Loading...
CCPC Agenda 12/06/2012 R CCPC MEETING AGENDA DECEMBER 6, 2012 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 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 - October 4, 2012, October 30, 2012 "Special EAR Based GMP Amendment Adoption meeting,November 1,2012 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BDE-PL20120001428: Wahl Boat Dock Extension - A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to Petition Number BDE-PL20120001428 for a 21.5-foot extension over the maximum 20-foot limit provided in Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code to allow a total protrusion of 41.5 feet for a boat lift on the east side of a boat dock facility in an RSF-4 zone on property hereinafter described in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Michael Sawyer,Project Manager] 1 B. PUDA-PL20120001105: Buttonwood Preserve RPUD- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code,which 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 Residential Planned Unit Development zoning district (RPUD) to a RPUD zoning district, for a project known as the Buttonwood Preserve RPUD to allow up to 220 residential dwelling units on property located southeast of the Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) intersection on Tree Farm Road approximately.7 miles east of Collier Boulevard in Section 35, Township 48 South,Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 53.8± acres; providing for the repeal of Ordinance Number 2007-42, the former Buttonwood Preserve RPUD;and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Michael Sawyer,Project Manager] 10. OLD BUSINESS NOTE: This item was continued at the Planning Commission hearing on September 6, 2012 to the October 4, 2012 hearing date. On the October 4, 2012 agenda, this item was continued to the November 1, 2012 Planning Commission hearing date. On the November 1, 2012 agenda, this item was continued to the December 6, 2012 hearing date. This item has been further continued to the January 3,2013 Planning Commission hearing date. A. LDC Amendments 2012 Cycle 1 [Coordinator: Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner] B. To have the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC)to review past staff clarifications of the Land Development Code and to forward a recommendation to accept the selected Staff Clarifications to the Board of County Commissioners(BCC). [Coordinator: Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager] 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 2 AGENDA ITEM 9-A Co�eer County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION, PLANNING AND REGULATION HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2012 SUBJECT: BDE-PL20120001428, WAHL BOAT DOCK EXTENSION PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Fred and Marci Wahl, Agent: Joshua W. Maxwell, EIT, 100 Port Dock Road Turrell, Hall and Associates Reedsport, Or 97467 3584 Exchange Avenue Naples, Fl 34104 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting a second boat lift that requires a 21.5-foot boat dock extension from the maximum permitted protrusion of 20 feet for waterways greater than 100 feet in width, which will allow construction of a boat dock with two boat lifts protruding a total of 41.5 feet into a waterway that is approximately 800 feet wide. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject site is located at 8 Pelican Street West and is further described as Lot 11, Isle of Capri Subdivision, Unit 1, Section 5, Township 52 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, Folio number 52340400004. (see location map on the following page) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of this petition is to place a second boat lift on the east side of an existing boat dock facility consistent with a riparian line setback variance, Resolution Number: 12-71, approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals on April 24, 2012 (see attachment D). The current boat dock facility was previously approved by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) for a single boat lift and vessel with Resolution Number: 12-03, on March 1, 2012 with a total protrusion of 54.6 feet (see attachment C). The second boat Iift on the east side of the property was removed at the request of the CCPC at the March 1, 2012 CCPC hearing. However since the BZA approved the variance, the applicant is requesting the proposed second lift and vessel which requires a 21.5 foot extension to allow a total protrusion of 41.5 feet into a waterway that is approximately 800 feet wide Mean High Water Line (MHWL) to MHWL. The proposed boat dock extension does not propose additional decking area and entire dock facility will continue to have a total overall protrusion of 54.6 feet, meaning this proposed second boat lift and vessel will be within the previously approved overall protrusion of 54.6 feet. BD-PL2012-1428, Page 1 of 8 Wahl Boat Dock Extension. October 30,2012,(revised November 2,2012,November 7,2012,November 9,2012) 44,42/A,0 _, A.,,fi g_ ...,__. 44 .%w v 4, 0 7444 • 447 • 441" Adt 4 7 ©=o=ee 0® .e Ot s 1 IL 43 re e . cQ An" • 4 44, 4*$ ,. ® 3149° ®® m m©t® till Z $ ''MIMI F 3 v R o m a. it 41 6 MUM WAV R 6111611 --ii:_ d.-- m a o m z � m mn_ $ o Q m ° n R g S + N R n -Om ® a >m o>m : r C N O N A ��m $A\ o RI 3 g cc J a 31VOS 01 10N m Z yr d _ orb E-ri 1 W �q! , r 4,,,,,, , 3 S a 1 CL Ltilit` z =7. '344 q� %'L'SI a a B 31T00 = +�1 o .,,, , 4 Alii+ m d W� O H O O it O, 1 a o I F' PI i8 '9' --, ikiL I.V7411 Q � o n . J 0 6 1111 h 40.0 1 A ILIC ' 111gW.95. „,. - .,,, iii oirc#,,,„„„„,„ , .........___ sr... SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: SUBJECT PARCEL: Single Family Residence, with a zoning designation of RSF-4 SURROUNDING: North: Pelican Street West ROW then Single Family Residence, with a zoning designation of RSF-4 East: Single Family Residence, with a zoning designation of RSF-4 South: Big Marco River West: Single Family Residence, with a zoning designation of RSF-4 Aerial photo taken from Collier County Property Appraiser website. PELICAN ST r s f 4 ,, - , „istoril, i 011 11 in 4 fit. { , .4, .. , F- , , ,, ,, _ , 4 -..r...t.., -s - . � d,» '. 9 y BD-PL2012-1428, Page 3 of 8 Wahl Boat Dock Extension. October 30,2012,(revised November 2,2012,November 7,2012,November 9,2012) 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. 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 is the addition of a second boat slip as part of the existing dock facility previously approved for a single boat slip. The proposed boat dock facility will result in a facility with two boat slips, which is consistent with the allowed 2-slip provisions and with Resolution Number: 12-71 which approved a reduced setback from the side riparian line for the proposed second boat lift. 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. However this petition is limited to the addition of the second boat lift to the previously approved BDE request. BD-PL2012-1428, Page 4 of 8 Wahl Boat Dock Extension. October 30,2012,(revised November 2,2012,November 7,2012,November 9,2012) 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 due to the width of the existing waterway which is approximately 800 feet (MHW to MHW). The applicant notes that the facility has been designed so that it does not impede navigation; additionally the proposed second boat slip is within the previously approved dock extension approved protrusion of 54.6 feet. 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. The current BDE provided a total protrusion of 54.6 feet into a waterway that is 800 feet in width(MHW to MHW). The proposed second boat lift and vessel protrude a total of 41.5 feet into the same waterway. Therefore this proposed dock addition will protrude approximately 5.2 percent of the waterway width which means that it meets this criterion. 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. 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 in the application the DEP imposes limitations for docks located within Aquatic Preserves. In this case the dock must not protrude past 4 feet Mean Low Water Line (MLWL) or remain within the foot print of the existing decking area. The current dock as well as this proposed addition utilizes decking that is within the previous foot print. The applicant also notes that due to the strong water currents in the Big Marco River alternative locations for the proposed second BD-PL2012-1428, Page 5 of 8 Wahl Boat Dock Extension. October 30,2012,(revised November 2,2012,November 7,2012,November 9,2012) boat lift and vessel are problematic with regard to ingress and egress. Therefore the proposed facility meets at least one special condition related to the property in that it is limited by DEP provisions for new dock facilities in Aquatic Preserves, and in addition the waterway currents along the Big Marco River reduce the available dock design options to properly address ingress and egress. 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe access to the vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. (The facility should not use excessive deck area.) Criterion met. The petitioner indicates that the proposed dock facility utilizes the reconstruction of an `L" shaped dock with a 5.5-foot wide walkway leading to a 7.5- foot wide platform allowing access and service for two proposed vessels. Further this request does not propose any changes to the reconstructed deck 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 75 feet in length according to the application. The total length of the proposed vessels is 65 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. Information provided in the application indicates that the proposed second lift and vessel will not directly change the views of adjacent parcels since a vessel is currently able to moor within the proposed boat lift area. Additionally the BZA approved (as noted above) the riparian line setback variance for the proposed boat lift that reduces the required setback from 15 feet to 9.3 feet. Staff notes that the CCPC previously objected to a proposed second boat lift in this location and requested the applicant remove it from the previous BDE. At the time of approval the request to remove the second boat lift was to ensure that the approved BDE was consistent with the companion variance item which received a recommendation to deny from the CCPC. Given that the BZA ultimately approved the requested variance staff finds that this criterion is sufficiently met. 5. Whether seagrass beds will be impacted by the proposed dock facility. (If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06(I) of the LDC must be demonstrated.) BD-PL2012-1428, Page 6 of 8 Wahl Boat Dock Extension. October 30,2012,(revised November 2,2012,November 7,2012,November 9,2012) 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, and the request meets four of the remaining five secondary criteria. APPEAL OF BOAT DOCK EXTENSION TO BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS: As to any boat dock extension petition upon which the CCPC takes action, an aggrieved petitioner, or adversely affected property owner, may appeal such final action to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Such appeal shall be filed with the Growth Management Division Administrator within 30 days of the action by the CCPC. In the event that the petition has been approved by the CCPC, the applicant shall be advised that he/she proceeds with construction at his/her own risk during this 30-day period. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report on November 8, 2011 for BD- PL20120001428. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above findings, staff recommends that the CCPC approve Petition BD- PL20120001428. Attachments: A. Resolution B. Application C. Approved BDE, Resolution Number: 12-03 D. Approved Riparian Line Variance Resolution Number: 12-71 BD-PL2012-1428, Page 7 of 8 Wahl Boat Dock Extension. October 30,2012,(revised November 2,2012,November 7,2012,November 9,2012) PREPARED BY: :, z Alt Wit_ . • 1 b.?o• l 2 IC'� L SA yv YE' PROJECT MANAGER DATE DEPAR MENT OF ' ANNING AND ZONING REVIEWED BY: RAYM D V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING //- =f\. MICHAEL BOSI, AICP. INTERIM DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVED BY: NICK CASALANGU DA, A Or ISTRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION BD-PL2012-1428, Page 8 of 8 Wahl Boat Dock Extension. October 30,2012,(revised November 2,2012) Attachment A: CCPC RESOLUTION NO.:12- A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER I3DE- s r PL20120001428 FOR A 213 FOOT EXTENSION OVER THE °' MAXIMUM 20 FOOT LIMIT PROVIDED IN SECTION 5.03.06 1 t$ OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW A TOTAL PROTRUSION OF 41.5 FEET FOR A BOAT LIFT ON THE EAST SIDE OF A BOAT DOCK FACILITY IN AN RSF-4 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, on March 1, 2012, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) adopted Resolution No. 2012-3 approving a 54.6 foot boat dock facility on the subject property with the express condition that"the,second boat lift on the east side of the dock is not approved"; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on April 24, 2012 adopted Resolution No. 12-71 approving a reduction of a side yard setback from 15 to 9.3 feet on the eastern boundary of the subject property which would allow a boat lift in the reduced setback; and WHEREAS, the owner has submitted an application to approve a boat dock extension to allow the boat lift on the east side of the property; and WHEREAS,the CCPC, being duly appointed, has held a properly noticed public hearing and has considered the advisability of a 21.5 foot extension over the maximum 20 foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06 to allow a total protrusion of 41.5 feet for a boat lift on the east side of a dock facility in an RSF-4 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. Wahl Boat Dock Ext t BDE-PL20120001428 1 of 2 091912 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,that: Petition Number B.DE-PL24120001428, filed on behalf of Fred and Marci Wahl by Joshua Maxwell of Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc,, with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 11,Isles of Capri No 1,according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book No. 3,Page 41, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida Folio No. 52340400004 be and the same is hereby approved for a 21.5 foot extension over the maximum 20 foot limit to allow a protrusion of 41.5 feet for a boat lift on the east side of a boat dock facility in the RSF-4 zoning district wherein said property is located, in accordance with the site plan attached hereto as Exhibit"A". 