The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Agenda 05/03/2012 R & LDCCCPC REGULAR MEETING AGENDA MAY 12012 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2012, 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: April 5, 2012 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD, Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency, represented by Banks Engineering and Pizzuti Solutions LLC, is requesting a rezone from the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Connnercial Convenience Zoning District (C- 2- BMUD -NC), and the Neighborhood Commmercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the General Commercial Zoning District (C4- BMUD -NC), and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Mobile Home Zoning District (MH- BMUD -NC), to the Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district to be known as Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD. The 17.89 acre site is proposed to permit 48,575 square feet of commercial (retail, office and medical office) development, a 350 seat theatre, 84,000 square feet of parking garage and 40 residential units. The subject site is located within the Bayshore Drive Misted Use Overlay District at 4265 and 4315 Bayshore Drive in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD -- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Naples View RPUD to allow construction of a maximum of sixty -six residential dwelling units on property located at 6900 Airport Road North in Section 01, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 11 +/- acres; and by providing an effective date [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] B. BDE- PL20110001573: Jaffe Boat Dock Extension- A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Cominission relating to Petition Number BDE- PL2011 -1573 for a 19 foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20 foot limit provided in Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code to allow for a 39 foot boat dock facility in an RSF -3 zone on property hereinafter described in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager] C. VA- PL2011 -1576: Jaffe Variance - A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, relating to Petition Number VA- PL2011 -1576, for a variance from Land Development Code Section 5.03.06.E.5 to permit a reduced side yard (riparian) setback from 7.5 feet to 0 feet on property located at 10091 Gulf Shore Drive, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] D. SV- PL20110002805: Agave Grill, A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida relating to Petition Number SV- PL20110002805 granting a variance from Section 5.06.04.17 of the Land Development Code to allow two wall signs on one building consisting of an existing wall sign of 93.33 square feet on the northern building fagade and a second wall sign of up to 96 square feet on the western fagade of its building which building is located at 2380 Vanderbilt Beach Road in Section 02, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner] E. ST -PL -2012- 0000900: Marco Island Executive Airport Expansion Special Treatment Permit: requesting an After - the -Fact Special Treatment development permit for an airport taxiway and associated structures that have been constructed within a Special Treatment overlay (ST) for a project known as the Marco Island Executive Airport, located in Sections 26 and 35, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinators: Chris D'Arco, Environmental Specialist & Fred Reischl, AICP, Senior Planner] 10. OLD BUSINESS A. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending ordinance number 04 -41, as amended, the collier county land development code, by amending certain sections as authorized by the Board of County Commissioners. [Coordinator: Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner] 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows /jmp AGENDA ITEM 9 -A Co *er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES - -LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION -- PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: MAY 3, 2012 SUBJECT: PUDZ- PL20110001519: NAPLES VIEW RPUD PROPERTY OWNER & APPLICANT /AGENT: Owner /Applicant: W. Stephen Hagenbuckle, Managing Member for Naples View LLC 1314 Cape Coral Parkway, Suite 320 Cape Coral, FL 33904 REOUESTED ACTION: Ament: Alexis Crespo, AICP Waldrop Engineering, P.A. 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Suite 305 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for a rezone from the Rural Agricultural Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit Development District (RPUD) Zoning District to allow development of a maximum of 66 dwelling units. For details about the project proposal, refer to "Purpose/Description of Project." GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 11.3± acres, is locate d Road, approximately 800 feet south of the intersection of 31) and Orange Blossom Drive, in Section 1, Township County, Florida. (See location map on the following page) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: on the east side of Airport- Pulling Airport- Pulling Road (County Road 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier The petitioner is requesting a rezone from the Rural Agricultural zoning district to the RPUD zoning district to allow development of a maximum of 66 dwelling units, that could be PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Page 1 of 20 May 3, 2012 CCPC Revised 4112/12 mm m ION / 7 ow M- Q z z O N CQ G z O Q U O J 0 N J 0 D a z 0 tz H W a aaVn3Y108 NVDOI OWA3'InDB vavewe v1NVS o st- alrisa3lw 00 01 t ama �b pg5� 16NYR wxN LMNGSTON ROM WW qq {pR _ st aVOa N ISDMM a�rrmd ND� F moa �Nmnraaoean &$ � 5 � afoa iaodan � �] AMM 3 $ g ps N WW aMH aLUIOD W -Or t9p �J woya� �t�113,� `J (t5Y'EfO) avow NNVa}3u3,000O " ig${�is, n F s a n i 69'S'N litlal WMMI (Wvo -IT wMRVl n Q z z O N CQ G z O Q U O J 0 N J 0 D a z 0 tz H W a 9N1l133N19N3 1 U } v~i w m Z to F w Z � g a J X CL � Z � Z O N J m Z Z w g 9Z F- O c? J W LL ..ZL IIHIHX3 NV7d N3lSYW Mid •D'I'I `MgIA Sg'IdVN :.LM91ID nkaln SHIJVN 'STN �31V�S / J zZ O ��a �3 �w OtAUOgtat LL WE (r LL0-L U � 0 00 OLL Zcn ZJZO Rio 0. LL LL mo a m cn ' J LY�p Itu w W W W � 1 L LL LLJ�LL J(] D20D —w uj 1 J m LL J m w 1 g ¢'LUL ac7¢aFa �uZ o W� LL I D I z LU o m I In Q 0 b I I co v �aIx LU Zed I Lu OZa °DJ WNW W m I U0, I m co L I O LY O y OLL LL o g Z I I I W I U } v~i w m Z to F w Z � g a J X CL � Z � Z O N J m Z Z w g 9Z F- O c? J W LL ..ZL IIHIHX3 NV7d N3lSYW Mid •D'I'I `MgIA Sg'IdVN :.LM91ID nkaln SHIJVN 1 Z / J zZ O ��a �3 �w OtAUOgtat LL WE (r LL0-L Y <0 00 OLL Zcn ZJZO Rio U, CL mo a m cn ' J O � W W W � 1 / J J Q W F- Z J W J ' w U, CL z ' J 0a 1 uj 1 J J � w 1 g g I Z Q F I ° LLl U I I OWLL Lr w I 'M'o•a LL m U W I F i U I z tY I J ~ I _ J LLI i l O CL F � I w I i m wv Of I I 9 Y O Z w O U � Q � LL o 0 ¢aa LLI woa °Z- W a W o W � L O m J � LL W m j W 0 a z � g 0 z N W Z I I W Q W I w J ' J p I ' Of L= Z a mo a~ 0 1 wJ I Q— V) Z W a U 0: I z L) d I O w of O�LL I zF- W I aZ -D I oW� IzF I oLL �� zF °ALL I mW a I tY 0 --- ------------ - --- -- g - IVNVO OVOZ112lOdiIR/_ - -_.._ C=J 1-- ----'- lY Q = d LL O ow J — aVOa `JNillLld 1LIOd211tl coy O co LL S1N3WW00 .LLNnoo U3d 03SIA3H ZL/90 /40 Nv ; S1N3WWOO AiNnoo N3d 03SI/L3a ZL/LO/£0 i S-LN3WWOD kiNnoo Had 03SIMN LL /LZ2L F- z - 0 I �� w F- U 0 i ^ l �' a° LLFa Rh a Al Cni Q 177f1 .L Od2IId j • -- Ir wQ — Z Q a Ix F- FZ Zw W a W (n ao Q� to O j ozF Z H w W F L.:. W J w ZQC7 F LLWI Q j0� Oa Z W� U j Z ao� X0 ¢O z �� woz w W adw w La wo:o J UOa ,g;- F- z0 pa ZF Qoa z ol= LLaF6 OWZ w2a QW Z� —W w tnmw cQQ9oto w �w o -�,aWW z ZOQ W ~� w1 QU)M5 w gcoLL fY�o g Ww oWwo acn0 aid ui 0: OJ Jju 0 =z? -izU- � oz MM F-Q F- <WO J z F-LLZZ 1- N M 4 LC) LL W o 0 0 0 00 w Q N J a am D a o F U o 0 o F Q w J V'' to O F- U a U_ Z !(j W O lY LI aF ¢ w it H +L 41 lY O ch N f0 N cl W Cl) V N Q C7 �5 +i ii fl Z C In co cn Z) c a m m e U) w U) Q IJ J Z J U O a Q F J O w o) 0 z F U W w ? z 0. U m (� Z O a N O W O O W O Cl) w w O J >> a Y K O IL Z a m as W o g D Ix w 11 0 a o a Q O 02 a F U a wv ev�sv =ol alorrsro B+P'tm-LOm0S9Z1£O -.vwoW LO-LO59znv3-111vv— IAealdeN L0- 99Z1 :f Y O Z w O U � Q � LL o 0 ¢aa LLI woa °Z- W a W o W � L O m J � LL W m j W 0 a z � g 0 z N W Z I I W Q W I w J ' J p I ' Of L= Z a mo a~ 0 1 wJ I Q— V) Z W a U 0: I z L) d I O w of O�LL I zF- W I aZ -D I oW� IzF I oLL �� zF °ALL I mW a I tY 0 --- ------------ - --- -- g - IVNVO OVOZ112lOdiIR/_ - -_.._ C=J 1-- ----'- lY Q = d LL O ow J — aVOa `JNillLld 1LIOd211tl coy O co LL S1N3WW00 .LLNnoo U3d 03SIA3H ZL/90 /40 Nv ; S1N3WWOO AiNnoo N3d 03SI/L3a ZL/LO/£0 i S-LN3WWOD kiNnoo Had 03SIMN LL /LZ2L F- z - 0 I �� w F- U 0 i ^ l �' a° LLFa Rh a Al Cni Q 177f1 .L Od2IId j • -- Ir wQ — Z Q a Ix F- FZ Zw W a W (n ao Q� to O j ozF Z H w W F L.:. W J w ZQC7 F LLWI Q j0� Oa Z W� U j Z ao� X0 ¢O z �� woz w W adw w La wo:o J UOa ,g;- F- z0 pa ZF Qoa z ol= LLaF6 OWZ w2a QW Z� —W w tnmw cQQ9oto w �w o -�,aWW z ZOQ W ~� w1 QU)M5 w gcoLL fY�o g Ww oWwo acn0 aid ui 0: OJ Jju 0 =z? -izU- � oz MM F-Q F- <WO J z F-LLZZ 1- N M 4 LC) LL W o 0 0 0 00 w Q N J a am D a o F U o 0 o F Q w J V'' to O F- U a U_ Z !(j W O lY LI aF ¢ w it H +L 41 lY O ch N f0 N cl W Cl) V N Q C7 �5 +i ii fl Z C In co cn Z) c a m m e U) w U) Q IJ J Z J U O a Q F J O w o) 0 z F U W w ? z 0. U m (� Z O a N O W O O W O Cl) w w O J >> a Y K O IL Z a m as W o g D Ix w 11 0 a o a Q O 02 a F U a wv ev�sv =ol alorrsro B+P'tm-LOm0S9Z1£O -.vwoW LO-LO59znv3-111vv— IAealdeN L0- 99Z1 :f S1N3WW00 .LLNnoo U3d 03SIA3H ZL/90 /40 Nv ; S1N3WWOO AiNnoo N3d 03SI/L3a ZL/LO/£0 i S-LN3WWOD kiNnoo Had 03SIMN LL /LZ2L F- z - 0 I �� w F- U 0 i ^ l �' a° LLFa Rh a Al Cni Q 177f1 .L Od2IId j • -- Ir wQ — Z Q a Ix F- FZ Zw W a W (n ao Q� to O j ozF Z H w W F L.:. W J w ZQC7 F LLWI Q j0� Oa Z W� U j Z ao� X0 ¢O z �� woz w W adw w La wo:o J UOa ,g;- F- z0 pa ZF Qoa z ol= LLaF6 OWZ w2a QW Z� —W w tnmw cQQ9oto w �w o -�,aWW z ZOQ W ~� w1 QU)M5 w gcoLL fY�o g Ww oWwo acn0 aid ui 0: OJ Jju 0 =z? -izU- � oz MM F-Q F- <WO J z F-LLZZ 1- N M 4 LC) LL W o 0 0 0 00 w Q N J a am D a o F U o 0 o F Q w J V'' to O F- U a U_ Z !(j W O lY LI aF ¢ w it H +L 41 lY O ch N f0 N cl W Cl) V N Q C7 �5 +i ii fl Z C In co cn Z) c a m m e U) w U) Q IJ J Z J U O a Q F J O w o) 0 z F U W w ? z 0. U m (� Z O a N O W O O W O Cl) w w O J >> a Y K O IL Z a m as W o g D Ix w 11 0 a o a Q O 02 a F U a wv ev�sv =ol alorrsro B+P'tm-LOm0S9Z1£O -.vwoW LO-LO59znv3-111vv— IAealdeN L0- 99Z1 :f Ir wQ — Z Q a Ix F- FZ Zw W a W (n ao Q� to O j ozF Z H w W F L.:. W J w ZQC7 F LLWI Q j0� Oa Z W� U j Z ao� X0 ¢O z �� woz w W adw w La wo:o J UOa ,g;- F- z0 pa ZF Qoa z ol= LLaF6 OWZ w2a QW Z� —W w tnmw cQQ9oto w �w o -�,aWW z ZOQ W ~� w1 QU)M5 w gcoLL fY�o g Ww oWwo acn0 aid ui 0: OJ Jju 0 =z? -izU- � oz MM F-Q F- <WO J z F-LLZZ 1- N M 4 LC) LL W o 0 0 0 00 w Q N J a am D a o F U o 0 o F Q w J V'' to O F- U a U_ Z !(j W O lY LI aF ¢ w it H +L 41 lY O ch N f0 N cl W Cl) V N Q C7 �5 +i ii fl Z C In co cn Z) c a m m e U) w U) Q IJ J Z J U O a Q F J O w o) 0 z F U W w ? z 0. U m (� Z O a N O W O O W O Cl) w w O J >> a Y K O IL Z a m as W o g D Ix w 11 0 a o a Q O 02 a F U a wv ev�sv =ol alorrsro B+P'tm-LOm0S9Z1£O -.vwoW LO-LO59znv3-111vv— IAealdeN L0- 99Z1 :f a Q O 02 a F U a wv ev�sv =ol alorrsro B+P'tm-LOm0S9Z1£O -.vwoW LO-LO59znv3-111vv— IAealdeN L0- 99Z1 :f comprised of single - family detached, zero -lot line, two- family, duplex and townhome units along with customary residential development accessory uses. The petitioner proposes to use Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) allowances to increase density over the 3 units per acre base density if additional units above the base density are constructed. Please refer to the GMP discussion for more details about the TCMA. The Master Plan shows one access point onto Airport Pulling Road, a vehicular/bicycle /pedestrian access to the north, two different residential tracts —Tract RI and Tract R2, along with areas depicting a lake, rights -of -way, buffers, and optional recreation areas. Tract RI proposes single - family detached, zero lot line, and two - family /duplex dwelling units. Tract R2 allows the uses in R1 and townhouse units also. There is no preserve requirement for this site. The petitioner is seeking approval of five deviations for this petition. These are discussed later in this report. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: A nine± acre tract developed as a landscape nursery, with a sunsetted PUD zoning designation (Longview Center PUD, a mixed use project -- Ordinance # 03 -41); and a portion of Walden Oaks residential subdivision, with a zoning designation of PUD (Lone Oak) that was approved at a density of 6.32 units per acre with structures up to three stories in height (last amended in Ordinance # 89 -30) East: A residential portion of Walden Oaks subdivision, with a zoning designation of PUD (Lone Oak) that was approved at a density of 6.32 units per acre with structures up to three stories in height (last amended in Ordinance # 89 -30) South: office uses within the Walden Oaks Professional Center subdivision, with a zoning designation of PUD (Lone Oak) that was last amended in Ordinance # 89 -30 West: Airport- Pulling Road; then an undeveloped 10f acre tract with a Rural Agriculture zoning designation and The Carlisle at Naples, a retirement facility with a zoning designation of Rural Agriculture with a Conditional Use for a group care facility (Resolution 96 -405) PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Page 2 of 20 May 3, 2012 CC PC Revised 4/12/12 n Aerial Photo (subject site depiction is approximate) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is located within the Urban designated area (Urban — Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) and is within the Traffic Congestion Boundary, as identified on the countywide Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Also, the property is located within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) as identified in the Transportation Element. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of 4 DU /A. This district is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non - residential uses, including mixed -use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. The Subdistrict also provides for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. Review of the Density Rating System deems this project eligible for a base density of 4 DU /A, and a density reduction of 1 DU /A, because it is located within the Traffic Congestion Area. The applicant has proposed to use the Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) Density Bonus units, which allow for up to 3 additional DUs /A. The resulting eligible density of 6 DU /A yields a total of 68 DUs. PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Page 3 of 20 May 3, 2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 Pursuant to FLUE Policy 6.3, the subject property may only qualify for the TCMA density bonus of 3 additional DUs /A provided that at least 2 of the 5 criteria below are met. The criteria are stated in italics; followed by staff comment in bold. a) Include neighborhood commercial uses within a residential project. [This criterion is Mot proposed by this application.] b) Providing transit shelters within the development (must be coordinated with Collier County Transit). [This criterion is not proposed by this application.] c) Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connections to abutting commercial properties. [The applicant is proposing bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the project and an interconnection with the Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict, located north of the subject property.] d) Including affordable housing (minimum of 25% of the units) within the development. [This criterion is not proposed by this application.] e) Vehicular access to abutting commercial properties. [The applicant is proposing a vehicular interconnection with the Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict, located north of the subject property.] FLUE Objective 7 and relevant policies are stated below (in italics); each policy is followed by staff analysis (in bold). Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. (The n project's entrance is provided from Airport- Pulling Road, an arterial roadway.) 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. (The RPUD Conceptual Master Plan does not depict a loop road within the project and contains only one entrance. The subject site is a small infill property with all future development accessing the internal road. However, the applicant has proposed, through the TCMA density bonus provision, a vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle access to the Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict, located north of the subject site.) Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. (The subject site is a small infill property with limited interconnection /access potential to neighboring properties. However, the applicant has proposed, through the TCMA density bonus provision, a vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle access to the Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict , located north of the subject site.) Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. (The RPUD will be developed with an internal sidewalk system that connects to the existing sidewalk along Airport Pulling Road. Additionally, the RPUD is proposed to PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Page 4 of 20 May 3, 2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 include various housing types, including single family, patio homes, and townhome dwellings; potential recreational facilities; and a vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle access to the mixed use subdistrict north of the subject site.) Economic Element: Policy 1.9: Collier County, in response to the current and projected needs of its residents, will encourage a diverse mix of housing types, sizes, prices, and rents. (The subject rezone proposes the development of various housing types, including single family, and townhome dwellings, etc.; housing prices and/or rents have not been disclosed.) Comprehensive Planning staff concludes the proposed development may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and the applicable Policy of the Economic Element as noted above. 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). Airport- Pulling Road Impacts: The first concurrency link that is impacted by this project is Link 2.2, Airport- Pulling Road between Orange Blossom Drive and Pine Ridge Road. The project generates 29 net new p.m. peak hour, peak direction trips, which represents a 0.70% impact (1.13% coincide with the `off - '1' peak' network direction). This segment of Airport- Pulling Road currently has a remaining capacity of 1,880 trips, and is currently at LOS "C" as reflected by the 2011 AUIR. No subsequent links beyond this segment of Airport- Pulling Road are significantly impacted by this project. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental staff has evaluated the application has determined that the proposed PUD document complies with all applicable GMP and LDC provisions regarding conservation, native vegetation preservation and potential listed species impacts. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as indicated previously in the GMP discussion. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff also recommends that the petition be found consistent with the CCME. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Page 5 of 20 May 3, 2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 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 10.02.13.13.5, 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 has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. There are no outstanding environmental issues. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right -of -way and access issues. The PUD document contains the mitigation discussed in the Transportation Element section of this staff report. Utility Review: This project is located within Collier County Water and Sewer District and Utility staff has requested the petitioner place specific commitments in the PUD; the petitioner has included those commitments as requested. n Zoning Services Review: 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 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. To support that opinion staff offers the following analysis of this project. PUDZ- PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Page 6 of 20 May 3, 2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 The development standards contained in Exhibit B of the PUD document show the following: TABLE I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS(1) PERMITTED USES Single Family Zero Lot Two Townhome Recreation AND STANDARDS Detached Line Family, Duplex Min.Lot Area 5,000 SF 4,000 SF 3,500 SF 1,400 SF N/A Min. Lot Width(2) 50' 40' 35' 16' N/A SETBACKS Front(3)(4) 15' 15' 15' 15' 20' Side 5' 5'/O' 5'/0' 5'/O' 20' Rear(Principal) 15' 10' 10' 10' 10' Rear(Accessory) 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' Water body 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' Airport Pulling Rd. 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' Min.Distance Between Principal 10' 10'/0't5) 10'/0'(5) 1010'(5) Sum of% BH Structures Max.Building Height Zoned 35' 35' 35' 35' 35' Actual 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' No.of Stories 2 2 2 2 2 The neighboring PUD, Lone Oak, was last amended over 20 years ago and approved more than 25 years ago and it does not contain a similar development standards table. However that PUD contains development standards where standards were provided, such as a 30 foot setback from internal rights-of-way, a maximum residential building height of 3 habitable stories, and a minimum distance between principal structures of'/2 the sum of the building heights. Lone Oak PUD has been developed with a mixture of single-family and multi-family units as well as cluster and patio housing. Although the project was approved for 604 units,the project has been built out at 322 units and 24,000 square feet of commercial use. As shown in the aerial photograph located on page 2 of the staff report, the surrounding land use and zoning discussion of this staff report, and the Master Plan, the site is bounded to the east and south by the Lone Oak PUD that has developed as the Walden Oak project. To the north is a sunsetted PUD that is currently used as a landscape nursery. Across Airport Pulling Road to the west, is The Carlisle retirement center and a 10 acre undeveloped tract. Both of those tracts are zoned Agriculture. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed maximum zoned building height of 35 feet (zoned) and 40 feet (actual) limited to two stories is comparable to the maximum height limits approved for the abutting property. PUDZ-PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Page 7 of 20 May 3,2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 A pedestrian/bicycle and vehicular interconnection has been provided on the site plan to the north. Because the PUD to the north is sunsetted, an amendment would be required to allow additional development on that site. At that time, the interconnection could be made if it remains warranted. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking five deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviation is listed in PUD Exhibit E. Deviation 1: Deviation seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.0 that requires a 15-foot wide Type `B" buffer where proposed residential uses abut existing commercial uses, to allow for a 10-foot wide Type `B"buffer where the property abuts the commercial use to the north. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The proposed deviation will allow for design flexibility for this infill parcel, while meeting the intent of the LDC by providing appropriate buffering between the proposed residential use and the existing commercial use to the north. The requested deviation is only to reduce the overall width of the buffer yard, not the number or type of proposed plantings. Thus, the opacity of the required buffer will not change as a result of this deviation. The required plantings can be accommodated within the proposed 10' buffer yard; therefore approval of this deviation will not negatively impact the survival rate or appearance of the buffer plantings. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: A Type B buffer is described below: Fifteen-foot-wide, 80 percent opaque within one year landscape buffer six feet in height, which may include a wall, fence, hedge, berm or combination thereof including trees spaced no more than 25 feet on center. When planting a hedge, it shall be a minimum of ten gallon plants five feet in height, three feet in spread and spaced a maximum four feet on center at planting. The petitioner has the less intense proposed land use, i.e., proposed residential vs. mixed use to the north. Any commercial uses that are ultimately developed on the adjacent tract could have more impact on the subject property's residential project. Thus if the petitioner wishes to be permitted to provide a narrower buffer, it seems appropriate to allow the reduction. However staff does have a concern. As previously noted, the PUD to the north needs to be amended prior to commencement of any new development to rectify the sunsetted status of the PUD. Staff does not want to create a situation wherein the subject property owner could ask that the PUD be required to provide enhanced or wider buffers to address what could be considered to be self- created incompatibility between the two projects. It would have to be noted if this situation occurs that the Naples View petitioner voluntarily reduced the required buffer on the property. PUDZ-PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Page 8 of 20 May 3,2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 Zoning and Land Development Review staff would recommend APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e which allows temporary signs on residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height, to allow a temporary sign or banner up to a maximum of 32 square feet in area and a maximum of 8 feet in height. Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation: The requested deviation will allow for a banner sign which has been previously approved for other residential communities within the County. The subject property is not located in an area of new construction/emerging residential growth within the County, such as Immokalee Road east of 1-75, which compels the need for additional signage to adequately market the property. Additionally, the Property's limited frontage along Airport Road, coupled with the significant setback created by the Airport Road canal, are existing hardships that reduces the visibility of the project. The sign will be temporary, and will undergo the requisite temporary sign permit process in accordance with Section 5.0.06. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. However the applicant did not state a time limit for the temporary sign. Staff recommends that the temporary banner sign be approved for no longer than 28 days per calendar year based upon LDC Section 5.04.05.A.3.a. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the stipulation that the temporary banner sign be approved for no longer than 28 days per calendar year, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01, which requires a minimum width of 60 feet for cul-de-sac and local street rights-of-way, to allow for a minimum 45-foot right-of-way internal to the proposed development. Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation: The proposed deviation will allow for design flexibility within this infrll parcel. As indicated above, the proposed project is a true infill development with existing site constraints, including a large stormwater management pond. The reduced right-of-way PUDZ-PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Page 9 of 20 May 3,2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 width will allow the Applicant to achieve a higher percentage of on-site, useable open space and will maintain sidewalks along both sides of the roadways, as required by Section 6.06.02 of the LDC. Additionally, the right-of-way will be privately maintained by the future Homeowners Association (HOA) and will be constructed per the typical cross section included on the Master RPUD Plan. Studies have determined that reduced right-of-way widths act as a traffic calming feature and will assist in maintaining public health, safety and welfare within the community. For these reasons, the Applicant respectfully submits that the proposed deviation will not negatively impact public health, safety or welfare. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: LDC Section 6.06.01.0 allows developers of any type (zoned) project to seek alternatives pursuant to LDC Section 6.06.01.0 at the time of platting. Those requests must be accompanied by "documentation and justification for the alternate section based on sound engineering principals and practices." These alternative designs are often sought as part of the zoning process so the developer can have some assurances that the proposed Master Concept Plan is viable if the Master Plan siting was calculated using an alternative design. The PUD deviation process provides a way for the petitioner to acquire that assurance without being required to submit the alternative design in compliance with LDC Section 6.06.01.0. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 4 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J which prohibits dead-end streets,to allow the dead end street shown on the RPUD Master Plan. Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation: Per the attached RPUD Master Plan, the Applicant is requesting a 140 foot long dead- end street to service approximately three (3)future dwelling units within the project. The proposed dead end street is in compliance with state and local fire safety standards, as the Collier County Fire Code permits dead-end streets up to a length of 150 feet. Therefore, the requested deviation will not negatively impact public health, safety or welfare. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends 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 PUDZ-PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Page 10 of 20 May 3,2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 is `justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.2, which permits a maximum wall height of six (6) feet in residential zoning districts, to allow for a maximum height of eight(8) feet for a combination wall and berm the property lines. Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation: The proposed deviation will allow for additional visual screening and mitigation of noise pollution resulting from traffic along Airport Road, a 4-lane divided arterial roadway, as well as the surrounding properties. Approval of this deviation will serve to promote public health, safety and welfare, as well as enhance the proposed RPUD. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is `justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." FINDINGS OF FACT: 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" (Staffs 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 is of the opinion that the proposed uses are compatible with the approved uses and existing development in the area. In addition, the proposed property development regulations provide adequate assurances that the proposed project will be suitable to the type and pattern of development in the area. PUDZ-PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Page 11 of 20 May 3,2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 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 obtain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP. A copy of the Comprehensive Planning Staff's complete GMP analysis has been attached. 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. P-4\ As described in the Analysis Section of this staff report, staff is of the opinion that the proposed uses, development standards and developer commitments will help ensure that this project is 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. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project as noted in the GMP FLUE and Transportation Element consistency review, if the mitigation proposed by the petitioner is included in any approval recommendation. 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 infrastructure such as wastewater disposal systems and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by PUDZ-PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Page 12 of 20 May 3,2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The petitioner is seeking five deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06.A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes the deviations 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 deviations. 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. Staff is recommending that this project be found consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with neighborhood development and with all other applicable policies of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed it at length in the zoning review analysis. Staff believes the proposed rezoning is appropriate given the existing land use pattern, and development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance. 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 abutting lands are also zoned PUD. Additionally, the project is required to provide pedestrian and vehicular interconnection to the adjacent(north) commercial development. PUDZ-PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Page 13 of 20 May 3,2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 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 since the zoning boundary mirrors the existing property boundary. S. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes and the project's consistency with the GMP. However the site is currently zoned Rural Agricultural while located in an urban GMP land use designation, Urban Residential Subdistrict. The previous agricultural use, Wizard Nursery, has ceased operation at this site, thus it seems appropriate to rezone the property to a zoning district that will allow a more urban list of uses. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change, subject to the proposed list of uses and property development regulations and the proposed Development Commitments detailed in Exhibit F, is consistent with the County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element(FLUE) of the GMP. Therefore, the proposed change should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in Exhibit F of the RPUD ordinance. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have other specific regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new developments. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this petition were approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. This project's property development regulations provide adequate setbacks and distances between structures; therefore the project should not significantly reduce light and air to adjacent areas. PUDZ-PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Page 14 of 20 May 3,2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results,which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; Properties to the north of this property are zoned PUD but remain undeveloped with the uses that would be allowed by that zoning. Rezoning this property to a PUD district seems appropriate and allows for the interconnection shown on the PUD Master Plan. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan which is a public policy statement supporting Zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant .-. of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; The property already has been and could still be developed within the parameters of the existing agricultural zoning; however, the proposed zoning more correctly reflects the intent of development allowed in the GMP. In any case, however, the petitioner is seeking this rezone in compliance with LDC provisions for such action to seek the highest and best use of the land. 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 proposed rezone boundary follows the existing property ownership boundary. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban- designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the PUDZ-PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Page 15 of 20 May 3,2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 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 GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP as discussed in other portions of the staff report. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities,except as it may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD document. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant, Steve Hagenbuckle, representing Naples View, LLC, in conjunction with Waldrop Engineering,P.A. and Collier County Staff, conducted a duly noticed NIM on Thursday, January 12, 2012 at the Collier County Library at 2385 Orange Blossom Drive. In addition to the applicant's team and Collier County staff persons, approximately 50 persons attended. n PUDZ-PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Page 16 of 20 May 3,2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 Steve Hagenbuckle began the meeting with providing introductions and a brief overview of the P ro j ect. The applicant's team presentation included an overview of the project location and history, demonstration of the proposed RPUD master plan,proposed uses,and density, and information about the application process and up-coming public hearings. Following the Agent's presentation, the meeting was opened up to attendees for comments and questions. The following is a summarized list of the questions asked and responses given. Question/Comment 1: When will development begin - what is the anticipated development timeframe? Response: The developer would like to break ground in later summer/early fall 2012 for infrastructure such as roads. Question/Comment 2: How much flexibility does the developer have to develop single family units versus multi-family units? Response: The intent is to develop single family dwellings, and unless there is a significant change in market demand only single family will be constructed. The application requests the flexibility to construct a variety of units due to the state of the real estate market and changing demand. The Applicant also noted that the PUD master plan layout is for approximately 33 single family units and does not lend itself to multi-family uses. Question/Comment 3: As part of the zoning process does the Applicant have to specify the proposed residential dwelling types. Response: Yes, the application includes a schedule of uses that includes a variety of product types: single family detached, twin villa/single family attached, and multi-family. Steve reiterated that there is very little market for multi-family and the intent is to develop single family uses. Question/Comment 4: There is concern with broadness of request/ability to develop multi-family uses. Also asked what the traffic impact of the development will be. Response: Applicant advised that a Traffic Impact Statement(TIS)was completed and there were no negative traffic impacts to Airport Road due to the low trip generation of the proposed development. The Applicant also noted that the developer will be responsible for a proportionate fair share of the Orange Blossom/Airport Road intersection based upon the project's impact to that intersection. Also noted,the TIS is based upon the maximum attainable density of 66 units. Question/Comment 5: There is concern with ability of Walden Oaks residents to make right turn onto Airport Road to head northbound. Response: So noted. Question/Comment 6: What is the status of Staff's comment to provide a hardened separator to prevent future Naples View residents from accessing the southbound turn lane in front of the Property. Response: The Applicant is working on addressing this comment with Staff. Question/Comment 7: Is the Applicant contributing to the Orange Blossom/Airport Road intersection improvements? Response: Yes. PUDZ-PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Page 17 of 20 May 3,2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 Question 8: Where will the transit shelter be located?Please explain the bonus density request. Response: The Applicant is proposing to upgrade the existing bus stop just north of the Property to a transit shelter. There are provisions in the Growth Management Plan to allow for bonus density where efforts are made to reduce the project's trip generation and encourage alternative forms of transportation. Question/Comment 9: You may want to have a meeting with just the Walden Oaks community to address issues regarding the proposed multi-family uses and the traffic concerns. Response: Applicant noted that the flexibility in the PUD document is the key source of concern and that the Applicant can meet again with the residents to re-visit the issues. Question/Comment 10: Will the lake be protected?There are birds that use the lake. Response: The existing lake is shown on the PUD master plan to be preserved as an amenity. Passarella and Associated conducted a protect species survey to address any on-site wildlife. Question/Comment 11: Will affordable housing be provided? Response: No. Question/Comment 12: The property is in a state of disrepair since Tree Wizard left. The proposal for single family units will be a benefit to Walden Oaks. Noting that the multi-family product can be up to 3 stories tall/45 feet in height. I do not believe the project can be supported if the request for 3- story multi-family uses is not removed from the PUD. Response: So noted. We will revisit the proposal and come back for second meeting. [Note from staff: additional meetings were held with various neighbors.] Question/Comment 13: Does the Applicant intend to change the current traffic flow along Airport and prevent U-turns where currently permitted? Response: No. Question/Comment 14: Will the community be gated/walled? Response: The PUD master plan shows a 6'-8' tall wall around the Property perimeter. Question/Comment 15: There are birds that nest in the trees. Response: The existing vegetation will be utilized to create the required buffers to the extent possible. Question/Comment 16: Will the existing right turn lane into the Naples View property be extended per this request? Response:No. There is no intent to extend the turn lane north to landscape nursery to the north. The meeting concluded with further discussion on the multi-family product type. Following this question and answer period, the Agent and Applicant indicated they would take the comments and consider revisions to the rezoning request. The Agent stated they would coordinate updates with the community through the specified community leaders. PUDZ-PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Page 18 of 20 May 3,2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on April 12, 2012. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-PL20110001519 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval subject to staff's recommended action on the deviations as shown below: Approval of Deviations 1, 3, 4, and 5; and Approval of Deviation 2 with the stipulation that the temporary banner sign be approved for a maximum of 28 days per calendar year. PUDZ-PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD Page 19 of 20 May 3,2012 CCPC Revised 4/12/12 PREPARED BY: -- &di-641X ' (,5--//oZ_ KA ESELEM,AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEWED BY: a - t RAYM V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER (TE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ATE ,, , A _41 . - - ,Im.� . 3 _ /_ l LIAM D. LORE JR., ' a�• i l- 2-01 . , . ., DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPROVED BY: _4v / ' ar - / IC : ALA 'A, •,#M �: ' • TOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEME DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the July 24, 2012 Board of County Commissioners Meeting PUDZ-PL20110001519: Naples View RPUD n May 3,2012 CCPC Page 20 of 20 Revised 4/5/12 ORDINANCE NO. 12- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE NAPLES VIEW RPUD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF SIXTY-SIX RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6900 AIRPORT ROAD NORTH IN SECTION 01, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 11+/- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Alexis Crespo, AICP of Waldrop Engineering, P.A., representing Naples .-� View LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described property. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 01, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the Naples View RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 66 residential dwelling units in accordance with Exhibits A through F, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. Naples View RPUD\PUDZ-PL2011-1519 Rev. 4/05/12 1 of 2 SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,this day of , 2012. ATTEST BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: , Deputy Clerk FRED W. COYLE, Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: (151 �- Heidi Ashton-Cicko Section Chief, Land Use/Transportation Attachments: Exhibit A—List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B—Development Standards Exhibit C- Master Plan Exhibit D—Legal Description Exhibit E—List of Requested Deviations Exhibit F—Development Commitments CP\11-CPS-01121\41 Naples View RPUD\PUDZ-PL2011-1519 Rev. 4/05/12 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES NAPLES VIEW RPUD PERMITTED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses and Structures: "Ri" Residential Tracts 1. Single-family detached dwelling units 2. Zero lot line units 3. Two-family, duplex dwelling units "R2" Residential Tracts 1. Single family detached dwelling units 4. Zero lot line units 5. Two-family, duplex dwelling units 6. Townhouse dwelling units Any other principal and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code(LDC). B. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses customarily associated with Permitted Principle Uses including but not limited to: 1. Customary accessory uses and structures including carports,garages, and utility buildings. 2. Recreational uses and facilities that serve the residents, including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, fishing docks, walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings, and basketball/shuffle board courts. 3. Temporary sales trailers and model units. 4. Entry Gates &Gatehouse. 5. Essential services, including interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities. 6. Water management facilities. 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. Development Density A maximum of 66 dwelling units shall be constructed within the RPUD per the Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) bonus density provisions set forth in Exhibit F, Section 5. The gross project area is 11.3±acres and the residential density maximum shall be 5.84 units per acre. Naples View RPUD—PUDZ-PL2011-1519 Page 1 of 7 Last Revised:April 5,2012(2) EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS NAPLES VIEW RPUD Development of the Naples View RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to, final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit, and preliminary work authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards,then the provisions of the most similar district shall apply. Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Naples View RPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. TABLE I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS(1) PERMITTED USES AND Single Family Zero Lot Two Townhome Recreation STANDARDS Detached Line Family, Duplex Min. Lot Area 5,000 SF 4,000 SF 3,500 SF 1,400 SF N/A Min.Lot Width(2) 50' 40' 35' 16' N/A SETBACKS Front(3R4) 15' 15' 15' 15' 20' Side 5' 570' 5'/0' 5'/O' 20' Rear(Principal) 15' 10' 10' 10' 10' Rear(Accessory) 0' 0' 0' 0' 0' Water body 20' 20' 20' 20' 20' Airport Pulling Rd. 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' Min. Distance Between 10' 10'/0'151 10'/0'i5i 10'/0'i5i Sum of%x BH Principal Structures Max. Building Height Zoned 35' 35' 35' 35' 35' Actual 40' 40' 40' 40' 40' No.of Stories 2 2 2 2 2 (1) Each half of a duplex unit requires a lot area allocation of 3,500 SF for a total minimum lot area of 7,000 SF. (2) Minimum lot width may be reduced by 25%for cul-de-sac lots provided the minimum lot area requirement is maintained. (3) The minimum 15'front yard setback may be reduced to 10'where the residence has a recessed,side entry,or rear entry garage. In no case shall there be less than a clear area of 23 feet between the back of the sidewalk and the face of the garage door for front entry garages. (4) For corner lots,only one(1)front yard setback shall be required.The yard that does not contain the driveway/vehicular access to the residence shall provide 10'setback. (5) Distance between buildings may be reduced at garages to a minimum of 0'where attached garages are provided,and a 10' minimum,if detached. Naples View RPUD—PUDZ-PL2011-1519 Page 2 of 7 Last Revised:April 5,2012(2) J:/.265-01 Naples VIewlAuloCAD1265-01-01 MCP\Rev031265010101.6x11.dwg 4/5/2012 10:45:43 AM \ m j°' �c2 AIRPORT PULLING ROAD __ 3 -F- 1 c 20V R.O.W. m m O ,ZC1 O 'D CO 'D m z m m = CO - .�7 — D C m > -r n r o Z� �� - - - --- - - - - - — - - ---- CO Z cn co m z " AIRPORT ROAD 1 CANAL W O Z 0 0 O D __1= _ 1 m` Z z m m CO m I p } 1-21 I p n Z G7 m o0 r �'�� z j C j� T�0 D A D 0 20 Z __4_,>1 ' C r D m Z� �T�)m �o� > Tmo , mm m C r 00 l7> Z n�m� I -0 p x > C mD v�f011 I i r"DZ 1 p(m 1 277 D Dw z- 73 '' . �zr 1 y 0 z 0) r� mr °m �7 ; I m I z zo CD C CO I 0 rn 0) A > K 3 H �O I I p C Ni co c w in in 0 I �� v� Z o mzO z 7+ N• l+ D I r• I A� I Az� A 0 D z I �1- I mc7� 0 n1a � w m m ' 1 H Dvx 4, D is.) C3 N f.) -< .--I I I ,1'7 r C 0 o m r I+ FF l+ I+ m j l DO O C D J \ 0 0 0 o m CO-i --� I T -zi CO rii a '� c o0 0 o y Z 0 N 1 ---------R.O.W. z co 0 -0 -i c c c n D D I 73 fm17 .0j xi O C In ! O v r m -. D m O m I o 7 ' -< 73 71 0- 0 0 0 o mo N Do' I ?�'z R \ ftl -TI c c Or Ut A w N -v 0 ___________________ c m I - •ZZ l-I OZ OtnD >-I m Li%� �`.` f_— ODD= zO k 11Crr- RZ2 > > I XCI-r Cx (77 vED morn v N A I-mp=10 -m 1l rm0 O�17 m o m I � �RID-i O< m vpiOGDi REF) z -,,Z I I X oDm? �o °voc MHO Rl DC> j m I z D- D CO I �\ -4 DD Z z v-D -0-10 m y CO I O I r ,-.--CI zin m -03_1-0 (�m mom r Z m m D >Xm t�mnm D <-10 KoC Z I D I v r DDA xc m •zK ZTII 0 x -� Imo CO c r_i m y m �z -1 I 0 O m° CO (33 �z0 nv CO =D OE D -I z 1� m ZD 0 > CO m 1 N D I — i t 2 r f j N m D ,D- z K 2.m O m w i >� „Zcn m r m m , o- I rao D-b- 0 1 m I <�z Icn m O CO (/r. • ® Z1 MI e - lir! I �nI m r n 1-0 111 ( ' m AIRPO r ULL (o LAI l v v rm m O c0 Z arl �t RIF m D /'' m DO i o i s 1/1 V, y � �_ Tom ' im��m 73 ch r o � Omc- C5z i� Z�mN m -O2GC27 —pm m o 1 D� �� z� Z 1— ..1 ..1 ��f r m 111 m -r SCALE: PLAN REVISIONS — z a A 12/27/11 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS NAPLES VIEW WAND ROP 03/01/12 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS ENGINEERING RI i ® 04/05/12 REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS— CLIENT:NAPLES VIEW,LLC. 3. — PUD MASTER PLAN WO 0210102004002012.1.4423 I EXHIBIT C" M,,, ,.w °'Y`0."`°'.'.. ..r. EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION NAPLES VIEW RPUD n NORTH%2 OF THE NORTH Y2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 4a OF THE SOUTHWEST%OF SECTION 1,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE WEST 100 FEET THEREOF FOR STATE RIGHT-OF-WAY. n Naples View RPUD—PUDZ-PL2011-1519 Page 4 of 7 Last Revised:April 5,2012(2) EXHIBIT E LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC NAPLES VIEW RPUD Deviation 1: Deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.0 which requires a 15-foot wide Type "B" buffer where proposed residential uses abut existing commercial uses, to allow for a 10-foot wide Type "B" buffer where the property abuts the commercial use to the north. Deviation No. 2:Deviation from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e which allows temporary signs on residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height,to allow a temporary sign or banner up to a maximum of 32 square feet in area and a maximum of 8 feet in height. Deviation No. 3: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01, which requires a minimum width of 60 feet for cul-de-sac and local street rights-of-way, to allow for a minimum 45-foot right-of-way internal to the proposed development. Deviation 4: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01.J which prohibits dead-end streets, to allow the dead end street shown on the RPUD Master Plan. Deviation 5: Deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.C.2, which permits a maximum wall height of six (6) feet in residential zoning districts, to allow for a maximum height of eight (8) feet for a combination wall and berm along the property lines. Naples View RPUD—PUDZ-PL2011-1519 Page 5 of 7 Last Revised:April 5,2012(2) EXHIBIT F _ DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS NAPLES VIEW RPUD 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the general development commitments for the project. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is Naples View, LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out,then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. 2. UTILITIES 2.1 The project shall connect to the Collier County Water Sewer District(CCWSD) potable water system at a location determined by CCWSD when capacity is available. 2.2 The project shall connect to the CCWSD wastewater collection and conveyance system at a location determined by CCWSD when capacity is available. 2.3 The project shall connect to the CCWSD Irrigation Quality water system at a location determined by CCWSD when capacity is available. 2.4 Should the Collier County Water Sewer District determine that it does not have sufficient capacity to serve the project; the Developer shall either construct interim potable water, wastewater treatment and/or non-potable water facilities, or shall postpone development until such time as the Collier County Water- Sewer District service capacity is available to service the project. Any interim facilities constructed by the Developer shall be constructed to Collier County Utilities Division Standards, and shall be dismantled, at the Developer's expense, upon connection to the Collier County Water-Sewer District facilities. Whether potable water, wastewater treatment and/or non-potable water facilities are provided on-site or off-site, the Developer shall demonstrate to Collier County that adequate capacity is available at the time of final utilities plan submittal. 2.5 All utility facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Ordinance 2004-31, and any amendments or successors thereto. Prior to commencement of construction all design and construction documents pertaining to utility facilities shall be reviewed and approved by the CCWSD. Naples View RPUD—PUDZ-PL2011-1519 Page 6 of 7 Last Revised:April 5,2012(2) 2.6 The utility facility shall include but not be limited to: all construction plans,technical specifications and proposed plats, as applicable, for the proposed water distribution systems, wastewater collection and conveyance systems, irrigation quality distribution systems and any possible onsite treatment facilities. 2.7 All potable water infrastructures shall be conveyed to the CCWSD. 2.8 All wastewater collection and conveyance infrastructure shall be conveyed to the CCWSD 2.9 All customers shall be customers of the CCWSD. 3. TRANSPORTATION A. The project shall maintain a minimum of 100' throat distance between the Airport Pulling right-of-way and the face of the entrance gates. B. The developer shall pay a proportionate fair share for improvements to the Orange Blossom Drive and Airport Pulling Road intersection. The proportionate fair share of the project's impacts to the intersection shall be determined at the time of construction plan approval based upon the project's trips as percentage of capacity improvements for the turning/through movements utilized by this site. Payment shall be made to Collier County within 90 days of the County's request. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL No preservation area is required as all existing,on-site vegetation is exotic. 5. PLANNING The RPUD shall be developed with up to 66 units per Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) bonus density, as defined in Policy 6.3 of the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan.The developer shall provide the two (2)Transportation Demand Management (TDM) criteria as follows: 1. Provide vehicular access to the future mixed use subdistrict to the north as shown on the PUD Master Plan, in the form of a non-exclusive access easement to the adjacent property owner/developer to the north, conveyed prior to issuance of the first building permit. 2. Provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the project and a bicycle/pedestrian interconnection to the future mixed use subdistrict to the north shown on the PUD Master Plan. Naples View RPUD—PUDZ-PL2011-1519 Page 7 of 7 Last Revised:April 5,2012(2) DeselemKay From: MJ30 @aol.com Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2012 12:08 PM To: DeselemKay; alexisc @waldropengineering.com Subject: recommendation letter for Naples View petition Attachments: Naples View Letter.doc Hello Kay, Attached is a letter of recommendation for the'Naples View' rezone petition. Could you please forward to the Planning Commission for the upcoming May 3rd meeting. Thank you much. Respectfully, Michael Johnathan Design Drafting of Naples Inc. Walden Oaks resident 1 4-18-12 Dear Collier County Planning Commission, This letter is in reference to the rezoning petition for the Naples View Project on Airport Rd. My name is Michael Johnathan. I have been a resident of Walden Oaks since 1996, a residential subdivision bordering the proposed Naples View project. I am also the owner of Design Drafting of Naples Inc. I have been in the business of designing residential and commercial projects in Collier, and surrounding counties since 2000. In Walden Oaks, there are 5 home owners associations. I have been ask to speak on behalf of the 'Lexington at Lone Oak'homeowners association. Lexington at Lone Oak borders the proposed'Naples View'project on the north side. My residence back yard directly borders 324' of the proposed rezone. One of the main reasons, I and other residents of Walden Oaks purchased homes in our community, is because of the feel of the neighborhood. In my case specifically, was because of the botanicals and trees, and lack of tall structures on the adjacent property in my backyard. So you can imagine my concern and that of many in the neighborhood when we heard of the proposed project. The rezone petition property that was formerly Wizzard Lake Nursery has been closed for a while, and the property has fallen into disrepair. The neighbors that directly border this property know that this can mean a number of undesirable elements. To name a few, overgrowth of undesirable plant and animal life, criminal mischief, structural disrepair and falling property values. Having that situation right in one's backyard can diminish the quality of life, not to mention,the property valuation. Initially, we had many concerns over the proposed 'Naples View' community, not the least of which was a preliminary petition that potentially allowed for multifamily, multistory structures that would look down onto our privacy, and change the feel of the neighborhood. In the initial meetings with the developer, Mr. Steve Hagenbuckle, and Waldrop Engineering,the firm to file the rezone petition,the Walden Oaks neighborhood voiced our concerns. Much to our surprise and satisfaction,the developer and Waldrop Engineering were very courteous and professional. They listened to all of our concerns, and revised the petition to address the items that they had the ability too. Foremost of these was changing the schedule of structures to reflect only single family residences, and in the rear residential tract that directly affects Walden Oaks, only proposing single family homes. The price point of these homes should be beneficial to our neighborhood. They have been completely courteous and professional with their time and cooperation to address all of our concerns. They continue to go above and beyond working with the neighborhood and listening to our input on the wall design separating the two neighborhoods and also suggestions on the plantings in the landscape buffer to add color and beauty to our neighborhoods. It is indeed refreshing when both parties can work together for the aesthetic benefit of all. There are some residents that are concerned over increased traffic issues. One complicating factor is the number of vehicles that don't obey the `no U turn' sign at the turning lane that directs traffic flow into Walden Oaks. This prohibited moving violation comes close to causing accidents daily. One cause of the problem is that the existing `no U turn' sign is too far back from the turn, and also not enough traffic enforcement. Perhaps the commission can ask the traffic division to look into this. The homeowners association'Lexington at Lone Oak' and myself would like to recommend that the revised petition for the proposed project'Naples View' be voted on in the affirmative and passed to the benefit of the community and Naples, Florida. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Michael Johnathan 'Lexington at Lone Oak'in Walden Oaks AGENDA ITEM 9-B Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION, PLANNING AND REGULATION HEARING DATE: MAY 3, 2012 SUBJECT: BDE-PL20110001573, JAFFE BOAT DOCK EXTENSION (COMPANION ITEM: VA-PL20110001576) PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Andrew Jaffe, Agent: Jeff Rogers, 10091 Gulfshore Drive Turrell, Hall and Associates Naples, Fl 34108 3584 Exchange Avenue Naples, Fl 34104 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting a 19-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 at the end of a man-made canal protruding a total of 39 feet into a waterway that is 1,420 feet long. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject site is located at 10090 Gulfshore Drive and is further described as the North 50 feet of Lot 14, Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates Subdivision, Unit 1; Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida,Folio number 27530880003. (see location map on the following page) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the project is to remove an existing dock and to construct a 4 foot wide finger dock that will service 2 boat lifts and vessels. The proposed dock facility is located on a small boat dock lot that has 50-feet of shoreline that was deeded to the residence located across the street at 10091 Gulfshore Drive in 1955 (see Attachment C Warranty Deeds submitted by applicant). The total proposed overwater structure is approximately 116 square feet with a total protrusion of 39-feet from the Mean High Water Line (MHWL). The proposed dock requires a 19 foot boat dock extension and a companion variance petition VA-PL20110001576 due to the proposed intrusion into required riparian line setbacks. There is no dredging proposed for this project. BD-PL2011-1573, Page 1 of 8 Jaffe Boat Dock Extension. April 6,2012(revised April 11,2012 and April 13,2012) ri Eg* ii tar Para'AO ... - EN El Reims 1 44 0 gi 0 111 El r7 13 (I) n <11113 4 vs Is to 0 IP le it 1 . � s ■ s m Me 3 M 1 � (J j Q MO h Ogigi R��,�1 O Map s.© mod' Am©0 ■`� ■ � � c m ils, ©eAr ©N ® ® � �. z W. v© m � -1 .4.., ves`101 Ws 0.0 It E3 �' Ill� " • � �tti N e ht. r " U e 0 ...-10 II : ts _: „.. 4., $ . X W t!_, 0 N a Tres of.ox 7 ,.. \ 0 M 4t awa ormnriaoean �� Z �� $ asroyt ' I� � Y �� p� O i I ji v i : � ass a. J 14 �i ,� AIM i n illiNj g 1€ Ami .nd...Y3LL3,pp�. �- twevy wor / I�1 So g \ *Mid 3113lo.. - t Am _� b < ,�� .4 ,�T t,rr a Tnu vnnNVi EP a lid i 1;1 as ra 1L s 0 il 1 o � '� ass t,oero'o) >4 111110111 ,,err 5 3JN.�, /I , r—•�..stgmw,_,, i_ i ... fig..., .. > — 1i Oh 111,1100ek 0 ni,,, GULF V i'� MEXICO "...\ 0 Z O 0 Q O O SURROUNDING LAND USE &ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Single Family Residence, with a zoning designation of RSF-3 Note that a new residence is currently being proposed at 10091 Gulfshore Drive consistent with Building Permit PRBD20120304314 currently under review. SURROUNDING: North: Single Family Residence, with a zoning designation of RSF-3 East: Canal, and Single Family Residence, with a zoning designation of RSF-3 South: Undeveloped lot with a zoning designation of RSF-3 West: Gulfshore Drive ROW, then Single Family Residence, with a zoning designation of RSF-3 Aerial photo taken from Collier County Property Appraiser website. • ri Location of Proposed Boat Dock r.14 s •- Jaffe Residence rf-E r • 4. _s w: t • 1E1 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-PL2011-1573, Page 3 of 8 Jaffe Boat Dock Extension. April 6,2012(revised April 11,2012 and April 13,2012) 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 1. Whether the number of dock facilities and/or boat slips proposed is appropriate in relation to the waterfront length, location, upland land use and zoning of the subject property. Consideration should be made of property on unbridged barrier islands, where vessels are the primary means of transportation to and from the property. (The number should be appropriate; typical single-family use should be no more than two slips; typical multi-family use should be one slip per dwelling unit; in the case of unbridged barrier island docks, additional slips may be appropriate.) Criterion met. The proposed dock facility consists of the removal of an existing dock and the construction of a finger dock servicing two boat slips, which is consistent with the allowable 2-slip provisions. 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 (MLT). (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 not met. According to the petitioner's application the water depth for the dock facility are adequate,therefore this criterion is not met. 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, the proposed facility will not adversely impact navigation within the man-made canal because the proposed facility is located at the western most end of the canal that prevents through boat traffic. Additionally the applicant indicates that there is limited boat traffic within this area of the canal and that the proposed dock is contained within the riparian lines however it does require the companion variance noted above due to riparian line encroachments. BD-PL2011-1573, Page 4 of 8 Jaffe Boat Dock Extension. April 6,2012(revised April 11,2012 and April 13,2012) 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. As noted in the project purpose/description above this dock facility is located on a small lot that has 50-feet of shoreline that was deeded to the residence at 10091 Gulfshore Drive in 1955. The open waterway in front of the proposed dock is approximately 1,420 feet and this dock facility meets the literal application of this criteria by being less than 25 percent of that distance. The applicability of this criteria however is challenging as the proposed dock facility is located at the end of the man-made canal. However, this location insures that no water vessel traffic will occur westward of this location. The proposed dock configuration is within the riparian lines and the adjacent property owners have provided letters of no objection to this proposed dock facility. For these reasons staff's opinion is that the proposed dock facility meets the intent of this criterion as navigability will be maintained. 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 and noted by the petitioner, the proposed facility has been designed so that it does not interfere with adjacent neighboring docks or access. Further the applicant has included letters of no objection from both adjacent neighbors as part of the application (see attachment B Application). 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. As noted above the proposed dock facility is located at the western most end of the man-made canal and has a total shoreline of 50 linear feet. Additionally the converging riparian lines associated with this parcel reduce the configuration and design options of this dock facility. Therefore the limited shoreline and associated riparian lines are the special conditions related to this request. 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of BD-PL2011-1573, Page 5 of 8 Jaffe Boat Dock Extension. April 6,2012(revised April 11,2012 and April 13,2012) excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.) Criterion met. The proposed dock facility includes a 4-foot wide finger pier allowing access and service to the two proposed vessels. This configuration minimizes the decking area. 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 met. The subject property contains a linear waterfront that is 50 feet in length according to the application. The total length of the proposed vessels is 58 feet which is more than 50 percent of the waterfront footage. 4. Whether the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring property owners. (The facility should not have a major impact on the view of a neighboring property owner.) Criterion met. The information provided indicates that the proposed facility will not directly change the views of adjacent parcels as the proposed dock facility is within the riparian lines of the subject site. Further the application includes letters of no objection from the adjacent neighbors. 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 known to be located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility or within this portion of the waterway. 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 not applicable. 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 four of the five primary criteria. With regard to the six secondary criteria one of the criteria is found to be not applicable, the request meets four of the remaining five secondary criteria. BD-PL2011-1573, Page 6 of 8 Jaffe Boat Dock Extension. April 6,2012(revised April 11,2012 and April 13,2012) 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 fmal 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-PL20110001409, dated April 6, 2012. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, staff recommends that the CCPC approve Petition BD- PL20110001573 subject to the following stipulation: 1. Subject to the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) approving companion petition VA-PL20110001576. Attachments: A. Resolution B. Application C. Warranty Deeds provided by applicant BD-PL2011-1573, Page 7 of 8 Jaffe Boat Dock Extension. April 6,2012(revised April 11,2012 and April 13,2012) • PREPARED BY: ; 4 4 , L. ,2efAzi • �I L SA ' ' R PROJECT MANAGER DATE DEPAR MENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEWED BY: 4 10 iz RAYM V. BELLOWS, ZON G MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES „ I LIAM D. LO'' Z JR.,".E., DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPROVED BY: Alf NICK C A SA / G DA, A i5 1 ' A TOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION BD-PL2011-1573, Page 8 of 8 Jaffe Boat Dock Extension. April 6,2012 Attachment A Resolution (draft) CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BDE- PL2011-1573 FOR A 19 FOOT BOAT DOCK EXTENSION OVER THE MAXIMUM 20 FOOT LIMIT PROVIDED IN SECTION 5.03.06 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW FOR A 39 FOOT BOAT DOCK FACILITY IN AN RSF-3 ZONE ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat docks; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed, has held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of a 19 foot extension over the maximum 20 foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06 to allow for a 39 foot boat dock facility in an RSF-3 zone for the property hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 5.03.06; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given the opportunity to be heard by this Commission in public meeting assembled, and the Commission having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,that: Petition Number BDE-PL2011-1573, filed on behalf of Andrew Jaffe by Jeff Rogers of Turrell,Hall and Associates, Inc.,with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 34,Block A, and the North 50 feet of Lot 14, Block C, Re-subdivision of part of Unit No. 1, CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book No. 3, Page 18, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida(Folio No. 27530160008) be and the same is hereby approved for a 19 foot extension of a boat dock over the maximum 20 foot limit to allow for a 39 foot boat dock facility in the RSF-3 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: Jaffe Boat Dock Ext\BDE-PL2011-1573 11/22/11 1 of 2 ■ • 1. All docks,or mooring pilings,whichever protrude the greater into the water,regardless of length shall have reflectors and house numbers four (4) inches minimum size installed at the outermost end on both sides,prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion. 2. At least one(1) "Manatee Area" sign must be posted in a conspicuous manner as close as possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion. 3. Permits or letters of exemption from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be presented to Collier County prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. All prohibited exotic species, as such term may now or hereinafter be established in the LDC, must be removed from the subject property prior to the issuance of the required Certificate of Completion and the property must be maintained free from all prohibited exotic species in perpetuity. 5. Subject to the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) approving petition VA- PL2011-1576. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote. Done this day of , 2012. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Nick Casalanguida,Deputy Administrator, Mark P. Strain, Chairman Growth Management/Planning& Regulation Division Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: DRAFT Steven T. Williams Assistant County Attorney 11-CPS-01127/3 Jaffe Boat Dock Ext\BDE-PL2011-1573 11/22/11 2 of 2 AGENDA ITEM 9-C Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION, PLANNING AND REGULATION HEARING DATE: MAY 3, 2012 SUBJECT: PETITION VA-PL20110001576, JAFFE VARIANCE COMPANION ITEM: BDE-PL20110001573 PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Andrew Jaffe Agent: Jeff Rogers 10091 Gulfshore Drive Turrell, Hall and Associates Naples,Fl 34108 3584 Exchange Avenue Naples,Fl 34104 REQUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for a proposed variance from the required side yard riparian line setback of 7.5 feet for property with less than 60 feet of water frontage to 0 feet as provided for in Section 5.03.06 E.7 of the Land Development Code (LDC). The requested action (if approved) would allow a dock facility at 0 feet from the riparian line. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject boat dock lot is located at 10090 Gulfshore Drive, Conner's Vanderbilt Beach Estates in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East in Collier County, Florida. The property owner lives directly across the street at 10091 Gulfshore Drive. (See location map on following page) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the project is to remove an existing nonconforming dock and to construct a 4-foot wide forger dock with two proposed boat lifts that will serve two boats. The proposed dock VA-PL20110001576,JAFFE VARIANCE APRIL 16,2012 Page 1 of 8 ii! Ns poi' ®�►� ®�� FA II® � im al MEI ra in 131 NEI P: 4 A s o s �i�� e� a. © M3 up 4 ® r ° vi© Q,..1516 08 roi_violl, 10. rmi, em9:4 it .n lails:. fil 0 OM" SIO'Ii ; ® ©�, .Z J . Z © a ©© ZZ y. Zp� 7 • la � G� ye\ � O V n & [78 O ' g %C ; �h "`3 m o 1 . L,, gdg.. . r . . ,,,, N J 3706 a ipl a. C.0' �� } �- g1 a ■ I 00021 SNIT1M-1WdW 1-,0q_1u : O ! he vol v a _ W h L. g11 ill I. 1 1 i 11 ' fh �I� .-4113' --=- € o �_ u I ,,. 2114. .. _1�-% 1 1 T F MI 1 a.sN tvai.rv.wL TAMMY Twa �S _ �o ILLS.sal F3i �� / F 1 II LI .1k EN if 9 ♦ u 1 Eli _ �,il./ 1\�l �FS-1�• 3NW L19tl30�H� � ,,,...46. � -,N11-12Nawil.""" '. 1, . . . ,.: crek 1 o !Ar �� J I'r4' `. Yc� amp OF MEXICO 9 6 0 Z OV 0- 0'o J ■ ° -13 1 O IN W m C4 i i f N. d r $ y ' 11,8E1 ?Pie 1 . . . . \ -iel 6 i Id 4 a ol r et b lib TrA `4. ! ,I t e 1iIIlitIii RI. . .3....8s ..! 1 \ la \ A -IA o 0 \', .\, 0 0 1.19 - Ca ' .... °Ill 0 % 11.1 W g 01111.111111.111* \ iih% 1 gi i ie 1 4 co w 1 F • i Ail / \,, .. ... 13 a Lh.. - # .__j, oil/ ti 0 1 WinidbdoddrA R-0OUNMflM-112111-CNR5dq MEM 1/S12012 RNCLJQ E$ facility is located on a small, legally nonconforming lot that has 50 feet of shoreline that was deeded to the residence at 10091 Gulfshore Drive in 1955. (See Attachment B.) The original residence has been demolished and a building permit (permit number PRBD20120304314) is currently undergoing review. The total proposed overwater structure is approximately 116± square feet with a total protrusion of 39 feet from the Mean High Water Line (MHWL). The proposed dock requires a 19-foot boat dock extension and a companion boat dock extension application BDE-PL20110001573 has been filed. The proposed boat dock facility protrudes into the required 7.5-foot riparian line setback. A Variance is sought to allow a boat dock facility at 0 feet from the riparian lines. In addition, there is no dredging proposed for this project. The Conceptual Site Plan entitled "Jaffe Dock - Proposed Design" dated July 15, 2011, and prepared by Turrell, Hall &Associates, Inc. illustrates the location of the proposed boat dock and boat lifts. (See Site Plan on previous page). According to information provided by the applicant, the neighbor to the north of the subject site has an existing, approximately 35-foot long boat dock. The neighbor to the southeast has no boat dock. Due to the location of the subject property at the end of the canal, the riparian lines form a limited triangular area in which to locate a boat dock facility. A variance is required from these riparian lines. In addition, Staff has received two Letters of Support from adjacent neighbors to the north and south of the subject site. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: A parcel,with a zoning designation of RSF-3 North: Single-family residence, with a zoning designation of RSF-3 East: Canal South: Vacant single-family lot, with a zoning designation of RSF-3 West: Gulfshore Drive right-of-way, and then a Single-family residence, with a zoning designation of RSF-4 VA-PL20110001576,JAFFE VARIANCE APRIL 16,2012 Page 4 of 8 g d lio 1L S a: `,,, ' Boat Dock Lot °` ., c J ., . 1 x t Jaffe Residence r p y • . w w.n c_ x , . f en*.Cnraiv Awr.AV LMra.cnr 1Janiws L! r I AERIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The subject property is located in the Urban Mixed Use Residential land use classification on the County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). This land use category is designed to accommodate a variety of residential uses including single family, multi-family, duplex, mobile home and mixed-use projects. As previously noted,the subject petition seeks a variance for a single family home that is located within a single-family subdivision, 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: VA-PL20110001576,JAFFE VARIANCE APRIL 16,2012 Page 5 of 8 a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing, which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land,structure or building involved? Yes. According to information provided by the applicant,the subject property is located in at the end of a finger canal. (See Aerial on previous page.) Due to the location of the subject site at the end of the finger canal, the riparian lines form a limited triangular area in which to locate a boat dock facility. 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? Yes. According to information provided by the applicant, the subject property was subdivided from the neighboring property in the 1950's and deeded to the property located across the street at 10091 Gulfshore Drive to allow for boat dock access. Because the boat dock lot was created prior to October of 1973, it is considered to be a legally nonconforming lot. The boat dock, Boat Dock Permit number 98020583 received a certificate of occupancy on February 2, 2000. 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. If the applicant were to maintain the required riparian set back lines, he could build a dock but not moor two vessels as other typical single family waterfront lot owners. 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? Yes. The proposed dock is reasonable while still allowing for safe access for the vessel to moor within the riparian boundaries. e. Will granting the Variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? No. Most other neighboring properties moor two vessels. This property owner is seeking the same. 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, the granting of this Variance will be harmonious with the LDC and there will be no injury to the neighborhood. In addition, two letters of support have been received from the neighbors located immediately to the north and south of the subject site. (See Attachment B.) VA-PL20110001576,JAFFE VARIANCE APRIL 16,2012 Page 6 of 8 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. As previously stated, the subject site is located at the end of a finger canal. Because of this, the applicant is restricted to constructing the boat dock facility within a triangular shaped footprint area. h. Will granting the Variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Approval of this Variance will not affect or change the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC)RECOMMENDATION: This Variance petition was not required to go before the EAC for review and approval. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report VA-PL-20110001576, revised April 16, 2012.—STW RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition VA- PL-20110001576, Jaffe Boat Dock Variance to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval subject to the approval of the companion boat dock extension petition BD-PL20110001573 and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for building permit number PRBD201203 04314. VA-PL20110001576,JAFFE VARIANCE APRIL 16,2012 Page 7 of 8 PREPARED BY: , Yavoil 6ti� I wiNANCY • CH, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPART T •F LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES REVIEWED BY: 7;:j A /-1: --r--- -- ----- - - i_e__,a/ RAYMOND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1 /1, 1 1 1 ,i, - .4_-■, . Mi_aliCALINI....,- 0 if 1Z-Zoe 2 'I LIAM D. LO' Z JR.; !E., DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Air APPROVED BY: A,,. ,f_.....e..„... q--/2-IL NIC 'CASAL•! 'OUIDA, • ' IN trivriR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the June 26, 2012 Board of County Commissioners Meeting Attachment: A. Resolution B. Warranty Deeds C. Letters of Support VA-PL20110001576,JAFFE VARIANCE APRIL 11,2012 Page 8 of 8 RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER VA PL2011-1576, FOR A VARIANCE FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 5.03.06.E.7 TO PERMIT A REDUCED SIDE YARD (RIPARIAN) SETBACK FROM 73 FEET TO 0 FEET ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10091 GULF SHORE DRIVE, CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST IN COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances;and WHEREAS,the Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a variance .-. from Section 5.03.06.E.7 of the Land Development Code to permit a reduced side yard(riparian) setback from 7.5 feet to 0 feet as shown on the attached Exhibit "A", in the RSF-3 Zoning District for the property hereinafter described, and has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Section 9.04.00 of the Zoning Regulations of said Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County;and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled,and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA that: Petition Number VA-PL2011-1576 filed on behalf of Andrew Jaffe by Jeff Rogers of Turrell,Hall and Associates,Inc.with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 34,Block A,and the North 50 feet of Lot 14, Block C,Re-subdivision of part of Unit No. 1, CONNER'S VANDERBILT BEACH ESTATES, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book No. 3, Page 18, of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida(Folio No. 27530160008) be and the same hereby is approved for a variance to permit a reduced side yard (riparian) setback from 7.5 feet to 0 feet as shown on the attached Exhibit "A", in the RSF-3 Zoning District,wherein said property is located. Jaffe Variance NA-PL2011-1576 Rev. 4/16/12 1 of 2 Attachment A BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that two conditions of approval apply to this variance: (1) that the parcel in question be granted its companion boat dock extension as applied for in BD-PL20110001573; and (2) that the lot containing the corresponding residence obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for building permit number PRBD20120304314. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote this day of , 2012. ATTEST: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DWIGHT E.BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: , Deputy Clerk FRED W. COYLE,Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Steven T. Williams y( t� Assistant County Attorney 'w, Attachment: Exhibit A—Site Plan 11-CPS-01128/18 Jaffe Variance/VA-PL201 1-1576 Rev. 4/16/12 2 oft I O LI 0 ° w UW N W co CC 0 a a Ce W ��n 24 g OI W a a aLI- co O J 5X x.. v et p 25p 113. �I I 1 w iII' w6-0 `T8 8 3 0 W.. p� a' Lei a o3 d f.. ;:,.--;:t.-1-Y'" -,- gilibil..6.01rA . ii,,- 0, «s,"3� J agEm2�rz6 ,_.-OWO ., o >F 3 � (/j°612 5626g3�x Boa q _0 A o` = W mgljyatiE " 4$ '1 eo g F ` Hl�aay a'u53r arr v_ g e" N $ � .r, ^."s tz�. - -„ , .., ,_11 t Y r �'bi \.,;,,,,:l-1, _-.f..,:.:;, s-, ____.,.._,, \--- W D: Vii ':: '- J Z , ,: a Z_ . . .. QO Q O ..... .... W.........----- 0 co co CI � \ Ch N W • ....• "*”. 0 %.:, II ce , 4' o00 \ 16 % J Qo- I ai 6 1( 1 �W Q F =� % " 1 � 0 i ..45,00 en" en" 0 GJ •-E.-0- 7 ,,`': Z X a? o A o. U V w W .0.0 e w Can 43 \__j -. ----- •i ' > 4 OD caw °' 3 WO =mod ErN (C.":::-.'". 14, '� C- m as en m N I g � 1 r M A o P:11139 Jaffe dooldCAD\SHEETPERMIT-STATEITHA-1139-PRMTSWFMWD.dwg 911488125F1 10/28/2011 RANDI.JONES WARRANTY DEEDS Attachment B INSTR 4572091 OR 4689 PG 3007 RECORDED 6/8/2011 10:08 AM PAGES 2 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC @.70 $32,550.00 REC $18.50 CONS $4,650,000.00 Roe.tei&Andress,LPA an Ohio Legal.Professional Assn. `� • 850 Park Shore Drive,Suits 300 - - Naples,FL 341033587 (239)649-6200 Prepared VON%{i N{y Timothy G.Haim Attorney at Law Quarles&Brady LLP 1395 Panther Lane Suite 300 Naples,FL 34109-7874 239-262-5959 File NCuumber: sms-Forbis Jeff Doc Stamps: 3g2 55550.00 Sales Price: 84,650,000.00 Parcel Identification No.27530160008&27530880003 [Space Above This Line For Recording Datal Warranty Deed / (STATUTORY FORM-SECTION 689.02,F.S.) O This Indenture made this ( day of Ju•e-1I R ?C:;9.4 C. Forbis and Debra J. Forbis, husband and wife whose post office address is 1443 Rail •., "'ap , T M I of the County of Collier, State of Florida, grantor*,and Andrew T.Jaffe and Fern :.;a, usband and wife, , . s by the entirety whose post office address is 10091 Gulf Shore Drive,Naples,FL •10:0r023 of the County of Collie Sta of Florida,grantee*, n Witnesseth that said grantor, for . • in onsideratio, ••t' sum o TEN A' D 0/100 DOLLARS($10.00)and other good and valuable considerations to s.id g - t4 R •. a • ,1111M1_ e. i'a re eipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted,bargained, and sold to t e sa{. g .me , d Air'i -, as gns forever, the following described land, situate,lying and being in Collier Cou o '• . •- i E-^s' Lot 34, Block A, and the N, .0 feet of Lot 14, Blo,,;; •e-.ub ision of part of Unit No. 1, CONNER'S VANDERBILT ► ESTATES, accor• 1 • 0 t thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3,Page 18,of the Public • • of Collier County,Flo .