Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CCPC Agenda 06/05/2008 R
COURT REPORTER AGENDA Revised COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2008, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER,3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST,NAPLES,FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—APRIL 17,2008,REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS—APRIL 29,2008,GMP MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: PUDA-2007-AR-12322, Livingston Professional Center LLC, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc. is requesting an amendment to the Hiwasse PUD to revise existing development standards, transportation requirements and property ownership information. The +/-12.52-acre subject property is located 1400 feet north of the intersection of Eatonwood Lane and Livingston Road, in Section 13, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. HEARD ON 5/1/08 (Coordinator:John-David Moss) B. Petition: BD-2008-AR-12731, Jim Fountain,represented by Eric Schneider of Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc.,requesting the addition of a boatlift to an existing dock.Proposed change includes adding a boatlift and removing an existing floating swim platform on an existing fixed wood dock approved by BDE resolution 2000-18, allowing a total protrusion of 48 feet from MHW. The additional boatlift would not require any further protrusion into the waterway,but the proposed additional slip constitutes a significant deviation from the plan approved with the original extension petition. Property located at 208 San Mateo Drive, Lot 27, Southport on the Bay, Unit One, as recorded in Plat Book 15, pages 51-53, Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida. HEARD ON 5/15/08(Coordinator:Ashley Caserta) 1 C. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-12581, Florida Non-Profit Services, Inc. and The Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida Community Development Corporation, represented by Heidi K. Williams, AICP, Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., requesting a PUD rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A-MHO) Mobile Home Overlay Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit Development Zoning District,to be known as Esperanza Place RPUD. The 31.63± acre site is proposed to be developed for affordable single-family and multi-family residential use. The subject property is located on the north side of Immokalee Drive, approximately 1/2 mile west of SR 29, in_Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee, Collier County,Florida. HEARD ON 5/15/08 (Coordinator:Melissa Zone) D. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-9143, Standing Oaks, L.L.C., represented by Dwight Nadeau, of RWA, Inc. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A., requesting a rezone from Rural Agricultural (A) to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to be known as Standing Oaks PUD. The 41.1± acre Rural Agricultural zoned site is proposed to permit 164 single and multifamily residential dwelling units at a density of 4 units per acre. The subject site is located at 6473 Standing Oaks Lane,6400 Standing Oaks Lane, and 6565 1e Avenue N.W., in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida. HEARD ON 5/15/08 (Coordinator:Nancy Gundlach) 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: SV-2008-AR-13059, Stock Development, LLC, represented by Christopher Mitchell of Waldrop Engineering, is requesting a sign variance to permit a 54 square foot ground monument sign bearing the Edison College logo. The subject property, consisting of 3.93 acres, is located within the Lely PUD at the southeast corner of the Grand Lely Drive and Rattlesnake Hammock intersection, in Section 21, Township 50,Range 26,Collier County,Florida. (Coordinator:Willie Brown) B. Petition: CU-2006-AR-10805,Rinker Materials of Florida,Inc.,represented by Robert Mulhere,of RWA, Inc., is requesting conditional use of an earth mine and asphaltic and concrete batch making plant in the Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District. The subject property, consisting of 967.65 acres, is located 3/4 of a mile north of the Immokalee Road (CR-846) / Oil Well Grade Road intersection, in portions of Section(s) 9, 10, 15, 16, 21, and 22, Township 47 South, Range 28 East, of Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Willie Brown) 1( Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. and Mission Possible Ministries, Inc, represented by Michael R. Fernandez, AICP of Planning Development, Inc., are requesting a rezone from the RSF-1 Zoning District to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as Heavenly MPUD. The approximately 15.93-acre site is proposed to permit existing churches, associated schools, day care facilities and other related accessory uses. The subject site is located at 6926 Trail Boulevard, and comprises the entire block formed by Trail Boulevard, Ridge Drive, Myrtle Road and West Street in Section 3, Township 49, Range 25 East of Collier County,Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) D. Petition: PUDA-2007-AR-12321, MDG Lake Trafford, LLC., represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to Arrowhead PUD Ordinance Number 02-40,as amended, Section 8.5 Transportation subsections B.,K.,L.3.,M.through P.and to add Section 9 Deviations to revise transportation commitments to construct project turn lanes at Lake Trafford Road and Carson Road project entrances within one year of approval of this ordinance;to construct turn lanes for the commercial tract and the shared north Carson Road entrance at the time of commercial site development plan; to require acceptance of Carson Road extension from Lake Trafford Road south to Immokalee Drive and the westerly 450 feet of Immokalee Drive by the Collier County Road Maintenance Department;to construct intersection improvements at Lake Trafford Road and Carson Road within one year of approval of this Ordinance; to contribute funds for a bus stop, to remit funds for turn lanes and signal modifications, and to receive credit for a turn lane; and to add Section 9 to seek a deviation from a transportation requirement of sidewalks on both sides of Lake Trafford Road to allow a sidewalk on the north side of the road only. The property is located at the southwest corner of Lake Trafford Road (CR 890) and the proposed extension of Carson Road in Section 6, Township 47 South, Range 29 East,and Section 31,Township 46 South,Range 29 East,Collier County,Florida. (Coordinator:Nancy Gundlach) 2 E. Petition: RZ-2008-AR-12842, Toll-Rattlesnake, LLC,represented by Robert Duane, AICP, of HoleMontes Inc., is requesting a rezone of the easternmost 10±acre portion of the First Assembly Ministries Education & Rehabilitation PUD from the Planned Use Development (PUD) zoning district to the Agricultural (A) zoning district. The subject property is located along the northern side of the extension of The Lord's Way, in Section 14, Township 50, Range 26, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) Companion to PUDA-2007-AR-12043 F. Petition: PUDA-2007-AR-12043, First Assembly of God Naples, Inc., by J. David Mallory, president; and MDG Fountain Lakes, LLC, William L. Klohn, president of MDG Capital Corporation, managing member; both of whom are represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, Hole Montes, Inc., are requesting an amendment from the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for a 69± acre project known as the First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehabilitation MPUD, to allow multi-family units, community facilities and church-related uses. The subject property is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Collier Boulevard(CR 951)and The Lords Way in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) Companion to RZ-2008-AR-12842 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS A. Scheduling of Adoption hearings for Growth Management Plan (GMP)Amendments—2006 Adoption Cycle GMP Amendments (6 petitions), Petition CP-2006-1, Silver Strand Commerce Park in Immokalee; Petition CPSP-2007-7, School Public Facilities Element; and Petition CPSP-2007-6, 10-Year Water Supply Plan(Potable Water Sub-Element). 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 6/5/08 CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/sp/mk 3 AGENDA ITEM 8-A ORDINANCE NO.08- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-75,THE HIWASSE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), BY PROVIDING FOR SECTION I, AMENDMENTS TO COVER PAGE; SECTION II, AMENDMENTS TO TABLE OF CONTENTS/EXHIBITS PAGE; SECTION III,AMENDMENT TO PROPERTY OWNERSHIP SECTION; SECTION IV, AMENDMENTS TO LANDSCAPING SECTION; SECTION V, AMENDMENTS TO ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS SECTION; SECTION VI, AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SECTION; SECTION VII, AMENDMENTS TO TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS SECTION;SECTION VIII, AMENDMENTS TO WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS SECTION; SECTION IX, AMENDMENT ADDING A DEVIATIONS SECTION; SECTION X, AMENDMENT TO REMOVE ALL SPECIFIC CITATIONS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FROM THE PUD DOCUMENT TO LEAVE ONLY THE GENERAL CITATION TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; SECTION XI, AMENDMENTS TO EXHIBIT A,THE PUD MASTER PLAN; SECTION XII, AMENDMENT ADDING EXHIBIT D, ENTITLED "ARCHITECTURAL SCHEMATIC"; AND SECTION XIII,EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on November 16, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance Number 04-75,which established the Hiwasse Planned Unit Development(PUD) Zoning District;and WHEREAS, Livingston Professional Center, LLC, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the Hiwasse Planned Unit Development(Ordinance Number 04-75). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,that: SECTION I: AMENDMENTS TO COVER PAGE OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 04- 75,THE HIWASSE PUD The Cover Page, previously attached to this Ordinance as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance Number 04-75,the Hiwasse PUD,is hereby amended to read as follows: HIWASSE A Planned Unit Development PREPARED BY: ROBERT L.DUANE,A.I.C.P. RICHARD YOVANOVICH,ESQ. HOLE MONTES,INC. GOODMAN,COLEMAN&JOHNSON 950 ENCORE WAY 4001 TAMIAMI TRAIL N.,STE.300 NAPLES,FLORIDA 34110 NAPLES,FLORIDA 34103 Page 1 of 6 Words underlined are additions;words strut gh are deletions. Revised 5/13/08 7'11.7/.1°" HM Project 2001076 NOVEMBER,2002 REVISED MAY 2008 Date Reviewed by CCPC: Date Approved.by BCC: Ordinance No. Amendments&Repeals EXHIBIT"A" SECTION II: AMENDMENTS TO TABLE OF CONTENTS/EXHIBITS PAGE OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-75,THE HIWASSE PUD The Table of Contents/Exhibits Page of Ordinance Number 04-75,the Hiwasse PUD,is hereby amended to read as follows: TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SECTION I Statement of Compliance 3 SECTION II Property Ownership,Legal Description,Short Title and 4 Statement of Unified Control SECTION III Statement of Intent and Project Description 5 SECTION IV General Development Regulations 6 SECTION V Permitted Uses and Dimensional Standards for Commercial 13 Development SECTION VI Development Commitments - 15 EXHIBITS Exhibit A-PUD Master Plan Exhibit B-Legal Description Exhibit C-Landscape Detail and View Elevation Exhibit D-Architectural Schematic SECTION III: AMENDMENT TO PROPERTY OWNERSHIP SECTION OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-75,THE HIWASSE PUD Section 2.1, entitled"Property Ownership" of Ordinance Number 04-75, the Hiwasse PUD,is hereby amended to read as follows: 2.1 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The property is owned by Hiwasee— - Livingston Professional Center.LLC. Page 2 of 6 Words underlined are additions;words stfuelf-threugh are deletions. Revised 5/13/08 SECTION IV: AMENDMENTS TO LANDSCAPING SECTION OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-75,THE HIWASSE PUD Section 4.14,entitled"Landscaping"of Ordinance Number 04-75,the Hiwasse PUD,is hereby amended to read as follows: 4.14 LANDSCAPING All landscaping shall be in accordance with the requirements of Division 2.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code. However,an enhanced Type "B"buffer will be provided along the eastern edge of the FPL Easement Area subject to them FPL approval. A cross-section of the enhanced buffer area is provided on Exhibit C: Landscape View and Detail. At the time of SDP approval, a letter shall be provided from FLP FPL, stating that the enhanced "B"Buffer area meets with their approval..- An enhanced Tvpe B landscaped buffer shall be provided along Livingston Road for the indoor self-storage building constructed in excess of 150 feet in length in a north-south direction as provided in Paragraph 4.17.C. These enhancements shall include trees placed on 20-foot centers with a double staggered row of palm trees or similar tree types approved by County Planning Staff, 12 and 16 feet in height,to be planted within the 25-foot wide combined buffer and foundation planting area for the full length of the building. (See also Section 4.17.) SECTION V: AMENDMENTS TO ARCHITECTURAL AND Sl'1'h DESIGN STANDARDS SECTION OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-75, THE HIWASSE PUD Section 4.17 entitled,"Architectural and Site Design Standards"of Ordinance Number 04-75,the Hiwasse PUD,is hereby amended to read as follows: 4.17 ARCHITECTURAL AND Sri DESIGN STANDARDS C. Building Design Requirements In addition to the Collier County Land Development Code Division 2.8 requirements,the following is required: 1. Overall building dimension for office and similar uses shall not exceed 150 feet in either direction. 2. Indoor self-storage building dimensions shall not exceed 150 feet in either direction, except that one self-storage building will be allowed with a maximum north-south dimension of 270 feet. If a self-storage building greater than 150 feet in length in a north-south direction is constructed,it shall be the only self- storage building permitted for the PUD and will be accompanied by the following: al A combined (right-of-way and building foundation buffer) 25 foot wide buffer which includes a 15 foot wide Type B landscape buffer along Livingston Road and the building foundation plantings for the full length of the building The buffer and building foundation landscaping may be divided to accommodate the project's drainage outfall pipe located between the building and Livingston Road. Page 3 of 6 Words underlined are additions;words s el eugh are deletions. Revised 5/13/08 49210- 11) A projection one story in height on the southern facade of the building facing Eatonwood Lane such as but not limited to a covered entrance as depicted on Exhibit D that will not affect the maximum 270 foot allowable building length- cl A minimum 50 foot front yard setback from the south Property line(abutting Eatonwood Lane). 2 3.The architectural style for the subdistrict shall be consistent throughout and shall be established by the initial building design and shall blend with surrounding developments. SECTION VI: AMENDMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SECTION OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-75,THE HIWASSE PUD Section 5.5 entitled, "Development Standards" of Ordinance Number 04-75, the Hiwasse PUD,is hereby amended to read as follows: 5.5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Use of FPL Easement Area — Open space, storm water management, and landscaping buffer, bike path, sidewalk, fire truck access, electric lines with appurtenances.and underground utilities landscape ering shall be the only allowed uses permitted in the FPL Easement Area. K. Depository Institutions are limited to the northern portion of the PUD only. SECTION VII: AMENDMENTS TO TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS SECTION OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-75,THE HIWASSE PUD Section 6.2,"Transportation Requirements"of Ordinance Number 04-75,the Hiwasse PUD,is hereby amended to read as follows: E. Shared access is permitted north of the subject property on County-owned property as depicted on the PUD Master Plan„ The access shall be designed to Collier County standards and shall be subject to final approval by the Collier County Transportation Division. The developer shall be responsible for construction and maintenance of the access road, drainage facilities, landscaping and other related improvements. In the event that the Related Group PUD will not share in the cost of proposed improvements, access shall not be shared.subject to an access agreement with the property owncr to thc north. If• .:. .. - • ..: south of thc shared access arca. The access shall also include shared access with the LaCosta Apartments to the west. F. The developer shall provide a turn lane at the project entrance onto Livingston Road, at cithcr the permitted access location, prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the first structure in accordance with the Collier County Public Right-of-Way Manual and Ordinance 82-91. A non-exclusive five-foot wide roadway easement shall be provided for the length of the turn lane. G. The developer,or its successors in interest,shall Page 4 of 6 Words underlined are additions;words sough are deletions. Revised 5/13/08 1Mrn - o D z m '1 4 _ 1 i 4 m o a ) g - I g p A 1 1 II �Z, ov -z /� s - P IIN, W r ,— —, BC m 7D1 —__�1 '`T--"' !rte �' _i AS'u Ap C $:� $u 8$ r -, a i EATONW000 LANE ys }t P p D _ fs---- - T 1 ' 34g7 7 T -- r - • r - a 1 3� 3�� $g J 1- • //1/ n §1 l. I - N 1 i CO D m I IIdII 'ry ..« F y I:j - D ' 111 px'" _ P .r$ G ,I 71-4 I 1 i .and 1 IAA-1 y J al. y' b ■Fe 5 5 * In* o r �I l :�Elo. oaw w s 3 0 3 m x... _' . A I 1� r -.0 r` 5 1 w m* E m - r 1 y 1 1 rri c D 11' d I _ 111 M m 3 r r 2 CZi E 4.0.* 1 m D O �' b MI II , z y > & . I. m m 111 N I F1 g it.::...s§ A D D O a 1 r > .6 0 m m p a �' ', I o r l,� _ _ P I{L,^ O m w IA N N m 1 ,- I I B .`. eeppr 1 I o °SWia z e c°o$ °o v ( m1 1r o B Y1 D O rmx x p .11,149 5` _ j: r w�i48'° f1 o T- Imo Zi m ' `Witt: �, �:a 1 •- S RI N r f - : Z c w n .. I 1 j�5• P i m A( r`I •I':}1• I . m0 mn , ; 1A 'I I - . •1245% • W D I ' f:4:::;::::::::.-, . : 3:4.1J•1 1 • • - ion°•l'• ! O I 1 RI m ). Z a / .... ...:g4iisi'.-"1 :.::::::, ,s.1 i 41 r r� Y I y.e�4 4 I'ii ZI di QQ ,�'11,1 Iy .;:. __ ..