The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Agenda 03/21/2013 R CCPC MEETING AGENDA MARCH 21 , 2013 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M.,THURSDAY, MARCH 21,2013, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER,THIRD FLOOR,3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST,NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—February 7,2013,February 21,2013 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 1 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PUDZA-PL20120000680: Palermo Cove PUD -- 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 removing approximately 16 acres from the Palermo Cove Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD); and by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a RPUD zoning district to a RPUD zoning district for a project known as the Palermo Cove RPUD by revising project development standards, adding deviations, adopting a new conceptual master plan, revising developer commitments and reducing the permitted number of dwelling units from 564 to 237 on property located north of Wolfe Road and west of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 115±acres; providing for the repeal of Ordinance Numbers 2005-34 and 2006-30,the former Palermo Cove RPUD; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner] (Companion to PUDZA-PL20120000650:Wolf Creek PUD) B. PUDZA-PL20120000650: Wolf Creek PUD -- An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2007-46, as amended, the Wolf Creek Residential Planned Unit Development by increasing the permissible number of dwelling units from 671 to 754; by amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an additional 5± acres of land from RMF-6(4) Scenic Woods Rezone to the Wolf Creek RPUD and by changing the zoning classification of an additional 16± acres from Palermo Cove PUD to Wolf Creek PUD; by revising the development standards; by adding Exhibit A-1, the amended Master Plan for parcels 1A through 3A; by adding Exhibit "D", Private Road Cross-Section for Parcels 1A through 3A; by adding Table II, Development Standards for Parcels 1 through 3A; and by adding deviations and revising developer commitments. The subject property is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road (C.R. 862) approximately one-half mile west of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) in Section 34, Township 48 South, n Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida consisting of 189±acres; providing for repeal of Ordinance Number 2007-03,the Scenic Woods Rezone; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem,AICP, Principal Planner] (Companion to PUDZA-PL20120000680: Palermo Cove PUD) 10. OLD BUSINESS A. 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 s 1111111V•llll = = r 11111111uu11 I. '1�i A,:... 1 Ao �E,:,� L�113 � - .--. -1111— II�III,illlullllnull� E. € .. I A =II III�IIU_ 91 i 21 111111111111✓111 : ~- < 1111111111111= a a— O /.::.1 J _ 1111"-mmml111111111 €€€€ Ia' _...../iron us Ill oalm,,Iiiv►4 _4\1111111111110 Q < �_0 111111= < -- -= - oI X1111111 -- mi "l. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIP e .....11:111: s•- 11111 I►� — 0 . :;:::::::::::::]annum. =ei W z I _ . 1 ■ 1► III - - - _WII -p 1 Z - - - - . - - . - €'Ili:::€€ < €i 1:38 I lim ;v :iu i:■ a _� uulluu umluu : = girina►n N � - ' - '� '!rnlnunn, el—=am i. .. , = IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII ."• /��l///////IIII��ll gra=.∎gyp/11111/111. -. =� I��' , =la■ QIIIIIIIII r .- -- IIIIIII/ �♦ / �-� �� -- .- ///// ♦ /11111 _�- ■� �� IIIIIIII' / // �///11111 At i11111111l1t11111111ll■'11 4 !=iii_ \\��1///i x o /�a11111111111111111 um c�lll -�•_�'I��i \\\ ,, i//lll a p W co E. 111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINI1111llll/j r O . ip. .1 E:w. __ _____ / CV IDS �� -' -1:�Ir r •••— ///llllllllll/////1111 t N IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIII1It ! it), O`\` =� i =� :i a� i - 1111111111 ////11111111111/ry//1111 �Y� � 111\��O�_�� `� \� �� -J a. N TN%of ion 0 D D- U °" 0 o I- E. m n W a I�• U >9$ � � e 8 gl Z S — ,.„R Hag ^1g 1 li a. r H Q 8 = 2s OaVA3108 a31no3 156113 VIM 33x1 i C I e h I 7 14 11 3 Y ro3avwrv7 I I I/ Q rc k _g i gi € to 3M 1 U g glh li gi ' e m g . g - - :-...- __I- i___J ig 2 •.. d 4 O ? aavn3inoe nv301 i� F.w 2 I I cc 0 o 2 w ".z= is” s< R ,_ d SL•31tlLS231d a0L91Lnnn n I m ITT uaaro3 a non S003I S531d63 ? F-1 R �� ro 1` i PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject property is undeveloped. It was originally rezoned from Agricultural to RPUD in Ordinance #05-34 on June 28, 2005. That ordinance allowed 524 residential units on 131 acres. The unit types were limited to attached and detached single-family villas. On June 6, 2006, Ordinance 06-30 was approved to allow multi-family residential units and set forth property development regulations for that unit type. The project is approved at a 4 units per acre. The current amendment proposes to reduce that density to 2 units per acre. The proposed changes are summarized below(taken from the application material): • Reduce the project size by 16 acres from 131 acres to 115 acres; • Reduce dwelling units from 524 to 237 units; • Revise the property development regulations: • Add new deviations to accommodate the petitioner's desire to develop this site in conjunction with portions of the Wolf Creek PUD; • Remove the allowance to develop multi-family units; the project is now proposed to consist of entirely single family units; • Increase the native vegetation preserve areas. Because this PUD has not been developed, the petitioner has prepared a new PUD document using the latest format, e.g., Exhibits A-F rather than sections. As noted above, the petitioner is seeking approval of seven deviations. These deviations are discussed later in this report. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Indigo Lakes PUD, a developed residential project on 181± acre approved at a density of 2.43 units per acre in Ordinance#01-53, with single-family home sites bordering the subject site. East: Summit Lakes PUD, a developing residential 98± acre PUD zoned project approved at a density of 4.0 units per acre in Ordinance#04-49. South: Wolf Creek PUD, the subject of the companion PUD amendment petition; Island Walk DRI/PUD, a developed project on 705 acres approved in Ordinances # 97-6 and#98-58 at a density of 3.0 units per acre with a 10 acre town center area; and Sonoma Oaks MPUD, approved in Ordinance # 10-48 to allow 120,000 square feet of commercial development and senior housing units at 0.6 FAR. West: Island Walk DRI/PUD, a 705 acre project approved for a maximum of 2,100 residential units (approved at a density of 3.0 units per acre) and ten acres of commercial uses. PUDZA-PL20120000680: PALERMO COVE PUD Page 2 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/4/13 • x' �� , ,ic if",1 or ' . __ i .wer4 1. r'' 3..�.-+rya_- Igglinliti' ,..-x • ' /t. tw/,Its F1, '• 1 T - PALERMO COVE RPUD ' • \ i ` ' 1 %co 4, . 1,• i I m ri *4411 ___ a I�.. tk ,I .d v 'fit p7 1 h '° ". .. JN iii t' PALERMO COVE RPUD •' r, r 4\P'7;lee'l Ey: ,:11 ,, . .4,,.. , it t ; , r,...... ---, 1 n ', r, 44,61,1 to s iF :r..a`,y' .y 6w '.. n Ili - t. 1 (J1# ii NUM iit. 1 1, �i4 �4t 4401 Wills WOLF CREEK RPUD h„ �, I/ Jr ` • .mot.. - ,. _ !IA: - tir44Y' a 3 i'2,:',.1 Pro 1 A ai. t ,..tii, ....la loUttfil r 7 - 1L*- - . - -. �. BEACH ROAD :,: _ Aerial Photo (the subject site, shown in yellow, is approximate) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future-Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. This district is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential uses, including Planned Unit Developments. The Subdistrict permits a variety of residential unit types at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) and limited to a maximum of 16 DU/A, as allowed under the Density Rating System. No density bonuses are requested and no density reductions are applicable. Therefore the site is eligible for 4 DU/A. The requested density is 2 DU/A. Other relevant GMP Policies are provided below in italics,with staff's comments following in regular type. PUDZA-PL20120000680: PALERMO COVE PUD Page 3 of 18 March 21,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/4/13 • 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. Access to the project has been provided via Wolfe Road, onto Collier Boulevard, and via [proposed] Pristine Drive, onto Vanderbilt Beach Road. Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. Internal access has been provided onto and [by cross-access] through the neighboring Carolina Village mixed-use development, and Mission Hills commercial shopping center to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads. 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 Master Plan provides interconnection between Wolf Creek PUD and Palermo Cove RPUD to the north by way of Wolfe Road, and is further depicted on the Master Plan that the developer of Palermo Cove PUD will extend Pristine Drive north of Wolfe Road. To the south, between the entrance of Wolf Creek PUD and Buckstone Drive, is an interconnection with the proposed roadway, Carolina Way. To the east, Wolfe Creek PUD provides connection between Buckstone Drive and Mission Hills Drive which connects to Collier Boulevard (CR 951). To the west is the developed gated community of Island Walk PUD. 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. This amendment reconfigures two adjacent existing residential planned unit developments of previously uniform density. With this PUD amendment, Palermo Cove and Wolf Creek provide a blend of densities from two to four residential units per acre. The PUD includes civic, or"amenity" uses for the community's residents —including clubhouses, tennis clubs, health spas, and accessory uses. The PUD includes open space in the form of preserve areas and, recreational uses and facilities. The PUD permits several types of dwelling units — including single-family, two-family and multi-family, with minimum floor areas ranging from 1,000 square feet to 1,500 square feet. This amendment requests deviation from the LDC Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements to allow sidewalks on one side of the street only, in 3 of the northernmost tracts to be developed;nonetheless the project does include sidewalks. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed uses and density may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's combined Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for the companion items Wolf Creek and Palermo Cove. As the remaining developable rights for the two PUDs are being combined to form a single development using a common access point,the TIS was considered as a joint/combined study. The unit count for Wolf Creek is found to increase by 83 units; however the adjacent Palermo Cove decreases by 287 units. The total for the two developments is 991 dwelling units, a net reduction of 204 units below the previous total. PUDZA-PL20120000680: PALERMO COVE PUD Page 4 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/4/13 • The study indicates that there is a net decrease in the PM Peak Hour Trip Generation. Therefore the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5 year planning period. Staff recommends that the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). A minimum of 25 % of the existing native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. The minimum preserve required is 12.65 acres; 30.7 is being provided. This exceeds the GMP requirement. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as indicated previously in the GMP discussion. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff also recommends that the petition be found consistent with the CCME. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.03.05.I, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the bases for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. There are no outstanding environmental issues. This project is not required to be reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC). The existing Palermo Cove PUD required preserve area is 14.2± acres, the minimum required preserve area is 12.65± acres for the reduced project area. The Palermo Cove PUD will provide approximately 30.71 acres of preserve as shown on the PUD Master Plan. A total of 1.55± acres will be removed from Palermo Cove RPUD and added to Wolf Creek PUD. 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 the RPUD Ordinance. Transportation Planning staff offers the following analysis of roadway issues. PUDZA-PL20120000680: PALERMO COVE PUD Page 5 of 18 March 21,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/4/13 Vanderbilt Beach Road Discussion: The first concurrency link on Vanderbilt Beach Road that is impacted by this zoning amendment is Link 112.0, between Logan Boulevard and Collier Boulevard. This segment of Vanderbilt Beach Road currently has a remaining capacity of 1,684 trips, and is currently at LOS "B" as reflected by the 2012 AUIR. Collier Boulevard Discussion: The first concurrency link on Collier Boulevard that is impacted by this zoning amendment is Link 30.1, between Immokalee Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road. This segment of Collier Boulevard currently has a remaining capacity of 1,067 trips, and is currently at LOS "C" as reflected by the 2012 AUIR. Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. Zoning staff is of the opinion that this project will be compatible with and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. To support that opinion staff offers the following analysis of this project. The petitioner is reducing the number of units from 524 units (at a density of 4 units per acre [upa]) and the possibility of a single-family attached, single-family detached or a multi-family development, to a maximum of 237 units (at a density of 2 upa) and removal of the allowance to build multi-family units. The surrounding developed area, north and west, are developed with single-family homes (Island Walk at 3 upa and Indigo Lakes at 2.43 upa). The proposed property development regulations would provide larger lot development in buildings that would not exceed an actual height of 45 feet. Since no increase in density is proposed, staff believes this amendment is consistent with FLUE Policy 5.4 that requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking approval of seven deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are listed in the PUD document in Exhibit D. Deviations are a normal derivative of the PUD zoning process following the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC Section 2.03.06 which says in part: It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs . . . . may depart from the strict application of setback, height, and minimum lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the public interest. . . . PUDZA-PL20120000680: PALERMO COVE PUD Page 6 of 18 March 21,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/4/13 Deviation 1 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02 of the LDC, Buffer Requirements, which requires a 10 foot wide Type A landscape buffer between similar residential land uses to allow no buffer between commonly owned properties where indicated on the conceptual Master Plan. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation is justified in this PUD due to the common land ownership and development between the northern portion of Wolf Creek PUD and Palermo Cove PUD. Approval of the deviation will permit development of a unified development plan. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved, however staff recommends that the trees that would be required in the buffer be planted elsewhere on site. Since Wolf Road will be a primary access point into the development, staff believes that it would be appropriate to relocate the trees along that roadway frontage. These trees would be in addition to any required trees. Staff is recommending approval of this same deviation in the companion request for Wolf Creek PUD with the same recommendation. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation subject to the following stipulations: a. This deviation approval is only applicable for that area between the northern portion of Wolf Creek PUD and Palermo Cove PUD; and b. The trees that would be required in the buffer shall be relocated to the Wolf Road roadway. These trees would be in addition to any required vegetation; 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 6.06.02.A.2, Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements, which requires sidewalks to be constructed on both sides of local streets, to allow sidewalks on one side of the street only. See Exhibit E-2, Alternative Pathways Plan, of the PUD Exhibits. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation is justified in this PUD due to the limited number of units authorized to be constructed within the amended portion of the Wolf Creek PUD. The sidewalk on one side of the roadway will also permit the developer to provide a streetscape more desirable to the residents of the community. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved with the limitation provided in the rationale for the Wolf Creek RPUD, i.e., "Dual PUDZA-PL20120000680: PALERMO COVE PUD Page 7 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/4/13 • sidewalks will be provided along the private primary loop road within the community and public roadways." The applicant has provided Exhibit E-2 showing an Alternative Pathways Plan, that has been approve by Transportation Planning staff. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation in compliance with Exhibit E-2, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.0, Street System Requirements and Appendix B, Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way Design Standards, which establishes a 60 foot wide local road to allow a minimum 40' wide private road. See Exhibit C-1, Private Road Cross-section, of the PUD Exhibits. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation will allow the developer to provide all required infrastructure within a combination of dedicated right-of-way and easements. All roadways are intended to be private and in a gated community. A cross-section of the proposed internal private road is provided. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. It has been approved in numerous other PUD zoned projects such as the Brynwood Center PUD (PUDZ-PL2011-0000406); Naples View RPUD ( PUDZ-PL20110001519) to 45 feet; Mirasol (PUDZ-A2012-0000303) to allow a minimum right-of-way width of 40' for private local streets and 50' for private spine roads; and Parklands PUD (PUDA-PL20110001551) to mention a few. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation subject to compliance with Exhibit C-1, Private Road Cross-section, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 4 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J, Street System Requirements, which limits cul-de-sacs to a maximum length of 1,000 feet to permit a cul-de-sac approximately 1,400 feet in length with appropriate signage. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The deviation will be limited to one cul-de-sac street within the PUD, and is warranted due to the configuration of the lake and preserve areas on the Master Plan. The County Engineer is authorized to grant this deviation administratively; however, the owner wishes to have certainty in order to proceed with engineering design. PUDZA-PL20120000680: PALERMO COVE PUD Page 8 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/4/13 Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved, however in recognition of past CCPC recommendations, staff suggests that the following stipulation should be added to this approval: The developer, or successors and assigns, shall provide a stabilized emergency vehicle turn - around, meeting local fire prevention code criteria, approximately midway along the cul- de-sac. 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 would be required. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the stipulation that the developer, or successors and assigns, shall provide a stabilized emergency vehicle turn - around, meeting local fire prevention code criteria, approximately midway along the cul-de-sac, 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 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05, which requires parking for accessory recreational facilities to be provided at 50% of the normal LDC parking requirements when dwelling units are located greater than 300' from the recreational facility, to permit parking for all accessory recreational facilities located in the amenity area as depicted on the Master Plan to be based on square footage rather than individual components at a calculation of one space per 200 square feet of building area. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation is justified in this PUD due to the limited number of dwelling units proposed, the limited size of the amenity tract, and its central location within the community. This is a gated, non-golf course PUD and the Developer is limiting use of the facility to residents (and guests) of the Palermo Cove PUD, the 163 dwelling units the Developer controls in the adjoining Wolf Creek PUD. The overall PUD has been designed with a pedestrian pathways plan which provides easy walking access to the amenity center for residents, and the Developer will provide bicycle parking on-site in order to provide alternatives to automobile use. Further, the Developer is proposing only single-family dwelling unit types within the PUD, and it is anticipated that at least 30% of the dwelling units will have an individual swimming pool. The Developer has been involved in numerous master planned communities in southwest Florida and has utilized the proposed parking standard in other communities without issue. The developer is confident that providing parking at the proposed ratio will not result in a shortage of available parking for residents and guests of the community, nor will it create any public safety issues. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. It has been approved in numerous other PUD zoned projects such as those listed 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 PUDZA-PL20120000680: PALERMO COVE PUD Page 9 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/4/13 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 5.06.02, Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, which only allows On-premises signs within residential districts, to permit one off-premise residential sign, if developer is able to obtain a sign easement and PUD amendment from the property owner of the Sonoma Oaks MPUD, located immediately south of the Wolfe Road/Collier Boulevard intersection. The sign area would be a maximum of 80 square feet, and be designed to be a ground mounted sign having the same sign copy and design theme as that permitted on the north side of Wolfe Road within the Palermo Cove RPUD. This deviation shall only be permitted in the event Deviation#7 is not utilized. Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation: This deviation will allow the property owner to have residential entry signage located on both sides of Wolfe Road, which will allow appropriate visibility of the residential project. Because the area immediately south of Wolfe Road is located within another PUD locating a sign on both sides of the project entry is not possible unless it is placed off-site. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved subject to the stipulation to require the Sonoma Oaks PUD to be amended to allow same. However, staff does not believe this deviation in the Palermo Cove PUD is required. A deviation was approved for the Longshore Lake PUD (Ordinance #09-20) to allow and off-site sign for the Terafina PUD. Staff, however, can find no evidence to show that Terafina PUD had any language or deviation to address that off-site sign. As to the proposed sign size; and type, i.e., ground mounted; and the sign copy and design theme, those issues would be addressed as part of any amendment approval of the Sonoma Oaks PUD. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends DENIAL of this deviation, finding that the deviation is not necessary. Deviation 7 seeks relief From LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, which allows two ground signs at each residential entrance, to permit either one sign to be located on the north east corner of the property facing Collier Boulevard and one sign to be located at the intersection of Wolf Road as depicted on Exhibit E-1, or to permit a single monument V- shaped sign on the north side of Wolfe Road, and to permit a maximum sign/wall height of 10' above the grade of Collier Boulevard,with a maximum sign area not to exceed 80 square feet, as conceptually depicted in Exhibits E-3 and E-4. Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation: The deviation is warranted due to the project's location on the north side of Wolfe Road, adjacent to the 6-lane segment of Collier Boulevard, and the presence of a Collier County drainage easement encumbering a portion of the project at the Wolfe Road intersection. Wolfe Road is the primary access to the Palermo Cove PUD and given the location on the PUDZA-PL20120000680: PALERMO COVE PUD Page 10 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/4/13 north side of Wolfe Road, there is no current opportunity to install signage on the south side of Wolfe Road to identify the project for motorists. The area north of Wolfe Road has been developed with Wolfe Road as a signalized intersection which will provide the primary access to the Palermo Cove RPUD. The Developer desires to create a signature entry feature that incorporates project signage for the project. The 80 square feet sign proposed allows the sign to be at an appropriate scale for the entry feature and allows appropriate signage for a large intersection and it addresses the setback from the intersection. The sign will be embellished with decorative wall treatments and landscaping. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved: It has been approved in other PUD zoned projects. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the stipulation that approval is limited to what is depicted in Exhibits E-3 and #-4, fording 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 PUDZA-PL20120000680: PALERMO COVE PUD Page 11 of 18 March 21,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/4/13 required to gain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). 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 attached report from 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 petition may be found consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Staff has provided a review of the proposed uses and believes that the project will be compatible with the surrounding area. While the applicant proposed some additional property development regulations, the uses are not changing as part of this amendment and the uses approved in the original PUD rezone were determined to be compatible. The petitioner is revising some property development regulations, but staff believes uses remain compatible given the proposed development 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. PUDZA-PL20120000680: PALERMO COVE PUD Page 12 of 18 March 21,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/4/13 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The petitioner is seeking approval of seven 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. • 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 with the exception of a small tract of land that is abutting the existing PUD boundary that is being added (the Scenic Woods RSF-6(4) zoned site). 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. PUDZA-PL20120000680: PALERMO COVE PUD Page 13 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/4/13 S. 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 the 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. 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 numerous restrictions and 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 mitigation that will be provided by the developer (Developer Commitments). Staff believes the petition can be deemed consistent with all elements of the GMP if the mitigation is included in any recommendation of approval. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed amendment should not create drainage or surface water problems. The developer of the project will be required to 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 setbacks and project buffers will help insure that light and air to adjacent areas will not be substantially reduced. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market conditions. PUDZA-PL20120000680: PALERMO COVE PUD Page 14 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/4/13 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 majority of 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. 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 PUDZA-PL20120000680: PALERMO COVE PUD Page 15 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/4/13 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): The applicant's agents conducted a duly noticed NIM on December 6, 2012, at the Sheppard of the Glades Church on Rattlesnake Hammock Road for the two projects. Wayne Arnold, agent for the applicant, opened the meeting at 5:35 p.m. and introduced himself, Michael Delate and Sharon Umpenhour with Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and Richard Yovanovich with Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A., representing the owner/developer, Sean Martin with Waterman Development, representing the property owner and Kay Deselem, representing Collier County Growth Management. There were approximately thirty members of the public in attendance. Mr. Arnold introduced and explained the project as it exists and then proceeded to explain the proposed amendment requests. He stated that approximately 16 acres of the existing Palermo Cove RPUD would be removed from the Palermo Cove RPUD and incorporated into the Wolf Creek RPUD and the total number of dwelling units for the proposed Palermo Cove RPUD would be reduced to 237 dwelling units. He explained that the Wolf Creek PUD would increase the number of units from 671 to 754. Aerial photographs of the PUD's were displayed along with the existing and proposed Master Plans. It was also explained that a common development plan was intended for all properties owned by Waterman, and that only single-family dwellings would be built in these areas. A PowerPoint presentation was provided showing proposed and existing preserve areas, boundaries, acreages,maximum dwelling units and unified development of the PUD Mr. Arnold discussed the removal of the affordable housing commitment and removal of multiple- family uses from the proposed Palermo Cove RPUD and amended portion of the Wolf Creek RPUD. Mr. Arnold concluded his presentation and asked for comments or questions from the meeting attendees. Questions asked were regarding hearing dates, setbacks, construction access locations, building heights, product type, buffers and if the development would be age restricted. Mr. Arnold addressed the attendee's questions and also provided an explanation of the distinction between zoned and actual height and described variable lot line product type proposed. PUDZA-PL20120000680: PALERMO COVE PUD Page 16 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/4/13 Mr. Arnold offered to provide any additional information if requested and to contact, Kay Deselem, Sharon Umpenhour or himself if anyone had further questions. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:05 p.m. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on March 1, 2013. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-A-PL20120000680 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval subject to the following stipulations: 1. Approve Deviation#1 subject to the following limitations: a. This deviation approval is only applicable for that area between the northern portion of Wolf Creek PUD and Palermo Cove PUD. b. The trees that would be required in the buffer shall be relocated to the Wolf Road roadway. These trees would be in addition to any required vegetation. 2. Approve Deviation#2 subject to compliance with Exhibit E-2. 3. Approve Deviation #3 subject to compliance with Exhibit C-1, Private Road Cross- section. 4. Approve Deviation#4 subject to the following limitation: The developer, or successors and assigns, shall provide a stabilized emergency vehicle turn - around, meeting local fire prevention code criteria, approximately midway along the cul-de-sac. 5. Deny Deviation#6 as it is not necessary. PUDZA-PL20120000680: PALERMO COVE PUD Page 17 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/4/13 PREPARED BY: ary Q a?5 /3 KA SELEM,AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEWED BY: . Alt _ - P. 6 - /3 RAYM V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING a - act - /3 MIKE BOSI,AICP, INTERIM DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVED BY: - 0 NICK flA ALA GUIDA,ADMINISTRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the May 14, 2013 Board of County Commissioners Meeting PUDZA-PL20120000680: PALERMO COVE PUD Page 18 of 18 March 21,2013 CCPC Revised: 2/25/13 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 REMOVING APPROXIMATELY 16 ACRES FROM THE PALERMO COVE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD); AND BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RPUD ZONING DISTRICT TO A RPUD ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS THE PALERMO COVE RPUD BY REVISING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, ADDING DEVIATIONS, ADOPTING A NEW CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN, REVISING DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS AND REDUCING THE PERMITTED NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 564 TO 237 ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF WOLFE ROAD AND WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R 951) IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 115± ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBERS 2005-34 AND 2006-30, THE FORMER PALERMO COVE RPUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS,Wayne Arnold,AICP of Q. Grady Minor,P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., representing WCI Communities, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 34, 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 Palermo Cove Residential Planned Unit Development to allow up to 237 residential dwelling units in accordance with the RPUD Documents, attached hereto as Exhibits A through F, and Palermo Cove RPUD 1 of 2 PUDZA-PL20120000680—rev.3/01/13 incorporated herein by reference. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps as described in . Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Ordinance Numbers 2005-34 and 2006-30, known as the Palermo Cove RPUD, are hereby repealed in their 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 GEORGIA A. HILLER,ESQ. Chairwoman Approved assufficiency: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A-List of Allowable Uses Exhibit B -Development Standards Exhibit C -Master Plan Exhibit C-1 —Private Road Cross Section Exhibit C-2—Public Road Cross Section Exhibit D -Legal Description Exhibit E-List of Requested Deviations Exhibit E-1 —Sign Location Exhibit Exhibit E-2—Alternative Pathways Plan Exhibit E-3—Entrance Signage Concept Character Sketch Exhibit E-4—Conceptual Entrance Sign Plan View Exhibit F -Development Commitments CP\12-CPS-01202138 Palermo Cove RPUD 2 of 2 PUDZA-PL20120000680—rev.3/01/13 EXHIBIT A FOR PALERMO COVE RPUD Regulations for development of the Palermo Cove RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this RPUD Document and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate. Where this RPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. PERMITTED USES: A maximum of 237 dwelling units shall be permitted within the RPUD. 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: RESIDENTIAL A. Principal Uses: 1. Single family dwellings, detached 2. Single family dwellings, attached.- 3. Variable lot line dwellings, single family A variable lot line dwelling unit is a single family dwelling where the side yards may vary between 0 and 10 feet as long as a 10-foot minimum separation between principal structures is maintained. 4. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") by the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). B. Accessory Uses: 1. Guardhouses,gatehouses, and access control structures. 2. Model homes and model home centers including offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing. 3. Recreational facilities such as parks, playgrounds, and pedestrian/bikeways to serve the residents and their guests. 4. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the principal uses permitted in this District, including but not limited to swimming pools, spas and screen enclosures, and recreational facilities all designed to serve the residents and their guests, and essential services as described in Section 2.01.03 of the LDC. 2012 Amendment,revised 2-28-2013 Page 1 of 17 PL2012-0680,Palermo Cove RPUD RECREATION A. Principal Uses: 1. Clubhouses 2. Community maintenance areas, maintenance buildings, essential services, irrigation water and effluent storage tanks and ponds, utility pumping facilities and pump buildings, utility and maintenance staff offices. 3. Community administrative facilities. 4. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, bikeways, landscape nurseries, gazebos, boat and canoe docks, fishing piers, picnic areas, fitness trails and shelters. 5. Outdoor recreation facilities, such as a community swimming pool, tennis and basketball courts, parks, playgrounds, pedestrian/bikeways, and passive and/or active water features (private intended for use by the residents and their guests only). 6. Tennis clubs, health spas and other recreational clubs (private, intended for use by the residents and their guests only). 7. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") by the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). B. Accessory Uses: 1. Model homes and model home centers including offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing. 2. Retail establishments(pro shop) accessory to the permitted uses in the District such as, but not limited to,tennis, and other recreational related sales. 3. Cafes, snack bars and similar uses intended to serve residents and guests. 4. Tennis courts, swimming pools and all other types of accessory facilities intended for outdoor recreation (private intended for use by the residents and their guests only). 5. Any other use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and consistent with the permitted accessory uses of this PUD as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. 2012 Amendment,revised 2-28-2013 Page 2 of 17 PL2012-0680,Palermo Cove RPUD PRESERVE A. Principal Uses: 1. Native preserves. 2. Water management. 3. Mitigation areas. 4. Hiking trails, boardwalks, shelters, or other such facilities constructed for the purposes of passage through or enjoyment of the site's natural attributes, subject to approval by permitting agencies. 5. Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or designee determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area. B. Flowway: The 28.40±acre preserve is used as a flow-way for storm water per South Florida Water Management District permits, and as such will also be placed in a drainage easement in favor of SFWMD that will allow for maintenance activities to be performed to ensure that the flow-way always functions properly. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Exhibits B sets forth the development standards for land uses within the RPUD Residential Subdistrict. 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. 