CCPC Agenda 04/21/2011 RCCPC
REGULAR
MEETING
AGENDA
APRIL 21,2011
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 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 —March 17, 2011
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: PUDZ- A- PL1891: Quail H PUD, an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of
Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Numbers 92 -41 and 05 -52, the Quail H Planned Unit
Development (PUD), to allow 300 continuing care retirement community units or 83 single - family or 152
multi - family dwelling units as Permitted Uses in the Residential (R -1) District by providing for: Section
One, amendments to Cover Page; Section Two, amendments to the Table of Contents/Exhibits Page;
Section Three, amendment to Statement of Compliance Section and removal of requirement to contribute
to affordable housing trust fund for units developed in R -1 District; Section Four, amendments to Project
Description section; Section Five, amendments to Permitted Uses and Development Standards Section
including a revised legal description and addition of a deviation to the LDC to increase the floor area ratio;
Section Six, amendments to General Development Commitments Section; Section Seven, amendments to
remove all specific citations to the Land Development Code from the PUD document to leave only the
general citation to the Land Development Code; Section Eight, amendments to Exhibit A, the PUD Master
Plan; and Section Nine, Effective Date. The subject property is located north of Immokalee Road and
east of Valewood Drive in Section 20, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
[Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner]
B. PUDZ- PL2009 -2496: Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church - 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 Estates (E) Zoning
District to a Community Facilities Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) Zoning District for the project
known as Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church of Naples, Inc. CFPUD, to allow 90,000 square feet of
uses to include worship /church and related social services, a 300 - person child and adult day care facility,
job training and vocational rehabilitation, a 450- person private school; or, in the alternative, development
of single - family residential dwelling units, located on the South side of OR Well Road, in Section 19,
Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 21.72 + /- acres subject to
conditions; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner]
10. OLD BUSINESS
A. Continued from the March 17, 2011 meeting:
Watershed Management Plan Update Workshop to provide background information to the CCPC and
input to staff. The presentation on a Summary of Existing Conditions is continued from the 3/17/11
meeting. The presentation includes a summary of Water Budgets, Water Quality Impairments, Native
Habitat Evaluation, and Ground Water Storage. The Alternative Analysis includes discussions on
recommended projects by Watershed, Low Impact Development Standards, and a TDR and Mitigation
program for a portion of North Golden Gate Estates. And the comments and recommendations from the
state agencies on suggested more stringent fertilizer ordinance provisions are summarized and a revised
model fertilizer ordinance will be discussed. [Coordinator: Mac Hatcher, Senior Environmental Specialist]
11. NEW BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
4/11/2011 CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp
2
•
•
AGENDA ITEM 9 -A
Co er C014Hty
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING CONBUSSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION, PLANNING AND REGULATION
HEARING DATE: APRIL 21, 2011
SUBJECT: PETITION PUDA- PL2009 -1891, QUAIL II PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD)
APPLICANT/ OWNER:
Westbury Quail Gardens, LLC.
3838 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 402
Naples, FL 34103
REQUESTED ACTION:
AGENT:
Hole Montes, Inc.
Mr. Robert Duane, AICP
950 Encore Way
Naples, FL 34110
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 Quail II PUD to allow 300 continuing care retirement community (CCRC) units
or 83 single - family or 152 multi - family dwelling units as Permitted Uses in the Residential (R -1)
District within the Quail II PUD.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The existing Quail II PUD, consisting of 194.34± acres, is located on the north side of Immokalee
Road (C.R. 846), approximately 1/2 mile east of Interstate 75, in Section 20, Township 48 South,
Range 26 East. (See the location map and the PUD Master Plans on following pages.)
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -1891, QUAIL II PUD
April 4, 2011
Page 1 of 18
3, Mi
aol
AW �V190X
mne 331t
<r
y
OMYn3rlOV u3rlm
its va
INS
r
OR
_
@3
i
I�
�i:
► ��.•
`ice
rill
r
�: •
Iv/
.
-,
aooMmx,
a
a
_
s�
I-- z
w
I
MW
C.
gg
_
d <k� - Wa
Y 2W�
��
U
�
'�
�
st- azrssnawi
�
W
W
J
aRD IJUNlm � im
senor, ssnwa
Xr ma
c
33 ° Ea
hag
�
Sg
P
l3
I
15-
wnrt3a
tn�plGSTOX ROM
m
�e
j
g3
Xsrn
'"fr
E35
T
NW
lu
3, Mi
Q
CD
Z
Z
O
N
Q
2
Z
O
U
O
•
J
J
a
0
�s
a
..
aol
AW �V190X
mne 331t
<r
y
OMYn3rlOV u3rlm
its va
r
_
@3
i
aooMmx,
a
a
s�
I-- z
w
MW
C.
gg
_
d <k� - Wa
Y 2W�
��
U
�
'�
�
st- azrssnawi
�
W
W
J
aRD IJUNlm � im
senor, ssnwa
Xr ma
c
33 ° Ea
hag
�
Sg
P
l3
I
15-
wnrt3a
tn�plGSTOX ROM
a
j
g3
Xsrn
'"fr
E35
T
NW
lu
mor mXrtna- irooemv
�
�
-
E�S�
•3utxr
Q
CD
Z
Z
O
N
Q
2
Z
O
U
O
•
J
J
a
0
�s
a
..
m
•
•
HUNTINGTON
LAKES
(PUD)
QUAIL CREEK ESTATES
AND COUNTRY CLUB
(PUD)
ilium 9Sn E- Way
Nape., FL 34110
pt_: CM)
Ph zu -moo
HOLE MOr.ITES Md& c.m1.o d
DISNEM „ysg,r M Iea dh N.1772
LONGSHORE
LAKE
(PUD)
z
0
o
8-
Vines &Associates, Inc, LandPlanner
Arthur Hills & Associates, Inc. Golf Course Architects
Wilson Miller Inc.
EXHIBIT 'A'
• GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
QUAIL II - MPUD MASTER PLAN
A Portion of Section 20, Twp. 48 S, Rge. 25 E
r
N
c
a
a
E
N
N
N
N
`o
N
<
L
W
0
a
F_
In
a
n
0
0
a
0
L
x
i
n
0
0
i
0
0
x
BUILDING HEIGHTS ( CCRC USE ONLY
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT THREE (3) STORIES INCLUDING PARKING
(PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE) NOT TO EXCEED 35' ZONED HEIGHT AND / �/ / A
37' ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT.
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT TWO (2) STORIES INCLUDING PARKING
(ACCESSORY STRUCTURE) NOT TO EXCEED 30' ZONED HEIGHT OR
35' ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT
MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
FOR R -1 DISTRICT : UP TO 300 C.C.R.C. UNITS
OR 83 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS
OR 152 MULTI— FAMILY UNITS AS DEPICTED ON
P.U.D. MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT A -1
DEVIATION No. 1
TO SEC. 5.05.04.D.1
TO ALLOW A 0.60 F.A.R.
/
/
QUAIL CREEK 50'
/
ESTATES AND 5' TYPE ' / / /
COUNTRY CLUB,// / w/ 6 HIG
(PUD)
/// III
RIGHT TUR 'z
LANE I
WA
BUFFER
WALL
15'
�. 4 Ac. f 6B F
R -1 ` DISTRICT
OPEN SPACE REQUIRED = 30% MIN.
OPEN SPACE PROVIDED = > 45%
20' SE ACK
I J.W
1 r ) I 15" TYPE TYPE 'B' B' FFER '
I I wy 6' HIGH ALL I
1 I I
Q� I ► I i COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES
REVISED: 12 9/2010 REVISED: 3/24/2011— - - - - -
REVISED: 9/23/2010 REVISED: 3/23/2011 COCOHATCHEE - CANAL
REVISED: 9/15/2010 REVISED: 3/22/2011 I
REVISED: 8/25/2010 REVISED: 3/17/2011 (100' R /W)
REVISED: 6/02/2010 REVISED: 3/11 /2011 -
REVISED: 3%11 /201 RE�vls�c z�2i�2oio IMMOKALEE ROAD
,II
50'± II
MIN.
III
II
III
II
III
II
III
9B9 -�I
W/ —TI
WALL III
II
III
II
III
,II
150'±
MIN. I I
I
ACK II
III
II
III
1� I
1
C.C.R.C.
INDEPENDENT
LIVING AREA
(SINGLE FAMILY
AREA)
N
W
U
z
W 0
o�
N a
W
} J
�Ld
o:
< o
It
W
0
W O
� J
z
y
0 200
SCALE IN FEET
950 Encore way
Naples. FL 34110
Phone: (239) 254 -2000
H MO E Florida Certificate of
�i fLmm'bli!11 m Authorization No.1772
QUAIL U
PMT. MASTER PLAN
FOR R -1 DISTRICT
EXI-BIT A2
CHECKED BY :
R.D.
PROJECT No.
OM107
DRAWN BY:
JON
CAD FLE NAME:
5107MPUDO
DATE :
„��
ExHBiT C ITEM
, � ,
• PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The petitioner proposes to amend Ordinance Numbers 92 -41 and 05 -52, the Quail II PUD Planned
Unit Development (PUD), to allow 300 continuing care retirement community units or 83 single -
family or 152 multi - family dwelling units as Permitted Uses in the Residential (R -1) District.
The following related amendments are proposed to the PUD Ordinance:
- Section One, amendments to the Cover Page;
- Section Two, amendments to the Table of Contents/Exhibits Page;
- Section Three, amendment to Statement of Compliance Section and removal of
requirement to contribute to affordable housing trust fund for units developed in R -1
District;
- Section Four, amendments to Project Description section;
- Section Five, amendments to Permitted Uses and Development Standards Section
including a revised legal description and addition of a LDC (Land Development Code)
deviation to increase the floor area ratio;
- Section Six, amendments to remove all specific citations to the Land Development Code
from the PUD document to leave only the general citation to the Land Development Code;
- Section Seven, amendments to Exhibit A, the PUD Master Plan to delete Exhibit A and
replace with Exhibits A -1 and A -2; and
- Section Eight, Effective Date
is SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING (of Tract R -1):
•
North: Quail II PUD, developed residential golf course portion approved at 2.6 units per acre,
with a zoning designation of PUD (Quail II PUD Ordinance number 05 -52)
East: Longshore Lake, a developed single - family residential PUD approved at 1.77 units per
acre, with a zoning designation of PUD (Longshore Lake PUD Ordinance Number 93 -3)
South: Quail II PUD, developed commercial portion and vacant lots with a zoning designation of
PUD (Quail H PUD Ordinance number 05 -52), Immokalee Road and then Estates (E)
zoning
West: Huntington Lakes, a developed multi - family residential PUD approved at 5.4 units per
acre, with a zoning designation of PUD (Huntington PUD Ordinance Number 94 -38)
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -1891, QUAIL II PUD
April 4, 2011
Page 5 of 18
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) and a portion of the site is
within a residential density band, as identified on the countywide Future Land Use Map of the
Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits residential
uses as well as Community Facilities, Group Care Facilities, and a variety of non - residential uses.
Furthermore, Policy 5.8 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) states that Group Housing uses
are allowed within the Urban designated area subject to the definitions and regulations as outlined
in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) and consistent with the locational
requirements of Chapter 419.001, Florida Statutes. Within this designation, and in accordance with
the Density Rating System provisions of the FLUE, a base density of four (4) dwelling units per
acre (DU /A) is allowed for the non - commercial portion of the PUD as well as 3 DU /A bonus
density for that non - commercial portion within the residential density band. Eligible density for
this PUD is approximately 1,271 Dwelling units total (194.34± acres total less 12.75± acres in
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -1891, QUAIL II PUD
April 4, 2011
Page 6 of 18
•commercial tract = 181.59± acres X 4 DU /A base density = 726 dwelling units + 181.59± acres
non - commercial X 3 DU /A residential density band = 545 dwelling units). In regard to this
amendment petition, group housing is not subject to the Density Rating System (DRS) of the
FLUE.
The Quail II PUD was approved on June 16, 1992 by Ordinance Number 92 -41, and deemed
consistent with the GMP. It was subsequently amended on October 11, 2005 through Ordinance
Number 05 -52 to: convert 21.74± acres of commercial property to residential and name this new
tract "Residential R -1 District;" and add 152 multi - family residential dwelling units at a density of
7 DU /A on this Rl tract. The existing Quail II PUD allows a maximum of 512 dwelling units, a
gross density of 2.8 DU /A (Ordinance 05 -52 erroneously states 2.6 DU /A as the calculation in that
Ordinance assigns density to the commercial tract).
Transportation Element: 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 (GNP).