__ ---ti -I'll z i d1 ' P, j 1 1 i-- / iL ItY d q , ° I 11 : yip — :0-11 1 b �I 3 JT aq ° ja ° 6 ° ,, r a ` A m ,.U N o ii I I 1 l d L AGENDA ITEM 8-B CCPC RESOLUTION 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER BD-2008-AR-12731, AMENDING CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-18, IN ORDER REFLECT A SECOND BOAT LIFT AND THE REMOVAL OF AN EXISTING FLOATING SWIM PLATFORM ON THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WOOD DOCK FACILITY ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. WHEREAS,the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125,Florida Statutes,has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public;and WHEREAS,the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code(LDC) (Ordinance 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat docks;and WHEREAS,on July 20,2000,the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC)adopted CCPC Resolution No. 2000-18, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," which approved a 28-foot extension of a boat dock from the permitted 20 feet to allow a 48-foot docking facility for the herein described property located in a PUD Zoning District;and WHEREAS, the Petitioners propose renovations to the existing boat dock approved by CCPC Resolution No. 2000-18 including the addition of a second boatlift and the removal of an existing floating swim platform;and WHEREAS,the CCPC,being duly appointed,has held a properly noticed public hearing and considered the advisability of a second boatlift and the removal of the floating swim platform from existing fixed wood dock approved by CCPC Resolution 2000-18;and WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section 5.03.06;and WHEREAS, the CCPC has given all interested parties the opportunity to be heard, and considered all matters presented. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission of Collier County,Florida that: 1. Petition Number BD-2008-AR-12731, filed on behalf of Jim Fountain by Eric Schneider of Turrell,Hall and Associates,Inc.,for the property hereinafter described as: Lot 27,Southport on the Bay,Unit 1,in Section 6,Township 48 South,Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, as described in Plat Book 15, Pages 51-53, of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. Page 1 of 2 be, and the same is hereby approved for a second boat lift and the removal of the existing floating swim platform on the existing fixed wood dock facility approved by CCPC Resolution No.2000-18,provided said renovations require no further protrusion into the waterway. 2. Except as modified above, all other terms and conditions set forth in CCPC Resolution 2000-18, as adopted on July 20, 2000, shall remain in full force and effect. 3. The combined length of the vessels may not exceed 44 feet. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office. This Resolution adopted after motion,second and majority vote. Done this day of ,2008. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA Mark P.Strain,Chairman ATTEST: Joseph K. Schmitt Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Marjorie dent-Stirling Assistant County Attorney Page 2 of 2 CD b P N ,4 (0 o J, , X •- W w In el 0 * IL iii \ i - 0 Z Alii T 3 , CO (t) St...,, I- 9...„, tal til 9 W % S,,,, CO 0:0 U.. ^. ts g `,,, / 8 2 8 8 a '!!'ii,t. 0 Z 'A ,A• /ta 11 12 I ';441 Pr: ,,, „0,.. v• ,.. .V , X ° / • yt 0 0 ,stp‘ 4'9,,,, P.9., 1.• a- •99. % ' i At .4 - I 45„g, . Z 0. '..9.NI ..o.. 9. i x oo t... 0 " .,,,, 'tx . 419., ,•„ A / '4,,,,, 9 0 .. A L 4 ,,,, 6., --., .., ai - .. , A ° 7 -.k, .. E,. c.) ,.. . w lzc -, •vv! 2 .,, 0 ''', St. 0 •.,,x1 x ao.,, 9.,.% u9 g .--, g.., / ''''''' . . „ z 0 IA 0 Z St, "■ ZU/ 4. 6.'8 cril-.:t * '..."•' (I) ... ... A _ x 4 m w a. --.,.. 5-‹ 9 Lii ,, 41:,. Aw A -., ''. 0 --.?../.0.. _ _ a K 9, , •?.i,,,, ..,,, ,, Q. , immi ._. ei, c-s• ‘•• A..„ ,.. a 9 a 9 'St, , a , , 9, r.-', S'.. 111 • 9.„, % I '',. C3 .. .4, 0:" 'S' ' MIPPIP. '... i o ..% 4..._, - ,.. ..9,._ 2., a. 'tt NN,.. ..,,,,,,,,......,),.• • / 0 , D ,.., 9 9 . i te ,.,,,,r,,,;;-.,. 9, 0 .4 •'%, % z eiz, • 4- *.e % 4,.., ..-,. o. 4'; , § - , 4i• Z •% :‘ ., •„ 9:. . • .9- —I- A 4, /.. ,... . , ,A,.... , . /" ,9. A A 0. V III. X- LL.1 ,... t.,..., 1 Iff■7 ......4%,..- -,;.. -, "14:)41%. 'A 'b. '•- . •••■C:4,, , ...N....2, •le -0 0.... ift-= .e, ---"'40%, '', • ....110. dia. ...... ‘14% ''' .'"441111111111110:Hilm 9, .9. ■ % S,, 9o../ K A ■ z.. ''`■■,i'l ,...; ■ ''',r; ...., . ..,._ ti 7.1 M ,,4 -- _, ... ■- F." -- .„ / uce) cil S - / .Wi/ > 3 2: -..8CC.o-.D I.t2•..s .i3 c3 ig_p.4 Ipf. rx - , . :- 0 ).-LU CI- P 0 0 CC 0 02=0...,.. .,...--.. ,,, . ,1 2 ai S ..S 4 n o < z o o w 1-1-17,u_w w iirWct ,o •Aai 0 -J MZWIA:WI- - i0 m m LL 0 cr La to co 0 to a F.- 5 gc- wwwcew,xdu. 9 E... rtom&wv.„ 0— k .aor Ji )_,5,p, b N., 01'. roiW A zE°Z WWDM - a - *.•IL., §8'"..CI>•Lij>CI-I--rX 1-111 1 ';IA4 . Dzoww1-00 A .070 di u) L.T.1w0_1a..5120,- <CGCL Z 6§-ooDn ZO 0000000. A***4., PAC3704 Fountain Pennit1DRAVVING(S7FOUNTAIN Sett.dvg ••• 0 UJ CO b 2 s 51' . O - w re 0 a. 01 0 * ui th •.._ i 0 z I.-. .2% 0,„ Ld W 9. s. 0:3 ., Z it.-- V) V 0 Z cn / 4.9,.. 0 .9.;,, 60, •29, 0 „, I- "— ... . . / ,,,,, ..,,, ,. . / i .. .. iti $.: •• 0 '.' gl .na d 0,,l Z Z 12 ,.. , A, '' 71 c"0,,,.. . • 9'. 0 .2',0 4 43, 1"..•. 0 0 (.3 -. .' .0_,. CCe. 0 X p x k tk, VI 0 „ 0 , 1,9-. , z . , z ‘..4'..„R 04. LIJ "%,;-., *• X x Cr •,„ ,.., / < Z Pa •''' • 1.. -'".'ke, / 4_ . 0 . 'At .Pb „ i 0 . --- '.;51r......420, ...i'' ) . ...r.4.4. . , iz 4Z- 1.114,14....-a.. , ,,,s; =. 0. kir ..;,-. X , 0, .0100... Po ',;..."NiP'.44,42,.......j 4 er ■ . 0 .... - - a /4Z- 49p.a...s.z 0.14- . ........0 A,.•■■■,:,..',. p. % ,,, a Allis :4 otOix '„ . 3x .■,% 4-,-,,,,, D 11111110 ---- ■ .s'Q ■ 9d -'4411111111114riprio 9.,, ■% ,-..-. '%.,,t .9. „ 9 N>s':N■'°.' / . .„„ , co cilnr2 ., _1 . / 0 L ...-1 .4. E _ / CO -J di III 11.1 2,d cn ct „ / ,, - .... o'S ,, , cczawx 0ozx Ct. -r • •-• 3 1:17 i■ 8 ..,3.2 .4 s 03 G 0 5: JR zi3 —i ou_0Lu04 —et =1 ai 'S ..••■ 0- COS PT-1 c') Z 0 w 0 co x ci t -4 p mtezgEai> 0 cc00 •w- cD0 a..)-.5 I j 0 LL.tu,,,Xi_ ireMZU LL 0 z LJ co co 0 ro a n,- g www.c„..d u- 9 E■4 U- 0''' ift0 1; X V, 1 T.,0 gzmi-oono< 1,44. AAA AAAA ZV V VV VV V V ” PA0704 Fountain Permit DRAVVING(SpFOUNTAIN S.1.dg ORDINANCE NO.08— AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH A MOBILE HOME OVERLAY (A-MHO) TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) TO BE KNOWN AS ESPERANZA PLACE RPUD, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 31.6+1- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EH±CTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Heidi K. Williams, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., representing Florida Non-Profit Services,Inc.,and The Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida Community Development Corporation, 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 32 Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Rural Agricultural Zoning District with a Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), in accordance with Exhibits A through F attached hereto and incorporated herein and by reference made part hereof. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps,as described in Ordinance 2001 41,as amended,the Collier County Land Development Code,is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. AGENDA ITEM 8-C Page 1 of 2 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by a supermajority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,this day of ,2008. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK COT J.TFR COUNTY,FLORIDA By: By: ,Deputy Clerk TOM HENNING,CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and legal sufficiency Marjorie M.Student-Stirling Assistant County Attorney Exhibit A: Permitted Uses Exhibit B: Development Standards Exhibit C: Master Plan Exhibit D: Legal Description Exhibit E: List of Request Deviations from LDC Exhibit F: List of Developer Commitments Page 2 of 2 Esperanza Place Residential Planned Unit Development Exhibit A The Esperanza Place RPUD is a total of 31.63 +/- acres that will be developed with up to 262 dwelling units. This amounts to a gross density of 8.28+/- units per acre. The base density is 4 units per acre and the affordable housing density bonus is used to make up the difference. I. Tract A: Tract A of the Esperanza Place RPUD is approximately 15.83± acres, which are to be developed with up to 176 dwelling units and related accessory uses. A. Permitted Uses No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: 1. Principal Uses a. Multi-family dwelling units; b. Zero-lot line units, including townhomes; c. Community center; d. Any other use that is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) according to the process described in the Land Development Code (LDC). 2. Accessory Uses a. Garages; b. Carports; c. Recreation facilities, including but not limited to, swimming pools,tennis courts, playground equipment or other amenity; d. Essential services, in accordance with Section 2.01.03 of the LDC; e. Any other use that is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted uses, as determined by the BZA according to the process described in the LDC. B. Development Standards Table 1 and Table 1.1, contained in Exhibit B, set forth the development standards for land uses within Tract A of the Esperanza Place RPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of the date of approval of the site development plan(SDP) or subdivision plat. k# Esperanza Place RPUD Document,5-27-2008 per CAO Page 1 of 11 II. Tract B: Tract B of the Esperanza Place RPUD is approximately 13.8± acres,which are to be developed with up to 85 dwelling units and related accessory uses. A. Permitted Uses No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used,in whole or in part, for other than the following: 1. Principal Uses a. Single-family, detached dwelling units; b. Single-family, attached dwelling units; c. Any other use that is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the BZA according to the process described in the LDC. 2. Accessory Uses a. Garages; b. Carports; c. Essential services, in accordance with Section 2.01.03 of the LDC; d. Community clubhouse; e. Recreation facilities, including but not limited to, swimming pools,tennis courts, playground equipment or other amenity; f. Any other use that is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted uses, as determined by the BZA according to the process described in the LDC. B. Development Standards Table 1 and Table 1.1, contained in Exhibit B, set forth the development standards for land uses within Tract B of the Esperanza Place RPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. III. Tract C Tract C of the Esperanza Place RPUD is approximately 2.0± acres, which are to be developed with up to 1 single-family dwelling unit and related accessory uses. A. Permitted Uses No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: 1. Principal Uses Esperanza Place RPUD Document,5-27-2008 per CAO Page 2 of 11 • a. Single-family dwelling unit 2. Accessory Uses a. Garages; b. Carports; c. Storage sheds; d. Recreation facilities, including but not limited to, swimming pools,tennis courts, playground equipment or other amenity; e. Essential services, in accordance with Section 2.01.03 of the LDC; f. Any other use that is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted uses, as determined by the BZA according to the process described in the LDC. B. Development Standards Table 1 and Table 1.1, contained in Exhibit B, set forth the development standards for land uses within Tract C of the Esperanza Place RPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. Esperanza Place RPUD Document,5-27-2008 per CAO Page 3 of 11 Exhibit B Development of the Esperanza Place RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan(GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to,final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit and preliminary work authorization,to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards,then the provisions of the most similar district in the LDC shall apply. Table 1 —Principal Structures Tracts A, B & C Development Standards 6 �I w' E Y E ,L■ �¢ 5l am . : P i�� _ , ._,°','a,.lit, '4747k�'.'�.�.rK?,�'„�g ,OPT.„�!to. ...A r:4. .,-.1;:?.:•r'5.., €'r.... .,.. .. a. .. s' . b.}k:-111K3 �•� � EYE�l �F f��_...��..�.. _ � A � ..r.._ _�:... vim_L....._..e.<,.._.w..._ ..e.._r..ic_..F -....n.<.....mJ_vv. L�......�__..e.<..._.b..�.....rt Minimum Lot 5,000 s.f. per 3,500 s.£ per n/a 1,200 s.f. per n/a Area unit unit unit Minimum Lot 50 feet 35 feet n/a 15 feet n/a Width Minimum Floor 1,000 s.f. 750 s.f. 750 s.f. 750 s.f. n/a Area Minimum Setbacks: Front(see Note 2) 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Side 7.5 feet 0 feet and 6 10 feet 0 feet or 6 feet 10 feet feet Rear 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Greater Distance Between 15 feet 12 feet than 20 12 feet 10 feet Structures feet Maximum 35 feet 35 feet 45 feet 45 feet 45 feet "Zoned" Height Maximum 40 feet 40 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet "Actual"Height 1) Principal structures located on corner lots may reduce one of the two front setbacks by 50 percent. The remaining setback must meet the full front setback standard. 2) Driveways shall be a minimum of 23 feet in length from the sidewalk to the garage door or façade of the structure to allow vehicles room to park without obstructing the sidewalk. Esperanza Place RPUD Document,5-27-2008 per CAO Page 4 of 11 Table 1.1 —Accessory Structures Tracts A, B & C Development Standards p if € 6„'Ef°� 9 - l4,� -1. �y( }c p s, T171\11^�o � 5- i ,.d _.... � �- CT b F't< F��( ,F�� @g ({k, 13_kL"'� € �.r: E a� s [ ,r ,t \' 64 ----- -''-_ ---.3�,' rn _p!WG Wff, Atv f•Tji i` l)7.1'1'. +.11 1 )1;°TL •(•!T 5 '..m rc" f\i y`W;.{6,t (, tm_� �~ . .''F� €111{_ r [ ..: if�\1,i''- _, ti 1 � Mme � ,,,,,',,,:-11,()_:,'e-•;:�°.CTt.'` ......,».e.,.c3�,.'«,;„u, '�r �'�`: �:...�,:. ...A...;,.,� .k�=t'F , .,.,,ti`.� :.. ::, - L' ,,,'..-•\,:.€:,_";_i't'::.E.53:::!...,',113;,,,,::.(.,-4:,_; :_f,_..,=.__, i __ .1 - , . .._,....___ 1 ,-- ---- — Minimum Setbacks: Front(see Note 1) 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 10 feet Side 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet Rear 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet M 'ml 3 5 feet 3 5 feet 35 feet 3 5 feet 3 5 feet "Zoned"Height M 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet "Actual" Height 1) Driveways shall be a minimum of 23 feet in length from the sidewalk to the garage door or facade of the structure to allow vehicles room to park without obstructing the sidewalk. Esperanza Place RPUD Document,5-27-2008 per CAO Page 5 of 11 o J "' g o J M ¢r N 2 z W 8 0°K m o CO F— Q' m fX 2 I { < m 5 I CC1 1 r:ij 1 1•N X u) co 22 : I— I— J ,,... 0 0 g... N� b m H f-- J ` J OV W U i 2K Q 20 IY 7-- ------ -^ss \ 1 z R ). , 1 I , zui i Nco i1rij-n = =--ulr, 1 Y D J •z It II U 1 gr Q- < R ° ¢ 5< t 1 US . w , > `1- W n i 1 z.Z p tf • i o . Ow _ WSJ D ND _ _.__.__.__.__.__.__.__.__.__.__.__._..._ ›r • F-1 y6� w S El v g 1 O m W m 0a do i M ca x E 'It i� z zdi OW ND ma Z Q c 0 ° m o c i re '' 1 0 P g¢ m m Z U O m R . f ` � a p4 1- LL i- 0 Z p >a cmr '-'41 O m� mom o m 1 R l Wow z w� o ' w �a O ,= F.. m mo 2 a aoc -1_i_ m DO C N 2 MzM ,UW a ww V ° p ° EE Q¢U U LL¢ w ¢ 'w D° ] -0 m E$ o m E O O O W w Oz D o C a o.o c.< Z o co W o •N a w C m WO - te e . W WK v !° 0 yWW ? c C ` nm om $ x W o K O a ° EE Q << Q a m m r m ¢ o Fo 0 KKwp z>- ¢ S K °¢rn ?Z Xr c o .� WOO Q Q¢ o X o o CO x O a' w 4. M M Z d x x Q a m m _m E c c o M04.1 0 x W O¢ a 0 o mo W I- a o 0u0 m O Q N p r U r m N 11 xXI- r r r W 1-co it E 4 V ;LL Q OXIn { zw ¢U) M = V m 9 a C w y" Z7 z m 0 L C t N cfa V.�< oo 01 w p ;q c ;o a D 1B ¢ c o m b g g o W V.U zo • o o • a 0, Q CCM U JZ z r ¢2 ii co m D m m O ¢ B ¢rN r J r U a m ° W W D O ¢ W J Z u L •$ D•Z J aw a LL U C a. u) °O O C C II IA cc Z U Z 0 z x O J r VD m i U)c J m Z 0 ^m r� ¢¢ ¢ 0- i r ' 7 z m o. x to O O O r ¢ <wo O w w w rmi o o X o 14¢ ° o r 0_ o m Im oK o00 If UU w m U U U p w ¢Q w w m m w A r r r K m N p c Z N D 41 41 inn re Exhibit D Legal Description PARCEL 1 OR 4242 PG 2471 A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH,RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE WEST 264.70 FEET OF THE EAST 1058.10 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, OF SECTION 32,TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH,RANGE 29 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,LESS THE SOUTH 30.00 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. CONTAINING 7.90 ACRES,PLUS OR MINUS. TOGETHER WITH PARCEL 2 OR 4242 PG 2470 A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH,RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST,ALL LYING AND BEING IN COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,LESS AND EXCEPT THE EAST 1,058.80 FEET THEROF AND THE SOUTH 30.00 FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY,CONTAINING 7.92 ACRES,MORE OR LESS. TOGETHER WITH PARCEL 3 OR 1596 PG 43 A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH,RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE WEST 264.70 FEET OF THE EAST 794.10 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, OF SECTION 32,TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH,RANGE 29 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,LESS THE SOUTH 30.00 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. CONTAINING 7.90 ACRES, PLUS OR MINUS. TOGETHER WITH PARCEL 4 OR 1007 PG 1558 THE WEST 264.70'OF THE EAST 529.40'OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH,RANGE 29 EAST ALL LYING AND BEING IN COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,LESS THE SOUTH 30.00'FOR ROAD R/W,CONTAINING 7.90 ACRES,MORE OR LESS. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH,RANGE 29 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Esperanza Place RPUD Document,5-27-2008 per CAO Page 7 of 11 COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 32,TOWNSHIP 46 SOUTH,RANGE 29 EAST THENCE RUN NORTH 89°15'36" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 32,ALSO BEING THE CENTERLINE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD(60'RIGHT-OF-WAY),FOR A DISTANCE OF 1323.92 FEET;THENCE RUN NORTH 00°44'24" WEST FORA DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED, THE SAME BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF IMMOKALEE DRIVE;THENCE RUN NORTH 00°51'21" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 32,FORA DISTANCE OF 1,299.83 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 89°16'27"EAST,FORA DISTANCE OF 1,060.74 FEET;THENCE RUN SOUTH 00°47'35" EAST,FOR A DISTANCE OF 1299.57 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF IMMOKALEE DRIVE; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°15'35" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE,FOR A DISTANCE OF 1059.31 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,CONTAINING 31.63 ACRES,MORE OR LESS. 1 Esperanza Place RPUD Document,5-27-2008 per CAO Page 8 of 11 Exhibit E Deviations from the Land Development Code 1. A deviation from Section 5.05.08 of the LDC which requires non-residential components of any PUD to meet architectural design standards to allow the non-residential component of Tract A to be exempt from these standards. 