1. Guardhouses, gatehouses, fences, walls, columns, decorative architectural features, streetscape and access control structures shall have no required setback and are permitted throughout the "R" designated areas of the PUD; however such structures shall be located such that they do not cause vehicular stacking into the road right-of- way or create site distance issues for motorists and pedestrians. 2012 Amendment,revised 2-28-2013 Page 3 of 17 PL2012-0680,Palermo Cove RPUD EXHIBIT B FOR PALERMO COVE RPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARDS SINGLE- VARIABLE LOT SINGLE FAMILY RECREATION FAMILY LINE FOR SINGLE ATTACHED DETACHED FAMILY Minimum Lot Area 5,000 SF 4,000 SF 3,500 SF 10,000 SF Minimum Lot Width *3 50 feet 40 feet 35 feet N/A Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet N/A Minimum Front Yard 20 feet *2 20 feet *2 20 feet *2 N/A Minimum Side Yard 6 feet 0- 10 feet *4 0 or 5 feet N/A Minimum Rear Yard Principal *1 15 feet 15 feet 0 or 7.5 feet N/A Accessory*1 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet N/A Maximum Building Height Zoned 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet Actual - _ 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures 12 feet 10 feet 10 feet N/A Principal Structures *5 Floor Area Min. (S.F.) 1500 SF 1000 SF 1000 SF N/A PUD Boundary Adjacent to Parcels 1A, 2A and 2B 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet of Wolf Creek PUD Preserve 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Front 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Side 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 10 feet PUD Boundary 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet Preserve 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Minimum Distance Between 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Structures Maximum Building Height Zoned 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Actual 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet Minimum lot areas for any unit type may be exceeded. The unit type, and not the minimum lot area, shall define the development standards to be applied by the Growth Management Division during an application for a building permit. For all variable lot single family units and single family attached, a conceptual exhibit showing typical building configurations, including building setbacks and building separations, shall be submitted to the Growth Management Division with the application for the first building permit for the platted development tract. The conceptual exhibit may be modified as needed. Verification of ingress/egress for maintenance shall be provided for variable lot line single family units. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. 2012 Amendment,revised 2-28-2013 Page 4 of 17 PL2012-0680, Palermo Cove RPUD *1—Rear yards for principal and accessory structures on lots and tracts which abut lake or open space areas. Front yards shall be measured as follows: A. If the parcel is served by a public right-of-way,setback is measured from the adjacent right-of-way line. B. If the parcel is served by a private road, setback is measured from the back of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement(if not curbed). C. If the parcel has frontage on two sides,setback is measured from the side with the shortest frontage with the other frontage designated as a side yard. *2—Front entry garages must be a minimum of 20',and a minimum of 23'from a sidewalk. Porches, entry features and roofed courtyards may be reduced to 15'. *3—Minimum lot width may be reduced by 20%for cul-de-sac lots provided the minimum lot area requirement is maintained. *4—The side setback may be variable between zero feet(0')to ten feet(10') as long as a 10 foot minimum separation between principal structures is maintained. *5—Building distance may be reduced at garages to a minimum of 0' where attached garages are provided and a 10' minimum separation is maintained,if detached. Note: nothing in this RPUD Document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in Exhibit F, Deviations 2012 Amendment,revised 2-28-2013 Page 5 of 17 PL2012-0680,Palermo Cove RPUD I d wt S'IOL/97/Z•JM sJJ uuX3 I lXR(ZA30 Ntlkl 1171 CMW O JIBIHp\3A�,0 fbXtl37VQ\C`.1N 11 \EN O QI1d_Y 3H0�uIOM OM 3NA�cfl Thd-V?M'}H\:MJINNycA- A\', p_ N c00 0 0 o II � ge�� w 4�fn w J --- -_ IAVM-db s tI DI D • Q —---- --- LS6'NU Q A3'If)08 y]f7'IOJ 1.1- - 'u'iz' I t _O i o aw wZ I w r 4P Ix W° 4 L ill °g q c.w+I V a, 0_LA o Z 3 1 gr o O , o o i .. a U m D re- rr rc. = w ii P ! 3� WW fl w ¢ H I® i IZ c�iw j% O�• � t 1'i IS 3 o .1::::::\ U ; a Spa I 8.w YZ w w I O O V O �F >� V oo w Q :;:; •! 7 w p p wg W� .. �/X _ a ZZZ q�'$ 0:A <13+ O / _J - w CN el I / U� - � i !Ei 3 u / RECREAREI \ 3 .. 1.1 3A1210 31411SItld 03SOdO2Id 1 H i : � a:: wz ww Z• F- E.•• : :• ;'; l ? o w w I—o-o O Z I- < CO 0 in CC W 'a J A r••••• <:::: m w m Q 00 18 ? [[ r oc�io CO w X Q al 3m I W a-O 1 — Hw oo o 3 °- a 3.•:•:.•:':':•:':•:•:•.•:•::.•.� s E I =¢¢ ¢�¢ a Nk••\:\ s— J ' —Ji W W a W Q H © t. • QQ ��rr•• /1 t 0 ww ZwWO t C1� wF 3 OU J }dLL W I w U Q V ..:.:'j 1 �` �° E5 I W O W O S 0 aQ k.•.•. 1 t- oa w ?3 W C7 LL 2 I- N h •\\ A I.L zOww W N CO 0. Z o --a w E co g z 31 w w Q W Q • Z �o W� z dUUUU0 W I I..'..:'.'.': o 0 0 L Q J o Q N m0 V� uw 0) 5J5W (n `....... Z cc 3W Z 0 W I- Q 2 1=- 0 ISLAND WALK DRI/PUD P- RESIDENTIAL O . N r O z N.1/NZI SIOZ/pT/L 9M4'GIIAIH%1 ILXF(BARN)NYIA H3IStll1 H%3\WO o 1VA\S1NIM`RIO\ON3lN on )13,0 7410M OOd 3A0O 0131vd-VQ'M11g\061INNY -l'ONA,7 IN O X J 2 U W I O J cc 0 ft J W W W •8 g 8_1 P, �-.., J U = 0) F ON Fa-- Z LLO F¢-- m JQ mhoecf N 00�0 pC�W wp °0 LuH C3 W(n J o ZIl 0 �� OZ LLW F W• O=E ow H2 O= F 0 6 - 0 W X c 0 O 0 co Z �LX ZS Q QF V) zOMZ ,_ W .-,w Q W 0 Q X 1 0 - w F a Q W Q 0 2 a Fa 0) 0 a 0wz > wmH2- W U �w cc W • mw z7 W O0O U) S OZ < < 00 a ZI- Lc Z z F ow O a o O Z g O° w O W F Q mg °" wH F w ~ z (n0 °Lw o < mo 1- wa pO DLL H mro �m ›H _ > FZ W Hp w F w z< d OF O< QO W OJT 0) F- W20 0510w w cc 0Q HO- � 0 (nQ2 wWQW w SOZ¢ O 9 02 Ho LLF o w W c W 2LZaN OL" Oz W (� '5,7c1 z Q 00 O J J o ai Z ,F F 0w _ Z 0 ~ F- u) c� z Z W (n = O O -Lwtn W U) Z <H OS 2 (!j u Q0¢ O2 WHH Im2 2 Lt.. W U W ° wF �?(n O w -F mQS(no � OQO w p a dw mQ � p JF'Q pF- QZ O2 � 0 } ° m F Qw � O (n �- 5 w U mo w0 OW ZU 0 000 --100 0OZj ¢ 0 x uw~) 0 0 w F Q Q W O W w Q Z L 2 Z J Q Z Q ~ w < m JZ ZW w 0 JawF' 0 < u- W Ur W R'i ~ Qw 2 awm ZF0ZF 2 } �2 IZ- F- '� H 00 0 w J OF Q 2 0 F p 0 W W 0 > 2 fX z� r H L+ 0 Q w x U U W Z W 0 a p a Q o W. (nN UJO < } 0 J =O - 0 Q Z QV c1- W a Q OWj - W CCZ W FU- a0> d O W o0 ZQQ V w } F' W0 0= HF O W m> FHOw > W H2 (n2 Z 0 CC-2 W Lu W 0 m F O Z z 0E 7 0 = - , < m F 11.1 LL C7 i J S < <- H - 001- 0 F 0 0 W = 2W lc Q IHZ u) Zmzz J ° W Q O w re C?W o u) O Q 0 < 0I Qmw'- 0 2 �r _ - aw Lt / 2 h- W 0 FW w J F m -(n W ~ w O Uw H - - ZHa �oJwF wo ° D F Rww'� �W w � XO ° QUF DODmW wO �O N Z 0 U� m .o 0 vim n a Q �Jawa � (n °w y - a Z W W H Z Ecr J F (n W 2 w Q l2 W Z w Q Y Q 2 NN 9 wa W m W D 2 > dU0 a LU < 0 z? W 0 >_ FS--- S wo W 0 m �r J s. 1- 1- - z w°a QJ 2 000 1- Wp > z 0 -W 0 0 0 sz P. d O � c oD v WJp W > 0 V) Zmi_ w O Q m(2 0 0 >_0 Z - 2 W w O S J z X J 2 o - 4 <r Qb • 0Q � z � � = (oSZ> o W O HZ Fm- `r 6'Q = (n < ° W LL ( m ( FOM O z g 0 e , W2 QO W W zz � � � u) 0 °pZ0 0ZZ0 < H 2 x � 8 _ U.DQ 0- W W2 2 - MD 0LL ,_HQ 00Uo 0 OF tg m0 zw (xZ mw zoo W � O � > Dw —� -H F a �< oz Q � O � � Q wZ p- wow < < Ui rn 0 < '� amp oW ZW C7Q OW WJ0 J } � 0 DUO= Z , `t � 2 � O °' o 5 < o - wz2 HO ¢� c� Q W ? < _ 5 zwm w � 2J 2a 00m < z < D (nmO = u) D L m Q �g � om YO H ¢ Wa ctzm X0 0 ° o F ° oJ (n 0 0 :., UW m0 rH (n = w =O F (n200- wHO Qm co < 0 > 35 WD Y (n u) 0 ln � OH Z W _ W Z JS N ado < w' _o 2 J Q Q W W W U Z X X n W �� Um QZ LjO H � W CO W Dm > � � 00 W 0 cc; W ° 0 Z W O W � W F 0z17. O g F° °U > W J< Q D CC wO0Z F Q H Z Z W W w U F 0 W Z O 2 O * U Q d -0 (00 U) W YwO > a °W 2 00 0 in Q0 Z cc O J N Y p J Q cc 5 w w 0 LL J W m W O X U Q to a Z 2 U • UQ 4¢> O Z aDJQ NOO(nj m 0 - w Lo <0n J 0 on ZH p > � - aiW 0 z �Z11W d OW W20 - N NM D aW �° W (OW o � o W ,� �DZ oQ �O W co (nQ } F- WI r,, �W 50 mF Mu- opFO ,01- 0,11--2 OF WFJ U d OF n� d u) m(n z 0 z o ' Z W 2 2 < z ' 1-2 < 1_ V W 2 I __I 00 0o 0 ,I-_c D � Mm OM° Z2 O W zWI- w0 Z v- 0 Z H J 0O U } p <wlt haQQr I- m LB 0 00 co W w ° E w 5 U Q w Q W W O a c o U 5 O O F O U z c7 ° a � -I (n 0 U W � F W0 >-A-1, (I) W (n F 1—F p W J Z W Z a 2. zp OF O2 U2 OJO' Lt O (60WO Ow O ° �\ QW ow OJT OX ° QOW � U Waw � Z WaQ Q (/) 00 d Q � o� (n 2 0 2 W 2 co 2x 22w < -f:2 .< 1-1-,2 < 0 F H F 0 W W W w ....„ 0 I O °Q' W YF n 0 - 2000 c1 1- O W' Z OO W 0 2 2 > W H Q Q ao 1- u_ cc u_u) LL W U_ <C u Z < U) LL0Ou) > LL W _J CC LL_ J 2 W 00 W "> Q < m � a p C.1 �A IA W ri 0) v 10 (fl ri CO OF 2 a Z 0 M 0611 5103/13/1 0M0HX3 NOM—Vc0M3d\SONIMV010\ON3wtl Ond)133M0 3_410M Ond 3A03 OW13Ttld—Vd3M3d,ONINNWId—P014d\:0 a o ill a ; 3 C n a i 3 � y_ hiM I A o M a o I-- \ / q 1---Z W J Z O /\ CO 21, O�W a_aQ \- //s 1- Z f: 0 z DJ M 83A03 *NIIN „Oc I.— :, \ m .-- C.) rK C.) a—\ /\ v Cro 1- // /' m hWo a v a N N T--- \ \ N s • /' ,\/ O J \Z \\% y W �t / S Lt.- 1 2 W ',•-•/\ / NN d O z ±{ a g / " 16 •/ f� \' 0 5 1 Q .� A EA— - - •j/ \ � CO V) W V\// / N -g g >-z 1—ZO \. \ \ ♦ J ca< OHW �tYa // j//• Q v0 DQ Li) / , \� W W m o 0 N '-O r O II z = (N1 C3 I W Q o c 0 .N .> a) tY 4 co m . m wry m_- w___a_6_-w1_m _ -tee • ! ` w| {I''' i | Tg i h4 §i \ § & °)§ + §\ 0 - IX \% \\ \G § n. 0- / 0 ) 3 b EoC o f3U) »\ % � 2a § w \ 4 1 E S 0 2; // X \ ,•••••■••, uE - - \/ ft, ..� - 2 \� • ) _\ !: /•/ |2 .5.': . _ 0 �� \ F. x 2 \) \ § , \ . 3/ ! \ \\ ` \ 6§ / /y o\ CIL�� ®/ : \\ �� \ \5 0 , , } • • f \ \ ,m EXHIBIT D FOR PALERMO COVE RPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEING A PORTION OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 34,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE CENTER SECTION CORNER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA THE SAME BEING A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4714, PAGE 2675, PUBLIC RECORDS, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA;THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY FOR THE NEXT(2) CALLS: 1) NORTH 02°17'03" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 668.97 FEET TO A POINT HEREIN AFTER KNOWN AS POINT "A"; 2) THENCE NORTH 89°52'01" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,255.70 FEET;THENCE NORTH 00°08'14" EAST,A DISTANCE OF 157.48 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT;THENCE WESTERLY 84.06 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 220.00 FEET,A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 21°53'34",(CHORD BEARING NORTH 69°46'49"WEST,A DISTANCE OF 83.55 FEET)TO A POINT ON A NON TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT;THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 68.01 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 223.33 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17°26'56", (CHORD BEARING NORTH 49°58'34" WEST,A DISTANCE OF 67.75 FEET)TO A POINT ON A NON TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT;THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 54.96 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 220.00 FEET,A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14°18'51", (CHORD BEARING NORTH 33°57'41" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 54.82 FEET)TO A POINT ON A REVERSE CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 52.79 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 40.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 75°37'08", (CHORD BEARING NORTH 64°36'49" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 49.04 FEET) TO A POINT ON A REVERSE CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE WESTERLY 111.61 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 180.00 FEET,-A- CENTRAL ANGLE OF 35°31'37", (CHORD BEARING NORTH 84°39'35"WEST,A DISTANCE OF 109.83 FEET) TO A POINT ON A REVERSE CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE WESTERLY 361.70 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 430.00 FEET,A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 48°11'45", (CHORD BEARING SOUTH 89°00'21"WEST,A DISTANCE OF 351.13 FEET) TO A POINT ON A REVERSE CURVE TO THE RIGHT;THENCE WESTERLY 238.56 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A n RADIUS OF 325.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 42°03'25", (CHORD BEARING SOUTH 85°56'11" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 233.24 FEET) TO A POINT ON A REVERSE CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE WESTERLY 126.29 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 430.00 FEET,A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16°49'40", (CHORD BEARING NORTH 81°26'56" WEST,A DISTANCE OF 125.84 FEET);THENCE NORTH 89°51'46"WEST,A DISTANCE OF 84.45 FEET;THENCE NORTH 01°15'45"WEST, A DISTANCE OF 44.93 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY 76.34 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 254.07 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17°12'57", (CHORD BEARING NORTH 37°21'31" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 76.05 FEET) TO A POINT ON A REVERSE CURVE TO THE LEFT;THENCE NORTHEASTERLY 21.41 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 30.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 40°53'51", (CHORD BEARING NORTH 25°31'05" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 20.96 FEET) TO A POINT ON A NON TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT;THENCE NORTHERLY 212.02 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,667.96 FEET,A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07°16'59", (CHORD BEARING NORTH 08°44'13" EAST,A DISTANCE OF 211.88 FEET)TO A POINT ON A NON TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT;THENCE NORTHERLY 62.48 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 485.08 FEET,A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 07°22'50", (CHORD BEARING NORTH 06°57'20" EAST,A DISTANCE OF 62.44 FEET)TO A POINT ON A NON TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE LEFT;THENCE NORTHERLY 86.02 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 533.38 FEET,A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°14'25", (CHORD BEARING NORTH 01°10'52"WEST,A DISTANCE OF 85.93 FEET);THENCE NORTH 10°22'28"WEST,A DISTANCE OF 73.39 FEET;THENCE NORTH 04°30'25"WEST, A DISTANCE OF 65.59 FEET; THENCE NORTH 18°28'14" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 65.84 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON TANGENTIAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT;THENCE NORTHERLY 88.00 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 210.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 24°00'38", (CHORD BEARING NORTH 07°14'58"WEST,A DISTANCE OF 87.36 FEET); THENCE SOUTH 87°46'17"WEST,A DISTANCE OF 364.37 FEET TO A POINT ON THE BOUNDARY OF SAID OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4714, PAGE 2675; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY FOR THE FOLLOWING (10) TEN CALLS: 1) NORTH 02°14'01" WEST,A DISTANCE OF 282.84 FEET; 2)THENCE SOUTH 89°52'33" EAST,A DISTANCE OF 1,321.20 FEET; 3)THENCE NORTH 02°15'32" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 668.85 FEET; 4) THENCE SOUTH 89°52'49" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1,320.90 FEET; 5) THENCE SOUTH 02°17'03" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 2,006.90 FEET TO THE AFOREMENTIONED POINT"A"; 6)THENCE SOUTH 89°52'26" EAST,A DISTANCE OF 1,321.62 FEET;7)THENCE SOUTH 02°16'03"EAST,A DISTANCE OF 334.65 FEET;8)THENCE SOUTH 89°51'59" EAST,A DISTANCE OF 1,146.37 FEET;9)THENCE SOUTH 02°15'03" EAST,A DISTANCE OF 334.80 FEET; 10) THENCE NORTH 89°51'32"WEST,A DISTANCE OF 2,467.73 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 114.67 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 2012 Amendment,revised 2-28-2013 Page 10 of 17 PL2012-0680,Palermo Cove RPUD EXHIBIT E FOR PALERMO COVE RPUD LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS 1. From Land Development Code (LDC) Section 4.06.02, Buffer Requirements, which requires a 10 foot wide Type A landscape buffer between similar residential land uses to allow no buffer between commonly owned properties where indicated on the Master Plan. 2. From LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements, which requires sidewalks to be constructed on both sides of local streets, to allow sidewalks on one side of the street only for private streets(see Exhibit E-2 Alternative Pathways Plan). 3. From LDC Section 6.06.01.0, Street System Requirements and Appendix B, Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way Design Standards, which establishes a 60 foot wide local road to allow a minimum 40'wide private road. See Exhibit C-1 of the PUD Exhibits. 4. From LDC Section 6.06.01.J, Street System Requirements, which limits cul-de-sacs to a maximum length of 1,000 feet to permit a cul-de-sac approximately 1,400 feet in length with appropriate signage. - __ _ 5. from LDC Section 4.05.04, Parking Space Requirements, which requires parking for accessory recreational facilities to be provided at 50%of the normal LDC parking requirements when dwelling units are located greater than 300' from the recreational facility, to permit parking for accessory recreational facilities to be based on square footage rather than individual components at a calculation of one space per 200 square feet of building area. 6. From LDC Section 5.06.02, Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts,which only allows on-premises signs within residential districts, to permit an off-premise residential sign, if developer is able to obtain a sign easement and PUD amendment from the property owner of the Sonoma Oaks MPUD, located immediately south of the Wolfe Road/Collier Boulevard intersection. The sign area would be a maximum of 80 square feet and be designed to be a ground mounted sign having the same copy and design theme as that permitted on the north side of Wolfe Road within the Palermo Cove RPUD. This deviation shall only be permitted in the event Deviation #7 is not utilized. 7. From LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, which allows two ground signs at each residential entrance, to permit either one sign to be located on the north east corner of the property facing Collier Boulevard and one sign to be located at the intersection of Wolf Road as depicted on Exhibit E-1, or to permit a single monument V-shaped sign on the north side of Wolfe Road, and to permit a maximum sign/wall height of 10' above the grade of Collier Boulevard, with a maximum sign area not to exceed 80 square feet, as conceptually depicted in Exhibits E-3 and E-4. 2012 Amendment,revised 2-28-2013 Page 11 of 17 PL2012-0680,Palermo Cove RPUD 1 1 V 1 i „,,\ I I PUD BOUNDARY PROJECT 1 1 I ENTRY 1 \/ I SIGNAGE ■ I - - I • - I • • I • II I • • I - J- - IR - IMMII I I �` II I '<ii.”) - ( \ • , \ ` I I i `\\,t \ ■ I `: 1 LAKE vi LAKE 1( 1 II 1 i V . \ ■ 1 i ) \ i €1 1, PROJECT- I 1 1 ENTRY 1 SIGNAGE II hcr -I M t I I 1 I I I I 111+H-1-H AM-WAN WOLFE ROAD - ,--` ,vim g. ----. ,^ .. .-. .-- ..I I tC:: I I \ . y i I L ,' Wi L!I i 1 1 I 0 = 0 i I E I I f,z4 tJ I J m Wr i I I � .. N PROPOSED SIGNAGE IF OFF—SITE SIGN IN DEVIATION NO. 7 CANNOT BE OBTAINED. •i I 0 60' 120' REVISION: 1 PER COUNTY REVIEW #1 COMMENTS 12/5/2012 S.U. SCALE: 1" = 120' I 1 „„„....\ PALERMO COVE RPUD SCAM ©GradyMinor Bonita Springs 239.947.1144 Fort FOrt Myers 239.690.1380 EXHIBIT E-1 " PC Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects SIGN LOCATION EXHIBIT EMENDED 2012 CERr.OF ACTH.EE 0005151•CERr.PRAM LB 0005151• BUSINESS LC 26000266 910.E Nom' e MOM C uvSiFA PVal(REV) wuu•.GraticMinor.COm Q.Grady Minor and.ASSOCiS580.P'. SEtEEr 1 OF t G:\PRW— PLANNING\PCWCPA—PALERMO CM PUD WOLFE CREEK PUD AMEND\DRAWINGS\PALERMO COVE\EXHIBIT C VASTER PLAN(REV1).DWG 12/5/2012 12:05 PM ,ny pn:g f10z/Ii/I'NM1'tA7N I IAWK3 MC cA0.1 r)WH3-,1\S,cNU1tl4nVN3m.nc N339')'d10M(Ind 3M•1[1NKiNrI—tl.fN"h.A NINNY4i—I 241\" O - G o :pit " a �� y —Z—� o 4 i • W J Q - fir Ii • ' 1 i Ok i i I� 11 I'- Y� I,:: 1 b a• }V.: 0 .ir 14 In r EA W 3 ▪ 2 1 p_._ V k- a ® 1 , m a. p cc p laJ W d U d QI J W J p K Q O N Q U 0 O I O K I d m- J _ I:: 2 _- – = U$ , < w Q j n N � - ! $ ., NOLLV38031 ,. ,_ r 2 L W LA °m cr U ` O Ds :" = .52-.. ° Elk ::::::::::::::::.:•/•:: 1: ' v; ill• L' _ [::::: k k •:•'. C a W ` W cc U :, L.1._ Z : :� O LtJ U t 2....,g _ . ., ,....