Immokalee Road Impacts: The first concurrency link that is impacted by this zoning amendment
is Link 43. 1, Immokalee Road between I -75 and Logan Boulevard. The proposed amendment
generates only 1 additional P.M. peak hour, peak direction trip above the existing, approved
•zoning, which represents a 0.02 percent impact on Immokalee Road. This segment of Immokalee
Road currently has a remaining capacity of 1,325 trips, and is currently at LOS "C" (Level of
Service "C ") as reflected by the 2010 AUIR (Annual Urban Inventory Report). No subsequent
concurrency links are significantly impacted by this project.
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.
GMT 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
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -1891, QUAIL II PUD
April 4, 2011
Page 7 of 18
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 the petition and has
recommended approval of the amendments.
Utility Review: The Utilities Department Staff has reviewed the petition and has the following
comments. According to the current 2008 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Updates, the project
location is within the Collier County Water - Sewer District Service Area. Per County GIS
(Geographic Information System), there is an existing 20 -inch diameter water main on Immokalee
Road. There is also an existing 20 -inch force main on Immokalee Road. At the time of the Site
Development Plan (SDP), this project is subject to the conditions associated with a Water and
Sewer Availability Letter from the Collier County Public Utilities Division. Water distribution,
sewage collection and transmission facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed,
conveyed, owned, and maintained in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 2004 -31 and
2007 -60, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations.
Zoning and Land Development Review: The proposed PUD amendment will allow additional
land uses to the R -1 District in the Quail II PUD. There was an amendment approved in 2005 to
allow 152 multi - family dwelling units. The current amendment proposes to allow the 152 multi-
family dwelling units, or 300 CCRC units, or 83 single- family dwelling units in the R -1 District.
The density in the Quail II PUD will remain at 512 dwelling units and the density has been •
corrected from 2.6 units per acre to 2.8 units per acre. (Ordinance 05 -52 erroneously states 2.6
dwelling units per acre).
Much of the commercial and residential properties that surround the R -1 district have been
developed. The R -1 district is currently a cleared 21.74± acre parcel of land that is surrounded by
an existing 6 -foot height wall. As illustrated in the aerial photograph located on page 6 of this
staff report, the subject R -1 District parcel is bounded to the north by Valewood Drive and then
golf course areas within the Quail II PUD, to the east by single- family residences of Longshore
Lake, to the south by developed and vacant commercial parcels of Quail II PUD, and to the west
by Valewood Drive and then multi - family residences of Quail II PUD.
The single - family development standards contained in Section Five of the proposed PUD
Ordinance indicate a minimum lot area of 5,000 square feet for single - family and 4,000 square feet
for zero -lot line residential development will be maintained. The 5,000 square foot lot size and
width of 50 feet is similar to what was approved in Huntington PUD. The front yard setback of 25
feet is similar to what was approved in Huntington PUD and Longshore Lake PUD. The side yard
setback of 0, 6 and 10 feet and rear yard setback of 15 and 20 feet are also similar to what was
approved in the Huntington PUD.
Should a CCRC be developed on the R -1 parcel, a maximum of 18 units shall be detached
independent living area units designed to look like single - family units shall be located along the
eastem property that is shared with Longshore Lake development. The setback standards are
similar to the single- family development standards except that the minimum lot size is larger at •
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -1891, QUAIL II PUD
April 4, 2011
Page 8 of 18
• 7,500 square feet and the rear yard setback along Longshore Lake development is 50 feet.
For the multi- family component of the CCRC, the setbacks are measured from the R -1 tract
boundaries. There is a 50 -foot setback from Valewood Drive, a 200 -foot setback from Longshore
Lake development, and a 20 foot setback from commercial development.
The CCRC will have a floor area ratio of 0.60 and will consist of an aggregate of 300 independent
living units including single and multi- family independent living units, assisted living units and
skilled nursing beds providing opportunities to age in place with a full range of support services
for persons 55 and older.
The proposed care units may have varying operational characteristics:
a. The CCRC will be a gated community.
b. Recreational facilities within the development shall be centrally located toward the middle of
the property and not adjacent to the eastern boundary of the property.
C. Asphalt shingles are prohibited as a roofing material throughout the community.
d. A six -foot high wall has been constructed around the perimeter of the R -1 District. However,
the portion of the wall adjacent to the Longshore Lake development will be reconstructed in
• accordance with all County requirements including the landscaping requirements.
e. The locations of the dumpsters and loading areas shall be no closer than 300 feet from the
Longshore Lake development and shall be located to the west of the tallest multi - family structures,
to minimize the impacts of noise on nearby properties to the east. Loading and unloading of goods
and deliveries shall not occur prior to 8:00 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m. on weekdays or Saturdays. No
loading or unloading is permitted on Sundays.
f. All employees, maintenance, deliveries and solid waste trucks shall be directed to use the
entrance on Executive Drive.
g. There shall be no commercial use of the property. The only non - residential uses of the
property shall be accessory to support the CCRC.
h. A right turn lane as depicted on the PUD Master Plan Exhibit A -2 will be constructed for any
proposed CCRC uses.
The developer of the CCRC, its successors or assigns, shall provide the following services and /or
be subject to the following operational standards:
a. The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older.
• b. There shall be on -site dining for the residents.
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -1891, QUAIL II PUD
April 4, 2011
Page 9 of 18
c. Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for the purposes of grocery and •
other types of shopping. Individual transportation services shall be coordinated for the residents'
individualized needs including but not limited to medical office visits.
d. There shall be an on -site manager /activities coordinator to assist residents with their
individual needs. The manager /coordinator shall also be responsible for arranging trips to off -site
events as well as planning for lectures, movies, music and other entertainment for the residents at
the on -site clubhouse.
e. A wellness center shall be provided on -site. Exercise and other fitness programs shall be
provided for the residents.
f. Each unit shall be equipped to notify emergency service providers in the event of a medical
or other emergency.
g. Each unit shall be designed so that a resident is able to age -in- place. For example, kitchens
may be easily retrofitted to lower the sink to accommodate a wheelchair bound resident or
bathrooms may be retrofitted to add grab bars.
The following CCRC accessory uses shall comprise a minimum of 10 percent of the total amount
of gross floor area:
a. Dining rooms, meeting areas for socializing, balcony gathering areas, atrium gathering •
areas, indoor facilities such as rehabilitation room, beauty shop, medical support facilities, media
and exercise rooms, personnel service areas, administrative offices and similar kinds of uses to
support the facility.
The following CCRC uses are not restricted to a minimum of 10 percent of the total amount of
gross floor area:
a. Covered parking facilities, van transportation area, outdoor recreational facilities such as
swimming pool and deck and similar kinds of uses to support the facility.
The intensity of the care units shall be limited to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.60 and this is further
discussed in the Deviations section of the Staff Report.
As previously stated, the density in the Quail H PUD, will remain at 512 dwelling units and the
density has been corrected from 2.6 units per acre to 2.8 units per acre. (Ordinance 05 -52
erroneously states 2.6 dwelling units per acre.)
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed maximum zoned building height of 35 feet is comparable
to the maximum height limits approved for abutting properties which are 35 feet for Huntington
PUD and 2- stories for Longshore Lake PUD.
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 and intensity on the •
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -1891, QUAIL II PUD
April 4, 2011
Page 10 of 18
• subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to
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. Zoning staff is of
the opinion that this project will be compatible with and complementary to, the surrounding land
uses.
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 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 GW.
The Comprehensive Planning Department has indicated that the proposed PUD amendment is
consistent with all applicable elements of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth
Management Plan (GMP).
2. The existing land use pattern.
• As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed in the
zoning review analysis, the neighborhood's existing land use pattern can be characterized as
residential and commercial. There is residential zoning to the north, east and the west; to the south,
it is commercial. The uses proposed in this petition should not create incompatibility issues.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
The proposed PUD amendment would not create an isolated zoning district because the subject
property is already zoned PUD. Additionally, the zoning boundary mirrors the existing property
ownership boundary.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed district boundaries are logically drawn.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment
necessary.
The proposed change is not necessary, but the proposed rezoning appears to be appropriate for this
location based upon the site's FLUE designation.
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -1891, QUAIL II PUD
April 4, 2011
Page 11 of 18
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 GU P. Therefore, the proposed change should not adversely impact living
conditions in the area.
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or
create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak
volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases
of the development, or otherwise affect public safety.
The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time. This
project was evaluated for GMP consistency as shown in that section of this report. In addition, the
project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations
when development approvals are sought.
S. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the LDC
specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of
flooding on nearby properties. Any proposed water management and drainage system will need to
be designed to prevent drainage problems on site and be compatible with the adjacent water •
management systems.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
If this petition were approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the
applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. This project's
property development regulations would encourage compact development thus the developed
project should not significantly reduce light and air to adjacent areas; thus the development
proposed, if approved, should not negatively affect light and air permeation into adjacent areas.
10. Whether the proposed change would 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.
is
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -1891, QUAIL II PUD
April 4, 2011
Page 12 of 18
Properties around this property are already mostly developed. The basic premise underlying all of
• the development standards in the Land Development Code is that their sound application, when
combined with the site development plan approval process and /or subdivision process, gives
reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or
development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a
deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan which is a public policy
statement supporting Zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In
light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency
with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent
with plans are in the public interest.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
with existing zoning.
The property already has a PUD zoning designation and could be developed within the parameters
of that zoning ordinance; however, the petitioner is seeking this amendment in compliance with
LDC provisions for such amendments. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed
appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed rezone meets the
• intent of the PUD district and further, believes the public interest will be maintained.
•
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
county.
As noted previously, the R -1 Tract boundary is within the existing PUD zoning and property
ownership boundary. The GMT is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and
intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban - designated areas of Collier
County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments
will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community.
15. Whether 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 GMT 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.
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -1891, QUAIL II PUD
April 4, 2011
Page 13 of 18
Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require site alteration and this project •
will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the
site development plan approval process and again later as part of the building permit process.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMT and as defined and
implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance.
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 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.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the Planning
Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following
criteria:"
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to
physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer,
water, and other utilities.
The abutting tracts are developed with residential and commercial development. The proposed
uses in this project are compatible with those uses, given the property development regulations
proposed and the massing and siting limitations shown on the Master Plan. The development is
located on Valewood Drive with a portion of development on Executive Lane, a local roadway,
with access to Immokalee Road, a principal arterial roadway. In addition, the petitioner has
committed to several transportation - related improvements, as previously noted above and
incorporated into Section Five of the PUD document, to ensure that the project would not have an
adverse impact on the surrounding roadway network. The project would also be required to
comply with County regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities. Therefore, the
site is suitable for the proposed development.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
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. •
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -1891, QUAIL II PUD
April 4, 2011
Page 14 of 18
• Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office,
demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the developments will be required to
gain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate
stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be
provided by the developer.
•
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and
policies of the GMT.
County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives
and policies of the GMP within the GMT discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis,
staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP. It should
also be noted that group housing such as the proposed CCRC use is not governed by the Density
Rating System of the GMT but by the FAR requirements for group housing contained in the LDC.
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include
restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening
requirements.
The development standards, landscaping and buffering requirements contained in this petition are
designed to make the proposed uses compatible with the adjacent uses. The staff analysis
contained in other portions of this staff report support a finding that the uses proposed in this
petition will be compatible, both internally and externally. Additionally, the Development
Commitments contained in the PUD document provide additional guidelines the developer will
have to fulfill.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The 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.
Currently, the roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this
time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation
Element consistency review. In addition, the project's development must comply with all other
applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
This PUD amendment will not adversely change the previous BCC findings that the subject
property and surrounding areas can accommodate expansion.
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -1891, QUAIL If PUD
April 4, 2011
Page 15 of 18
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 one deviation 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 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."
Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report for a more extensive
examination of the deviation.
Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking one deviation from the requirements of the LDC.
The deviation is listed in PUD Section Five. The petitioners' rationale provided to support the
deviation is provided in Exhibit E "Revised Justification for Proposed Deviation" in the
Application. Deviations are a normal off shoot of the PUD rezoning process as set forth in LDC
Section 2.03.06 which states in part:
It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity, innovation •
and imagination in the planning, design, and development or redevelopment of relatively large
tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs . . . . may depart from the strict
application of setback, height, and minimum lot requirements of conventional zoning districts
while maintaining minimum standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while
protecting the public interest ....
Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.D.1 which requires a floor area ratio (F.A.R.)
of 0.45 to allow a floor area ratio (F.A.R.) of 0.60 for a CCRC.
Petitioner's Rationale:
This deviation seeks an increased FAR from 0.45 to 0.60. The applicant states that the increased
FAR is desired to allow for increased project amenities and to allow a 0.60 FAR that is the
consistent with what has been previously approved by the BCC.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends
approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has
demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety
and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.13.51, the petitioner has demonstrated
that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations."