<r. oSubject to the following exceptions: �! (1)ad valorem and non ad valorem real ••• tG e year of closing and subsequent years; (2)zoning,building code and other use restrictions imposed by governmental authority; (3)outstanding oil,gas and mineral interests of record,if any;and (4)restrictions,reservations and easements common to the subdivision. • Grantors hereby confirm that this property has been grantors'homestead. and said grantor does hereby fully warrant the title to said land,and will defend the same against lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. •"Grantor"and"Grantee"are used for singular or plural,as context requires. �\ *** OR 4689 PG 3008 *** 06/03/2011 16:05 2394344999 QUARLES & BRADY 7 PAGE 03/12 • a In Witness Whereof,grantor has hereunto set grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Signed,sealed and delivered in our presence: • 1.4.LOA..../ ri.Lt..aii ✓ Lad/ r Seal) Witness Name: A illelA ah Sfac. Ro C.Forbis Witness Name; -r rtes - t j�/ -,die" IS l) 'tip (Seal) • Witness Name:✓ �n s e(<i�?►ns 064,— Dc•ra 3.Forb s Witness Name -,• State of / A.AJiC.0 v• '`\ 1 County of _ . i7a1'7i► 'te a. ,..fie The foregoing instrument was ac• o cdg..before m > day o # 1 b Robert C.Forbis and Debra.1.Forbis. who[.J are personally known or At•ve ••a• - ,%7gwii!ttz!', •iy:l0:4 as entification. giP 177ftlfl Will re) - [Notary Seal] ( -•"#!::., -cam,- �s ., Pri >;.Q c: d ��Y uaf'1rIQ�{ U.� ,` 0I il , kje a , . My Coma scoI' xpircs: G�r.{..'�L�13 .....-.----- ...." tki 0 Tyliiik:0*.;k.•,pUBL1C ` 011itumm0 • Warrant Deed(Statutory Form).Page 2 DoubleTlmew J 3537841 OR: 3712 PG: 0935 RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIER COUNTY, FL 01/10/2005 at 09:35AK DWIGHT B. BROCK, CLERK CONS 5500000.00 NEC FEE 18.50 This instrument prepared by: uuc-.lu 38500.00 David L. Petersen, Esq. RetR: Quarles &Brady LLP QUARLES & BRALA 1395 Panther Lane, Suite 300 1395 PANTHER LAMB #300 Naples, Florida 34109 NAPLES FL 34109 Grantee's I.D. No.: Property Appraiser's Parcel Identification No. 27530880003 /27530160008 WARRANTY DEED THIS INDENTURE, made this SO'1 day of December, 2004, by and KIMBERLY L. BILINSKI and DENNIS M. BI . hard! ift ,`ihusband, whose address is 1417 Timberwood Court, Bremen, Indi.. : 6 c... a.. r'k:i.y •R"), ROBERT C.FORBIS and DEBRA J. FORBIS, husban. fe, as tenants b . • - 'tirety, whose address is 10091 Gulf Shore Drive,Naples, Flo da 4 e:, " RANTEE") WITNESSETH, th.t s.i. ...a • r : cfy ', -,��, is - ation of the sum of TEN ($10.00)DOLLARS, and o er . :. {. •1 ;L�'r .''ef,n to -.'d GRANTOR in hand paid by said GRANTEE, the r-' ' • e. 1•aclm� ed has granted, bargained, and sold to the said GRANTEE, --1 G'f S heirs t d as-i_ '-ver, the following described land situate, lying and being her County,Flori• ,(4_• it Lot 34,Block A,and the No ; , !et of Lot 14,Blo ''e-Subdivision of part of Unit No. 1,CONNER'S VANDERB .e",�.° .ccording to plat in Plat Book 3, Page 18, Public : : ,k. 7T i • County,Florida. SUBJECT to municipal ordinances and zoning codes, restrictions, easements and reservations of record, and real estate taxes for the year 2005 and all subsequent years, bearing Property Identification Numbers 27530880003 and 27530160008. TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same in fee simple. GRANTOR hereby covenants with the GRANTEE that at the time of delivery of this Warranty Deed, GRANTOR is lawfully seized in fee simple of the property described above; that GRANTOR has good right, title and lawful authority to sell and convey the subject property; and that GRANTOR fully warrants the title to the property, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomever. *"GRANTOR"and"GRANTEE"are used for singular and plural, as context requires. n QBNAP\449917.1 *** OR; 3712 PG; 0936 *** IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTOR has hereunto set GRANTOR'S hand and seal the day and year first above written. ` Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: WITNESSES: 12.0fek,..4.6?-- , Witness#1 KIMBERL f. BILINSKI PrintTie Below: 4v/0 L. /Cr 1d S�J 10. CO it , __----- _ i -■'....,4 ",I/ 1110"fr ..,:...,, Ill-4. :,,, Witness#/ I .NNIS . ILINSKI Print Name Below: 1 I1/416.4-ali e S. 3 c nefi` ,,r,.at \I 3 10 . STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrum: : acknowledged •, , 'ie ',s 30 tay of December,2004 by KIMBERLY L. BILINSKI ' p. S M. BILIN 41 who are personally known to me or V 1 who have produced . .,/,; • as identification. -1 C] (SEAL) -,,1 .,,... CARYN D.HAW#ILTON NOT i PUB l L.fL�., S ,�. MY COMMISSION#DD 287890 _ Y PUB IC WIRES:AprII 22,2008 Rf.s a°"dedT1i"'"°"' � Typed or printed name of Notary MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: QBNAP\449917.1 - 2- , • "I 2050934 OR: 2177 PG: 1399 *Mt AET:1! 110.L' v1U 4.1:00k,[squire 11!016 la O47ImI8 new it Ol U*0110T, It Yoe;;.;.v3r.Aesenderp&Varnadoe,P.A. 1S/f1/4i it 11:4311 Mlr!1. IM10,131111 801 Laurel Oak Drive.Suite 300 BMA yaples,Florida 33963 NC 10 4•11 NI-.If f1K. . btu ` • - 744111W1IBIlf IT ii Taros ID N & 27530880003 1 O 1011111 Grawoa f1 TIN Will It 33541 'III Grantee/2 ' Warranty Deed This Indenture, Made this 26th day of April, 1996 A.D.. Between Mary R. Lawmaster, Trustee of the Mary Lawmaster Revocable Trust u/t/a dated 11/12/91 and individually, of the County of COLLIER state„r Florida ,grantor, and Kimberly L. Bilinski and Dennis M. Bilinski, wife and husband, wrwreaddressi,:1417 Timberwood Court, Bremen, Indiana 46506 of the County of state of Indiana ,grantees. -,j 4 1' Witnesseth that the GRANTOR,for and in consideration of the auto of TEN & NO/100($10.00) oouAas. and other good and valuable consideration to GRANTOR in hand paid by GRANTEES.the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged,has premed, bargained and sold to the raid GRANTEES and GRANTEES' heirs and amigos forever•the Wowing described land.situate, lying and being in the county of COLLIER sure or Florida hi wit: Lot 34, Block A and the No a ,,:a of Lot 14, Block C, Re-Subdivision of part a1,, 6 i(T` •, -R'S VANDERBILT 16 BEACH ESTATES, accord' � a plat in • R •ok 3, Page 18, Public Records of Co County, Flori•- . Subject to restrict■o -, • -- -ry-tin s and -as-ments of record, if any, which are of - 't.••-r... • - • t• es subsequent to December 31st, 199 . ' n n k.„1 ,C) \/('‘.\... ..._,.., ‘..) and the grantor does hereby My warrant the title to said land,and will defend the same against tawNl china of all persons whomsoever. In Witness Whereof, the grantor has hereunto bet her hand and seal the day and year tint above written. Signed,reeled .vexed i mence: Printed Name: l tr/O L • �/� By' ��f�••// °rte '`L :Sean MARY LAWMASTER, Individually and as Trustee Y.O.Address 10091 Oulfshure Drive Ninth,NAPLES.FL 33963 (. i:Cli-CtFC `J) Cc'%( Printed Name: 1 /C tok'i4 1 tiq hit)/ STATE OF Florida COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing iastnttrc,s was acknowledged before me this `'1/1 71 / 5■t� MARY LAWMASTER, t''�J day of (�Ii l I9 by who is personally known to me or who has produced her U,S S. driver's license as identification. �� This Document Prepared By: "'� David / /if L Cook, aq. / i la r(L s-,,', -( ,( ,C e.< YOUNG,VAN ASSENDI I'at vARNADOE,P.A. Printed Name: Vie.70/..:;/f) L�1-jif an LAUREL OAK DRIVE,' SURE 300 NOTARY PUBLIC NAPLES,PL 33963 My Commission Expires: -r VICTORIA L.FAHEY 1 W , so€cameo!stet a n c:.ses 1*7 12 ,�'A.:w Bales s1/Y MOWN*dadrwY ssU if ∎ y, . '1}„( •555 -.f; .„. S, 'S, -.,, .. : .. ,. - - _ .....i b a=yam ,.4 •144GUUS Es C 13 m 3E ltENNI s-r ritteRin OR 800K !up Kw 1ss- tka fte SS.Na,3oi-w.)7#& Appraiser's -- 1 t:C,.afIL _ rsntef t�.No `r,...... incrtitelt waa repued 1litli...�..r "1",„._...,1,....._,..,„...k..1 NW Mkt kowtow Refute to frdt Egg. 4001 T10m14mi Trail Nods Smite 300 Naples,Florida 31M0 . (813)2612 Js y Dec ember 'nit.'' THIS%%masmy DEF?,made r / -d�i r. 1991.by Mary R., aster,a married woman,whose post office address is 26700 County Road 54. Nappanee. IN '°("Mantor'), to Mary R.tawmastcr,Trustee of the Mary Lawmaster Revocable Trust u/t/a Dated November 12,1991,whose post office address is 26700 County Road 54. Nappanee. IN 46550 ('Grantee): (Wherever used herein,the terms"Grantor'and"Grantee include all parties to this instrument and the heirs,legal representatives and assigns of individuals,and the successors and assigns of corporations) WIINESSETH: That the Grantor,for and in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars($10.00)and other valuable considerations,receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,hereby grants,bargains,sells,aliens, remises,releases,conveys and confirms unto the Gr tee.&Wet certain land situated in Collier County,Florida, viz: ( `\ Lot 34,Block A,and the North•t•t r1II BT•. •' •- ubdivision of part of Unit No. 1,Conner's Vanderbilt Bea • according to Plat •-, .• rded in Plat Book 3,Page 18,of the Public Records. a' ',er County,Florida. TOGETHER with all th ten ents,he di ,,• nts an.appurte,•. thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO t I/) • .,e n -she for.er `� v V AND,the Grantor her • nants with said Grant.;that he sit, or is lawfully seized of said land i 1 in fee simple;that the Grantor has s •t and lawful a •.--"-r:, ,se y, .., said land;that the Grantor hereby fully warrants the title to .• and will defend the .,. ,,-. the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever,and that said land is fr• ••breams, or the current and subsequent years, zoning and use restrictions imposed byy , u,'« at ra•,ictions and easements common to the i-- d subdivision,and outstanding oil,gas and min • -test • , . if any. E ii IN WITNESS WHEREOF,Grantor has signed and sealed these presents the day and year first above written. Signed,Sealed and Delivered as to Each Grantor in the Presence of Witness N. : Cite `lan . Mast MAR' R:IAWMASTER . Received$ r-LG Documentary Stamp Tax Received$ Ch-,s •(7 tntontibte Witness e•Na ' Jo We ick _ 4/4 .Persona}Property Tax STATE OF INDIANA ) COLLIER COIF Y LERK O DURTS )ss; BY�...r.--. --- .C. COUNTY OF ELK(HART ) I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day before me,an officer duly authorized in the State aforesaid and in the County aforesaid,to take acknowledgments personally appeared MARY R.IAWMASTER,to me known to be the person(s)described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and she acknowledged before me that she executed the same. '13NESS any hand and Official Seal in the County and State last aforesaid this LD day of oe Iiirii+iho%349L .`v,,o Dfeitteutf�ter 14 eY ■-7 r ! I;,im"3a Notary Public of the State of Indiana and my commission expires: May 19. 1993 • ;4'4'0.- 2 (SEAL)::,- NOTARY C IPU; J. Mast ��' Name: u qr mom- � ra, - •uco qroJ_1M 01 WARnA TTY aEt:a `.I... 1• Inc 643 PA61 1, \�1r4 IN a1Vla To ITb,V10 ,:�I•r: 390137 L : I:4,1 T This Warranty Deed mud,. Ills 22 day Ili July ' A. D. I11 75 by i, w h - e • Milton W. wood and June E. Wood, husband and wife ' — s'r'i iteryinufler (idled Illy ri,nnlur. to 'AZ Mary R. Lawmas ter Ind.46550 4 Tdln.r. l.r Qor n,t,fr,., IY Zf700 County Road f154, R.R. A1, Nnppaneo, , Tom' ln,reinuf flied Illy manly. e.'J .1%hrtnr, ••••••I he■.... d.. Nun. .• nd n...' Inrlu,it all Ih. p.n,.. I., Ihn uurutnrnr Slid \ Om*Imo!, le..,l ,ru„e,.I Si.,es anti eI..,.n, ••I ,n,h.nll,.l,. and the .or,r,..n. Anti ...Ixn. of r..,put.0.1 1 r 10.00 �lltnessefh: 'l'hu1 ill,• grnnlur, (sir rued its rnnxlriyraNnn of Ills sum of $ and other s oluahlr •undderntur,s, rr,11,11 ul{lyrruf it hereby ark/UM,lydgr•d, hereby grunts, l,urgnlru. tells, aliens, re- erases, releaxes, eonveyt nml surlfirms units the grunter, all that frrinln land sliunte in Collier `;r County. Fluridn, viz: Lot 34, Block A. and the North 50 feet of Lot 14, Block C, Re-Subdivision of part of Unit No. 1, Conner'.s Vanderbilt Beach Estates, According to plat in Plat Book 3, Page 18, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. -e • tsyd,i1 f f <t,s.:,1 i4,-.sir• f.i ,.`s.Ae r. �n Y�ac1tr6,./j 7 M lT!1' w e. jq.�l l"LORIa ji iii�it 'i'.'l n,1; •IS; vk i�a � '�,�;1 4 n...Ai-.q L ;Q�.1• ".`n' ttN r sKE r 4A . ,9" z hr'. ..t+ ':'-4k«s's ,7,-,4, .• , ?!• ',7. •, r . . �, . 1 4 ... •� Y1.. -- f?• r Togttfltr with nil Ilse tenements. hereditament, and appurtenances thereto belonging or in atiF• wise appertaining. To Have and told, the same in f.. simple forever. . orever. i•P�I• find file grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seised of saki land "1? . in fee simple; that the grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land: that the •' d' grantor hereby fully Iearranls the mie to sold land and will defend.the same against the lawful claims of j,. .1 , all persons whomsoever; and that said land b free of all encumbrances, cereal taxes accruing subsegu.nt ,i. w..' to December 51, 14 74, and conditions and restrictions of records. , e ai Jl {• ..,t; . iY.1.,. lift Mum Whereof, the sntd grantor has signed and tealed these presents the day and year 1•" • first above written. '.t ti, Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence, V' " ,.t i 1 ��ky� � Milton W. Wood ,, 0i}rt. . - I N NtOW roe s000ese IMr a Y I:y s 1 -STATE of ✓•41'A _ r51 r COUNTY ()p f!�� ^"tt'_.., .rr .yam tr w _ d. 1I +{`'•ti I HERESY CERTIFY that on this day before m•, :u otlieer duly• + ,+ r� v, _ 4�e,'Y Lt' ..• �;;+I�7 r I ,!authoriiEid Isii IKE State fforeta{d and In the County aforeuid to take >., r I F1 ,:!1 yir,l,' ..acki k ikdfillib}-personally appeared I,ra• • a,,' • '~Xii"I'terflq: Wood & June E. Wood �l'IEk I I'S!! �, t , it f Y's '`' W i '•`i4 ;� ,t1 _4 ;algid wife . ,.,, _i,:,... a o :y5 �kEits'I,h1.p f fesn described in and ..'ho exetuied the ' i. r�it,' V;'. ; I s1,` , _';rt'E,(y�-.'el. Wr1 ':!t.oat .hit. acknowledged before me e . 'JUL(,, s2,611y,'..:, L r ••,:si •1•e,l kki a. see r_ u ,!' - ' . `^; :�cix �p�p 1,,r�1,, i rt7 ,y11 9 ful•. vo . .i.,.;",.-t `� TNEtiO my' t•-: nd official seal R y p�'at...fi$ �CBURT' a il. date tyt aiorey u �y''gpy°IQ ,pSPARCOUNTYsFLORIDA'1 + S �,��i�-'14•f. '' NJ 1 . fS St .'°- .e;�'F l`'d(� '�� r• •. )J.( • t C t id yl ' tr 's" -e .at14'' fit} 0.1 J. r.• y " h 4..,. •;,,,,.,:t.,4;!p+. .. a -•!', r J, p ••.I y �`,',r' h I,j ��Y A, 42 ?a , 1st. .' 1i t`1rpri!fpnredb - J,;M.f O'Hara, .Pres. ly�� rRll• •�`1 ksY " t•-4...it�pdrrn i•t 'Ul •bere.e m orrTUl n.ee.as sails .;i�'•) St ., r G f TITLE INSURANCE••• •• AGENCY, INC.►... of call 107 rrlIN1Y,nootnk a{ ry e 600 FIFTH AVENUE SOUT1i - SUITE 205 wn.,.an.T. escort rnZ 3 "a 3' a.,. nl ca..„u c..,,rr x,E' Is i ,• NAPLES, FLORIDA 33940 r. r r 4,1*E5 rv,a5?.n. *c+'pn.,. ^'^'xw•Mt:st:'.w-• .4-quire:;iro.xe,re r e!:'W,'Iave':d-a?r4n:3v;.: •sr.,;,:',40 14 a4.U'M1•a'wer.,•ea-°vr t,.`r,.?;0r.' ' -'e... %.; ' 7.1 414 rict838 245188 .moi•er Iw 1..,.r.•Tide(:.note T.r,4.OrI.n.l... 11.44. Dos itot nout•ut was larpared b): .. • RICHARD BIVINS LANSDALE rLf RICHARD BIVINS I.ANSDALE-r P.A. f arranty Dee 194 ES, OR1DA 119 J rslAnnoaY FORM—srfltOM 689.01 LS) NAPLES, u9.w , el* inbrttlirr, \I a , d.lt 2nd tla∎ f 'September la 71 , Nrittrcrtt _._YKt... �'5 : GERTRUDE S. MATROGRANO, °t ` ":$' ":' `�`: joined by her husband, ANTHONY J. MATROGRANO, oI the County of Collier •st.et,ni Florida ,gt,mla•,.Ind MILTON W. WOOD N'1,..,• i•hr ..ilk.- add.,,,.. 3320 Hamilton Bouievard, Allentown, . of the('.nod. „1 •state of Pennsylvania 18103 .c,..nl•.••. liltnrneril. ll..t said gr..utur, 10, .n.1 in u,osideratinn ui the solo of Ten and No/100ths 4)nll„r<. And other gaol.tell u.du.Jd.'coosid,tatioos to said grantor in hand paid hs .,lid glairtrr.the..w,il.t ss lurreof is hock. et:ktxtwirslgml, h.,, grant.,. harg.inert and sold to Ilk” saki yrnntn•, and gtanG•rs heirs and assign, futct'rt, the (ol• k,Ndng described land, situate. ping end being in Collier Counts', Florida III.,t: Lot 34. Block A, and the North 50 feet of Lot 14, Block C, Resubdivision of Part of Unit No. 1, CONNER'S VANDER- N- BILT BEACH ESTATES, according to Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 3, Page 18, Public Records of Collier County Florida. • SUBJECT to restrictions and easements cormton to the • Subdivision. • Taxes for 1971 and subsequent years. • . r and .aid Canto dew, io•oi.■ hill N•.unanl tier,title to said laod..uul will defeml the same against the lawful •laims td all pet uns isItntnsorser. •"Grantor-and')ttauter"Ale used flit ■ingulal in pl,u:lie at t,niir■t requires. 3Ii its itllrnit i{ihrrrnf. (%.+odor has hereunto set grantor's Mind and seal the day and .r:u he Si aiot•,• written. Signed. staled wild debt eleti fie our p,rneuce: 5s....its�J 4�t L!•lt.i(.L>l ti ,4 tZt.t.s.(IZ/X.4. r..�/21.M1.-' —.._(Soil) J /,,,, - `�- Gertrude S. M&troy.Jana Anthony A, Matrograno ; M: ---'---•-.•---._._.... (Slat) _......._...._.._._. .. . . .... . . ..... ._ .. ( ) STATE OF Non York COUNTY OF' ilutchoos I IlI.liEl1Y CERTIFY that ou this day hrfnrt. use. an office, duly ,In:tlifiuv( to take acknowledgments. personally • wppcwretl ANTHONY J. MATROGRANO and GERTRUDE S. MATROGRANO, husband and wife, 10 our known to hr the person S described in and who r.ecutrd the• lice iuslnuurnt and acknowledged hero.c toe that they e wt.litrd the same. 3.; x; aex WITNESS en.hand:mil official seal in the Couch'and State lest alone id this { 2 it(lay of ' September u"�. =a '-•'t? 18 71 . ? K. __._. . l• -- 11y cummiscion expires: • Notary Public • PETER E.IWBINSON • MEM PUM(IC•SIAN Of.t,W YOH • moms tt ourcufss coon. '.(NOTARY SEAL)•jaitlttW Ot Was ti4ac Pa.IM 73 ',',`� Y• fv • • . is I . 1M�s:t 1 Ai • T .y . _ _ '.f - s. Farm 1)(r..4, 11.......4.1 WARRANT'DLt—Mruw rwwJ 183893 •ul Re an... 7uIIIr tAw•rhlrl.rxAAtAr.J,AW,rnvM • Efao , DIltbm...dIn ..er�'f�vi2 AU 375 • • ..fart this 3rd clay of April .1.D,19 69 ' • IlCtwcen L•RN3ST RIZ7A, SR., Joined by hig wife, CARMQL RIZZA, .