2. A deviation from Section 3.05.07 of the LDC which requires on-site preservation of 25 percent of the native vegetation on the site to allow off-site preservation or payment toward the Conservation Collier Trust Fund, in accordance with Commitment III.B, described in Exhibit F of this RPUD. Esperanza Place RPUD Document,5-27-2008 per CAO Page 9 of 11 Exhibit F List of Developer Commitments I. Affordable Housing: A. As documented in the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement, the developers have agreed to construct 60 owner-occupied dwelling units for residents in or below the workforce income category (61-80 percent of County median income) and 176 rental units for residents in or below the low income category(51-60 percent of County median income). II. Transportation: A. If any entrance is to be gated, the face of said gate shall be located to maintain no less than a 100-foot throat length to the northerly edge of the pavement at its intersection with Immokalee Drive. B. The developers shall pay a proportionate fair share contribution toward the cost of construction of improvements to the intersection of S.R. 29 and Lake Trafford Road. This contribution shall be made prior to the approval of the first site development plan (SDP)or plans and plat(PPL), whichever occurs first. C. Because the developers anticipate using public funding to construct internal roads, they shall have the option of turning roads built in accordance with County construction standards for local roads over to the County for maintenance. III. Environmental: A. A Florida Black Bear Management Plan shall be provided to the County Manager, or designee, during SDP or plat review process. B. The site currently contains 1.26± acres of native vegetation (0.52+/- acres of upland and 0.73± acres of wetland native vegetation onsite); a minimum of 25 percent, 0.32 acres, must be preserved. For the 0.13 acre portion of the upland vegetation, the applicant will donate an equivalent off-site preserve to be accepted by a public agency or contribute a monetary payment to Conservation Collier equivalent to the average per-acre value found in an appraisal of the entire site, multiplied by the number of acres to be preserved off- site, plus 15 percent of that amount as an endowment for management of off-site land. The appraisal shall be based on the fair market value of the land as if the desired zoning were in place. Twenty-five percent of the 0.73 acre wetland native vegetation will be preserved and appropriately managed off-site at an approved mitigation bank. All preservation must be accomplished prior to SDP/PPL approval. This off-site preservation may be utilized as part of the required off-site mitigation requirement of the Environment Resource Permit. �/y Esperanza Place RPUD Document,5-27-2008 per CAO Page 10 of 11 A C. The subject property was used for agricultural purposes and incurred clearing for which no permit can be located. In order for the clearing activities to be considered legal and re-creation of the removed vegetation not be required, an after-the-fact permit will be issued for the clearing of approximately 23.6 acres prior to approval for the SDP or PPL for relevant acreage. No after-the-fact clearing fee will be assessed against the developers. The regular clearing fee shall apply. Esperanza Place RPUD Document,5-27-2008 per CAO Page 11 of 11 This space for recording AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS AND IMPOSING COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS ON REAL PROPERTY THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the 10th day of June , 2008, by and between Florida Non-Profit Services, Inc. and the Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida Community Development Corporation (the "Developers") and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (the "Commission"), collectively, the "Parties." RECITALS: A. The Developer owns a tract of real property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein (The "Property"). It is the Developer's intent to construct a maximum of 262 residential units (the "Units") at a density of 8.28± units per gross acre on the Property. The gross acreage of Property is 31.63± acres. The number of affordable-workforce-gap housing units constructed by Developer shall be 236 , representing 90 percent of the total number of residential Units approved in the development, or 175 percent of the approved bonus units. B. In order to construct the Units, the Developer must obtain a density bonus Page 1 of 30 4/29/2008 Attachment"A" from the Commission for the Property as provided for in the Collier County Affordable Housing Density Bonus Ordinance No. 90-89, now codified by Ordinance 04-41, as amended, as Land Development Code (LDC) § 2.06.00 et seq., which density bonus can only be granted by the Commission and utilized by the Developer in accordance with the strict limitations and applicability of said provisions. C. The Commission is willing to grant a density bonus to the Developer authorizing the construction of 135 bonus Units on the Property, if the Developer agrees to construct affordable, workforce, and gap Units as specified in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the approval and grant of the density bonus of 4.28 units per acre requested by the Developer and the benefits conferred thereby on the Property, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Developer and the Commission hereby covenant and agree as follows: 1. Recitals. The above Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. 2. Developer Agreements. The Developer hereby agrees that he shall construct up to 262 units, not to exceed 90 percent of the approved residential density as affordable-workforce housing units, which Units shall be sold in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and as specified by the attached Appendices A & B, Exhibits A, B, & C, and Appendix C, which Appendices are incorporated by reference herein and which constitute a part of this Agreement. a. The following provisions shall be applicable to the affordable, workforce and gap Units: (1) Defined terms: In the event of a conflict between terms as defined in the LDC or in Ordinance No. 90-89, Section 4, the definitions of the LDC will control when applying or interpreting this Agreement. In addition to these defined terms and the applicability of LDC § 2.06.04 "Phasing" shall mean: (a) the phased construction of Page 2 of 30 buildings or structures in separate and distinct stages as shown on a PUD master plan, subdivision master plan or site development plan; or (b) in developments where phased construction is not depicted on a PUD master plan, subdivision master plan or site development plan, the construction of buildings or structures in a clearly defined series of starts and finishes that are separate and distinct within the development. (2) Median Income. For the purposes of this Agreement, the median income of the area as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) shall be the then current median income for the Naples Metropolitan Statistical Area, established periodically by HUD and published in the Federal Register, as adjusted for family size as shown on the tables attached hereto as Appendix A, Exhibit C, which Exhibit shall be adjusted from time to time in accordance with any adjustments that are authorized by HUD or any successor agency. In the event that HUD ceases to publish an established median income as aforesaid, the Parties hereto shall mutually agree to another reasonable and comparable method of computing adjustments in median income. (3) Eligibility and Qualification of Owner. Family income eligibility is a three-step process: 1) submittal of an application by a prospective Owner; 2) verification of family housing unit provided under the affordable, workforce, and gap housing density bonus program prior to being qualified at the appropriate level of income (very low, low, workforce, or gap income) in accordance with this Section; 3) certification of eligible Owner by the Financial Administration and Housing Department. The Developer shall be responsible for qualifying Owners by accepting applications, verifying income and obtaining income certification for all affordable, workforce, and gap units in the subject development. All applications, forms and other documentation required by this Agreement shall be provided to Housing and Human Services Department. Qualification by the Developer of any persons as an eligible Owner family shall be subject to review and approval in accordance with the monitoring Page 3 of 30 and enforcement program in LDC §§ 2.06.05 and 2.06.06, respectively. The Developer and Commission acknowledge and agree that once the developer has delivered all affordable, workforce, and gap units contemplated under this Agreement to approved purchasers, the Developer shall no longer be required to provide progress and monitoring reports, and shall no longer be liable for enforcement action under this Agreement. (a) Application. A potential owner shall apply to the developer, owner, manager, or agent to qualify as a very low, low, workforce, or gap income family for the purpose of owning and occupying an affordable-workforce-gap housing unit pursuant to the affordable-workforce housing density bonus program. The Preliminary Application for affordable-workforce housing unit shall be provided to Collier County Housing and Human Services Department as shown in Appendix B, Exhibit A, attached to this Agreement and incorporated by reference herein. (b) Income Verification and Certification. No affordable-workforce housing unit in the development shall be sold whose household income has not been verified and certified in accordance with this Agreement and LDC § 2.06.05. (c) Income Verification. The Developer shall obtain written verification from the potential occupant (including the entire household) to verify all regular sources of income (including the entire household). The most recent year's federal income tax return for the potential occupants (including the entire household) may be used for the purpose of income verification, attached to the affordable-workforce housing applicant Income Verification form, including a statement to release information, occupant verification of the return, and a signature block with the date of application. The verification shall be valid for up to one hundred eighty (180) days prior to occupancy. Upon expiration of the 180 day period, the information may be verbally updated from the original sources for an additional 30 days, provided it has been documented by the person preparing the original verification. After this time, a new verification form must Page 4 of 30 be completed. The affordable-workforce housing Applicant Income Verification form shall be provided to the Housing and Human Services Department as shown in Appendix B, Exhibit B, attached to this Agreement and incorporated by reference herein. (d) Income Certification. Upon receipt of the Preliminary Application for an affordable-workforce housing unit and Applicant Income Verification form, the Developer shall require that an income certification form be executed by the potential occupant (including the entire household) prior to occupancy of the affordable- workforce housing unit by the occupant. Income certification shall assure that the potential occupant has an appropriate household income which qualifies the potential occupant as an eligible family to occupy an affordable-workforce housing unit under the affordable-workforce housing density bonus program. The affordable-workforce Housing Applicant Income Certification form shall be provided by the Housing and Human Services Department as shown in Appendix B, Exhibit C, is attached to this Agreement and is incorporated by reference herein. Random inspection of files containing required documentation to verify occupancy in accordance with this Agreement and LDC § 2.06.00, may be conducted by the Housing and Human Services Department upon reasonable notice. (4) Annual Progress and Monitoring Report. The Developer shall provide the Housing and Human Services Department an annual progress and monitoring report regarding the delivery of affordable-workforce-gap housing units throughout the period of their construction and occupancy. The annual progress and monitoring report shall, at a minimum, provide any information reasonably required to insure compliance with LDC § 2.06.00, or subsequent amendments thereto. The report shall be filed on or before September 30 of each year and the report shall be submitted by the Developer to the Housing and Human Services Department. Failure to complete and submit the monitoring report to the Housing and Human Services Department within sixty (60) Page 5 of 30 days from the due date shall result in a penalty of up to fifty dollars ($50.00) per day unless a written extension not to exceed thirty (30) days is requested prior to expiration of the sixty (60) day submission deadline. No more than one such extension may be granted in a single year. (5) Occupancy Restrictions. No affordable-workforce unit in any building or structure on the Property shall be occupied by the Developer, any person related to or affiliated with the Developer, or by a resident manager. 3. Density Bonus. The Commission hereby acknowledges that the Developer has met all required conditions to qualify for a density bonus, in addition to the base residential density of 4 units per acre, and is therefore granted a density bonus of 4.28 density bonus units per acre, for a total density (total = density bonus units per acre X gross acreage) of 8.28 units/ac, pursuant to LDC § 2.06.00 The Commission further agrees that the Developer may construct thereon, in the aggregate a maximum number of 262 units on the Property provided the Developer is able to secure building permit(s) from Collier County. 4. Commission Agreement. During the term of this Agreement, the Commission acting through the Financial Administration and Housing Department or its successor(s) covenants and agrees to prepare and make available to the Developer any general information that it possesses regarding income limitations and restrictions which are applicable to the affordable, workforce, or gap Unit. 5. Violations and Enforcement a. Violations. It shall be a violation of this Agreement and LDC § 2.06.00 to sell or occupy, or attempt to sell or occupy, an affordable-workforce housing unit provided under the affordable-workforce housing density bonus program except as specifically permitted by the terms of this Agreement; or to knowingly give false or misleading information with respect to any information required or requested by the Housing and Human Services Department or by any other persons pursuant to the Page 6 of 30 authority which is delegated to them by LDC § 2.06.00. Collier County or its designee shall have full power to enforce the terms of this Agreement. The method of enforcement for a breach or violation of this Agreement shall be at the option of the Commission by criminal enforcement pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.69, Florida Statutes, or by civil enforcement as allowed by law. b. Notice of Violation for Code Enforcement Board Proceedings. Whenever it is determined that there is a violation of this Agreement or of LDC § 2.06.00, that should be enforced before the Code Enforcement Board, then a Notice of Violation shall be issued and sent by the appropriate department by-certified return- receipt requested U.S. Mail, or hand-delivery to the person or developer in violation. The Notice of Violation shall comply with the requirements for such Notices. c. Certificate of Occupancy. In the event that the Developer fails to maintain the affordable-workforce units in accordance with this Agreement or LDC § 2.06.00, as amended, at the option of the Commission, building permits or certificates of occupancy, as applicable, may be withheld for any future planned or otherwise approved unit located or to be located upon the Property until the entire project is in full compliance with this Agreement and with LDC § 2.06.00, as amended. 6. Assignment by Commission. The Commission may assign all or part of its obligations under this Agreement to any other public agency having jurisdiction over the Property provided that it gives the Developer thirty (30) days advance written notice thereof. The Developer may not assign, delegate or otherwise transfer all or part of its duties, obligations, or promises under this Agreement to any successor in interest to the Property without the express written consent of the Commission, which consent may be withheld for any reason whatsoever. Any attempt to assign the duties, obligations, or promises under this Agreement to any successor in interest to the Property without the express written consent of the Commission as required by this Section shall be void ab initio. Page 7 of 30 7. Severability. If any section, phrase, sentence or portion of this Agreement is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision, and all other provisions shall remain effective and binding on the Parties. 8. Notice. Any notices desired or required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall either be personally delivered or shall be sent by mail, postage prepaid, to the Parties at the following addresses: To the Commission: Collier County Housing and Human Services Department 3050 North Horseshoe Drive Suite 110 Naples, Florida 34104 To the Developer: Florida Non-Profit Services, Inc 900 Broad Avenue, Suite #2-c Naples, FL 34102 Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida Community Development Corporation 750 S. Fifth Street Immokalee, FL 34142 Any Party may change the address to which notices are to be sent by notifying the other Party of such new address in the manner set forth above. 9. Authority to Monitor. The Parties hereto acknowledge that the Collier County Financial Administration and Housing Department or its designee, shall have the authority to monitor and enforce the Developer's obligations hereunder. 10. Indemnify. The Developer °hereby agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and hold Collier County and its officers, employees, and agents harmless from and against any and all claims, penalties, damages, losses and expenses, professional fees, including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees and all costs of litigation and judgments arising out of any claim, willful misconduct or negligent act, error or Page 8 of 30 omission, or liability of any kind made by Developer, its agents or employees, arising out of or incidental to the performance of this Agreement. 11. Covenants. The Developer agrees that all of its obligations hereunder shall constitute covenants, restrictions, and conditions which shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Property and against every person then having any ownership interest at any time and from time to time until this Agreement is terminated in accordance with Section 14 below. However, the Parties agree that if Developer transfers or conveys the Property to another person or entity, Developer shall have no further obligation hereunder and any person seeking to enforce the terms hereof shall look solely to Developer's successor in interest for the performance of said obligations. 