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -1891, QUAIL II PUD
April 4, 2011
Page 16 of 18
•
•
•
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NM:
The applicant duly noticed and held the required meeting on August 4, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. at the
Saint Monica's Church 7070 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida. Approximately 200 people and
the applicant, agent and County Staff attended the meeting. For further information, please refer to
Attachment B: NIM Minutes.
To date, one letter of objection have been received.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for .Petition PUDZ- A- PL2009 -1891,
revised on April 1, 2011. -BFAC
RECOIVIEWENDATION:
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning
Commission forward Petition PUDZ- A- PL2009 -1891 to the Board of County Commissioners
with a recommendation of approval of this amendment.
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -1891, QUAIL II PUD
April 4, 2011
Page 17 of 18
PREPARED BY:
V� V& 1"'� � Lh
NANCY GUNDL4C , AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMM4T O LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
REVIEWED BY:
RAYMO V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
?L
VAMIAM D. LO Z JR., P. IRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
APPROVED BY:
NICK CASALAbW A, UTY ADMINISTRATOR
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
w 2-�((
DATE
DATE
o4- al/- 2-oll
DATE
DATE
Tentatively scheduled for the June 28, 2011 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
Attachments:
Attachment A: Ordinance
Attachment B: NIM Minutes
PUDZ- A- PL2009 -1891, QUAIL II PUD
March 29, 2011
Page 18 of 18
•
•
ORDINANCE NO. 11-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBERS 92 -41 AND 05 -52, THE
QUAIL II PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), TO
ALLOW 300 CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT
COMMUNITY UNITS OR 83 SINGLE-FAMILY OR 152
MULTI - FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AS PERMITTED USES
IN THE RESIDENTIAL (R -1) DISTRICT BY PROVIDING
FOR: SECTION ONE, AMENDMENTS TO COVER PAGE;
SECTION TWO, AMENDMENTS TO THE TABLE OF
CONTENTS/E3GMITS PAGE; SECTION THREE,
AMENDMENT TO STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
SECTION AND REMOVAL OF REQUIREMENT TO
CONTRIBUTE TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND
FOR UNITS DEVELOPED IN R-1 DISTRICT; SECTION
FOUR, AMENDMENTS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SECTION; SECTION FIVE, AMENDMENTS TO PERMITTED
USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SECTION
INCLUDING A REVISED LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND
ADDITION OF A DEVIATION TO THE LDC TO INCREASE
• THE FLOOR AREA RATIO; SECTION SIX, AMENDMENTS
TO GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS SECTION;
SECTION SEVEN, AMENDMENTS TO REMOVE ALL
SPECIFIC CITATIONS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE FROM THE PUD DOCUMENT TO LEAVE ONLY THE
GENERAL CITATION TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE; SECTION EIGHT, AMENDMENTS TO EXHIBIT A,
THE PUD MASTER PLAN; AND SECTION NINE, EFFECTIVE
DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF
IMMOKALEE ROAD AND EAST OF VALEWOOD DRIVE. IN
SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, on June 16, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance
Number 92 -41, which changed the zoning classification of the described property to Quail II
PUD; and
WHEREAS, on October 11, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners approved
Ordinance Number 05 -52, which created the Residential R -1 District and • changed a tract
• Page 1 of 16
Words undcrllncd are additions; words etwek-threugh are deletions.
HA20051200510ANMPUDA 2008 Quail Gardcns\5th Resnbrnitlal\,Qusil If PUDZA- 2009 -I 891 Ordinance- REVISED 3-24-2011 (FInal).doc
Attachment A
designation from commercial to multi - family residential for the Quail H PUD, and partially •
repealed Ordinance Number 92 -41; and
WHEREAS, Westbury Quail Gardens, LLC, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of
Hole Montes, Inc., has petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the Quail 11
PUD (Ordinance Number 05 -52).
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE:
AMENDMENTS TO COVER PAGE OF THE PUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO
ORDINANCE NUMBERS 92 -41 AND 05 -52, THE QUAIL R PUD
The Cover Page of the PUD Document, previously attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance
Numbers 92 -41 and 05 -52, the Quail H PUD, is hereby amended to read as follows:
QUAIL H
A
Planned Unit Development
PREPARED BY:
WILSONMILLER, INC.
WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER
3200 BATLEY LANE, SUITE 200
NAPLES, FL 34105
REVISED BY:
ROBERT L. DUANE A.I.C.P. RICHARD YOVANOVICH ES Q.
HOLE MONIES. INC. COLEMAN. YOVANOVICH & KOESTER
950 ENCORE WAY 4001 TAMIAMI TRAIL N. STE. 300
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34110 NAPLES. FLORIDA 34103
HM PROJECT NO.: 2005107
REVISED MARCH 2011
Date Reviewed by CCPC:
Date Approved by BCC:
Ordinance No.
Amendments & Repeals
Page 2of16
Words underlined are additions; words ugh are deletions.
HA2005\2005107MPTUDA 2008 Quail Gardcnsl5th ResubnuttahQuail 11 PUDZ-A- 2009 -1891 Ordinance REVISED 3- 24- 2011(Final).doe
•
C7
SECTION TWO:
AMENDMENTS TO THE TABLE OF CONT'ENTS/EXFIIBITS PAGE OF THE PUD
DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NUMBERS 92 -41 AND 05 -52, THE QUAIL II
PUD
The Table of Contents/Exbibits Page of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance
Numbers 92 -41 and 05 -52, the Quail II PUD, is hereby amended to add as follows:
Exhibits Al and A2 — PUD Master Plan
SECTION THREE:
AMENDMENT TO STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE SECTION I OF THE PUD
DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NUMBERS 92 -41 AND 05 -52, THE QUAIL II
PUD
Section I, no. 3, entitled "Statement of Compliance" of the PUD Document attached to
• Ordinance Numbers 92 -41 and 05 -52, the Quail II PUD, is hereby amended to read as follows:
3. The residential portion of the Quail II PUD, which comprises 181.59+/ -
acres, is consistent with the FLUE's Density Rating System (DRS). The base
density for the Urban Residential Subdistrict is 4 dwelling units (du) per acre
which fnr this 194.34-q 777 yields the site eligible for 726
units. Petfiens Greater than 50% of the PUD (135.« .es) is located within
the residential density band associated with Interchange Activity Center #4
(Immokalee Road at 1-75), and is therefore allowed to request an additional 3
units per acre, bringing the PUD potential dwelling unit count to 1271 1183 . The
total residential dwelling units initial requested (512) equates to 228 27.6 units
per acre which is 40% 43% of the potential dwelling units allowed by the FLUE
and therefore, the project is consistent with the FLUE
Three hundred sixty (360) residential units have been
constructed outside of the R -1 District. The developer has elected to construct up
to 300 continuing care retirement units or 83 single- family units or 152 multi-
family units in the R -1 District The proposed number of care units 300) is also
consistent with the FLUE and the Collier County Land Development Code
SECTION FOUR:
AMENDMENTS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION SECTION II OF THE PUD
DOCUMENT ATTACKED TO ORDINANCE NUMBERS 92-41 AND 05 -52, THE QUAIL II
PUD
is Page 3 of 16
Words underlined are additions; words sloek4hreu& are deletions.
HA2005\2005107 \WP\PUDA 2008 Quail Gardens\5th Resubmittal\Quail II PUDZ-A- 2009 -1891 Ordinance REVISED 3- 24-2011(Final).doc
Section II, entitled "Project Description" of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance
Numbers 92 -41 and 05 -52, the Quail H PUD, is hereby amended to read as follows:
2.1 DISTRICT ZONE: PUD:
This project may be comprised of a mixture of commercial uses, residential uses,
community facilities, and a continuing, care retirement community.
2.2 MAXMJM DWELLING UNITS:
a. If the R -1 District is developed as residential and not as a continuing care
retirement community (CCRC) use, then the -Ttotal dwelling unit count in
the areas designated as residential and future residential on the Master
Development Plan shall not exceed 512 unks 360 built units and 83
proposed sin 0e-family units or 300 CCRC units or 152 multi- family units
SECTION FIVE:
AMENDMENTS TO PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
SECTION III OF THE PUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NUMBERS 92-41
AND 05 -52, THE QUAIL II PUD
Section III, entitled, "Permitted Uses and Development Standards" of the PUD Document
attached to Ordinance Numbers 92 -41 and 05 -52, the Quail H PUD, is hereby amended to read as 41
follows:
3.4 RESIDENTIAL R -1 DISTRICT
a. Establishment of R -1 District
This district is formed within the Quail H PUD to establish development
regulations for development Tract R 1 as shown on the PUD Master Plan. The
intent is to provide development regulations for the project area that are
consistent with Collier County's development regulations. The original PUD
zoning
Qum 11 Pomv fr-ela160 -esi enfi 1 + V + v 5 12 iva d v lti U Ri+
C
b. -
Legal Description
Phase reeer-ded in Plat 13eek 18, page 7-1, Publie Reeerds ef Collier- CeufAy, F49fidg�
Plat Beek 15, page 7-3, Public Reeser,& ef Gellier- Geent�-, NeTida-, less and
Page 4 of •
Words underlined are additions; words slm& Oneugh are deletions.
H:\2005\2005107\WP\PUDA 2008 Quail Gardens\Sth Resubn -d tal\Quai111 PUAZ -A- 2009 -1891 ordinance REVISED 3- 24-2011(Final).doc
Palazzo Village, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 46 Pages 75
and 76, Public Records of Collier County Florida.
C. Project Development
1. Land Uses
i. Residential single - family including zero lot line or multi - family as
shown on PUD Master Plan A -1 or a continuing care retirement community
for persons over age 55 uses as shown on the Quail H PUD Master Plan-A-
2.
d. Project Density
The total acreage of the R -1 District is approximately 21.74 acres. The m
is H mbeF ef multi 1 y r i.7 tall i-m-A te be built-en the 4 i 1 aeFeage f the D 1
striet is - 1 e f dwe4liaL- uE&s »eF Er-ess ae,e is zE ti4R u i
lhstnat fer MU -- UD to 300 continuing care retirement units as
depicted on PUD Master Plan A -2 or 83 single - familv dwelling units or 152
multi - family dwelling units may be constructed in the R -1 District as shown on
PUD Master Plan A -1.
e. Development of Schedule and Sequence
The developer will construct the project in one phase.
f. Collier County Site Development Plan (SDPs).
The review and approval of SDPs shall follow the design and development
standards of the Collier County LDC in effect at the time of SDP application.
g. Dedication and Maintenance of Facilities
Roads and other infrastructure may be either public or private, depending on
location, capacity, and design. The developer shall create appropriate
condominium associations or identify other entities that will be responsible for
maintaining the roads, streets, drainage, water, and sewer improvements where
such systems are not dedicated to the County.
• Page 5 of 16
Words underlined are additions; words stmelFlhTelsgl3 are deletions.
HA2005\20051071WP\PUDA 2008 Quail Gardens\5th Resubmittal\Quail II PUDZ -A 2009 -1891 Ordinance REVISED 3- 24- 2011(Final).doc
I Model Units is
1. Model units shall be permitted within this project subject to the following
provisions:
i. Models may not be utilized as "sales offices" without approval by
and through the SDP process. The SDP process shall not be required for
dry models.
ii. Temporary access and utility easements shall be provided for
temporary service to model units.
iii. Sales, marketing, and administrative functions are permitted to occur in
designated model units within the project only as provided herein.
i. Sales Centers
1. Sales centers may be constructed and will follow the review and approval
requirements of the SDP process. Access to the sales center shall be
provided by a paved road or temporary driveway which meets applicable
County standards as determined by the County Engineer. A water
management plan shall be provided which accommodates the run -off from
the sales center, the required parking and access road/driveway and any
other impervious surfaces.
2. At the time of building permit application for the sales center, a temporary •
use permit shall be obtained. Sales centers may not be occupied until a
Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is issued.
Development Standards
The standards for the construction of all project infrastructure, such as, but not
limited to roads, utilities, wastewater treatment, water management facilities, and
other site improvements such as but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation,
landscaping and all similar types of site improvements, except for habitable
buildings and structures, shall meet the minimum standards set forth by Collier
County in the applicable ordinance or regulation in effect at the time of SDP
application.
The standards and development permit procedures for all habitable structures
shall be in accordance the County requirements in effect at the time of building
permit application.
k. Impact Fees
Development within the project shall be subject to all lawfully adopted impact
fees in effect at the time of SDP application.
L Residential R -1 District —Residential Uses
Page 6 of 16 •
Words underlined are additions; words streek threagh are deletions.
