteria specified in Table 2, following, the permit shall contain the following additional conditions: 3.09.2.1 There shall be no more than one connection per road frontage. 3.09.2.2 Where joint or alternate access meets or exceeds the applicable corner clearance becomes available, the permittee shall close the permitted connection, unless the permittee can then show, by presentation of competent evidence, that such closure is not feasible because of conflicting land Page 3 of 7 16812 use, conflicting traffic volumes/characteristics, or existing structures preclude a change in the existing connection. 3.09.3 The comer clearance measurements for the isolated corner properties set forth in Section 3.09.1 above, shall be as defined in this section, Classes 3 through 8, inclusive. 3.09.4 Comer clearances for "isolated corner properties" are as follows: Table 2 Corner Clearance at Intersections WITH MEDIAN Position Access Allowed Standard (Feet) Code' Approaching intersection Right In/Out 115 A Approaching intersection Right In Only 752 B Departing Intersection Right In/Out 230(125)3 C Departing Intersection Right Out Only 100 D WITHOUT MEDIAN Position Access Allowed Standard (Feet) Code' Approaching intersection Full Access 230(125)3 C Approaching intersection Right In Only° 100 D Departing Intersection Full Access 230(125)' C Departing Intersection Right Out On] Y4 1002 E ' — Refer to Figure I. 2 — Subject to case -by -case analysis; may be increased depending on traffic characteristics and intersection geometry. 3 — Access Class 7 may use the measurement in parenthesis. °— Connection by design will effectively eliminate un permitted movements. 3.10 Connections and median openings located within the '/. mile from the limited- access interchange (includes the entire limited- access right -of -way frontage) shall be regulated consistent with the requirements of the Rules of the Department of Transportation, Chapter 14-97, State Highway System Access Management Classification System Standards, Florida Department of Transportation, as may be amended, and on controlled access and arterial roads within the first '/z or '/a mile, respectively, or first existing intersection whichever distance is less, shall be regulated to protect the safety and operational efficiency of the limited access facility. 3.10.1 The distance to the first connection shall be at least 660 feet where the posted speed limit is greater than 45 mph, and shall be at least 440 feet where the posted speed limit is 45 mph or less. This distance will be measured from the end of the taper for that particular quadrant of the interchange on the arterial facility. A single connection per property not meeting this connection spacing may be provided, pursuant to the connection permit process, if no reasonable access to the property exists and if the Permitting Authority review of the connection permit application provided by the applicant determines that the connection does not create a safety, operational, or weaving hazard. In such cases, application for more than a single connection shall be examined as non - conforming connections. 3.10.2 The distance to the first median opening shall be at least 1320 feet as measured from the end of taper of the egress ramp. 3.10.3 Connections and median openings meeting spacing standards may not be permitted in the location requested in the permit application if the Permitting Authority determines, based on traffic engineering principles, the engineering and traffic information provided in the permit application shows that the capacity, safety, or operation characteristics of the interchange or the limited access highway or roadway would be adversely affected. 3.11 Locations for proposed signalization meeting signal warrants which are at intervals closer than the standard for the access class for the roadway segment shall be considered by the Permitting Authority, but may only be approved where the need for such signals is clearly demonstrated for the safety and operational characteristics of the roadway based on Permitting Authority Review of the traffic and signal information provided by the applicant in the connection permit application. Page 4 of 7 SECTION FOUR: ACCESS CLASS DESCRIPTIONS AND STANDARDS 4.01 The access classification system and standards are shown in Table 1. The Access Management Classifications are arranged from the most restrictive (Class 1) to the least restrictive (Class 7)_ The standards for each class are differentiated where the posted speed limit is greater or equal to 45 mph as distinguished from where the posted speed limit is less than 45 mph. The general description for Access Management Classifications 1 through 7 for county roadways is as follows: 4.01.1 Access Class 1, Limited Access Roadways. These highways do not provide direct property connections. Roadways in this class provide for efficient and safe high speed and high volume traffic movements, serving interstate, interregional, intercity, and to a lesser degree, intracity travel needs. 4.01.2 Access Class 2, Controlled Access Roadways. These are highly controlled access facilities distinguished by the ability to serve high speed and high volume traffic over long distances in a safe and efficient manner. These roadways are distinguished by a system of existing or planned service roads or other lower class roadway connections to provide for localized access. 4.01.3 Access Class 3, Arterials, divided. These facilities are controlled access facilities where direct access to abutting land will be controlled to maximize the operation of the through traffic movement. This class will be used where existing land uses and roadway sections have not completely built out to the maximum land use or roadway capacity or where the probability of significant land use change in the near future is high. These roadways will be distinguished by existing or planned median restrictions and maximum distance between traffic signals and driveway connections. 4.01.4 Access Class 4, Arterials, undivided. These facilities are controlled access facilities where direct access to abutting land will be controlled to maximize the operation of the through traffic movement. This class will be used where existing land uses and roadway sections have not completely built out to the maximum land use or roadway capacity or where the probability of significant land use change in the near future is high. These roadways will be distinguished by existing or planned non - restrictive median treatments or no median treatments. 4.01.5 Access Class 5, Arterials, divided. This class will be used where existing land uses and roadway sections have been built out to a greater extent than those roadway segments classified as Access Class 3 and 4 and where the probability of major land use change is not as high as those roadway segments classified as Class 3 and 4. These roadways will be distinguished by existing or planned median restrictions. 4.01.6 Access Class 6, Arterials, undivided. This class will be used where existing land uses and roadway sections have been built out to a greater extent than those roadway segments classified as Access Class 3 and 4 and where the probability of major land use change is not as high as those roadway segments classified as Class 3 and 4. These roadways will be distinguished by existing or planned non - restrictive median treatments or no median treatments. 4.01.7 Access Class 7, Arterials, divided and undivided. This class shall only be used in urbanized areas where existing land use and roadway sections are built out to the maximum intensity and where significant land use or road widening will be limited. This class shall be assigned where there is little intended purpose of providing for high -speed travel. These roadways can have restrictive, non - restrictive or no median treatments. SECTION FIVE: ASSIGNMENT OF AN ACCESS CLASSIFICATION TO ALL ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROADWAYS Access Management Classifications (Class I through 7 as defined in Section Four) are based on the criteria detailed in Section 5.02. These criteria take into account the functional classification as well as other Page 5 of 7 16 °12 disparate traffic characteristics. It is the intent of this Section Five to assign a classification to roadways and to individual roadway segments that is consistent with sound planning principles and engineering practices. 