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,Administrator Mark P. Strain, Chairman Growth Management Division Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: �t. Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Proposed Site Plan CP\12-CPS-01180\7 Wahl Boat Dock Ext\BDE-PL20120001 428 2 of 2 091912 ..... A 0 , i , 0 c0 i :7;2, . 7. CI .....5 a 8 . . . - F, x < c) ui -- - tn to 0 8-1 -x ..--. ILI w rz) 41 1-11 3 t2 I-- R co i N. .--i a 1-u..4 /X 21 LI Ci) I-- a- p ix LL. 0 z .g . al I— R ,--.c ,_. I'X ' ' • . g g 1,4 0 0 < 2 ,, < co d mwo_?, ,,.. ... x ..., sa p g 11= x ...x I IL Mal Ca IL_. (3 .> Tr'l 71'6.6.'17' g°1 lk..i, . . “ ,., w 1- z L. IT F- f:-1 ° "=.iflrg gkI ii.-,....i r ' zi i _ ____H z — ,73 Z GD --i 22 i-S/1:,vi ", xmo -kSz E.:;c-, . ,0 . z 0 III ill w D-0 zr,-grinaf2 =s1 i'• . . o LL tii al 0 17-774- > OZWI ''l i§iVAIE Ett 2 0 < a < ; 0 < C ii.f Z cC r, 0 Y z,,iigzgC.:67S5F--.1,/mR,44 . 1,- „ •, 0 0 W /&' Li_Li 0 gi.X'I' 5 i ri 3-.2.. E. DC 0 U- :C LL LU ...rt. 'A ,.. c .• a • 0 4-7 3NI1 NV12:1Vc118 I ,E-'81- a) IM . • .9"t"9 111 - r e!.........." c7) I 4 I or, ,, r,-) , .RI 4:,.. Z 0 — % 4, e----0 -.4.------ 1_, Ct _.•Ci Ci) lr . (NI Alk ) 1 . ...s: Q., . W w [It < emmumimmilmAlimmrmw ' ' 0 > a 11 ° w a ".1•7.1■111,'''''"411,.'AnN■A‘,.. -.es < XI CL Z '44,41‘14 .--.4%.4"..14,071/4... ■■■■■■,14,t,....-..‘4 . LO t: . Li LU it 0 '114 1 Pr4 0 0 14 1 NI . rn .../ LU - kAt■A 04 tr) 0 1:13 -. 5 (9-q- 1.1.1 0 i — ikt 'NI' v ■ 0 I 0 .9'017 ... .., ,-: 0 -zi g, . • CC:ci. =t 1 • — D W — . c;: . _ " A21 J. ..„_.....k. . sl A 4. 0 ....V, c.n — ,k 'A ...... . A - :. e— _ _____ 3NI1 NVI :1VdP:1 c) / ca 1.-- CA' go. Ai 1 i n _ V S- •'" .5= = g ' I 44 P 11115•Wah1 DocleCAD,SKEETLRERMIT-COUN1Y1115 WAI-11 EDE dwp PRO LINE St212,712 RANI JONES ) ( 4 I / N (NI , ,--. tO IN Z I CO , 0 1., H I I —1 W. t•L.I V I 6 ' . ni- . H t° CZI IX Lt. 'eg 2 R'1 a 1-- _ 2„,I- IN _ x — allilL 0 II g- 1 I 1 . < 0 ..E32 ,..t,- zz Re>. ,„,.. „ f-r465 2,E2-i: --k -q."' I I e. 0 W c, i I 111 1 (41 Ti a .1-- Lii u- I., 1 w .... _g. ,.„--,4 i .-8 E151',`Z.7. 13P ggx ;SUE co cc c,9 6 aii,.- gt4 g... 111 to > Zi- csi Ce < I 1 m ..1..60 1„..,.6...3 t.i.3 I. 7.1 3....4,i,LI w.r.iro ,w, < I I 2.Eigxg( 6-1-ii! • 1.-4* ,?, -"1-= g.`,2■2 , ,ti, 0 . w Z • • • • • • • • • • I i 5 4 4) -1--E ;a 1 1 a 1- . .. ....... r rn 5 0 . CI_ < < 1.,.' CCI 41, X ill W ra I 1 W D ri < c0 0 ' 1.41! '7"--21111116- --.1 1- -1 U- Mi 0 0 1: ,-- o 1 I-U " 4e4 41.4 `(` 8 Le`01 Z j—, z. MOW (1) SC io I u.. u_ I ii--71 >) La Ci .,.9 MI 14 ' kil CO Ni N --1 0 to H < _?. F- / //1 At \\\* / All it. .. -....,, MI i a _ iimumm....mowArAm.h.mal Lu a c, z th, c; S Z CI LLI 0 ,-- E- W "1' LU F/5 Nt \ / cr a E, C° w TCS IIII oz ,,,, coic. u.. < o < ,_ c) (.4 N-- -T- N- CO -- -•- •,..- V) — .-.•.= c-7, ..li> 1 1 < M / //\ :0 1 — 0 > \ /// / 41, ...r.,n• g ..2 I * :\\ :\2\ :\\ A:\ „„., .2 Cel.■2 1.••—I .--. CI = ,, t.-ale- cd f.4 c'D,M Fri CI tl 0 < 5 co ct. cc c:i a 0 :2, 0 — W A 4 MN ••■■■ Cq) anallgillili -_,.. / e AY/ / // 1 // e• /0 //// -P 1111Jahl_DocktCALASHFEETrERM.T-COUNTYV 1 is WAHL__BOEdwg SECTION Be2f2C12 RAND 1-ONES ■ Attachment B: Ca er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239)252-2400 FAX (239) 252-6358 DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION OR BOATHOUSE ESTABLISHMENT PETITION APPLICATION AND SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS The following information is intended to guide you through the process of a Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment Petition, from completing the application packet to the final determination by the Collier County Planning Commission. Prior to submittal of the attached Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment Petition application, you must attend a pre-application meeting to determine if, pursuant to Land Development Code Section 5.03.06, the option of a dock facility extension or boathouse establishment is available to you and to discuss the location, length/protrusion and configuration of the proposed boat dock facility. The pre-application fee is $500.00 (to be credited toward application fee upon submittal.) In order to process your request, all accompanying materials must be completed and submitted with the application (SEE ATTACHED CHECKLIST). The application fee for a Dock Facility Extension or Boathouse Establishment is currently $1500.00 plus $925.00 for required legal advertising. An additional amount for property owner notifications will be billed to the applicant prior to the hearing date. Within ten (10) days of the submission of your application, you will receive notification that your petition is being processed. Accompanying that response will be a receipt for your check and the number assigned to your petition. This petition number should be noted on all future correspondence regarding your petition. The Department of Zoning and Land Development Review will provide for legal notification of surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property and newspaper advertising (required fifteen (15) days prior to the Planning Commission Hearing date). You will be notified by mail of your hearing date and will receive a copy of the Staff Report. It is recommended, but not required,that you or your agent attend the Planning Commission meeting. If you have any further questions or need assistance completing this application, contact Department of Zoning and Land Development Review at 403-2400. Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-6358 DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION / BOATHOUSE PETITION THIS PETITION IS FOR(check one): ® DOCK EXTENSION ❑ BOATHOUSE PROJECT NUMBER PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED APPLICANT INFORMATION NAME OF APPLICANT(S) FRED AND MARCI WAHL ADDRESS 100 PORT DOCK RD. CITY REEDSPORT STATE OR ZIP 97467 TELEPHONE# CELL# FAX# E-MAIL NAME OF AGENT JOSHUA W. MAXWELL, E.I.T. FIRM TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES ADDRESS 3584 EXCHANGE AVENUE CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP 34104 TELEPHONE# (239) 643-0166 CELL#(239)250-3242 FAX# (239) 643-6632 E-MAIL MAXWELL@)TURRELL-ASSOCIATES.COM BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-6358 PROPERTY LOCATION Address of Subject Property 8 PELICAN STREET WEST Section/Township/Range 05/52/26 Property I.D.# 52340400004 Subdivision ISLE OF CAPRI Unit 1 Lot(s) 11 Block(s) Current Zoning and Land use of Subject Property RSF-4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N RSF-4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL S N/A BIG MARCO RIVER E RSF-4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL W RSF-4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Narrative description of project (indicate extent of work, new dock, replacement, addition to existing facility, any other pertinent information): We are requesting additional authorization to install a side lift along the easter portion of the previously authorized dock (BDE2011•t4p ) on Isle of Capri, at 8 West Pelican, Naples, Collier County, Florida. The site is more specifically located at Latitude 25deq 58' 36.35" and Longitude 81 deg 43' 53.97" in Section 5, Township 52 South, Range 26 East. The existing conditions consisted of a grandfathered 363 sq. ft. dock and an upland single-family residence that has been demolished and a new home constructed in its place. The natural shoreline is 75' of concrete seawall with rip rap along the entire length. The waterway is approximately 800'from MHW to MHW and the existing structure protrudes 59 ft. into the waterway (7.3% of the width of the waterway). Please see attached survey and existing conditions drawing for your review. The plan authorized by BDE?.otl•(4C9 alows the existing dock to be rebuilt and a boat lift installed along the end of the terminal platform. The proposed structure will protrude 55 ft from the MHWL (6.8% of the width of the waterway), 4 ft. less than the existing structure. This 9runty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-6358 application is for the additional boat lift along the eastern side of the access dock. Hand railings will be placed along the western side of the access platform and the northern side of the terminal platform to restrict the mooring to the two boat lifts. There is no proposed dredging with this project. No further protrusion is requested as part of this application, only the alteration of the approved ammenities within the authorized BDE. A Variance has been granted (VA2011. (41D ) and is enclosed as part of this application. The following must be accompanying this application: 1) A signed, sealed survey depicting mean high water (MHW) and mean low water (MLW), and relevant water depths measured at no less than 5-foot increments 2) A chart, drawn to scale, of the waterway at the site, depicting the waterway width, the proximity of the proposed facility to any adjacent navigable channel, the proximity of the proposed facility to docks, if any, on the adjacent lots, and the unobstructed waterway between the proposed facility and the opposite bank or any dock facility on the opposite bank 3) A site plan to scale showing dimensions and location of existing and proposed dock structures, as well as a cross section showing the facility in relation to MHW/MLW and shoreline (bank, seawall or rip-rap revetment). SITE INFORMATION Width of waterway: 800 ft.; Measurement from ❑ plat ® survey ❑ visual estimate ❑ other (specify) Total property water frontage: 75 ft. Setbacks: provided 9.3 & 29.7 ft. required 15 ft. Total protrusion of proposed facility into water: 54.6 ft. Number and length of vessels to use facility: 1. 25 ft., 2. 40 ft., 3. ft. List any additional dock facilities in close proximity to the subject property and indicate the total protrusion into the waterway of each: Adjacent docks, one to the east is approximately 35ft into the waterway and the docks to the west protrude approximately 37ft into the waterway. For all petitions, in the case of signs located on properties 1 acres or more in size, the applicant shall be responsible for erecting the required sign(s). what is the size of the property? 0.25 ACRES Co Ter County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING& LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-6358 Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? ❑ Yes ® No If so, please provide copies. The following criteria, (pursuant to Section 5.03.06 of the Land Development Code) shall be used as a guide by staff in determining its recommendation to the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), and by the CCPC in its decision to approve or deny a particular Dock Extension request. In order for the CCPC to approve the request, it must be determined that at least 4 of the 5 primary criteria, and at least 4 of the 6 secondary criteria, must be met. Please provide a narrative response to the listed criteria and/or questions. Attach additional pages if necessary. Co lifer County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-6358 PRIMARY CRITERIA 1. Whether or not 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)) The dock will be built on a single family residential lot. A boat lift is authorized at the end of the terminal platform and an additional lift is currently proposed on the eastern side of the access dock. This configuration in the only manner acceptable by the Florida DEP. 2. Whether or not 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 show that the water depth is too shallow to allow launch and mooring of the vessel (s) described without an extension)) The water depths are adequate for mooring but due to the limited amount of shoreline and DEP restrictions, the dock must be configured as shown in the drawing set. The limited amount of shoreline recludes them from mooring two vessels parallel to the shoreline. 