HA2005\U0510MP\PUDA 2008 Quail Gardens\5th Resubmittal\Quail U PUDZ -A -2009 -1891 ordinance REVISED 3- 24-2011(Final).doc
1. Purpose: The purpose of this paragraph is to set forth the regulations for
the areas designated as "R 1" on the Quail II PUD Master Plan.
2. Maximum Residential Units
A maximum number of 152 multi - family or 83 single- family residential
units may be constructed on lands designated as "R -1 ".
3. General Description
Areas designated as "R -1" on the Master Land Use Plan are designed to
accommodate residential dwelling types. Residential tracts are
designed to accommodate internal roadways.
4. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures
i,
SinJZ1P7familY includine zero lot line dwellings, townhouses, multi-
family dwellings, and recreation facilities.
ii. Water management facilities. Lakes, including lakes with seawall and
Other types of architectural bank treatment.
• iii. Open space recreational activities, and similar uses, including but not
limited to shuffleboard courts, tennis courts, swimming pools,
playground, picnic areas and other types of facilities intended for
outdoor recreation.
m5. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures
a Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with uses
permitted in multi- family residential districts.
fib. Gatehouses
6. Development Standards
Standards for parking, landscaping, signs, gatehouses, entrance gates and
other uses not specified herein are to be in accordance with Collier County
LDC in effect at the time of SDP application.
Front yard setbacks shall be measured as follows:
Via. If the parcel is served by -a County dedicated public right -of- way,
the setback of buildings or structures adjacent to the right -of -way
is measured from the existing right -of -way line.
• Page 7of16
additions; Words underlined are Z 0 eaHA2005\200510AWPTUDA 2008 Quail GardensX5th Resubmttal \Q a l 12 PUDDA- 0- 2009 REVISED 3- 242011 Mnal).doc
•
fib. If the buildings or structures are served from a private drive, the
setback is measured from the back of curb or edge of pavement,
whichever is closer to the structure.
�7. Gated Community
This 21.74 acre parcel of land will be a gated community.
p 8. Recreation Facilities
Recreation facilities within the development shall be centrally located
toward the middle of the property.
q:9. Garages
Each residential dwelling unit shall have a one (1) or two (2) -car garage.
Each residential dwelling unit adjacent to Valewood Drive shall have a
two (2) -car garage.
X10. Roofing Materials
Asphalt shingles are prohibited as a roofing material throughout the
development. 0
11. A six-foot-hi ph wall has been constructed around the perimeter of the R -1
District. However, a portion of the wall located adjacent to the Longshore
Lake development will be reconstructed in accordance with all County
requirements including the landscaping standards.
s.12. Developer Commitments
In addition to the PUD requirements, the project's developer is committed
to place the following items in the project's Condominium Documents,
Declaration of Codes Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, or other
appropriate Home Owner's association documents:
i. The development will contribute its proportional share (12 %) for lake
maintenance for stormwater management to Longshore Lake
Foundation.
I Leasing of any condominium shall be subject to the following time
periods: All leases shall be for a period of not less than ninety (90)
consecutive days. No residential unit may be rented for more than
three (3) times in any calendar year.
iii. The project will be an equal partner (1 /5) in the Valewood Drive
Landscape Maintenance Agreement.
Page 8of16 •
Words underlined are additions; Words stmale dffeugh are deletions,
HA2005\20051075WP\PUDA 2008 Quail Gardens\5th ResubmittallQuail n PUDZ -A- 2009 -1891 Ordinance REVISED 3 -24 -2011 (Final).doc
•
is
Y.
Dimensional Requirement
Y.
• ■ • B■
1 Acre
Site Width — Minimum Average
MCM
Site Depth — Minimum
Development Standards
R -1 ResideiWal Multi Family Ayeas Multi- Family Uses
Cate o
Dimensional Requirement
Minimum Site Area
1 Acre
Site Width — Minimum Average
150 Feet
Site Depth — Minimum
150 Feet
Setbacks
Valewood Drive ffestj
50 Feet
East Boundary
50 Feet
Internal Drives
20 Feet
---Side e v,., -a
r The Hei—gbt. Of the P al StFaBtHM
Rear- Y— -imeipal stmetame
ee4
a
Commercial Tract (South
20 Feet
Maximum Building Height
Two (2) stories including_ parking not
exceeding 35 feet zoned height or 40 feet
actual height
Distance Between Principal Structures
15' *1- for 1 sto
25' *4- for 2 -3 stories including parking and
2 -3 stories over parldng
Minimum Building Area
1,670 square feet air- conditioned
*I- - or %Z the sum of the adjacent buildings whichever is g er ater.
Page 9 of 16
Words underlined are additions; words skmek -tom arc deletions.
H.\2005120051071WPXPUDA 2009 Quail Gardens\5th Resubmittal\Quail IT PUDZ -A -2009 -1891 Ordinance REVISED 3-24-2011 ftal).doc
Development Standards Table
R-1 Sinele- Family Uses
Cate o
R -1 Sin le -Famil
Zero Lot Line
Principal Uses
Minimum Lot Area
5,000 SF
4,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width
50 Feet
40 Feet
Minimum Lot De th
N/A
100 Feet
Setbacks
Front Yard*
25 Feet
25 Feet
Rear Yard
20 Feet
15 Feet
Side Yard
6 Feet
0 Feet or 10 Feet
Maximum Building Height
35' zoned height
or 40' actual hei t
35' zoned height
or 40' actual
Minimum Floor Area
1,670 SF
1,200 SF
Accessory Uses
Setbacks
Front Yard*
20 Feet
20 Feet
Rear Yard
10 Feet
10 Feet
Side Yard
5 Feet
5 Feet
Maximum Building Height
20' zoned height
or 25' actual height
35' zoned height
or 40' actual
he i ght
* Front yards shall be measured, as follows:
If the parcel is served by a public right -of -way, setback is measured from the adjacent
right -of -way line or if the parcel is served by a private road setback is measured from
the back of curb or edge of pavement (if not curbed).
M. R-1 District - CCRC Uses
1. Permitted Uses
A continuing care retirement community (CCRC) consisting of an
aMegate of 300 independent living units including single and
multi - family independent living units assisted living units and
skilled nursing beds providing opportunities to age in place with a
full ranee of support services for persons 55 and older. If a CCRC
is built, a maximum of 18 units shall be independent detached
living units along the boundary of the Lonashore Lake
development.
Page 10 of 16
Words underlined are additions; words sttaek4hreugh am deletions.
HA2005120051071WP1PUDA 2008 Quail Gardens\5th ResubmittahQuail 11 PUDZ -A- 2009 -I891 Ordinance REVISED 3- 24- 2011(Final).doc
r�
•
J
•
2. Accessory Uses and Amenities
a. The following accessory uses shall comprise a minimum of 10
percent of the total amount of gross floor area in total:
Dining rooms, meeting areas for socializing balcony
gathering areas, atrium gathering areas, indoor facilities
such as rehabilitation room, beauty shop medical support
facilities, media and exercise rooms, personnel service areas
administrative offices and similar kinds of uses to support
the facility.
ii. Any other accessory 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. The following uses are not restricted to a minimum of 10
percent of the total amount of gross floor area:
i. Covered parking facilities —van transportation area, outdoor
• recreational facilities such as swimming pool and deck and
similar kinds of uses to support the facility.
ii. AU other accesso1y and related use that is detenm ned to be
comparable to the foregoing by the Board of Zoning
Appeals, pursuant to the process outlined in the Land
Development Code (LDC).
The following are the development standards for continuing care
retirement units.
• Page 11 of 16
Words underlined ace additions; words sttask4hmu& ere deletions.
H:A2005A200510' AWPAPUDA 2008 Quaff Oardens\Rh Rc ubmittallQusil 11 PUDZ -A- 2009 -1891 Ordinance REVISED 3- 242011 (Final).doc
Development Standards Table
Multi - Family and Accessory Structure Components of CCRC Uses
Cate&og
Dimensional Re uirement
Minimum Site Area
1 Acre
Site Width — Minimum
N/A
Site De th— Minimum
N/A
Setbacks
Rent )(aFd far- pr-in a4 stnastupes*
441,eet
2A Feet
28 -Feet
2&Feet
28 -Feet
West (Valewood Drive)
13 -Feet
50 Feet
East n shore Lake
20039 Feet
Internal Drives from Pavement
10 Feet
South LCommerrial Tract )
20 Feet
Distance Between Principal Structures
15' for 1 story
25' for 2 -4 stories
Distance btw. Princ. & Access= Structure
10 Feet
Maximum Building Height Principal Structure
Three (3) stories including parking
not to exceed 35' zoned height or
3T actual buildin hei t
Maximum BuildinHeight Accessoa
Two (2) stories including parking
Structures
not be exceed 30' zoned hei t or
35' actual buildin heiaht
Minimum Floor Area Per Unit
h&e endent Living Unit
830 SF
Assisted Livin Unit
500 SF
Skilled Nursing Unit
280 SF
Page 12 of 16
Words underlined are additions; words sWaelcAret* are deletions.
I- \2005\2005107\V7MUDA 2008 Quail Gardens\Sth ResubmittahQuail II PUDZ -A- 2009 -1891 Ordinance REVISED 3- 242011 (Final).doc
•
•
•
•
•
Development Standards Table
Independent Living Area ** Component of CCRC_ Uses
Located Alone East Portion of R 1 District
Cate o
Dimensional Re uirement
Minimum Lot Area
7,500 SF
Setbacks Principal Structure
Front Yard
25 Feet
Rear Yard*
50 Feet
Side Yard
7.5 Feet
Maximum Building Height
One (1 ) story not to exceed
30' zoned heip-ht or 35' actual
het t
Setbacks AccessoKy Structure
35 Feet
Front Yard
25 Feet
Rear Yard*
35 Feet
Side Yard
5 Feet
Zoned Height
30 Feet
Actual Height
35 Feet
Minimum Floor Area
1,500 SF
* From 50' setback area shown on east property line
** One dwelling unit
3. Maximum Development intensity
The maximum development shall be based on a gross floor area ratio (FAR) not to
exceed 0.60 for the CCRC or up to 567,673 feet of gross floor area The maximum
number of continuing care retirement units shall not exceed 300 independent
assisted living units or skilled nursing units in the R -1 District A minimum of 50
units shall be assisted living units and up to 18 single- family independent living
units are permitted within the total number of CCRC units
A. Miscellaneous Standards
I The CCRC will be a gated comp2pnijL.
b. Recreational facilities within the development shall be centrally
located toward the middle of the property and not adjacent to the
eastern boundary of the property,
c. Asphalt shingles are prohibited as a roofing material throughout
the communily.
d. A six-foot high wall has been constructed around the perimeter of
Page 13 of 16
Words underlined are additions; words oWdek- tkreugk are deletions.
HA20050005107\WP\PUDA 2008 Quail Gardens\5tb Resubmittal \Quail II PUDZ -A- 2009 -1891 Ordinance REVISED 3- 242011 (Final),doc
the R-1 District. However the portion of the wall adjacent to the •
Longshore Lake development will be reconstructed in accordance
with all County requirements including the landscaping
requirements. (See also Section 3.5h Landscaping of Ordinance 05-
52).
e. The locations of the dum p sters and loading areas shall be no closer
than 300 feet from the Longshore Lake development and shall be
located to the west of the tallest multi- family structures, to
minimize the impacts of noise on nearby properties to the east.
Loading and unloading of goods and deliveries shall not occur
prior to 8:00 a.m. or after 8:00 p.m. on weekdays or Saturdays. No
loading or unloading is permitted on Sundays.
f_. All employees, maintenance, deliveries and solid waste trucks shall
be directed to use the entrance on Executive Drive.
g. There shall be no commercial use of the property. The only non-
residential uses of the property shall be accessory to support the
CCRC.
h. A right turn lane as depicted on the PUD Master Plan Exhibit A -2
will be constructed for any p=osed CCRC uses.
5. The developer of the CCRC, its successors or assigns, shall provide the •
following services and/or be subject to the following operational standards:
a. The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older.
b. There shall be on -site dining for the residents.
C. Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for
the purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual
transportation services shall be coordinated for the residents'
individualized needs including but not limited to medical office
visits.
d. There shall be an on -site manager /activities coordinator to assist
residents with their individual needs. The manager/ coordinator
shall also be responsible for arranging trips to off -site events as
well as planning for lectures, movies, music and other
entertainment for the residents at the on -site clubhouse.
e. A wellness center shall be provided on -site. Exercise and other
fitness programs shall be provided for the residents.
Page 14 of 16 •
Words underlined are additions; words 9;Fuek &mu are deletions.