5.01 Facilities that are functionally classified by the County as Arterials or Collectors shall be assigned one of the Access Management Classes 3 through 7 except for State Highways which shall be classified by the Florida Department of Transportation using their own criteria and where the Board of County Commissioners has taken or may take future action to designate specific facilities as Limited- Access or Controlled- Access facilities. These currently include Livingston Road (entire length) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) from US 41 to Immokalee Road as Controlled- Access facilities (Class 2) and the future extension of Collier Boulevard (CR 95 1) north of Immokalee Road as a Limited Access facility (Class 1) The assignment of classification to a specific segment of roadway shall be the responsibility of the Transportation Services Division with ultimate approval by the Board of County Commissions. 5.02 The classification decision shall take into consideration the potential for the desired access management classification and standards to be achieved based on existing land use, probability for land use change, adopted future roadway plans, and on ultimate roadway cross - section identified in the adopted plans. The assignment of a classification shall take into account consideration the following factors: 5.02.1 The current and potential functional classification of the roadway; 5.02.2 Existing and projected future traffic volumes; 5.02.3 Existing and projected state, local and Metropolitan Planning Organization transportation plans and needs, including consideration of new or improved parallel facilities; 5.02.4 Drainage requirements; 5.02.5 Adjacent land use characteristics (existing and projected); 5.02.6 Local land use plans, zoning and land development regulations as set forth in the Growth Management Plan; 5.02.7 Type and volume of traffic requiring access; 5.02.8 Operational aspects including corridor accident history; 5.02.9 Availability of reasonable access to an arterial or collector roadway by way of adjacent local streets as an alternative to a direct connection to an arterial or collector; 5.02.10 Cumulative effect of existing and projected connections on the arterials' or collectors' ability to provide save and efficient movement of people and goods within the County. 5.03 Table 3 depicts the assigned Access Management Class based on the criteria enumerated in Section 5.02 for all existing and presently proposed major collectors and arterials. The designation of Livingston Road as an Access Class 2 and Collier Boulevard (CR 95 1) as Access Class 1 and 2 as previously described shall take precedent over Table 4. 5.04 Activity Center access management plans are defined in the Land Development Code but are subject to review and approval on a case -by -case basis as land use proposals for development and redevelopment are submitted. The access shall be consistent with the intent to provide for the preservation of capacity and the safety of the traveling public. SECTION SIX: REVIEW AND MODIFICATION OF CLASSIFICATIONS 6.01 The Transportation Services Division shall review the Access Management Classifications for specific segments of arterial and collector roadways when a major change in any of the factors Page 6 of 7 1812 noted herein have occurred or annually, whichever occurs first. The review shall take the same form and procedure as outlined in Section 5 of this Policy. 6.02 A written request may be made by any person or organization to the Transportation Services Administrator that the Transportation Services Division to review the access classification of any specific segment (s) of an arterial or collector roadway at any time. Such written request shall include the specific basis to justify why the change in the roadway segment classification is being sought, and shall indicate the desired roadway segment classification and the specific justification therefore, based on the criteria contained herein. The Administrator shall consider each such request, coordinating with the appropriate organizations and committees named herein, and may initiate a study to determine if the reclassification should be approved, approved in a modified form, or denied under criteria outlined herein. Said proposed reclassification shall be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County with appropriate background data for final adoption or denial. SECTION SEVEN: AMENDMENTS This Policy may be amended from time to time by Resolution of the Collier County Board of Commissioners. Page 7 of 7 16812 9�2 �� r ■z G_RRR� ® © 22«-i nook // §�$■ o ■ z w ° I n 2 $ / /$ \ Aw /$3 z��2 . • § �� /z# § k { < LL 2 _ a g B f \ $ \ « g� . fA ID f - § ¥go <o <= C) ƒ2 2 Lw 22 2272 2 CL c�6 �LL Lo # a _ 7 2 j E « z cc & g $ c W 0 0 �Uk� k r- / �� \«/ ��� \ U zz zN00C)0 �0 22222 f !) /. \/ Q < 7 § , f f M \ U # O & §} 2 « n z < m $ - \ 2 2■ .9 \/( U k �$ \ {« 2r ® Q LU r of mc } < @kRk.2 5 & « /)& L L 2 /(\[ to u o / \ 0 \\ t� k \ //. ƒk v� /$7�7�f 9t a! �� 2 /I0 ;f D e / §6£$F£ U) a. kk § ■ 2 d $ - gn mow @ U U -6 « 2 0 16B12 MINIMUM CORNER ' CLEARANCES �• ( REFER TO TABLE `Z • ' •~ A D-4j D B ' D ' D E 1 FIGURE 1 Table 3 ACCS11031AT 07A 4182 CoRer County 7rmportadon SwAms Division Access Managamant aaas&atlon E-K 10:42 AM — _. _ Mo. Mad. +j .. 1 N Table 3 CCSPAGW i CoSer County Tspor adm Servkes OhWon Acces ManagernoM C UssEcatlon -. AtQA2AM No. Mad Segment E:dv Sig Posted Mad Opeo Avg. NO. S GS Avg Ares FLI V* C:E# Road # tank F:mnwTd L.nnrh Fead ro Sn..d (h en RA MadSti Sias . RA Sin Cn m— n—_ A ' C i tt?7 11: -. ii��>tJriiii .. • . .. i■ ia' ��taa� ■r�:a�ii:a����'_i"':.�i�`��ai ot 6v_t��[Ir •x.^..'•�r'A(� ".iii �0�':�_�_�0 ��i.[+'i�lrn^lr+�r�•1:� Y• . «• �i�'��i�ii�i— �i':� -0� :�0.�� i:rZi n�„�1.►tE. 1•rTd:�+tT.1•:Af77Rl"[.''IrSTr •�.: " itliil�i::�i��A�r" s® t- .:r�:rrrr•sslc;�r,(:�,. �.��.t>•���i /r � .. i/ mommon USa�i—� T- ©_© _ •... [ enrc- '�iarraSS!.+wtn•crr.s:r•�� � � M 11 a gm ''''- 1 :�^l.R•i:[:kT.(C.?'Tf:R�t!Ft:f) «.. _ - • -. ®0 " —i " —�� t.�,im'.7:r•T .ns*,rat:c� =mow • . . . tr. �t6�IS'at��i .r. �i ' ' �is;i�� �ir.�:>� ��(.Yni:�n:Ttr� [. � " tt■itii��O�L'ar -• ' IT �,)♦�[r�.r:�(.rr�+'• :6 I:rT74f�fi 1- Y�= f�`r�:f�: 1►� t ► -�. t . .. ��� M. '�f��'� "•= L. �; ��t :�••�:. "t�- 'it�"T,.a:��[r'rr, r,:' �: r,,,•: rrnrr� 'ar:r- rt;r.�t��'G>t��t'��:�� " �i . t �%� t'• "•�W(i�i�t': � t�?iCt'.'�:T7:6� I «•t•L . �ili:.ai��� t " �iaia�it:..�s�i:7 t .'+: i t�r7>:�R -:•,. �,:7:r,;?�T �:'�[c.:!T.1:n- �e*.r- A ' C ACCSMGMT 07114192 E-K IC42A&( Table 3 C'a' C4w4y Tr-5Pcrtad- S-*" OMslon Accs= &unagwn&U CUms& Rdon .—A Go4hDr County Memorandum To: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: January 21, 2011 Sub_lect: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review (2nd memo as church petition) PETITION NUMBER: PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674 (REV 8) PETITION NAME: Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD (f/k/a Hilton Hills RPUD) REQUEST: Rezone the +12 acre site from the A, Rural Agricultural District to the Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples Community Facility Planned Unit Development ( CFPUD) to allow development of a church (500 seats) and preschool (150 students). LOCATION: The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Livingston Road and School Access Road, approximately one and one -half miles north of Immokalee Road in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict as depicted in the Future Land Use Element [FLUE] and on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan [GMP]. The Urban designation allows community facilities such as churches and child care centers (pre- schools) — the uses proposed in this PUD. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold text]. Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, 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. [Exhibit C, the PUD Master Plan, depicts direct access to Livingston Road, an arterial road per the Transportation Element.] Page 1 of 2 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. [There is no street system for the project proposed. Nonetheless, Exhibit C, the PUD Master Plan, depicts a drive /parking lot aisle in a looped configuration with a single access point on Livingston Road.] Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. [There is no street system for the type of project proposed. A potential connection to Learning Lane (runs along the south side of the site and ends at entrance to North Naples Middle School to the west) is depicted on Exhibit C, the PUD Master Plan, and labeled as "future potential interconnection to Learning Lane, subject to access approval from Collier County School District." Though this note on Exhibit C implies the applicant would attempt to gain approval from the School District for that connection (and application materials state the petitioner is seeking this approval from the School Board), staff believes it should be explicitly stated as a developer commitment on Exhibit E to attempt to gain approval. At the next development order, the applicant would have to provide the connection or evidence of unsuccessful good faith efforts to gain approval for the connection. The proposed on -site preserve area precludes interconnection to the undeveloped lands to the north zoned A, Rural Agricultural. The proposed lake (water retention area) precludes interconnection to the west, unless it is reconfigured; given the small size of the site, reconfiguration may not be possible /feasible. Further, if the connection to Learning Lane occurs, then the benefit of an interconnection to the west would be lessened.] 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. [For the most part, this policy is not applicable since this is not a residential project. The required open space is depicted on Exhibit C, the PUD Master Plan. Also, since there is no requested deviation, sidewalks will have to be provided per the LDC. ] Review of PUD Document • Exhibit E, List of Developer Commitments: Add a commitment to: seek approval from the Collier County School District for a connection to Learning Lane; and, to construct that connection during the initial development phase of this project, if approval granted, OR, if approval not granted, to provide evidence to the County of good faith efforts to obtain that approval and of the School District's denial. Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUD may not be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. One PUD revision is needed as noted above. [It is acknowledged the petitioner wishes to proceed to public hearings to vet this issue.] MEMO ON CD PLUS cc: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Services Section Mike Bosi, AICP, Planning Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674 Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples 2 GACDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviews120111PUDZ dw/9 -30 -10 & 1 -21 -11 Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. 11- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04 -41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM AN AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT WITH A PORTION OF THE REAL PROPERTY IN A ST OVERLAY (SPECIAL TREATMENT) TO A COMMUNITY FACILITY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CFPUD) ZONING DISTRICT WITH REMOVAL OF THE ST OVERLAY FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES CFPUD. THE PROJECT WILL ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A 500 SEAT CHURCH, A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND PRESCHOOL OF UP TO 150 STUDENTS ALONG WITH OTHER PERMITTED AND ACCESSORY USES COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH A CHURCH AND PRESCHOOL USE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF LEARNING LANE AND LIVINGSTON ROAD IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 12t ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PETITION PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674) WHEREAS, Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. and D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A., representing Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples, Inc., 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) Grace Romanian Baptist Church / PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674 Rev. 1/21111 Page 1 of 2 Zoning District with a portion of the real property in a ST Overlay (Special Treatment) to a Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) Zoning District with removal of the ST Overlay for a project known as the Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD, in accordance with Exhibits A through E, attached hereto and incorporated herein and by reference made part hereof. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is /are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super- majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: D IR" AFT Heidi Ashton -Cicko Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A - List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B - Development Standards Exhibit C - Master Plan Exhibit D - Legal Description Exhibit E - List of Developer Commitments CP \07- CPS - 00640\32 2011. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA FRED W. COYLE, Chairman Grace Romanian Baptist Church / PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674 Rev. 1 /21 /11 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A FOR GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES CFPUD PERMITTED USES: The Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD will be developed as a community facility project, including but not limited to, a 500 member religious facility and a 150 student total enrollment preschool (child care) facility. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: I. Principal Uses: A. Principal Uses 1. Church (House of Worship) 2. Pre - school (child care), not to exceed 150 students. 3. Single family dwelling, maximum of one (1) unit. 4. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as approved through the process outlined in the LDC. B. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the principal uses permitted in this District, such as multi - purpose buildings, indoor and outdoor recreational uses and facilities. 2. Essential services 3. Open space and passive recreational uses. 4. Outdoor recreational facilities such as playfields, playgrounds and similar facilities. 5. Parking 6. Water management facilities. Rev 9 2/3/2011 Page 1 of 6 Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD II. Preserve Tract A. Principal Uses: 1. Native vegetation preserve. 2. Any other conservation use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Environmental Services Department determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Boardwalks, nature trails, shelters, and other uses permitted within dedicated preserves by the LDC. 2. Any other conservation use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area. 3. Any clearing required to facilitate these uses shall not reduce the minimum required native vegetation. 0 Rev 9 2/3/2011 Page 2 of 6 Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD EXHIBIT B FOR GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES CFPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: The table below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the CFPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the Land Development Code (LDC) in effect as of the date of approval of the site development plan (SDP) or subdivision plat. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMMUNITY FACILITY CF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MINIMUM LOT AREA N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH N/A MINIMUM FLOOR AREA N/A MIN FRONT YARD 50 FEET MIN SIDE YARD 25 FEET MIN REAR YARD 15 FEET MIN PRESERVE SETBACK 25 FEET MIN DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 25 FEET MAX BUILDING HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED ZONED ACTUAL 50 FEET 60 FEET TO TOP OF ROOF AND A MAXIMUM ADDITIONAL 12 FEET FOR CUPOLA AND /OR SPIRE AND STEEPLE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FRONT 25 FEET SIDE S.P.S REAR (ATTACHED) (DETACHED) 10 FEET 15 FEET PRESERVE SETBACK 10 FEET DISTANCE BETWEEN PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE 0 FEET MAX BUILDING HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED ZONED ACTUAL S.P.S. S.P.S. S.P.S. = Some as Principal Structures BH = Building Height Rev 9 2/3/2011 Page 3 of 6 Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD EXHIBIT C MASTER PLAN Rev 9 2/3/2011 Page 4 of 6 Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD EXHIBIT D FOR GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES CFPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1 ALL OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION TAKEN FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2619, PAGE 188, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. TOGETHER WITH: PARCEL 2 ALL OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. TOGETHER WITH: PARCEL 3 A PORTION OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THAT PORTION TAKEN FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2615 AT PAGE 2828 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THE SAME BEING THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4544 AT PAGE 563 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN N.88 057'29 "E., ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 417.42 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD, A 275.00 FOOT RIGHT -OF -WAY, THE SAME BEING A POINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS N.42 °13'34 "E. A DISTANCE OF 2047.36 FEET THEREFROM; THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE AND ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2047.36 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12 025'05 ", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 442.88 FEET AT A BEARING OF N.41 033'54 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 443.75 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13, THENCE RUN S.88 058'45" W. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13 FOR A DISTANCE OF 124.44 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13, THENCE RUN S.00 °09'12 "E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 336.74 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Rev 9 2/3/2011 Page 5 of 6 Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD EXHIBIT E FOR GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES CFPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Regulations for development of the Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this CFPUD Document and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate. Where this CFPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. A. PLANNING 1. The CFPUD Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit C) is an illustration of the conceptual development plan. B. ENVIRONMENTAL A minimum of 15% (minimum 1.82 acres) of the existing native vegetation shall be retained on -site in accordance with LDC Section 3.05. C. UTILITIES Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission systems shall be constructed throughout the project by the developer. Potable water and sanitary sewer facilities constructed within platted rights -of -way or within dedicated County utility easements shall be conveyed to Collier County, pursuant to the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, except as may be provided in this Ordinance. Rev 9 2/3/2011 Page 6 of 6 Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD C i�e'&r County Memorandum To: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: September 30, 2010 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PUDZ- 2005 -AR -8674 PETITION NAME: Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD (f/k/a Hilton Hills RPUD) REQUEST: Rezone the +12 acre site from the A, Rural Agricultural District to the Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples Community Facility Planned Unit Development ( CFPUD) to allow development of a church (500 seats) and preschool (150 students). LOCATION: The subject property is located on the northwest corner of Livingston Road and School Access Road, approximately one and one -half miles north of Immokalee Road in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict as depicted in the Future Land Use Element [FLUE] and on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan [GMP]. The Urban designation allows community facilities such as churches and child care centers (pre- schools) — the uses proposed in this PUD. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold text]. Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, 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. [Exhibit C, the PUD Master Plan, depicts direct access to Livingston Road, an arterial road per the Transportation Element.] Page 1 of 2 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. [There is no street system for the project proposed. Nonetheless, Exhibit C, the PUD Master Plan, depicts a drive /parking lot aisle in a looped configuration with a single access point on Livingston Road.] Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. [There is no street system for the type of project proposed. A potential connection to Learning Lane (runs along the south side of the site and ends at entrance to North Naples Middle School to the west) is depicted on Exhibit C, the PUD Master Plan, and labeled as "future potential interconnection to Learning Lane, subject to access approval from Collier County School District." Though this note on Exhibit C implies the applicant would attempt to gain approval from the School District for that connection (and application materials state the petitioner is seeking this approval from the School Board), staff believes it should be explicitly stated as a developer commitment on Exhibit E to attempt to gain approval. At the next development order, the applicant would have to provide the connection or evidence of unsuccessful good faith efforts to gain approval for the connection. The proposed on -site preserve area precludes interconnection to the undeveloped lands to the north zoned A, Rural Agricultural. The proposed lake (water retention area) precludes interconnection to the west, unless it is reconfigured; given the small size of the site, reconfiguration may not be possible /feasible. Further, if the connection to Learning Lane occurs, then the benefit of an interconnection to the west would be lessened.] 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. [For the most part, this policy is not applicable since this is not a residential project. The required open space is depicted on Exhibit C, the PUD Master Plan. Also, since there is no requested deviation, sidewalks will have to be provided per the LDC. ] Review of PUD Document • Exhibit E, List of Developer Commitments: Add a commitment to: seek approval from the Collier County School District for a connection to Learning Lane; and, to construct that connection during the initial development phase of this project, if approval granted, OR, if approval not granted, to provide evidence to the County of good faith efforts to obtain that approval and of the School District's denial. Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUD may not be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. One PUD revision is needed as noted above. MEMO ON CD PLUS cc: Ray Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Services Section Mike Bosi, AICP, Planning Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section PUDZ -AR- 2005 -8674 Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples GAConsistency Reviews \2010 \PUDZ dw /9 -30 -10 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A FOR GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES CFPUD PERMITTED USES: The Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD will be developed as a community facility project, including but not limited to, a 500 member religious facility and a 150 student total enrollment preschool (child care) facility. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: I. Principal Uses: A. Principal Uses 1. Church (House of Worship) 2. Pre - school (child care), not to exceed 150 students. 3. Single family dwelling, maximum of one (1) unit. 4. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as approved through the process outlined in the LDC. B. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the principal uses permitted in this District, such as multi - purpose buildings, indoor and outdoor recreational uses and facilities. 2. Essential services 3. Open space and passive recreational uses. 4. Outdoor recreational facilities such as playfields, playgrounds and similar facilities. 5. Parking 6. Water management facilities. Rev 9 2/3/2011 Page 1 of 6 Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD II. Preserve Tract A. Principal Uses: 1. Native vegetation preserve. 2. Any other conservation use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Environmental Services Department determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Boardwalks, nature trails, shelters, and other uses permitted within dedicated preserves by the LDC. 2. Any other conservation use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area. 3. Any clearing required to facilitate these uses shall not reduce the minimum required native vegetation. v Rev 9 2/3/2011 Page 2 of 6 Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD EXHIBIT B FOR GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES CFPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: The table below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the CFPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the Land Development Code (LDC) in effect as of the date of approval of the site development plan (SDP) or subdivision plat. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMMUNITY FACILITY CF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MINIMUM LOT AREA N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH N/A MINIMUM FLOOR AREA N/A MIN FRONT YARD 50 FEET MIN SIDE YARD 25 FEET MIN REAR YARD 15 FEET MIN PRESERVE SETBACK 25 FEET MIN DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 25 FEET MAX BUILDING HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED ZONED ACTUAL 50 FEET 60 FEET TO TOP OF ROOF AND A MAXIMUM ADDITIONAL 12 FEET FOR CUPOLA AND /OR SPIRE AND STEEPLE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FRONT 25 FEET SIDE S.P.S REAR (ATTACHED) (DETACHED) 10 FEET 15 FEET PRESERVE SETBACK 10 FEET DISTANCE BETWEEN PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE 0 FEET MAX BUILDING HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED ZONED ACTUAL S.P.S. S.P.S. S.P.S. = Same as Principal Structures BH = Building Height Rev 9 2/3/2011 Page 3 of 6 Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD UNDEVELOPED ZONED: A, AGRICULTURE SITE SUMMARY CF = 7.2t ACRES ROW - 1.3E ACRES LAKES = 1.0t ACRES PRESERVE = 1.8E ACRES BUFFERS .7t ACRES TOTAL SITE - 12t ACRES RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS: 1 UNIT CHURCH: 500 SEATS PRESCHOOL: 150STUDENTS OPEN SPACE: REQUIRED: 3.6E ACRES (30 %) PROVIDED: 3.6E ACRES (30 %) NOTES'. 1. i 13 UNDEVELOPED ZONED: A, AGRICULTURE � I i I CF ' I I FUTURE CHURCH EXPANSION AND I 1 I RELATED USE, PARKING AND OUTDOOR I \ RECREATION AREA i — — — — — 15' WIDE BEEPER PEk -L6C �I■ u1. 1■ 1■ 1■ I■ 1. l■ I. I. u:■ 1 ■1■1■1■wn ■ul ■1■1.l.uuuul....... uul.ul.1■u1■1.........uuul n THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. ALL ACREAGES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SOP OR PLAT APPROVAL. ACCESS TO LEARNING LANE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT. LEGEND O 2221r LEARNING LANE ROYAL PALM ACADEMY ZONED: ROYAL PALM ACADEMY PUD 6 4 UPDArE MASTER PLAN FOR CNURCN USE SU PRE RVE•'----- -{�f' UP— RRE 8LOCR AND AERIAL RE RE TIRE FROM RPUO TO MPUD CF 3 1 DI ) ID REVISE SITE AND ACCESS POINTS RETAIN 331 —TARW AREA SV SU SINGLE ` . UNDEVELOPED .. ,P . — — — _ ■ ZONED: A. AGRICULTURE Lit ' FAMILY CE \ I G I 0 � 111 CF ■ PART OF LIVINGSTON ROAD 7/ ■ RIGHT WAY CS1�O i ■ ZONED: A, AGRICULTURE Z i CHURCH AND RELATED USE ( DEVELOPMENT AREA I �O ■ 9� ■' I as ■1.1.1.1.1 ■I y BUFFER PER LDC IR I LAKE `11J L — I 'I � I i I CF ' I I FUTURE CHURCH EXPANSION AND I 1 I RELATED USE, PARKING AND OUTDOOR I \ RECREATION AREA i — — — — — 15' WIDE BEEPER PEk -L6C �I■ u1. 1■ 1■ 1■ I■ 1. l■ I. I. u:■ 1 ■1■1■1■wn ■ul ■1■1.l.uuuul....... uul.ul.1■u1■1.........uuul n THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. ALL ACREAGES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SOP OR PLAT APPROVAL. ACCESS TO LEARNING LANE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT. LEGEND O 2221r LEARNING LANE ROYAL PALM ACADEMY ZONED: ROYAL PALM ACADEMY PUD 6 O] ]010 UPDArE MASTER PLAN FOR CNURCN USE SU S 03 0f pd OR UP— RRE 8LOCR AND AERIAL RE RE TIRE FROM RPUO TO MPUD 5U SU 3 1 DI ) ID REVISE SITE AND ACCESS POINTS RETAIN 331 —TARW AREA SV SU 3/39/06 w -ASE PRESERVE RE –ROUTE ROR AROUND ST OW-1 SU CF PRESCHOOL —1 DEVELOPMENT 11N AREA \ % \� 15' WIDE BUFFER PER LDC , I ................. u u ul ■ 1 ■u1.1 .................... FUTURE POTENTIAL INTERCONNECTION TO LEARNING LANE, SUBJECT TO ACCESS APPROVAL FROM COLLIER COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT 0nnlra OpMnR6 L'J0.03].I I>4 t'Nrr kNerr 239.69r1.43M1 CdCVMlI101 T 1—ft Y41.4'i8 sn5n "Ple.R 219.4442907 Chill Engineers . Land Sv9rs Planners • Landscape Architects curt. nrerrm.uunoslsl FAUm.un�eunaa:lsl LRnDSSU]uloosnR 0. ('.raft A101nr x90 Axxpnix— r.A.. 3000 Vlx .1 Rev, M. 0prinpx, K 34134. Mr ;— kiln -wn ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES EXHIBIT C MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT D FOR GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES CFPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL1 ALL OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION TAKEN FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2619, PAGE 188, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. TOGETHER WITH PARCEL 2 ALL OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. TOGETHER WITH: PARCEL 3 A PORTION OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THAT PORTION TAKEN FOR LIVINGSTON ROAD AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 2615 AT PAGE 2828 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THE SAME BEING THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4544 AT PAGE 563 OF THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN N.88 057'29 "E., ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 417.42 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD, A 275.00 FOOT RIGHT -OF -WAY, THE SAME BEING A POINT ON A CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS N.42 013'34 "E. A DISTANCE OF 2047.36 FEET THEREFROM; THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE AND ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 2047.36 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12 02605 ", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 442.88 FEET AT A BEARING OF N.41 033'54 "W., FOR A DISTANCE OF 443.75 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13, THENCE RUN S.88 058'45" W. ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13 FOR A DISTANCE OF 124.44 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13, THENCE RUN S.00 009'12 "E. ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13, FOR A DISTANCE OF 336.74 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Rev 9 2/3/2011 Page 5 of 6 Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD EXHIBIT E FOR GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES CFPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Regulations for development of the Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this CFPUD Document and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate. Where this CFPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. A. PLANNING 1. The CFPUD Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit C) is an illustration of the conceptual development plan. B. ENVIRONMENTAL 1. A minimum of 15% (minimum 1.82 acres) of the existing native vegetation shall be retained on -site in accordance with LDC Section 3.05. C. UTILITIES l . Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission systems shall be constructed throughout the project by the developer. Potable water and sanitary sewer facilities constructed within platted rights -of -way or within dedicated County utility easements shall be conveyed to Collier County, pursuant to the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, except as may be provided in this Ordinance. Rev 9 2/3/2011 Page 6 of 6 Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples CFPUD AGENDA ITEM 9 -E Collier County STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION, PLANNING AND REGULATION HEARING DATE: MARCH 17, 2011 SUBJECT: PETITION PUDA- PL2010 -854, NAPLES DAILY NEWS BPPUD (BUSINESS PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) APPLICANT /AGENT: Scripps Media, Inc. D/B /A Naples Daily News 1100 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34110 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 Naples Daily News BPPUD to allow a change in the plant materials in the landscape buffer and to provide an effective date. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The Naples Daily News BPPUD is located on the south side of Immokalee Road (CR 846), approximately 1/ mile east of Tamiami Trail North (US 41 North), in Section 27, 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 06 -49, the Naples Daily News BPPUD, to allow an additional tree type in a landscape buffer. At the time of approval of the original Naples Daily News BPPUD, an agreement was made between the applicant (Naples Daily News) and two other entities: the Bay Colony Golf Club, Inc. and The Estates at Bay Colony Golf Club Neighborhood Association. The parties had agreed to Naples Daily News BPPUD, PUDA- PL2010 -854 February 21, 2011 Page 1 of 11 LOCATION MAP 5 AUDUBON NORTH NAPLES PUD PUD RIVERCHASE L W COUNTRY I CWB REEARCH a TECHNOLOGY PAPN LEE COUNTY E T Q TR Ei 1a 5; TIC TUSCM'Y R(M) \. WWBON w `BAARM ARBWR COUNTRY LAKE [7� CLUB "' S CLMB BAY MEOITERRA 1117H AK N. 21 22 8 FOREST 9 OAKS M �CJ' 17 26 27 NAPLES- IMMOKALEE ROAD 12 THE i Es 10 PD12 0 WATEROLPDE RETREAT PLAZA O' MEDLTERRA GLEN EDEN MEADOW ON THE BAY ARBOR TRACE VILLAGE PLACE BROOK MATES - - - - - - - - - __ __ ETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD AT EE COCOBATtl1EE TARPON KA WPFIRM SANDALYAOD LANE ROSH MANOON BAY eAr rnL[ vLAZa PLAZA wLTaH LLA 16 US- 91/9103N5 HKLS O.R. 898 PASS ROAD 14 17 YAGUNS is AT ILAKE AT INPFAIW OEUURT}OMWMAIN I INDUS G EG L �M-LL-ASEA CC.AHATCHEE 600"' BAY COCOHATCHEE MADDRA Z m RIM 1RUST p TAMIAMI PRO ESS— CENTER y w % NORTH 23 VANDERBILT 21 20 VRL45 22 COWER NAPLES PIPER BLVD. MEDICAL MEDICM 0.FlCE 24 COUJER 1RACi 21 V lEALl COWER CENTER 9R9 ) 'MLLd16i8Y PLAZA 21 l� TRACT 22 (DRI) .OF ?_VELOPNENT PARK TE—'S ,. hT" GARDENS D!MONALTE THE DUNES N— ES —OKMEE ROAD (C.R. 818) CANNONS ROAD —R COVENTRY GRAN. CREEKSNE NORTH - SHOPP: COp M�ERCE r SOLARE 71E SURREY .— APRIL SEE S, aOXn. VILLAS THE EVANGELST ✓ I P.A. RAHS CIXNALESGEKT REGENT PARK URCIE 29 CATHUC CHURCH NAPLES DAILY NEWS P NOR—DE —L (S) VANDER.LT 28 fff a 27 TER 26 T� BEACH ETAYES NAPLES P/RK STOKERRIDGE 25 I CRE ETA PELCAN DR 0 PROJECT I PAwua+ LOCATION MIRAL!A LAKE 4 Z � PAVNON MERCAiO PELICAN MARSH PELCAN m MARSH [ VAHDERBRT BEACH 34 (DRI) a (DRI) m `q 32 ROAD 33 35 WALGREENS 4 v' 36 I' b M RKER LAKE g MLLAS VENETIAN' PLAZA 2 O VANDERBIIT BEACH ROAD 7 LENNNA FOUN;AM PARK MNEYARDS BRIGHTON (DR) GAROES PE.— BAY HEAVVK1Y MCHFFEY • ) k 2 PINE Q LAKESO M GARDENS pl µRy(s) O.( GHO, O 5 RIOGP 2 RECwcr m Y uN 1 LCB I NAPLES(P) 4 3 2 u Y s O') f LONGNEW NIER FlRST CHERRY HOLLOW H= �(D) ICNE CY.URCH = (9 3 EYSTOW PLACE OAx W PAVE 8 PARK PARK 8 9 10 11 PINE AN 12 CHESTER LAKE mad (CRT) —ARE LOCATION MAP a g I PETITION # PUDA -PL- 2010 -854 PUD GRANADA sHOPPES IR CPUDICSEEKSIDE COML1 RCE PARK A PUD *° PEUCAN MARSH m u 1RAtt UR 2! i ZONING MAP 11 41 IWAP mra-11 I -A PUD PUD RIVERCHASE W COWER TRACT 22 PLAZA 21 SHOPPING CENTER E T Q TR Bp 1a U10SWCNIE DRIVE TIC [7� 1117H AK N. 21 22 _ __ 26 27 NAPLES- IMMOKALEE ROAD C.R. 896 a g I PETITION # PUDA -PL- 2010 -854 PUD GRANADA sHOPPES IR CPUDICSEEKSIDE COML1 RCE PARK A PUD *° PEUCAN MARSH m u 1RAtt UR 2! i ZONING MAP 11 41 IWAP mra-11 I 20mm m co=A mm. ebm C � w1w PWOM�D CAFF.hiR WAY EATL4&� n Dart OM PACE BP BUSINESS PARK PARCEL A `\ 1 allarcc PARK "M M PRETREATMENT czD si S A Kr CE C d DRY PRETREATMENT 777-7-- d A '4�AMW xv�) -N--mm P ::PRESERVE-:.:.. 0469 rAWLY WZIOZNII\L I'''•'•'•••'•'-•••'•'•'• . . s E1 cOxIRw OPEN SPACE ..m moms uolo: NAAMM umpm No 07ESOIRECTON I OF PRESERVE Z.LE... FO R WE RUNOFF LAWIT ow com Zmm N NOT" K", s E1 specific types of trees that were to be placed within a landscape buffer between the BPPUD and their developments. Since that time, the two Bay Colony entities have requested changes to the types of trees that are to be installed and a new agreement has been entered into. A copy of the agreement is attached. (See Attachment B: Letter of Agreement.) This PUD amendment is necessary because the new agreement is in conflict with the original landscape buffer requirement stated in PUD Section 2.9. The following text shows the current PUD text and changes to that text. Text that is struck through is deleted and text that is underlined is text to be added to PUD Section 2.9 D.: 2.9 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls are generally permitted as a principal use throughout the Naples Daily News BPPUD. The following standards shall apply: D The developer will supplement the existing ficus hedge which presently serves as a buffer between the prepesed BPPUD and the -The Estates at Bay Colony Deyelepment with 80 live eal( tFees 12 feet high with a Fni i . -ad ef 6 feet at the time ef plantiiqg. Additienally these eaIE tFees will l9e supplemented with FiEl tFees, te the extent the Geunty will allew the use ef fiews trees, te create an epaques 'Golf Club Neighborhood Association tFees:, Inc. and the Bay Colony Golf Club, Inc. ( "Bay Colony ") with eighty (80) Clusia rosea trees with a size of at least twenty -five (25) gallon containers to be planted as designated by Bay Colony. The supplementary eak and tsClusia rosea trees will be located in the buffer area at field selected locations between the Creekside PUD on the east and the point on the west where the buffer turns south. This distance is approximately eleven hundred (1,1001 feet. In the event that the ficus hedge +sand /or Clusia rosea trees are damaged by a windstorm to the extent of a reduction in the opaque value of 50010 or more, the developer agrees toerestore by replacement or resetting, whichever is appropriate, any of the 80 'o• a eal( trees Clusia rosea install j or Feset the ficus trees as- eeeessafy,(existing) within the eleven hundred (1100) foot area with the intent to restore the