\ _.,..A1,, 44.1. Imp= 4-, :2 is . . i. „, U c, (jCA6;0 a0; •• 0 ' �� V r ( AI 1 C a It b V —( a e Ld ;, i '' . ii V� ` s _ , A Ille i 1. i s. i` : . T;tl RSwr4 :_ Iv mt k i /,1, tom((,, ;f;f�} ! I y to •* , r3 ; ! ,' -. -- c ;; ��s s al teciure llani ''.' ) !Me . k a Immo „.., . . \........... .• .... ,. . • . 4p., 1.., ,' I �. i am 1 �� ` ,s.� j •- i ..1 (x O � -.- _ dil or\ fi. . 6. :„.14 __ . _.... . �' -7.7 Y \ 11• ..., : ifi ‘1441'73 7 WM:: ‘,,Z... - r ."- Apt40----,5.--4, { :� *ilikhib,;'.';' .414---:. "-I `,77, ar. ,. rim /1/1 \ , r •. i i s` .N 'A- `�'is ��3 ^ t3a..` _:'3 .z...•.._+isas..__�.a.,,a. __;.:.:.!_..a, ,.�,.-__. Tw� yy, Existing View e ron Southbound Lan Existing ta View Lane Existing Aerial View err.'l'- i I it Low hedge and /0171,groundcover on -/ . Fr southside (powerline issue) = �lY, s Landscaped backdrop s - ,:, 41, ,...--- -i- , - .04/4 - k;,-,.. ..,,, _ ...:„.. i , 0 F', 1141 x�S�. Reshape and expand eristin lakes to bring closer to roads. ' I 1 1 I Utilize fill for herming.\II 1 tt .j�j� 1 Large multi stage fountains s. e.,....k.v7;„,_, ) -, 1 C. . .."'''-''''' ' e „.„ ....,,,,,,„. ..... ,. ,, . , , ..:747: .‘- 1 c, t t ` - / �� (ii malls facto —i'' Vee sign +Y 1 Palermo Cove RPUD Exhibit E-4 Conceptual Entrance Sign Plan View n.t.5. frady.11inor EXHIBIT F FOR PALERMO COVE RPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 1. UTILITIES A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission systems shall be constructed throughout the project by the developer. Potable water and sanitary sewer facilities constructed within platted rights-of-way or within dedicated County utility easements shall be conveyed to Collier County, pursuant to the Collier County Land Development Code, as amended, except as may be provided in this Ordinance. 2. TRANSPORTATION A. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all access points. Access lighting shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy(CO). B. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks and interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the_.__ developer. Collier County shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. C. Adjacent developments have been designed to provide shared access or interconnections with this development. The RPUD Master Plan indicates these locations. The developer, or assigns, shall assure that any such shared access or interconnection is available and shall accommodate the perpetual use of such access by incorporating appropriate language into the development covenants or plat. D. Wolf Road east/west storm water drainage will be incorporated into the storm water drainage system of this RPUD. The developer shall accept, store, and attenuate stormwater for the Wolfe Road corridor from CR-951 to the project intersection. E. The Developer shall be responsible for the proportional share of the cost of a traffic signal system, or other traffic control device, sign, or pavement marking at the Wolfe Road and Collier Boulevard intersection should the existing traffic signal be modified to be fully operational. If warranted, upon the completion of the installation, inspection, burn-in period, and final approval/acceptance of said traffic signal it shall be turned over (for ownership) to Collier County, and will then be operated and maintained by the Collier County Transportation Department. F. Exhibit C-2, Wolfe Road Cross-section reflects the street cross-section, as mandated by the Collier County Transportation Division. 2012 Amendment,revised 2-28-2013 Page 16 of 17 PL2012-0680, Palermo Cove RPUD 3. ENVIRONMENTAL A minimum of 25% of the on-site native vegetation must be retained. 50.59± acres of native vegetation exists on-site requiring a minimum preservation of 12.65±acres of native vegetation to be retained. 4. PLANNING Where residential or recreational development areas abut the Wolf Creek PUD, no buffers or building setback shall be required. 5. WATER MANAGEMENT A. The water management system shall be designed to route existing off-site surface water flows through or around the project. These conveyance facilities shall be sized such that post construction water levels are lower than or equal to existing water levels on the surrounding lands. These improvements shall be made prior to the issuance of the first residential certificate of occupancy. 6. RPUD INTERFACE WITH ZONING TO THE NORTH The Palermo Cove RPUD is bounded on the north by the 9.4 acre property that was rezoned to Golden Gate Fire Department (GGFD) Station 73 MPUD, to provide for a community facility (Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District Station 73), as well as the final 16 dwelling units in the attached single-family townhouse product line partially developed in the Summit Place In Naples Subdivision. The 9.4 acre parcel within the Palermo Cove RPUD lying south and adjacent to the existing GGFD Station 73 MPUD will provide road access to the Palermo Cove RPUD, as well as road access to the existing fire station from Wolfe Road. It also provides for a water management easement to benefit Collier County for the Collier Boulevard six-laning project. This RPUD has been designed to share perimeter land use buffering and to create contiguous adjoining conservation areas with both the existing GGFD Station 73 MPUD and the developing • Summit Place In Naples Subdivision. Storm water run-off will be accepted from off-site areas to pass through the Palermo Cove master drainage system. 2012 Amendment,revised 2-28-2013 Page 17 of 17 PL2012-0680, Palermo Cove RPUD AGENDA ITEM 9-B Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES--LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION--PLANNING&REGULATION HEARING DATE: MARCH 21, 2013 SUBJECT: PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD (COMPANION TO PUDZA-PL20120000680: PALERMO COVE PUD) PROPERTY OWNER& APPLICANT/AGENT: Contract Purchaser/Applicant: Agents: Barry Ernst,AICP Wayne Arnold,AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. WCI Communities, Inc. Q. Grady Minor&Assoc. P.A. Coleman, Yovanovich, &Koester, P.A. 24301 Walden Center Dr 3800 Via Del Rey Northern Trust Bank Bldg Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Bonita Springs,FL 34134 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 Owners: Raffia Holdings of Naples, LLC Wolf Creek Holding of Naples LLC 13440 Parker Commons Blvd, Suite 103 265 Sevilla Ave Fort Myers, FL, 33912 Coral Gable, FL 33134 Raffia Holdings of Naples LLC owns all property except for Parcels 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 as shown on Exhibit A-1 attached. 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 Wolf Creek Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). For details about the project proposal, refer to "Purpose/Description of Project GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 189± acres, is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road (C.R. 862) approximately one-half mile west of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the following page) PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 1 of 18 March 21,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 Pr 1= , ! Ai:,a i — 1 :_i_001111111 IIIIIIilllllill c, r I —_ ' / 111111 111111• ,-1, IIIIJPll I o L L."- $ ; ! Igo 11111111111111111111111111111111� I 1 \1\\ill_ I'II'I'III'Iill% \ a? _1111 I I III 11111 \\\\��p\\111IIIIIJIIII�4 5��11E1111111311i a22 a �1111111111111111�1`\\�� "� 1111 � a Nn �� 'r, �+11111111111 Z a a5mg � i C C 3• o - »11111118 _ C I- a \� \ 11111111J P 1 o .\111111111► 0 ..._ i � CO v� €::::: :::::: :: 41'i1i{€>t'i°.':.'1.:11: €1 0 N ICI■ ! , Z'■1 � 11■ . . 1 11 . I 1 . �I I � 0 . . .�' ��€ €.`111;1€ ::::::» ;` ` 11€ 111€€€€€:1.€1€1€1€€1€>€ 1 �` , 1 .. .= ..11111 : ":::x�..... _ ,r' z .. . 11 1f I ► \ ";= IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII C -p w/////1 1 • \ ::::_:: ::: : .. ��// 1111 N �► 1/IIIU�'U� I r.ao �I� ////l�/l/IIIIN 1 = - 113_ \ .<:. ::::. ►� /� //////11111' I _. • . IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII VI. /l/pj/ >• 11111111111% \ i`?i <':':€: ///111111 1�/1 , = C= OIL opuunnlp►" C C C \ `° uunmii� ��' h ■ �� ■ �� /i ♦ 11111 ■1111111111 11111111■Nil; :::::::::: . 111111///i �Oi %///11111i i uuuuuluuuun1�3111►. �� ° ►�1,, — i A" II1111rdf11111111111111111IIN11111111111 11 �g '�� E a /// . I a 1 I N IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIII►% 1 ' II�t�� Q � :111:....144 C I �� ////lllllllll//////lll 21 I O a1 ID\```�\� = IIII►1YIll �lllllllllll////1111 z I N J a MOS 0110N / 7 0 0 a 4t n D 1 z 1 s m 1� g J o ce -0 q a if if °= - dilv/31n08 N31Tq0 1.011'0 nwe nai ' _1 j d I h ii P 0 0 W 3 X31 " ti Z I I �.,3i�, , — § aS i$ I , _ 'S 11-----, 1 Q H g I a i°t g� a d 308 S � w V i ._?. 2 ggh 1-g gi I.— g v 4 I`--� O Z m oavn3inoe Nasoi a V J of , 81rA ;g o n0101U1NfW SC-310SSN31N1 - I m 0n0 6.00606 a 40 0'J ITC-030%=ate ^` 1 .9, N' I " ,10--------7--, r PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject property is partially developed with single family and multi-family buildings. The multi-family dwellings are within The Falls of Portofino Condominium complex, and the single- family homes are within the Black Bear Ridge subdivision. The property has been the subject of several previous zoning actions. The majority of the site, 147.69 acres, was originally rezoned from the Agricultural zoning district to a PUD in Ordinance #03-45 on September 23, 2003. Subsequent to that action, on May 22, 2007, 20.27±was added into the project via Ordinance #07-46. Ordinance #09-34 amended Subsection 5.7, paragraphs "N" and "0" addressing changing transportation issues. The project is approved at a 4 units per acre. No increase in density is proposed. The proposed changes are summarized below(taken from the application material): • • Add the Scenic Woods RMF-6(4) zoned 5± acres into this project; • Add 16±acres from the Palermo Cove PUD project into this project: • Add Exhibit A-1 to show the new parcel designations; • Add Table II, to incorporate development standards for the lands that are being added--Parcels lA and 2B, and other lands within the PUD that the amendment applicant controls--2A, 3A, and IB. ^ Ir', r.:1 ,;t-4,0,,..:c ii r Ej ,r�rq&,„.. �{ lrs-=1s �rnTC+oar.Sr a::,i PALMAS 7,A£ =y"x'cEi;vpit,u!C i nm.;.E.�_ .�+.c�- ra;-tf t)f- Ai: c3:.�.'E H'J CASUVIT EA F r Ass.: R 1�, ,m c ",.:4-a.xSs Pr Sr."1At kt4rA Iii{�.+fCF7S TG YfC tiJXIH 74•,,t 14,.YS Y' f,AtK:RR+fl G"fi'F RW:C Ai«YC,Ir11�RE?p d • -..... i Y-.i,wrMt +W.,r..4•arVtiWrywt•r r+.,^v.sr+r-,.- li if 13 `Y;.;.....,:.:,....::.:::.:/„,, 1 \I i R yr •ze3 1 i/EIS x#.a:5F 1 I f7c.E 1& 7123.5.:ir3 '^�' •,•••�•�^ 1 ,+fJ 1h"vE£FEZ REAL IAt:% 4 (�.: \ ,csg ,:umAe'a i::::::::::ii, << i „.��,q� I R Ei I G._•—_�� R •. is a 1 ,Ifwast r112E 1 j ,o rt>✓T wtt T=x'Vr,CY K -, ;• I Arli• . ,r.. ..r.r;,,;,..i 1r4abs3'M /`D V f -f I FA..Ft.'3A iu?TE`,rE`"3?ESTuaI C::.tYt:4C F^—E.;ri..vcf& I IS POET WEE rr c•A”Lx'ESCA. J:r"Wi i kfaxwrIAL AREA I i::: -_-'-•:','':,,,•-,i.'-::::', -'?------1'"-----: --.4..-::-.1FtWAil ;: i �,-- ..,----- y, ilMM0C XIS;£.M ,:dS1rEAr IrMN f0t63r . N AW f T I4C 3 AVf : Si I A i Y., i . L . _ ______ ._.- 6L_____-__ PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 2 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 • Add Exhibit"D,"Private Road Cross-Section for Parcels 1A through 3A; • Add deviations that will be applicable to Parcels 1A, lb, 2A, 2B, and 3A; • Revise some developer commitments to address the added lands and the additional Exhibit A-1; • Revise some developer commitments to remove outdated transportation commitments; • Revise a developer commitment to increase the amount of required native vegetation commensurate with the 21 acres of additional land; and • Revise a developer commitment to remove the parks and recreation playground requirement. Because this PUD is already partially developed, the petitioner cannot prepare a new PUD document using the latest format, e.g., Exhibits A-F rather than sections. To do so could create non-conformities in the existing development. Instead the petitioner is providing the proposed changes in a strike thru/underline format, showing the new information in underlined text and showing the text to be removed in a strike thru format. As noted above, the petitioner is seeking approval of five new deviations. These deviations are discussed later in this report. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Wolfe Road and the undeveloped Palermo Cove PUD, approved at a density of 4.0 units per acre for a total of 524 units on 131±acres. Palermo Cove PUD is being amended as a companion to this petition to reduce the number of units from 524 to 237 and reduce the acreage to 115± acres with the 16 acres± being incorporated into the Wolf Creek PUD. East: Sonoma Oaks MPUD, an undeveloped project approved for a mix of commercial and a variety of residential uses and Mission Hills PUD, a partially developed commercial project. South: Carolina Village, a 15.88±-acre mixed use project with a zoning designation of MPUD whose residential portion was approved at a density of 4.03 units per acre; and Vanderbilt Beach Road. West: Island Walk DRI/PUD, a 705 acre project approved for a maximum of 2,100 residential units (approved at a density of 3.0 units per acre) and fifteen acres of commercial uses. PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 3 of 18 March 21,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 1' �•,t,, .• `. 1 . AO . •i s Fe � .31.IS, A '""{"*. 'r� 4-, +-/` .. .,. �� -'1 i`' • € :1,:t : t' ; �s�r+i v l ids C .i > :,3 --..:. r$ SkiN. r�s. M ts:k2A0iiib' t -1t-.� .;'p1itt '! i, '2a1.,:'.-.5Ti• , • 1.r* ... , ..i ti,..i11..1#n111. ��%%P�� i �w itilliillsiritP tv., - i' tiI111:i:l.it.itiiii;Nl VAC/'�,/•f llN31114 .: t E1 = 'mot 1l..,wit.11∎.u,ai lIiIIl,1 /-'// 11 ii'l 1- * . .till! 1!!tl II! in I11 w1 i"'4". 1 /741n 11111' :' :t::,kk _ 111+ 1111 ",VI,t.i 117 ''111 I' j aa4 4lit -i -.t z> I lit?li"' i it 7 R -' -., - Flif.:":1/1430 ;t la ';-.4, ' " r.'. :* / '' `^�%..' ,� _ -. 1 "::.:4: :::;:-.:,.4,0 1! ..40111t99iv ' *1''IFt nil' i 1 Ws 1 i I 1155'tS1:. tii�'1 ° ittii I -- :0 SUiCI�.1:tIS.. IIIINI! = i , ' 1 .� n1u,� r ,.,,r i 1!ri, '" -Niif .i ��i1l1111111� `'• k. -� / ` "' !11!1!11,rinfilt i I I Ilif ir _� 1:14",11.)7 all' �i fib :01,7,i:snook_ ±_ OVOrni i' w , . 0, , , , , ... , ,," , ., , 1., . a i • 7 .�.".,; . ., 4 Aerial Photo (the subject site, shown in blue, is approximate) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. This District is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential uses, including Planned Unit Developments. The Subdistrict permits a variety of residential unit types at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) and limited to a maximum of 16 DU/A, as allowed under the Density Rating System. No density bonuses are requested and no density reductions are applicable. Therefore the site is eligible for 4 DU/A. The requested density is 4 DU/A. 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. (Access to the PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 4 of 18 March 21,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 project has been provided via Wolfe Road, onto Collier Boulevard, and via [proposed] Pristine Drive, onto Vanderbilt Beach Road.) FLUE relevant policies are stated below (in italics); each policy is followed by staff analysis (in regular type within parentheses). 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. (Internal access has been provided onto and [by cross-access] through the neighboring use development, and Mission Hills commercial shopping center to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads.) 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 Master Plan provides interconnection between Wolf Creek PUD and Palermo Cove RPUD to the north by way of Wolfe Road, and is further depicted on the Master Plan that the developer of Palermo Cove PUD will extend Pristine Drive north of Wolfe Road. To the south, between the entrance of Wolf Creek PUD and Buckstone Drive, is an interconnection with the proposed roadway, Carolina Way. To the east, provides connection between Buckstone Drive and Mission Hills Drive which connects to Collier Boulevard (CR 951). To the west is the developed gated community of Island Walk PUD, where interconnection is not possible.) 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. (This amendment reconfigures two adjacent existing residential planned unit developments of previously uniform density. With this PUD amendment, Wolf Creek and Palermo Cove provide a blend of densities from two to four residential units per acre. The PUD includes open space in the form of preserve areas and, recreational uses and facilities. The PUD permits several types of dwelling units — including single-family, two-family and multi-family, with minimum floor areas ranging from 1,150 sq.ft. to 1,400 sq.ft. This amendment requests deviation from the LDC Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements to allow sidewalks on one side of the street only, in 3 of the northernmost tracts to be developed; nonetheless,the project does include sidewalks.) Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed uses and density may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's combined Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for the companion items Wolf Creek and Palermo Cove. As the remaining developable rights for the two PUDs are being combined to form a single development using a common access point,the TIS was considered as a joint/combined study. The unit count for Wolf Creek is found to increase by 83 units; however the adjacent Palermo Cove decreases by 287 units. The total for the two developments is 991 dwelling units, a net reduction of 204 units below the previous total. The study indicates that there is a net decrease in the PM Peak Hour Trip Generation. Therefore the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5 year PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 5 of 18 March 21,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 planning period. Staff recommends that the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). A minimum of 25 % of the existing native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. The minimum preserve required of 34.26 acres is being provided. This meets the GMP requirement. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as indicated previously in the GMP discussion. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff also recommends that the petition be found consistent with the CCME. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.03.05.I, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the bases for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. There are no outstanding environmental issues. This project is not required to be reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC). The existing Wolf Creek PUD preserve area is 32.32± acres; the proposed preserve area is 34.26± acres. A total of 1.94 acres will be added; 1.54± acres from Palermo Cove PUD and 0.40± acres from the 5-acre Scenic Woods parcel. The minimum preserve required of 34.26 acres is being provided. 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 the RPUD Ordinance. Transportation Planning staff offers the following analysis of roadway issues. Vanderbilt Beach Road Discussion: The first concurrency link on Vanderbilt Beach Road that is impacted by this zoning amendment is Link 112.0, between Logan Boulevard and Collier Boulevard. This segment of PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 6 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 Vanderbilt Beach Road currently has a remaining capacity of 1,684 trips, and is currently at LOS "B" as reflected by the 2012 AUIR. Collier Boulevard Discussion: The first concurrency link on Collier Boulevard that is impacted by this zoning amendment is Link 30.1, between Immokalee Road and Vanderbilt Beach Road. This segment of Collier Boulevard currently has a remaining capacity of 1,067 trips, and is currently at LOS "C" as reflected by the 2012 AUIR. Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. Zoning staff is of the opinion that this project will be compatible with and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. To support that opinion staff offers the following analysis of this project. The petitioner has added Table II that proposes Residential Development Standards for Parcels 1A, 2A, 3A, 1B and 2B, the parcels controlled by the current petitioner. This table provides standards for single-family detached, variable lot line for single-family and single-family attached units as well as for the Amenity Center. Those are the units types that can be constructed in the areas identified above. Comparing Table I that established the property development regulations for the other portions of the project with Table II, it becomes apparent that the lots and homes in these newly defined parcels can be somewhat smaller than what is currently allowed. Floor Area Minimum square footages however vary. The single family detached units would be 100 square feet larger (approved 1,400; proposed 1,500). The other unit types would be smaller. However, it is important to note that the proposed property development regulations are minimum standards; the petitioner can provide larger homes on larger lots if that is desired. According to the Collier County Property Appraiser's website, the homes already constructed are in excess of 2,000 square feet, with most over 2,500 square feet. Since no increase in density is proposed and the petitioner will only be placing these new units types in selected areas of the site—away from existing development, staff believes this amended project will be consistent with FLUE Policy 5.4 that requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. The surrounding area's zoning and land uses have not significantly changed since this project has been developing. The Surrounding Zoning and Land Use discussion on page 2 of the staff report and the Master Plan all reflect zoning and uses that have been in effect for years. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking approval of five new deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are listed in the PUD document in Section 3.4.F (previously approved Deviation 1 approved in Ordinance #07-46 is to still remain in effect). Deviations are a normal derivative of the PUD zoning process following the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC Section 2.03.06 which says in part: PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 7 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs . . . . may depart from the strict application of setback, height, and minimum lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the public interest. . . . Deviation 1 was approved in Ordinance #07-46. No changes to that Deviation are proposed as part of this amendment. Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02, Buffer Requirements, which requires a 10 foot wide Type A landscape buffer between similar residential land uses to allow no buffer between commonly owned properties where indicated on the Conceptual Master Plan. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation is justified in this PUD due to the common land ownership and development between the northern portion of Wolf Creek PUD and Palermo Cove PUD. Approval of the deviation will permit development of a unified development plan. The locations where no buffers are required is shown on the Conceptual Master Plan. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is Asklok approved with the limitation provided in the rationale, i.e., the deviation is only applicable "between the northern portion of Wolf Creek PUD and Palermo Cove PUD." (The boxed deviation#2 is also shown on the Master Plan Exhibit A-1 also.) However staff recommends that the trees that would be required in the buffer be planted elsewhere on site. Since Wolf Road will be a primary access point into the development, staff believes that it would be appropriate to relocate the trees along that roadway frontage. These trees would be in addition to any required trees. Staff is recommending approval of this same deviation in the companion request for Wolf Creek PUD with the same recommendation. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation subject to the following stipulations: a. This deviation approval is only applicable for that area between the northern portion of WolfCreekPUD and Palermo Cove PUD; and b. The trees that would be required in the buffer shall be relocated to the Wolf Road roadway. These trees would be in addition to any required vegetation; 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." PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 8 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved with the Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation but the deviation approval is only applicable for that area between the northern portion of Wolf Creek PUD and Palermo Cove PUD, 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 Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements, which requires sidewalks to be constructed on both sides of local streets, to allow sidewalks on one side of the street only for private streets where identified on the Alternative Pathways Plan(see Exhibit D of the PUD Exhibits). Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation is justified in this PUD due to the limited number of units authorized to be constructed within the amended portion of the Wolf Creek PUD (163 units). The sidewalk on one side of the roadway will also permit the developer to provide a streetscape more desirable to the residents of the community. Dual sidewalks will be provided along the private primary loop road within the community and public roadways. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved with the limitation provided in the rationale, i.e., "Dual sidewalks will be provided along the private primary loop road within the community and public roadways." The applicant has provided Exhibit D showing an Alternative Pathways Plan, that has been approve by Transportation Planning staff. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation but the deviation approval is subject to compliance with Exhibit D, 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 the former LDC Section Deviation#4 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.0, Street System Requirements and Appendix B, Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way Design Standards, which establishes a 60 foot wide local road to allow a minimum 40' wide local road (See Exhibit C). Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation will allow the developer to provide all required infrastructure within a combination of dedicated right-of-way and easements. All roadways are intended to be private and within a gated community. A cross-section of the proposed internal private road is provided and has been successfully utilized in other communities. PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 9 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved subject to compliance with Exhibit C. It has been approved in numerous other PUD zoned projects such as the Brynwood Center PUD (PUDZ-PL2011-0000406);Naples View RPUD ( PUDZ-PL20110001519) to 45 feet; Mirasol (PUDZ-A2012-0000303) to allow a minimum right-of- way width of 40' for private local streets and 50' for private spine roads; Parklands PUD (PUDA- PL20110001551) to mention a few. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, subject to compliance with Exhibit C, 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 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J, Street System Requirements, which limits cul-de-sacs to a maximum length of 1,000 feet to permit a cul-de-sac approximately 1,300 feet in length with appropriate no through signage. Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation: The deviation will be limited to one cul-de-sac street within the PUD, and is warranted due to the configuration of the lake and preserve areas on the Master Plan. The County Engineer is authorized to grant this deviation administratively; however, the owner wishes to have certainty in order to proceed with engineering design. Appropriate signage indicating the cul-de-sac is not a through street will be provided. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved, however in recognition of past CCPC recommendations, staff suggests that the following stipulation should be added to this approval: The developer, or successors and assigns, shall provide a stabilized emergency vehicle turn -around, meeting local fire prevention code criteria, approximately midway along the cul- de-sac. 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 would be required. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the stipulation that the developer, or successors and assigns, shall provide a stabilized emergency vehicle turn - around, meeting local fire prevention code criteria, approximately midway along the cul-de-sac, 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." PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 10 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 Deviation 6 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02, Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, which only allows On-premises signs within residential districts,to permit one off-premise residential sign, if developer is able to obtain a sign easement and PUD amendment from the property owner of the Sonoma Oaks MPUD, located immediately south of the Wolfe Road/Collier Boulevard intersection. The sign area would be a maximum of 80 square feet, and be designed to be a ground mounted sign having the same sign copy and design theme as that permitted on the north side of Wolfe Road within the Palermo Cove RPUD. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation will allow the property owner to have residential entry signage located on both sides of Wolfe Road, which will allow appropriate visibility of the residential project. Because the area immediately south of Wolfe Road is located within another PUD locating a sign on both sides of the project entry is not possible unless it is placed off-site. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved subject to the stipulation to require the Sonoma Oaks PUD to be amended to allow same. However, staff does not believe this deviation in the Wolf Creek PUD is required. A deviation was approved for the Longshore Lake PUD (Ordinance #09-20) to allow and off-site sign for the Terafina PUD. Staff, however, can find no evidence to show that Terafina PUD had any language or deviation to address that off-site sign. As to the proposed sign size; and type, i.e., ground mounted; and the sign copy and design theme, those issues would be addressed as part of any amendment approval of the Sonoma Oaks PUD. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends DENIAL of this deviation, finding that the deviation is not necessary. FINDINGS OF FACT: LDC Subsection 10.03.05.I.2 states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below. [Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold, non-italicized font]: PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 11 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 • 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. 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 attached report from 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 petition may be found consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Staff has provided a review of the proposed uses and believes that the project will be compatible with the surrounding area. While the applicant proposed some additional property development regulations, the uses are not changing as part of this amendment and the uses approved in the original PUD rezone were determined to be compatible. The petitioner is revising some property development regulations, but staff believes uses remain compatible given the proposed development standards and project commitments. 5. 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. PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 12 of 18 March 21,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as road capacity, wastewater disposal system, and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The petitioner is seeking approval of eight deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06.A). These new deviations will only be applicable to certain areas of the site. 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. (The overall PUD had three other deviations approved in Ordinance #07-46. These deviations are to remain in effect for the entire PUD.) 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. 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 with the exception of a small tract of land that is abutting the existing PUD boundary that is being added (the Scenic Woods RSF-6(4)zoned site). PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 13 of 18 March 21, 2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 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. S. 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 the 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. 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 numerous restrictions and 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 mitigation that will be provided by the developer (Developer Commitments). Staff believes the petition can be deemed consistent with all elements of the GMP if the mitigation is included in any recommendation of approval. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed amendment should not create drainage or surface water problems. The developer of the project will be required to 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 setbacks and project buffers will help insure that light and air to adjacent areas will not be substantially reduced. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD March 21, 2013 CCPC Page 14 of 18 Revised: 3/5/13 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, 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 majority of 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. 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. PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 15 of 18 March 21,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 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): The applicant's agents conducted a duly noticed NIM on December 6, 2012, at the Sheppard of the Glades Church on Rattlesnake Hammock Road for the two projects. Wayne Arnold, agent for the applicant, opened the meeting at 5:35 p.m. and introduced himself, Michael Delate and Sharon Umpenhour with Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., and Richard Yovanovich with Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A., representing the owner/developer, Sean Martin with Waterman Development, representing the property owner and Kay Deselem, representing Collier County Growth Management. There were approximately thirty members of the public in attendance. Mr. Arnold introduced and explained the project as it exists and then proceeded to explain the proposed amendment requests. He stated that approximately 16 acres of the existing Palermo Cove RPUD would be removed from the Palermo Cove RPUD and incorporated into the Wolf Creek RPUD and the total number of dwelling units for the proposed Palermo Cove RPUD would be reduced to 237 dwelling units. He explained that the Wolf Creek PUD would increase the number of units from 671 to 754. Aerial photographs of the PUD's were displayed along with the existing and proposed Master Plans. It was also explained that a common development plan was intended for all properties owned by Waterman, and that only single-family dwellings would be built in these areas. A PowerPoint presentation was provided showing proposed and existing preserve areas, boundaries, acreages, maximum dwelling units and unified development of the PUD Mr. Arnold discussed the removal of the affordable housing commitment and removal of multiple- family uses from the proposed Palermo Cove RPUD and amended portion of the Wolf Creek RPUD. Mr. Arnold concluded his presentation and asked for comments or questions from the meeting attendees. Questions asked were regarding hearing dates, setbacks, construction access locations, building heights, product type, buffers and if the development would be age restricted. Mr. Arnold PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 16 of 18 March 21,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 addressed the attendee's questions and also provided an explanation of the distinction between zoned and actual height and described variable lot line product type proposed. Mr. Arnold offered to provide any additional information if requested and to contact, Kay Deselem, Sharon Umpenhour or himself if anyone had further questions. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:05 p.m. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on March 1, 2013. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-A-PL20120000650 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval subject to the following stipulations: 1. Approve Deviation#2 subject to the following limitation: a. This deviation approval is only applicable for that area between the northern portion of Wolf Creek PUD and Palermo Cove PUD. b. The trees that would be required in the buffer shall be relocated to the Wolf Road roadway. These trees would be in addition to any required vegetation. 2. Approve Deviation#3 subject to compliance with Exhibit D. 3. Approve Deviation#4 subject to compliance with Exhibit C. 4. Approve Deviation#5 subject to the following limitation: The developer, or successors and assigns, shall provide a stabilized emergency vehicle turn - around, meeting local fire prevention code criteria, approximately midway along the cul-de-sac. 5. Deny Deviation#6 as it is not necessary. PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 17 of 18 March 21,2013 CCPC Revised: 3/5/13 PREPARED BY: t&Litiovu .2b5//3 , :. KA ESELEM,AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEWED BY: / Reit-- �. a 6 /3 RA ND V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DAlE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING 3- 1 - r3 MIKE BOSI,AICP, INTERIM DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVED BY: -f ✓ e - 13 NICK 'ASALANGUI( ADMINISTRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the May 14,2013 Board of County Commissioners Meeting PUDZA-PL20120000650: WOLF CREEK PUD Page 18 of 18 March 21,2013 CCPC Revised: 2/25/13 ORDINANCE NO. 13- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2007-46, AS AMENDED, THE WOLF CREEK RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY INCREASING THE PERMISSIBLE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 671 TO 754; BY AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN ADDITIONAL 5+/- ACRES OF LAND FROM RMF-6(4) SCENIC WOODS REZONE TO THE WOLF CREEK RPUD AND BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN ADDITIONAL 16± ACRES FROM PALERMO COVE PUD TO WOLF CREEK PUD; BY REVISING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; BY ADDING EXHIBIT A-1, THE AMENDED MASTER PLAN FOR PARCELS 1A THROUGH 3A; BY ADDING EXHIBIT "D", PRIVATE ROAD CROSS-SECTION FOR PARCELS 1A THROUGH 3A; BY ADDING TABLE II, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PARCELS 1A THRUGH 3A; AND BY ADDING DEVIATIONS AND REVISING DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD (C.R. 862) APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF MILE WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (C.R. 951)IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 189+/- ACRES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 2007-03, THE SCENIC WOODS REZONE; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, WCI COMMUNITIES, INC., represented by Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich& Koester, P.A.,petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the PUD and change the zoning classification of the additional herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,that: SECTION ONE: ZONING CLASSIFICATION The zoning classification of approximately 20 acres of the herein described real property located in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida is changed as Wolf Creek RPUD\PUDZ-A-PL20120000650 Page 1 of 2 Rev.2/25/13 follows: 5± acres are changed from RMF-6(4) Scenic Woods Rezone to the Wolf Creek Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district and 16±acres are changed from Palermo Cove PUD to Wolf Creek RPUD and when combined with the existing Wolf Creek RPUD provides for a 189+/- acre project in accordance with the revised RPUD document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 2007-03 Ordinance No. 2007-03, the Scenic Woods Rezone, is hereby repealed. SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,this day of ,2013. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: , Deputy Clerk GEORGIA A.HILLER,ESQ. Chairwoman Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: §i AFT Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A- RPUD Document including Exhibit A-1,RPUD Master Plan amended as to Parcels IA through 3A CP\12-CPS-01201\12 Wolf Creek RPUD\PUDZ-A-PL20120000650 Page 2 of 2 Rev.2/25/13 EXHIBIT "A" WOLF CREEK RPUD A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNING THE WOLF CREEK RPUD,A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED FOR: LARRY MAYER ABBO,V.P. PRIME HOMES,INC. 21218 ST.ANDREWS BLVD.,#510 BOCA BATON,FLORIDA 33433 and WILLIAM L.HOOVER,PRES.of CATALINA LAND GROUP,INC.,the MANAGER of WOLF CREEK ESTA 1ES,LLC and BUCKSTONE ESTA 1ES,LLC 3785 AIRPORT ROAD N.,SUITE B-1 NAPLES,FLORIDA 34105 and Wolf Creek Naples Holdings LLC 265 Sevilla Avenue Coral Gables,FL 33134 PREPARED BY: HOOVER PLANNING&DEV.,INC. 3785 AIRPORT ROAD N.,SUT1'E B-1 NAPLES,FLORIDA 34105 AMENDED BY: Q.GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES,P.A. 3800 VIA DEL REY BONITA SPRINGS,FLORIDA 34134 and RICHARD D.YOVANOVICH GOOD ETTE COLEMAN,&JOHNSON,YOVANOVICH&KOES 1'ER,P.A. 4001 TAMIAMI TRAIL N.,#300 NAPLES,FLORIDA 34103 DATE FILED DATE REVISED -. , !!: January 15,2013 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC DATE APPROVED BY BCC ORDINANCE NUMBER 2009 34 AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL 03-45, 07-46, 09-34 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS ++2 LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES 41-3 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE a-4 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 25 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 67 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN 9 SECTION IV PRESERVE AREAS PLAN 11 15 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 416 TABLE I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PARCELS 3B -9 1011 TABLE II RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PARCELS 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B & 3A 12 Aftw Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 3-1-2013 Page 2 of 25 LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES EXHIBIT "A" RPUD MASTER PLAN — ORIGINAL (pertains to Parcels 3B — 9) EXHIBIT "A-1" RPUD MASTER PLAN AMENDED (pertains to Parcels 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B & 3A) EXHIBIT "B" RPUD CONCEPTUAL UTILITY/WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN EXHIBIT "C" LOCATION MAPPRIVATE ROAD CROSS-SECTION — PARCELS 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B & 3A EXHIBIT "D" ALTERNATIVE PATHWAYS PLAN — PARCELS 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B & 3A TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS — PARCELS 3B — 9 TABLE II DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS — PARCELS 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B & 3A Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 3-1-2013 Page 3 of 25 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of approximately 167.96188.78± acres of property in Collier County, Florida, as a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to be known as the Wolf Creek Residential PUD, will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). The residential facilities of the Wolf Creek RPUD will be consistent with the growth policies, land development regulations, and applicable comprehensive planning objectives for the following reasons: 1. The subject property's location, in relation to existing or proposed community facilities and services, permits the development's residential density as described in Objective 2 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). 2. The project development is compatible with and complimentary to surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the FLUE. 3. Improvements are planned to be in compliance with applicable sections of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) as set forth in Objective 3 of the FLUE. 4. The project development is planned to protect the functioning of natural drainage features and natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas as described in Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element. 5. The project is located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict designation of the FLUE. The project density of 3.99 dwelling units per acre is in compliance with the FLUE of the GMP based on the following relationships to required criteria: Base Density +4 dwelling units/acre . Maximum Permitted Density +4 dwelling units/acre Maximum permitted units =467-96188.78 acres x 4 dwelling units/acre = 671 756 units. Requested dwelling units =-&74754, which results in a requested density of 3.99 dwelling units/acre. 6. All final local development orders for this project shall be subject to the Adequate Public Facilities Requirements, of the LDC. Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 3-1-2013 Page 4 of 25 SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of the Wolf Creek Residential RPUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being 167.96188.78± acres is comprised of 9-12 separate parcels that are located in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, and are fully described as: A. Parcel 1A - A portion of land located in Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Being more particularly described as follows: commence at the West quarter corner of Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; thence along the West line of the Northwest quarter of said Section 34 north 02°14'01" West, a distance of 668.74 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel of land herein described; thence continue along said West line north 02°14'01" West, a distance of 1054.64 feet; thence north 87°4617" East, a distance of 364.37 feet to a point on a non tangential curve to the left; thence Southerly 88.00 feet along the arc of said curve, having a radius of 210.00 feet, a central angle of 24°00'38", (chord bearing South 07°14'58" East, a distance of 87.36 feet); thence South 18°2814" East, a distance of 65.84 feet; thence South 04°30'25" East, a distance of 65.59 feet; thence South 10°22'28" East, a distance of 73.39 feet to a point on a non tangential curve to the right; thence Southerly 86.02 feet along the arc of said curve, having a radius of 533.38 feet, a central angle of 09°1425", (chord bearing South 01°10'52" East, a distance of 85.93 feet) to a point on a non tangential curve to the right; thence Southerly 62.48 feet along the arc of said curve, having a radius of 485.08 feet, a central angle of 07°22'50", (chord bearing South 06°57'20" West, a distance of 62.44 feet) to a point on a non tangential curve to the left; thence Southerly 212.02 feet along the arc of said curve, having a radius of 1,667.96 feet, a central angle of 07°1659 , (chord bearing South 08°44'13" West, a distance of 211.88 feet) a point on a non tangential curve to the right; thence Southwesterly 21.41 feet along the arc of said curve, having a radius of 30.00 feet, a central angle of 40°53'51", (chord bearing South 25°31'05" West, a distance of 20.96 feet) to a point on a non tangential curve to the left; thence Southwesterly 76.34 feet along the arc of said curve, having a radius of 254.07 feet, a central angle of 17°12'57", (chord bearing South 37°21'31" West, a distance of 76.05 feet); thence South 01°15'45" East, a distance of 44.93 feet; thence South 89°51'46" East, Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 3-1-2013 Page 5 of 25 a distance of 84.45 feet to a point on a curve to the right; thence Easterly 126.29 feet along the arc of said curve, having a radius of 430.00 feet, a central angle of 16°49'40", (chord bearing South 81°26'56" East, a distance of 125.84 feet) to a point on a reverse curve to the left; thence Easterly 238.56 feet along the arc of said curve, having a radius of 325.00 feet, a central angle of 42°0325", (chord bearing north 85°56'11" East, a distance of 233.24 feet) to a point on a reverse curve to the right; thence Easterly 361.70 feet along the arc of said curve, having a radius of 430.00 feet, a central angle of 48°11'45", (chord bearing north 89°0021" East, a distance of 351.13 feet) to a point on a reverse curve to the left; thence Easterly 111.61 feet along the arc of said curve, having a radius of 180.00 feet, a central angle of 35°31'37", (chord bearing South 84°39'35" East, a distance of 109.83 feet) to a point on a reverse curve to the right; thence Southeasterly 52.79 feet along the arc of said curve, having a radius of 40.00 feet, a central angle of 75°3T08", (chord bearing South 64°36'49" East, a distance of 49.04 feet) to a point on a reverse curve to the left; thence Southeasterly 54.96 feet along the arc of said curve, having a radius of 220.00 feet, a central angle of 14°18'51", (chord bearing_South 33°5T41" East, a distance of 54.82 feet) to a point on a non tangential curve to the left; thence Southeasterly 68.01 feet along the arc of said curve, having a radius of 223.33 feet, a central angle of 17°26'56", (chord bearing South 49°58'34" East, a distance of 67.75 feet) to a point on a non tangential curve to the left; thence Easterly 84.06 feet along the arc of said curve, having a radius of 220.00 feet, a central angle of 21°53'34", (chord bearing South 69°46'49" East, a distance of 83.55 feet); thence South 00°08'14" West, a distance of 157.48 feet to a point on the South line of the lands described in officials records book 4714, page 2675, public records, Collier County, Florida; thence along said South line north 89°52'01" West, a distance of 1387.90 feet to the point of beginning. AB. Parcel 1B- The South half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, subject to an easement for public road right-of-way over and across the south 30 feet and the west 30 feet thereof. BC. Parcel 2A - The South half of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, subject to an easement for public road right-of-way over and across the south 30 feet thereof. D. Parcel 2B — The West 330 feet of the West 660 feet of the North half of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26, East, Collier County, Florida. GE. Parcel 3A - The North half of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 3-1-2013 Page 6 of 25 less Parcel 3B, subject to an easement for public road right-of-way over and across the north 30 feet and the east 30 feet thereof. OF. Parcel 3B - A parcel of land located in the Southwest quarter of Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, being more particularly described as follows: commence at south % corner of Section 34, Township 48, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida; thence run north 02°13'26" west, along the east line of the southwest ' of said Section 34, for a distance of 2005.53 feet to the southeast corner of the north % of the northeast 1/4 of the southwest '/4 of said Section 34 and the Point of Beginning of the parcel of land herein described: thence run north 89°51'58" west, along the south line of the north % of the northeast 1/4 of the southwest % of said Section 34, for a distance of 1245.00 feet; thence run north 02°13'26" west, parallel with the east line of the southwest 1/4 of said Section 34, for a distance of 420.21 feet; thence run south 89°51'58" east, parallel with the south line of the north 1/2 of the northeast 1/4 of the southwest Y4 of said Section 34, for a distance of 1245.00 feet; thence run south 02°13'26" east, along the east line of the southwest ' of said Section 34, for a distance of 420.21 feet to the Point of Beginning. €G. Parcel 4 - The North half of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. FH. Parcel 5 - The South half of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, subject to an easement for public road right-of-way over and across the east 30 feet thereof and less the southerly 145 feet for Vanderbilt Beach Road right-of-way. GI. Parcel 6 - The North half of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. J. Parcel 7 - The South half of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. 1K. Parcel 8 - The East 660 feet of the North half of the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. �L. Parcel 9 - The South half of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 34, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP A. The subject property is owned by: Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 3-1-2013 Page 7 of 25 1. Parcels 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, and 3A by William L. Hoover, President of Catalina Land Group, Inc., the manager of Raffia Holdings of Naples LLC, 265 Sevilla Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida 33134 and Wolf Creek Naples Holdings Estates, LLC, _ :_ A :_- - e =- • __ - B 1265 Sevilla Avenue, NaplesCoral Gables, Florida 3410533134. 2. Parcels 4 and 5 by Prime Homes at Portofino Limited, Attn.: Larry Mayer Abbo, 21218 St. Andrews Boulevard, Suite 510, Boca Raton, Florida 33433. 3. Parcels 6, 7, and 8, by William L. Hoover, President of Catalina Land Group, Inc., the manager of Buckstone Estates, LLC, 3785 Airport Road North, Suite B-1, Naples, Florida 34105. 4. Parcels 3B and 9 by Prime Homes at Portofino Falls, Ltd., 5555 Anglers Avenue#16B, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312. 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA A. The subject property is located on the north side of Vanderbilt Beach Road, approximately % mile west of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), unincorporated Collier County, Florida. B. Parcel 9 currently has agricultural zoning and is proposed to be rezoned to RPUD. The remaining area (Parcels 1 8) are zoned PUD, Wolf Creek, --- e -e - -= - -- -' " • e••- • - , e. a- 4- - •e - - e e e e -e e e- rezoned to RPUD. An abandoned mobile home is located on Parcel 1, a -- .. - - __ _ _ •_••- _ - - _ e• Parcel 2 but recently was relocated off site, a mobile home was previously on Parcel 8 but has since been relocated undeveloped. Parcels 1 and 8 have existing lakes on the properties. 1.5 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The project site is located within the Harvey Drainage Basin according to the Collier County Drainage Atlas. The proposed outfall for the project will be to the northwest into the proposed Palermo Cove RPUD water management system and then to the west into the Island Walk stormwater management system and to the south along Vanderbilt Beach Road. In both cases, the stormwater outfall will enter the Island Walk stormwater management system. Natural ground elevation varies from 11.2 to 13.6 NGVD; average site elevation is 12.6 NGVD. The entire site is located within FEMA Flood Zone "X" with no base flood elevation specified. Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 3-1-2013 Page 8 of 25 The water management system of the project will include the construction of a perimeter berm along portions of the proiect boundary with crest elevation set at or above the 25-year, 3-day peak flood stage. Water quality pretreatment will be accomplished by an on-site lake system prior to discharge as described above. The water management system will be permitted by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) through the Environmental Resource Permit process. All rules and regulations of SFWMD will be imposed upon this project including, but not limited to: storm attenuation with a peak discharge rate per Collier County and SFWMD Rules, minimum roadway centerline, perimeter berm_and finished floor elevations, water quality pre-treatment, and wetland hydrology maintenance. Per Collier County Soil Legend dated January 1990, the soil types found within the limits of the property are: #2 — Holopaw Fine Sand, Limestone Substratum; #27 - Holopaw Fine Sand and #33 Urban Land - Holopaw - Basinger Complex. Site vegetation consists predominantly of pine flatwoods, pine-cypress, cypress forest and woodland with a mix of different vegetation types. 1.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Wolf Creek RPUD is a project comprised of a maximum of€1-754 residential units. Recreational facilities and other facilities and services will be provided in conjunction with the dwelling units. Residential land uses, recreational uses, and signage are designed to be harmonious with one another in a natural setting by using common architecture, quality screening/buffering, and native vegetation, whenever feasible. 1.7 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "Wolf Creek Residential Planned Unit Development Ordinance." Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 3-1-2013 Page 9 of 25 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to delineate and generally describe the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances, the respective land uses of the tracts included in the project, as well as other project relationships. 2.2 GENERAL A. Regulations for development of the Wolf Creek RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Document, RPUD - Residential Planned Unit Development, and other applicable sections and parts of the LDC and GMP in effect at the time of building permit application. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the LDC shall apply. B. Unless otherwise-noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the - ---- definitions set forth in the LDC in effect at the time of building permit application. C. All conditions imposed and graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of the Wolf Creek RPUD shall become part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the RPUD site may be developed. D. Unless modified, waived or excepted by this RPUD other provisions of the LDC, where applicable, remain in full force and effect with respect to the development of the land which comprises this RPUD. E. Development permitted by the approval of this petition will be subject to a concurrency review under the provisions of the Adequate Public Facilities Requirements, of the LDC. F. Throughout this PUD, all references to Exhibit "A" (RPUD Master Plan) shall pertain to Parcels 3B — 9 and all references to Exhibit "A-1" (RPUD Master Plan Amended) shall pertain to Parcels 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B & 3A. 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES A. The project Master Plan, including layout of streets and use of land for the various tracts, is illustrated graphically by Exhibit "A", RPUD Master Plan and Exhibit "A-1" RPUD Master Plan Amended. There shall be numerous land use tracts, plus necessary water management lakes, street rights-of-way, the Words,truck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 3-1-2013 Page 10 of 25 general configuration of which is also illustrated by Exhibit"A" and Exhibit "A- 1". B. Areas illustrated as lakes by Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1" shall be constructed as lakes or, upon approval, parts thereof may be constructed as shallow, intermittent wet and dry depressions for water retention purposes. Such areas, lakes and intermittent wet and dry areas shall be in the same general configuration and contain the same general acreage as shown by Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1". Minor modification to all tracts, lakes or other boundaries may be permitted at the time of subdivision plat or SDP approval, subject to the provisions of the LDC. C. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown in Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "A-1", such easements as necessary (utility, private, semi-public) shall be established within or along the various Tracts as may be necessary. 2.4 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DENSITY OR INTENSITY OF LAND USES A maximum of 674754 residential dwelling units shall be constructed in the residential areas of the project. The gross project area is I-6188.78± acres._. The gross project density shall be a maximum of 3.99 units per acre if all 67-1-754 dwelling units are approved and constructed, of this number, up to 163 dwelling units may be constructed on Parcels 1A- 3A. 2.5 RELATED PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS A. Prior to the recording of a record plat, and/or condominium plat for all or part of the RPUD, final plans of all required improvements shall receive approval of the appropriate Collier County governmental agency to insure compliance with the RPUD Master Plan, Collier County subdivision rules, and the platting laws of the State of Florida. B. Exhibit "A", RPUD Master Plan and Exhibit "A-1" RPUD Master Plan Amended, constitutes the required RPUD development plan. Subsequent to or concurrent with RPUD approval, a subdivision plat or SDP, as applicable, may be submitted for areas covered by the RPUD Master Plan. Any division of the property and the development of the land shall be in compliance with the RPUD Master Plan Exhibit"A" and Exhibit "A-1" -and LDC. C. Appropriate instruments will be provided at the time of infrastructural improvements regarding any dedications to Collier County and the methodology for providing perpetual maintenance of common facilities. Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 3-1-2013 Page 11 of 25 eaw SECTION III RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for the Residential Areas as shown on Exhibit "A", RPUD Master Plan and and Exhibit "A- 1", RPUD Master Plan Amended. 3.2 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS The maximum number of residential dwelling units within the RPUD shall be &7x-754. 3.3 PERMITTED USES No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Single-family dwellings (includes zero-lot line and townhouses intended for fee simple conveyance). 2. Variable lot line dwellings, single family (As to Parcels 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B & 3A only) A variable lot line dwelling unit is a single family dwelling where the side yards may vary between 0 and 10 feet as long as a 10-foot minimum separation between principal structures is maintained. 23. Two-family dwellings and duplexes. 34. Multi-family dwellings. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: 1. Customary accessory uses and structures including carports, garages, and utility buildings. 2. Recreational uses and facilities including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, fishing docks, walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings, and basketball/shuffle board courts. Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 3-1-2013 Page 12 of 25 3. Temporary sales trailers and model units homes and model home centers including offices for project administration, construction, sales and marketing. 4. Gatehouse. 5. Essential services limited to utility facilities, such as electric transformers, pumps and lift stations. 6. Water management facilities. the parcel 10. 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Table I sets forth the development standards for land uses on Parcels 3B through 9 and Table II sets forth the development standard for land uses on Parcels 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B & 3A within the Wolf Creek RPUD. Front yard setbacks in Table I and II shall be measured as follows: 1. If the parcel is served by a public or private right-of-way, the setback is measured from the adjacent right-of-way line. 2. If the parcel is served by a non-platted private drive, the setback is measured from the back of curb or edge of pavement. If the parcel is served by a platted private drive, the setback is measured from the road easement or property line. 3. Carports shall be permitted within parking areas and garages shall be permitted at the edge of vehicular pavements except garages shall be set back to provide 23 feet of driveway between the garage and sidewalk to prevent parked vehicles from overhanging the sidewalk. 4. (As to Parcels 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B & 3A only): Guardhouses, gatehouses, fences, walls, columns, decorative architectural features, streetscape and access control structures shall have no required setback and are permitted throughout the "R" designated areas of the PUD; however such structures shall be located such that they do not cause vehicular stacking into the road right-of-way or create sight distance issues for motorists and pedestrians. Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 3-1-2013 Page 13 of 25 TABLE I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PARCELS 3B—9 STANDARDS SINGLE- SINGLE-FAMILY TWO-FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY FAMILY ATTACHED DUPLEX TOWNHOUSES Minimum Lot Area(per unit) 5,500 Sq.Ft. 1,800 Sq.Ft. 4,500 Sq.Ft. NA Minimum Lot Width(1) 50'Interior Lots 18'Interior Lots 80' Interior Lots (40) NA 60'Corner Lots 25.5'Exterior Lots (2) NA 100' Corner Lots (50') (2) Minimum Front Yard Setback(6) 23' (3)(4) 23'(3)(4) 23'(3)(4) 15'(3) Minimum Side Yard Setback(5)(6) 1 Story 0' & 12' or both NA 0'& 6'or both 6' 7.5' 2 Story 6' 0'or 7.5' 0'&7.5'or both 7.5' 10' 0' & 15' or both 7.5' Minimum Rear Yard Setback(6) Principal Structure 20' 15' 20' 20' Accessory Structure 10' 10' 10' 10' Minimum PUD Boundary Setback -. -- Principal Structure NA NA NA 20' Accessory Structure NA NA NA 10' Minimum Lake Setback(7) 20' 20' 20' 20' Minimum Preserve Area Setback Principal Structure 25' 25' 25' 25' Accessory Structure 10' 10' 10' 10' Minimum Distance Between Structures Main/Principal/Accessory 12' NA 12' 15' 1-Story 15' 15' 15' 20' 2-Story Maximum Height Principal Building 35'and 2 stories 35'and 2 stories 35'and 2 stories 38'and 2 stories Accessory Building 25'/Clubhouse 25'/Clubhouse 35' 25'/Clubhouse 35' 25'/Clubhouse 38' 35' Minimum Floor Area 1400 Sq.Ft. 1400 Sq.Ft. 1200 Sq.Ft. 1150 Sq.Ft. (1)May be reduced on cul-de-sac lots and lots along the inside and outside of curved streets by 25%. (2) Minimum lot frontage in parenthesis applies in cases where a dwelling unit in a 2-family structure is on an individually platted lot. (3) Community tennis courts, basketball courts, and similar recreational facilities shall have a 15-foot minimum setback from all property boundaries of the recreational tract/lot. (4) The front yard setback for side-loaded garages may be reduced to 18 feet, with the home remaining at 23 feet, where it can be demonstrated 2 vehicles can be adequately parked on double-wide driveways without the vehicles overhanging onto the sidewalks located at the edge of the right-of-way. (5)Where fee simple lots are created for each dwelling unit, no side yard shall be required between interior units of a unified principal structure,and the side yard shall be measured from exterior wall of the unified principal structure. (6)In no instance shall there be an encroachment into a required landscape buffer. (7)Lake setbacks are measured from the control elevation established for the lake. Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 3-1-2013 Page 14 of 25 TABLE II RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PARCELS 1A, 1B,2A,2B&3A STANDARDS SINGLE-FAMILY VARIABLE LOT LINE SINGLE FAMILY AMENITY DETACHED FOR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED CENTER Minimum Lot Area 5,000 SF 4,000 SF 3,500 SF 10,000 SF Minimum Lot Width *3 50 feet 40 feet 35 feet N/A Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet N/A Minimum Front Yard 20 feet*2 20 feet*2 20 feet*2 N/A Minimum Side Yard 6 feet 0- 10 feet*4 0 or 5 feet N/A Minimum Rear Yard Principal *1 15 feet 15 feet 0 or 7.5 feet N/A Accessory*1 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet N/A Maximum Building Height Zoned 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet Actual 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet Minimum Distance Between - 12 feet 10 feet - 10-feet N/A Principal Structures *5 Floor Area Min. (S.F.) 1500 SF 1000 SF 1000 SF N/A PUD Boundary Adjacent to Palermo Cove PUD 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet Preserve 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet . . . ....___.......... .. ... . ... .. ACCESSORY.STRUCTURES Front 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Side 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 10 feet PUD Boundary 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet 0 feet Preserve 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Minimum Distance Between 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Structures Maximum Building Height Zoned 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Actual 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet Minimum lot areas for any unit type may be exceeded. The unit type,and not the minimum lot area,shall define the development standards to be applied by the Growth Management Division during an application for a building permit. For or variable lot single family and single family attached units, a conceptual exhibit showing typical building configurations, including building setbacks and building separations, shall be submitted to the Growth Management Division with the application for the first building permit for the platted development tract. The conceptual exhibit may be modified as needed. Verification of ingress/egress for maintenance shall be provided for variable lot line single family units. The 30-foot wide interconnection between the Island Walk development and Pristine Drive shall not constitute a road right-of-way for the �� purpose of calculating setback or buffering requirements. All distances are in feet unless otherwise noted. Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 3-1-2013 Page 15 of 25 *1—Rear yards for principal and accessory structures on lots and tracts which abut lake or open space areas. For preserve areas,all principal structure setbacks shall be 25'and accessory structure set back shall be 10'. Front yards shall be measured as follows: A. If the parcel is served by a public right-of-way,setback is measured from the adjacent right-of-way line. B. If the parcel is served by a private road,setback is measured from the back of curb(if curbed)or edge of pavement(if not curbed). C. If the parcel has frontage on two sides, setback is measured from the side with the shortest frontage with the other frontage designated as a side yard. *2—Front entry garages must be a minimum of 20',and a minimum of 23'from a sidewalk. Porches,entry features and roofed courtyards may be reduced to 15'. *3—Minimum lot width may be reduced by 20%for cul-de-sac lots provided the minimum lot area requirement is maintained. *4—The side setback may be variable between zero feet (0') to ten feet (10') as long as a 10 foot minimum separation between principal structures is maintained. *5—Building distance may be reduced at garages to a minimum of 0'where attached garages are provided and a 10'minimum separation is maintained,if detached. Note:nothing on this Table II shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in Section 3.4.F,Deviations. Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 3-1-2013 Page 16 of 25 B. Natural Habitat Preserve Area Requirements: 1. A minimum of 32.3234.26± acres of natural habitat areas shall be provided on-site, including both the under-story and the ground cover emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible, as described in the LDC. 2. All preserve areas shall be a minimum average of 50 feet in width and no less than 20 feet in width, pursuant to the LDC. C. Architectural Standards 1. All proposed lighting, signage, landscaping and visible architectural infrastructure shall be architecturally and aesthetically unified within any project that is developed. Said unified architectural theme shall include a similar architectural design and use of similar materials and colors throughout all of the amenities within the project. Landscaping and streetscape materials shall also be similar in design along Pristine Drive and within any project that is developed. All proposed roofs shall be finished in tile, metal, wood, or architecturally-designed shingles (such as Timberline). D. Signs Signs shall be permitted as described within the LDC, except for signage described within Paragraph 3.4.44E. E. Deviations 1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02A.6.a that requires on-premises signs within residential districts to maintain a ten-foot setback from any property line unless placed on a fence or wall to allow a zero (0) foot setback from the property line shared with the Carolina Village Mixed Use PUD. This deviation will permit approximately half, of one double-faced sign a maximum of 8 feet in height and 64 square feet in area, located in a median in the road between the Wolf Creek Residential PUD (labeled Pristine Drive on Exhibit "A") and the Carolina Village Mixed Use PUD and on the west side of the Carolina Village property line and to reduce the minimum 10-foot setback from the neighboring Carolina Village Mixed Use PUD to 0 feet with the advertising limited exclusively to no more than 3 residential developments within the Wolf Creek Residential PUD. The proposed sign shall meet all vehicular safety sight distance standards for Collier County and have a minimum 10-foot setback from the Vanderbilt Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 3-1-2013 Page 17 of 25 Beach Road right-of-way, as described in Section 5.06.02A.6.a. of the LDC. The proposed sign shall be externally lighted. F. Deviations —Applies to Parcels 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B & 3A only. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief LDC Section 4.06.02 of the, Buffer Requirements, which requires a 10 foot wide Type A landscape buffer between similar residential land uses to allow no buffer between commonly owned properties where indicated on the Conceptual Master Plan. 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements, which requires sidewalks to be constructed on both sides of local streets, to allow sidewalks on one side of the street only for private streets where identified on the Alternative Pathways Plan (see Exhibit D of the PUD Exhibits). 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.0, Street System Requirements and Appendix B, Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way - Design Standards, which establishes a 60 foot wide local road to allow a minimum 40' wide private local road (See Exhibit C of the PUD Exhibits). 5. Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J, Street System Requirements, which limits cul-de-sacs to a maximum length of 1,000 feet to permit a cul-de-sac approximately 1,300 feet in length with appropriate no through signage. 6. Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02, Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, which only allows on- premises signs within residential districts, to permit an off-premise residential sign, if developer is able to obtain a sign easement and PUD amendment from the property owner of the Sonoma Oaks MPUD, located immediately south of the Wolfe Road/Collier Boulevard intersection. The sign area would be a maximum of 80 square feet and be designed to be a ground mounted sign having the same copy and design theme as that permitted on the north side of Wolfe Road within the Palermo Cove RPUD. Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 3-1-2013 Page 18 of 25 SECTION IV PRESERVE AREAS PLAN 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for the Preserve Areas as shown on Exhibit "A," RPUD Master Plan and Exhibit "A-1", RPUD Master Plan Amended, as may be amended pursuant to this Document. Any approvals to remove native vegetation in the on-site Preserve Areas shall be conditional upon having a remaining minimum of 32.3234.26± acres of native vegetation on-site. 4.2 PERMITTED USES No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following, subject to regional, state, and federal permits when required: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Passive recreational areas. 2. Biking, hiking, and nature trails, and boardwalks as long as any clearing required to facilitate these uses does not impact the minimum required vegetation. 3. Water management structures. 4. Native preserves and wildlife sanctuaries. Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 3-1-2013 Page 19 of 25 SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the commitments for the development of this project. 5.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with SDPs, final subdivision plats and all applicable State and local laws, codes, and regulations applicable to this RPUD, in effect at the time of final plat, final SDP approval or building permit application, as the case may be. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise, the standards and specifications of the LDC shall apply to this project even if the land within the RPUD is not to be platted. The developer, its successor or assigns, shall be responsible for the commitments outlined in this Document. The developer, its successor or-assignee, shall follow the RPUD Master Plan and - the regulations of this RPUD as adopted, and any other conditions or modifications as may be agreed to in the rezoning of the property. In addition, any successor in title or assignee, is subject to the commitments within this Document. 5.3 PUD MASTER PLAN A. Exhibit "A," RPUD Master Plan and Exhibit "A-1", RPUD Master Plan Amended, illustrates the proposed Development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed area, lot or land use boundaries, or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as final platting or SDP approval. Subject to the provisions and applicable sections of the LDC and the GMP, in effect at that time, amendments may be made from time to time. B. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to ensure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities and all common areas in the project. 5.4 ENGINEERING A. This project shall be required to meet all County Ordinances in effect at the time final construction documents are submitted for development approval. �tx„ Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 3-1-2013 Page 20 of 25 5.5 WATER MANAGEMENT A. A copy of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) - Surface Water Permit Application, permit modification, or waiver shall be sent to Collier County Development Services Staff with the improvement plans. B. A copy of the SFWMD Surface Water Permit, SFWMD right-of-way Permit, and SFWMD Discharge Permit shall be submitted to Collier County Development Services Staff prior to final approval of the improvement plans. C. An excavation permit shall be required for the proposed lakes in accordance with the applicable County ordinances and SFWMD Rules. All road impact fees shall be paid prior to removal of material from the site. D. As applicable, existing or proposed easements for Collier County stormwater facilities shall be maintained free of landscaping, berms or any other kind of obstacles that would impede adequate access to maintenance crews and equipment. 