H.\2005\2005107\WP1PUDA 2008 Quail Gardens\Sth ResubraittaNuai7 II PUDZ -A -2009 -1891 Ordinance REVISED 3-24-2011 (Final).doc
• f Each unit shall be equipped to notify emer ency service providers
in the event of a medical or other emgMenc.
g Each unit shall be designed so that a resident is able to age-in-
place. For example, kitchens may be easily retrofitted to lower the
sink to accommodate a wheelchair bound resident or bathrooms
may be retrofitted to add grab bars.
6. Deviation:.
a. This deviation seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04.D1 which
requires a floor area ratio (F.A.R.) of 0.45 to allow a floor area
ratio (F.A.R.) of 0.60 for a CCRC.
SECTION SIX:
AMENDMENTS TO THE PUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE
NUMBERS 92 -41 AND 05 -52, THE QUAIL II PUD, TO REMOVE ALL SPECIFIC
CITATIONS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FROM THE PUD DOCUMENT TO
LEAVE ONLY THE GENERAL CITATION TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
All sections and subsections of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance Numbers 92 -41
isand 05 -52, the Quail H PUD, are hereby amended to remove any and all references to specific
numeric and lettered citations to specific sections and subsections of the Land Development
•
Code to leave only general references to the Land Development Code throughout the PUD
document.
SECTION SEVEN:
AMENDMENTS TO EXHIBIT A OF THE PUD DOCUMENT, THE PUD MASTER
PLAN, AND ADDITION OF EXHIBITS A -1 AND A -2, THE PUD MASTER PLAN
The "PUD Master Plan," labeled Exhibit A and Attachment 1 of the PUD Document
attached to Ordinance Numbers 92 -41 and 05 -52, the Quail H PUD, is hereby deleted in its
entirety and replaced with a new PUD Master Plan, labeled A -1 and A -2 attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
Page 15 of 16
Words underlined are additions; words ehaek4weagk are deletions.
HA2005\20051071WPTUDA 2008 Quail GardenA th ResubmittahQuail R PUDZ -A- 2009 -1891 Ordinance REVISED 3- 24- 2011(Finel).doc
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 CONMSSIONERS
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
By:
Deputy Clerk FRED W. COYLE, CHAUMAN
Heidi Ashton -Cicko S4(Aq -kx
Assistant County Attorney V;
Page 16 of 16
Words undcrlined am additions; words swaak dhmugh are deletions.
FLA2005t2005107MPTUDA 2008 Quail Gardens\5th Resubmittal\Quail II PUDZ -A 2009 -1891 Ordinance REVISED 3-24-2011 (Final).doe
r
•
HUNTINGTON
LAKES
(PUD)
•
QUAIL CREEK ESTATES
AND COUNTRY CLUB
(PUD)
GOLDEN GATE ESTATES
>�+a7t_xtto
raa�uorrRS etiac.�..t
eoe�wae,som w.tm
LONGSHORE
L_AKrz
(PUD)
Vmea &Aswdafes, tom, tac>iNe
AM=tftdA a,he G ffCmvmhd*mds
wbmumerrc
EXHIBIT 'Alir
QUAIL II - PUD MASTER PLAN
• FOR MULTI - FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY
ptVCEmzmvzml
=moo A Portion of Section 20, Twp. 48 Sr Rge. 25 E
a
BUILDING HEIGHTS ( CCRC USE ONLY ) i i
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT THREE (3) STORIES INCLUDING PARKING
(PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE) NOT TO EXCEED 35' ZONED HEIGHT AND
37' ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT.
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT TWO (2) STORIES INCLUDING PARKING
(ACCESSORY STRUCTURE) NOT TO EXCEED 30' ZONED HEIGHT OR
35' ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT
MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
FOR R -1 DISTRICT : UP TO 300 C.C.R.C. UNITS
OR 83 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS I
OR 152 MULTI - FAMILY UNITS AS DEPICTED ON I`
P.U.D. MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT A -1
DEVIATION No. 1 i
TO SEC. 5.05.04.13.1
TO ALLOW A 0.60 F.A.R.
QUAIL CREEK ' / / 50'
ESTATES AND / / 5' TYPE '
COUNTRY CLUB,,/ / // W/ 6' HIG
(PUD)
RIGHT TURN
LANE I I
SUFFER
WALL
15'
4 Ac. t 61
/ R -1 — DISTRICT
/ n OPEN SPACE REQUIRED = 30X MIN.
OPEN SPACE PROVIDED = > 45X
/
� I
/ I - 50 S
I 15' I TYPE 'B' BI FFER I I I
I I I I w�/ 6' HIGH ALL I
I I ! f I COMMERC AL PROPER ES !I
rI
I I II I
REVISED: 1z a 2oto REwsm: 3/24/2m1
R nSD... 9/15/2010 REVISED; REVIS� 3 /22 /2011 COCOHATCHEE CANAL I I
REVISED: 8/25/2010 REVISED: 3/17/2011 (100' R /W)
REE''1VIMM. s%1 Z20010 REEVISSM: 3/11/2011 z t
REVISED: 5/11/2010 REwsm:1212712010 IMMOKALEE ROAD
99MALMeNo S3iftiE106
950 Encore Wary
Nap la '254 34110
Phony: `239 -2000
Florida Certificate of
Authorization No. 1772
QUAIL I
PAJD. MASTER PLAN
FOR R -1 DISTRICT
EXHEUT A2
II
50't II
MIN. I I
III
I
III
I I
III
II
I I
'B' II
W/
WALL I I
II
II1
I I
III
II
150'± I
MIN. I I
ACK�Ii
I I
III
II
III
-- L--J -I I
N
W
V
Z
Ld
0
- M
V) I}.
W ~�
LLI
}�
J
LLI
U.
1n
c�
w p
J J
•
V
z
a
1 I
C.C.R.C.
INDEPENDENT
LIVING AREA
(SINGLE FAMILY
AREA)
0 200
SCALE IN FEET
fft By PROJECT Na
20OL107
BY CAD FIE NAP
6107 w
V"MT - ITEM
1 of 1
• Quail H PUDZ -A- 2009 -1891
Neighborhood Information Meeting Minutes
August 4, 2010, 5:30 p.m.
HM File No. 2005.107
Richard Yovanovich introduced the project, its location, its history and uses under existing and
proposed zoning. He also noted the fact that single - family uses are not included in the present
zoning for the R -1 tract but will be added as a permitted use in subsequent changes to the PUD
Application.
• There was concern expressed by residents that they thought the request was opening the
door to introduce commercial uses into the PUD. This may be that they thought CCRC
use was a quasi - commercial request.
Richard Yovanovich assured the residents that this was not the case because the GMP did
not allow the expansion of commercial uses at this location. (The site was previously
zoned commercial uses prior to be rezoned for multi- family uses). Richard Yovanovich
advised them to contact David Weeks of the GMP Department to have him verify this
fact. No commercial uses were included in the proposed rezoning other than accessory
uses to support the CCRC use of the property.
• Concerns were expressed about the proposed building height (four stories) and the effect
• these building heights would have on their privacy. Compatibility with single - family uses
in Longshore Lake and the absence of other four story buildings in the vicinity of the
project was brought up by many residents. Also the distance of proposed four story
buildings from Longshore Lake was a concern.
Richard Yovanovich indicated that single - family uses were planned adjacent to the
Longshore Lake to create a buffer between Longshore Lake residents and proposed
multi - family buildings. While an end user has not been determined for the project, he
indicated the distance on the Conceptual Master Plan between proposed multi - family
buildings and Longshore Lake was 225± feet. (In actuality, it is 207± feet from the
property line and 245 feet from the nearest houses in Longshore Lake).
• Richard Yovanovich agreed to provide a minimum setback for multi- family structures in
the PUD from Longshore Lake and to establish line of site drawings to better define the
visual impact on Longshore Lake from four -story buildings west of the proposed planned
single - family uses planned along the eastern edge of the proposed CCRC use.
• Residents expressed further concern at the NIM that without an end user the minimum
setbacks from multi - family structures could not be guaranteed. Richard Yovanovich
indicated that a minimum setback could be enforceable in the PUD Ordinance along with
restrictions that no commercial uses would be introduced into the project other than those
uses of an accessory nature to support the needs of the residents.
•
Attachment B
GACDES Planning Services\ Current \Gundlach\PUD Amendments \Quail II MPUD\NIM Minutes 8- 10.docx
• Concerns were expressed about traffic impacts on Valewood Drive, including how the •
number of employees and guests would affect the amount of traffic generated on the
roads including impacts on peak hour times, school bus operations, and other
interruptions to the community.
Richard Yovanovich indicated that CCRC uses generally generate less traffic than other
types of land uses and that employee and guest visitation were considered in the trip
generation rates used in the trip generation manual used as a basis to generate traffic.
Richard Yovanovich agreed to provide copies of the traffic study prepared by TR
Transportation upon request. (The result of this study indicated an actual reduction in
traffic during the peak hour in comparison to permitted multi - family uses). Other
concerns were raised by residents about the methodology used in the traffic study, i.e.,
how background traffic in any other developments were evaluated in the context of the
traffic study.
• Concerns were expressed by residents that the property owner was seeking an alternative
use for a CCRC to enhance to the value of the property in an economic downturn. They
indicated that this was not their problem and he should make use of the current zoning.
Richard Yovanovich indicated that he proposed CCRC was a different type of residential
use and a higher end type of housing for which he perceived there was a need for in the
general area and the community at large.
• Residents expressed concerns about the value of proposed units, what they would sell for is
along with other related concerns including affects on nearby property owners. Richard
Yovanovich indicated he could not tell them the market value of proposed uses because
we did not have an end user. Also that in many instances residents of CCRC's don't own
the units but have a "buy in" with a right to use before units are occupied by others.
• Residents expressed concerns about access and where the project entrance would be
(there is one Executive Drive and one on Valewood Drive) and whether access would be
limited to Executive Drive for all traffic. Concerns were also raised about how delivery
trucks would access the CCRC use and how their hours of operations would be addressed
in the zoning request. Richard Yovanovich indicated that these issues would be further
evaluated, including dumpster locations, hours of operations, and what access would be
directed to Executive Drive amongst other considerations.
• Drainage was discussed by residents as the subject property's water management
discharges into Longshore Lake. Richard Yovanovich indicated that any drainage
discharge would be regulated by the South Florida Water Management District and that
the project would be engineered in such a way that negative impacts on Longshore Lake
would be avoided.
• An issue raised by residents as to whether the project would be for profit or no. Richard
Yovanovich could not be specific because of no end user. •
GACDES Planning Services\ Current \Gundlach\PUD Amendments \Quail II MPUMNIM Minutes 8- 10.docx
• Concerns expressed by residents were if the project fails what would the impact be on the
• neighborhood. Richard Yovanovich indicated that these projects (CCRC's) are hard to
finance and one of his clients is being required to have pre -sales up to 75% to insure
project viability to obtain financing so as to insure project viability.
• Residents objected to the time the meeting was held when most residents were out of
town and that more residents would have attended if meeting was held during the season.
Residents expressed the need for two or more meetings and that this meeting was
perfunctory and not particularly helpful because of so many unanswered questions.
Richard Yovanovich agreed to get back to residents or have another meeting. He
indicated that if the residents appointed a smaller group to represent them this may better
facilitate negotiations rather than work with a larger group such as in attendance of the
NIN4.
• Residents were concerned that the density was too high with proposed 350 CCRC units.
Richard Yovanovich indicated that the density proposed was within the rule of thumb the
County uses that density for CCRC use should generally be in the range of four times the
base density that is 4f units per acre. Higher density for CCRC use is more acceptable
than a similar density for conventional housing types because impacts are generally less
for CCRC compared to other housing types.
• • Residents wondered why a water treatment plant use was a permitted in the PUD. Not
addressed by the petitioner at the meeting, however, this use is not proposed for the
subject property in this rezoning .request but is an allowable use in another tract in the
PUD.
• Residents asked how the units are distributed within the project, i.e., are all units
accounted for in the 350 units proposed. Richard Yovanovich said that the 350 units
include all units and includes 50 assisted units in the total number of units including the
proposed 18 single - family units.
• Concerns were expressed by residents about the height of the existing zoning for multi-
family use that allows for 35 feet, and why the actual height is now proposed up to 40
feet. Richard Yovanovich indicated the difference between zoned height at 35 feet to the
midpoint of the roof and actual height to the top of the roof is now required by the
County to address both. Richard Yovanovich had no objection to eliminating actual
height of 40 feet from the Ordinance.
• Residents wanted to know how long it would take to build the project. Richard
Yovanovich indicated that 3 or 4 years or more would be required to complete the project
if it goes forward for CCRC uses.
The meeting began at 5:30 p.m. and closed at 7:15 p.m. Richard Yovanovich closed by
• indicating that he would address all concerns raised at the meeting and further address use and
compatibility issues with more details.
