The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Agenda 09/15/2011 RCCPC MEETING AGENDA SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 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. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 18, 2011 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. PUDZ- 2006 -AR- 10146: Hacienda Lakes MPUD -- 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 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 Agricultural (A), Agricultural- Special Treatment Overlay (A -ST) and PUD zoning district (Swamp Buggy Days PUD) to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for a project known as the Hacienda Lakes MPUD that will allow a maximum of 327,500 square feet of gross retail commercial floor area; 70,000 gross square feet of professional and medical office space including a conversion of retail use to professional and medical office; 135 hotel rooms including a conversion to business park; 140,000 gross square feet of business park or education facility; a public school; continuation of existing "swamp buggy" attraction and "Junior Deputy" passive recreation; and a maximum of 1,760 residential dwelling units including conversions to recreational vehicle park and senior housing for independent living, assisted living and nursing care. The subject property, consisting of 2,262 +/- acres is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) at the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake- Hammock Road and north and south of Saba] Palm Road in Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24 and 25, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 19 and 30, Township 50 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida; providing for repeal of Ordinance Number 84 -26, for swamp buggy grounds; and by providing an effective date. (Companion to Petitions DRI- 2006 -AR -10147 and CP -2006- 11) [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] B. DRI- 2006 -AR- 10147: Hacienda Lakes DRI -- A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida approving a Development Order for Hacienda Lakes, a Development of Regional Impact located in Sections 11 through 14 and 23 through 25, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 19 and 30, Township 50 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida which will allow up to 1,760 residential dwelling units including conversions to recreational vehicle park and senior housing for independent living, assisted living and nursing care, 327,500 square feet of retail use, 70,000 square feet of professional and medical office including a conversion of retail use to professional and medical office, a 135 -room hotel including a conversion to business park, 140,000 square feet of business park or educational facility, a public school, and continuation of existing "Junior Deputy" passive recreation and existing "swamp buggy" attraction; providing for Findings of Fact; providing for Conclusions of Law; and providing an effective date. (Companion to Petitions PUDZ- 2006 -AR -10146 and CP- 2006 -11) [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Note: This item has been continued by the petitioner from the August 4, 2011 meeting, then continued from the August 18, 2011 meeting, then continued again by the CCPC Board from the September 1, 2011 meeting: PUDA- PL2011 -703: Pine Ridge Center West PUD -- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2001 -09, the Pine Ridge Center West Planned Unit Development (PUD) by amending Section 3.3, Permitted Uses; and providing an effective date. The subject property, consisting of 8.87 + /- acres, is located in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] B. VA- PL2010 -1654, A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida relating to Petition Number VA- PL2010 -1654 for a variance from the required 30 feet side setback to permit a side setback of 23.43 + /- feet on property located at 4750 18th Ave. S.E. hereinafter described in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] C. BD- PL2010 -1473: 266 3rd Street West, Lot 8. A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to Petition Number BD- PL2010 -1473 for a 25.5 foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 foot limit in Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code for a total protrusion of 45.5 feet for the benefit of Naples Barge Rental, LLC in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager] D. PUDZ- 2003 -AR -3608: Orangetree PUD -- An Ordinance amending Ordinance Numbers 2005 -42 and 2004 -73, the Orangetree PUD, to add 1,250 residential units for a total of 3,350 residential units of which 100 units may be resort lodging; to add 100,000 square feet of office use and add 172,000 square feet of retail use to the existing 60,000 square feet of retail for a total of 332,000 square feet of commercial development; to revise the development standards including building height and setbacks and to add allowable residential, commercial uses and mixed uses, and to delete environmental commitments for property located in parts of Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 22 through 27, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 2138.76 acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS A. Note this item has been continued from the June 2, 2011 CCPC meeting. Presentation of final draft Collier County Watershed Management Plan and implementation plan [Coordinator: Mac Hatcher]. This item has been continued from the September 15`h, 2011 CCPC meeting to the October 6`h, 2011 meeting. 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp AGENDA ITEM 8 -A PUDZ- 2006 -AR- 101469 HACIENDA LAKES DEVELOPMENT THERE WILL BE A SECOND DELIVERY. AGENDA ITEM 813 DRI- 2006 -AR- 101479 HACIENDA LAKES DRI THERE WILL BE A SECOND DELIVERY AGENDA ITEM 9 -A THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED FROM THE AUGUST 4" MEETING, THEN AGAIN FROM THE AUGUST 1ST" MEETING, THEN AGAIN FROM THE SEPTEMBER 1 ST MEETING. VOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS MATERIAL AT THE AUGUST 4m MEETING. PUDA- PL2011 -703, PINE RIDGE CENTER WST PUD 11 Co e-r County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 SUBJECT: VA- PL2010 -1654, 4750 18' AVENUE SE PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Guy and Marina Doyle 4750 18t' Avenue SE Naples, FL 34117 Applicant: Lane Bryant Development, Inc. 2704 68t' Street West Lehigh Acres, FL 33971 REQUESTED ACTION: AGENDA ITEM 9 -13 Agent: H.L. Bennett & Associates Inc. 241 Yeomans Avenue Labelle, FL 33975 To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for an after - the -fact variance of 6.57 + /- feet from the required side yard setback of 30 feet as required by Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 4.02.01 Table 2.1. to allow an existing steel shed building to remain at 23.43 + /- feet from the rear property line. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject 2.6± acre property is located at 4750 186 Avenue S.E., in Section 21, Township 49 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Seethe location map on the following page.) PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: On May 6, 2009, the applicant applied for Building Permit number 2010031071 to erect a 1,800 square -foot steel shed building. Included in the building permit file was a survey dated March 15, 2010, initialed by Staff which depicts the correct side yard setback of 30 feet. (See attached Exhibit A.) The building permit was issued on April 7, 2010. On August 27, 2010 the boundary survey (aka "spot survey ") reviewed by Staff was denied because it showed a side yard setback of 23.43 feet and 25.32 feet instead of the required 30 feet. (See attached Exhibit B.) VA- PL2010 -1654, 4750 18TH AVENUE S.E. 8 -19 -11 Page 1 of 8 0 °a < vi 9 OF CF 0 0 z LIJ S-) OD CO x UA .......... ■ -T jF z LL, 6Z WS 0 cc CL o QQo P43 Oq Z-3 bo L96WO L96'?J'S cQ Z Z 0 N z 0 C) 0 -j Cl N z 0 t: F- /� 0001111101 son I jF z LL, 6Z WS 0 cc CL o QQo P43 Oq Z-3 bo L96WO L96'?J'S cQ Z Z 0 N z 0 C) 0 -j Cl N z 0 t: F- /� D9SM ULXVA® I Ig I� I� I V� N691ri7E 86Q07Y- ------------ - - - - -� ------ - - - - -- -- ----- I � I I li I A i N omriv E 66aao' Y $ i c _ I� $ C m I I » F 0 a 5 Om97P t fif6W Y 1 4 I � I I I I m 553 yy1� tl� �g s� s � M S � H. L. BENNETT GUY DOYLE & ASSOCIATES INC. SITE PLAN SETBACK VARIANCE _ 2+1 ,EaYANS AVENUE - P.O. enAl9=rzrz an uea L& FLORIDA 3N75 rx. (863) 675--M PETITION L.