buffer as close to its pre -storm condition as reasonably possible considering the availability of tree materials at the time of the restoration. The replacement or resetting of the trees will be for a total of one hundred sixty (160) trees. Whether the restoration will be with Clusia rosea or ficus trees or both will be at the discretion of Bay Colony. Developer shall be relieved of any further obligation or responsibility to restore the buffer after the initial replacement or resetting has occurred. After the initial replacement or resetting of the one hundred sixty (160) trees has occurred, Bay Colonv may, in its sole discretion, replace or reset any of said trees. Naples Daily News BPPUD, PUDA- PL2010 -854 February 21, 2011 Page 4 of 11 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Collier Tract 22 PUD (Planned Unit Developmf East: Creekside CPUD (Commercial Planned Unit Df South: Pelican Marsh PUD West: Pelican Marsh PUD and Granada Shoppes PUD AERIAL PHOTO 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). Within this designation is a text - based provision known as the Business Park Subdistrict. The Board of County Commissioners approved the subject Planned Unit Development (PUD) in 2006 (Ordinance number 2006 -49) in accordance with that Subdistrict. The proposed amendment only modifies a landscape buffer, primarily to change the type of tree planting required; such is not a specific requirement of the Subdistrict. There are no proposed changes that affect uses or other requirements and limitations of the Business Park Subdistrict. Naples Daily News BPPUD, PUDA- PL2010 -854 February 21, 2011 Page 5 of 11 GMP Conclusion: Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed rezone consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). ANAT.VQiCr 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 has determined that the proposed amendment will not have any transportation impact. 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 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 allow a change in the plant materials in the landscape buffer. 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). Naples Daily News BPPUD, PUDA- PL2010 -854 February 21, 2011 Page 6 of 11 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 because a new landscape buffer agreement is in conflict with the original landscape buffer requirement stated in PUD Section 2.9. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The amendment will allow for an additional tree type in the landscape buffer between the Naples Daily News BPPUD and Pelican Marsh PUD. 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. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed change to the tree type in the landscape buffer between a portion of the Naples Daily News BPPUD and Pelican Marsh PUD will not reduce light and air 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. Naples Daily News BPPUD, PUDA- PL2010 -854 February 21, 2011 Page 7 of 11 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. The proposed PUD amendment does not constitute a grant of special privilege. In addition, this PUD is consistent with the FLUE. 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. Without the PUD amendment there cannot be a change to the tree type in the landscape buffer as desired by the Naples Daily News and two other entities: the Bay Colony Golf Club, Inc. and The Estates at Bay Colony Golf Club Neighborhood Association. 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. Not applicable. 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. Not applicable. 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 Country 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. Naples Daily News BPPUD, PUDA- PL2010 -854 February 21, 2011 Page 8 of 11 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 10.02.13.13.5 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. Not applicable. As previously stated, the only change is to allow an additional tree type in a landscape buffer. 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. 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 internal or external compatibility. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Naples Daily News BPPUD, PUDA- PL2010 -854 February 21, 2011 Page 9 of 11 The existing 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. Not applicable. As previously stated, the only change is to allow an additional tree type in a landscape buffer. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Not applicable. As previously stated, the only change is to allow an additional tree type in a landscape buffer. 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. Not applicable. As previously stated, the only change is to allow an additional tree type in a landscape buffer. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant duly noticed and held the required meeting on February 2, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. at the Naples Daily News, 1100 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida. There were no members of the public in attendance at the meeting. Synopsis provided by Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for Petition PUDA- PL2010 -854, revised on February 22, 2011. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDA- PL2010 -854 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval of this amendment. Naples Daily News BPPUD, PUDA- PL2010 =854 February 21, 2011 Page 10 of 11 'REPARED BY: NAMY 6AIAM�La& 01171. N NANCY GU L , AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTM T O LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEWED BY: /�& - i�-' 7- Ll RAYMON V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES V/t1,L'- X� i 0x•2.7--zc>1I &OITLIAM D. LORE JR., P: ., RECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPROVED BY: L"/ 111�2j-Xz -z'zi A NICK ASALANGUIDA, D UT A INISTRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE Tentatively scheduled for the April 12, 2011 Board of County Commissioners Meeting Attachments: Attachment A: Ordinance Attachment B: Letter of Agreement Naples Daily News BPPUD, PUDA- PL2010 -854 February 21, 2011 Page 11 of 11 ORDINANCE NO. 11 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 06 -49, THE NAPLES DAILY NEWS BUSINESS PARK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (BPPUD), BY AMENDING SECTION 2.9 OF 06 -49 TO ALLOW A CHANGE IN THE PLANT MATERIALS IN THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on October 24, 2006, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance No. 06 -49 which established the Naples Daily News Business Park Planned Unit Development (BPPUD); and WHEREAS, Bruce Anderson, Esquire of Roetzel and Andress, LPA, representing Scripps Media, Inc. d/b /a Naples daily News, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida to amend Ordinance 06 -49, the Naples Daily News Business Park Planned Unit Development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 2.9 OF ORDINANCE 06 -49. 