12. Recording. This Agreement shall be recorded at County's expense in the official records of Collier County, Florida. 13. Entire Agreement. The Parties hereto agree that this Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the Parties hereto and shall inure to and be binding upon their respective heirs, successors, and assigns. 14. Termination. Each affordable, workforce, or gap housing unit shall be restricted to remain and be maintained as the required affordable, workforce, and gap housing as provided in the LDC §2.06.04. 15. Modification. This Agreement shall be modified or amended only by the written agreement of both Parties. 16. Discrimination. a. The Developer agrees that neither it nor its agents shall discriminate against any owner or potential owner because of said owners race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or handicap. b. When the Developer advertises, sells or maintains the affordable- workforce housing unit, it must advertise sell, and maintain the same in a non- discriminatory manner and shall make available any relevant information to any person Page 9 of 30 who is interested in purchasing such affordable-workforce housing unit. c. The Developer agrees to be responsible for payment of any real estate commissions and fees for which it is liable in the purchase and sale of affordable-workforce units. e. The affordable-workforce housing units shall be intermixed with, and not segregated from, the market rate dwelling units in the development. f. The square footage, construction and design of the affordable, workforce, and gap housing units shall be the same as market rate dwelling units in the development. All physical amenities in the dwelling units, as described in item number seven (7) of the Developer Application for affordable-workforce housing Density Bonus shall be the same for market rate units and affordable-workforce units. For developments where construction takes place in more than one phase, all physical amenities as described in item number seven (7) of the Developer Application for Affordable-Workforce Housing Density Bonus shall be the same in both the market rate units and the affordable-workforce units in each phase. Units in a subsequent phase may contain different amenities than units in a previous phase so long as the amenities for market rate units and affordable, workforce, and gap units are the same within each phase and provided that in no event may a market rate unit or affordable-workforce unit in any phase contain physical amenities less than those described in the Developer Application. 17. Phasing. The percentage of affordable-workforce housing units to which the Developer has committed for the total development shall be maintained in each phase and shall be constructed as part of each phase of the development on the Property. Developer commits to 90 percent affordable-workforce-gap housing units for this project, with 90 percent of the units in each phase consisting of affordable- workforce units. 18. Disclosure. The developer shall not disclose to persons, other than the Page 10 of 30 potential buyer or lender of the particular affordable-workforce housing unit or units, which units in the development are designated as affordable-workforce housing units. 19. Consistency. This Agreement and authorized development shall be consistent with the Growth Management Plan and land development regulations of Collier County that are in effect at the time of development. Subsequently adopted laws and policies shall apply to this Agreement and to the development to the extent that they are not in conflict with the number, type of affordable-workforce housing units and the amount of affordable-workforce housing density bonus approved for the development. 20. Affordable-Workforce Housing Density Bonus Development Agreement. This Agreement is a distinct and separate agreement from "development agreements" as defined by Section 163.3220, Fla. Stat., as amended. 21. Pre-application. Developer has executed and submitted to the Development Services Department the Developer Application for Affordable-Workforce Housing Density Bonus, a copy of which is attached to this Agreement as Appendix C and incorporated by reference herein. 22. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. 23. Further Assurances. The Parties hereto shall execute and deliver, in recordable form if necessary, any and all documents, certificates, instruments, and agreements which may be reasonably required in order to effectuate the intent of the Agreement. Such documents shall include but not be limited to any document requested by the Developer to exhibit that this Agreement has terminated in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 14 above. Page 11 of 30 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Deputy Clerk By: Tom Henning, CHAIRMAN • Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: AssistWnt County Attorney FLORIDA NON-PROFIT SERVICES, INC.: Witnesses: 4 $ By: 11'4 -1irr Witness 'tG C LC� Printed s Name By: Witness Printed Name Page 12 of 30 STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF COLLIER ) The foregoing Agreement Authorizing Affordable, Workforce, and Gap Housing Density Bonus And Imposing Covenants And Restrictions On Real Property was acknowledged Non before me by as \C{.'"Ck:0-D-GrN who is personally known to me or has produced (f 39 3-O as identification. WITNESS my hand and official seal this P day of Nptri t , 2008. PERU Y.CARDENAS c a)AS, .(.3 : ,a∎ ;,1 MY COMMISSION f DD 677285 Notary Public• EXPIRES:Felnary 28,2010 My Commission Expires -.. ;r:" BoidedThniP1o1ary Pubk Uidervides EMPOWERMENT ALLIANCE OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: Witnesses: D0,47/1 L K: 51-A Loc-/€ jogl,fsre%Adlr-lorefie Witness �I. Printed amen' By:Z—cLA� tic) I Witness Printed Name STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF COLLIER ) The foregoing Agreement Authorizing Affordable, Workforce, and Gap Housing Density Bonus And Imposing Covenants And Restrictions On Real Property was acknowledged Page 13 of 30 before me by AC)'•/rcQ who is personally known to me or has produced p.Da-r d O as identification. WITNESS my hand and official seal this 5 day of Ma 2000 (PROM Ethel Sharon Rod r edgej")Commission#DD52 GO J ,�Expires: MAR. 14, 2010 Bonded Thru Atlantic Bonding Co.,Inc, Notary Public My Commission Expires: Tl\OJL c1 /1"/ , /c� Page 14 of 30 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION APPENDIX A, EXHIBIT A NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS/MONTHLY BASE RENTS NUMBER OF UNITS BASE RENT Single Multi Single Multi Family Family Family Family GAP INCOME (81-150% MI) Efficiency 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom TOTAL 0 0 WORKFORCE INCOME (61-80% MI) Efficiency l Bedroom 2 Bedroom 15 3 Bedroom 15 15 4 Bedroom 15 TOTAL 30 30 Page 15 of 30 LOW INCOME (51%-60% MI) Efficiency 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 103 3 Bedroom 73 4 Bedroom TOTAL 0 176 VERY LOW INCOME (50% OR LESS MI) Efficiency 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom TOTAL 0 0 (1) Base residential density allowed in this development: 4 units/acre (2) Gross acreage: 31.63± acres (3) Maximum number of affordable-workforce-gap housing density bonus units allowed in this development pursuant to LDC Section 2.06.00: 8 units (4) Gross residential density of this development(including affordable-workforce-gap housing density bonus units): 8.28 units/acre (5) Percentage of affordable-workforce housing units pledged by the developer(as a percent of the total number units in the development): 90% Page 16 of 30 APPENDIX A, EXHIBIT B AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS RATING SYSTEM LDC § 2.06.03, provides for calculation of a density bonus for developers pledging to construct affordable-workforce-gap units within their development. Included in this Exhibit B are instructions for and the tables with which to calculate the density bonus for a particular project. Exhibit C contains the current median income and acceptable rents for very low, low, workforce, and gap income households in Collier County. The affordable-workforce housing density bonus rating system shall be used to determine the amount of the affordable-workforce housing density bonuses which may be granted for a development based on household income level and percentage of affordable, workforce, and gap housing units in the development. To use the affordable-workforce housing density bonus rating system, Table A, below, shall be used. Table A shall be reviewed and updated if necessary on an annual basis by the Board of County Commissioners or its designee. First, choose the household income level (very low, low, workforce, or gap) of the affordable-workforce housing unit(s) proposed in the development, as shown in Table A. Next, • determine the percent of that type of affordable-workforce housing unit(s) proposed in the development compared to the total number of dwelling units in the development. From this determination, Table A will indicate the maximum number of residential dwelling units per gross acre that may be added to the base density. These additional residential dwelling units per gross acre are the maximum affordable- workforce housing density bonus (AWHDB) available to that development. Developments with percentages of affordable-workforce housing units which fall in between the percentages shown on Table A shall receive an affordable-workforce housing density bonus equal the lower of the two percentages it lies between plus 1/10th of a residential dwelling unit per gross acre for each additional percentage of affordable-workforce housing rental units in the development. For example, a development which has 24% of its total residential dwelling units as affordable- workforce housing units, and which has an affordable housing density bonus rating of"four" will receive an affordable-workforce housing density bonus (AWHDB) of 4.4 residential dwelling units per gross acre for the development. In no event shall the affordable-workforce housing density bonus exceed eight (8) dwelling units per gross acre. Page 17 of 30 APPENDIX A, EXHIBIT B AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS RATING SYSTEM Please calculate your density bonus in the space provided below. Attach additional pages if necessary. TABLE A: AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS RATING MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DENSITY BONUS BY PERCENT OF DEVELOPMENT DESIGNATED AS AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING Household Product Income 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% (%median) 81-150% Gap MI* ** 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 6 n/a (Gap) 61-80% Workforce MI* 2 3 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 51-60% Low MI 3 4 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 50% Very Low or less 4 5 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 MI *Owner-occupied only **May only be used in conjunction with at least 10% at or below 80% MI Total Maximum Allowable Density =Base Density+Affordable-Workforce Housing Density Bonus. In no event shall the maximum gross density allowed exceed 16 units per acre. Base Density = 4 units per acre 23% Workforce=+3 units per acre 67% Low =+8 units per acre Total Bonus Density =+8 units per acre (maximum permitted) Total Allowable Density= 12 units per acre Page 18 of 30 APPENDIX A, EXHIBIT C INCOME AND RENT LEVELS FOR THE LOW AND MODERATE INCOME. Pursuant Chapter 74, Section 74-402 (a)(1); Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, moderate income is 61%to 80% of the median income, low income is 51%to 60%of the median income and very low income is less than 50% of the median income. MEDIAN INCOME 2007 $63,300 Naples, MSA (Collier County) NUMBER OF MEMBERS IN FAMILY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 150% 73,350 83,700 94,200 104,700 113,100 121,500 129,900 138,150 80% 39,100 44,650 50,250 55,850 60,300 64,750 69,250 73,700 60% 29,340 33,480 37,680 41,880 45,240 48,600 51,960 55,260 50% 24,450 27,900 31,400 34,900 37,700 40,500 43,300 46,050 35% 17,115 19,530 21,980 24,430 26,390 28,350 30,310 32,235 25% 12,225 13,950 15,700 17,450 18,850 20,250 21,650 23,025 RECOMMENDED RENTAL RATES The Florida Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC) calculates rents to use in the State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) and the Low-Income Rental Housing Tax Credit(LIHTC) programs. The rents given below are based on 2001 data from FHFC. Utility costs are provided from the County's Section 8 Rental Assistance Program which is administered by the Collier County Housing Authority. HOUSING COSTS BASED ON 30% FAMILY INCOME ONE TWO THREE FOUR BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT 150% $1,961 $2,355 $2,720 $3,034 80% $1,046 $1,256 $1,451 $1,618 60% $785 $942 _$1,089 $1,215 50% $654 $785 $907 $1,012 35% $458 $549 $635 $708 25% $327 $392 $453 $506 Page 19 of 30 UTILITY ALLOWANCES ONE B/R TWO B/R THREE B/R FOUR B/R LOCATION UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT Naples and Coastal Collier County 71.00 91.00 128.00 156.00 Immokalee and East of Everglades Blvd. 67.00 106.00 148.00 173.00 Golden Gate 96.00 144.00 186.00 211.00 YOU MUST DEDUCT UTILITIES TO CALCULATE NET RENTS. Page 20 of 30 APPENDIX B,EXHIBIT A PRELIMINARY APPLICATION FOR AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING UNIT Date Occupancy Desired: Date of Application: Amt. Of Sec. Deposit: Your Name: Race/National Origin: Handicap: Yes No Co-Tenant Name Race/National Origin: Handicap: Yes No Present Address: Street City State Zip Telephone No. Name of Landlord How Long at this Address: Landlord's Address: Street City State Zip Telephone No. If you have resided at your present address less than 3 years, please state previous address: Street City State Zip Telephone No. Name of Previous Landlord Street City State Zip Telephone No. APPLICANT: Present Employers Name Address and Telephone No. How long with Present Employer: Job Title Gross Salary: Hourly $ Weekly $ Every 2 Weeks $ Monthly $ Social Security Number Birth Date Previous Employers Name Address and Telephone No. How long with Previous Employer Job Title CO-TENANT: Present Employers Name Address and Telephone No. How long with Present Employer: Job Title Page 21 of 30 Gross Salary: Hourly$ Weekly $ Every 2 Weeks $ Monthly $ Social Security Number Birth Date Previous Employers Name Address and Telephone No. How long with Previous Employer Job Title NAMES OF ALL WHO WILL OCCUPY APARTMENT BIRTH DATE SEX AGE SOCIAL SECURITY 3. PERSONAL REFERENCES(Not Relatives) I. Name: Address: How Long Known: 2. Name: Address: How Long Known: Page 22 of 30 APPENDIX B, EXHIBIT B AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING APPLICANT INCOME VERIFICATION Date: Applicant's Name: Social Security Number Co-Tenant's Name: : Social Security Number Present Address: Street City State Zip Telephone No. I hereby make application for a single family unit at . I hereby declare and reveal all of my sources of income. I am aware that to leave out, omit or fail to report my assets or forms of income from pensions, stocks, bonds, real property rent, sale or ownership is a fraudulent act punishable by law. Knowingly falsifying information on this form is cause for refusal of occupancy. I hereby certify that this will be my permanent residence and that I have no other assisted housing. I understand that this information is for the purpose of computing my annual income to determine my qualification to buy an affordable, workforce, or gap housing unit. I understand that I am not required to surrender my ownership or rights or claimed property, pensions or capital gains, etc. Applicant Co-Occupant Amount Frequency Amount Frequency Received of Pay Received of Pay Wages/Salary $ $ Bonuses $ $ Tips $ $ Commissions $ $ Interest Income $ $ Trust Fund Income $ $ Unemployment $ $ Workman's Compensation $ $ Welfare $ $ Food Stamps $ $ Social Security $ $ Social Security Disability $ $ Supplemental SSI $ $ Family Assistance $ $ Child Support $ $ Veterans Benefits $ $ Widows Benefits $ $ Page 23 of 30 Union Pension $ $ Self-Employment Business, Silent Partner, etc. $ $ Private Insurance Pension $ - $ TOTAL ANNUAL INCOME $ $ THE VERIFICATION HERE REQUESTED MAY TAKE THE FORM OF THE MOST RECENT YEAR'S INCOME TAX RETURN FOR EACH OCCUPANT WHO HAS FILED AND WILL OCCUPY THE AFFORDABLE, WORKFORCE,OR GAP HOUSING UNIT. THE SAME MUST BE EXECUTED FOR EACH OCCUPANT OF THE HOUSEHOLD WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME. FAILURE TO REPORT ALL SOURCES OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME WILL RESULT IN DISQUALIFICATION FOR TENANCY IN AFFORDABLE, WORKFORCE, OR GAP HOUSING UNIT. Page 24 of 30 APPENDIX B, EXHIBIT C AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING APPLICANT INCOME CERTIFICATION APPLICANT: Present Employer: Job Title: Address: Street City State Zip I, ,hereby authorize the release of information requested (Applicant) on this certification form. Signature of Applicant STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) ss COUNTY OF COLLIER) The foregoing was acknowledged before me by Who is personally known to me or has produced as identification. Witness my hand and official seal this day of , 20 (notary seal) Notary Public My Commission Expires: Page 25 of 30 EMPLOYER CERTIFICATION Applicant's Gross Annual Income or Rate of Pay: $ Number of Hours Worked (Weekly): . Frequency of Pay: Amount of Bonuses, Tips, or other Compensation Received: $ $ Monthly Annually Supervisor STATE OF FLORIDA ) ) ss COUNTY OF COLLIER) The foregoing was acknowledged before me by Who is personally known to me or has produced as identification. Witness my hand and official seal this day of , 20 (notary seal) Notary Public My Commission Expires: THE CERTIFICATION HERE REQUESTED MAY TAKE THE FORM OF THE MOST RECENT YEAR'S INCOME TAX RETURN FOR EACH OCCUPANT WHO HAS FILED AND WILL OCCUPY THE AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE-GAP HOUSING UNIT. Page 26 of 30 APPENDIX C DEVELOPER APPLICATION FOR AFFORDABLE-WORKFORCE HOUSING DENSITY BONUS Pursuant to LDC § 2.06.01 please complete this form and submit it with any accompanying documentation to the Community Development & Environmental Services Division, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. A copy must also be provided to the Collier County Housing and Human Services Department. All items requested must be provided. 1. Please state what zoning districts are proposed by the applicant, if any, on the property and the acreage of each; Residential Planned Unit Development; 31.63± acres. 2. Has an application for rezoning been requested in conjunction with the affordable, workforce and gap housing Density bonus? X Yes No If yes, state date of application and if the request has been approved, state the Ordinance number N/A. 3. Gross density of the proposed development. 