& #277X6 FAx (84 675 -13V The plan entitled "Site Plan" prepared by H.L. Bennett & Associates, Inc. illustrates the location of the steel shed building. (See the Site Plan on the previous page.) As depicted on the Site Plan, the southeast comer of the existing steel shed building encroaches 6.57 feet into the required 30 -foot side yard setback and 4.68 feet at the northeast corner. The requested variance would allow the southeast corner of the existing steel shed building to remain at 23.43 feet and the northeast corner to remain at 25.32 feet from the east property line. There have been no other variances granted within the neighborhood. This steel shed building encroachment has been in existence since August of 2010. To date, no known complaints have been received from any neighboring properties. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North: undeveloped with an Estates zoning designation. East: undeveloped with an Estates zoning designation. South: undeveloped and developed with a single family residence with an Estates zoning designation. West: undeveloped with an Estates zoning designation. VA- PL2010 -1654, 4750 18TH AVENUE S.E. 8 -19 -11 AERIAL Page 4 of 8 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The subject property is located in the Estates designated area as identified in the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) Element of the GMP. This land use category is designed to accommodate residential uses including single family. As previously noted, the subject petition seeks a variance for an accessory use to a single family home which is an authorized use in this land use designation, therefore, the single family home use is consistent with the FLUM. The Growth Management Plan (GMP) does not address individual variance requests; the Plan deals with the larger issue of the actual use. ANALYSIS: Section 9.04.01 of the Land Development Code gives the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) the authority to grant Variances. The Planning Commission is advisory to the BZA and utilizes the provisions of Section 9.04.03 A. through H. (in bold font below), as general guidelines to assist in making their recommendation of approval or denial. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to these provisions and offers the following responses: a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved? No. However, the applicant has stated in the application that the contractor has poured the foundation of the steel shed building in alignment with the main structure which is not parallel to the property line. This resulted in the location of the metal shed building within the required setback area. b. Are there special conditions and circumstances, which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre - existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of the Variance request? No. There are no special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant such as pre - existing conditions relative to the property, which are the subject of this Variance request. C. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of this zoning code work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? Yes. It is possible that the existing steel shed building would have to be removed if a literal interpretation of the zoning code were applied. d. Will the Variance, if granted, be the minimum Variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety and welfare? No. The Variance requested would not be the minimum Variance to allow reasonable use of the existing steel shed building. Conversely, the steel shed building has existed on the site for nearly a year without complaint or issue. Furthermore, approval of this Variance would not have a negative impact on standards of health, safety and welfare. VA- PL2010 -1654, 4750 18TH AVENUE S.E. 8 -19 -11 Page 5 of 8 e. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied n by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? Yes. By definition, a Variance bestows some dimensional relief from the zoning regulations specific to a site. However, LDC Section 9.04.02 provides relief through the Variance process for any dimensional development standard, such as the requested reduced side yard setback. As such, other properties facing a similar hardship would be entitled to make a similar request and would be conferred equal consideration on a case by case basis. f. Will granting the Variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Yes. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed Variance would legitimize the existence of the steel shed building that has been on the site without complaint for nearly a year. Furthermore, the reduced rear setback yard would not be detrimental to the neighborhood or the public's welfare due to the fact that the site itself is large and the surrounding properties are heavily wooded. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.? Yes. The existing metal shed is surrounded by existing, undeveloped, heavily vegetated lots. In addition, existing vegetation on the subject site provides buffering for the adjacent neighbors and mitigates for the encroachment. To the north and south, there is approximately 300 feet of vegetation. The neighbor to the east is separated by 120 feet of vegetation. Therefore, the visual aspect of the steel shed building is screened by vegetation and its' impact is well mitigated. h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Approval of this Variance petition would not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. As previously noted, the proposed use is permitted within the land use designation of the GMP in which it is located. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: The EAC does not normally hear Variance petitions. Since the subject variance doesn't impact any preserve area, the EAC did not hear this petition. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report VA- PL2010 -1654, 4750 18t' Street S.E., revised August 10, 2011. VA- PL2010 -1654, 4750 18' AVENUE S.E. 8 -19 -11 Page 6 of 8 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: Staff has determined that there are no land related hardships related to this property. Furthermore, the petitioner would be able to enjoy a reasonable use of the land whether or not the variance is approved. However, the side yard setback requirement could cause practical difficulties for the petitioner if some variance relief is not granted. Since the subject site is vegetated and the adjacent properties are undeveloped and heavily vegetated, Staff finds that this vegetated screen mitigates for the 6.57 -foot encroachment into the 30 -foot side yard encroachment. Furthermore, Staff is of the opinion that the impact of the current location of the steel shed building to the neighbors is mostly the same as it would be if it were located per the required setback. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition VA- PL2010 -1654, 4750 18th Street S.E. to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval. VA- PL2010 -1654, 4750 18TH AVENUE S.E. 8 -19 -11 Page 7 of 8 M hA OCT Mod � Atk NA CY GAT L,&04, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER GROWTH M/ANAC&MENT DIVISION REVIEWED BY: 11wM4xj tr RAY ND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION /i' 1LLIAM D. LORIXZ, „R •R GROWTH • APPROVED BY: NICK CASALANGUIDA, DE TY MINISTRATOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Attachments: A. Survey dated March 15, 2010 B. Survey (aka "spot survey ") dated August 27, 2010 C. Inspection History Report W � . I 0 � -(cf`1( DATE O.R (� DATE c- -zt - I I DATE Tentatively scheduled for the October 25, 2011 Board of County Commissioners Meeting VA- PL2010 -1654, 4750 18' AVENUE S.E. 8 -19 -11 Page 8 of 8 n Ma r. 15. 2010 8:46AM J ' U L] $_ 6. 4 LU LU U o Q Q' F- q -r I fC', l ) No-0226 P. 1 TRACT 91 l�C� x%34 4r1 / � &89'40'50'E. 160.00' 4 $ c5+ o OK o 4 w o 0 1D ti G o� R r� IL 4 PLAT TO RDOWAY EASEMENT 0 4 94 F W ry� o R9 Li a N Ra N al 1 Q ON LO U Q 00 Z o� C H Q W I -D 0,oz., 4 w 71h 0 r+ D tl R r� � J J PLAT TO RDOWAY EASEMENT 0 4 v F FW- N Ra w a a V1 iC ❑ CU ULj Lj Z A J LJ LU a ry �W Li.i m L� o� Wb LAN 4L2 m q a � -- CJ w" H W O LL- al 1 Q ON LO U Q 00 Z o� C H Q W I -D 0,oz., Em N,89'40'50"W. 180.0( Attachment A C:) (71 M O D L) N ID CU CU N Ex � � J it H � A jig oil � Li C) {�o� i Y la b O : v ,,e 0 J a U LO I g r++ �cK t� u�o•vi.�cn � .4-i 44 � y I } O n !'OfMF{ w 0 30' PLAT TO RDOWAY EASEMENT C/L isth AVE SE L N. TRACT dw- Em N,89'40'50"W. 180.0( Attachment A C:) (71 M O D L) N ID CU CU N Ex � � J it H � A jig oil � Li C) {�o� i Y la b O : v ,,e 0 J a U LO I g r++ �cK t� u�o•vi.�cn � .4-i 44 � y I } O Mar. 15. 