3. Whether or not 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)) The revised plan protrudes no further than authorized BDE. This dock will protrude 4ft. less than the existing dock,therefore will not have an adverse impact on navigation. The width of the Big Marco River at the site, measured from MHWL to MHWL, is approximately 800ft. 4. Whether or not the proposed dock facility protrudes no more than 25 percent of the width of the waterway, and whether or not a minimum of 50 percent of the waterway width between dock facilities on either side of the waterway is maintained for navigability. ((The facility should maintain the required percentages)). The authorized extension at its furthest point will protrude a distance of 54.6-feet from the MHWL into a waterway that is 800ft.wide. The proposed docks and vessels protrude a total 6.8%of the width of the waterway, therefore leaving more than 50% of the navigable waterway open. Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING &LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-6358 5. Whether or not 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)) The proposed docking facility will not interfere with the use of any neighboring docks. Adiacent docks are designed similar to the proposed dock allowing large vessels to moor shore normal or in a boat house. Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING&LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-6358 SECONDARY CRITERIA 1. Whether or not 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)) The DEP limits the protrusion for new docks in Aquatic Preserves to not protrude past-4ft. MLW unless it is built within the footprint of the existing dock. Following the DEP's current guidelines would limit the upland owners to moor only one vessel and would make a difficult ingress and egress path due to the strong currents in the Big Marco River and the layout of the neighboring docks. Therefore to allow safe mooring for two vessels the existing dock must be re-built,which protrudes past 20ft from the MHWL. • 2. Whether the proposed dock facility would allow reasonable, safe, access to the vessel for loading/unloading and routine maintenance, without the use of excessive deck area not directly related to these functions. ((The facility should not use excessive deck area)) The proposed deck area is 348 sq ft and allows safe access to the two boat lift areas. 3. For single-family dock facilities, whether or not 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)) The length of vessels exceeds 50% of the subject property's linear waterfront footage because of the small lots on Isle of Capri. Therefore we do not meet this criteria. 4. Whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront property owners. ((The facility should not have a major impact on the view of either property owner.)) We are proposing to rebuild the exstinq dock and add two boat lifts, there will be no negative visual impacts to the neighboring property owners since boats can currently moor within the proposed boat lift areas. 5. Whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet of the proposed dock facility. ((If seagrass beds are present, compliance with subsection 5.03.06.1 of this code must be demonstrated)) On September 16th, a submerged resource survey(SRS)was conducted and no seagrasses were found within the riparian rights of the property or within 200 ft. The SRS is enclosed with this application for review. Colter County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT.OF ZONING &LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-6358 6. Whether or not 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.ii must be demonstrated)) The site is a single family lot on the Big Marco River (800ft wide) and is not restricted by subsection 5.03.06E.11. Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT.OF ZONING&LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-6358 I HEREBY ATTEST THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS APPLICATION IS TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I UNDERSTAND THAT, IN ADDITION TO APPROVAL OF THIS DOCK EXTENSION, A BUILDING PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. I UNDERSTAND THAT IF THIS DOCK EXTENSION PETITION IS APPROVED BY THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION, AN AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER MAY FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE HEARING. IF I PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION DURING THIS TIME, I DO SO AT MY OWN RISK. 7/Z(7.ji1/47 Signature of Petitioner or Agent Co• er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-6358 BOAT DOCK FACILITY EXTENSION (BD) APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW W/COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION. NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. REQUIREMENTS #OF SUBMITTED NOT COPIES REQUIRED Completed Application 6 ® ❑ Owner/Agent Affidavits, signed & notarized 1 ® ❑ Addressing Checklist 1 ® ❑ Conceptual Site Plan illustrating the following: 6 ® ❑ a. The lot and dimensions where proposed docking facility is to be located. b. All yard setbacks c. Required setbacks for the dock facility d. The total number and configuration of the proposed facilities, etc. (include all dimensions to scale). e. The water depth where the proposed dock facility is to be located and the distance to the navigate channel. (Water depth at mean low tide should be shown at approximately every five (5)feet of length for the total length of the proposed facility. f. Illustrate the land contour of the property on which the dock facility is proposed. g. The dock facility should be illustrated from an aerial view, as well as side view. Electronic copy of documents and plans on CDROM 2 ❑ Application and Review fees: $1500 Review Fee; $925 Legal Advertising Fee (estimated). Check payable to Board of County Commissioners ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: At the completion of the review process, the applicant shall submit 16 additional copies of the application and 16 additional copies of the Conceptual Site Plan for the CCPC agenda packets. Cofer County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/ NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 PLANNING AND REGULATION (239)262-2400 FAX (239)252-6358 www.calt€iergov.net As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. AFFIDAVIT Well, g'el dAvi /n4( ; h/ahI being first duly sworn, depose and say that well am/are the owners of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing;that all the answers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of interest information, all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief. We/I understand that the information requested on this application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or County printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this application is deemed complete, and all required information has been submitted. As property owner Well further authorize `Jos i W l31.xwa to act as our/my representative in any matters r-,arding this Petition. d, t big •'tu e of Property Owner Sign ture of Property Owner Kei-kcc 14--t+L- Typed or Printed Name of Owner Typed or Printed Name of Owner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this /D lh day of te'VDheee , 20/ ( , by FrtA end ynkve: ti who is . personalty kn w� to me or has produced as identification. State of PIa ide £JY'� on (Signet tke of Notary Public-State of Floridt County of Collier �1 ry ore,on (Print, Type, or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public) ... OFFICIAL SEAL LYNDA L STARKE t " ` T�' NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON (; N., 'f COMMISSION NO. 450987 / ODE-PL20110001409 REV:1 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES AUGUST 06,2014 ; W D 0 1 W' F 'Ara' ' ... li. r 4 3 d N 1 i g -.°a 1._ ► ► Alio „ .„, ° N ft., Y ,GB nnS i .:: j&.+ N 4,44 ,, ), f.„., ‘,,, F .„ , ,.. . .., ...i.„..„,. .„.... .. „,, _41.. - r''''.44t,,,,,,,, j '' `!'1 tioweo. k-^ z m who O e '- e 3 . ,, o o o : xm *�.d',TM-' *^•.,s...�5 t, .'.,..' "� d #* n 4,c! 0> a ,, 'i 0 m <H z ,:; p p x a , t ' 3t o w W o u ° o 0:z � Q 75'`4 ; ti . n� x,. ,., . tit- r ,. j .x P 0 W 1—ill U W LL ww W co a 0p 0 :6- Ice — � COQ a a Q O w w a a Z Z Qo ._0 O G�� n b II >- iir.'",i.v.--\ V ft a 2O / ' M W W N rn Oz � 2 y a �4 0 � M ,O j } I(zi , Z Z w' z b.o) wx �g i7 Wz0 G a+QU \ AWE H H U fli y'� d'd S�V (slip --I v� W /poem' J� V ....- w v Z Z z C� tea., � �U id ,. 4L 0z W o � aw IS 0►" r_W ,w- PH .. . _ �W > „..... , ""1 V.- �_ r.7 ? A O*0.1% • bq lib 1111,� fiy� V E c ^ i t .z C7� W �c ''''8' Eo 4C of r G >- A a >-U W 0- CD W � c. a 8 P\1115-Wahl_DocIACAD\SHEET\PERMIT-COUNTY\1115_WAHL_BDE.dwg LOCATION 8/2/2012 RANOI.JONES ` O ` / ,! 1r W _ _ 1,7 N (n O U H w QJ wN Y M a z °a I,. U wWco 0 a . z $ i Q a W Q a w J 2 sa a iC tbY0.4 '7 N p O Q Z A LL ° oQ 71 LLZ , , . N ,„, W Q J • p ppj := Z Z I U Q tf) F. Q az7o. o .. a W 11 ,.-- Z J L7 ��LLy aw= �¢z w N o - Q Q F Q N. w — -i(a° a�I 5wJ Z a d4 W_ d 0 E5.,„..-,..,._0 o_ , , W W ao U dz a 3 Z > J LL 0° d' o8o2mwR= yt'-i� O (7 Q c.:; Q w.V.r/ �2 r¢¢0 a _yri F Q co O "LLxo mw> m?FyLL 144# p , Z DC 2 m°wzmo° 3 '�3wo i.`,, Q a_ • co z�o>,,281 owo : o Z m Z = s',5 1z r-,iii ¢ �- 2 Y W F- wZaw�UZ °3=o O = W > O O yww°¢Na=o¢�foaF °w iiIi W ° X00 z f- i- aFr Lou) e. Fr J 3N11 Nb =*, .... 4 ... 121 /dlb 0 Ct ,. . ... , . , . , . _ . , .. , • ' ' ''''' ' lir , >_ ' i .....,..I N N � r —a_\ —.N W W Q I- a �. g, " 1 Y > WO 5L t C ,- m 0 (Z . O : e____1 w ,, N Co C o W ° 0 rc !d 2 o Q •• W M E a cc W o Co°¢ rx J G , W w 0p Z g A I.L 0 02 ..Q V) ?W p(7 nm W . t N O Z 2 R3'U Z ::°a �� �< tZ N Z W a5 M ,+ ¢N m , , d r w co Ft-4,7) aw z2 „ 2 U O O g Po k a y 6.--f o z co a wym L7Le-O o� , F = Y U 0 R. W 0 W Z o°w r��3 w s Q 076om - ate° 6 g hmiil:i o o oxj r 8 <Z2° -J,Z0LLFp-ZZ g0 E o o I 0) N W=W_j,w,..f.K�OF° ° m w ° O 6 F rv�y au63F OP z p Z co co O `2 2 W W • 1£ Y£ f i \ f� y ! r I 0 / ' • - • -4 3NI1 NVI?:1Vdl J/LS >- CC m. N m. e — —a W 1 Q ,S`l —4 Y j O J Wo _ U 0 ! a Z �1►\ 7\�.` m N . Z UX �� U Q W•t LuR a o f .9'89 - z U' 4( R �. s p CO ico0w N N 1 0) Q Xo Xw w a Xd ANN {■■J wcn Wa �' � � � �� / w M D. !. eh ��- d f� II ce y C b ,1:9£. 3NI1 Nb'12i`ddI I i, E5 c-' w '7. �, ° 4.) ;'.3 F 0 P c' m o ai e . o \J 1I1ll CEO CC ,o _ "� H ° sa /Z� /mom ''ti 11,,. �, w VJOY f Mo w Z a ° 0 A C 8 O g P:\1115-Wahl_Dock\CAD\SHEET\PERMIT-COUNTY\1115_WAHL_BDE.dwg EX LINE 8/2/2012 RANDI.JONES r--% d w LU W ' "ZPLL w Z o ' ''Q_ Q W W F W ° - - z Z _ p u0 z Ei1 C� WQ _owCn ' m w � '� � J Z z U O m = ° CO F U W W cn 3a N W liw o flKi LL�w N^ ����RS' aii OZ ay IIIII z_ ?x�oco ( F Ljj Lill- U O W d!-hP �iw3 o _ ����® >til F -� ZLLI Q0 0O O3o w N°2 0 v w O (/� Q �/ LL O < r < °o=000Ni ewD& 11111®110 n p 00 ,_ <o rooW3 ^'a�z ♦ / Q. V? ? w O Z_ 1- v- 'J z°zoia ¢W o'^owaS D ire Q Q 2 Q w F Q r � �wZO3FZZOwo 1111111 Q- 2' p p • �p �<z°o;3ya PillioPw° d O EL' O ltf U O > f W ww�¢rgayo¢��oF� Q F W Z F J z . . . . . . . . . N F J FQ .� FE3cf3 W I..., c n ter, m. Y�x r 4 - s —% _____ 0 ' 3NII NVI2ltldl?:1 L'b5 Q r CL < araemr: "I, r-:. ''''. 0 -_-_i C.) 0 --• . r^>. co 0 ��' ° Y CLo — , � Qz W m a . S I CO w w Z r r C W Q `. • a I J p a � O _ p� .2'01g � 0 E' 5 rCO 0.t _- t'Qyp■ .6 b. M_ P .ail!: N_ vD. y ,O e T, __ O v -0 2Nl1 NVltVd121 Y v ,_ N lig p-. 0 -c,"is w CO Q g a ' �w � 2 g w f s � °Vs z. f. ;$ 1 .. MI P:\1115-Wahl_DocIACAD\SHEET\PERMIT-COUNTY\1115_WAHL_BDE.dwg BRQ0ERIAL 8/2/2012 RAND!JONES / /-, ° 3 Z� w m U w Z co lli W N UO O o W W ° , 1•, , ° ��� iu Q (n ° OOm = N O N (n F- m O d W = LL Q f— Z LL f-Z v 01 W J A L_� ? o ° A aU1"-1"- -; LL Z Z a 3 z �U �w a� a a w jo VJ J fn -i?w IL W W U V O (n W n.. (n c > W \ J *wy�}e, ¢ aa ao� 0 0¢ Q ( O Q W Z ix W 0 1 O O W Ca I= a Z a (n _ I- W � F- 2OLL2 W a15w 3azowa g o .. Z aw ? o o z O � d moo ..w=� v auf a N � W Oz OUg ,T, N 0 I �� 3N11 Nb'12�b'dRi ,x'86 °' i" ,9'175 - 1.14:ti Lr_. ,...,, s Z Et 0 Mi N � Akt I �/ i i^ N. �p ate_ `' 0 it Q 0 tr.E : W willi�r_:i���- r U �� � (n O (/')a m a U � • :W N in Z lk .tit, Q W O ,8.0.17 -_F > � CO 4( . > ,� . sa O r. s p e4', j lc± It LJ_ ,a a. LL1 4 N� . — . _ . elk WI N 6 bi)P,' PI l A / < 3N11 N`dI Vdl2:1 Y -v w N I- z c' g F Q = F x a w l v P:\1115-Wahl_DocMCAD\SHEET\PERMIT-COUNTY11115_WAHL_BOE.dvy PRO LINE 812/2012 RANDI.JONES N I W Z N p I I ~_ Z Ill/ W M o ZI __. F W W M o 3 a m — _ CG _, o . _ o W • fo x u_ vWi �Z �� `P' n 0 Q ¢ bli I D I � ill W �, 0 Z Q Q h U J 3 a�°n ` W k�iro <a� r-<_ a f o N Inc d ¢yw¢o ZUO j¢- Z cc W _Li- co �ozQm7.3 ��� oUOE WD:= yU� > J w= Vel O O O LJE2=O O O W Q wN sin •a n •rv -• F u0.• ¢ I �o �¢¢ �o�wo t a 0 zW=O��3wr 'c,"q w¢j N o m J n� o>< >Q03 a N fQ w w m 2 oa¢¢ _ U W x a a °o aoo L11 .62 m w r O~��daw a'w3� air- 3 F • • • • • I oo � aN Lui j) 0 I— O ~f� Q m W Wv — > H \ U 0CI) WmD 03 CO \ Z Q OC (.0 J O U I U Le _ = I z � 1 U) b. aju' s`'ci \ O I z � U Q \\ IU, O a — , , /A /, o 4( ,..,,,,, Ezi I I MilIMMIN ,, ~ WCmui � I /.