GACDES Planning Services \Current \Gundlach\PUD Amendments \Quail H MPUD\NIM Minutes 8- 10.docx
AGENDA ITEM 9 -13
Co er County
STAFF REPORT
-ICS K111 11 I : 4Z9Ii1Zowda . "IZ011LN914163T10IRS316)ZI
FROM: ZONING SERVICES - -LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION -- PLANNING & REGULATION
HEARING DATE: APRIL 21, 2011
SUBJECT: PUDZ- PL2009 -2496: EN 04ANUEL EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN
CHURCH OF NAPLES
PROPERTY OWNER & APPLICANT /AGENT:
Owner /Applicant:
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church of Naples, Inc.
• c/o Tom Gemmer
777 Mooring Line Drive
Naples, FL 34102
A ents:
Robert L. Duane, AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire
HoleMontes Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A.
950 Encore Way 4001 Tamiami Trail N. Suite 300
Naples, FL 34110 Naples, FL 34103
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an
application for a rezone from the Estates (E) zoning district to the Community Facilities Planned
Unit Development (CFPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as Emmanuel Evangelical
Lutheran Church Community Facilities Planned Unit Development (CFPUD).
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject 21.72 -acre property is located on the south side of Oil Well Road approximately
1/4 mile west of Everglades Boulevard, in Section 19, Township 48 South, Range 28 East,
Collier County, Florida. (See location map and proposed PUD Master Plan on the following
• pages.)
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church CFPUD, PUDZ- PL2009 -2496 Page 1 of 16
April 21, 2011 CCPC
Revised: 3/28/11
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
Approval of this project will allow development of a maximum of 90,000 square feet of uses that
would include worship /church and related social services uses, including a 300 - person child and
adult day care facility, job training and vocational rehabilitation services, a 450- student private
school, or in the alternative, development of a maximum of 10 single - family residential dwelling
units in compliance with the density and development standards of the Estates zoning district of
the Land Development Code (LDC) and any other Growth Management Plan (GMP) limitations.
As depicted on the PUD Master Plan on the following page, primary access to the property
would be from Oil Well Road, an east -west roadway that would form the northern boundary of
the property. A possible interconnection is shown to the private roadway on the western property
boundary.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: Oil Well Road, then a row of 2 -2.5 acre tracts, one of which is developed with a single -
family home with a zoning designation of Estates
South: single - family home sites ranging in size from 1.14 to 2.73 acres, fronting on 31 st Avenue
NE, with a zoning designation of Estates
East: undeveloped (but cleared) 1.82 and 5 acre tracts both with a zoning designation of Estates
West: two 2.5 acre tracts, one of which is developed with a single family home (the other is
undeveloped) and then Lime Rock Road, a private road then a single- family home on a 1.7± acre
tract, all with a zoning designation of Estates
Aerial Photo (subject site depiction is approximate)
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church CFPUD, PUDZ- PL2009 -2496 Page 2 of 16
April 21, 2011 CCPC
Revised: 3/28/11
• GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMT) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject properly is designated Estates (Estates —
Mixed Use District, Mission Subdistrict), as identified on the Golden Gate Area Master Plan
(GGAMP) Future Land Use Map in the Growth Management Plan (GNP). Under this
designation, the site qualifies for limited institutional uses as well as low- density residential
development. Below is the subdistrict text (in italics), followed by staff analysis (in bold).
The Mission Subdistrict is located on the south side of Oil Well Road, approximately one -
quarter mile west of Everglades Boulevard, and consists of 21.72 acres. The purpose of this
Subdistrict is to provide for churches and related uses, including community outreach. The
following uses are allowed:
a) Churches. [Allowed in Exhibit A, List of Permitted Uses, item A.1.1
b) Child care centers — must be not-for-profit and affiliated with a church within the
Subdistrict. [Allowed in Exhibit A, item A.2.1
c) Private schools — must be not-for-profit and affiliated with a church within the
Subdistrict. [Allowed in Exhibit A, item A.3.1
d) Individual and family social services (activity centers, elderly or handicapped only; day
care centers, adult and handicapped only) — must be not-for-profit and affiliated with a
church within the Subdistrict. [Allowed in Exhibit A, item A.4. ]
e) Medical outreach to the community, to include activities such as administering influenza
• vaccine, checking blood pressure, and conducting blood donation drives — must be not-
for-profit and affiliated with a church within the Subdistrict. [Allowed in Exhibit A,
item A.6. ]
Soup kitchens and homeless shelters are prohibited in this Subdistrict. [Prohibited in
Exhibit A, item A.8.]
The maximum total floor area allowed in this Subdistrict is 90, 000 square feet. The
maximum height of buildings shall be 30 feet zoned height, except the worship center shall
be permitted a zoned height of 35 feet. Development in this Subdistrict shall be designed to
be compatible with the existing, and allowed future, development in the surrounding area
[(1) Total floor area, consistent with subdistrict text, is provided in Exhibit B,
Development Standards, item D.I. (2) Maximum building heights, consistent with
subdistrict text, are provided in Exhibit B, item A., at top of second page. (3)
Regarding compatibility determination, Comprehensive Planning staff defers to
Zoning Services staff as they view the project in its entirety.]
In the alternate to the foregoing uses, measures of development intensity, and development
standards, this Subdistrict may be developed with single-family dwellings in accordance
with the Residential Estates Subdistrict. [Provided for in Exhibit A, item A.7., and
Exhibit B, item C.]
• Property adjacent to this Subdistrict shall not qual fy for the Transitional Conditional Use.
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church CFPUD, PUDZ- PL2009 -2496 Page 3 of 16
April 21, 2011 CCPC
Revised: 3128/11
[This provision is applicable in reviewing development proposals for adjacent lands to •
determine consistency with the GGAMP; therefore, there is no need to include this text
in i
the PUD - and t is not included.]
Regarding item A.5 on Exhibit A, job training and vocational rehabilitation services not for
profit and affiliated with Emmanuel Lutheran Church — SIC code 8331, staff notes this specific
use does not correlate to any uses listed in the proposed subdistrict. However, at the CCPC
Transmittal hearing (October 2009) for the related GMP amendment petition, discussion ensued
regarding the types of uses proposed and that would be considered acceptable under the umbrella
of "church" use. The CCPC took a broad view. Subsequently, the BCC endorsed CCPC
recommendation. Accordingly, staff is of the opinion that this use — with the same limitation as
others as to church affiliation and not - for -profit status — may be deemed consistent with the
proposed subdistrict.
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.
Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their
properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be
made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code._[Staff
Comment: As depicted on the PUD Master Plan, the sole access is to CR 858, a collector
road.]
Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help •
reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for
traffic signals. [Staff Comment: As depicted on the PUD Master Plan, this project has a
single access point. Due to the nature of the allowed uses, a street system is not envisioned.
Nonetheless, the PUD Master Plan depicts a looped parking lot drive.]
Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets
and their interconnection point with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless
of land use type._[Staff Comment: Given the nature of the proposed uses, the expected lack
of a street system — rather, a parking lot/drive - and the low density development existing
or allowed on adjacent properties (1 dwelling unit per 2.25 acres), project interconnections
are not feasible or appropriate.]
Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities
with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and
types. [Staff Comment: Density and housing types are not applicable given the proposed
uses. The PUD Master Plan indicates the required open space will be far exceeded. Since
no deviation is requested, sidewalks will be required per the LDC.]
Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the Golden
Gate Area Master Plan.
•
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church CFPUD, PUDZ- PL2009 -2496 Page 4 of 16
April 21, 2011 CCPC
Revised: 3/28/11
• Transportation Element: 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 provided as required.
Oil Well Road Impacts: The first concurrency link that is impacted by this project is Link 119,
Oil Well Road between Immokalee Road and Everglades Boulevard. The project generates 90
p.m. peak hour, peak direction trips, which represents a 8.91% impact on Oil Well Road (pre -
widening capacity is 1,100 trips); or a 4.74% impact (post- widening capacity is calculated at
1,900 trips). This segment of Oil Well Road currently has a remaining capacity of 173 trips
(1,063 trips post - widening), and is currently at LOS "D" as reflected by the 2010 AUIR.
Everglades Boulevard Impacts: The second concurrency link that is impacted by this project is
Link 135, Everglades Boulevard between Oil Well Road and Golden Gate Boulevard. The
project generates 36 p.m. peak hour, peak direction trips, which represents a 4.00% impact on
Everglades Boulevard. This segment of Everglades Boulevard currently has a remaining
capacity of 594 trips, and is currently at LOS "C" as reflected by the 2010 AUIR.
The next concurrency link that is impacted by this project is Link 136, Everglades Boulevard
between Oil Well Road and Immokalee Road. The project generates 31 p.m. peak hour, peak
direction trips, which represents a 3.40% impact on Everglades Boulevard. This segment of
Everglades Boulevard currently has a remaining capacity of 528 trips, and is currently at LOS
• "C" as reflected by the 2010 AUIR.
Immokalee Road Impacts: Another concurrency link that is impacted by this project is Link 46,
Immokalee Road between Oil Well Road and Everglades Boulevard. The project generates 22
p.m. peak hour, peak direction trips, which represents a 2.51% impact on Immokalee Road. This
segment of Everglades Boulevard currently has a remaining capacity of 443 trips, and is
currently at LOS "C" as reflected by the 2010 AUIR.
No subsequent concurrency links are significantly impacted by this project.
Transportation Staff Notes: The project has proposed a trip generation cap of 323 PM Peak
Hour, Peak Direction, unadjusted trips. This trip generation limit is based (in part) on the 65,000
square foot church use. Staff has further analyzed the TIS by substituting a 90,000 square foot
Church use, and the weekday, PM Peak hour analysis indicates only a nine -trip increase in total
trips. In both scenarios, a 1000 seat limit is proposed on the Church use.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): 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
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church CFPUD, PUDZ- PL2009 -2496 Page 5 of 16
April 21, 2011 CCPC
Revised: 3/28/11
consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMT 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:
Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff is recommending approval subject to the
Environmental condition contained in Exhibit F of the PUD document. Due to the amended •
LDC requirements, this project is not required to be heard by the Environmental Advisory
Council unless that action is a directive of the CCPC or BCC. The project site consists of 1.7
acres of native vegetation that generally consists of pine flatwoods. The remainder of the 21.72 -
acre site is generally disturbed due to the historical clearing for agricultural uses. A minimum of
15 % of the existing native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier
County. The proposed 0.26 -acre upland preserve area is located at the northeast portion of the
project site. No listed species were found on site. Any impacts to existing "other surface
waters" on the project site shall be permitted through the South Florida Water Management
District (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.
Zoning Services Review: The Master Plan shows the location of the preserve area, lake and
stormwater management areas, the worship center, the community fellowship center, the child
and adult education facility, athletic fields and the area proposed for water treatment. Buffers are
shown along the project boundaries. Primary access is shown on Oil Well Road and a 30 -foot
wide interconnection is shown to the private roadway along the far western boundary.
Staff has a concern about one use proposed by the applicant. The applicant, as part of Exhibit A,
Section A #5 has included garden plots as part of the use "job training and vocational
rehabilitation services" under the auspices of SIC code 8331 as shown in underlined text below:
•
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church CFPUD, PUDZ PL2009 -2496 Page 6 of 16
April 21, 2011 CCPv
Revised: 3/28/11
Job training and vocational rehabilitation services not for profit and operated with a
• church or place of worship permitted in this CFPUD. Vocational rehabilitation
services shall not include uses such as outboard or diesel engine repair that could emit
noise beyond the boundaries of the subject property, but shall include garden plots.
It is not that staff believes the use is inappropriate within this project; staff believes the use can
be appropriate within the project, consistent with GMP Mission Subdistrict, and compatible with
the surrounding Estates zoned lands, if the use is limited to an accessory use to a Church and
Places of Worship as the principal use. As explained in an email message from the applicant, the
garden plot use:
. . . would be a community garden for church members and any other interested
members of the surrounding community to develop together, and then to share the
produce among themselves, or if there is excess, to share it with local non-profit
agencies who distribute food to those with needs. We will not be selling any
produce, and not opening a u pick or farmers market.
Staff is of the opinion that listing the garden plot use as a principal use and as part of job training
and vocational rehabilitation services is not in keeping with the description of Job Training and
Vocational Rehabilitation Services, SIC code 8331, as that use is described in the SIC manual
excerpt shown below.
Establishments primarily engaged in providing manpower training and vocational
• rehabilitation and habilitation services for the unemployed, the underemployed, the
handicapped, and to persons who have a job market disadvantage because of lack of
education, job skill or experience. Included are upgrading and job development
services, skill training, world -of -work orientation, and vocational rehabilitation
counseling. This industry includes offices of specialists providing rehabilitation and job
counseling. Also included are establishments primarily engaged in providing work
experience for rehabilitees.