2010 8:46AM M U �L) = Q� CD 0 C] o �L No.0226 P. 1 p� TRACT 91Cc 5,89'40'50'E, 180,00' g OK ILI 4 ��Y � see V� Q �� v aE .. o P1 �' I w �r p W J Q Q� U LO Q 00 0 O � H LA I?c,oZ, v s�7 Cyr ra " 2437 49.97 n POKf i 30' PLATTED ROADWAY EASEMENT C/L lath WE SE L N. TRACT M a= N,89.40'50'W, 18070( Attachment B n 01 M N � D` U�Nw < \ N 6 wta � aRaC Z � H and ♦ n r o II pal Y J \ Y Vc p �r �I ri 1`p v� Q �N _ o w \ Fa T a ` lJ 5 r:x �ncx rant/ v�o7�nn� � �M i o a� r Q z H p p I—. Z O �-c p z� Q = J y0 4 W U F H N O y Pa w a y U C l9 LJ Cr z QU J �• J Ri UJ Q. PC Ir-3 aCD W o� W a � v m Q � a r' U w ]G H S O F- iA Q Q� U LO Q 00 0 O � H LA I?c,oZ, v s�7 Cyr ra " 2437 49.97 n POKf i 30' PLATTED ROADWAY EASEMENT C/L lath WE SE L N. TRACT M a= N,89.40'50'W, 18070( Attachment B n 01 M N � D` U�Nw < \ N 6 wta � aRaC Z � H and ♦ n r o II pal Y J \ Y Vc p �r �I ri 1`p v� Q �N _ o w \ Fa T a ` lJ 5 r:x �ncx rant/ v�o7�nn� � �M i o a� COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INSPECTION HISTORY PRINT ,RMIT NBR: 2010031071 JOB DESC:CONSTRUCT 30 X 60 SO FT METAL BUILDING W /SL STATUS:INSPECT 3 LOCATION: 4750 18TH AVE SE SUBDIVISION 780 / Golden Gate Estates Unit 85 BLOCK:90 LOT: 0 MASTER NBR: 2010031071 TRS: UNIT: TRACT: NONE TAZ: 286 WATER: SEWER: COA: FLOOD ZONE: D OWNER NAME: GUY, DOYLE J =& MARINA I JOB PHONE: (239)994 -6303 CERT NBR: 35022 DBA: LANE BRYANT DEVELOPMENT, INC. JOB VALUE: $25,000.00 CONTACT NAME:DAVID CONTACT PHONE:(239)994 -6303 SETBACKS FRONT: REAR: 75.00 LEFT: 30.00 RIGHT: 30.00 SPECIAL: MIN 10 FT SEPARATION IMPORTANT DATES: EXTENDED APPLICATION APPROVAL ISSUED CO EXPIRATION CANCEL EXPIRATION 3/18/2010 4/7/2010 4/7/2010 10/4/2010 DIRECTIONS: ADDTL INFO: SUBCONTRACTORS CERT NBR SUB STATUS START DATE END DATE STATUS SUB CLASS DBA ��7BPERMITS PERMIT NBR STATUS TYPE CERT NBR DBA JOB DESC 2010031071 INSPECT BROT 35022 LANE BRYANT DEVELOPMENICONSTRUCT 30 X 60 SQ FT METAL BUILDIr FEES FEE CODE STATUS DESCRIPTION WAIVE AMOUNT DUE ENTER DATE 08BAPP POSTED BLDG. PERMIT APPLICATION FEE N 110.00 3/18/2010 08BPNP POSTED BLDG PERMITS - NAPLES N 290.00 4/7/2010 08MFSG POSTED MICROFILM SURCHARGE N 0.00 4/7/2010 11PLNRV POSTED ZONING PLAN REVIEW - PLANNING N 50.00 4/7/2010 12SITE POSTED SITE INSPECTION - ENGINEERING N 150.00 4/7/2010 08BACR POSTED BLDG. PERMIT APP. FEE CREDIT N - 110.00 REQ CLASS DESCRIPTION /REMARKS PRI REQ DATE RESULT CODE RES DATE INSPECTOR 099 ST NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT 0 4/7/2010 90 4/7/2010 DOWDELL_D 4/7/10 OR 4547 PG 870 /DMD 108 FRAMING 0 115 FINAL BUILDING 122 SS 10 DAY SPOT SURVEY 133 ST MONOLITHIC SLAB SITE DRAINAGE 810 EXOTIC VEG REMOVAL Collier County Board of County Commissioners CD -Plus for Windows 95 /NT 0 0 4/20/2010 0 4/8/2010 90 0 0 4/8/2010 CHANCY —H Printed on: 8/8/2011 2:59:28PM Attachment C Page 1 of 2 A EROSION /SILT 100\ Dllier County Board of County Commissioners Printed on: 8/8/2011 2:59:28PM D -Plus for Windows 95 /NT CDPR2036 Page 2 of 2 AGENDA ITEM 9 -C Collier County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION, PLANNING AND REGULATION HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 SUBJECT: BD- PL2010 -1473, GREGORY 1.ORICK II PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Gregory L. Orick II, Agent: David Turley Sole Owner, Naples Barge Rental LLC P.O. Box 111385 3653 Bailes Street Naples, Fl 34108 Bonita Springs, F134134 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting a 25.5 -foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, which will allow construction of a boat docking facility protruding a total of 45.5 feet into a waterway that is 420 feet wide. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject "boat dock lot" is located at 266 3rd Street West, further described as Lot 8, Block "H" in the replat of Unit 3, Little Hickory Shores Subdivision in Section 5, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the following page) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the project is to construct a single family dock facility, not intended for commercial use by Naples Barge Rental, on a boat dock lot located in Bonita Shores. The boat dock lot consists of one lot totaling .01 acres that is too small to accommodate a single family residence. Please note that boat dock lots are allowed without a residential dwelling unit pursuant to PU- 87 -17C Resolution Number 87 -260 and as amended in Resolution Number 99 -236, which is included in the Staff Report back -up materials. The proposed +/ -300 square -foot finger dock will consist of a 5 -foot wide access walkway with two boatlifts. The facility will protrude a total of 45.5 feet into a waterway that is approximately 420 feet wide MHWL (Mean High Water Line) to MHWL. There is no dredging proposed for this project. BD- PL2010 -1473, Page I of 7 266 3rd. Street W., Lot 8. August 19, 2011 UZ O LLI Q 00 w O IL J Z 0 O U W W J 3 M ION / Z N I `d g N IS LYF 3 ® W m N O W ~ i oaft W m LLj m W rz —(q W VVtll MNIWVl m 'moo O Q N rOQ N Oa NO Q O r> N U O J ,; iA >s W G i of W 0 pV�pi 3nma niea3armn n m W cr: m W ° N N jr Z (n O s LU N N r i v U Q i z m- r i \ cn I fl o m mm 0 m ( 6 co \V m> U ® rn I S a ( 1 j o H m U m\ oC) ^00 I 1 W Wm w i - `m >° m (n O m 1 1 ° m ? ° 0 >m m i¢ . 1S3M 1332iLS aNIHl 1 m m m oz) °m °m m° m I I aI m 0 I --------------- —7 r m r i 0 w U_ i = J U } LL U pp .. F r O m w Jmm k'n .m > to J UZ O LLI Q 00 w O IL J Z 0 O U W W J 3 M ION / Z I `d g N IS LYF 3 is i oaft 9 d LLj t F VVtll MNIWVl 'moo O r M U O J TAMMI TPAL IS 9 d 1 t F VVtll MNIWVl TAMMI TPAL IS 9 d t z O r M U O J >s G � 3nma niea3armn n m GULF OF MEXICO x99931N�nB U Q 75 V z z O N 0 0 N J d m Z O F H W a CL 9 d t z O r M U O 0 0 N J d m Z O F H W a SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Vacant Boat Dock Lot, with a zoning designation of RSF -4 SURROUNDING: North: 3rd Street West, then Boat Dock Lots, with a zoning designation of RSF -4 East: Boat Dock Lots, with a zoning designation of RSF -4 South: Little Hickory Bay, with a zoning designation of RSF -4 West: Boat Dock Lots, with a zoning designation of RSF -4 Aerial photo taken from Collier County Property Appraiser website. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: Environmental Services Staff has reviewed this petition and has no objection to the granting of this request. Section 5.03.06(E)(11) (Manatee Protection) of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) is applicable to all multi -slip docking facilities with ten (10) or more slips. The proposed facility consists of two boat slips and is therefore not subject to the provisions of this section. BD- PL2010 -1473, Page 3 of 7 266 3rd. Street W., Lot 8. August 19, 2011 STAFF COMMENTS: The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny, a dock facility extension request based on the following criteria. In order for the CCPC to approve this request, it must be determined that at least four of the five primary criteria and four of the six secondary criteria have been met. Staff has reviewed this petition in accordance with Section 5.03.06 and finds the following: Primary Criteria Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property. Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical single - family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi - family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate.) Criterion met. The proposed facility consists of a finger dock and two boat slips on a boat dock lot, which is consistent with the allowed 2 -slips per boat dock lot allowance. 2. Whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow that a vessel of the general length, type and draft as that described in the petitioner's application is unable to launch or moor at mean low tide (NMT). (The petitioner's application and survey should establish that the water depth is too shallow to allow launching and mooring of the vessel(s) described without an extension.) Criterion met. According to the petitioner's application, there are existing mangroves along the shoreline and the water depth at the site is not adequate to accommodate the 25 -foot vessel described in the petitioner's application without an extension. 3. Whether the proposed dock facility may have an adverse impact on navigation within an adjacent marked or charted navigable channel. (The facility should not intrude into any marked or charted navigable channel thus impeding vessel traffic in the channel.) Criterion met. According to the information submitted by the petitioner, there will be no impact on the navigable waterway as the project is located in a bay that does not contain marked navigable channels. Additionally, neighboring existing docks protrude similar distances, therefore this dock facility will not protrude into or have an adverse impact on navigation within the waterway. BD- PL2010 -1473, Page 4 of 7 266 3`d. Street W., Lot 8. August 19, 2011 4. Whether the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side is maintained for navigability. (The facility should maintain the required percentages.) Criterion met. According to the information provided by the petitioner, the waterway is 420 feet wide from MHW to MHW. The proposed facility will occupy about 11 percent or 45.5 feet of the 420 -foot navigable waterway width, which means that the proposed facility meets this criteria. 