// /4 Qo° = o \ /)\\/>\Q i r N N O FO c\I OOOW � Q I I \�\ � � � - Q = m O W > \ o c�CJ a U -- w Z I- \\\\\ c-> Rs J O O Q Z I I \ \ \ O ,w 4. J00QW .z r, I ,\\\\\\\\/ � - aim °� > 0oaC. 0 � CC rQ �w � � — _i W z W W 1 � I - / � a, I I P > 0 < a W CO I. 1 N a a— � I / / / . I,//`,I//`/i\`/i\` \ \ " y P:11115-Wahl Dock1CAD\SHEET\PERMIT-COUNTY\1115 WAHL_BDE // // .dwg SECTION 5012012 RANDI.JONES Attachment C: CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 12-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BDE- PL20110001409 FOR A 34.6 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 54.6 FOOT BOAT DOCK FACILITY IN AN RSF-4 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 34.6 foot extension over the maximum 20 foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06 to allow for a 54.6 foot boat dock facility in an RSF-4 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-PL20110001409, filed on behalf of Fred and Marci Wahl by Joshua Maxwell of Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 11, Isles of Capri No. 1, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book No. 3, Page 41, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida Folio No. 52340400004 Wahl Boat Dock Ext\BDE-PL2011-1409 Rev.05/07/12 1 of 3 be and the same is hereby approved for a 34.6 foot extension of a boat dock over the maximum 20 foot limit to allow for a 54.6 foot boat dock facility in the RSF-4 zoning district wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions: 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- PL20110001410. 6. The second boat lift on the eastern side of the dock is not approved. 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 15th day of March, 2012. ATTEST: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 4 ,�.4011111"r Nick Casalan_uida, •. •• 'stator ' Mark . Strain, Chairman Growth Management Division Wahl Boat Dock Ext\BDE-PL2011-1409 Rev. 05/07/12 2 of 3 Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Steven T. Williams Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Proposed Site Plan CP\11-CPS-01125\16 Wahl Boat Dock Ext\BDE-PL2011-1409 Rev. 05/07/12 3 of 3 91 ,■1111•111M1•■■•••••••■ • , a" a a- w to N lb .V3 I-- • 0 CO 'ta Z < tki i;2) a g g art 2 X Airti V I:4 1-11...3 M lel ge — A E P- ,,72 c5 . z z sp -,%•- . ''' . x. ge fA ii 4 w‹5 GO n V) 0, ga.-1 az, ET IP tig 1 0 :?_ w z EL 0 R1.8-.E; y ! 0 ..z1.. R „,.. co c, 5g2041 .gs 1.1,44, g i '1EWEN qAtg g@pi.a4 '7.45 :, ■ ) Eapp0,4g. gg Z 8.W2°0nW' 0 o 16,t2ce'Rqd'ag,4 a g e; . r. N :-i.i BNR LIR e 4V U 'I. to e. -,-. e. 0 < 0 e ci 11, cn - ----- .---- - e _ / . Nn NV12:ledPd () t" 'En 0 Z I . _ . W __ -- i _. ›- _ 0. cp. co 0. c0 c 0 ci UU < e 0 w i ce < Alt? P• o > 0 t 0- Z ?.1.:--.':iti-: i:;-. .'''.-:. ■ :z4,--'''. :. .*- Wilma C0 Ce cn 1 W F- N to 0 El 8 1 •0 A, , DL Q. 1 ,c1 el (.1) (9.$ ,' '.'--. - ,flc Er 2 i v....: i2 0 0 _,--, : , - .... ,i.- . 2 ::-.:›_... 1 0) Ai. 0_ - re ---,--- 6 , CD ck co 'a, "-1.-, ca ck 0 171 0 0. e < o . 1. ..A, 1 6,- IR, (•••1 IV •:. . C.S 14.)MI G ... -' '''"' . r-. ci --a -4 A r...r.,, c' 4.0ts, • -.'----------"1 imt — o A EA' N11 NVIHYd121 o c5 -a.' -- I < a g 1 cx, 8 • CO 1— ...tr.2 g 2 • .z› co:2 7P- . in C-lcs 4 a'i • g'g ..a.s -,-P- E-- m - , 1 1 1 . m / m Pal 115-Wall_DoOdCACASHEETWERMIT-E.OLINTYN115_WAHLJIDE.dwg PRO LINE 3/16V2012 RANDLJONES Attachment D: RESOLUTION NO. 12- 71 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER VA-PL20110001410, FOR A VARIANCE FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 5.03.06.E.5 TO PERMIT A REDUCED SIDE YARD (RIPARIAN) SETBACK FROM 15 FEET TO 9.3 FEET ON THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8 PELICAN STREET WEST, ISLES OF CAPRI IN SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH, RANGE 26 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.5 of the Land Development Code to permit a reduced side yard (riparian) setback from 15 feet to 9.3 feet as shown on the attached Exhibit "A", in the RSF-1 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-PL20110001410 filed by Joshua Maxwell of Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc. with respect to the property hereinafter described as: Lot 11, Isles of Capri No. 1, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book No. 3, Page 41, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida Folio No. 52340400004 be and the same hereby is approved for a variance to permit a reduced side yard setback from 15 feet to 9.3 feet as shown on the attached Exhibit "A", in the RSF-1 Zoning District, wherein said property is located. Wahl Variance/VA-PL201 1-1410 Rev. 12/8/11 1 oft 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 aP) day of /2pc1/ , 2012. ATTEST: w Ra, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DWIGHT; .: 3R(`1C1�; LERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA :t By: -. *tt' ,�,z'3ept.rty Clerk FRED W. COYLE, Chai frtit Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Lj Steven T. Williams Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A— Site Plan CP\11-CPS-01126\9 Wahl Variance/VA-PL20 1 1-1410 Rev. 1 2/8/1 1 2 of 2 I -3NU'AN!H=:GL:2l Not4Y?;i •'e a 7 KNI c::31115 LWc3d,.?3H5'OYJ*44,WM-5t■1.d 3 ....-,:4,-. ft I E,"' P �2, z a -2 1 /J J `Au rtiY.) ._� �,C o?tom 'n-1 %�' :3 Sa .s f/ U.i 1 33{1Crh7�Pid:1J�,�,Z1 lcld3V'f? ft*,pd3a 1Hr M;tIi,�91s1`421;,1i3311sGlJ,r0vl...-Sf <,. \-,,,,,,.....„..1 w i { i IP 2 u j ` C pmx aoz :, 7 OO k°z rn G7 CNN z n n P. O w 7-1 a N RIPARIAN LINE ' $G - 0O IC O 7 �' r s V O s � v r r, H co z - 7 G) v M 0 0 K n bcs O r., 73 u 0 CO 10, m cry O 073-' '. p 0 me co . Z 70 m � vrn` C 0 a 4�.5 xi . 61) V' –4 0 XI ------,.........,......,".-,\\A\ '\„,s. -...„'''' \ "*".,':-ip-",,, . ',.., - , \ --. \,..„.7"-i. \ , .fift-,,,...,,,,";::?.: . I \N\ ,\ \\ N,..'ti k, '\''' . ,,_, - ", ', .., . -,1",filf . ' -:::",.../,,,,t4f-' - a) 0 _ 4, ...,.__ ... ....—..,,, \j...' �'� Y..`�"v `+sue 4: X ','.› '',' m 'big " . . . . . . . . _" Dzm 0 O ) X + o ! ; 043 ga 0igm r N m --1 Gw�}° f°a g gH o o S m 2 X i -4 5 $G 0 - 2 Z? - ab _ s g-, T, r m m xi ITiAg o m x o a A 01 T c� a ^ 0 _„...egg 0`° r.'' I-- m Z °° z :gym ill $s5 c"r-= v m -1 �" z l v ii , Ir. ' ,t 1,12,i'-' t' (--,-'‘PX€:-I' .t, �i ;i y Z i u+m Z m Li m 1 r- : S3.,="431,trd 1 1 OL tin arm 73 -.....F!XI-Pt•M St,,aril S.,...,bSrd J33143 3',/:,”,,,,-1.,.,.-.1.,• -, r -r" \''....C.■......f; I E f l'■ \,..1 - ... \ - 7 0 0W - e' 7,* • t.- - X I —i A 4.. —: —I Z*46 t 03 Z -- -• = 0 0 E (NN !...: .... _. ....e, ■ g Pr- 1--r4 'A hi 02 Al 0 r. rrl m C = >. > M 02 7 c,, i RIPARIAN LINE Lt----- 35.1' z •,-: -:.=-- Et 'c---'s - ----- • ' '1.,?.4,• , --q;-, \\-7- •-:,- --..--r- ...< .....: \ ..... m \ -.; 0 0 0 K•-,. ,..., 0 -. CA 7) -- _ U.) z . • M > 0 0 - 1----------, ,., o -1- x l 1 ( ,, -'.. X --I 1\63 1.;:1-", 91 •,.. '' , z r 0 __,.. , :. z co f 1 0 0 02 m 0 Z 0 c 0 X -I 55 co m L__-__' ,''-•:IL._____'''- et? Z 73 0 m • Z < > .j-----,----- 41.5' -- > 70 - - ... ' .- 73 -< . — 0 ' 0 CI) 0 -----"------.L. ' s.- • \ (ri, \ , , , • -, • \ . • ', , \-5N:\ , , - , - - 0 I OPARIAN LINE` - • ' ' ' '' ' , . \ .- - \ ' ',„ '-:\\-\\ '- 16..... ..... i'-'7„,--- . ________ . _ ___ ___ " X 34.3' 0., ra P. • '; ''. - Cr) 6) 01 iN.) c1:2 a gp$i.-,..;g1,1gawxR5'-' , z .. - . ;T;, V5 ' ,*;e:-.1 0 ,.,=._es0. - e-.,,,,.....,- . 0 , 0 Z M 0 M X .) -4 — - --- Pl.tll ;:!,i,EIV:. g 0 0 Ct) - .. z f ttg 8AA-..:Li.4, o m-0 00 ___ CI . 'I Z A-•2 Z5 a* ■D ta m tn cd r: rn OS r. m ' 1 L. .—..1 r 5 3F.G4 JQ W'd 1102.1.21 TTIL00084 0 1 4 511.3171S-1WItl3d1133(MI,F(xP+u0.-:.11+.si irkSit 7 n 1 3-- z = 3R° cn0 a .- a M g o CD X ;! ' n p RIPARIAN LINE t .=. J.> .,.. \\\\\\S\\\I's ‘ \\\ INI \ \\'\,\\\7\\ `%\\>'‘ra-\\432t < \ '%, ' ''' 1 e 70 - `�: 1. -. a t \4, *? Y W -0 )) W r a as `' '54.3' 1 g. 0 0 40.W - . I r0 Om - m x a r Z 0 ; 0 0 -t- ...0 X , , ° �p Z � o CD X) me co o xi Z m o ° � o � sT4 y � ' 1 0 N \ \\4: \ \ s,. \\ .. :46.141V,„ . \\ N....,,, \\2tzs, °0 ,� cna - 4i.5'. sa y, rn ' --�[.._,:________--, ,-54.6' •a# '¢ �' 1 .. \\ \\\*/ ,\ \\ s' N\> \\ , , i.,) , s, ,‘ , ' L>. 0 , s, . ds `,„ 7 , j - -i S 1 c` vac >Y9 ; Q J. 00 m z A E * Vs ^g o iZ 1 ii 7f rb��i pp qq MJJ m ..{ Rm �'� to T�Ai1A 0 J N 0 S =NN N 2 z , -7r- tea 0 _ ; v ..Hil.- 9 17 4 m rn z ;W +i t a lAi % y r. w --, m z rt a zg 11=i5 c P x Li-. 1 Al D OF-- p O m h Z O p '' 4asY { or �:' ;,0 �'�C a - • v S < -• h 7C '� m : 0 Z m m - =a AMA: \ K//A• 53`!Of GFPftl ItaII!•Zi 31•!It!7'dd d3Q IHX+ISt lt•L.p1`+"1'Vtd3dl33F'.S'+7C7!.F`I R.51 ll,•1 1 .,,1 L T xi al 'a oQ r 5 D dii m r, 0 v RIPARIAN LINE \ \, \' \ \- \, ‘ \ s• FM XI • CA y m r 40.8' . )) 0 J 0 0' r D �CO _12.5` = O■ v 1 • T y Z ° O M 117 O O n �sC) - s l X/. „ f A N �C � O ^ ....1. 73 N W3` U, z "0 - M 0 Ill . ca =...., , -,:", .., : Z -,.....................:4.,..., s, ,,... ....,,\scck k.,,_,.._ , 1\0 ‘ r 4; , t7 cl ' I 0 _____RIPA IAN LrNE, '. . \\, ,\ * \, :4 ' \ I J G Q i Z -0 m • • • •Ix M r i O o 0 m v M C D mw s 41 I-?Q n g m s%ila -71 cn 2 yvTgGO<“Ct ,x fin= Z Z m N T `xT4 .01 d N �,� E H rm70 ; r""---i---"1,-.....7-' Z i a N 0 r -I m 'mil I S3NC.f CtT•tf I I O::I.Zt T.OLL3? b...0 d?Q.l.1L:n St t:.3iHU 11Vtd3 dui;3Hi`tGY3,i4.',:'al wL4 t:,,0 i -111 ' - • . ' ' ' ,." ` (om o y j'•u - ' ' j • ;i ' ➢ 07 I as sr z crt 0 — 2 `„ / / _;• ,/ , ,- r; 7 rr_ n ,'�,,• • / • Me w t* . ` f i r . 1 I / /r i < j f• H c,p a-y C/3 ' „ t C� H Z 7 ` l wO , � --I c� -" � O C Cn m I 0 rn � 1 a 0 rn i -ti ---f 2.8' j+--- � m f d I ' nil i gym , Z �,_ __ ,. ' a3 z I (5.--.>71) �7 gg s ci54.r a;41 r -' _. +A� tyMa. W 1 X7g9 >4 cn n f N O C ���®7ba �nOY#m Om (j zLLaw -�� gi,�Az2p cn, 7 11111 � l r . m , 1 _ m E _ a,4r L f D S ? W yr m 0 C T Z N n 1 n i AGENDA ITEM 9-B Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION--PLANNING&REGULATION HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2012 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20120001105: BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD PROPERTY OWNER& APPLICANT/AGENT: Property Owner/Applicant: Neal Communities of Southwest Florida, LLC 8210 Lakewood Ranch Boulevard Bradenton, Fl 34202 Agents: R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire Alexis Crespo, AICP Roetzel and Andress Waldrop Engineering, P.A. 850 Park Shore Drive, Trianon Centre, 3`d Floor 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Suite 305 Naples, FL 34013 Bonita Springs, Fl 34135 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for an amendment to the existing PUD zoned project known as the Buttonwood Preserve Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), to allow several changes to the development including a reduction in required preserve acreage and additional proposed deviations. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 55+/- acres, is located approximately 0.7 miles east of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) and south of Tree Farm Road in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the following page) PUDA-PL20120001105: BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD Page 1 of 20 November 14, 2012 (Revised November 15,2012, November 20,2012, November 26,2011) içr° 1 ■ ^LJ..■ C■ NW v DIP 0 I Iv '. a r' f °� ' rat a I��tI tin m 41 0 ©J.w F'y� p��pp���9��G Id00oC��� Rfp�i� O fE,� & p p1!}� C�4��1`V4 0 LI m © o O tiI Z %i © ® © Q O�C©�r. Q S E.1 7 5,3: J a 31Y05 0110N 0 D a g.. W 0 nm a U Z �1 W p Q d O O e p a a. 0 w o I„ = 1 fl qI qe . 1 1 i Z w m W w Z 8 OF �� O i �° i 0NtlA31n08 a3111OO 156 11'01-. p IItlY3 33W i,,, g4 �p C d fyFVFF'j� S ! aY 0 MOO SIB a. Sp 6s p W dam ;AI rg J LJ8 ~$n� m 3§ 4 I aaVA3lnoe NV001 , J:l272-02 Buttonwood Preserve PUD1AutoCAD1272-02-01 PUD Master Plan lRev001272020101-8x11.dwg 6/4/2012 2:28:13 PM �--1 ;JU 4r-' "I 9!v ./ -�-- �Ir�L ;t!CO X 0 7 �'II� S, in : �,-ter 6 mz cm RS h. ®� m���c�AOO�icm b �ill�= Q4�{ �� minrn ipzc?in°moor Pd , ,L6 4-i I i- _" _ t-`- 1, WO 1 p-ziDII17O°0A=zI' o °_ i 1 l C rD- nD v ' _ �`" '_ -� c-I c-I X NO BUFFER REQUIRED ,o 1 z�z� [� m °; ; ;°;c;°;°:°;°:°:°; ,'0,I ;°;°;°;°;°I 1 O O i_ 4,,,n L F, Y Q m D c y >;°;°;°;°:°;°;°;°;°:°;°:°;°;°;°;°:°;°;°;6I '—i d D 0 n to T °:1;1;6,1;1;6;1;1;1;6;1;1:1;1;6;1:1:1;6:61 m y F z D71D71 °;l;f;e;t;1:1:1:1;°;°;i:°;°;°;°;°;°; 1,.111 ' °X 0 COLLE BOi�EV 4C,R95 ) X m rxir� 1;1'1;1;1;6'6'1"1;1;1'1'1:1;6;1;1'1;x'1'11 I pin 6 _t m r r , , , , _ �._ I I ' : _ 0 ✓ al 1 cn to O n 0 Q 71 1;P:11 1:1:1;1;°1 1;1 >:1;1:1;°;1;a;1;t;p;11 O� 7 'r 1 i ciT --1 ° *O*O z e;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;1;r 1;1;1;1;1;11t,',,'),101 i z a 0� DzAOm 0K°cn o 1;1;1;1;1:1:1;t,1:6 ,e,1:1;6;1;1;1;1;0 �0 D - n0 - 11��1 n0 oz-zj� CU m 6;6;1:6;°:6;6:1'r:6 1;1;6;1;1;1;1;6:e �J d -Dim ; .-._i o DDCZDC <C_<z -n r,1;6;°;6;1;1;°;1;1;6;6;1;1;1;1;1;1;6;61 ---O — n Z°O r r-I r,- m Ye;6;1,6;1;1;1;1;1;16L,q,;1;1;1;1x...0..01 I m p \z-i-_LI , �,� ° TI 0°j m .Z1 Fi i..°;°.6;6.°.6;6.6,'"li.6;°;6.6;1;6;1;°;1;4 Z-1 \ 1 1 --) O co D D 73 f 1;1;1;1,'6;o,'1, 6;1;1;6;°;°:°;1;6;1;1;1;61 I 0 0 \ / 111 ° -< m re,6;i,6;6:6;1:1;6:1;1;1;1:1;1;1;1;,,1;6;1' N' m z < 11;1;1;1,1:1;i,1;1;1;,,6;P,1;1;1;.,1,6;6i1i -1 ° v (� n I mre;1;1;1;1;1;6;1;6;°;6;6;1;1;1;1;°;1;1;1;11 vi �°- m 0 c v r p m v m v °'1;1:6:1;6;1;6;1;e;6;1;1;1;1;6;1;1;1;6;1,,. I °' :Z7 'D D -D < D C m I.,i'1'6,6'1'1'1'1'1'6`6'1'1,I'1'6'1,e,°'1i °' 0 m rn m m < o re;1:1;6:e;6'1;l"1,:a.J..i'�-L,..2,z,_.�......; N z O m ° < O m0 6.1.1.1.6.E w m ir m m LJL4Iij 1 : c cn° 73 'O pC -6 X z m N O m O O mO Z O 0 r Ir m z 0=�z z D A D cz> c > m Z z 0 r { Z <r c Drn W� D G7 m 0 0 D r m -n , D 0 -J ( �� ,O C-II D m C 1n C z m(1-', r m■ i m0 oe� Ic (n m�N� ----r N cDi" ;� z A w ,cw° cn > n c z i°�-_- .------ R.O.W. _-� a? A (�,r rrr-74 1 -i ' ,rt�,t N A iv bo co is O��z �— — — -� 0/ 1,6;6;'1 m I <Om No Fr 61 µ m 2771- � cn r \ 1'° f m ' DZfn c c0i o °0 70 ?'° >el m I D z m z - to w co o m a7 K 0 H- N `\ D , Z.'