Additionally, including the use as part of Job Training and Vocational Rehabilitation Services,
SIC code 8331 is contrary to the purpose of the GMT Mission Subdistrict to provide community
outreach only if it is ".... affiliated with a church within the Subdistrict.
The applicant's agent argues that gardens are an allowable use in the current Estates (E) zoning
district. The surrounding properties also have a zoning designation of Estates, therefore the
agent contends that the garden plot use is an appropriate principal use in the proposed project.
Staff respectfully disagrees with that assessment. The E zoning district does allow crop raising,
but only as an accessory use as shown below (Excerpt from LDC Section 2.03.013 with bolding
added for emphasis):
1. The following subsections identify the uses that are permissible by right and the uses
that are allowable as accessory or conditional uses in the Estates district (E).
a. Permitted uses.
• 1. Single-family dwelling.
2. Family care facilities, subject to section 5.05.04.
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church CFPUD, PUDZ- PL2009 -2496 Page 7 of 16
April 21, 2011 CCPC
Revised: 3/28/11
3. Essential services, as set forth in section 2.01.03.
4. Schools, public, including "Educational plants." •
b. Accessory Uses.
1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to uses permitted as of
right in the (E) district.
2. Field crops raised for the consumption by persons residing on the premises.
As shown above, the E district does not allow field crops as a stand -alone principal use. The use
is limited to an accessory capacity, and the crops grown must be grown for consumption of the
residing persons, i.e., no sales to other persons or the public. This is similar to staff's position
for the proposed church. The garden plot use would need to be an accessory to the church, rather
than "persons residing on the premises" since there will not be anyone residing on the premises
as there would be in the Estates zoning district. That would allow the use to occur as a
community outreach, consistent with the Mission District's purpose. The prohibition of sales
would keep the general intent of what is shown also.
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, amount and type of open space and location, traffic generation/attraction, etc.
There has to be a balance between the adjacent existing and uses and what is allowable by the
GMP. is
The overall area is rather sparsely development with single - family home sites; however, one lot
abutting the subject site to the west is occupied by a home site. Across the private roadway are
three other home sites. To the south, the homes are more than 400 feet away from the property
boundary. (See illustration on page 2 of this staff report.) To the north is Oil Well Road, and to
the east the nearest residential use is on a tract of land whose perimeter boundary is over 650 feet
away.
The applicant has provided a 75 -foot wide setback along the eastern, southern and western
boundaries. Water management areas and the athletic fields are located with the setback area,
but there are no buildings in the setback. Additionally, the applicant is providing a 25 -foot wide
type B Landscape buffer. According to the LDC, a type B buffer would be required between the
residential uses and the church. That required type B landscape buffer is only 15 feet wide. The
LDC does not require any landscape buffer to be as wide as 25 feet so the applicant is providing
a wider buffer to separate the uses.
Staff is of the opinion that this project will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and
thus consistency with FLUE Policy 5.4.
is
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church CFPUD, PUDZ- PL2009 -2496 Page 8 of 16
April 21, 2011 CCPC
Revised: 3/28/11
• Deviation Discussion:
The petitioner is seeking one deviation from the requirements of the LDC. The deviation is
listed in PUD Exhibit E.
Deviation No. 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02. E.2., Fences and Walls to not require a
fence or wall along the southeast and west property lines. This Section of the LDC requires that
whenever a non - residential development lies contiguous to or opposite a residentially zoned
district, said non - residential development shall provide a masonry wall or precast concrete wall
or fence. Walls at this location are not in keeping with the character of estates zoned properties.
Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant provided the following justification for this deviation:
This deviation is being requested to maintain the rural character of the adjacent zoned
residential property. Constructing fences or walls adjacent to Estate sized lots would
impact the rural character of this property. Further justification for the request is set
forth on the CFPUD Master Plan with expanded setbacks, buffers and the proposed
development regulations designed to enhance compatibility with adjacent and nearby
properties. Also, see Exhibit B, Item G pertaining to Walls.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: This deviation would allow the developer to provide an
alternative to fences and walls. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed increased setback and
• buffer width alternative is acceptable; therefore, 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 "iustified as meeting public numoses to a degree at least erniivnInnt to literal annlinntinn of
such re ations."
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):
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church CFPUD, PUDZ- PL2009 -2496 Page 9 of 16
April 21, 2011 CCPC
Revised: 3/28/11
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 rezone and believes the uses and property development
regulations are compatible with the development approved in the area. Therefore, 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 GIMP discussion and the zoning analysis of
this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be
found consistent with the overall GMP if staff's recommendation for increased perimeter
property setbacks is adopted to ensure compliance with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4.
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.
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.
•
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church CFPUD, PUDZ- PL2009 -2496 Page 10 of 16
April 21, 2011 CCPC
Revised: 3128/11
Currently, the roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project
• at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP
Transportation Element consistency review. In addition, the project's development must
comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development
approvals are sought.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
The area has adequate supporting roadway infrastructure for rezoning purposes. The
applicant proposed to provide the project's own water treatment plant as shown on the
Master Plan. The issue of 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 seeldng one deviation 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.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." Please refer to the
Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report for a more extensive examination of the
deviation.
Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land,
the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County
Commissioners ... shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered 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 GMP analysis provided an in -depth review of the newly created Mission Subdistrict.
That subdistrict was established for this property only. 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 GMT FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with
neighborhood development. Thus, staff recommends that this petition be deemed
consistent with the FLUE of the GMT. The petition can also be deemed consistent with the
CCME. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the
• GMP.
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church CFPUD, PUDZ- PL2009 -2496 Page 11 of 16
April 21, 2011 CCPC
Revised: 3/28/11
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 rezone is appropriate given the existing land use pattern and
the fact that the petition has sought and gained approved of a GMT sub district to
specifically allow the uses proposed.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts,
The proposed PUD rezone would not create an isolated zoning district because the
surrounding area does not have any nearby lands designated as PUD zoned tracts.
However, the rezone to PUD is consistent with the GMP Mission Subdistrict land use
designation.
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 Estates zoned land into a zoning district that will allow the uses approved in the
Mission GMP Subdistrict of the FLUE.
S. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning •
necessary
The proposed change is warranted based upon the relatively recently created Subdistrict
designation for the subject property. The proposed rezoning brings the subject property
into compliance with that designation because it establishes appropriate zoning of the tract
and establishes the uses contemplated in that Subdistrict. Without rezoning, the Estates
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 with the commitments made by the applicant, this petition can
been deemed consistent County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land
Use Element (FLUE) of the GMT. Therefore, 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.
•
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church CFPUD, PUDZ- PL2009 -2496 Page 12 of 16
April 21, 2011 CCPC
Revised: 3/28/11
The roadway infrastructure has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the
• five -year planning period with the mitigation provided as required. Therefore, the subject
application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth
Management Plan (GMP).
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 GMT 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
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;
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 Estates. 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
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church CFPUD, PUDZ- PL2009 -2496 Page 13 of 16
April 21, 2011 CCPC
Revised: 3/28/11
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 a maximum of 90,000 square feet of uses that would
include worship /church and related social services uses, including a 300 - person child and adult
day care facility, job training and vocational rehabilitation services, a 450- student private school,
or in the alternative, development of a maximum of 10 single - family residential dwelling units
The petitioner has proposed property development regulations to allow establishment of
those uses. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer
commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the
community.
15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in
districts already permitting such use.
There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed;
however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a
particular zoning petition. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with
the GMT 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 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 rezone process and
those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with
the commitments contained in the PUD document. •
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church CFPUD, PUDZ PL2009 -2496 Page 14 of 16
April 21, 2011 CCPC
Revised: 3/28/11
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 (NM:
The NIM meeting was duly noticed by the applicant and held on Wednesday, August 25, 2010
commencing at 5:40 P.M., at the Collier County UF/IFAS Extension Office, located at 14700
Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida. Three (3) people from the public signed in as well as the
Applicant's team (Robert Duane & Terry Cole, Hole Montes; Rich Yovanovich, Esq.; Tom
Gemmer and Steve Wigdahl, Emmanuel Lutheran Church; and Ted Treesh, TR Transportation).
County staff in attendance was Kay Deselem.
Bob Duane made the presentation and discussed the proposed request for the CFPUD Rezoning,
and went over the recently approved GMT Amendment and discussed the Permitted Uses and
Master Plan. Residents were also advised that a median opening is planned to access the
property from Oil Well Road that is proposed to be relocated to a location previously planned
just to the west of the subject property to a location depicted on the Master Plan.
Residents seemed interested to learn of the proposed facilities but had a few questions, as
follows:
1. A resident asked when the facility would be built, and Bob Duane advised them it
• would be done in phases but construction could commence in three years;
2. Another resident asked if any Commercial Uses were planned on the north side of Oil
Well Road across the street from the proposed Church, and Bob Duane indicated that this
was not the case;
•
3. The same resident asked how far the entrance to the Church was from Everglades
Boulevard. Bob Duane advised that it was ±2000 feet away.
The meeting adjourned shortly before 6 PM and the residents were advised there would be
Public Hearings later this fall and they would be notified. [Submitted by the petitioner's agent]
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for this petition on March 29, 2011.
RECOMIIIENDATION:
Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County
Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ- PL2009 -2496 to the BCC with a recommendation
of approval.
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church CFPUD, PUDZ- PL2009 -2496 Page 15 of 16
April 21, 2011 CCPC
Revised: 3/28/11
PREPARED BY:
1� Lu�' 'j l/
KA SELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE
DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
1119
3-27-If
RAYM014D V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE
DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
n
LIAM D. LO Z, JR. 1FE., DIRECTOR DATE
DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
APPROVED BY:
-2 A
NICK C ALANG T ADM NISTRATOR DATE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Tentatively scheduled for the June 28, 2011 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church CFPUD, PUDZ- PL2009 -2496 Page 16 of 16
April 21, 2011 CCPC
Revised: 3/23/11
•
ORDINANCE NO. 10-
• 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
ESTATES (E) ZONING DISTRICT TO A COMMUNITY
FACILITIES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CFPUD)
ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS
ENDAANUEL EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH OF
NAPLES, INC. CFPUD, TO ALLOW 905000 SQUARE FEET OF
USES TO INCLUDE WORSHIP /CHURCH AND RELATED
SOCIAL SERVICES, A 300 PERSON CHILD AND ADULT
DAY CARE FACILITY, JOB TRAINING AND VOCATIONAL
REHABILITATION, A 450 PERSON PRIVATE SCHOOL; OR,
IN THE ALTERNATIVE, DEVELOPMENT OF SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, LOCATED ON
THE SOUTH SIDE OF OIL WELL ROAD, IN SECTION 19,
• TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 21.72 + /- ACRES
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS; AND BY PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A.
and Robert L. Duane, of Hole Montes, Inc., representing Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran
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 real property more particularly described in Exhibit D,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, located in Section 19, Township 48 South,
Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from the Estates (E) Zoning District to a
• Community Facilities Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) Zoning District for a 21.72 + /- acre
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church
PUDZ- PL2009 -2496 Page 1 of 2
Revised 3/24/11
project known as Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church of Naples, Inc. CFPUD, 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 Ordinance Number
2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is /are hereby amended
accordingly.
SECTION TWO:
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super - majority vote of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
, Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
Steven T. Williams
\k
Assistant County Attorney 3-
day of , 2010.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
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 - 01040\27
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church
PUDZ- PL2009 -2496 Page 2 of 2
Revised 3/24/11
FRED W. COYLE, Chairman
•
is
EXIIIBIT "A"
LIST OF PERNHTTED USES
• EMMANUEL EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES PUD
No building 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: SIC GROUP
No building or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or
land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following:
1. Churches and Places of Worship 8661
2. Child Care Services 8351
Not for profit and operated with a church or place of worship 8351
permitted in this CFPUD
3. Private Schools 8211
Not for profit and operated with a church or place of worship 8243
permitted in this CFPUD (except boarding schools, and military 8244
academies). 8299
4. Social Services, individual and family (activity centers, elderly or
• handicapped only; day care centers, adult and handicapped only);
must be not for profit and operated with a church or place of 8322
worship permitted in this CFPUD.
S. Job training and vocational rehabilitation services not for profit 8331
and operated with a church or place of worship permitted in this
CFPUD. Vocational rehabilitation services shall not include uses
such as outboard or diesel engine repair that could emit noise
beyond the boundaries of the subject property, but shall include
garden plots.
6. Medical outreach to the community, to include activities such as
administering influenza vaccine, checking blood pressure and
conducting blood donation drives not for profit and operated with
a church or place of worship permitted in this CFPUD.