5. Whether the proposed location and design of the dock facility is such that the facility would not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. (The facility should not interfere with the use of legally permitted neighboring docks.) Criterion met. According to the drawings submitted by the petitioner, the proposed facility will not interfere with the use of neighboring docks. Secondary Criteria 1. Whether there are special conditions not involving water depth, related to the subject property or waterway, which justify the proposed dimensions and location of the proposed dock facility. (There must be at least one special condition related to the property; these may include type of shoreline reinforcement, shoreline configuration, mangrove growth, or seagrass beds.) Criterion met. The property is situated along a natural mangrove shoreline. The extension is necessary in order to minimize impacts to existing mangroves which protrude approximately 12 feet into the water. 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.) Criterion met. As shown on the drawings submitted by the petitioner, a 5 foot wide walkway extends to an angled bow access platform which allows safe access for loading /unloading deck and pontoon type vessels. A 4 foot wide walkway extends past the platform to the end of the dock facility which provides limited direct access to the vessels on the boatlifts for loading /unloading as well as routine maintenance. 3. For single - family dock facilities, whether the length of the vessel, or vessels in combination, described by the petitioner, exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront footage. (The applicable maximum percentage should be maintained.) ^ Criterion not applicable as this is a boat dock lot. BD- PL2010 -1473, Page 5 of 7 266 3r'. Street W., Lot 8. August 19, 2011 4. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of a neighboring property owner.) Criterion met. The proposed dock facility will not impact the view of the neighboring property owners. The lots in the area are all boat dock lots, and as such, there is no single family homes associated with the lots. 5. Whether seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06(1) of the LDC must be demonstrated.) Criterion met. According to the information submitted by the petitioner, no seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility or within this portion of Little Hickory Bay. Therefore, there will be no impact to seagrass beds. 6. Whether the proposed dock facility is subject to the manatee protection requirements of subsection 5.03.06(E)(11) of this Code. (If applicable, compliance with section 5.03.06(E)(11) must be demonstrated.) Criterion met. The proposed facility consists of two boat slips and is therefore not subject to the provisions of this section. Staff analysis indicates that the request meets all five of the primary criteria and all six of the secondary criteria. APPEAL OF BOAT DOCK EXTENSION TO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS: As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the CCPC takes action, an aggrieved petitioner, or adversely affected property owner, may appeal such final action to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Such appeal shall be filed with the Growth Management Division Administrator within 30 days of the action by the CCPC. In the event that the petition has been approved by the CCPC, the applicant shall be advised that he /she proceeds with construction at his/her own risk during this 30 -day period. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has. reviewed the staff report for BD- PL2010 -1473 dated August 19, 2011. BD- PL2010 -1473, Page 6 of 7 266 3rd. Street W., Lot 8. August 19, 2011 11 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, staff recommends that the CCPC approve Petition BD- PL2010 -1473. Attachments: A. Resolution B. Application C. Provisional Use 87 -260, D. Conditional Use 99 -236, E. Variance 2000 -51, reduced setbacks BY: Mll(,�iAVL SAWYER, PROJECT MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF L ND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEWED BY: ___111 /�� Y' Zvi,- RAY ND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES LIAM D. L NZ ., P.E., DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPR D BY: NICK CASALANGUIDA, hEOUTY ADMINISTRATOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION BD- PL2010 -1473, Page 7 of 7 266 3`d. Street W., Lot 8. August 19, 2011 r DATE DATE 0 & -2.(.--Zarb DATE A AGENDA ITEM 9 -D ^ Collier County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES - -LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION -- PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 RE: ORANGETREE PUD, PUDZ- 2003 -AR -3608 APPLICANT /AGENTS: Applicant: Orangetree Associates 4500 Executive Dr, Suite 110 Naples, FL 34119 REQUESTED ACTION: Agents: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Mulhere & Associates, LLC P.O. Box 1367 Marco Islands, FL 34146 Burt Saunders, Esquire Gray Robinson Law Firm 5551 Ridgewood Drive Suite 303 Naples, FL 34108 The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an amendment to the Orangetree PUD that would add 1,250 residential units for a total of 3,350 residential units of which 100 units may be resort lodging; to add 100,000 square feet of office use and add 172,000 square feet of retail use to the existing 60,000 square feet of retail for a total of 332,000 square feet of commercial development; to revise the development standards including building height and setbacks and to add allowable residential, commercial uses and mixed uses, and to delete environmental commitments for property. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 2138.76± acres, is north and east of the intersection of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) and Randall Boulevard, and bisected by Oil Well Road (C.R. 848) in Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 22 through 27, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida (See location map and proposed PUD Master Plan on the following pages.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Approval of this project would allow the following specific changes: Orangetree PUD, PUDZ - 2003 -AR -3608 Page 1 of 17 September 15, 2011 CCPC Devised: 9/7/11 31V05 01 iON / wor zJ�J U U W 3€ �z Z i 6z 'a'S w\ > U z w O 0 tr 7 Q O m pQQ n v d OJ IN m � r 0 U U � b �O J' M L96 '8'0 �� ^ U r Ys6 a•s SL —I aw >a Ca oz L.Vit� 5\ V Z Z O N a5 Z. O U O M O O N N a z 0 W a __ _E IN 1'111111 •' \1111111 / / / \tIlI111111Ni // - lllilll�t` 111111111111111. �r 7 S n'Y~i3 M __ __ ■■© _===NINE __ ■I.i _II�1� �_1111� I I�1�1 � „nom, � h� � ______.I�■ • �_ �., :_: _I�a ______■IE■ I __ 10=11 __ __ _ ■I.NI NI■., 111 ©0111 ° I ��- ___ ___ __ ■I.. �_1111111 111111111111111 _ _IIIIIIII x�' 1 :� 5 � f �� Fl a � — °l FS t ,� _1111111111 * me -_.� l w __I__I__IElm X11111111. ; m_ _m __ mi_i _ Jlt roi MEE_EN_EE_�EN ©111, V RTHI e r F_M -M _M _I� _111® PET I __ III_ � _11111111. .:f W \ 1 MINE INS 1111111111111111111 MEN Elm Wood I_ __ _ __ __ __a _ _ _ 111111 M_ _ 11MM �©__ __ 11111110 __ 11111 _� _1_ _ I_ _m __ ��_ __ __ Ne _ W _M _� _M _� ■N _W _W _I _NN' �E� _EN _ 1111110111 __ 11111101111111111111111 _ _w ©m _ce _ILL. _® _© __ _1_ ==ME 11111111811111F& �M_ __ __ _i_ __ __ 31V05 01 iON / wor zJ�J U U W 3€ �z Z i 6z 'a'S w\ > U z w O 0 tr 7 Q O m pQQ n v d OJ IN m � r 0 U U � b �O J' M L96 '8'0 �� ^ U r Ys6 a•s SL —I aw >a Ca oz L.Vit� 5\ V Z Z O N a5 Z. O U O M O O N N a z 0 W a 5 - N r' .,-O t_ .1 N 0 4 No 0 300 epd w W h M1 n � u u f(II �........... . i ex p zanlx..[ [sra *FF .... ......................................................................... --- - - - - -- zoxlNG: E -ara*� ................................ �7 EXISTING ACCESS POINT zawDEROw zawDElxow FUTURE ACCESS POINT P F . CU FUTURE R.O.W. —— EXISTING LAKE RESERVATION AG PRESERVE AREA (68.6 AC) a; •.nna.nnTl►` i ...................................................... I CH2M HILL 1 lI ORANGE BLOSSOM NATIVE VEGETATION NOTE: FUTURE RANDALL BOULEVARD EXPANSION UNE WORK T _. _y RANCH PUD - (NOT PAR( OF THE ORANGETREE PUD) MIN. PRESERVE REQUIRED= 259.4AC. NATIVE VEGETATIONX025= 61.9AC. 1 ` ORANGE BLOSSOM ) I f '` ■a ■.a.aa...aaa.... :� RANCH PUD ,r:; , i -i/ _ ,' - -- aa. a..aa....aa ` ••• EMERGENCY ACCESS (NOT PART OF THE ORANGETREE PUD) - AG --" - Jr—y I L MUM NC Oil J t REVISED PER 211512011 COUNTY COMMENTS Q REVISED AUGUST 8,2011 REVISED AUGUST 29, 2011 PER COUNTY COMMENTS r "7, SP 1 , . R-4 C- v GC C Al t i i +GC'- ORANGE BLOSSOM RANCH PUD (NOT PART OF THE ORANGETREE PUD) LAND USE SUMMARY: DESCRIPTION SYMBOL UNITS *ACREAGE AGRICULTURE AG — 198.3 GOLF COURSE (,I GC (b) 198.0 RESIDENTIAL (z) (R -2, R -3,& R4) 3,350,(b) 1316.7 SCHOOLS AND PARKS SP — 62.1 PUBLIC FACILITY PF — 147.0 COMMUNITYUSE CU — 155.2 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL NC (a) 23.9 OFFICE COMMERCIAL OC (a) 9.4 MIXED USE/ UTILITY MU /U (a),(b) 28.2 TOTAL: 3,350 2,138.8 (1) GOLF COURSE ACREAGE INCLUDES LAKES AND PRESERVE AREAS INTERNAL TO THE GOLF COURSE LAND USE DESIGNATION. (2) RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE INCLUDES R.O.W., LAKES AND PRESERVE AREAS INTERNAL TO THE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION. (a) TOTAL COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE WITHIN THE ORANGETREE PUD SHALL NOT EXCEED 332,000 SF GROSS BUILDING FLOOR AREA ALLOCATION OF SQUARE FOOTAGE BETWEEN NC, OC & MU SHALL BE DETERMINED ATTIME OF DEVELOPMENT ORDER. (b) TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS SHALL NOT EXCEED 3,350 UNITS IN RESIDENTIAL, MIXED USE AND GOLF COURSE AREAS. COLLIER COUNTY ROAD EXPANSION ( RANDALL BLVD.) RESERVA71ONFOR *5.6 AG LAKE SITE 1 FGFNn. ..........: f(II �........... ORANGETREE PUD BOUNDARY --- - - - - -- LAND USE DESIGNATION BORDER - -' > EXISTING ACCESS POINT zawDEROw zawDElxow FUTURE ACCESS POINT I 1 EXISTING R.O.W. J z: FUTURE R.O.W. —— EXISTING LAKE RESERVATION FUTURE LAKE PRESERVE AREA (68.6 AC) NOTE: 1) THE LOCATIONS, AMOUNTS AND CONFIGURATIONS OF DEPICTED IMPROVEMENTS ARE CONCEPTUALLY SHOWN FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES AND ARE SUBJECT TO GRANGE DURING FINAL DESIGN AND PERMITTING WATER MANAGEMENT AREAS MAY BE RELOCATED AND SUCH CHANGES WILL BE CONSIDERED MINOR AND CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED P.U.D. MASTER PLAN. 2) SEE ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL INTERSECTION INFORMATION 3) ACCESS POINTS SHOWN WITHIN THE PIA MASTER PLAN ARE CONSIDERED CONCEPTUAL AND SUBJECT TO LDC SECTION 6.06.0i.C.1 &2 FINAL LOCATION & NUMBER HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED BY COUNTY. w E-4 w EnO � M W Q c4 q0 W >w E�- :D W Cw7 w d ¢wz rl o Oc> Q D 0. LTj c O � mw w a i= R: 1W � er. T®1 W=:.. :�mm® m o .nn AIL tun 10457 PUDA_mst ... AIO..LT f 10 -0044 A.O. t1Iw % L700S PI ID.A SHEET 1 Or 1 f(II EASTDER .ea. �• WEST LIMff zawDEROw zawDElxow ROADWAY NOTES: 10457 2a WIDE ROW zaxixx.e -esraa j� - axixo.e -es:a� RESERVATION RESERVATION •FUTURE OIL WELL ROAD EXPANSION LINE WORK PROVIDED BY RESERVATION I CH2M HILL lI NATIVE VEGETATION NOTE: FUTURE RANDALL BOULEVARD EXPANSION UNE WORK MIN. PRESERVE REQUIRED= 259.4AC. NATIVE VEGETATIONX025= 61.9AC. PROVIDED BY COLLIER COUNTY TECM PRESERVE PROVIDED= 616 AG ••• EMERGENCY ACCESS • add 1,250 Dwelling Units (DUs) [increase from 2,100 to 3,350 DUs] resulting in a gross density of 1.6 DU /A (increase from 0.99 DU /A); • delete existing commercial uses (generally comparable to C -3 zoning district) in the Commercial/Neighborhood District, and rename and divide that District into two Districts —Neighborhood Commercial (NC), allowing 232,000 square feet of C -1 through C -3 with some C -4 uses, and Office Commercial (OC), allowing 100,000 square feet of C -1 through C -3 type uses and up to 15,000 square feet of NC uses if not utilized in the NC area; • delete the 15 -acre utility site and replace it with a new 28.2 -acre Mixed Use/Utility District to allow residential, commercial, essential service and group housing uses, with C -3 uses allowed by right, C -3 conditional uses and C -4 permitted uses allowed by conditional use; • add 11.3 acres of commercial designation (increase from 22 to 33.3 acres); • add 272,000 square feet of commercial (increase from 60,000 to 332,000 square feet), with the 332,000 square feet total to be allowed in the Neighborhood Commercial, Office Commercial and Mixed Use/Utility Districts in aggregate; • increase agriculture district by 67.3 acres (from 131 to 198.3 acres); • decrease golf course district by 2 acres (from 200 to 198 acres); • eliminate the R -1 Residential category, allow 100 dwelling units in the R -3 or R -4 category to be developed as resort lodging units, and, add an R4 Residential category; • delete the market absorption schedule; • revise the PUD Master Plan, including acreage changes to other PUD Districts; and, • make other minor and incidental changes. Background The subject site was originally platted in the late 1960s /early 1970s and was known as North Golden Gate (NGG). It was designated Urban on the future land use map, and contained multiple zoning districts (single family, multi- family, commercial, industrial, community use [school, park, utility], golf course). Land clearing, excavation, grading and other physical development activities were commenced. In 1981, the Future Land Use Map was amended to designate the subject area as Rural. In 1982, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) rezoned the property to A -1, Agricultural, which permitted a variety of agricultural uses, and one DU /5 acres as an accessory use. Subsequently, the property owner filed a lawsuit against Collier County based on vesting claims. On January 27, 1986, the property owner and BCC executed a "Settlement and Zoning Agreement" that included a rezoning of the property to "PUD by Settlement." The County agreed to that rezoning "based on its finding that the proposed project would have far less impact on county and regional facilities and the environment than the original North Golden Gate subdivision." The "Zoning and Development Document" (subsequently known as Orangetree PUD document) allowed 2,100 dwelling units on 826 acres; 22 acres of commercial development; 1,600 acres of agricultural uses; a 200 acre golf course - allowed within the Agricultural or Residential areas; and, 95 acres of community uses [fairgrounds, school, park, utility, etc.]). Also, the Residential area allowed, subject to site development plan approval, Orangetree PUD, PUDZ- 2003 -AR -3608 Page 2 of 17 September 15, 2011 CCPC Revised: 917/11 churches, schools, civic and cultural facilities, private clubs, owner- occupied childcare center, /0-111 rest home, foster home, hospice, rehabilitation center. On April 8, 1986, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), in response to applications filed by the landowner, rendered a Binding Letter of Interpretation of Vested Rights Status/ Binding Letter of Interpretation of Modification to a Development of Regional Impact With Vested Rights/Vested Rights Status Notification. The Binding Letter included these findings, conclusions and order: • the developer had vested rights to develop the original NGG subdivision; • NGG constituted a DRI; • the changes to that vested DRI development plan, as depicted in the "Zoning and Development Document" approved by Collier County (subsequently known as Orangetree PUD), would result in substantially less development than the NGG vested development plan, and would result in a reduction of regional impacts; • "As those changes described in your application for this letter have been approved by local government and incorporated into a new development order [original Orangetree PUD], they constitute the vested plan of development for North Golden Gate and must be followed by you;" • "If any further changes are proposed to this project, they should be submitted by you to this agency [DCA] so that they may be compared together with their impacts to the plan now found to be vested in this letter [original Orangetree PUD];" • "Therefore, all future changes to this modified development plan should be brought to the attention of this agency." (for purpose of determining if DRI thresholds are exceeded for any new development intensity beyond that which is vested). In 1987, the BCC amended the FLUE and Map to designate this area "Vested Area II." (The "settlement and zoning agreement" stated the County would change the designation to something other than Urban.) The FLUE provision included a list of the permitted uses, and referenced the "Zoning and Development Document" (PUD). The listed permitted uses included: agricultural uses and related facilities; residential uses - maximum of 2,100 dwelling units (DUs) and maximum height of two stories; neighborhood commercial and hotel/motel uses, not to exceed 22 acres; golf course, parks, playgrounds, and similar recreation and open space uses; community facilities, such as fairgrounds site, agricultural extension station, fire and police stations; educational facilities, religious facilities, governmental activities, and child care center; essential services. In 1989, with the adoption of the Growth Management Plan, the Orangetree area was designated Agricultural/Rural - Settlement Area in the FLUE. The same list of permitted uses from the previous comprehensive plan, and reference to the "Zoning and Development Document," was included. In 1991, the GGAMP was adopted; it maintained the Agricultural/Rural - Settlement Area designation, the same list of permitted uses, and reference to the "Zoning and Development Document." In 1991, the PUD by Settlement (original Orangetree PUD) was amended by Ordinance No. 91- 43. Changes included: correct error in total site acreage, reducing