�, Z b� is fl is D O-< m -nm I A :1,7 1. g I HA1 co m m Ef 1+ F+ FF F+ r Z1 ° tT O7 `` ,m O '' x , C r C , DO'9 �1;1� p D° D v pm m� m W �m� t;6 i;6 D I a CI z z Dn °m (� DT i I s 73\s, 1 �D � '61 ° 1 co o / , w D m _-r I 1 73 N -�/ i i ° T1n� m IpI�X 'cX o' 'o0 -II- om X IF /N /0, ,� 0z Dc O Hzm m0 r D H 23 rn 0 0' N I' z I mp (mil �Zp �DD,6Z pZ D W o i�0 mw OT �mD Om ZO >f I # 1 m m- coo fV # L mI m n �70D 13D Dn 0 - � 1 m� =� �c0 �m �m Ill 9:,;1:�ti m O < 0-o I D r O m Z z O 6;1;1:i;o r,�;� I Z 1 ,1 m O°_ WN Z 1 me Z c c> nc ;1:1;1:1;1;1;1;8' m , np Zino m gym NZ p> m -110001- m m I X I'1�1�1�-°�1'�1∎:101 m I my mmc ,,m Zclu) 0D Tl w,-r- co ° ' i N 1 1;1;1; .116;1;6, 77 , \r �pZ m pmD D-1 >z nn m I I,∎,e,o,Fg1;1;6;16 1 Drn Oman < D mm OZ I- c0 R.O.W. — 1,1,6,1, 6,1,1,,.1 1 0; �_- D Z� x;1;1;1; 6;6;6;1 W o� � m�z 06 0G Z °'� -i �------------ � I pADO O z?j G° <m m p ;:1i1;1;Fo.1;1f 1 o-I O D 'D I1;1;1;1;1,1;1,1I AOo °' -1nr" rW �z �T7 ' 1 }'A''1'1'1°1°'°6'`6�! 1 omv D Om 00 O =5 w �L r 0 O 0 c>0 -<n 6'-8'WALL/FENCE(800±) IO0 c - 8 i m c I Izm mm0 m 0Z0 3 • ` c p O X CI)W I D O m wD0 r-z O n 6T1 0 iv m0 mnZ NWZ �� cnXZ > O co ODN� fX-n NCm Am z-1 mD 0 0070- I K� m O O O73 000— rc-I 0°�cm DIOT10 -IDDZ1Wc O co D 1 z CZmm�m�C?(n°m W� n >OZ G7x0 I W-iAZDI.. °ZX-IZ *r OD° Om ��� o O DX xm { r L�p�z Drn D00c Hz i Z I �� �-ri r-F z OD Zfrllcn -i -< ° r °' m I-- SCALE: N.T.S. PLAN REVISIONS WALDROP 1AI BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE CLIENT:NEAL COMMUNITIES OF ENGINEERING ,,., i SOUTHWEST FLORIDA,L.L.C. A - PUD MASTER PLAN - °°"°°° m * EXHIBIT"A" 28100 DO,r,IMAM DRIVE-.0,aeS NO.r,,.,.M.a,.1,. P:931406-777 c 7794e5-7e1111,r...r.c..0 ... PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject property contains a number of undeveloped or moderately developed parcels containing agricultural uses. The original development was rezoned in 2007 from the Agriculture Zoning District (A) to Residential Planned Unit Development District (RPUD), specifically Buttonwood Preserve RPUD, Ordinance Number 07-42, approved by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on April 24, 2007. The approved ordinance allowed for the development of 220 residential dwelling units based on 4 dwelling units per acre. The project could be developed with any combination of single family, two family duplex or multi-family units. Accessory uses approved by the ordinance include recreation uses, open space and preserve areas. The proposed changes are summarized below(taken from the narrative statement provided in the application and revised during the review of the application): • Reduction of the required native vegetation preserves acreage from 13.45 acres to 11.6 acres. • Recognition of the previous owners' 1.25+/- acre right-of-way contribution per OR Book 4290 Page 3356. • Retention of all three (3) of the previously approved deviations in the original RPUD. • The introduction of a new deviation regarding temporary use permits for model homes. • The introduction of a new deviation regarding the maximum number of model homes allowed to occur within the development. • The introduction of a new deviation regarding the setback requirement for directional signs within the development. Because this PUD is primarily undeveloped, the petitioner is requesting to repeal Ordinance Number 07-42 and proposing a new PUD Ordinance using the current PUD format, e.g., Exhibits A-F rather than sections. It is not logical to prepare a strike thru/underline document as the entire document would be stricken thru. The petitioner is seeking approval of six deviations which are discussed later in this report. PUDA-PL20120001105: BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD Page 4 of 20 November 14,2012(Revised November 15, 2012, November 20,2012, November 26,2011) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Tree Farm Road right-of-way, then an undeveloped parcel known as Warm Springs with a zoning designation of residential Planned Unit Development (PUD), approved at an overall density of 3.78 units per acre. East: A developed 18.21+/- acre tract with a zoning designation of Agricultural (A), with a Provisional Use (PU) for a constructed communication tower, then a developed residential project known as Vanderbilt County Club with a zoning designation of Planned Unit Development(PUD), approved at an overall density of 2.5 units per acre. South: The same Vanderbilt County Club Planned Unit Development(PUD)noted above. West: The partly developed residential project known as Bristol Pines with a zoning designation of Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), approved at an overall density of 6.85 units per acre. 1 , 'w-S, ' w,.. , r LT t_. _-, - c, 1 :."d'• r ter,,. ' pw! 1 - - -‘,t4N' ,:'.V.'''. ....')..`".„ " • Nan 7 J ¶, ry v ___ < � -r. k - < ■"[a $ j* ' �• ti ty .. r v II ft, k> V2 s t4g-r'$t$amffiiaa 'k;.. C ay a . ry rN,p` zt •' t U R�3. ,I•Y S : 'F - X a .y y a� . ,441r.gelc.' 11111 iiill Illitailliiio.' �. 194,' sir . ■ r 0 '"' >r • e + � �1�14 i� _ XIY�t� a 1M �� 2. a ' .,.CoiberCcun iyPrepariyApprarsor-Napies.FL ,._ __ ` .441 -- at, + '�'. �� �{ 7 ft Aerial Photo (subject site depiction is approximate) PUDA-PL20120001105: BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD Page 5 of 20 November 14,2012(Revised November 15,2012, November 20,2012, November 26,2011) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict). Under the Density Rating System in the FLUE, it is eligible for the base density of 4 DU/A (55 acres x 4 DU/A=220 DUs). Though the acreage is reduced due to right-of-way loss, the original acreage figure is used to calculate density, and consistent with past practice. 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 project's entrance is provided from Immokalee Road C.R. 846, 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 Master Plan does not depict a loop road within the project; however, interconnections to adjacent properties and multiple ingress/egress points are proposed.) 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 has proposed interconnections to neighboring properties north/northeast and west 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. Additionally, the RPUD is proposed to include various housing types, including single family, townhomes, multi-family dwellings; and recreational facilities.) 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). Based on the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed amendment consistent with the GMP. PUDA-PL20120001105: BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD November 14, 2012 (Revised November 15, 2012, November 20, 2012, November 26,2011) Page 6 of 20 ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.03.05.I, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the bases for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental review staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). Per section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances, this project no longer meets the qualification for an EAC hearing unless directed by the CCPC or BCC. An updated listed species survey was provided and no nests, burrows, or listed species of wildlife were found on the project site. A minimum of 11.6 acres of native preserve is required for this project. The current project site contains 46.5 acres of native vegetation and 25% of the existing native vegetation is required to be preserved. A minimum of 11.6 acres of native preserve shall be provided as shown on the PUD master plan. The previously approved preserve locations are consistent with the GMP and LDC. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues and is recommending approval subject to the Transportation Development Commitments contained in Exhibit F of the RPUD Ordinance. 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. 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. The development standards contained in Exhibit B of the PUD document have not been changed except for the addition of height distance note 7 which provides for clock towers or similar architectural features to be permitted up to 45 feet zoned building height and 50 feet actual height. PUDA-PL20120001105: BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD Page 7 of 20 November 14, 2012(Revised November 15, 2012, November 20,2012, November 26,2011) The types of uses that would be allowed in this project have not changed. illustrated in the aerial photograph located on page 2 of the staff report, "the surrounding land use zoning discussion" of this staff report, and the Master Plan, the site is bounded to the east by a developed 18.21+/- acre tract with a zoning designation of Agricultural (A), with a Provisional Use (PU) for the currently constructed communication tower, then the developed Vanderbilt County Club with a zoning designation of residential Planned Unit Development (PUD), approved at a overall density of 2.5 units per acre. To the south is the continuation of Vanderbilt County Club Planned Unit Development (PUD). To the west is the partly developed residential development of Bristol Pines with a zoning designation of Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), approved at an overall density of 6.85 units per acre. To the north is the Tree Farm Road right-of-way, then the undeveloped residential Warm Springs with a zoning designation of residential Planned Unit Development (PUD), approved at an overall density of 3.78 units per acre. This project was originally approved with a maximum density of 4 units per acre which will not change with this amendment petition and remains comparable to what has been approved for the surrounding projects. The surrounding PUDs have similar development standards to what is proposed herein, as to minimum setbacks and lot sizes. Bristol Pines PUD was approved for a maximum building height of 35 feet and two stories, while the Warm Springs PUD was approved with a maximum building height of 45 feet for principal structures, 35 feet for accessory structures and a maximum of 3 stories. The Vanderbilt Country Club was approved for a maximum building height of 35 feet for single family structures with multi-family structures approved for three habitable stories exclusive of understory parking with no mention of maximum building height. Exhibit C, master plan for this petition maintains all of the previously approved perimeter landscape buffers and is consistent with LDC requirements. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking six deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are listed in PUD Exhibit E. Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C,that limits the maximum wall/fence height to six (6) feet in residential zoning districts, to allow for a maximum height of eight (8) feet for a wall/fence or combination wall/fence/berm along the development perimeter. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The proposed deviation will allow for additional visual screening between the proposed uses and surrounding residential and agricultural lands. The deviation will enhance the proposed RPUD and surrounding properties, while protecting public health, safety and welfare. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff finds that the petitioner's deviation and rationale supportable for this project. Additionally the proposed 8-foot tall wall/berm combination seems appropriate where it is shown on the Master Plan, Exhibit C. PUDA-PL20120001105: BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD Page 8 of 20 November 14,2012(Revised November 15,2012, November 20,2012, November 26,2011) 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 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.04.B.3.e, which provides that a temporary use permit for a model home and sales center shall be issued initially for a period of three (3) years, to allow the model homes and sales center to remain for up to ten(10) years without requiring a conditional use. * Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the followingJustification for this deviation: In this uncertain economy and real estate market a developer needs the ability to maintain model homes and a sales center for an extended period of time without having to go through a long and expensive Conditional Use process to be able to keep marketing the housing products. The proposed timeframe is reasonable based upon the size of the RPUD and number of proposed units. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Due to the current economic and real estate industry conditions staff agrees that some allowance can be made to allow the continuation of use for model homes and sales center for an extended period of time. With the size of the project allowing a maximum of 10 years without a conditional use seems appropriate therefore, staff concurs with the applicant's assessment of the situation for this particular project. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated. 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 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.04.B.5.c. that limits the number of model homes to five,to allow a maximum of fifteen model homes and a sales center. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: In an effort to provide potential purchases with a variety of residential styles,floor plans and upgrades it is beneficial to allow these customers to see and experience the various alternatives and options available to them to make an informed purchase. Because the Land Development Code makes no distinction between model homes and speculative homes it is necessary to request up to fifteen (15) model homes which includes speculative homes. PUDA-PL20120001105: BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD Page 9 of 20 November 14,2012(Revised November 15,2012, November 20,2012, November 26,2011) Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Due to the size of the project, staff agrees that some allowance can be made to allow additional model units. Hacienda Lakes PUD, which was Q. approved for over 1,700 residential units received deviation approval to allow up to 60 model homes. Given this developers desire to display multiple model home options, configurations as well as product range, allowing a maximum of 15 models seems appropriate because the models will be contained within the development and the project is not located directly on a major public traffic corridor. Staff does not see a detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated. However, staff suggests that the developer be required to provide documentation at each development order stating how many models are in operation to ensure the total of 15 is not exceeded. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the stipulation that the developer provide the number of existing model home/units as part of the application material for every development order, 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 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. The requested deviation is 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. The temporary sign or banner shall be limited to 60 days per calendar year. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The requested deviation will allow for a banner sign announcing the project's grand opening and/or available home sales, at a scale that has been previously approved for other residential communities within Collier County. The subject property is not located in a highly visible area of the County with emerging residential growth, such as the Immokalee Road area corridor east of 1-75. Therefore, the deviation will provide additional signage area to assist in marketing efforts, while protecting view sheds from Tree Farm Road. The sign will be temporary in nature, and will undergo the requisite temporary sign permit process in accordance with Section 5.04.06. of the LDC. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. The additional number of display days proposed seems appropriate given that the development is not located directly on a major traffic corridor. What is proposed is also the temporary banner standards for commercially zoned properties, which is more similar to the application proposed except for the additional display days noted above. 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." , PUDA-PL20120001105: BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD Page 10 of 20 November 14, 2012(Revised November 15,2012, November 20,2012, November 26,2011) Deviation 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5,which requires on-premise directional signs to be setback a minimum of 10' from internal property lines. The requested deviation is to allow for on-premise direction signage to be setback a minimum of 5' from internal property lines. This deviation does not apply to property adjacent to public roadways. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The proposed deviation will allow for the development of appropriate directional signage internal to the RPUD. A unified design theme will be utilized for all signage throughout the community, thereby ensuring a cohesive appearance and increased aesthetic appeal. Furthermore, this deviation is typical of many of the master planned developments throughout Collier County. The reduced setback will allow for flexibility of signage placement, while ensuring public health, safety and welfare is protected. 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." Deviation 6 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.0, which requires cul-de-sacs and local streets to have a minimum sixty (60') right-of-way width, to allow a minimum right-of-way width of 50' for private, local streets internal to the proposed development. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The proposed deviation will allow for design flexibility within this infill parcel and was previously approved per Ordinance 07-42. The reduced right-of-way width will allow the Applicant to achieve a higher percentage of on-site, usable open space while providing the necessary infrastructure requirements, including sidewalks, standard 10' wide travel lanes and utility easements. Additionally, the right-of-way will be privately maintained by the future Homeowners Association (HOA). 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. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. However, zoning staff reiterates the comments provided by the fire reviewer: . . . . there is not enough information at this time to offer specific comment regarding compliance with currently adopted Fire Codes, please note that as the site development progresses, all permits will be subject to compliance with all Fire Codes, Standards, Ordinances and local FCO Policy & Procedures adopted and in place at the time of the PUDA-PL20120001105: BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD Page 11 of 20 November 14,2012 (Revised November 15,2012, November 20,2012, November 26,2011) respective permit. This shall include, but not be limited to fire lane widths, turning radii and dead-end requirements, hydrant locations,fire flow requirements, etc. The petitioner has not sought relief(nor can he) from any fire code requirements as part of this zoning action,thus it is understood that compliance as requested above would be required. 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. [Staffs 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 has reviewed the proposed amendment and believes the uses and property development regulations are compatible with the development approved in the area. The commitments made by the applicant should provide adequate assurances that the proposed change should not adversely affect living conditions in the area. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application,which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. PUDA-PL20120001105: BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD Page 12 of 20 November 14,2012 (Revised November 15, 2012, November 20,2012, November 26,2011) 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion and the analysis provided by Comprehensive Planning staff and the zoning analysis of this staff report. Based on those staff analyses, planning zoning staff is of the opinion that this PUD Amendment remains consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Staff has provided a review of the proposed changes and believes that the project will be compatible with the surrounding area. The uses are not proposed to change as part of this amendment and the uses approved in the original PUD rezone were determined to be compatible. The petitioner is revising only minor property development standards, and staff believes uses remain compatible given those standards and project commitments. S. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of native preserve aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. The project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. Additionally, the PUD document contains additional developer commitments that should help ensure there are adequate facilities available to serve this project. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as road capacity, wastewater disposal system, and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. PUDA-PL20120001105: BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD Page 13 of 20 November 14,2012(Revised November 15, 2012, November 20,2012, November 26,2011) The petitioner is seeking six 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 has provided an analysis of the deviations in the Deviation Discussion portion of this staff report, and is recommending approval 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. The zoning analysis provides an in-depth review of the proposed amendment. Staff is of the opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with neighborhood development. Staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. The petition can also be deemed consistent with the CCME and the Transportation Element. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP because uses are not changing with AgorOw this amendment. 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 amendment 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 amendment would not create an isolated zoning district because the subject site is already zoned PUD and there are no land additions proposed as part of this amendment. 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 district boundaries are logically drawn given the current property ownership boundaries and the existing PUD zoning. PUDA-PL20120001105: BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD Page 14 of 20 November 14,2012 (Revised November 15,2012, November 20, 2012, November 26,2011) 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed amendment is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such amendment to allow the owner the opportunity to develop the land with uses other than what the existing zoning district would allow. Without this amendment, the property could be developed in compliance with the existing PUD ordinance regulations. The applicant's request is consistent with the proposed GMPA. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendment, with the commitments made by the applicant, can been deemed consistent County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. The project includes restrictions and development standards that are designed to address compatibility of the project. Development in compliance with the proposed PUD amendment should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project with the commitment that has been provided by the developer. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed amendment should not create drainage or surface water problems. The developer of the project will be required to adhere to a surface water management permit from the SFWMD in conjunction with any local site development plan approvals and ultimate construction on site. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this amendment petition is approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. The location of the proposed buildings, combined with the setbacks and project buffers will help insure that light and air to adjacent areas will not be reduced. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; PUDA-PL20120001105: BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD Page 15 of 20 November 14, 2012(Revised November 15,2012, November 20,2012, November 26,2011) This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results,which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market conditions. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; The proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning designations; however, the petitioner is seeking this amendment in compliance with LDC provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed amendment meets the intent of the PUD district, if staff's conditions of approval are adopted, 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 subject property already has a zoning designation of PUD; the PUD rezoning was evaluated at the rezoning stage and was deemed consistent with the GMP. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. PUDA-PL20120001105: BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD Page 16 of 20 November 14, 2012(Revised November 15,2012, November 20,2012, November 26,2011) The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMP as it is proposed to be amended 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. Additional development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration. This project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the 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): Neal Communities of Southwest Florida, LLC, in conjunction with Waldrop Engineering, P.A. and Passarella and Associates, Inc. conducted a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) on Monday, July 23, 2012. The meeting was held at 5:30 p.m. at the Golden Gate Fire Control & Rescue District at 14575 Collier Blvd. Approximately 8 residents were in attendance, not including the consultant team. Handouts were distributed outlining the project overview, proposed uses, and site development regulations. Patrick Neal, the applicant and contract purchaser of the subject property, began the meeting with introductions of the consultant team and an overview of Neal Communities. He also indicated the proposed product types and price points for the Buttonwood Preserve project. PUDA-PL20120001105: BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD Page 17 of 20 November 14,2012 (Revised November 15,2012, November 20, 2012, November 26,2011) Alicia Dixon with Passarella and Associates, Inc. provided an overview of the on-site preserves, both approved and proposed. She pointed out where the proposed modification to preserve boundaries is located on the plan. She also discussed the Big Cypress Fox Squirrel management plan that would be required at the time of site development approval. An attendee asked if Big Cypress Fox Squirrels were found on the property. Alicia indicated that they had previously located some nests on-site, but they were determined not to be Big Cypress Fox Squirrel nests. She explained the process for surveying the site for additional nests prior to site development activities. Alexis Crespo with Waldrop Engineering, P.A. provided an overview of the approved and proposed PUD master plans and explained the changes proposed as part of the application. She stated there is no decrease to the previously approved buffers. She also outlined the public hearing process required for final approval of the amendment. Following the applicant's presentation, the meeting was opened for Q&A. The following is a summarized list of the questions asked and responses given. Question/Comment 1: Where is the fence measured from to determine height? Response: It will be measured from finished grade. Question/Comment 2: When do you think the project will go to the Planning Commission? Response: The earliest Planning Commission date is late October or early November. The Board of County Commissioners hearing will occur in December 2012 or early 2013. Question/Comment 3: Is there a requirement to connect utilities between the project and Bristol Pines? Response: No. The project will tie into the existing water and sewer lines on Tree Farm Road. There is no requirement to tie into Bristol Pines utilities. Question/Comment 4: Is there a rainwater drainage outflow off the property? Response: Stormwater will be collected in proposed lakes, then routed to the northwestern lake, and discharged into the on-site wetlands. The applicant added that the water is purified while stored in the lakes to ensure the required water quality is met. Ultimately, the water is routed to the CR 951 canal. Question/Comment 5: The previous PUD document noted the property is in Zone X. Has this changed? Response: It has changed. The property is now located within Zones AH and AE. The property is not located in a floodplain. Question/Comment 6: How does the stormwater get to CR 951 without going through Bristol Pines? Response: It is routed through the roadside swale on Tree Farm Rd. PUDA-PL20120001105: BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD Page 18 of 20 November 14,2012(Revised November 15,2012, November 20,2012, November 26,2011) Question/Comment 7: Why didn't the applicant purchase Phase 2 of Bristol Pines? Response: The lots in Bristol Pines 2 are platted for townhouses. Neal Communities is a single family home builder and the lots are too shallow for the single family product. Question/Comment 8: The Applicant asked the attendees who they should communicate with on the Bristol Pines and Vanderbilt Country Club HOA boards. Response: Tom Doucette from Bristol Pines and Dennis Davidson from Vanderbilt Country Club provided their information. Question/Comment 9: What are the square footages of the homes? Response: The median size is 2,200—2,500 s.f. Question/Comment 10: Are you afraid of flooding the market with new homes? Response: No, we sold 400+ homes last year, and have sold 350+/- homes so far this year. The market is recovering,particularly in Southwest Florida. Question/Comment 11: The previous PUD document allowed models homes to be constructed within the property. Do you plan on building model homes? If so, how many? Response: Yes,the project will have model homes. Question/Comment 12: Do you have any other local projects? Response: Yes, we have local consultants and a new Vice President that has experience in this area. We are working on a project in Estero. There were no further questions or comments. Mr. Neal thanked attendees for coming and reiterated the consultant team's contact information for future questions. Michael Sawyer also provided his contact information. The meeting concluded at approximately 6:05 p.m. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for this petition. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDA-PL20120001105 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval subject to staff's recommended action on the deviations as shown below: Approval of Deviation 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. Approval of Deviation 3 with the stipulation that the developer provide the number of existing model home/units as part of the application material for every development order. Attachments: A. Application B. PUD Ordinance PUDA-PL20120001105: BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD Page 19 of 20 November 14,2012(Revised November 15, 2012, November 20,2012, November 26,2011) PRE 'ARED BY: f A 4 , ittioi 11. .1 I H i` L Al . ' , PROJECT MANAGER DATE PL A ING AND 'ONING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: / -_ 8- /G -/Z. RAYMONIV. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT /= - 1 t-23- i-t_ MICHAEL BOSI, AICP, INTERIM DIRECTOR DATE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY: i NICK CASALANGUI 1r: • 0 MINISTRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the January 22, 2013 Board of County Commissioners Meeting PUDA-PL20110001105: BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD Page 20 of 20 November 14,2012 ORDINANCE NO. 13- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH 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 RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT (RPUD) TO A RPUD ZONING DISTRICT, FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD TO ALLOW UP TO 220 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR 846)AND COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) INTERSECTION ON TREE FARM ROAD APPROXIMATELY .7 MILES EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD IN SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 53.8± ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 2007-42, THE FORMER BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Alexis V. Crespo, AICP of Waldrop Engineering, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich& Koester, P.A, representing Neal Communities of Southwest Florida, LLC,petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 35, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to a RPUD zoning district, for a project known as the Buttonwood Preserve Planned Unit Development to allow up to 220 residential dwelling units in accordance with the RPUD Documents,attached hereto as Exhibits A through F, all of which are incorporated herein and by reference made part hereof. The appropriate zoning atlas map or Buttonwood Preserve RPUD 1 of 2 PUDA-PL20120001105—Rev.11/14/12 a maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Ordinance Number 2007-42, known as the Buttonwood Preserve RPUD, adopted on April 24, 2007 by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,this day of , 2013. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: ,Deputy Clerk ,Chairman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: !'+t Zf Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A-List of Allowable Uses Exhibit B - Development Standards Exhibit C- Master Plan Exhibit D- Legal Description Exhibit E-List of Requested Deviations Exhibit F -Development Commitments Project History: Ordinance Number 2007-42 CP112-CPS-01175119 Buttonwood Preserve RPUD 2 of 2 PUDA-PL20120001105—Rev. 11/14/12 • EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE 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"Areas: 1. Single-family detached dwelling units 2. Two-family and duplex dwelling units B. Principal Uses and Structures-"R2"Areas: 1. Single family detached dwelling units 2. Two-family,duplex dwelling units 3. Single family attached dwelling units 3. Multi-family dwellings 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). C. Residential Accessory Uses and Structures: Accessory uses customarily associated with Permitted Principle Uses including but not limited to: 1. Model homes and model home sales centers including offices for project administration, construction,sales and marketing. 2. Indoor and outdoor recreational facilities and structures such as pools,fitness facilities,clubhouses, community buildings, playgrounds, playfields, parks, walking trails and tennis courts limited to use by residents and their guests only. 3. Incidental personal services such as ATM, laundry drop-off, mail kiosk, and other services limited to use by residents only. 4, Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the principal uses permitted in this district, including but not limited to swimming pools,spas,screen enclosures, carports,garages and utility buildings. 5. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for developers and developers' authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses. 6. Entry Gates,Gatehouses,and access control structures. 7. Essential services,including interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities. 8. Water management facilities and related structures. 9. Lakes, including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. Fishing piers,community boat docks and similar structures are permitted within lakes areas. Buttonwood Preserve PUDA-PL2012-1105 Page 1 of 10 Last Revised:November 7,2012 10. Agricultural uses. The property owner shall be entitled to utilize the property for agricultural uses until such time that the construction of infrastructure improvements commence in support of the residential development. 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). D. Principal Uses and Structures—Preserve Areas: 1. Boardwalks, nature trails, shelters, educational kiosks, and other uses permitted within dedicated preserves by the LDC, as long as clearing required to facilitate these uses does not Impact the minimum required native vegetation. 2. Water management structures 3. Any other uses that are comparable in nature and consistent with any uses described above as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. E. Development Density A maximum of 220 dwelling units shall be constructed on lands designated "R1" and "R2" on the RPUD Master Plan.The gross project area is 55±acres and the residential density maximum shall be 4 units per acre. Buttonwood Preserve PUDA-PL2012-1105 Page 2 of 10 Last Revised:November 7,2012 EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD Development of the Buttonwood Preserve RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC, Growth Management Plan (GMP) and Code of Laws and Ordinances 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 Buttonwood Preserve 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. Site development standards for single family detached, two-family, duplex, and single family attached dwelling units apply to individual residential lot boundaries.Multi-family standards apply to the parcel boundaries. TABLE I BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR "R"RESIDENT_IAL AREAS PERMITTED USES Single Two Family Single Family Multi-family Recreation AND STANDARDS Family and Duplex Attached Detached Minimum Lot Area 5,000 SF 3,500 SF*2 1,400 SF 9,000 SF N/A Minimum Lot N/A Widtht3 42' 35' 16' 90' Minimum Lot Depth 100' 100' 88' 100' N/A MINIMUM YARD PRINCIPAL USES Front 20'*6 20'*6 20'*6 20'*6 15' Side 6' 0' and 6' 0'and 6'*4 4 BH 10' Rear 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' Water body*1 20' 20' 20' 20' . 20' Preserve 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' MINIMUM YARD ACCESSORY USES Front 20' *6 20'*6 20'*6 20'*6 SPS Side 6' 0'and 6' 0'and 6' *4 H BH SPS Rear 10' 10' 10' 10' SPS Water body*1 20' 20' 20' 20' SPS Preserve 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' Max. Building Height Zoned 35' 35' 45' 45' 35' *7 Actual 40' 40' 50' 50' 40' Buttonwood Preserve PUDA-PL2012-1105 Page 3 of 10 Last Revised:November 7,2012 • No.of Stories 2 2 3 3 2 Minimum Distance Between Detached Principal Structures Sum of Y:BH *5 12' 12' 12' Sum of14BH • Floor Area Min. 1000 SF 1000 SF 1000 SF 750 SF N/A (S.F.) All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. SPS=Same as principal structure BH=Building height *1—Principal and accessory structures on waterfront lots shall be permitted to be constructed up to, but not encroaching into a drainage easement,with a minimum setback of 20 feet from lake control elevation. *2—each half of a duplex requires a lot area allocation of 3,500 square feet for a total minimum lot area of 7,000 square feet. *3 — Minimum lot width may be reduced by 20% for cul-de-sac lots provided the minimum lot area requirement is maintained. *4 —Zero foot minimum side setback on one side of building as long as a minimum 12 foot separation between principal structures is maintained. *5 — Building distance may be reduced at garage to a minimum of 10 feet if detached or 0 feet where attached garages are provided. Multi-family principal buildings shall be separated a minimum of 20 feet and garages a minimum of 10 feet. *6 — Front entry building garages shall be setback a minimum of 23 feet from edge of sidewalk. The minimum 20 foot front yard may be reduced to 15 feet where the residence is served by a side-loaded or rear entry garage. *7—Clock towers or similar architectural features shall be permitted up to 45'zoned height and 50'actual height Buttonwood Preserve PUDA-PL2012-1105 Page 4 of 10 Last Revised:November 7,2012 11/7102 tlWMol Po o FUOValsOMITJ4941rwmestrrormartsramsoiudiart MOM LIMON lin Iii( L`u:i'i~ CO-�> - tIXI ma, ' _ 111 i -C / I . ..,No SUFFER 1:1:f;I I : /:1,1.1:1,111.41:1:►:tl ► t► 11:1:41 [; C ���"1 VI Y:1:I Ri 1;1;►:1'r:0,.0 ►i►:1:1 9; _'.h IH , IFIFIM y } 1;1.gt,►4r:4f:1:14 f:1:141;1:I;l:lail:. MIII�I �+„ '`�j 0+_ 0017 Ip 19 1.1 1 f:Y 1 1 1 f'1:1: ►:1'1:1:+'2' III Al Ijhr;.1 hl;►:1.