2.9 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls are generally permitted as a principal use throughout the Naples Daily News BPPUD. The following standards shall apply: D The developer will supplement the existing ficus hedge which presently serves as a buffer between the prepesed BPPUD and the -The Estates at Bay Colony Leve' ° t with 80 live eak ir-ees 12 fee! hi -t the tifne of planting. agrees —to wefk with the Bay Colony Pr-opeminer=s Golf Club Neighborhood Association e gain Count), a al for- the use e f the fieus , Inc. and the Bay Colony Golf Club, Inc. ('Bay Colony ") with eighty (80) Clusia Rosea trees with a size of at least twenty -five (25) gallon containers to be planted as designated by Bay Colony. Words strtek thFeugli are deleted; words underlined are added Naples Daily News 1 PL2010 -854 Page 1 of 2 Attachment A The supplementary ea-1; and fieptisClusia Rosea trees will be located in the buffer area at field selected locations between the Creekside PUD on the east and the point on the west where the buffer toms south. This distance is approximately eleven hundred (1,100) feet. In the event that the ficus hedge isand /or Clusia Rosea trees are damaged by a windstorm to the extent of a reduction in the opaque value of 50% or more, the developer agrees to r-eplaeerestore by replacement or resetting, whichever is appropriate, any of the 80 live eak tfees Clusia Rosea install ' '' n4al° j! or Feset the -ficus trees asneeessar-y(existing) within the eleven hundred Q. 100) foot area with the intent to restore the buffer as close to its pre - storm condition as reasonably possible considering the availability of tree materials at the time of the restoration. The replacement or resetting of the trees will be for a total of one hundred sixty (160) trees Whether the restoration will be with Clusia Rosea or ficus trees or both will be at the discretion of Bay Colony. Developer shall be relieved of any further obligation or responsibility to restore the buffer after the initial replacement or resetting has occurred After the initial replacement or resetting of the one hundred sixty (160) trees has occurred Bay. Colony may in its sole discretion replace or reset any of said trees. SECTION TWO: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super - majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Steven T. Williams 5'0 Assistant County Attorney % 1 y' CP110- CPS - 01058110 2011. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA IN . Chairman Words sfFuek4hf&u0 are deleted; words underlined are added Naples Daily News 1 PL2010 -854 Page 2 of 2 a Barron Colfier COMPANIES April 5, 2010 Bay Colony Golf Club, Inc. Attention: Richard Miller, President 9740 :Bent Grass Bend Naples; FL 34108 The Estates at Bay Colony Golf Club Neighborhood Association 10495 Goodlette Road North Naples, F134109 Barron Collier Companies David Borden Director Commercial Real Estate 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34105 Scripps Media, Inc. d/b /a Naples Daily News Chris Doyle, President & Publishes 1100 Immokalee Road Naples, FL 34110 -4810 Amendment Naples Daily Nei,>s Business Park Planned Unit Development To Whom it May Concern: The above referenced entities through their authorized representatives agree that the following text below is acceptable to all parties to submit to Collier County for an amendment of Section 2.91) of the Naples Daily News Business Park Planned Unit Development (BPPUD) Amendment Ordinance No. 06 -49. 2.9 LANDSCAPE, BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls are generally permitted as a principal use throughout the Naples Daily News BPPUD. The following standards shall apply: 2600 Go rN GATE PARKWAY • NAPLES, 1 ,ORIDA 3 ;105 • (239) 262 -2600 • FAX (239) 262 -2589 Attachment B D The developer will supplement the existing ficus hedge which presently serves as a buffer between the BPPUD and The Estates at Bay Colony Golf Club Neighborhood Association, Inc. and the Bay Colony Golf Club, Inc. ( "collectively Bay Colony') with eighty (80) Clusia Rosea trees with the size of at least twenty -five (25) gallon containers to be planted as designated by Bay Colony Golf Club. The supplementary Clusia Rosea trees will be located in the buffer area at field selected locations between the Creekside PUD on the east and the point on the west where the buffer turns south The distance is approximately eleven hundred (1,100) feet. In the event that the ficus hedge and/or Clusia Rosea trees are damaged by a windstorm to the extent of a reduction in the opaque value of 50% or more, the developer agrees to restore by replacement or resetting, whichever is appropriate, any of Clusia Rosea (installed) or ficus trees (existing) within the eleven hundred (1,100) toot area, with the intent to restore the buffer as close to its pre -storm condition as reasonably possible considering the availability of tree materials at the time of the restoration. The replacement or resetting of the trees will be for a total of one hundred sixty (160) trees. Whether the restoration will be with Clusia Rosea or ficus trees or both will be at the discretion of Bay Colony Golf Club. Developer shall be relieved of any further obligation or responsibility to restore the buffer after the initial replacement or resetting has occurred. After the Developer's initial replacement or resetting of the one hundred sixty (160) trees has occurred, Bay Colony Golf Club may, in its sole discretion, replace or reset any of said trees. The agreed upon text changes to the current BPPUD text are as shown on the attached document (Exhibit W). Text that is struck through is text to be deleted and text that is underlined is text to be added to Section 2.9D. This agreement replaces and supersedes that certain letter agreement dated June 14, 2006 between Bay Colony Property Owners Association a/k/a The Estates at Bay Colony Golf Club Neighborhood Association, Inc., Barron Collier Companies and Collier County Publishing Company a /k /a Naples Daily News. APPROVED BY: BA �' COLONY GOLF CLUB, INC. By: t RICHARD M LER, President Date: 4-14-10 -2- 511809 v-03 1 000000.0784 APPROVED BY: THE ESTATES CLUB NE M HI INC. LIM AT BAY COLONY GOLF ORHOOD ASSOCIATION, President Date: 1,22KIL �— APPROVED BY: BARRON COLLIER COMPANIES By: (L�h DAVID BORDEN, Director Commercial Real Estate Date: j I Q / 0 APPROVED BY: SCRIPPS MEDIA, INC. d/b /a NAPLES DAILY NEWS By: CHRIS DOYLE, Publisher Date: 192 Exhibit "A" Comparison of Proposed Amendment Text to Current Text of Naples Daily News Business Park Planned Unit Development Ordinance 06 -49 The following text shows the current BPPUD text and changes to that text proposed in this letter. Text that is struck through is deleted and text that is underlined is text to be added to Section 2.9D. 2.9 LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls are generally permitted as a principal use throughout the Naples Daily News BPPUD. The following standards shall apply: D The developer will supplement the existing ficus hedge which presently serves as a buffer between the prepesed -BPPUD and th,-- The Estates at Bay Colony Deyelepment with 80 live eak tFees 12 feet high with a i ' I ead ef 6 fee at the t4rne ef planting. Additienally these eak tfees will I'' ted with Golf Club Neighborhood Association IMP Af the fie. trees-.,__Inc. and the Bay Colony Golf Club, Inc. ( "Bay Colony" ) with eighty (,80) Clusia Rosea trees with a size of at least twenty -five (25) gallon containers to be planted as designated by Bay Colony. The supplementary eal-tan- feasClusia Rosea trees will be located in the buffer area at field selected locations between the Creekside PUD on the east and the point on the west where the buffer turns south. This distance is approximately eleven hundred (1,100) feet. In the event that the ficus hedge isand /or Clusia Rosea trees are damaged by a windstorm to the extent of a reduction in the opaque value of 50% or more, the developer agrees to replaeerestore by replacement or ing resett, whichever is appropriate, any of the 89 a eak }- Clusia Rosea (install ) or reset the ficus trees as- neeessarx( istin ) within the eleven hundred (1100) foot area, with the intent to restore the buffer as close to its pre -storm condition as reasonably possible considering the availability of tree materials at the time of the restoration. The replacement or resetting of the trees will be for a total of one hundred sixty (160) trees. Whether the restoration will be with Clusia Rosea or ficus trees or both will be at the discretion of Bay Colony. Developer shall be relieved of any further obligation or responsibility to restore the buffer after the initial replacement or resetting has occurred. After the initial replacement or resetting of the one hundred sixty (160) trees has occurred, Bay Colony may, in its sole discretion, replace or reset any of said trees. 612512 v-0 1 \ 114521.0001