8.28 units per acre Gross acreage of the proposed development. 31.63±acres 4. Are affordable-workforce-gap housing density bonus units sought in conjunction with an application for a planned unit development (PUD)? X Yes No. If yes, please state name and location of the PUD and any other identifying information. Esperanza Place RPUD; 2702 and 2210 Immokalee Drive 5. Name of applicant Florida Non-Profit Services, Inc. and Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida Community Development Corporation Name of land developer if not the same as Applicant: Page 27 of 30 6. Please complete the following tables as they apply to the proposed development. TABLE I Total Number of Units in Development Type of Owner Unit Rental Occupied Efficiency One Bedroom Two Bedroom 103 _ Three Bedroom 73 30 Other Bedroom 56 TOTAL 176 86 TABLE II Number of Affordable-Workforce Housing Units Total Number of Proposed Use for Affordable-Work- Density Bonus Units force Units in Development Owner Owner Rental Occupied Rental Occupied GAP INCOME 81-150% MI Efficiency 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Other 0 0 0 0 Page 28 of 30 TOTAL 0 In accordance with LDC Section 2.06.03.D. —All owner occupied WORKFORCE INCOME 61-80% MI Efficiency 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 30 30 Other 30 30 TOTAL 60 In accordance with LDC Section 2.06.03.D. —All owner occupied LOW INCOME 51-60% MI Efficiency l Bedroom 2 Bedroom 103 103 3 Bedroom 73 73 Other TOTAL 176 0 176 0 VERY LOW INCOME 50% OR LESS MI Efficiency 1 Bedroom Page 29 of 30 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Other TOTAL 0 0 0 0 7. Please provide a physical description of the affordable-workforce units by type of unit (very low income, low income, workforce income, gap income) and by number of bedrooms. Include in your description, for example, the square footage of each type of unit, floor coverings used throughout the unit (carpeting, tile, vinyl flooring); window treatments; appliances provided such as washer/dryer, dishwasher, stove, refrigerator; bathroom amenities, such as ceiling exhaust fans; and any other amenities as applicable. Attach additional pages as Exhibit"D" if needed. The proposed dwelling units have not been designed at this time and therefore this information is not yet available. 8. Please supply any other information which would reasonably be needed to address this request for an affordable, workforce, and gap housing density bonus for this development. Attach additional pages if needed. The co-applicants are partnering in their development efforts to ensure the highest level of efficiency during the entitlement phase for these organizations. If approved, this development will provide housing to aid in meeting the large demand for affordable housing in Collier County. Page 30 of 30 Qi-FICr uF i {:� COUNTY RESOLUTION AT i Q P�-�': 08$ItY 19 At a meeting of the Florida Non-Profit Services, Inc. ("FNPS") Board of Directors held on April 21, 2008, where a quorum of the Board was present, the following resolution was adopted: BE IT RESOLVED THAT: • Alan. L. Parker, as Vice Chairman, acting individually, is hereby authorized to sign that certain Agreement Authorizing Affordable-Workforce Housing Density Bonus and Imposing Covenants and Restrictions on Real Property with Collier County, Florida concerning the construction of farmworker housing to be built by FNPS on a sixteen (16) acre tract of land located at 2702 West Immokalee Drive, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Signed this 21sL day of April 2008. arl J. Kuehner, Chairma- 17al4.i • Harriet Lancaster,Lancaster, Secretary AGENDA ITEM 8-D ORDINANCE NO.08- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO BE KNOWN AS THE STANDING OAKS RPUD, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 41.1± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS,Dwight Nadeau,of RWA,Inc. and Richard D.Yovanovich Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman &Johnson,P.A., representing Standing Oaks, L.L.C., 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 31,Township 48 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida,is changed from a Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District in accordance with the attached Exhibits "A" through "F," which are incorporated herein and by reference made part hereof. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code,is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. Page 1 of 2 1 T PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of 2008. ATTEST BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Dwight E.Brock,Clerk OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA By: By: ,Deputy Clerk TOM HENNING,CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: t Marjorie M.Student-Stirling Assistant County Attorney Exhibit"A": Permitted Uses Exhibit`B": Development Standards Exhibit"C": Master Plan Exhibit"D": Legal Description Exhibit"E": List of Requested Deviations from LDC Exhibit"F': List of Developer Commitments /'■ /"'•\ PUDZ-AR-9143/Standing Oaks/Ordinance/3-05-08 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A PROJECT LAND USE TRACTS . TYPE UNITS. ACREAGE± TRACT"R" RESIDENTIAL 164 31.38 TRACT"RA" RECREATION AREA 0 1.15 TRACT"P" PRESERVE 0 8.57 Total 164 41.1 TRACT "R"PERMITTED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part,for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1) Single-family detached dwellings; 2) Single-family attached dwellings (including townhouses intended for fee simple conveyance including the platted lot associated with the residence); 3) Villa/patio dwellings (detached single-family dwellings of a smaller scale than the typical single-family detached dwelling.); 4) Multi-family dwellings; 5) Agricultural land uses, such as cattle/horse grazing, on an interim basis until a site development plan (SDP), or plat is approved for land uses permitted by this RPUD. 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 LDC. B. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: private garages, swimming pools with or without screened enclosures. 1) Model homes (limited to 10 model units/homes — see Deviation #3 in Exhibit E); 2) Project sales, construction and administrative offices, which may occur in residential,and/or in temporary buildings. A-1 S t II TRACT "RA"PERMITTED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1) One private clubhouse, intended to provide social and recreational space; 2) Outdoor recreation facilities, such as a community swimming pool, tennis and basketball courts, playground improvements/facilities, and passive and/or active water features. B. Accessory Uses: Customary accessory uses or structures incidental to recreation areas and/or facilities, including structures constructed for purposes of maintenance, storage or shelter. III TRACT"P"PERMITTED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1) Native preserves. 2) Water management structures. 3) Mitigation areas. 4) Pervious 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 as long as any clearing required to facilitate these uses does not impact the minimum required native vegetation. A-2 EXHIBIT B RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS GENERAL: Development of the Standing Oaks RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to, final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit, and preliminary work authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the LDC shall apply. Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the RPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or Subdivision plat. Figures 2 and 3 generally depict typical development standards for each residential product type. Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth below shall be understood to be in relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures. Condominium, and/or homeowners' association boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development standards. ���� B-1 , 7 TABLE I iiirir u. _ . N s c S & rtAZT'7Z--ptSZW-''4 a$° g(• MINIMUM LOT AREA 5,000 S.F. PER 2,250 S.F. PER 2,250 S.F. PER 10,000 S.F. 10,000 S.F. UNIT UNIT UNIT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 50 FEET 25 FEET 35 FEET 100 FEET 100 FEET MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 1,000 S.F 1,000 S.F 1,000 S.F 1,000 S.F. N/A MIN FRONT YARD 20 FEET 20 FEET 20 FEET 20 FEET 20 FEET MIN SIDE YARD 6 FEET 0 FEET or 3 FEET or GREATER OF 6 15 FEET 6 FEET 9 FEET FEET OR Y BH MIN REAR YARD 15 FEET 15 FEET 15 FEET 15 FEET 10 FEET MIN PRESERVE SETBACK 25 FEET 25 FEET 25 FEET 25 FEET 25 FEET MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN 12 FEET 12 FEET 12 FEET GREATER OF12 15 FEET STRUCTURES FEET OR Y Sum of BH MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 2 STORIES NTE 2 STORIES NTE 2 STORIES NTE 3 STORIES NTE 2 STORIES NTE (ZONED) 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 45 FEET 45 FEET 45 FEET 50 FEET 50 FEET (ACTUAL) .4P _tvji e a .;�;' ,.. - t���'��•C?�l.�,.n ....>�m >. K'�;n.� �' "?€e'.`�-s",.._ . ,,*,„,...,,,A0,-. ' .,.'„ #' s.��; ..,.e:,`' .Vic` 3 ::.:: � A4 . a a FRONT YARD S.P.S. S.P.S. S.P.S. S.P.S. 20 FEET SIDE YARD S.P.S. S.P.S. S.P.S. S.P.S. Y BH REAR YARD 5 FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET PRESERVE SETBACK 10 FEET 10 FEET 10 FEET 10 FEET 10 FEET MINIMUM DISTANCE 12 FEET 12 FEET 12 FEET GREATER OF 12 GREATER OF 15 BETWEEN STRUCTURES FEET OR 1/2 SUM FEET OR 1/2 BH of BH MAXIMUM OVERALL 2 STORIES NTE 2 STORIES NTE 2 STORIES NTE 2 STORIES NTE 2 STORIES NTE BUILDING HEIGHT 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET 40 FEET 35 FEET BH=Building Height; NTE=Not To Exceed; S.P.S.=Same as Principal Structures. "^\ B-2 , Notes: 1) No structures are permitted in the required 20-foot lake maintenance easement No setback is required for structures adjacent to a lake maintenance easement. 2) Side yards—No side yard shall be required between units when more than one residential unit is in a single structure (i.e.: attached single-family and townhomes). Varying side yards are provided to allow side entry garages and to maintain the required separation between buildings. 3) Two or three story multi-family structures may have terraced setbacks. Terraced setbacks shall be measured from the ground floor exterior wall, as long as a minimum 15-foot building wall setback is provided as depicted in Figure 1 below. 4) No encroachments shall be permitted within required buffers except as provided for by the LDC. 5) No building shall be greater than 2-stories, and zoned building heights are not to exceed 35 feet within the easternmost 140-foot strip of the RPUD as depicted on the RPUD Master Plan (Exhibit C), as a grey shaded area. 6) For all residential units, garages must be located a minimum of 23 feet from the back of the sidewalk located in the street rights-of-way closest to the garage, except for side load garages, wherein a parking area 23 feet in depth must be provided to avoid vehicles being parked across a portion, or all of the referenced sidewalk PROPERTY LINE ---15'NIN SETBACK ED O ® " r 1 8 V 0E1 Figure 1 B-3 PRESERVE 5' MIN. REAR YARD ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK 10 FOOT MINIMUM ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK I SHED /r15' MIN. REAR YARD PRINCIPAL FROM PRESERVE I / STRUCTURE SETBACK 25 FOOT MINIMUM PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE SETBACK ACC. SIR. FROM PRESERVE I I I MIN. • 12' MIN. +6' MIN. 1-*-6' MIN. SIDE YARD PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE SETBACK PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE I r FRONT YARD PRINCIPAL I STRUCTURE SETBACK I } f 20' z3' MIN. ROW. I L 3T— _ - SIDEWALK 5' BACK OF CURB I } ' I4' IN 10' CENTERUNE - ACC. STR. = ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOME LAYOUT NOT TO SCALE NOT DRAWN PROPORTIONALLY PRESERVE 5' MIN. REAR YARD ACCESSORY _ STRUCTURE SETBACK 10 FOOT MINIMUM ACCESSORY YARD PRINCIPAL/15. M . REAR STRUCTURE SETBACK FROM PRESERVE NO SIDE YARD REQUIRED FOR 25 FOOT MINIMUM PRINCIPALS ATTACHED PRINCIPAL UNITS STRUCTURE SETBACK ACC. STR FROM PRESERVE 12' MIN. PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE �6` MIN. SIDE YARD PRINCIPAL (TYP.) STRUCTURE SETBACK d FRONT YARD PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE SETBACK _J If I __J I 1 I }L ROW 20' MIN. 3 _23' MIN. SIDEWALK 4 } 4'BACK OF CURB 1 10' CENTERLINE - - - ACC. STR. = ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED & TOWNHOME LAYOUT NOT TO SCALE NOT DRAWN PROPORTIONALLY Figures 2 B-4 i • . RESERVE i YARD ACE'PSSCRY STRICTURE SETBACK IC FOOT MINIMUM ACCESSORY STRICTURE SETBACK--\\\ ! ISHC1 !/15' MIN.REAR RE' SET YARD PRINCPAL ..,•••■••,„ FROM PRESERVE i .• .• . STRUCTUBACK 25 POOT saikUUM PRINCL IPA-\ 1 ! 1 STRUCTURE SETBACK \ i --..-.---3' MW , ! FROM PRESERVE ,I ACE.sal.I !1 , I I! _.] I i 1 ,,,. I i I I--9'INN.SCE YARD PF3NCIPAL :■ _,.1 I - I !! 9' -... I STRUCTURE SETBACK 3'MIN.-1 - MIN. 1 I: '-' MiN. r 1 I 11 Lr'! I 1 1 I FRONT YARD PRINCIPAL I; 1 _14_, STRUCTURE SETBACK I , J ,- , 1 It I I : I I I il , I 20' MIN. ! I, 23' MIN. ROW 1 I I I --I-I I 3 ; , ! r SIDE BACK OF CUWALK—'-RB 1- -1 4---i --1--- -4--ic-XN: I ' I T0E0 CENTERUNC ACC.STR. ••ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TYPICAL PATIO HOME AND VILLAS LAYOUT NOT TO SCALE NOT DRAWN PROPORTIONALLY ) PRESERVE ‘) 5 MN. REAR YARD ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SF7BACK '......-0, ID roar MINIMUM ,____________—_._______ __ ______ _____ ACCESSORY.STRUCTURE--\\ SETBACK FROM PRESERVE 15' ON. I ---,-- /REAR YARO 25=00T MININURITh. ACC.$IR. I ACC. ST R. . PiRINCiPAL PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE '\ (rep.) I (TYP.) .• .• .•• STRUCTURE . TBACK SETBACK FROM PRESERVE PRESERVE SE , • .• . •A OMNI --25'--1 EXAMPLE 5' MEN.MINiMuld SIDE-1 - „,•••■••„,, 20' (ZONED) SEE I 30' (ZONED) YARD PRINC1PN- 2 STORY PRIMARY STRUCTURE STRU....."TURE SETBAO< NOTE 1 3 slow RIF. ERIC MR) BELOW.I M.F. BL• 1 ipl FRONT YARD PRINCIPAL ! I F.4: , : STRUCTURE SETBACK I f 20'MIN. t 23' MIN. .- . ...• _I.__ i, ACCS LASEMOIT --,- SIDE WALK----' i , BACK OF CURB------- ' I- i 1' . i •-- . - , . _ i , a 10' ■ CENTERUNE t PRIVATE DRIVEWAY --- - - — ACC.STR.-ACCESSORY STRUCTURE • NCTE,REQUIRED DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES IS ONE HALF TEE SUM OF THE-ZONED. ADJACENT BUILDING HEIGHTS. TYPICAL MULTI—FAMILY LAYOUT NO1 10 SCALE NOT DRAWN PROPORTIONALLY Figures 3 B-5 --frYbirr EXHIBIT C . MASTER PLAN 1 X DEVIATION 0.FROM OX SUBSECTION.SOT.3C.1.TAR REQUIRES 3OFENLES/WALtS TO BE NO GREATER raw FEET IN NEIGR. A ROUND ATTERDARON THU.AND/OR WALL BERT COMEWIMMEN'GRATER THAN B Fm N HOCHE.BUT NOT TD ."---", DEMOION 1.FROM MC SIIBSEC'OON SAEDABS.G TNT LYR 7HE EXCEED 20 FEET SHALL BE PENOTI BY-PRO RPIR ONDRLVILE. TIE WALL AND/OR NUMBER 01'.FRO TIDE IN A TINGLE OEV6.2..THAI 351 TO ALLOFI MA L/BERY C0191A7ER WALL BE LOCATED*DNS THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE E ONE MODEL.MORE FOR COI VARNNF OF THE RESIDENTS*IN.TO PROPERTY AT A NTANCE OF 10 FEE(FROM THE 1-75 RANT-OF-WAY CORRIDOR. i PROPOSED M TIE PROJECT,PDT TO=EEO 10: ESTIMATED. /�DEVATION/2.SEEKS RELIEF FROM LOC SUBSECTION SDEOAL1 TINT APPROXIMATE ROADWAY I V REOURES FENCES TO BE NO GREATER THAN SRI FEET N NONT. A FENCE Of 1- ELEVATION•1R HEIWT GREATER THAN Sr FEET.BUT NOT TD EXCEED TWELVE FEET.H OF I-75 6 a PEAIRIEIED BY PRO MID.AND 6 GRAPHICALLY OEPICIEB'-alma THE ABOVE PROPOSED C CE/W ASSOCIATED WITH me PERBEIER BUFFERING SHILL BE LOCATED FINISHED GRADE ( UP TO 2D' X ;MALL SOVRIERN NA EALIEI01 BOIMM6 OF 71E SUBER PRpER1Y. ' MAXIMUM HEIC NT ! S I OR, UP 1O.I2'— ETDSIryC F MAXIMUM DR. E GRADE Eg I — I ESTIMATED. g : �cRADE� 9'MAY —UP TES 1T OPTION ILL MATE ELEVATION VART WLXIMUM 8 FENCE/WALL IMPROVED C � HEIGHT ABOVE PROPOSED OPTION T �T 8 OFU+75 GRADE. MAY VARY\ I 9'MAY F FENCE/WALI I RWID Uu OPTION 2 I IMPROVED HEIGHT, �/ 3' 1-75 MAY VARY\ 1 _ 12e7.12 N t D) I I RA.W. ' . sess0'4YE M) I FENCE/WALL . _ I OPTION 2 F. PROPOSED 40•X50•COUNTY ' $ ' � _• _ I WELL EASEMEM(MAYBE F UPON APPROVAL of TRACE P•_ I COWER c aNNn'mums 7 DARSDNf. . . I I T.. ///�/ _��-- STAl'IDING:OAKSLANE � a ' /' `��` . 6d va E PQIPERDL EASEMENT— — Ii��r �,/ \ i SEE EXHIBIT'F' OF II PFRNCiESJ / _ I i RPUD ORDINANCE Ij I c 1 \ 1 I 15,4 III \ I IiI \\ � \ III ,5%A i' A`\\\\,,\ \ LAKE I I TRACT 1 o II i �� TYPE•0•BUFTMNER \ I I 11 1 4 TRACT \ 1 I a III \\ 1 I III A SEE EXHIBIT"E" OF T ` ERSND SW F.P.L I I__..1 c�� SEE EXHIBIT"E" OF iI RPUD ORDINANCE \\ \\ MORN! RPUD ORDINANCE Iif�u 1\I, \ I PEREMETER WALL L.7} II..7 O PPEERIMET A \\ 7;C I I I\\%' \ // TR"`T I , 1 it 1'WALL qg 1 \ // i ^^ E.ESTATES- 1110 $ ■ 1 I I ',it SINGLE FAMILY HOMES III 1,\\,I \ // I cve 1 1 ultra 1 i I sg III � \r I I II — 'T sQ-1 I I REOFMML BUI UNITED III £ s f� e) S ' t \ I I S FEET.AS SET iORTHroM C� it t EXNIBIf•Ff IN RPUD ORDINANCE. IIi I III I I 15 MIN. II TYPE-131 ! ;xvin T BUFFER _�11 L TRACT LAND USE ACREAGE UNITS JA�FFI1'Y ` _.___ ___ II Mu TRACT'N RESIDENTIAL 31.39+/-AC 164 TEL,q Is RP2t0Y W 476.16(C) A, �` -.:T.) /d,A1/GJ. -- II TRACT•RA" FRESCWAE AREA 1.15+/-AC 0 S IIBSY4S W 4T7D1(T) 2O —\--III\ 1�TRACT•P RRESERVE 1.15+/-AC O A, JA..3 - 2 it 10711E NAl1VF 41.10+/-AC 164 TYPE•A TRFMVINR. O Jay N $' 6r WIDE PERPETUAL'EASEMENT II • 11 1AND USE ARREADE PERIMETER PROPOSED F' SEE EXHIBIT "F" OF Iii 1 WOMBED NATryE PRESERVE SAS+/-ACRES ?J3 RPUD ORDINANCE II PREMCED(3420 X 025-1555 AC) SEE EXHIBIT -r OF 'I NATIVE'VEGETATION 0.57+/-ACRES RPUD ORDINANCE 2 l III T RPUD W EIS N01ES I' 1. R CS 1. THE FACILIT AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON nos PUP MASTER PUN SHALL y BE CONSIDERED CONCEPTUAL NI NATURE 2. TIE DESIGN,LOCATION.AND CONFIGURATION OF THE TANG II.PRWEMEPES I SINU.BE DEFINED AT ETHER SPP APPROVAL OR CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND A,AGRICULTURE- II PUT APPROVAL 3. REFER TO RPIA EXHIBIT E FOR DESCRIPTION OF DEVIATIONS.(DENOTED BY WE FOOT POND 1 EXHIBIT "C" — AD r II 1 _ F T� III I " A.Y.AmFJ STANDING OAKS L.L.C. `1 {A�`Hmmog L,56o<0 1.-(00 STANDING OAKS BB++rc /�` v �\ °` Tf1° CONSULTING CM BDgBeuog SNIZINr s..RT O�OL SLR. 1 L V VA. .. Surveying B Mgpmg : , D,RR RPUD MASTER PLAN R.,......,I....R. 0,A~.N=W 16666 IWi:smmwawnr.,N.ASY ERIIW.WN am mRW:.. Exhibit Date 5/28/08 7�)1- C-1 R25E 1 R26E ,T HIDDEN OAKES THE 29 30 BOSLEY MALIBU LAKE 1i I SPANISH OAKES 1 1 „ I i, '� GOLDEN OAKES En PROJECT LOCATION E--, sata -#0-077zzezA IF Alm. ��'u�nwu►1 "134/,/, STANDING OAKES ruling ���r-� �0e" v �®/�®`A//J m 31 ®'� ►® � s SHADY OAKES OA 2111111 CO &MEI; 14111 UM\ VilivA < 41/1411116, • 1 trlirA 0 n al roon0111:-�. .