• of the C.dtnlil of Lee In the ,Crate of Florida parties of the first part,and OSRTRUD3 S. WtTRO RANG whosr. correct post office address is: 2341 Windward Wry, Naples, F1nri a • of the County of Collier in f/tr State of FD,orids 339 party of the second part, • WIIlleSSCIIt, that the said portics of the first part,for and in consideration. of the sum of TEN AND NO/100 ($10.00) Dollars, to then in hand paid by the said part y of the srrond part, the receipt whereof!:hereby acknowledged, have gnarled, bargained and sold to the said party of the second part, her lherrs cud assigns forever, the following described land, situate, IginA and bring In the County of • Collier , .Stale of Florida, to wit: • I • !°!!!!!!!!!1!1!! L' tr O o Lot 34, Block A, and the North S0 feet of II erre ° Lot 14, Block C, Re-subdivision of o'rt of 1 !I ^ LrJ Unit No. 1, CONNER'S V.\ND3:(BILT BTAC11 ^STATES, )1 d, = E'� ~:(1� to ) recording to the arp or pint'thcreof on file �� =n ' tnd recorded in Pitt Book 3 rt prim I1., Public I c `• c q Records of Collier County, Florid.-•. E • s:27-t. , 'K' SU3J3CT to taxes for the cnlend`r 'err 1959 :nd ee •d I'(/ a ? esscments end restrictions of record, if any. r• _ STATE rrFLC�R2!DA STATE D►FLQRIDA f^ .E::-.: cccut:Ehre4m-._SThPt, T.:?; if'.- t,JCUMEtint,t�" IAnr; TA1, 1 0: •�,i b900= 1 I.,r : Pt'.nul.r=7vyzL--.;vnp Pt Ifrl.r_ - and (be said part ies of the first part do hereby/Illy/'arrant the title to said Iland,and will drfrndTthe came against the lawful claims'if all persons whomsoever. 1 � In Witness 'Whereo , rite said parties of the fine( part have hereunto set their hands anti seals the clay and year first abaci.written. Sign d.Sralc.l nod Delivered in Our Presence: ll , �4 a�. _ .. ._. _ (Cyr x_5. 1!L."._ f/ S • Stale of Florida, County of Lee . )) • i HEREBY CERTIFY, That on this day personal/y appeared before me, an o/firer duly authorized to administer oaths and hike acknowledgments, 7.721\7-•ST TIZZ1, SR. and CA :•;3L 2IZZ•1, • • to me well known. and known to ere to be the individuals described in and who • executed the foregoing dyed,and they rtrknowlerlged before me that they executed the some freely and t'olnntari/y far the purposes therein.expressed. , WITNESS my hand and official seal>ebtx • 4tmtp:n,iso xxxx xlaa->orxxxxlo,•.cxx.:swoarri;sequ e.,rws:k'klrid>x this AS day of April . . .1. D. 19 69. (NOTyZY'S 5 :1L) ".!`s •a e arty Public • ( :. itll COMIllisSinn Expires �lo t1 1,;"[? 0 rli C4 rj•♦1(1•' .....;.:,.;),;1;1 Ae,cre.e In ort•aul RKO.e.Raul 1 . i,Vttl.^ el COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA MARGARET T. .COTT .. CI.,t et CIrv.R D•... . t. yi I t • o II ` • • / a .-, -._ __ r_ _.__ _. _ . . . . . I % _ _ 0 : Aat�tA1'no.I1t 11.4 ITI,Iwl( WAIIPARTI'U , /,...1. ..,-, { ,J t t +ij�1 1 l'.%l)'1.... 6•.,•, r �, • y� {rlt✓� i �1�'°� 8:i,,-7,I'��r� T �S` n� �pdi ��a NC(( 1(1, 1 1- '- Vim, /hi, ),:t 1��.>� .a� (1lS��t. l tl �l�l4 u t • !Ir I1; i„1,of .t.l:'. 0 ('('II .l. ':T l;:l,':1' sl i u;r J' P.J9(,11 n.' A,.:r''fla' i:. 511121', huphnnJ And u'ifr it I� of the County of Lbch(Ielrl /) the strte of Connoclloul • mitt l nn ! . I Wife,itt na n1 the he first past,rent/ :u\•tnT 111 ;7.1 nn,: (-111.:711.7.117 , 4` 1 Zhu antiraty, whotla correct postofr 0e11atldroiMn s 1 rltklon i term/, ; 1•kllt'tnwn, Connecticut r:prl:7 ■ 11 of the County of :;l.;.11one',x par/101A of the wrrood part, In the,(role of Connect icut ' 11 Willie/010h. that the rah!part Ire of(hr first part,for and In rnnaldrrat/nn of lb.' meet of T_V (,;10.110) i ii u`hrn•„ the' in hand 'sold 1,11 the x.d.l part lee of the second /,art, the receipt f Is l,rrrblt acknowledged, have ern„Irrl, bargained and tots/ to the t' i II said part Sop of the seems,/ port, their -1 fore,re, tlrr fn/Jnn•ii, described loud, wit Ii lie, lying and Leine In theaTCant assigns I Collier . stare of Florida, to ' wit: Lot 34, Rlock .1, And the' 1,.,,-,.. ,r` fr.:t of Lot 14, I 131 och C, in CONNLR'S VriN7?R 11.1..1- 11.7-1C11 CSTATCS, according to the plot thereof r<•corclel in Plat E nook 3 at papa iC of the Public Records of Collier I I County, Florida, being a replat of Unit X13 g SU13JtiC7 to taxes for the calendar t °'1 t estrictions of record. year 1968 and i Is it._ I ( _ _^' o,, « — =�M1\`�``1 DOCUK,ENTARY= aEc�rol.l i• • I i ��j . tic•:) FLOR1 A SURTAX X= oe%�:'A: NCU'. i .} 8 N _ C;17.::f.C:•I•:::1:.1.,...;;_..A 11.1 rt tu-stt 3 0. 8 0 I .. . 1110�� uV 5 ! M'�9 i N•.I :'I1' :GTT t f ,tt,, to :t;'1 l:';iT I ' I .fad the I 1 t!a aald•panil as „f the first port rlu hereby lolly warrant the title to sold land anr!will drf,•r'rl the svint a O/1iat the lnu ftrl eialllla oral!persona w/IOnte0e1Mr, H • to Witness 1N:hereol, lhr Rail parties of the fleet part have hereunto a II +r/ the'i r hare;Alma real C the dale and year above written. Shard.Sealed and I)t•lllrred In Our Preet'n t •' "Evelynli.J , K.'/ -' 4�''-. --_ (J5cI t'/r4, '71'llr tL/l C•- �' �1r � _ — �J.'3Tnnlcy 3l>�ir _— C � ett t Mcro — (JL�)! f, �, it[ar t Y norothy4-5hirp`t ------e, ' ; I n l 1 ,1 I. �(tl(A O!' (!(Il I(l11�� CUT ( is' Stamford ' I taaunt.. n( �,L CT1 JJJ I'111:;11:II (.. 1. That on fibs daft pfroonr,//,/ appearrr! be/ore Nee, an I .°JMMM►ditty autltorited to adnrintater meths noel take arkaan'irdArnlent,, J. STAJUJY SHARP and !X)ROTIIY R. SHARP Go me u'r/l known anr! known to ma hi be the individual s described In and who ereeirtoil the/'nrrtluln1t r/err/, and the3' 1 thole e,reratett the Name free/!/am/t•0ldntarlll nrkoruses therein before ia pre expressed,that h77:\F:SS ol1, hand and olltrial seat oy: l for the pie rouses(heroin exprnaanl, t3ounrlq<nJ:xx:: .1...... *.;......,t :x a:;qu,nt';�Jafe:n day o f:b'r/rrhla, /hlx 1 131` I 1/ f h111' 1. U. 19 f,; ( (NOTARI"S S1Lj✓ r .1•r,tan ' • ST, or. 111/ G'onuo(nx(nn drpire.t�ril 1 1968 �, C1iT MCA�'T..t' cl/O.RITDAA 1 -w+o..,.«.. •-.»...--.�..r,..wn_l.u._. ».... ..._ •.« In an.i A....a.J - u ,,,,,,..-t, ' 4 0 i N L, . .:• r N Caws.mum.net. A MARGARET T.ECO CNr4 or Circuit Cow f , • • • • • i I F • , • A .. v ,.. •I 1ti.Ti a' • • s a _ t , ,,` v..,nraa er t.w..er TITLE•u1.aa.ry rune,ORLANDO.rwnlo„' - - --+—•• �e�ant deed .3G1�� JIIXON IflXUN 15 . .' Ao«11rr1 al LAr III 11011111'Tint IllrArutonr 11;k1•1141,)1.01111)0 IZIII,I 311111rltltirr, kind.IhA I•I day or AP?I I 1 • 1I I IVa Vn lr.rin x'1.5 I.. nn.' ''.,/.11111) h, ..1111 11, 11Un�'iii 111' 11111117tt I flu t�rllllrrll id Iln't.nmly of Aim rl.•,•,. ,$leln ul • ''1n(11l') .IU,fll ,11111 I././.1111) 't,doo 1'1t 1111URIMIIId Ilnp Npett II+M of the VIII pall,nod • . who.,pnllnmraklldfnIit, 71 1'1101 111111111m f:t tool• Lido llnnPh, N. I, Id Ow Creamily of ,In Ihn Rinlr of 4s'■ I n rY ,parl I n.N of thy Incnnd 1.r1. i111tn•nnrlil, 71t4l Ilia Iald Nil 1 r., of thr Orel I:ul. for and Si, n,mldr and rll llrl gIxlll 1111(1 1'Nhuhlr rnluldrfallnm In I Ill I' 1 fallOO of Ihn nun n( ` -• • fn11 %bNhru+l( Is 4 (J II II(k1u,Nlydlilll• lucre In ht1.l jw(d Si) ..11d w11h 1 I�.Ilar1, ri end OdpR' t I io,Ihr alII, I, * g.r.d..,1.1 1./1,nee.,,.I odd 1.1 air n1. tIf the Innnd par/.the rrr'i tot (part I on of 1114 lrt,'. II t. I'.• 1 t In Iha StNla of Florida,Io•wtlt tying N1.1 tMhll(In Ihn(ANlllly 1.I u t I 1 , r 1 (mum j •,1 i I, 'l ul ,.• . 4, 4,r .fi r�//lam I ii I 111. f,.6r r., ,I• r.l I'1 I .1 q I�V,VrI •11 ,!1 t , ,.I), Ilnr I.II. rl•Ir t.•11. 1 ' 111 1 e�ttlu'nrr momwarsn J .N P, Ig. ,,�� v � 4.1.11 ` • 4 k[�_ irda+r r. r�• • (. ' .rl '1.I. . r, •1 •' ,,1 1r ••,a.rrt �, I ifa.tl • %+,...is • a - w ..,..1 510. .oil 11.11 i.... rd flit hnl p.II do IN t.l 1.011.'igIIN.1 11111 Iewf11111.11/.16 I,1•II 1.111.,4144111441 .1111) MJIli•1t1 114-501, 1111.MI I.fvl and 8 11.10 1,,,.1 11.. ' . • ii i[Iilltrntt U1/1 '5I -.1.'d ,all I , 1.'.11 11., .1.1. .nui)rlf h1.l.d nronq,if t (' . ly d.,•lu.l I.,! L11 I ,.u,.1., , .1 Iql 11 I•n'.1 r l 51go,d, n'aI ii A,IIN,11 04'�hi•s'i .J In rarr lnnl-ntrl V� itV`. -T'J: ... - f/.�.�ilJliti,1.44.1.1(1-M(.A, l• • I wt , I l/,,,• • ,, . •,, “...4. ig lu I I rl-1i1. (II I'1 �...1+ 1 iii ..I)' III' 1 IIl•III:OY (:1'11'1111 111.1 IL,. d•, Ir-bo• 1r'11u11.11y 4l'tie.rnl i ; •, Dr, 411 1•d1,r l 11114 .1,1.11/.I1„I 1,. I.kr at 11u1N I.•I,'I.,.•... 'I i. ,'..' '11 1..1•. 1 I 1 4 1{v.1.1.nnwuinfl,.Ihnp.-n..n• d'wId..•,1I.,.u.ls n m llunl h d1(.rl IN'bel.Ihr Ih.l • hr• rurvh.1 ihr Tltlre�11.•.I tl.a Lu.p.nup In'hnnu DI n d 1... - ' \\'I•fNKS. )h)' Jul,.. of 4411.1..1 .•.l in dn. (:.no iy y..1 Si,,., 1..4 01u1'•.,,,1 it,,, ILr nt . 'III. ,A. D. IU , VII • 1v►..Ao�r L Knlan')'.d.lh, kh 1„mmh16N1 rlpinm:■ •Flied Ih(1. '7 t//1 day of in"n A.ll. 19 : I ' AI u'1 Lr k \L,and ihv ordi•d In Deed 11,4 n:t D 1t1 t'.1kr 1 . ¢ Iq;(Ultl) Y):111F11:1>. .:";:o.: ch.'', (Ircul (clrt CP)II4r ' County, r7nrl :n DYI '-('h : 1.i ! f Mindy Clrlk. • 4 II a' • ' WARRANTY DECO ORCW•f FORM R. f<.33 M.•uf•.lu.,r by tAr R.t N.P.Dr..C•,,.., `. t FROM CORPORATION • 23828 ,.a.<mnl,. n.ru.. :��N 40 75 f' ., Th., 11 a _ . . • e � __ .._ _.:___':. . . .„ ., . . 9 .... .11nrlr. ibis ].lth day of May , A. 1). 19 55 . 1 i • Between CC;;i:FJiS VA;WERHILT BEACH ESTATES, INC. ,rr corporation .1 ^'f existing Under the lams of the Slate of Florida having I/s principal place of r business in the County of Collier and Slate of Fl or:,do I` :i purly of fhr fir's! /xrrl, rend ',IILLIA:,; NELSON ;5•:ITE AND DOROTHY N. 7h:liE,husband f i "':� ,; Inr1 v4fe,es an estate by the entirety of 350 Humboldt St. ,Denver, u of the County of Denver o,u(Sloir..of Colorado ' i I !i �I r I part Ia8 of the second purl. tlitnessedi, Thal the said party of the first part, for and in con- j i it side ration ()Hiss. soot of Ten Dollars and other valuable + r considers i_:nsltrmte, to it in hand paid, the receipt whereof. is hereby acknowledged. has [/ranted, bargained, sold, • aliened, remixed, released.a onveyed and confirmed,and by these presents cloth grant,bargain,se ll, alien,remise,release,convey and confirm unto the said part iesof the second par.',and their 1 I I it heirs and assigns forever, all ihaf certain parer.l of hard lying and being in the Comity of 1 I l •f Collier and State. of 1 ? f Florida - . more particularly i" i described.as follows: . •• I Lot 34 of Bock "A"., Unit ;f1, Conners Vanderbilt Beach Estates, . • i I aocording to the map or plat thereof on file and recorded in the •' office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, I �• ' Florida, in Plat Book 3, Page 18. Also the North 50 feet of c Lot 14, Block "C" of said re-subdivision, being a parcel of land. approximately 30 x 50 feet lying between the East side of Gulf • Shore-Drive and the end of canal in Block "C". • t. y To [thee r . 9 with all lhr tenrmen/s, hcreditamcnls and appurtenances, with every privilege, right, :w 'i/ line,Interest and estate,reversion,remainder and easement thereto belonging or in anyulise"appei;..• ::,",,i; . , . < r ',. lainingr To Rave and To i{old ore same in fee simple,forever. i,;*',> :,. And the said party of the first part doer covenant with the said parties of the second part , • that 1t,is lawfully seized of the said premises;-that they are free of all ineumhrances, and that it . _ • '.' . I has good right and lawful authority to sell the same;and the said party of the first parl does-here- ' • 1, by fatly warrant the title to said land,and will defend the same against the•lawful claims of all , • l M1 .• ! persons.whonuoever. ,"' I n` i': the said party of the ur• has caused in Witness 'Whereof, ! y f fi �i2ei� ii l;;' err {r these presents to be signed in its name by its/President,resident, and its ?';' 'r -.�lOt;l,' ( erporate corporate seal to he affixed,attested by itsSec.Asst.Seory. , • ' ' •( i f. re day and year above written. & Tress• t 4 •t, ,• k .• , • 'a r `'fin .:` CO ''• �E IY I I ii'" PINF.RS VAN BILT BEftCIi... s��T�,Ss.IIT�c r{• • °y�' fu.tZ , e�.rAt ti' S i '� ,,,i �'+; . .488 . o y-&-Tress. . • 13y ryy.. .. r Lee' f# -1', #`:e. t,%Ss xo�,`. /es^P esidenL • J•;f 4 3,r 1.047•,r .'.: •c'' 1'h-, _ 1 kF Stgiiiii:Sea,ed and elivered ire Our Presence: s; ,—7 4..., . • C - ,.... --,i •-...• - : ,•,-,--:-------...-----,-..:::-...„7...,,-.7.-----,:--7.:,717,..,-., -..7----...7.-,:::;-••,^mr...0 ...,-..,;,5,,,,,,..m!%:,...-.17...,,,,.•.,,.:ill' . , , ,+- ' ♦ 1, .fit 10 - - - LETTER OF NO OBJECTION Jaffe Dock Naples, FL • I hereby state that I am the owner of the adjacent upland riparian property located to the eta"-rll of the proposed project at, /Ooto QaGrthdC<<04.. ARP""s r' ;Jaffe residence. i.. understand that the subject property is proposing to construct a dock that will encroach the on required side yard setback of 10-feet. I do not object to the proposed project and agree to allow the project to be carried out. • _ , • ' • - • - jz/ 8//i/ott,1 1 • (OrigL al signature of ad'- t owner) • (Dat signed) CC1 PlYZD CNAPFk (Printed name of adjacent owner) • Attachment C May 19 11 11:57a p.1 • Robert C. Forbis May 19, 2011 10091 Gulfshore Dr Naples. Fl 34108 To: Appropriate review agencies and Administrrators Re: Proposed dock for 10090 Gulfshore Dr. Andrew and Fern Jaffe • This letter is to inform all parties that as the owner of the adjacent parcel, 10080 Gulfshore Drive, I have no objections to the proposed dock as per attached drawing . Sincerely, C F_orbis • 08> � . _ _ • _ • _ . • • • • • AGENDA ITEM 9-D Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT&ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: MAY 3,2012 SUBJECT: PETITION SV-PL2011000285,AGAVE SOUTHWESTERN GRILL SIGN VARIANCE PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Applicant: A&D Real Estate Holding II, LLC 2380 Vanderbilt Beach Road Naples, FL 34109 Agents: Mr. Theodore R. Walter Mr. D. Wayne Arnold Cummings and Lockwood LLC Q. Grady Minor&Associates 3001Tamiami Trail North#400 3800 Via Del Rey Naples,FL 34103 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 5.06.04.F.4. of the Land Development Code (LDC) to allow an additional second wall sign. (The LDC allows one wall sign.) The two wall signs on the building consist of an existing wall sign of 93.33 square feet on the northern building façade and a second wall sign of up to 96 square feet on the western façade of the building. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, Agave Southwestern Grill (former location of Pizzeria Uno's), is located in the Walgreens PUD (Planned Unit Development) (Ordinance Number 98-85) at 2380 Vanderbilt Beach Road in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Please see the location map on the following page) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: As previously stated, the LDC allows for one wall sign at the Agave Southwestern Grill. The requested Sign Variance is to allow for a second wall sign (Sign B) for the Agave Southwestern Grill. (Please refer to Wall Signage Elevation on the following pages.) SV-PL2011000285,AGAVE SOUTHWESTERN GRILL April 16,2012 Page 1 of 9 f I AF .1. , ) 9 7:711 , , . , . n i i 1 n a. § :. 7W1I4 '''''■, 1 i Ilkill t 9 bl lotto M _ -wwvo I —■ avOd Jwrru 17gdw n " avoe 9Nm d-laoaan r e Z D a wU U = s m LL F � z a O. w U O a. 1 m m Q 1 gill ,� e 100 ::: _: :�;:::: 1! �y�� c� ©_ / © �� __II: z e o n 17 ..�.,LLY�...� � Z ii• = O D o = o f N R. 11 a. 0. �0 3 lrc�rrrirr:p., .. o ®�©� . ,� oat �. aIC LO r -OvetOa� L.aBL Si lOva eIPIR N J .---.71101 oL.1.011 a CO It Z N re �g 9– 1 r� r' p "3§ 11 n #gym IP' _a. 63 a s � w SL-31V151131N1 _ SL-31tl1Sa3W !,._, 1E :,,,,l,h11 „.,:iii,,i is 1 R _ 1 — 111 e.-- Inla 5 le- ' li ag", t, ,.. 311=__ i 1 [ Eily i li I'- iO\ 6 U U ■, I Y lT �Ir.:�n Y.- NM I Y� - Ine n— avow NoisemM U � lMM.BTON ROliO Q< g ii ... Mom mvon3a Lc-?i, 1 1. gi CI„ 1r illy - i Z ] �< g 1 1$ li spa aura, O 5 a ra (1e a•o) .1�1 :- croon ormnrlaoaare ■ 4 id 1 avow DhlMflelSO&ITY 11.v nli 111 illni is 33 '■ - �1 1 h I , < 3i3 U �� 1 O Iha )11MIL/ �a, " N �� n �'3u37aooa---@ Mlvata4r03-Oi D N 1 PI II e iii ,(m - I1 kir- 1 I =r= Ei$ 112116:1 WNNtll lVal IVMIWl i .. 1 t ,..........., 0 iT \-- -1 ...- AREA OF SIGN ••• VARIANCE I 1 �• /MIMS eii,:::. I Ai: AA .:.:.,:::.;:;;:.....,....;st, i ..:::...:...;f: -- .A's• I STOP-- f STOP _.. ,:,w. - . •: 1 •: 1 ' 4 EXISTING .. 1 $` WALL--, al 1 1 'F6-� I ': ; . SIGN (Sign A) 1 1 ... == PROPOSED I I r I I i WALL SIGN (Sign B) • UNDEVE AGAVE _� r4 I LSOUTHWESTERR ..:, 1 •r .. _ 4. I .i. I• .I I�:i I 1 N 1 dOlS !I $. s I LOAD 1 I \ 1 ? dOiS; so (------ i I ' i-��• IV N 4 _ ,.. . . .. ...,.... — ..,:„,.. �. �� 7. .. ..... . '3 ii STOP 11 0 20' 40' g SCALE: 1' = 40' �� Bonita sponge 239.947.1744 A & D REAL ESTATE HOLDING II ..o• ®GradyMinor Fort ;s: :ese Nah n 9ia�e MO COM 3 IOW Naples 239.444.2397 SIGN VARIANCE DAMN Clvll Engineers • Land Survey= • Planners • Landscape Architects SITE PLAN nu a 001 R011 CBOT.OF AND.®0005151 CERT.OF ACTH.LB 0005151 611919®8 LC 26000205 www.Crad94lnor.com Q.Grady Minor and Associates.PA. S 1 SHEET EET>1 n.OF OF 1 i tf Nat s 4E g CIE 1 s 1 i III 5 IF,: >r CA �F x 3 W � 3 C0 2 ] ILI Zn a.6 U) a ' ! E 13 U) rl-',,,` 4E„ '14' ' ' b 0 CL a� 0 I. CL k 1 Poi ` O S 4� t u s s f j -- _94 Sign Permit number 2011070426 has been issued for the existing 93.33-square foot wall sign (Sign A), which is located on the northern building façade of the Agave Southwestern Grill. Sign A faces Vanderbilt Beach Road. The second wall sign (Sign B), the subject of this sign variance from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.4. is for a proposed wall sign of up to 96 square feet which is to be located on the western building façade of the Agave Southwestern Grill. Sign B faces towards eastern bound traffic on Vanderbilt Beach Road. The purpose of this second wall sign is to provide increased visibility to the eastern bound traveling public along Vanderbilt Beach Road. Awo€RaLT BEACH RD ....-.,.,. -S-,:z+''" .. '_,_i,...... n� 5� =1 W+',f >` 1-cli ..