5.6 UTILITIES A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project shall be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with applicable County ordinances, as amended, and other applicable County rules and regulations. B. The applicant shall reserve an area to be conveyed for a potable well easement on Parcel 6 at the time of plat or SDP approval, as applicable. The well easement shall not exceed a dimension of 40 feet by 40 feet. The Collier County Utilities Division will provide applicable technical support in agency permitting relative to lake siting or other relevant issues that may arise. The proposed well easement will not interfere with the location of project lakes or preserves. The applicant shall ensure that the well easement area has direct access onto Buckstone Drive in perpetuity. C. The applicant shall follow all current ordinances regarding utilities in effect at the time of SDP or plat approval. 5.7 TRAFFIC A. All traffic control devices, signs, pavement markings and design criteria shall be in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 3-1-2013 Page 21 of 25 Standards, current edition, and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), current edition. All other improvements shall be consistent with and as required by the LDC. B. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all development points of ingress and egress from any County collector or arterial roadway. Said lighting shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first permanent certificate of occupancy (CO). C. Site-related improvements (as opposed to system-related improvements) necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. All required improvements shall be in place and available to the public prior to the issuance of the first CO. D. Road Impact Fees shall be paid in accordance with applicable County ordinances and the LDC. E. All proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution No. 01-247), as it -. °- may be amended, and the LDC, as it may be amended. Collier County reserves the right to modify or close any median opening existing at the time of approval of this RPUD which is found to be adverse to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but are not limited to: safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity. F. Interconnections shall be required by Collier County staff as a condition of SDP approval. G. The developer shall be responsible for its proportional share of the cost of a traffic signal system, or other traffic control device, sign, or pavement marking at any development entrance onto the County's collector/arterial roadway network, including both ends of the loop road, should a traffic signal be warranted. If warranted, upon the completion of the installation, inspection, burn-in period, and final approval/acceptance of said traffic signal it shall be turned over (for ownership) to Collier County, and will then be operated and maintained by the Collier County Transportation Department. H. Access points, including both driveways and proposed streets, shown on the RPUD Master Plan Exhibit A and Exhibit A-1, shall be considered to be conceptual. Nothing depicted on any such Master Plan shall vest any right of access at any specific point along any property frontage. All such access issues shall be approved or denied during the review of required subsequent site plan or final plat submissions. All such access points shall be consistent with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution No. 01-247), Words Gtruck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 3-1-2013 Page 22 of 25 as it may be amended from time to time, and with the Collier County Long- Range Transportation Plan. When ingress and egress improvements are determined, as necessary, right-of-way and compensating right-of-way shall be provided for and in conjunction with said improvements. J. All work within the Collier County rights-of-way or public easements shall require a right-of-way permit. K. All internal access ways, drive aisles and roadways, not located within County right-of-way shall be privately maintained by an entity created by the developer, its successor in title, or assigns. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks and interconnections to adjacent developments 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. L. The proposed loop road located around the Mission Hills development, that -would-provide access for the project onto Collier Boulevard, is conceptually--- shown on the RPUD Master Plan and shall be a public roadway. It shall be designed and constructed to a minimum 30 mile per hour design speed. The construction costs of the loop road shall not be eligible for impact fee credits, but the developer of the roadway may be able to privately negotiate "fair share" payments or reimbursements from neighboring property owners. --e e •- •. . .- a _. . .. .. . ..... . . •• _ D _ _• _e. - . . e .--• -- - :°- - - S. • • _ _ - 'e. - - e - e Immokalee Road are substantially comprlrtb - - . NM. Within 30 days of the adoption date of this RPUD rezone, the developers owning the property fronting Pristine Drive shall convey in fee simple to Collier County the right-of-way necessary for the two-lane construction of Pristine Drive. Each developer shall convey 30 feet for the Pristine Drive right-of-way. The anticipated width of the right-of-way is 60 feet. The turn lanes required for each individual project shall be accommodated within the project's boundary. There are existing SDPs and plats within the PUD issued to individual developers within the PUD. No further Certificates of Occupancy or development orders shall be issued to any individual developer within the PUD within an already approved SDP or plat until that individual developer conveys all of the right of way for the portion(s) of Pristine Drive owned by that individual developer whether the right of way is located within an approved SDP or plat or located outside of an approved SDP or plat. Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 3-1-2013 Page 23 of 25 O. No further SDPs or plats shall be approved for any individual owner within •- 0 _ • _ • • • _ - • -- - •- _ .A . - --• Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued within new Site Development Road, is substantially complete. -N. The developer shall design and permit, but not construct, a 30-foot wide interconnection between the Island Walk development and Pristine Drive (fifteen feet to be provided by the respective property owners on each side of the shared boundary between the properties owned by Wolf Creek Estates, LLC, or its successor, and Prime Homes at Portofino Falls, Ltd., Builders LLC, or its successor). The interconnection design shall include 20 feet of pavement and one 5 foot sidewalk. The 30-foot wide strip of land shall be granted as a public easement. Said interconnection requirement shall be completed, i.e., conveyed, designed and permitted within one year of the adoption date of this RPUD rezone. This connection road shall not constitute a road right-of-way for the purpose of calculating setback or __-._ buffering requirements: This commitment has been fulfilled and- the- - - easement is recorded in O.R. Book 764, Pagel 667. O. Prior to the issuance of the 101st certificate of occupancy for properties located within Parcels 1A-3A as identified on the conceptual PUD Master Plan, the Developer shall complete construction of that portion of Pristine Drive south of Wolfe Road to the current northern terminus of Pristine Drive. Should the Public road right of way dedication(s) described in Section 5.7.M of this PUD not be obtained by the County prior to the commencement of construction of the 101st dwelling unit, the Developer of parcels 1A-3A shall provide at its option either of the following security instruments for the construction of the remaining portion of Pristine Drive: (1) Cash deposit agreement with the county, (2) Irrevocable standby letter of credit, (3) Surety bond or (4) Construction, maintenance and escrow agreement, the - amount shall be equal to the cost to construct up to 1,500 feet of Pristine Drive. 5.8 PLANNING A. If during the course of site clearing, excavation or other construction activity a historic or archaeological artifact is found, all development within the minimum area necessary to protect the discovery shall be immediately stopped and the Collier County Code Enforcement Department contacted. Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 3-1-2013 Page 24 of 25 5.9 ENVIRONMENTAL A. A minimum of 32.3234.26 acres of native vegetation shall be preserved on- site, including all 3 strata, and emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible. The RPUD Master Plan identifies 38-334.26 acres. The remaining - f - a " "- a. B. Any development order approval having FLUCFCS 424 melaleuca areas within its preserve areas shall require supplemental plantings within such melaleuca areas. 5.10 PARKS AND RECREATION Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added. Wolf Creek RPUD PL2012-0650 Revised 3-1-2013 Page 25 of 25 °' — �..1. W EE' g m—a o — — — (iss-to mm e _ —_ ` o ill — m W W 0 n° ° Y U g w I =0 ?_14¢ � £1 Minh - m ��88� LLo� °`�o'�� p¢w F, a. 0 aw =m.o> a„si'O:aa8 e9wN 1 - w 1Y` x`x6$21 .zg o. I K I W= ti \ N I , 31, B /b e t } r mcam i!E W7 4 7-1-1 117:Wil )( k' II iiiillial 1 I 'A.,..____ --.1 1 1 1 ,S zqgg m 11113111111 V — i i i 11 :2 N'm 1 11 ., 1: 1 ol 42 IgitililL-1117; 11°11 E FT__— m \ t d .°X r--- -.ih --' d -g I=g$ = JL _ \\\\ —� §_ � _ r 3nrooum umsoaoae . - Is ago ' v 222. 1 5155z N. 4 E.-; ;i , w3 i S, ! CaJ i \\ z 8a s \ d 1 i 3R �` it / �t. i , sa 1- `\'1" P i i 1 2: 1 21 - 15 :1 Iiit:,,, ,,2 '''"''.%Sks* 1 I 55 1 1°2 4a, I 1 \, ? ` W ;off §an� w ? fig \\ i, - dp Wam.,T.un' au mtv� aumamix3ars3na+.�vs1 W 6y ` MAIM Ma..m `V3 VC II 1 w 0 ill 40 °g„i @ 6 W, a 3 / oq 3 P. E a V i 1 i ig 1g l Md Kt.sloUriz/z nmaisireii IiXA(C/,3N1 Nv1d aa1•V I.-V II IHY3\N33tIn 1OM\NIU O\q N3N'd Of H31,11 311w4 an 3r:0:1 o19!3-,vd_-V,-)M1\ONIKNVIH-Mid\:` O W' C E M — O 0 I- O ¢ s- CO O m iii o _ a? AdM-3n-1H�JiK 71-III11d 2 0 - t 11 �� II -+ Q?IVA37llOA X3I770:� IX co ''a$ m y 1 w 5Z 1 ( 0 0 V- o il6 0- Wo U , Z W rn vo wNI Z N. 1-- m� > I M Q ° ~ H Q 'Li I o W LJ' ¢ U IL Z W F D U °m I J O m Z } I-- ul T Q �1 a = N X p W O 3 W 01 U w Z a W Q I U Q W n 0 0 0 3 U) m o O °' I 2 (1- o "1 Z Q O IH !:'.ce 0a3W 1100 Z> OndW SNVO VWONOS o w OndW SNVO VWONOS • .� ∎ Z Z p I�w a'. I K 02 2 0 _ Q I w _ W� ceYln < oaOVN <N. O} 0 O Z �' I Z cc a Z 1 w< <m n�°�'Mw' ti"? m 03 Q Z W w Q W I �, J�Zp° I �(9r 1 _ LJ Z -I W< 14>wSw Y.- OwO ° n W Q Q an d o? d II<aworcaQOmOp< I lnx1ioz. a:' >O O U 2 W EC op apN?Oap<Um -a nom<-a< 'C<°' CC I- 0 W N oLL 2< I '_'we-'ac N°� WU--�.-Q`° a"' 0- U 3' w Q wW w� ' � . o may.< <5WN< maa aQ _i ' a '� M a¢ aw �w _ _ __' aoa U Z° ulna (n j Q '0.� CI z Y I Q zxN �3 I-- < N ga ff�fz m0°v _Z Q U CC d W�3 3pw -w I °P('-aa II 'X mw. ':C 0 Q "<'�o Zwo aN °zwc8°i,1zo ' 'No' as x 0 Z > ▪ z W <¢ OUw Qd 'I I J Q c2 WON .� J Q w NWQ o w<w�z� 0 Z Z O. w w� 3 �m°° � 3 Z 3: a°, aNO: _ W W O w _ ?Q LL �¢O ��_ _- - f- Q M D f- `?S� a 1 i {y) O LL .w O d W �. J Ij J!�1 3 CO Z W W U �u ��. 'T.T...•..•,— lop I W�o W,rQZZ W cH �''''''''''''' 4p ul o ui N 4:'::':•:':•'• r a Kx o > ` Fl ri in° %5° 0 W 3_0 2 W 0 0 i w•. --- - w �.a I t:',E-- W U W W z 2 W $ }: > .'•:•� !r.. - -- a- < u oZWOQWw3- 4, • o• {{ >n ` I' w'•.•:1 N w J n < I N�.I ."" o Y n:.w:,•.. <: cn Sao `4. v- m 1 K -.1U Q V_ Q 4 0; J N . J O J Q'Q_I = U - z wo n....] W is wd mw<Eza¢ I L'S-(0>o : <0 QOQQHCCQ0_ ov. ? - <a Ow ¢.. •NOS a•03- �f5afoav �w<�!=.-< w ..• ax ao %N v I uQw OOGr I walot< O c- N ri -- w 0 2 r QN,,,Iz,.1 <NW Oa( my `- ° z � '� TL a o o J /. ,, ••• � 0 C W m = Q U U • S- ° / • 1VUN301S38 (MVO)J w< :E-.,-Ns- � - / and/MO N1VM ONVISI t t y I o z a 1 ° `.---_ _ .- CS) r-- gli A w N 1 d z e w CO O) O �� . m.a o J m' ag LL �'4! w¢ Q Q Q O .� a m '� o boa N* au Q a = -.IY M a e7 o m ¢ w� CV 01 oz '- oz w di °' °Q o� ao 0 J J J U w w ,,'; a LI a 1 Q z a �� W W W W o vo-i wo z i "' ©<zp !o g c (n 0 �0 �0 CT Z D �'•.a U ....y tY .'E'_ M-] p W W Z U C a LL CC LL u_i a 0� .¢n ag ar a ,L)0 3g o 0.. d 0_ 2 ro a w ' J a o;m F a '� M .� ,-� L o_ W IY L,_. M ?< ❑N a I,'o< Z o o LL. CL 0 N° a. I w o < :• .. es N W NN a. p i U I-' Z / Cl W a r.•.•.•.... a.,.,.�•'�.�---' �. /fir -� Ul >, f a ___ o (AlINnWW00 1VI1N301S3a o31V0) Z Q. �� (1JJNnWW00 1VUN301S3a 031V0) 0nd/Ia0 N1VM GNV1SI Ond/Ia0 NIVM 0NV1S1 w z �" 0 w m F o Q 3`<¢ W O: U Ci K °.. o az WH sSS SI.07 AZ/Z'1NnsnIBHX,I Ixa(7n3,41 NtnA>111,M'1 I.-V i,HIHx3 V33H1 DOM\VNvMVHn\nN3Mt Ong}334134loM and 3Mi OM-17M/-v lMV\`1NiNNV1A-m L, c 1 - 0 0 m O ...2 ii CO O a o mZ W M II w 'OR ill �\Z p —�—Z—t °O' ❑ z W m = I- W W 2 w < W Q F Z W = = O n m z } H U) W 0 W O _ m Z Q Q -:O 02iVA31n08 1311100 — o W O 0 ,ICAVM'30'1HORi J('78f1d — _ . I OXYA37f10fi?1 r3177OJ W O W ❑ O o I ❑Iz D a z 0 1 IN z Z Z Q O H U W H iLL I S Z I- Z Q U W 0 Z m El 0 0 cr SON O ' 1 < 3 a I=; o ego zoa 1;,- 0 CO z ce,I w °a u) 0 < W I Z w Iz m o�& c/9 x° >- < z 11i °I . o n _,a m ❑ Z I- f� I-- IZ _I _, vl a o�O 0 j ¢ 0 < m c� Jo �. w z. a I— U 2 W a Vo< IY ct I- XO X f- �II I m m 0_ -, w n� N tat Q I I ! -' W O M 03 Q o Q t o wcal 1V102f3WW00/1vI1N301S32J 1V10i3WW NV°VI1N3015321 \ _ Z < CO N CC 0=.. OndW SNVO VWONOS andw SNVO 'dWON05 - W — — . )3AI2I03NOIS 131113 Q - < CC i w I cc 0 Q o W I >�}� °n a� <� I M' J ° W W CC w¢'�amn°gin I rrei c+in '"> 'n. a SS S p w iI" 4zo°"I'aun _ m, rn 1 I ,.I Q S = H W __-. z .--,-4. I*>uolg. yaw I, w _,> om o °iiHfl v��oZ°. aCi o... mna- ��a I �� w waa wa31i 6dv.aQm m I m s oo LHft 2 rcr YZ_tlil rn I mMp -I m) � i �W�`J' ^�J Q(5w U2'Z 64/i a >w E ,,Lm-, °_. apgzz Ovra - OI auai w mxoz <o. Naw xi I x zw %� �.�o Soo a ° ! °z ° _ _%'W; 4O.f O4 1 Q �n .Z lYZ w �2 mLl I <ti > , -Q 'o,t La " c�a0 °O Qa �° if - I I UO �aw�z W W W�U W Q �� wtl mil. m \ I J !HH _m i m 'm T.I ( I O o�- c. _;,.\ low �. , �- I Z '5.'° X.-1 1 a te. .4 tam g»° ti 5 _,W o.I < —1 - C[ W W CO ._M S 5� . I mow. I -� -.,n 6.a oo°z E.� �<»o I m 0 2 Q-' �f~I•� ntrr .Kam SNQrn I 0. a 0 ? 'w<..I S�q '�.%woo z. C7 U 0 \-7 • ¢ JVQ4 { ¢¢lai Ow, v}N8f UJJZ..-. ti N4KJ. F=a< - -1 ? I QQ '^-° S r- { W i S>O dwoq Q<D 3¢� �i <�D <C m 4Q <a U' � ID[7 te— °Z atnw0 U Z I �q l a' wa3�3QV I ¢ ° t + U3 ' 02w K O(JIIMwE J2a Q Qj�D>° KnZ '<, V F°NI w N 1211 �� z o3a Na o°i aT6'd o oz n a O t t :,'‘Y, a p�j,aFSONa ' '3,.s-za. aNw i-lt; - aNg gazo.I > w <- 6) I--•�" i0o�3t°i ao u«EOaa z J<aa .-, u Z.- ,- co O O _iL ti,Cr+°j-xzw QNw as °a o JktaZI II it II E-3 t. n i �•k.WZ ' aN-3wz v oo zao°. Q N M w.„_, In za�z ~O I 0 J J J Ei :'I cc 1 : rt 1 0pz ai - W W W W ,Y � ° z ao I U) U U U 0''; v o _ cc (1.LINf1WW00 (,WNnWW00 1 i1N301S32I 031V0) C 1.1._ N.,\ 1VLLN301S32J 031V0) and/Na N1VM ONV1SI 0 b C. i Ond/INO NNM ONVISI I ,,,) a W U) N w: z v ° w 0 Ur W W I m: pa 0 c'0i w a m Q C Z M `c Q° - ∎l-H ' W w N m a.<4 ya a co *I� ao 2 O W W W �° p <Z a w v a 2' 3° W� M <a Z Q. / r g„ z Q d Z L U U <; -° 3 S ° = O o zo a N 3 °a} FO- W o _—°F Q W w _ D [a ` oI �I 1 PH/in SLOn/al/Z:1MO-SIianaXa 4IXa(c0,11 NEOd,1[SVN l-V II5003\H37a.)MA\C')NiuVr+O\na31Td Ond Y33,K)annM and 3AO)nwa31dd-V.J7M"tr\nt0110d-maa\:9 F Qlr ° Z W F- j -UQ �Q W ccozw Ox W WZO> E M _ O z F W <°<a Z=U Zu) LLF-aF-3 Q(n° o E W w O �a a uss �0 0 M m W m2x 2 osOF- �� ° z2D-F w ° o°Uw ° yy-°Cd!Ei w Jo W ° W�D _ z¢Z W W°LL W W MOO cc 0 W 7w Q-,O Yr°0 0 Q 0 Q Z- O W W W z- ww FD°SaQ}d a¢ m J= F- 7 (n LLoa • cow-).-0000 F I a-O u W 0 l W 1-° D J w X F F- FW U Z� WpoZli(na NC QWjD n (- wwa�mpz z } 7° a m m F m w w l a W co- cost 0 a J O ui 0ZJ mw= oww � gF F�Wo O=w Fm° }2 wW W H (Q Wm n LLn¢ vi u.a} NwF-a cn�? �oF_ °�°°moWO m -LL o0 piny Q cc ouLLO NO0> 00 - z o�W�2� -w °xg aFw� F > 'w 0< LLF¢(7J °D 6 co Om°2 °2> oLL F- o wFD W z0 � ,a UJ0 co_..1 _ 000 0°¢ vi�mW 0O5 Z au <L0--, c6R,J, cola z22m 0¢u. U O zv zO>zw z0< zoo zoo°}�l0 o ¢, �mw 1-w0°> OzO O_za �2aww°C-w 4 A W ¢ WZ Z WW0< F=QO F wa w=LLaQ�'�'m d4 mJ J `nWm� WZ<• � i cn�°00w°l 1° a a m Qma UaJW of -F ° WDWaWF- U I Z w U Jdaw o0¢J 00�m °�� °FO°�zz0 c ->-w w macaw JDUX J2F UF¢ -o W Z O ,- 0_ (/) EL momma �U�r ww�° �¢w icF-)Wiz,=°F a0 a C� x1- 0 U ¢ w2Z0 u_cc u_C) a°p-WUFDO c4')°F-FQ- N ° w F o F W °° w J w01- J Q O m o a° ¢W J 0 J -O z a J W 2 w0 W Wcn¢� W¢FF W Q W WF w °OF O_ �a O (rW�Z cc Z0F cc 0Q ac9 u_ awF-z°F¢(- pawn a a YoO° WW Mmw YHOO Y°c0+) (n a(na(nma ¢map CC Z W�Qw WaW WmcODm Wj� Ww(-Q2a a Z2d0 O• m W OF u5 W K co ¢l co c) mco-Z0F-F-F- 0X (n a W at a m0 at Wail atZWW at-< atxJ¢m00°WI- QozO w ZWw° z J� • zWlW - z22 zFF-O wzm - -- - Zr--r2 0 Owww 0.-Qcnin Oawo 0J- OSz ¢Q0Q ¢off- w Pm ¢ FDCpwm Q¢mo ¢lm ¢m°o0Ww20 Q0WW OF >U ZU >FF--J aS >°FQ-Q >Ua > Z5--4ZD°WD - Z W l - n 0`xS J- oaOc~4W o<wm o Q 0ina¢UmmHa mZ°-F c§ } �� 160< • N wp W O - 5..);,' I Z¢¢ a 1--000 pOU E� a e oWF is t ¢ W>W p U 20- g s _ Z o s.CO Y O0 ¢W F-F2JZ}°p M no-z0 of m W0,--W ZUOF-QU' F-¢W II W 0E-F mmw2 zmsozmm 0 Z 0 0¢0 Z OwNW waw°wow 00 0 0 Q Z ¢Zu p c-■ (-6, WF¢g0 CD F- w O QOO� 'o v 0 s J LL J Z D O a u J W W (.� Q m m 2 0 03 W SO,Q mm°?Oma°F_F' 0 > w �(n0¢ ›. �, U FZ¢Z U_QWD UJ W W 0 m¢Z W .� _o Q 0E-OD m°°x2¢1Oa0 z F > co 0ZQ Ct -`3E z ¢¢ DDF xF LLwJp 0 ¢ w ry >¢O2 C- 0 0?-J¢ wit-a-001- cn°ww H z > M Ow > Cl co4Q0 zJw0D 0°zx= < LL F- w O o F W o Q m=°w Q F > O ¢ u na a U° s } ,?ax u F-caw p° o>LL J w m !ZL Q ¢JELL =� m Q0 F- OZpcoX Z W 0 CO w m° an 0 Z202 LL-XO2�aFF¢_ 7 U o <0)0)W e3, > F�z� -IWV-wOZu) co¢ a a Q ¢ + z¢mCC _>o °a, WI-- 2a WZOZ000NZW, V z UU Q(0 v_ In Q il ma'zQ J W JZ�O W F¢..a 0Z U Q U. U. hN Ill O<> } OF-OI wnc-,_¢ comYcnF Q F- O 0 .-v Jwwa • m- o°w W .LL Q F J W W F<0 ZZ c0 0 ,°\o LO + = � D -1,,z X J z co 0>w 2 m-° w -e0 m<W 5• 2QJJ oO>>�Wa60,-,woz 0 > w ° QK M 0 trZa} ci 0 0 JO Z5 co W Q 0 >° ¢ ¢ ch� aZ Za' 00 a u-o 61 re a=¢Q_p U J�FZ W ¢ Fa -NI: M� W w J0 o\ u_F) QF WWEWOwO-= m F- ZO o na �s <U. �� U W wJp F-Z=cam i¢OLL°U, I.- F- 11 a pa u_g�a N O Wawa gF gm°wmOmJ 0 iii D° W w �� pilaw i J z =WX T---} F- a0 > > W U Q ,,,CI O a F Z F ° w¢>w�z�g w G ° w Q N O O m WO"'z w CW7 a o m LL w(J) J¢¢JW J1--1-0 W 0 UZ Q� U� Wd ¢1 w a oo a cc fr Y5.Z m�W LL 2rOFwr__ >2<x w J LLw¢c~na coop >a,2 W W Z¢ ",- c'o Z m O -0_ ¢�m(nJ W R Jm N p °fn W F OY O W=U F,F-JQ}W ¢ Cn 0>(qJ�� a. J�a (n2 ¢W!S CC Q 4t w aQ F-F1x caw CC 2= ¢m Q W ° W >¢W W W- co 2a 1 1 5 W U¢-5 U¢� Z W M ¢ O 0-zw0 W zZFYomw¢LLD Q u~i D Cr ¢QQMW <MW a2 V) J JI J -N LL W ¢m 0 Z O 0 0¢2 2 2 . 2 0 J Z a¢a' a Q a J J W <<r< OF 5n'00w m°?0�W>m°2Z FW F X �� 00 0 �ciriv �c m wzapcn =UU-Ww-z(?�? OF a Oa F F Z 7, °OUwD F-20(nc)F-02QE(n mtiN CO CD - ON O Cs!04 m ay- ° 13 al +.- 1 iiiiE � _ _- �� \ -III 11/1111111111 R -.iRre ' € I III IJIIflI MH'�¢ib@ I ` GGii a iiiqi az 1 x 11' # IItIIjhIi k. NNE a uK. i\ Y Is i imaal a f IV E[ € i a it .jJ i $ " , i E ---- --- �\ ilk, LL_i211,ehi nmmeti \ Hilt e `\. \ \ /a---, 1* ;, 11 1 1 ill ii N hi. 4 , , , i , .11 11\\,\„., iikedi. 1 . 1 . ., ,,,,,, ,„ , pi, , i, ::::„::. ,,\,,,, , ii,,,, , 1 1 1 1 `‘ 1 i ` �I , �. ill a � [\te :b 11 F t @ E 2 1 6 S li F 11 i�' \ lid 1 ey.e...�. s ®® • _mewlDHX3 __mN_ -i-Lo,mAno-1_ -ve-w _ -_v ; : w I"| 1 V;WO N \ / 9_ h / U \ ! z 0 z / %'\ } 2 3u@� ~ = , E / 2 w < 3g2 =/< % # } 0, U) 7 -%% ~z§ .z\d ? ® / 2 0cn 1 5 > mma yw .R \y \ p / b EA B \ » | -- - - '\§ »' ~ 1. 05 z 2 u b < O \:o ff® ± (1-/ 2 y /</ k « -co » ^ ~ co\ 3 k U \ / E I -,-- /. > 1 \ ®/ _ d•w y 6� \/�z \ \ /§ /' ' - t( « :• _- \} \\ U - - »: \.. :- \ ? \« • • \ E 5 / 2d © `- $ b> �5 � \� \ �� 2 \ CC \ cn ( » \ 9 \ • - \/2\ > - \ ^ »? « \ \ / [) ° K' �\ \\ < \( \ \ » |: � \ �H / | -- - - / CO g \_ : y§ y / � 77 ` \/ /: 5 \ !@ k\ u 2 ®.�� k - 1:`6' -p w -Q ,, ` // / - �\ _< Gj / , u ® \ %? CNI I — < \zN —\ . / 0 0 e 2 �ƒ vii ...,..., .. 0 ._ 0 NV ZI'9 S IOL/ll/I.`.\YO'IA32111811IX3 MS 3A00 OMILITIYd\S.DNIMMMO\ON3YY and>13t11 3i10M Ofld WO ONH3Nd-1,d11'MdVNINNOId-re d\-; S8 ' II;..'4,1f I Z; F ------... ii W J Q U� I !i: o 17----, \ -•4 1 I4il • j II, I Y A a (0 i cn r,C 0 3 t W � Q ® o W ma `I � V w > 0 CC 0 o w U d J • n_ W J 0›- OU Z O 0 W 2 Z U 0 I 0 0 W I d�] W Q J I Q a y3o :-r;NO33a -- — - ---- o=1 k r. m • i I o_ c Y W c U Jo r 5 • 1 i/ -- �—. ... . . . . . . . I >V o :::::: Y D 2 �+ Y U CC Lc _I ra t z c7