7. Single family residential dwellings as an alternative to non-
residential uses permitted in this CFPUD. (Also see Exhibit B —
Development Intensity)
8. Any other principal and related use that is determined to be
comparable to the foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals
is pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code
(LDC), however, soup kitchens and homeless shelters are
prohibited.
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church PUDZ- PL2009 -2496
Last revised: 03 -23 -11 Page 1 of 9
B. Accessory Uses:
Accessory uses customarily ssociated with Permitted Principal Uses including but •
Y P g
not limited to:
Recreational facilities including outdoor play areas and athletic fields,
administration offices and facilities, youth recreation centers indoor, and similar
uses to support the church and their outreach programs.
2. Water and wastewater facilities for serving this CFPUD only.
3. 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).
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 CFPUD Master Plan other than the
following:
Passive recreation areas such as pervious nature trails or boardwalks are allowed
in the preserve area, as long as any clearing required to facilitate these uses does •
not impact the minimum required area to be preserved.
2. 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).
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church PUDZ- PL2009 -2496
Last revised: 03 -23 -11 Page 2 of 9
•
•
I.�:IIS C
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
EAUdANUEL EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES PUD
Development of the EMMANUEL EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH COMMUNITY
FACILITIES PUD 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, the Community Facility District (CF) of the LDC shall apply.
Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the PUD. 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.
TABLE I
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES
MINIMUM LOT AREA
MINIMUM LOT WIDTH
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA
PERIMETER SETBACKS
MINIMUM FRONT YARD
11 1 It • ' �
MINIMUM PRESERVE SETBACK
NM\TIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church PUDZ- PL2009 -2496
Last revised: 03 -23 -11
N/A
N/A
N/A
75 feet east property line
75 feet west and southwest property line
75 feet south property line
25 feet north property line
25 feet
25 feet or perimeter setback whichever is
greater
25 feet or perimeter setback whichever is
greater
25 feet
building height (BH)
Page 3 of 9
BUILDING HEIGHT 2 stories not to exceed 30 feet zoned building height
or 38 feet actual building height; however, the
Worship Center shall not exceed a zoned height of is
35 feet and an actual height of 42 feet.
B. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
FRONT SETBACK 25 feet (see *Note 1)
SIDE SETBACK 10 feet or perimeter setback whichever is greater
REAR SETBACK 10 feet or perimeter setback whichever is greater
PRESERVE SETBACK 10 feet or perimeter setback whichever is greater
PERIMETER SETBACK 25 feet
MINIMUM DISTANCE
BETWEEN ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES 10 feet
MAXGM BUILDING
HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 1 story, not to exceed 25 feet zoned building height
and 3 0 feet actual BH
GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth above shall be
understood to be in relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between
structures.
*Note 1 Athletic field is permitted in setback area including portion of the existing lake as
shown on CFPUD Master Plan;
C. STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL USE
Residential uses in accordance with the Estates District if non - residential uses are not
developed on the subject property.
D. DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY
1. A maximum of 90,000 S.F. of total floor area is allowed in this Community
Facilities PUD and the number of seats for the Worship Center shall not exceed
1,000 seats.
2. Maximum number of school students is 450.
3. Maximum number of Day Care Center participants is 300.
4. In lieu of permitted community facilities allowed by this CPUD, ten (10) single
family dwelling units are permitted.
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church PUDZ PL2009 -2496
Last revised: 03 -23 -11 Page 4 of
is
is
E. LANDSCAPING
is 1. Seventy five foot (75') wide buffer areas are required along the east, west and
southwest property lines abutting residential development as shown on the
CFPUD Master Plan. However, play fields are permitted in a portion of the 75
foot wide buffer area shown on the west and southwest property lines along with
an existing lake.
2. A twenty five foot (20') wide Type "D" buffer is required along Oil Well Road
and twenty -five foot (25') wide Type `B" buffers are required along the east, west
and southwest south property lines as shown on the CFPUD Master Plan.
F. LIGHTING (Per Policy 5.1.1 of the Golden Gate Master Plan set forth below):
Consistent with public safety requirements, street, recreational and structure lighting shall
be placed, constructed and maintained in such manner as to prevent or reduce light
pollution. The following standards shall apply:
a. If a streetlight or an area light is required, it shall be of the type specified to
protect neighboring properties from direct glare. Area lighting shall be shielded
such that direct rays do not pass property lines. Low - pressure sodium lamps are
encouraged while halogen type lights are discouraged.
1. Where required, the street lamp shall be of the high pressure sodium type
• and have a "cobra head with flat bottom" style or be fully shielded so that
light is directed only downward. Street lamps shall be mounted on a wood
pole at a height and wattage recommended by the appropriate electric
utility and as appropriate for a rural area.
2. Parking lot lamps shall be low- pressure sodium type lamps and shall be
mounted so that they point downward without direct rays extending past
the parking lot, building entrance, walkway, or other area intended to be
illuminated.
b. Where lighting of recreational areas is required, such lighting shall be mounted so
as to focus illumination on the areas intended to be illuminated, and to limit the
amount of light that extends outside of the intended area.
G. GARDEN PLOTS
U -Pick or on -site sales of produce is prohibited.
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church PUDZ- PL2009 -2496
Last revised: 03 -23 -11 Page 5 of 9
CJ Q it I � I AJR: i:�
EXHIBIT "B"
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
ADDENDUM
(GARDEN PLOTS)
GARDEN PLOTS - ITEM G:
Maximum area for the garden plots is to be 10% of property ±2 acres.
2. Garden plots are to be centrally located on the property.
Maximum number of automobiles should be ten at any one time.
4. Access to garden plots dust free gravel surface including parking area.
5. Temporary sanitary facility to be provided.
6. No improvement plan or Site Development Plan required.
C:\Docurnents and Settings \dquintanilla\L.ocal Settings \Temporary Internet Files\OLK I DE\EXHIBIT B ADDENDUM (ITEM G - GARDEN PLOTS)
I10420.doc
r t�
w �
A. p1
o
N ry
w
n
r
0
N
a
ry
UQ
rn
O
M
atinn
I. • _
1 _ - - - -. -. — _— ___ - --
__ ras ng - 1
L_ Grass Parking Area J � O O .r¢u �� 1 `— /t I } _sr�
IN
1 I
I I
as'
25' wide Type 'B' hndo,x" Buffer
1
1
L I
i
I
I
O
I
Oeviatlon No. 1
I
## The Interconnection shall only be provided No Perimeter Wall per
If legally permissible and If the C.F.P.U.D. Sectlonp 5.03.01.E.2
Is developed with residential uses.
Oa I I j
a �'
Proposed lake j
Worship
Center
Deviation No. 1
No Perimeter Wall per
principal
092AcA 1
Administrative 20,0005.F.
Settionp 5.03.02.E.2
m 3
L,sa
C Offices
LAND USE SUMMARY
in i
)5,000 S.F.
Acres Percentages
I
❑ O
Buildings 2.07 9.53%
a ( I
a l
E O
Utility Structures 0.18 0.83%
3 i
W�
Asphalt Pavement 3.75 17.27%
^' o Yid "w
..
—
Future Parking/ PvmL 1.00 4.60%
i,
a
Sldewalks 1.00 4.60%
tk Lake 3.09 14.23 %
I I
O u l B
TF_
e 9
* Preserve Area 0.26 1.19 %
I ;
° B
#Recreation /Sodded/ 10.37 47.75%
I l i
I 9 a
Landscape Areas
I N
in -
C
I u
Child and Aduh
Total 21.72 100.00% >"
I stormwater I I
Management
wJ i
Edu edam
Facility Zr
25,0W S.F.
" ired Open Space
21.72 Acres z 30% = 6.52 Acres E
I 3.09 Act i
I
Community Fellowship O
[eider
LL
I
30,000 S.F. tt
Total Open Space = 13.72 Acres 63.17 % 9 &
I
(* Includes lake, Preserve, Recreation, Sodded
I
so .m Isa
and Landscaped Areas)
i
cux ix rtc
The Total Open Space proposed is well in excess of 30 %,
j
satc : r . so'
land use areas are conceptual in nature and subject to
I Existing lake I i
final design considerations. —
2,17 Ac i I
1
L
I
Existing Native Vegetation Retained (0.26 Ac.t)
Required Existing Native Vegetation to be Retained =
1.7 Retained fined x Existing = 0.26 Acres
Retained Existing Native Vegetation = 0.26 Auesi
°
r
O � Water Area for wastewater
I
Mazimum total FlOOr area = 90,000 s.f.
Z 'd
a�i
Maximum Principal Structure Height o E
I I
i
Treatment Treatment Crainfieid N
Plant Fanchised UNliryservke Is
• Zoned height = 30 feet maximum m a o
tl
nor readily available
• Actual height = 38 feet maximum for all
° Z ut
_ _ _�_�
— — — —.
structures other than Worship Center
Grass
Parking Area
u' wide Type •e' una :rape gvRer
Worship Center
within 75'wlde Setback
• Zoned height = 35 feet maximum
• Actual height = 42 feet maximum
Zoned: E Estate (Land Use Is Single Family and Vacant) Devlatbn No. 1 No Perimeter Wall
per SeNOnp 5.03.02.E.2
EMMANUEL EVANGELICAL
LUTHERAN CHURCH
-�`
" 3ox
�r 5
•"eos to
950E FL0 Way
apeElm31to
Ph :(239)254 -2000
Fbade Cedismla or
DxpH1611INFP5RRSEYOAS Autlroduber Ne.1772
EXHIBIT C
C.F.P.U.D. MASTER PLAN
�
6096CMP05
~a
4637 -1
DmDr
" DS 1
®
n:ro�Wawwxmrs
cpuxtt wselrrrrs
a/ /fie
'^°m "•
2006.096
•'a*•a
1 1 aF 1
_
• EXHIBIT "D"
is
•
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
EAEVIANUEL EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES PUD
Property Description:
Tract 65A, the North 165 feet of Tracts 80 and 81, the South 165 feet of the North 330 feet of
Tracts 80 and 81, the North 165 feet of the South 330 feet of Tracts 80 and 81, the South 165 feet
of Tracts 80 and 81, and all of Tracts 80A, 81A, 96 and 96A, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES,
UNIT NO. 64, according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 7, Page(s) 64,
Public Records of Collier County, Florida.
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church PUDZ- PL2009 -2496
Last revised: 03 -23 -11 Page 7 of 9
I*114CIIS
LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC FOR THE
EMMANUEL EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES PUD
Deviation No. 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02. E.2., Fences and Walls to not require a
fence or wall along the southeast and west property lines. This Section of the LDC requires that
whenever a non - residential development lies contiguous to or opposite a residentially zoned
district, said non - residential development shall provide a masonry wall or precast concrete wall
or fence. Walls at this location are not in keeping with the character of estates zoned properties.
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church PUDZ- PL2009 -2496
Last revised: 03 -23 -11 Page 8 of 9
is
U
r
C7
WNaIr
DEVELOPMENT COMIVIITMENTS FOR THE PROJECT
EAMANUEL EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES PUD
1. TRANSPORTATION
A. For services and other periods and events of significant traffic generation, as
determined by Collier County staff, the property owner shall provide traffic
control by law enforcement or a law enforcement approved service provider as
directed by Collier County staff, with staffing and at location(s) as directed by the
Collier County Transportation Administrator or his designee.
B. The development within this project shall be limited to 666 unadjusted
two -way, AM peak hour trips and/or 323 unadjusted two -way, PM peak
hour trips; allowing for flexibility in the proposed uses without creating
unforeseen impacts on the adjacent roadway network. For purposes of
• calculation of the weekday AM and PM peak hour trip generation for this
PUD, the lesser of the weekday AM or PM peak hour trips as calculated in
the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Report, titled Trip
Generation, 8t' Edition or the trip generation as calculated in the then
current ITE Trip Generation Report shall be utilized.
C. A potential for interconnection with the residential properties to the west shall be
provided if the subject property develops only with single family uses and the
conditions for the use of the interconnection are acceptable to the developer and
the residential properties to the west. If the subject property is developed without
residential uses within four years of the date of adoption, then this commitment
shall no longer be deemed applicable.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL
A. Conservation/preservation areas comprising a minimum of 0.26 acres are shown
on the CFPUD Master Plan that meets the minimum of 0.26± acres required to be
preserved by the LDC.
B. As part of the first development order application (SDP,. Plat or other), the
applicant shall provide an updated listed species survey to show the property's
proximity to bear or panther habitat (primary or secondary) and indicate if any
• mitigation is required by the FWC/USFWS. If mitigation is required, the
applicant shall coordinate said mitigation with County Environmental Staff
members.
Emmanuel Evangelical Lutheran Church PUDZ- PL2009 -2496
Last revised: 03 -23 -11 Page 9 of 9