° ` ``. - y , . :I € 3 . , ",-R J ,4,A ..! '' ' Y #^.r. V h* 'F :` Subject Building A - 4- .∎ ''i 11 a `�' 4 _ 5, E ;s--;f:'-,1'°";=-2 S: s Vii 6 1 r# i y tr> 7-.... F 1 d— 4 W, z o,, , 4:7--,...7-4:1 ,' A - ES ERALDA WAY - —* 1 `4 I ; }7 �1' AERIAL PHOTO SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Vanderbilt Beach Road right-of-way then Vanderbilt Galleria, which consists of outparcels, parking areas and a strip shopping center, with a zoning designation of Pelican Marsh DRI(Development of Regional Impact) East: Undeveloped commercial parcel, then Walgreens and then Airport Pulling Road North (C.R. 31) right-of-way, within a zoning designation of Walgreens PUD (Planned Unit Development) SV-PL2011000285,AGAVE SOUTHWESTERN GRILL April 16,2012 Page 5 of 9 South: Office building and parking area within a zoning designation of Walgreens PUD West: Parking area then an office building within a zoning designation of Walgreens PUD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The subject property is located in the Urban Designation, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict of the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The GMP does not address individual Variance requests but focuses on the larger issue of the actual use. The Walgreens PUD is consistent with the Future Land Use Map. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed use for the subject site is consistent with the Future Land Use Element, although the Variance request is not specifically addressed. ANALYSIS: Section 9.04.00 of the LDC gives the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) the authority to grant Variances. The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) is advisory to the BZA and utilizes the provisions of Section 9.04.03.A through 9.04.03.H as general guidelines to assist in making a recommendation. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to the evaluative criteria 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? Yes. The Agave Southwestern Grill is one of four buildings on a parcel of land that has not been subdivided into outparcels and is located along an arterial road(Vanderbilt Beach Road). Please note: if the subject site were an outparcel, it would be entitled to two wall signs. Furthermore, the proposed signage will help to direct patrons to Agave Southwestern Grill. 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 is the subject of the variance request? Yes. The traveling public does not notice Agave Southwestern Grill until they are upon the vehicular entrance. This is due to the view being partially blocked by the street corridor landscaping located along Vanderbilt Beach Road. c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of the LDC work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? Yes. If a literal interpretation of the LDC were applied, only one wall sign would be permitted. Furthermore, the lack of signage would create inconveniences and burdens to the public. SV-PL2011000285,AGAVE SOUTHWESTERN GRILL April 16,2012 Page 6 of 9 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? Yes. The purpose of the requested Sign Variance is to allow for an additional wall sign that is otherwise not permissible by code. As previously stated, the additional wall sign would face towards a major arterial road, Vanderbilt Beach Road. Furthermore, the additional signage granted by the proposed sign variance would aid patrons in identifying the restaurant. In addition, if the Condition of Approval recommended by Staff is followed, the reasonable use of land is possible. e. Will granting the variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? Yes. A Variance by definition confers some dimensional relief from the zoning regulations specific to a site. The granting of the Sign Variance request would allow for additional wall signs on the building facade that face towards the Vanderbilt Beach Drive road right-of- way. This sign variance confers a special privilege on the applicant. 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. Section 5.06.O1.A. of the LDC states that the purpose and intent of the LDC relative to signage is to ensure that all signs are: 1. Compatible with their surroundings; 2. Designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not endanger public safety or unduly distract motorists; 3. Appropriate to the type of activity to which they pertain; 4. Large enough to convey sufficient information about the owner or occupants of a particular property, the products or services available on the property, or the activities conducted on the property, and small enough to satisfy the needs for regulation; 5. Reflective of the identity and creativity of the individual occupants. In staff's opinion,the request for the additional wall sign advances these objectives. SV-PL2011000285,AGAVE SOUTHWESTERN GRILL April 16,2012 Page 7 of 9 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.? No. There are no natural or physically induced conditions. h. Will granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Yes. Approval of this Variance petition would be consistent with the GMP since it would not affect or change any of the GMP's requirements. EAC RECOMMENDATION: The Environmental Advisory Council does not normally hear Variance petitions and did not hear this petition. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for SV-PL2011000285 revised on April 10, 2012. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition SV- PL2011000285 to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions of approval that have been incorporated into the attached resolution: 1. The additional wall sign is limited to a maximum of 96 square feet and to the western building facade facing towards Vanderbilt Beach Road. SV-PL2011000285,AGAVE SOUTHWESTERN GRILL April 16,2012 Page 8 of 9 PREPARED BY: 41A, .. (44k fAcfti I 5 2012 _ , NANCY a �� CH, AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE GROWTH`S • AGEMENT DIVISION REVIEWED BY: (x)--- 4/ RAYMb'TD V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION N O - I Z-- Zo/ IAM D. LORE" , Jr., .E., DIRECTOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMEN DIVISION AP " DBY: lArAr Y-/7- IZ, NICK CASALAN 'I II A,ADM Or: RATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution Tentatively scheduled for the June 26, 2012, Board of County Commissioners Meeting SV-PL2011000285,AGAVE SOUTHWESTERN GRILL April 10,2012 Page 9 of 9 RESOLUTION NO. 12- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER SV-PL20110002805 GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 5.06.04.F OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW TWO WALL SIGNS ON ONE BUILDING CONSISTING OF AN EXISTING WALL SIGN OF 93.33 SQUARE FEET ON THE NORTHERN BUILDING FACADE AND A SECOND WALL SIGN OF UP TO 96 SQUARE FEET ON THE WESTERN FACADE OF ITS BUILDING WHICH BUILDING IS LOCATED AT 2380 VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD IN SECTION 02, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, Petitioner owns and operates the property located at 2380 Vanderbilt Beach Road in Collier County, Florida and seeks to add additional signage on the property; and WHEREAS, the Board has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by the Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals has held a public hearing with due notice made, and all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled, and the Board having considered the advisability of granting these variances and all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,that: Petition Number SV-PL20110002805 filed on behalf of A & D Real Estate Holdings II by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. with respect to the property located in Section 02, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, and more particularly described as: Unit 500 of Olympia Park, a Land Condominium, according to the Declaration of Condominium thereof, as recorded in Official Records Book 2763, Page 131 through 190, inclusive, as amended in Official Records Book Agave Southwestern Grill/SV-PL2011-2805 Page 1 3/09/12 ATTACHMENT A 3875, Page 2975, and subsequent amendments thereof, all of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, be and the same hereby is approved for two wall signs in the aggregate of 189.33 square feet as shown on the attached Exhibit"A". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number SV- PL20110002805 be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote, this day of ,2012. ATTEST: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: , Deputy Clerk FRED W. COYLE, Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: DRAFT Heidi Ashton-Cicko Assistant County Attorney Section Chief, Land Use/Transportation Attachment: Exhibit A—Sign Variance Site Plan CP\12-CPS-01137\9 Agave Southwestern Grill/SV-PL2011-2805 Page 2 3/09/12 .'r•-•-• _ . .. .. * • • • : I ! T : ! • ;:!——r-- 1 , ....-- ...— ...... ::—.- \. i AREA OF SIGN v•I MIS INS A. IR.1•11 NM 1111111:46.„„...-------- • I. 0,40 I° . .. .1 • 0. • .. . . • • • so ..! .. - • .'...'T-."-ft-- .. .. :1 (--- _ _... ..... .. .. . . ,,,„,...,-. • . ..... . .., , ,,,„ 1::;.-.... ...4-,77:-....‹..z.47;::'-' ..: : ..z...: .:- .. :.'....:_..-- '...:'' :' '... _ "mom 1 i..... • '.-..i.... • ,:t.':.;,%; ...........:.;:!-.....::::::..;-'1...:-.::-..:;-.;,:.,-,:::;.:,-...:-...-.. ....'.....■ .' • ;I ''. ..,..3--.... i_:.-.4?.:::•:2,.zc.i a :.,.;•-....•:..:-.. ..• ...:.,I ...•1 STOP ..... ... .,• u:STO ... ._ • .• 11.,... l'..X.•4••::;•'•":- •:••- -•'•-•::••'•:•.'1 .:.• . . ' - .• f•• ..:•211 .• : 4- • ' I.... -.•:.•,.::. II . ....•)::;.::i'..",'•?,!.. - . EXISTING • 't,•:1 . . 1 -. .-1 ...*:..1 . : •11 i S.I G N• . i-. •- • - • • •1 4:;;,-.....%:.' • - •: ...,,'. -,;•....-..-.:..-..i.-:,•.:..,.,....- . ' I. .. . ..t--.1--*-, .; 0tROPOSD:•..-...:'1..:,,:....i::::.;,J .......-.:•:.; :.... .!. 1 . . .• .-..'.;r‘. .:.: . • • WALL:..SION;:::-..:.',1'::..:::..:-11:'.:7:k.7 Hi...'...:,-.''''.I i -: . :: ., I'. • '.: ' '. : • ' • ,'•1•'-•:.... :1:: 17.., :.,,. ....... UNDEVF ,,...-.: ,—,...., ---, _., 1 .. 1 ' .....':'....---,.:1 .-.- ,. .. .'AGAifg...:.::::::-..:::-7‘.. : ....;1 1 .. : . • l': SO 11". 711.W.E S 17E 0.AtT:',.,..-.:::::::'7;;::: : .., ...— '..,j 0 :. ' ',-. - •- ,,--.. --*7 — GRILLE' .,::-.','.:-,:.- is•-....---:::'',...,:. ■ _____ .%1' _..../.._ i ..'••..• . :•:' . - . .... .• ......-. - •,--:-: - ..,...-:....",-;.:Li;::::: :•:.::.,.:.::...-,::1 ..-- d...- I. . :...:: ... I •:....: . . • : :. : : ''..' ::. .1'...::11.',...-::'•.1.,..:.::::.:..•.-. .....'.! -.- _ , -1 . : ......: i . . .. ....'- i ...2•• i • - • , -- I • - - 1j:::,:.'::•:•:!: :-.:.:'-'•-1...:.: :':...;•••• ...::•.I -.. .-...• 1 • • LH...II. . dOIS :1 ::: - • .1 • 1:-.:. 'i.7 I -• -. 'I --- - ' .. 1.0AD, ,.... ,,....- :... —". . . . . . i: • .1 ...-:. 1 : : •: I • . . .. ::' E----- I .• 1---s•-• , .. • • •• •- • -4. . . . • . .:•• dalSi .•.- • ‘ , _ . J.... • : .... .• • -.1.,•• ••• •• •.:_ . - :. . ,___ •,..-0-'"'`.. ..: ••. .:••.....•. •. . . . ... . . . . NM • ..110i lin.i. N ,.. ,.. . . sr 10" != li Nis .1. Nis.-.. ori via 1.1 ligli Uill 43/44,... i '-'---- i 4_ •••.„,.. '•%.,.... Z......,, • ossins- "••—....:■ WM MENNIIMINI - STOP I I MINNM__.e. MIN • ■••;',".. 0 20' , 40' , .,....,:..„..„,,,,• ' 1 ‘ 1 I SCALE: 1" = 40' Bantle Spring. 239.647.1114 Gra dy M in or Z",1=1 :17:64:453are gi NOW 239414.23Di A & D REAL ESTATE HOLDING II SIGN VARIANCE coLuz Me COM: DO& :t .:1 ' Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • rianners • Landscape Architects SITE PLAN rtilitod: CERT.OP AUTE Ea%O151 CERT.OF AM LB RODS■Et Bisims Lc If cortto PC.,.VW it. 0 v.wor.Gnody7.19x.r.r.o. (1.Grady 1.11nor and AssocIaLaa.PA StIZET 1 Or 1 • • . Exhibit A . AGENDA ITEM 9-E Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION-PLANNING&REGULATION HEARING: MAY 3, 2012 SUBJECT: PETITION: ST-PL-2012-0000900, MARCO ISLAND EXECUTIVE AIRPORT SPECIAL TREATMENT PERMIT PROPERTY OWNER/AGENTS: Applicant: Chris Curry,Executive Director Collier County Airport Authority 2005 Mainsail Drive Naples, FL 34114 Property Owner: Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 REQUESTED ACTION: The Applicant requests an after-the-fact Special Treatment (ST)permit for improvements made to the Marco Island Executive Airport. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject parcel is located east of Collier Boulevard (S.R. 951), south of Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41), and north of the Jolley Bridge in Sections 26 and 35, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. It is accessed via Mainsail Drive. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This after-the-fact ST permit application (Attachment 1) is being brought forth through the public hearing process as directed by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), acting as the Airport Authority, at their meeting of April 10, 2012. It is for the expansion of the existing Marco Island Page 1 of 5 Executive Airport, which may partially lie within the Conservation zoning district and Special Treatment overlay (CON-ST) as shown on the current Collier County zoning map. However, staff found previous zoning maps (1976, 1982, and 1991) that show conflicting delineations regarding where the CON-ST line actually lies on the project site. As such, this ST permit will address impacts that occur from this project within the "true" CON-ST boundary if further analysis demonstrates a boundary different from that depicted on the current zoning map. This would be consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) approved by the BCC on September 11, 2001 (Attachment 3). This MOU specifically delineates the development of the airport consistent with the Marco Island Executive Airport's 20-year Master Plan. The project includes the construction of a parallel taxiway on the west side of the existing runway as well as the apron expansion. The project, permitted under Site Development Plan Amendment SDPA-PL-2010-418, completed construction in early 2012. i--; • r^ !ty1 _ . on..aa8 Jima wrma • ions rs . ..-. _..__ .ra-� tv tt.!Rtvu Yt..v[r.in• ., iy Potential area of Impact to ST Overlay—Marco Island Executive Airport SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: NORTH- Undeveloped land zoned Conservation with a Special Treatment Overlay (CON-ST). SOUTH- Undeveloped land zoned Conservation with a Special Treatment Overlay (CON-ST). EAST - Undeveloped land zoned Conservation with a Special Treatment Overlay(CON-ST). WEST— Undeveloped land zoned Conservation with a Special Treatment Overlay (CON-ST) and PUD (Marco Shores Country Club PUD) a residential and golf course community. Page 2 of 5 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: A. Future Land Use Element The subject site (recently constructed taxiway area on west side of airport) appears to be designated as Conservation on the Future Land Use Map and is within the Coastal High Hazard Area. Allowable uses are limited within this Designation and do not include airport use. However, Policy 11.1 in the Transportation Element incorporates the Marco Island Executive Airport Master Plan by reference and said Master Plan depicts the taxiway within the limits of development. Also, a 1996 Inter-local Ingress/Egress Agreement between the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Collier County Airport Authority, and the First Amendment to that Agreement, dated August 28, 2000, is consistent with the MOU that was entered into by Collier County, the State of Florida, and several other parties and adopted on September 11, 2001. This MOU specifies that the BCC shall, by Resolution, forever delimit the development of the airport consistent with the Marco Island Executive Airport's 20-year Master Plan. B. Conservation & Coastal Management Element Staff finds that the Marco Island Executive Airport Expansion project is consistent with the CCME of the GMP as identified in the attached Staff Clarification(SC-2012-01). ANALYSIS: Environmental Review: State and Federal environmental permitting for this project has been completed. Specifics of wetland impacts, listed species concerns, and mitigation requirements are contained within the attached permits. (FDEP ERP No: 11-0129042-002 and USACE SAJ-1997- 2362 (IP-HWB)). Stormwater Management Review: The existing stormwater management system for this project was permitted and issued by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). (See attached permit FDEP ERP No: 11-0129042-002) ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: The EAC heard this petition on May 2, 2012. The recommendation of the EAC will be transmitted verbally to the Planning Commission. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney's Office has reviewed the staff report for this petition. Page 3 of 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Special Treatment petition ST-PL-2012-0000900 with no conditions. Attachments: Attachment 1: ST Application Attachment 2: EAC Staff Report Attachment 3: Memorandum of Understanding Attachment 4: Staff Clarification(SC-2012-01) Attachment 5: FDEP Environmental Resource Permit Attachment 6: USACOE Permit Attachment 7: Resolution n Page 4 of 5 PREPARED BY: ' SD'ARCO DATE ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT' Je--, -c72.5---c%:4 0/c,2 F'1D" ISCHL, AICP DATE SENIOR PLANNER LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: 72,, C RAYMD V. BELLOWS,ZONING M -'-. ANAGER DATE LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT I A4 �1 - ,_— I_ a4-z5 - Zviz 41 LIAM-D. LO' `r Z, JR.,".E., DIRECTOR DATE LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY: / c1-Z,i% 201 Z, IC CASALANGUIDA, ►1►� TRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the May 22, 2012,Board of County Commissioners meeting Page 5 of 5