����iii� rr 32 ill la iml WILSHIRE LAKES 44s 1 ®� ®�d► BUR OAKES B lip ht pike i c.) VPis 60 w +_ -- E lig III r s �t .11111110,7 AtIV.AV �0��41�on ‘14iio,w �� 1 1 i 5 R25E I R26E VICINITY MAP N T.S. C-2 EXHIBIT D • LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (1/4) SECTION 31,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 31,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 31, S.02°08'39"E. FOR 1803.77 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE OF SECTION 31, N.70°32'29"W. FOR 198.48 FEET: THENCE S.89°20'05"W. FOR 476.19 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY LINE OF A PARCEL DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 845, PAGE 267, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA; THENCE ALONG SAID PARCEL BOUNDARY,THE FOLLOWING TWO (2) DESCRIBED COURSES; 1) THENCE N.02°08'46"W. FOR 72.85 FEET; 2) THENCE N.89°58'12"W. FOR 135.23 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE EASTERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY LINE OF FLORIDA INTERSTATE 75,AS SHOWN ON FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY MAP SECTION 03175-2403; THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, N.1 8°20'16"W. FOR 1,758.79 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 31; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 31, S.89°58'52"E. FOR 1,287.12 FEET,TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN. CONTAINING 41.1 ACRES,MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE FLORIDA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, EAST ZONE, 1983 NORTH AMERICAN DATUM, (1999) ADJUSTMENT. n, /*"1 �aorY1� EXHIBIT E UST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.04.04.B.5.c., that limits the number of model homes in a single development to five, to allow one model home for each variant of the residential product proposed in the project,not to exceed 10. Deviation#2 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.03.02.C.1. that requires fences/walls to be no greater than six feet in height. A fence/wall height greater than six feet, but not to exceed twelve feet, is permitted by this RPUD, and is graphically depicted below. The fence/wall associated with the perimeter buffering shall be located at the southern and eastern boundaries of the subject property. UP TO 12' 9' MAY UP TO 12' MAXIMUM HEIGHT VARY ' MAXIMUM HEIGHT IMPROVED GRADE EXISTING OR Alffekblk, GRADE FENCE/WALL FENCE/WALL OPTION 1 OPTION 2 Deviation#3 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.03.02.C.1. that requires fences/walls to be no greater than six feet in height. A sound attenuation wall and/or wall/berm combination greater than 6 feet in height,but not to exceed 20 feet shall be permitted by this RPUD Ordinance. The wall and/or wall/berm combination shall be located along the western boundary of the property at a distance of 10 feet from the I-75 right-of- way corridor. II-75. 20'TYPE'D Ot,IFFER RAM ESiINA1th..ApPROOMMTE omolow 1w ABM CR0111I WaimiION of 1-75 B 6' N!N' I PROPOSED MIMED GRADE J 20' MIAm. IPLANTING I \-oosnNO GRAD 20' TYPE "D" BUFFER OPTION 1 4 I I-75 20' WPC tea' BUFFER R.ow. MIWN. ES TimMO.4042110 imk E choMAY I aiwiN4 CLEW= OF.IF-7o N — ABOVE PROPOSED FINISHED MCC --- - Aux. I VANES EMEND GRADE 20' `tYPE 'Dr BUFFER. OPTION 2 EXHIBIT F LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS TRANSPORTATION A. A 185 foot long northbound left turn lane from Oakes Boulevard onto Shady Oaks Lane, and a 185 foot long southbound right turn lane from Oakes Boulevard onto Standing Oaks Lane shall be constructed by the developer prior to the commencement of on-site construction. See exhibits below. 1 24' 1 1 II 0 I 11 % 165'1 EXISTING 6' SIDEWALK STRIPE MARKERS 1 / 50'- I 11 35' MEDIAN LANDSCAPE MATERIALS 1 150' I SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE OAKS ESTATES ADVISORY, INC., AND SHALL BE DEFINED AT THE TIME OF COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY --T- PERMIT APPROVAL SHADY OAKS 60' ROW LANE TYP. l'IP 1 1 4' 1 150' 12' TYP 1 STRIPE 1 35' MARKERS 1 11 1 a 50' ' II i II 165'I H ROW '1 11 11 1I II OAKES BOULEVARD & SHADY OAKS LANE TURN LANE & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS N.T.S. F-1 77)110')-- I I 2.4' II II J II N.T.S. I I 0 165' EXISTING 8' H SIDEWALK / STRIPE , I MARKERS 50' 4' 12* ( Tr P_ I 4 111 I I/ STANDING OAKS 60'` ROW LANE li I I TYP-"-- II 1 * II EXISTING E A 8' SIDEWALK I I 100' 1 ROW OAKES BOULEVARD & STANDING OAKS LANE & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS N.T.S. F-2 B. Shady Oaks Lane and Standing Oaks Lane shall be improved by the developer to a County approved width and thickness, with accompanying 5-foot wide sidewalks on each side connecting to Oakes Boulevard, and shall be completed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy (Please see Section C-C on Exhibit "C", RPUD Master Plan). The necessary stormwater and drainage improvements shall be incorporated into the project without cost to Collier County. 60' EASEMENT 5' 5' 10' PAVEMENT 10' PAVEMENT 6' 5' 9' 9. SIDEWALK SIDEWALK TYPICAL EASEMENT CROSS SECTION N.T.S. C. The developer, its successors in title, or assigns shall operate, maintain, bond and insure (through the appropriate mechanism), both bridges over the D2C-00 Canal associated with Shady Oaks Lane and Standing Oaks Lane, in perpetuity. The County shall be granted perpetual access across both of the bridges. D. The developer shall construct three southbound lane deflections at the intersections of Oakes Boulevard, Bur Oaks Lane, Hidden Oaks Lane, and Golden Oaks Lane for traffic calming. These three intersections intended to be altered are in addition to the intersection improvements set forth above, and as depicted on the RPUD Master Plan, Exhibit"C". The three referenced intersections proposed for alteration shall contain the following elements: a. 80 foot medians to the north and south of the intersections to be curbed, filled, and planted with materials to be coordinated with the Oakes Estates Advisory, Inc., and defined at the time of County right-of-way permit approval; b. Gored-out striping shall be added for an additional 180 feet beyond each median, to the north and south; c. The median proposed north of the intersection of Oakes Boulevard and Shady Oaks Lane shall also be curbed, filled, and planted with the same landscape materials consistent with Subparagraph a, above. The three intersection improvements are depicted below. F-3 'YYl?TM— II 12' I \I PICAL -1 I ---r-A t ill 180 STRIPE I 1I MARKERS t i i 1I I r EXISTING � � i 8' SIDEWALK IT I I I Al..__'._....._l.__._.._.._.___._ ___ MEDIAN LANDSCAPE MATERIALS SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE OAKS ESTATES TYPE "D" I ADVISORY, INC., AND SHALL BE DEFINED CURB • I 10.66' 80 AT THE TIME OF COUNTY RIGHT--OF--WAY J I i t WIDE PERMI1 APPROVAL _ - - - i MEDIAN I -- i 60' HIDDEN OAKS LANE \ __ . ______-______ I l'-' ) �__-___ _ -- MEDIAN LANDSCAPE MATERIALS SHALL BE COORDINATED E •I 1 t I RY, INC.,WITH AND SHALL THE OAKS BE STA?E5 DEFINED /'\ CURB I - 8C AT THE TIME OF COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT APPROVAL EXISTING 1 . i - 8' SIDEWALK --i-1 i I r/ STRIPE I II r MARKERS I , iI ; / 180 1 I r 100' i ' ' R.O.W. � I ' o . I I . Cq 24' o • HIDDEN OAKS LANE & OAKES BLVD TRAFFIC CALMING DETAIL F-4 I , I , : I I � I 12' TYPICAL I EXISTING � I I 8' SIDEWALK I I j I � 180 STRIPE I I i II I MARKERS f-f� 1 I 1 TYPE D" ■ I COORDINATED LANDSCAPE hAA.TERIAIS SHALL BE CURB I v- OORDINATED WITH THE OAKS ESTATES ADVISORY, NC., AND SHALL BE DEFINED 10.68' I l AT THE T ME OF COUNT" RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDF 1 1. I 80 PERMIT APPROVAL MEDIAN - - - --. J J �\ BUR OAKSLANE ,l a ' TYPE "D" I I 1 t I MEDIAN _ANDSCAPF MATERIALS SHALL BE CURB , 80 COORDINATED WITH THE OAKS ESTATES I ADVISORY, INC., AND SHALL. BE DEFINED j I I AT THE TIME OF COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY „..\ EXISTING I__ PERMIT APPROVAL 8' SIDEWALK STRIPE I ; ; it- 1 MARKERS ii � i ICO I I jw 180 I i I t-O I ,,I` i I 100' '`' R.O.W. I I _! Ir, I � [4 I i r 1 I i I 1 ?UR OAKS LANE & OAKES BLVD TRAFF'C CALMING DETAIL n F-5 71;. 12' TYPICAL EXISTING I 8' SIDEWALK I I I : 11 180 STRIPE MARKERS . r I A. I In MEDIAN _ANDSCAPE MATERIALS SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE OAKS ESTATES TYPE "D" I 10.66' ADVISORY, INC., AND SHALL BE DEFINED CURB WIDE 80 AT THE TIME OF COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY I I t MEDIAN PERMIT APPROVAL I I GOLDEN OAKS LANE TYPE "D" ; 1 1 CURB 80 I MEDIAN _ANDSCAPE MATERIALS SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE OAKS ESTATES M111.= ADVISORY, INC., AND SHALL BE DEFINED EXISTING AT THE TIME OF COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY • 8' SIDEWALK ! PERMIT APPROVAL S RIPL I ; I I MARKERS i I \A cel 180 100' • R.O.W. 24' • I I • GOLDEN OAKS LANE & OAKES BLVD TRAFFIC CAI VAC OFTAII F-6 E. All improvements to Oakes Boulevard, and related intersections referenced in Commitment D above, shall to be completed within six months of approval of the next development _ order,whether SDP, or subdivision plat approval,whichever comes first. F. A single construction entrance shall be identified at the next development order approval, whether SDP, or subdivision plat for the RPUD, with input from Oakes Estates Advisory, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL A. At the time of SDP or plat approval, the northeastern 0.70 acres of the Preserve Tract that was disturbed for the placement of storage sheds shall be planted with sub-canopy and herbaceous native vegetation in an effort to re-create/enhance the native preserve. B. A Preserve Area and Gopher Tortoise Management Plan has been provided to Environmental Services Staff for approval prior to site/construction plan approval identifying methods to address treatment of invasive exotic species, fire management, and maintenance. This Plan is Exhibit P of the EIS, and shall be the regulatory instrument for the implementation of the Preserve Area and Gopher Tortoise Management Plan relating to exotics removal, gopher tortoise fencing, gopher tortoise habitat restoration, gopher tortoise management and preserve signage. UTILITIES AND ENGINEERING The developer shall reserve one area to be granted to Collier County Water and Sewer District for a raw water well easement with dimensions of 40 feet by 50 feet, and a utility/access easement 20 feet in width shall be provided unless the well site is contiguous to a public right-of-way, in which case the easement should be at least 15 feet wide. The approximate location of this easement is depicted on the RPUD Master Plan. This grant shall occur at the time of SDP, or final plat approval for the area within the development phase that contains the well site. At the time of the SDP and/or plat submittal, the developer shall provide the well site easement that meets the standard setback requirements for water wells. The County shall compensate the developer for the well easement dedication through impact fee credits based on the fair market value of the land intended to be dedicated. PLANNING A. The developer shall install a combination 6 to 8 foot high wall/berm along the southern border of the RPUD prior to the issuance of first residential certificate of occupancy. B. The developer shall install a combination 6 to 8 foot high wall/berm along the eastern border of the RPUD prior to the issuance of first residential certificate of occupancy. C. The timelines for PUD sunsetting of Section 10.02.13.D of the LDC shall be tolled until such time as: (1) the I-75/Immokalee Road Interchange improvements being made by the FDOT shall be substantially complete; and (2) the improvements to Vanderbilt Beach Road from Airport Road to Collier Boulevard(CR-951) shall be substantially complete. D. No certificates of occupancy (COs) shall be issued until: (1) the I-75/Immokalee Road Interchange improvements being made by the FDOT are substantially complete; and (2) the improvements for Vanderbilt Beach Road from Airport Road to Collier Boulevard (CR-951 are substantially complete. E. The perimeter landscape buffer that would normally be required to be planted between the residential development and the property line shall be planted on the outside of the sound attenuation wall and/or berm referenced in Deviation#3 of Exhibit E. F-7 AGENDA ITEM 9-A Co er County STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT&ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: JUNE 5, 2008 SUBJECT: PETITION SV-2008-AR-13059,EDISON COLLEGE OFF-PREMISES SIGN PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: APPLICANT: Stock Development, LLC AGENT: Chris Mitchell 2647 Professional Circle, Ste 1201 Waldrop Engineering Naples, FL 34119 10641 Airport Road,N. Naples,FL 34109 REQUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider two variances from the requirements of Section 5.06.00 of the Land Development Code (LDC) for a proposed off- premise direction sign as follows: 1. A variance of 42 square feet from the requirements of Section 5.06.04.16.b.i of the LDC to exceed the maximum 12 square foot area requirement to allow an off- premise directional sign that is 54 square feet on each side. 2. A variance of 100 feet from the requirements of Section 5.06.04.16.b.v of the LDC to exceed the maximum 1,000 foot distance separation for an off-premise sign to permit a sign that is 1,100 feet away from the Edison Campus use. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property for the proposed sign is located at the southeast corner of the Grand Lely Drive/Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR-864) intersection, in Section 21, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, of Collier County, Florida(see location map on the following page). The Edison College campus is located at 7007 Lely Cultural Parkway at the northeast intersection of Grand Lely Drive and Lely Cultural Parkway approximately 1,100 feet south of the proposed sign location at Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Grand Lely Drive. SV-2008-AR-13059 Page 1 of 8 4 a � z Wo P.. F < 4 a. q Goo ag 2 g i a 0 ti z z WHO A T% MOD r 0 111; 3A1110 AVAAMS 0011``1 0 tylv Ainuallime �litl 11 1 s MJ a ���111111111/►111 ___1 sib r, 40 7, . , _ c., g .., !Tior. ._ ,, 1 03 0 0 N nrrs of JON 7 CO It b I 4 Z fi p id i D € _ W 3� 2 =, _ �_ gi I a 1\I g Oh 6 — a. _ _ ill! ki N a B5 b il 13 =IN . 0 il 1: 1 1 13 r z O Frame g` 104: 91 < . IMI 1 61 IF l'est 1 M R 62 . 0 vwf acw! !•1••••.— Jr !,1 1 11 1111 ri- P _nil . 11 -I. 1 i _ S§p mw rw..w�m y{. e 112 g :v- OY9011M �� g ° •' VG Old'AiNfOO 2l3I11OO'S31dVN S11d134 NOIS A21N3 z�, ar.e.e.rornno dlOiJJ S1N311dO13n30)400.1S ZIOd Q3?:Nd3Id m PMT... rM AAy, Cr)W E. AM. eLL w z°! 1" NOISN9IX3 3nibQ A131 aNVIO Ar AO U .q..114.31. �AN FI Inla)Lij 211 gi II a Vil _ it LI � () 9 r' � ,Z •17-3 w' El Cl) �j/ .Zn 0- Ng o0 � w o � a CD LL _ U. M w N o w N o ow o M J o �," 7/ 'I,I ckO NN :1-111/1FAV -1E411 %r �®�i� ; PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The applicant is seeking to install a new 22'3"x 8' ground mounted, off-premise, directional sign for Edison College to be located at the Grand Lely Drive/Rattlesnake Hammock Road intersection. The Edison campus is located, internally, within the Lely Resort PUD. The proposed sign would be located on the southeast corner of Grand Lely Drive and Rattlesnake Hammock Road on a 3.93 acre parcel approximately 1,100 feet north of the Edison campus. This parcel currently contains two stormwater detention ponds, which according to the applicant, has been constructed per the roadway commitments of the December 16, 2003 Lely Resort DCA to accommodate stormwater for the Rattlesnake Hammock roadway improvements. The subject off-premises sign requires two variances. The first variance is from subsection 5.06.04.16.b.i of the LDC which requires that off-premises directional signs shall not exceed 12 square feet in area. The subject sign is a v-shaped ground mounted sign with wing walls on each side totaling 54 square feet in area bearing the Edison College logo exceeding the maximum off- premises sign area criteria by 42 square feet. The second variance is from subsection 5.06.04.16.b.v of the LDC that requires an off-premises directional signs not be located more than 1,000 feet from the building, structure, or use being served. The subject sign is proposed to be located 1,100 feet away from the Edison campus. EXISTING CAMPUS SIGN AT MOOREGATE POINT LANE AND GRAND LELY PKWY y Y aft)�• � g � r`... q:, !r - I Sly r At. - T The above sign is an existing approved"on premise" ground monument sign at the west entrance of the campus on Grand Lely Boulevard, which is a similar depiction of the sign design being proposed at the Grand Lely/Rattlesnake Hammock Road intersection. The design of the proposed sign is depicted on the preceding page. Subsection 5.06.04.C.16. of the LDC, Off- SV-2008-AR-13059 Page 2 of 8 premises directional signs, allows for only one double-sided (or two, one-sided) off-premises sign(s), provided that each sign is not more than 12 square feet in area or more than eight feet in height. The height of the proposed sign complies with maximum off-premises sign criteria. Other criteria an'3 sign must meet are as follows: • The sign shall not be more than eight feet in height above the lowest center grade of the arterial roadway; • The sign is located no closer than 10 feet to any property line; • The applicant shall submit with the permit application notarized, written permission from the property owner where the off-site sign is located; • Off-premises directional signs shall not be located closer than 50 feet from a residentially zoned district; and • Off-premises directional signs shall not be located closer than 100 feet from another off- premises directional sign. The subject sign complies with these criteria as well. r i - =., 1411'' • i' :. f 3 5 I TiL JJ44E:Hgl1AMOCKRE] <. .F- 1 r - !! �C# aI� $c i t� t 1`•. ), ,i� r• t%,, F I ' f `Yi v�tg rG 'v.'.�- n� ,;7 44 l''''Li e '�I A: 7' f M i 4 .ma;, ��', � �., 4 'c' '�+... f :--1,;:-.' w.. _ "� � , � ;,.r! .::. ' � $��{. '�� ;-----l -��' �' r° >i 1 :0-':.`t . d' yU�`" AERIAL O ERIAL PHOT F SITES Page 3 of 8 SV-2008-AR-13059 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Rattlesnake Hammock Road/Mandalay PUD South: Edison College Campus within Lely Resort PUD East: Preserve and open space area within College Park PUD West: Grand Lely Pkwy/then vacant land within Lely Resort PUD .1111■1111IIIIMINL 111•11-1 Proposed Sign Location \132 N. ibo v..446.fit.v_, E, .9(0,...,46, r PUEI 3 rr "'�'"^ u x x 114 11 X 0� . a' R , .... ; ..,..., , v'im'•.� ZONING ATLAS GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The subject property is designated Commercial within the Lely Resort PUD Master Plan. The property is designated as urban residential district on the Future Land Use Map of the GMP. The GMP does not address individual variance requests but focuses on the larger issue of the actual use. The Lely PUD is consistent with the Future Land Use Map. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed use for the subject site is consistent with the Future Land Use Element, although the Variance request is not specifically addressed. ANALYSIS: Section 9.04.00 of the LDC gives the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) the authority to grant Variances. The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) is advisory to the BZA and utilizes the provisions of Subsections 9.04.03.A through 9.04.03.H as general guidelines to assist in making a recommendation. Staff has analyzed this petition relative to the evaluative criteria and offers the following responses: a. Are there special conditions and circumstances existing which are peculiar to the location, size and characteristics of the land, structure or building involved? SV-2008-AR-13059 Page 4 of 8 Yes. The subject property is a narrow rectangular shaped lot not suitable for development, but approved for a water management for a lake. The site is also the area of a designated (but unrecorded) sign easement. Given the lot's narrow dimensions, proposed water management use,proximity to a minor arterial roadway leading into residential areas of the Lely PUD, and future set aside of a sign easement, this site is ideal for the proposed sign. —Z4 RARC€L (0.R ,49&PC.P'S 24V ,.,..,__\. l ATRD a bCRAPH $ LE q • S�7{YSS lJ.f N' ag rw AROR7tONOF � t t-at-i. PARCEL 705 yg' N O. XA¢ (FM R. PC.OW) ' ,- Ni596 0 al NfAc7Y3 U4� 454 03' S ---€.1.5raltr RICHT or WAY C2 WC,"A" CN A,LILY DYP'SE(tom'Rf63 P.8,, 48 Pu'S 3-4 a 1 ' / II T Lr s + 4 r # .; Etur e ,aloe wt.,ao-ar® l t ;I ; tV -- i'1 STO Ut i, i j i F 24a '' ✓ 11 it■ I ' t •�` v �r'�`Z/.^. )t I i I, ---"--1 11 1 .0,k, 1' 0 k, 1` Il. ,i ..�.....,,,�,- Vim' � � l •, 1 t J•,,:j- 1 ,tc_ttr,_."6,1 ,,. ..a.. i b. Are there special conditions and circumstances which do not result from the action of the applicant, such as pre-existing conditions relative to the property, which is the subject of the variance request? No. The off-premises sign code requirements of the LDC were in effect at the time Edison Community College purchased this site. c. Will a literal interpretation of the provisions of the LDC work unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant or create practical difficulties for the applicant? Yes. Given the large number of students and visitors going to Edison Community College, a case can be made that a literal interpretation of the sign code would make it difficult for students and visitors to find the Edison campus when traveling on Rattlesnake Hammock Road. SV-2008-AR-13059 Page 5 of 8 [ "11>ti. . - , ti . Even though there are ground signs at the entrance of the campus along Grand Lely Parkway and Lely Cultural Parkway, there are no directional signs after exiting off of Collier Boulevard entering into the Lely PUD from Rattlesnake Hammock Road, which requires a left turn in order to access the campus entrance. d. Will the variance, if granted, be the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure and which promote standards of health, safety and welfare? No. The variance, if granted, would not be the minimum variance necessary that would make possible the reasonable use of land. The petitioner could construct a much smaller off-premises sign. e. Will granting the variance confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by these zoning regulations to other lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district? Yes. A variance by definition confers some dimensional relief from the zoning regulations specific to a site. The granting of this Variance request would allow the proposed off- premises directional sign to have an additional 42 square feet of surface area compared to that which is prescribed by the LDC, thereby conferring on the applicant a special privilege. f. Will granting the variance be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Land Development Code, and not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare? Yes. Subsection 5.06.01.A. of the LDC states that the purpose and intent of the LDC relative to signage is to ensure that all signs are: 1. Compatible with their surroundings; 2. Designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not endanger public safety or unduly distract motorists; 3. Appropriate to the type of activity to which they pertain; SV-2008-AR-13059 Page 6 of 8 4. Large enough to convey sufficient information about the owner or occupants of a particular property, the products or services available on the property, or the activities conducted on the property, and small enough to satisfy the needs for regulation; 5. Reflective of the identity and creativity of the individual occupants. In staff's opinion, the requested off-premises sign advances all of these objectives. Therefore, approval of the variances would be consistent with the purpose and intent of the LDC. g. Are there natural conditions or physically induced conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the regulation such as natural preserves, lakes, golf courses, etc.? No. There are not natural conditions that ameliorate the goals and objectives of the sign regulation. Placing the sign at this intersection requiring the variances proposed is a self imposed hardship. However, the College must rely on this off-premises directional sign because this location is the most logical to direct who are traveling west on Rattlesnake Hammock from Collier Boulevard to the campus. h. Will granting the variance be consistent with the Growth Management Plan? Yes. Approval of these variances would be consistent with the GMP since it would not affect or change any of the GMP's requirements. EAC RECOMMENDATION: The Environmental Advisory Council does not normally hear Variance petitions and did not hear this one. SUMMARY FINDINGS: Staff has analyzed the variance guidelines and has determined that there are special conditions peculiar to the location of the campus being internal to the Lely Resort PUD. Staff is also of the opinion that the literal interpretation of the provisions of the LDC would create practical difficulties for the large number of students and visitors to find Edison Community College. Lastly, the variance request is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the LDC and will not be injurious to the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition SV-2008-AR- 13059 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of approval subject to the conditions attached to the Resolution. SV-2008-AR-13059 Page 7 of 8 PREPARED BY: -31" Gam S" —q--02$ WILLIE BROWN, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE PRINCIPAL PLANNER REVIEWED BY: 1 ,LAt ��__ ,' —1- ' b _-Z3 - MARJ 4 E STUDE T-STERLING , DATE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY i?- - /a' 5 Zo70g- RAYMO/ 0 . BELLOWS, MANAGER DATE DEPAR ENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SILLII - r / /o j) SAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR DA E DEPARTMENT OF ZONING& LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: /A : . ��:, / �,3 0� J S PH K. SC I T, ADMINISTRATOR DATE V • UNITY DEVELOPMENT&ENVIRONMENTAL . ' 'VICES DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the July 22, 2008 Board of County Commissioners Meeting. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE SV-2008-AR-13059 Page 10 of 10 RESOLUTION NO. 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO PETITION NUMBER SV-2008-AR-13059, FOR TWO SIGN VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT AN ENTRY MONUMENT/GROUND SIGN FOR EDISON COLLEGE PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 5.06.04 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GRAND LELY DRIVE AND RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD (CR 864), LOCATED IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC) (Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of variances; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals, being the duly elected constituted Board of the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of granting two sign variances as follows: 1. A variance of 42 square feet from the requirements of Section 5.06.04.16.b.i of the LDC to exceed the maximum 12 foot square area requirement to allow an off- premise directional sign that is 54 square feet on each side, and 2. A variance of 100 feet from the requirements of Section 5.06.04.16.b.v of the LDC to exceed the maximum 1,000 foot distance separation for an off-premise sign to permit a sign that is 1,100 feet away from the Edison Campus use, Page 1 of 3 SV-2008-AR-13059/MMSS 5-23-08 as shown on the plot plan attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, in the Lely Resort PUD Zoning District for the property hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, the Board, however, has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 9.04.03 of the Zoning Regulations of said Land Development Code for the unincorporated area of Collier County; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA, that: Petition SV-2008-AR-13059, filed by Chris Mitchell of Waldrop Engineering, representing Stock Development, LLC, with respect to the subject property hereinafter described as: Lely Resort PUD, located in Section 21, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, recorded in Plat Book 45, Pages 3-4, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, is hereby approved to permit two sign variances in order to construct an entry monument/ground sign on the southeast corner of Grand Lely Drive and Rattlesnake Hammock Road for Edison College. The proposed sign is a V-shaped ground sign bearing the Edison College logo, with accompanying wing walls on each side as shown on the plot plan attached as Exhibit"A" and incorporated herein by reference; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution relating to Petition Number SV- 2008-AR-13059 be recorded in the minutes of this Board. Page 2 of 3 SV-2008-AR-13059/MMSS 5-23-08 This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote, this day of , 2008. ATTEST: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: , Deputy Clerk TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Marjorie Student-Stirling Assistant County Attorney Page 3 of 3 SV-2008-AR-13059/MMSS 5-23-08 t •° VORiOld`I.1Nf1O0 21311100`S31dVN SlMl30 NOIS.l?11N3 I Z dflO2iO S1N3WdO13A30)10O1S :2JOd 0321`dd32id • zy cn w s +�,.�. w- w ZO i i ,,W NOISN31X3 3AI2�a A131 ON`di`IO ..�n„� :I a �p<AJ = v 0 2/1.o-,z ' .4-t N c// N co W 43 ,- LL CL a O co u- U. M W r'- a O O CO D D O w N • O (3 o O N N uj 03 // tir i !i- III/JE��® � oao Z V-701 FT.--i g/ cq (/) Z 0 1— .1-3, ► :41114. � I N CO w v� a 0 ist ►41 ,4 11744 1,:".1,04:04 1 in y \11i_ ' co CV n Pill • E . 3 in 715 u. VIE% U L N IQ d• U ow V/ U C w N D .- U C.c , U al En .zitot .s,t inrn Q r- N NN. L o t- co 11 C 0) hi w Z m .UL OL' / f^ LL V W cn mi L Q Co W U) LI AGENDA ITEM 9-B Co 'r County STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING& LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT& ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: JUNE 5, 2008 SUBJECT: PETITION CU-2006-AR-10805, HOGAN ISLAND QUARRY AGENT/APPLICANT: Applicant: Rinker Materials of Florida, Inc. 1501 Belvedere Road West Palm Beach, FL 33406 Agent(s): Robert J. Mulhere,AICP John M. Passidomo RWA Consulting, Inc. Cheffy, Passidomo, Wilson&Johnson, 6610 Willow Park Drive, #200 821 Fifth Avenue, South Naples, FL 34102 Naples, FL 34102 REQUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application for conditional use approval of an "earth-mining" operation and related processing of materials in a Rural Agricultural (A) with a Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) Zoning District as specified pursuant to Section 2.04.03, Table 2, and Section 4.08.06B.3.b of the Collier County Land Development Code on approximately 967.65± acres of land for a project to be known as the Hogan Island Quarry. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located three quarters of a mile north of the Immokalee Road (CR-846) and Oil Well Grade Road intersection, in portions of Section(s) 9, 10, 15, 16, 21, and 22, Township 47 South, Range 28 East, of Collier County, Florida. (See location map on following page.) Hogan Island Quarry,CU-2006-AR-10805 Page 1 of 14 4 z s W O i 1.--Q ° _ c _ 03 O A A A .-. 0 N DD 4 2 D c.i •^' A Z A C __ A A • Z 4 0 P R 0 0 v G o: L g V N W C W Y W W -J a o a "" z o o • - A A A ii Q CO 0 0 N 3706 Ol lw U 1k Z 0 H I- W a 6 UZ 1 5 _ O � ii OU \ 6Z 11'S \ \ ^ § ,§ a JO L L g Q m oaQo f 4z. 4, .:, D `° 0 �Q� F- Ci Vi d a l °do 0 D y.R 0 —J iLS6 "2!'S FP� 111111111.111 AO ocP sigew s es cf O PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner's conditional use application seeks approval of an earth mining operation for a limestone and sand quarry on 967.65±acres. The application indicates that the proposed earth mining operation will be comprised of the following: • Up to three lakes totaling 740 acres, at the completion of the excavation activities (with 7 actual mining cells totaling±700 acres) See attached Conceptual Site Plan; • Asphalt/Concrete Batch Making Plant (now eliminated from application by the petitioner); • Aggregate Processing • System of internal roadways serving the excavation site (most of which will ultimately be removed); and • A 12.77-acre on-site preserve(adjacent to the eastern boundary); According to the applicant, mining activities will involve excavating overburden and underlying limestone deposits through the creation of various "working" cell pits. It is likely that two or three cell pits would be under excavation at any one time. Blasting is necessary as part of the mining operation, and would occur six to eight feet below ground, but would only be conducted during day light hours. (All blasting will be in compliance with blasting requirements, as specified in Section 10.08 of the Land Development Code.) Actual mining activities, however, would be conducted twenty-four hours a day. Over 4.5 million tons of aggregate material is proposed to be removed. The aggregate processing plant, consisting of crushers and conveyors, would involve the processing of excavated materials. Stock piles of raw and processed product (limestone aggregate and sand) would be stored on-site. The plant is expected to operate 16 hours per day. The site will also contain a small office building, maintenance shop/storage facility(s), parking areas, and above ground fuel and oil storage tanks. Although an asphalt/concrete batch making plant was initially proposed, and may be found in the application and.EIS, this use was eliminated from the applicant's proposal during the EAC meeting. A system of temporary haul roads will be built within the mining area around and throughout the various cell pits as well. These roads would lead to the processing plant near stock piles of excavated materials on-site and will provide ongoing access to agricultural operations that wil be ongoing during the excavation process. At the conclusion of excavation activities, these roads, which are proposed to isolate the three lakes, may be removed to create one large lake. The site is accessed from Immokalee Road via Oil Well Grade Road extension. The subject property, in addition to being zoned Agriculture, is within the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) and is designated "open lands". The RLSA allows the removal of certain land use layers in exchange for Stewardship Credits; however, only base line zoning standards are being employed for this petition. Earth mining is permitted as a conditional use within both the Agricultural Zoning District and RLSA overlay zoning district. Hogan Island Quarry,CU-2006-AR-10805 Page 2 of 14 m il . i , W W A a gZ i8 Dog li A .E � ° z O�� Y !® ® ¢ e a n II I, 2 -- 11 1 11 a II II II 11 II d is ' ,......_..'__. / / O W 1� 0 \li 1Na vll J h t f5 Ili,' Ili' li : i ,I,I ' 4'',1Ii': ! �I�III0111 1I�El1'l _ Es ,��lili�'il4ji 4'111' , i e ° 1'!`i C sled,1 4 1,41,,11,,1 r;, 1 „Y I %'ia.1il. $ li' II'111I�111'Ijlll..! %%i lypt a` a ��11 1�1 ill Dill I'i1 I�..r' /,%�.� !: I, g !'l l!'I I !14 11 1!11 1 i;+�"%'.;�:.� r, % I it jl ill{I i11 it,l i .%• f'i; ,,,,,, ti x % 1444 i I!'llll h illl!'i irl ■• � � /i �l;../.I,;e;. � ��§,.ii ^ Iii .1 'I i/;,•��� '�•,il ' '�" r �!' 141w11 1'i /;,'�/ 2; /r .,,,. r Ili§ J, r 1 11 li'I11''I11 i r ' s // q 4 4,-.. 8 • ..:.:....: ..:.... —!..411!_j..14' l�l0,,,,I,i„II�.„k,I,II'I,„,,,4',„111,,„1 ,,1 :� E "Hill 14'11 U 4'111'�111'�11111�114'�11_ , . � �l lllill';1l-111!11 i,liIIi j;;i lll'ii iil ..•>•r...•. 111�1 i .I Y� 9 kill' 4,1 �� �.-� •,�...�..; - l,. I1I 111 1 Ili I I'.''1'14'101,1111/111 `C�y ^ Y ^\C+ `..... .. `: ?ii �..__.._ ti A1141■1'041;lill 1 ,1,1 1i1,`1, ,I141.�,1! i,IIIII ry. fg�k '� alp p g //111-1000000100000001101 � '121 s d s 1 E iSG �I 0 / I,I 1111+ #Iii;,1. �I� • E J ::':\i4 4 t 11 `— �l 11 I ly'I�j I d —” _ 7 Ili 1-1.41 , 1'1 ��I,.11 I�1 1 :1 1 I�jl0tl1l 1 ���! ' ° ^g — s a '111!I,1 1!I I ~; I'il,Ili i. i 11 1 1 I III!II�I �ill0li'11 111'�1 i11��1i1' tS uti'�j___:_i, _ il1l //11 i 1'1111 1#11'1411 lit` 11111 I1,I'il;il'i11,,, , 'ICI ,111' I��1',I iikaililli,I {1;p,i'' �} 1111 _ ____ _ 11 111 i ,,i,I,,iIII�II,I; i _ ��—_� T _ —waruvalesv 1 111111111:'!ill L:Is.:. AMnw. d t Should this conditional use petition be approved, mining activities are proposed to be on-going for eight to ten years. No long range uses, at the conclusion of proposed mining activities, are proposed. Upon the completion of the mining activities, the site would exist as a single 740 acre lake, which may be bisected by one or more roadways, including a series of hydrologically connected pipes. 4 - • Exf UMMOKALEE L tea:. ° �� �� .Subject Property m - -; a. ,...„....,,s1 Rural and Agricultural Assessment Overlay Map The project is located entirely within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area(RLSA) overlay district, which is designated as "open lands". The project will not impact areas identified as Flowway Stewardship Area (FSA), Water Retention Area (WRA), areas of critical concern, or greenline park system areas as shown on the map above. Earth mining is a permitted activity within the Agricultural (A) Zoning District and RLSA Overlay District on Open Lands with a Natural Resource Index (NRI) value of less than 1.2 subject to conditional use approval. (Please see GMP Analysis below) The development proposal also complies with the criteria for an asphaltic and concrete batch making plant in accordance with Section 4.02.02 of the LDC. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Subject Parcel: The site is presently an active farm operation with related uses such as water management and drainage facilities; zoned Agricultural "A". Hogan Island Quarry,CU-2006-AR-10805 Page 3 of 14 Surrounding: North: Row crops; zoned A-RLSA/HSA East: Water retention areas/row crops; zoned A-RLSA/ portions designated WRA and HSA South: Water retention areas/row • crops; zoned A-RLSA/Open Lands portions designated WRA West: Row crops; zoned A-RLSA/Open Lands ri P Subject Propel ,y. t f rt, e a +; q s...r ?.34,. .,,,,, :",,7.1- y ■ 4 .�l`� 4 .Ipp' 1 - x Kb P ,d F ` z vrt'i 4/.0.3.4 y_ , d' rl �P � I. _ ° K s ,:. yr" ,.."'w_ $ ,;^f*xs 71 i!.. a , p+ `.'yam'-“.*! , �+_ ".a ' Y i Aerial Photo r SO ,Cl 11 I cs ,-' 1.6 • s,s.r3" F r�o . ..rte 21 22 23 I N,Y .... 1111111111.0 2B, "441 mss Illir: ",,,,,...-3 4 4.4%441. ,F -r-... 