►;f:►:1:►:lsl:tir4►:1:1;r: nsr I,sO ,s,t,�ItilSrr rLl,I;t�,1,:s 1,1:1%1, I`t:1�t.t+,►.I,hr t,/.t,1,1,►.LI,h lib 1 ;1:r :1;1'41'+"r''C lillip ...1,;.::::::::::.:.:,..1.3•;.: :4►LI;41ri'1;1.�1t1t 'GV ,C i ' f!- a .,....r.t:f;l:I:ra :t:/;1:4fi.i„,:.lid I:I:/Sr�4r;11r;4► {/i 1:4►:1;►{1;h►1 4►'I.t.t,t,�,,Y,Ri l .ra;t•r:h h l,.. � r'�r'�1 I li 41:11 h't.1i h 1,1:1;1,1i ill p •fir mm t,l:1;+;l:t:+;1:1:1:1:►:1: '�'O 7i C <I lyt:ry•I:I:t:f:r:I!/tl,►:f, 4 YZ11 1= ( ;t t:h t:l:hhl,hfr t.l,h . Ir 1.1 I.f.l 1./rlr Ir 1, /r �g , yl. r t,t' . 1 rrt,rr: 77 ;1 i $ ! a p 11r�- 13 �,f 1, };!� II�tIliti[�' It I`Ylii I 1 PP I'' J E i J1{' 1 Ai O Z 4 via �' [ �- 5+1��. ,•1., i �Si'� f{`its -�Y•:',iil L R71 .I I. Ir W w C g Il......a „ _•___�YROIL..--- '-_, ,, °/ ; •t, � <II'YI'1��Qyyr�j ai II! i tl u u 0 try ��II.. N ,:• rF M W M K , ,_ ,. Q i tl , t t t' , , I ,� �� 'r: OR 11 Pi I 11'1t4+ ' ?_�:;} 1,11� 'i' hl VI . '! I� • X 1:1.; 1 1 g g ?,31 ;0 h itf'lili l lilt lihl „,,i(} ! l 1 11th T r )!P; 'i` ii A 4. y P •' 1 i �..._. I flj�;I itt rell _. .R.OW. / l Y,• 1 1 w lip � � � � 1j!hv I$ 1, I �i i,?'1 � y I 7 ,i I, ,Ii 171�0 j ZR g {C .4 I : I pi f Illtti'tii i_,1�It� ��1 Il :�li I fll++;�,.1111111}{�1(f R ljip3A ” m i ri I 1{' " Il I ; tl �. { t; 1� .2 lig 7 m T dll.i:}ii!t.�-«!ti(�:I_i. .:tl.tj.,t1{, '111•',LLL Zf ;,;,.........,:y,:1, /. ligh 11 -1 m if P lb . UjU.j1, g illy IN Nd zr______:_________r_rvimiingicE0004 f,A,. 8 ! i ti 2 a h, • - ilitic 11....._ _ dsg 1 i 11 § 1 11 1111'1114111P .. i -< 02 VSCALE:N.T.S. «W^_ TM BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE waLDfloP 168211: f ENS P9100UYifY001ME11Te CLIENT:NEAL COMMUNITIES OF ' • EFJ3I SOUTHWEST FLORIDA,L.L.C. _ ..I PUS MASTER FLAW Buttonwood Preserve PUDA-PL2012-1105 Page 5 of 10 Last Revised:November 7,2012 EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD PARCEL I-A: THE WEST 30 FEET OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 35,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; AND THE WEST 30 FEET OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,BOTH LOCATED IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL I-C: THE NORTH ONE-HALF (1/2) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS AND EXCEPT THE WEST 30 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT: COMMENCING AT A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION OF SECTION 35, RUN SOUTH 89 DEGREES 10'50" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 35 FOR 30.00 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF DAVILA STREET;THENCE RUN SOUTH 01 DEGREES 26' 03" EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF DAVILA STREET FOR 334.82 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUE SOUTH 0 I DEGREES 26'03" EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF DAVILA STREET FOR 334.82 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION OF SECTION 35;THENCE RUN SOUTH 89 DEGREES 12'34" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 646.03 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 01 DEGREES 26' 34" WEST FOR 334.66 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 83 DEGREES 11' 43" WEST FOR 645.98 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 2: BEING A PART OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF (N 1/2) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION OF SECTION 35, RUN SOUTH 89 DEGREES 10' 50" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 35 FOR 30.00 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF DAVILA STREET;THENCE RUN SOUTH 01 DEGREES 26' 03" EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF DAVILA STREET FOR 334.82 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 26'03" EAST ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF DAVILA STREET FOR 334.82 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION OF SECTION 35;THENCE RUN SOUTH 89 DEGREES 12'34" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 646.03 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 01 DEGREES 26' 34" WEST FOR 334.66 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 83 DEGREES 11' 43" WEST FOR 645.98 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 3: THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 35,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. Buttonwood Preserve PUOA-PL2012-1105 Page 6 of 10 Last Revised:November 7,2012 1 PARCEL 4: THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND LESS THE WEST 30 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY PURPOSES. PARCEL 5: TRACT 2, GREEN HERON ACRES,ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN P.B. 22,PAGE(S)70,PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. PARCEL 6: TRACT I, GREEN HERON ACRES, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN P.B. 22,PAGE(S)70,PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. PARCEL 7: THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 35,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 55+/-ACRES, MORE OR LESS. • • • • • Buttonwood Preserve PUDA-PL2012-1105 Page 7 of 10 Last Revised:November 7,2012 EXHIBIT E LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD Deviation No. 1: Deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.C,which permits a maximum wall/fence height of six(6)feet in residential zoning districts.The requested deviation is to allow for a maximum height of eight (8) feet for a wall/fence or combination wall/fence/berm along the RPUD perimeter property lines. Deviation No. 2: Deviation from LDC Section 5.04.04.8.3.e, which provides that a temporary use permit for a model home (occupied or unoccupied) and sales center shall be issued initially for a period of three (3) years. The requested deviation is to allow the model homes and sales center to remain in use up to ten(10)years without requiring a conditional use. Deviation No. 3: Deviation from LDC Section 5.04.04.B.5.c, which provides that a maximum of five (5) models, or a number corresponding to ten (10) percent of the total number of platted lots, whichever is less, per platted, approved development shall be permitted prior to final plat approval as specified above. The requested deviation is to allow a maximum of 15 model homes and a sales center to be permitted in the RPUD. Each time the developer applies for a model building permit, they shall be required to inform the County how many model homes are in operation. Deviation No. 4: 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.The requested deviation • is 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.The temporary sign will be permitted a maximum of 60 days per calendar year. Deviation No. 5: Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.8.5, which requires on-premise directional signs to be setback a minimum of 10' from internal property lines. The requested deviation is to allow for on-premise direction signage to be setback a minimum of 5' from internal property lines. This deviation does not apply to property adjacent to public roadways. Deviation No.6: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01.0, which requires a minimum width of 60 feet for cul-de-sac and local street rights-of-way.The requested deviation is to allow for a minimum 50- foot wide right-of-way for private, local streets internal to the proposed development. • Buttonwood Preserve PUDA-P12012-1105 Page 8 of 10 Last Revised:November 7,2012 • EXHIBIT F DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS BUTTONWOOD PRESERVE RPUD 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the general development commitments for the project. 2. PUD MONITORING 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 Buttonwood Partners, LW. 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. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL 3.1 The developer shall retain a minimum of 11.6 acres of native vegetation on-site. 3.2 The developer shall provide a Big Cypress Fox Squirrel management plan as part of the first development order submittal. 4. TRANSPORTATION 4.1 Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all access points.Access lighting shall be in place prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy(CO). 4.2 All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer and Collier County shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. 4.3 A portion of the Buttonwood Preserve RPUD is subject to a Developer Contribution Agreement, recorded as OR Book 3730, Pages 0876-0893 in the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Development shall occur consistent with this agreement and/or subsequent developer contribution agreements. Buttonwood Preserve PUOA-PL2012-1105 Page 9 of 10 Last Revised:November 7,2012 4.4 The developer agrees to accept the stormwater run-off from the right-of-way for that portion of Tree Farm Road east of the project entrance and treat the run-off within the project's water management system, 5. PLANNING The developer, or its successors or assigns, shall construct a minimum 6' high masonry wall east of the southwest property boundary for a distance of approximately 400' linear feet. The wall shall have the same architectural design as the wall constructed on the common property line of the Bristol Pines PUD. In addition,from the eastern terminus of the wall,the Developer shall install a 6'- 8' high black vinyl chain link fence or wall east along the remaining southerly project boundary, then north along the eastern property line for a distance to a point approximately 800' north of the project boundary. The wall and fence may be installed on berm. The approximate location of each wall/fence section is labeled on the RPUD Conceptual Master Plan, Exhibit C. • ,17 Buttonwood Preserve PUDA-PL2012-1105 Page 10 of 10 Last Revised:November 7,2012 30REVIErni AGENDA th 201 JAN 1 3 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2012, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION TILD.ING,..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 Fiala Hiller Henning 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY Coyle 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Gh'-a. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 4, 2012, October 30, 2012 "Special EAR Based GMP Amendment Adoption meeting,November 1,2012 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT )1144411:1:rt t. 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BDE-PL20120001428: Wahl Boat Dock Extension - A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission relating to Petition Number BDE-PL20120001428 for a 21.5-foot extension over the maximum 20-foot limit provided in Section 5.03.06 of the Collier County Land Development Code to allow a total protrusion of 41.5 feet for a boat lift on the east side of a boat dock facility in an RSF-4 zone on property hereinafter described in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator:Michael Sawyer,Project Manager] Cones: Date: ttem#: ILD 12.A-3 1 • B. PUDA-PL20120001105: Buttonwood Preserve RPUD- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code,which 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 Residential Planned Unit Development zoning district(RPUD)to a RPUD zoning district, for a project known as the Buttonwood Preserve RPUD to allow up to 220 residential dwelling units on property located southeast of the Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) intersection on Tree Farm Road approximately.7 miles east of Collier Boulevard in Section 35,Township 48 South,Range 26 East,Collier County, Florida, consisting of 53.8± acres; providing for the repeal of Ordinance Number 2007-42, the former Buttonwood Preserve RPUD;and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator:Michael Sawyer,Project Manager] 10. OLD BUSINESS NOTE: This item was continued at the Planning Commission hearing on September 6, 2012 to the October 4, 2012 hearing date. On the October 4, 2012 agenda, this item was continued to the November 1, 2012 Planning Commission hearing date. On the November 1, 2012 agenda, this item was continued to the December 6, 2012 hearing date. This item has been further continued to the January 3,2013 Planning Commission hearing date. A. LDC Amendments 2012 Cycle 1 [Coordinator: Caroline Cilek, Senior Planner] B. To have the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC)to review past staff clarifications of the Land Development Code and to forward a recommendation to accept the selected Staff Clarifications to the Board of County Commissioners(BCC). [Coordinator:Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager] 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp 2