it from 2,798 to 2,752.8 acres; delete one Residential classification; increase /decrease the number of DUs and acreage in the Orangetree PUD, PUDZ - 2003 -AR -3608 Page 3 of 17 September 15, 2011 CCPC Revised: 917/11 remaining three Residential classifications, but maintaining the total approved DUs at 2,100; decrease Agricultural acreage; increase acreage for Community Use by converting 31 acres from Agriculture to Community Use for fairgrounds expansion; increase School/Park acreage by designating 11 acres within the Residential area as School -Park site to reflect a park site that had been previously approved by a site development plan, as allowed within the Residential area; increase Right -of -Way and Lake acreages substantially; modify certain residential development standards; add reservoirs/lakes as a permitted use in the Agricultural classification; add provision that precludes Collier County from requesting conveyance of the water and sewer facilities prior to January 1, 2001; and, make corresponding changes to PUD Master Plan. It is unknown for certain but appears that DCA was not consulted about these changes; however, there were no increases in the major DRI threshold determinants (# of DUs and amount of commercial development). In 1997, the County adopted the Evaluation and Appraisal Report-based amendments to the GMP. Changes to the Settlement Area District (in both the FLUE & GGAMP) included deleting the list of permitted uses and intensity thresholds, while maintaining reference to the "Zoning and Development Document." Subsequently, two private sector - initiated amendments to this District were approved (2001 and 2003). The purpose of the first amendment was to clarify allowed uses; the second was to clarify the ability to increase the use intensity beyond that which is "vested" (2,100 dwelling units and 22 acres of neighborhood commercial). In 2004, two amendments to the Orangetree PUD were approved. The first was to add schools and school facilities as an allowed use on lands designated as AG, Agriculture, on the PUD Master Plan; the second was to remove approximately 616 acres from the Orangetree PUD as a companion petition to a rezone of those 616 acres to the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING (Please refer to the Zoning May): North: a canal, then scattered development on lots with an Estates zoning designation South: Randall Boulevard, then scattered development on lots with an Estates zoning designation; the Randall Blvd Center PUD (sunsetted) which is undeveloped; the Mir -Mar PUD a commercially developed built -out (18,960 square feet total) PUD zoned project; and a Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control facility with conditional use approval within an Estates zoning designation (Resolution #01 -80) West: Immokalee Road, then scattered development on lots with an Estates zoning designation East: the Orange Blossom Ranch MPUD (Ordinance #04 -74) a 616± acre partially developed project that was approved for a maximum of 1,600 units at a density of 2.8 units per acre along with a 44 ± acre retail/office commercial area; then a canal; then scattered development on lots with a zoning designation of Estates Orangetree PUD, PUDZ - 2003 -AR -3608 Page 4 of 17 September 15, 2011 CCPC Revised: 917/11 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE):: The subject property is designated Agricultural/Rural — Settlement Area District, as identified on the Future Land Use Map in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) of the GMP. That District reads: Settlement Area District This area consists of Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, and a portion of 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 East (the former North Golden Gate Subdivision), which was zoned and platted between 1967 and 1970. In settlement of a lawsuit pertaining to the permitted uses of this property, this property has been "vested" for the types of land uses specified in that certain "PUD" by Settlement Zoning granted by the County as referenced in that certain SETTLEMENT AND ZONING AGREEMENT dated the 27th day of January, 1986. Twenty -one hundred (2,100) dwelling units and twenty -two (22) acres of neighborhood commercial uses and hotel/motel use are "vested ". This area is now comprised of the Orange Tree PUD and Orange Blossom Ranch PUD, and the types of uses permitted in this District include residential, earth mining, Orangetree PUD, PUDZ- 2003 -AR -3608 Page 5 of 17 September 15, 2011 CCPC Revised: 9/7/11 � commercial, agricultural, community facility, community uses, education facilities, religious facilities, golf course, open space and recreational uses, and essential service uses. By designation in the GMP and the GGAMP as Settlement Area, the Plan recognizes the property as an area which, while outside of the Urban Designation, is appropriate for the following types of uses: residential, earth mining, commercial, agricultural, community facility, community uses, education facilities, religious facilities, golf course, open space and recreational and essential services. Future zoning changes to add dwelling units or commercial acreage within the geographic boundaries of this District will not be prohibited or discouraged by reason of the above - referenced vested status....." Since the District does not include development intensity thresholds, and specifically provides that more dwelling units and commercial acreage may be added beyond that which the site is "vested" for, the proposed amendment may be found consistent with the Rural Settlement Area District in the GGAMP. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that this project can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan with the provision of mitigation that is stated in Section 11.02.0 Transportation of the PUD document. Staff required a phased, incremental traffic analysis that is intended to identify potential deficiencies on the local roadway network that is aligned with the developer's anticipated [gradual] buildout. In accordance with the requirements in -place at the time of the application submittal, the 3 % -3 % -5% significance threshold analysis was employed. Incremental analysis scenarios for 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030 were completed by the applicant's traffic engineer. In these incremental analyses, the following [significant] impacts of the comprehensive development are noted: In 2015, links 132 of Randal Boulevard is significantly impacted. Mitigation is provided to widen this segment of Randal Boulevard. No impacts exceed the minimum LOS on the impacted roadway(s). Oil Well Road, currently under construction in 2011, is assumed to be completed for capacity improvements in 2015. No impacts exceed the minimum LOS on the impacted roadway(s) with consideration for the assumed improvements. In 2020, links 45, and 46 on Immokalee Road; link 132 of Randal Boulevard; Link 119 of Oil Well Road are significantly impacted. No impacts exceed the minimum LOS on the impacted roadway(s) with consideration for the assumed improvements. Randal Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard are assumed to be complete for capacity improvements during this increment. In 2025, link 45 on Immokalee Road; links 132 and 133 of Randal Boulevard; Link 119 of Oil Well Road; and link 118 of Wilson Boulevard are significantly impacted. No impacts exceed the minimum LOS on the impacted roadway(s) with consideration for Orangetree PUD, PUDZ- 2003 -AR -3608 Page 6 of 17 September 15, 2011 CCPC Revised: 9/7/11 the assumed improvements. Immokalee Road (portion of link 46); and links 134 and 135 of Everglades Boulevard are assumed to be complete for capacity improvements during this increment. In 2030, links 44, 45, and 46 on Immokalee Road; links 132 and 133 of Randal Boulevard; Links 119, and 120 of Oil Well Road are significantly impacted. No, impacts exceed the minimum LOS on the impacted roadway(s) with consideration for the assumed improvements. Links 136 of Everglades Boulevard is assumed to be complete for capacity improvements during this increment. Proposed Mitigation: In addition to previous contributions made by the Developer, proposed mitigation includes contribution of proportionate share cost for installation of a signal at the Development's eastern- most access on Oil Well Road; donation of lands needed to widen Randal Boulevard along the property frontage (including water management); and accommodations for a new CAT bus shelter on Randal Boulevard. Multiple access management controls and interconnection requirements have been addressed by the project master plan. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental staff has evaluated the proposed PUD amendment for compliance with the CCME. Environmental review staff has determined the PUD amendment may be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element and Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning to CPUD. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff 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 if the conditions recommended by staff are adopted as part of any approval. ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings "), and Subsection 10.03.05.I, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings "), 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 Orangetree PUD, PUDZ- 2003 -AR -3608 Page 7 of 17 September 15, 2011 CCPC Revised: 9/7/11 11-IN 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 conditions contained in Exhibit F of the PUD document. The Environmental Advisory Council Board (EAC) approved the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project on November 3rd, 2004. This project was not required to go back to the EAC board for review since the identified general locations of the preserves were not changed. Rather the general preserve area was reconfigured to become one contiguous preserve. On -site native vegetation acreage was identified during the previously approved Preliminary Subdivision Plat (PSP- AR- 3344). The project site consisted originally of 259.4 acres of native vegetation that consisted of upland pine flatwoods, palmetto prairie, and cypress, cabbage palm wetlands. A minimum of 25 % of the existing native vegetation or 64.9 acres is required to be placed under preservation. A total of 68.6 acres of native vegetation preservation will be provided according to the current master site plan. Portions of the 68.6 acres of preserve have already been set aside during previously approved Plats. The remaining preserve will be set aside in the southeast corner of the property where the highest quality native vegetation within the PUD remains. Due to the highly disturbed nature of the site, few listed species were found on site. Listed species' identified on site include an American kestrel, alligator, and wild pine and Florida butterfly orchids. Wetlands on the property were identified in 1996 by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) during the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) process. There were 16 ^ wetland areas identified totaling 27.44 acres. During the SFWMD ERP (No.941104 -12) process, the permit authorized impact to a canal and 3.44 acres of wetland impact of which 1.22 acres required mitigation. Currently, only a portion of the previously authorized wetland impacts were done leaving 26.21 acres of wetlands remaining. Mitigation for all wetland impacts has been completed and no further wetland impacts are proposed. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right -of -way and access issues as well as roadway capacity, and recommends approval subject to the Developer /owner commitments as provided in Exhibit F of the MPUD ordinance. Utilities Review: Utilities Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document. Utilities staff and the petitioner's agents have been unable to agree upon specific language in the PUD document regarding Utilities provisions. Utilities staff has offered the following comments: Based on prior Agreements between the parties, the Collier County Water -Sewer District (CCWSD) may elect to assume the operations of the Orange Tree Utility System. Section 10.01 was negotiated with applicant's attorney in order to ease the transition if the CCWSD makes such election. If CCWSD takes over Orange Tree Utility System the underlying property owner of the Mixed Use/Utility Mu/U parcel would be required to grant the CCWSD utility easements. Orangetree PUD, PUDZ - 2003 -AR -3608 Page 8 of 17 September 15, 2011 CCPC Revised: 9/7/11 The Applicant has no objection to providing easements but requires assurance that when the CCWSD's regional utility system is operational the easements for the CCWSD's utility infrastructure located on the Mixed Use/Utility Mu/U that are no longer necessary to serve the Customer base in the Orangetree Utility Service Area will terminate or otherwise be vacated. The Public Utilities Division has no objection to this requirement. However, such requirement is not necessary to include in the PUDA because the termination language will be included in the easement instruments subject to CCWSD approval and acceptance, if and when the CCWSD assumes the operations of the Orange Tree Utility System. The applicants also desires to limit above ground facilities constructed by CCWSD on the Mixed Use/Utility Mu/U parcel so as not to impede its future development. According to Public Utilities Division the condition of the Orangetree Utility is presently unknown. In the near future, Public Utilities Division and its consultants will inspect the Orangetree Utility infrastructure. Once the condition is known, CCWSD will be in a better position to determine whether takeover is appropriate and if so, whether additional infrastructure is necessary to continue operations. Zoning Services Review: The Master Plan shows the areas proposed for development in conjunction with the Land Use Summary and Legend. Additionally, right -of -way areas are generally depicted. Due to the size of the project building orientation, location and other details are not shown on the Master Plan. As shown on the aerial photo earlier in this staff report, the PUD is partially developed. The subdivisions of Valencia Lakes, Valencia Golf and Country Club, Lake Lucerne, Orangetree Units One — Four (Citrus Greens) and Waterways of Naples, Units One — Six are within the Orangetree PUD, as are the Corkscrew Elementary and Middle Schools and the Palmetto Ridge High School and approximately 300 acres of county owned land. The Collier County Fairgrounds are included in the 300± county owned acres. Staff has concerns about the proposed 100 resort lodging units proposed for the R -3 and R -4 areas. These units could be as small as 350 square feet. Staff has concerns that these units could function more like a hotel/motel facilities rather than true residential uses. There is potential for a negative impact upon other conventional residents in those areas. The resort lodging units are also proposed for the Golf Course district; staff does not have any concerns with the use in that location, but believes 100 units could be excessive; however the uses should not impact other residents. Staff believes it is more appropriate to limit the resort lodging units tot eh Golf Course district. Staff also has concerns about the potential incompatibility between the OC district and the abutting single- family residences. This issue is discussed in more depth in the Findings of Fact. There remain unresolved issues about access as it is shown on the Master Plan. Orangetree PUD, PUDZ- 2003 -AR -3608 Page 9 of 17 September 15, 2011 CCPC Revised: 9/7/11 FINDINGS OF FACT: 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): 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 amendment and believes the uses and property development regulations are compatible with the development approved in the area. If staffs limitations are accepted, the commitments made by the applicant should provide adequate assurances that the proposed change should 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 [amendment] with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Zoning staff has analyzed the amendment request to ensure consistency with FLUE Policy 5.4 that requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses 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.). The density will increase overall, but the areas that will be developed with additional density should not negatively affect existing development, N staffs recommendation regarding the removal of the Resort Lodging units within the R-3 and R -4 districts. The amount of commercial square footage will increase; however, the project was originally approved to allow a comprehensive list of commercial uses. The uses are not significantly changing. The applicant is however adding a new commercial use area of 9.4 acres. This area will be for office use rather than retail uses and is identified on the Master Plan as OC. The OC tract abuts existing residential uses along Orange Grove Trail in Valencia Lakes Phase 1A Orangetree PUD, PUDZ - 2003 -AR -3608 Page 10 of 17 September 15, 2011 CCPC Revised: 9/7/11 and Inlet Cove Lane West in Valencia Lakes Phase 7A as shown on the following page. i i s' c s i R R � The applicant is proposing front yard setbacks of 20 feet, side yard setbacks of 0 or 5 feet; and rear yard setbacks of 15 feet with structures up to three stories high in 60 (actual) feet of height for uses within the OC District. The applicant has not proposed any details about the site development in the OC area, so staff has no details as to what setbacks would be applicable to separate office use from the existing single - family homes. Staff believes an increased buffer and setbacks to any single- family home are warranted, therefore staff suggests the applicant provide at least a 25 -foot wide setback to any residential use /area, and instead of the required type B buffer (15 -foot wide with a single row of shrubs and trees planted 25 feet apart), that a type C buffer (20 foot wide with a double row of staggered trees and a row of shrubs). Another area is being changed from Utility (I) to Mixed Use/Utility (MU/L). As proposed, that area could be re- developed with a variety of residential, group care facilities or commercial uses (up to C -3 zoning district uses). This MU/U area is adjacent to schools on two sides and abuts agricultural uses to the north. It is separated from any residential uses by Oil Well Road. Staff does not believe there will be compatibility issues arising from this proposed change. Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion and the discussion above. Based on those staff analyses, if staffs limitations are accepted, this petition may be found consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Staff has reviewed the proposed uses and believes that the project will be compatible with the surrounding area and internally, subject to approval of the project commitments. Orangetree PUD, PUDZ- 2003 -AR -3608 Page 11 of 17 September 15, 2011 CCPC Revised: 9/7/11 S. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of native preserve 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. The project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. Additionally, the PUD document contains additional developer commitments that should help ensure there are adequate facilities available to serve this project. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as road capacity, wastewater disposal system, and potable water supplies (with the mitigation provided in the PUD document and the DRI DO) to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The petitioner is not seeking any deviations that would allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06.A). Rezone Findines: 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 FLUE and zoning analyses provide an in -depth review of the proposed project. Staff is of the opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with neighborhood development. Staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP if staffs conditions of approval are adopted. The petition can also be deemed consistent with the CCME. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP subject to staffs conditions of approval. 2 The existing land use pattern; Orangetree PUD, PUDZ- 2003 -AR -3608 Page 12 of 17 September 15, 2011 CCPC Revised: 9/7/11 ^ Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report. Staff believes the proposed amendment is appropriate given the existing land use pattern around the tract, and development restrictions included in the PUD. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The proposed PUD amendment does not create an isolated zoning district because the amendment does not add any land to the originally approved PUD boundaries. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. As shown on the zoning map included at the beginning of this report, the existing district boundaries are logically drawn and as noted previously, no changes to zoning boundaries are proposed as part of this amendment. The PUD zoning boundaries follow the property ownership boundaries. The location map illustrates the perimeter of the outer boundary of the subject parcel. S. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed rezone is not necessary, per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek the amendment that would allow the owner the opportunity to develop the land in ways other than what the existing zoning would allow. The applicant's ^ request is consistent with the proposed GMPA. 6 Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendment, with the commitments made by the applicant, can been deemed consistent County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Development in compliance with the proposed PUD document 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 with the mitigation that will be provided by the developer. Staff believes the petition can be deemed consistent with all elements of the GMP if the mitigation is included in any recommendation of approval. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed amendment should not create drainage or surface water problems. The developer of the project will be required to obtain a surface water management permit ^ from the SFWMD prior to approval of a local site development plan. The conceptual Orangetree PUD, PUDZ- 2003 -AR -3608 Page 13 of 17 September 15, 2011 CCPC Revised: 9/7/11 master plan identifies the conceptual location of the water management areas which will be a component of the water management system. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this amendment petition is approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document and the applicable federal, state and local regulations. 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 conditions. 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 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 subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning designation; however, the petitioner is seeking this amendment in compliance with LDC provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed amendment 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 large, multi- faceted, mixed use development on 2,139+- acres. The non - residential uses will be located along Immokalee Road (OC) and/or at the corners of Immokalee Road and Oil Well Road or Immokalee Road and Randall Boulevard (NC), or in the MUM tract along Oil Well Road. Residential uses will be located throughout the project on either side of Oil Well Road. The largest preserve area is located Orangetree PUD, PUDZ - 2003 -AR -3608 Page 14 of 17 September 15, 2011 CCPC Revised: 9/7/11 in the southeastern corner of the site, with other smaller preserve areas shown south of Oil n Well Road also. The overall project density of 1.6 units per acre makes the project a low density project although it is an increase in the originally approved 0.99 units per acre. The project has been evaluated for compliance with the GMP and found to be consistent with the GMP requirements. The GMP is a policy statement, which has evaluated the scale, density, and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed ,on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed amendment 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. Most new development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration. This project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. 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 and the DRI DO. 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 VdM): The petitioner's agents held the duly noticed NIM on June 29, 2011 at 5:30 p.m. at the Collier County UFAFAS Extension Office, Naples, Florida. The agent explained the proposed amendment and responded to questions from attendees. The agent has provided a recap of the meeting; that recap is included in the application material. Orangetree PUD, PUDZ- 2003 -AR -3608 Page 15 of 17 September 15, 2011 CCPC Revised: 9/7111 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAQ RECOMMENDATION: The Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) reviewed this project on November 3, 2004. The EAC voted 5 to 0 to recommend approval. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for this petition on September 6, 2011. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ- 2003 -AR -3608 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval subject to staff's conditions of approval as listed below: The PUD document shall be revised to reflect the following: 1. Remove Resort Lodging Units from the R -3 and R -4 areas; and 2. In the OC district, provide a 25- foot -wide setback to any residential use /area; 3. In the OC district provide a type C buffer between any uses and residential uses. Orangetree PUD, PUDZ- 2003 -AR -3608 Page 16 of 17 September 15, 2011 CCPC Revised: 9/7111 PREPARED BY: CA� g.-f� KA SELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEWED BY: Z?5�� ( ZiA= S-31-11 RAYMOND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES i'&- x:�E I o °j -06 Z.©il ILLIAM 6. L NZ, R., P.E., DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPROVED BY: 47 -2 -11 NI44�� N *TY ADMINISTRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the October 11, 2011 Board of County Commissioners Meeting Orangetree PUD, PUDZ- 2003 -AR -3608: Page 17 of 17 September 15, 2011 CCPC Revised: 8/24/11