111110 I Zoning Atlas Hogan Island Quarry,CU-2006-AR-10805 Page 4 of 14 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP)ANALYSIS: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property has two land use designations: Agricultural/Mixed Use District and Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) according to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). According to the Agricultural/Mixed Use District of the FLUE, "Earth mining, oil extraction and related processing" are permissible activities within these land use designations. The "Rural Land Stewardship Area" (RLSA) of the FLUE also specifies under Policy 3.7 that, "General Conditional Uses, Earth Mining and Processing Uses, and Recreational Uses shall be allowed only on Habitat Sending Area lands with a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of 1.2 or less. " Because the property is located in that which is referred to as "Open Area" in the RLSA and has a Natural Resource Stewardship Index value of less than 1.2, the proposed mining operation would be an authorized use under the FLUE. Policy 3.7 of the RLSA of the FLUE also states the following: In addition to the requirements imposed in the LDC for approval of Conditional Uses, such uses will only be approved upon submittal of an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) which demonstrates that clearing of native vegetation has been minimized, the use will not significantly and adversely impact listed species and their habitats, and the use will not significantly and adversely impact aquifers. As an alternative to the foregoing, the applicant may demonstrate that such use is an integral part of an approved restoration or mitigation program. Comprehensive Planning defers to the Environmental Services Department for consistency review of the Petitioner's response under this RLSA Policy. Based on the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed Conditional Use may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. Transportation Element The project proposes 198 total two way peak PM hour trips associated with the Conditional Use. This represents an 8.2% impact on Immokalee Road from Oil Well Road to Camp Keais Road with a remaining PM Peak capacity of 423 trips. The project generates less than a 2% impact on the secondary concurrency links. The following commitments were reached in cooperation with the Developer. • The applicant shall provide a $1.00 payment-in-lieu of road maintenance for every loaded vehicle which exits the site. The payment will be made quarterly. Hogan Island Quarry,CU-2006-AR-10805 Page 5 of 14 • The applicant shall be fully responsible for designing, permitting, and constructing both left and right turn lanes at the project entrance on Immokalee Road and both east and west bound acceleration lanes on Immokalee Road per FDOT standards. • The applicant shall provide traffic monitoring reports every six months or alternatively may install 2 permanent count stations per County standards. • The County will perform random annual intersection analysis at Everglades Boulevard and Immokalee Road in the first three years and if at such time the site generates trips that exceed 40 left turning movements, from Immokalee onto Everglades Boulevard during the 3-year period, then the applicant shall design, permit, and construct a westbound to southbound left turn lane on Immokalee Road to Everglades Boulevard. • The County and applicant agree that any road plans (i.e., turn lanes, acceleration lanes, and so forth) shown in the Conditional Use application are conceptual. Final construction plans shall be submitted through the ROW permit process and be subject to full review. Based upon these findings, the Hogan Island Quarry conditional use application can be deemed consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan [GMP]. ANALYSIS: Before any Conditional Use recommendation can be offered to the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) must make findings that: 1) approval of the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest; and 2) all specific requirements for the individual Conditional Use will be met; and 3) satisfactory provisions have been made concerning the following matters,where applicable: 1. Consistency with the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. This project is consistent with Sections 2.04.03 (Permitted Uses Table) and 4.08.06 (RLSA Zoning Overlay District), whereas an earth mine is a permitted use in the Rural Agricultural and Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Zoning Districts. As stated in the GMP analysis of this report, the majority of the site is designated as "open lands" in the RLSA and thus will not impact any areas identified as Flow-way Stewardship Areas (FSA's), Habitat Stewardship Areas (HSA's) or Water Retention Areas (WRA's). In addition, the project is compatible with surrounding existing uses subject to the attached conditions of approval. Thus,the project can be found consistent with the LDC and GMP. 2. Ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures thereon, with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. Hogan Island Quarry,CU-2006-AR-10805 Page 6 of 14 Ingress and egress to the property is from Oil Well Grade Road which connects to Immokalee Road. Since there are no residential subdivisions along this segment of Oil Well Grade Road,the Transportation Department has determined that the proposed project will not adversely impact automotive and pedestrian safety, traffic flow and control, and access in the event of fire or catastrophe. The Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) also concludes that there is sufficient capacity on Immokalee and Oil Well Grade Roads. 3. The effect the Conditional Use would have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects. Impact from noise, glare, economic, and odor effects are not anticipated on neighboring properties. There are no neighboring residential properties within 1,000 feet of the subject property. Properties that are adjacent to the subject property contain active agricultural citrus and row crops, and are also owned by the applicant. In regards to blasting activities proposed for this earth mining operation, the petitioner proposed additional mitigation during the EAC meeting, to off-set the noise impacts. This includes limiting the blasting activities between the hours of 10 am and 3 pm, Monday through Friday. Blasting will also be limited to one blast per day, or an average of two to three blasts per week. Please see the EAC Recommendation in this Staff Report for a complete list of additional mitigation proposed by the applicant. 4. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district. The subject property is deemed compatible with adjacent properties because the subject property and surrounding properties are all zoned Rural Agricultural and are within a Rural Lands Stewardship Overlay Zoning District which permits the existing and proposed uses. Since the adjacent properties are also vacant or are actively being used for agricultural purposes, staff is of the opinion that this excavation will not have a negative impact to neighboring properties. In addition, as noted above, the petitioner offered additional mitigation to off-set any anticipated impacts, which staff recommends the CCPC add to their conditions of approval. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: The project's effort to minimize impact to the environment would involve establishment of a single on-site preserve adjacent to the eastern property boundary. Forty-four percent, or 12.77 acres, of existing native vegetation on site would be preserved, which exceeds the County's corresponding 40% native vegetation preservation requirement. Listed animal species observed on-site were wood storks, sand-hill cranes, and white ibis. Quarry reclamation activities would include planting lake shorelines with a variety of native littoral zone species, which would provide desirable habitats for listed wading bird foraging habitat and for alligators, thereby offsetting impacts to habitats currently utilized by these species. Hogan Island Quarry,CU-2006-AR-10805 Page 7 of 14 There are a total of five (non jurisdictional) isolated wetlands within the boundaries of the project site totaling 10.95 acres. The wetlands are identified as W-1 through W-5. These wetlands would be eliminated, but would be substituted by off-site mitigation areas "OM-1" and "OM-2". These two off-site areas total 32.47 acres and would contain 27.77 acres of wetlands. The mitigation areas are proposed to be contiguous to the proposed on-site preserve, as well as adjoin water retention areas (WRAs), habitat stewardship areas (HSAs), and flow-way stewardship areas (FSAs). South Florida Water Management permits would be required for any impacts to wetlands. Of the 967.65± acre project site, 94 percent is classified as uplands, five percent as surface waters, and one percent as wetlands. The property is currently being used as agricultural lands, and has been in agricultural production for decades. Other features of the site include pasture and woodland areas, drainage ditches, farm roads and trails, and previously cleared facility areas. Other criterion(Subsection 4.02.02.B.3.a.vii)the project must meet is as follows: • The project shall not be located within the greenline area of concern for the Florida State Park System. • The project shall not be located within an Area of Critical Concern as depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the GMP; • The project shall not be located within 1,000 feet of a natural reservation; and • The project shall not be located within any County, State or Federal jurisdictional wetland area. The project complies with this criterion. In addition, the Engineering and Environmental Services staff has reviewed this petition and recommended the following conditions of approval: 1. Prior to issuance of an excavation permit, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Policy 5.6. 3. f. If agency permits have not provided wetland mitigation consistent with this policy, Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that of the jurisdictional agencies prior to approval; 2. At the next development order, the wetland line shall be approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and delineated on the site plan; 3. Restoration planting plan and conservation easement approval for on-site and off-site preserves will be required prior to approval of the excavation permit or development order prior. Recording of the conservation easement will be required within 90 days of first development order approval; and 4. To be consistent with Subsection 4.08.05.J.3.a. i and ii of the Collier County Land Development Code requiring that open space and vegetative buffers be established between the wildlife habitat areas and the areas dominated by human activities, the applicant shall obtain, and make the excavation permit construction drawings consistent with the written Technical Assistance from US Fish and Wildlife Service Hogan Island Quarry,CU-2006-AR-10805 Page 8 of 14 and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission prior to issuance of the excavation permit. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC)RECOMMENDATION: On May 7, 2008, the EAC heard this request and by a vote of seven in favor and one opposed voted to forward this petition with a recommendation of approval subject to staff stipulations above as well as the following: 1. Eliminating the following use: Asphaltic and concrete batch making plant 2. Adding the following stipulation: Littoral shelves for wading birds shall be constructed around areas designated "OM-1" and "OM-2 in addition to those shown on the site plan and described in the "voluntary commitments" below of which the applicant has agreed. During the meeting, the EAC expressed the following concerns and recommended that they be presented to the CCPC and BCC to consider, and for the applicant to address these issues with the appropriate permitting agencies: • Effects of truck traffic generated by the proposed use: The effects of truck traffic are addressed in the TIS, and Transportation Department's stipulations of approval. Please see Recommendations page, stipulations 11 through 15; • Effects of a 24 hour operation related to lighting and noise on existing or future proposed adjacent uses: The applicant proposes to provide a lighting and noise abatement/control plan. Please see "Voluntary Commitments" below, which will be reconsidered by the EAC prior to the issuance of the Excavation Permit; • Increasing buffer widths to 300 feet around perimeter of the pits adjacent to areas designated as HSAs: The applicant feels this is not necessary or appropriate at this time. The applicant states that the LDC does not specify a buffer width, and that the buffer designed to date has been designed to address the Jurisdictional Agency's specific concerns, and that the Agency's initial request for a 300-foot buffer has been withdrawn with a commitment that the agency and petitioner would come up with an acceptable buffer as part of the consultation process; • Requirement for funding of future construction of wildlife crossings: The applicant states they are agreeable to funding their fair share of the cost of a wildlife crossing, based upon a percentage of overall trips on Immokalee Road (given the estimated one million dollar cost of the wildlife underpass). They state it is not likely that a wildlife crossing will be constructed for a number of years. Therefore, as an alternative, they offer the same amount towards installation of two yellow caution lights (notifying drivers of panther crossing and to use caution and reduce speed) located east and west of the slough/strand and relating to signage in the event the County elects to reduce the speed limit within the wildlife crossing corridor. Also, during the EAC meeting, the petitioner offered additional mitigation measures as noted below. Because these additional proposed mitigation measures were not presented until the date Hogan Island Quarry,CU-2006-AR-10805 Page 9 of 14 of the EAC meeting, County staff did not have an opportunity to review these conditions. As a result, the EAC recommended that the foregoing conditions be added as "Voluntary Commitments". These conditions will be evaluated in full prior to the approval and issuance of an excavation permit and may be considered as mandatory at that time: 1. Each well within the excavation area will be plugged pursuant to state regulations below the excavation level prior to excavation in the immediate area; 2. There will be no dewatering for excavation purposes; 3. Excavation depths will not exceed 40 feet or the uppermost level of the confining layer, whichever is less; 4. No explosive charges which contain diesel fuel will be used, therefore no benzene in explosives product; 5. Blasting activities will occur between 10am and 3pm, Monday through Friday. Blasting will be limited to one blast per day, or an average of two to three blasts per week. Blasting after 3pm (but no later than 5pm) shall be permitted only if blasting during regular hours is prevented or interrupted by adverse weather conditions; 6. The dust control plan attached hereto will be implemented during the term of the mining operations; 7. The eastern most boundary of the eastern excavation cell shall have a 350 foot setback from the adjacent HSA, and the easternmost boundary of the northeastern cell shall have a 145 foot setback from the adjacent HSA; 8. The petitioner will provide 15 acres of littoral shelf with littoral plantings. PUBLIC UTILITIES ANALYSIS: Currently the subject property is not located within the Collier County Water and Sewer District, and is not part of any other existing Utilities District. According to the 2005 Water Master Plan Update, Public Utilities is acquiring well sites and raw water pipeline easements in targeted areas as part of the land use decision approval process, including final development orders. These targeted areas are generally described as east of I-75, where the existing Collier County wellfields are located. The majority of Collier County wellfield locations are not within the Collier County Water and Sewer District and this project location is in an area where additional public water wells are desirable. Collier County Public Utilities is presently working on the design and construction of a budgeted capital project for the future North East Regional Water Treatment Plant (NERWTP) located in the Orangetree Utility service area. Per the 2005 Water Master Plan Update this project is Hogan Island Quarry,CU-2006-AR-10805 Page 10 of 14 anticipated to be building out and to be in service by 2012. The NERWTP is located approximately six miles from this application project. The Public Utilities Department initiated, in June 2003, a well field program consisting of a large-scale, multi-year engineering and hydrogeological project set to develop all water supply wellfields. The current Welifield Reliability and Expansion Program Plan show that this project site is located within the targeted future wellfield area for the NERWTP Phase 1B Expansion. It is,therefore,recommended that this project be approved subject to the following condition: • Prior to the issuance of an excavation permit, the applicant shall provide four well site easements. The four well site easements consisting of three well sites of 100 feet x 100 feet each and one well site of 150 feet x 150 feet on the property. The necessary utility easements for access and underground pipeline/power/telemetry and appurtenances from the well sites to the public right of way on Immokalee Road shall also be provided. The utility/access easement should be 20 feet wide unless it is contiguous to a public right-of-way. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING: Synopsis provided by Linda Bedtelyon, Community Planning Coordinator: The meeting was held on February 13, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. at the Collier County Agricultural Extension Office. Fifteen persons attended the meeting including two residents, the developer's agent(Bob Mulhere, Planning Director and others with RWA Consultants Inc.), and County staff (Willie Brown and Linda Bedtelyon with Zoning and Land Development Review). Mr. Bob Mulhere presented the project and summarized the following points: • Site is zoned Rural Agricultural; • Three earth mine lakes are proposed totaling 740 acres of maximum excavation area; • The subject property consists of 968 acres of land; • Activities would include the removal of 3.8 million tons of rock annually; • Approximately 1,200 round truck trips per day are forecast(worst case scenario); • Access would be provided from Immokalee Road via a private easement and turn lanes, both east and west bound on Immokalee Road,would be built; • The nearest residents are over one mile away, and the adjacent properties are owned by the applicant; • Blasting will be regulated by the County's Blasting Ordinance of the Collier County Code of Laws and State rules; • The project's duration is estimated to last as long as quality materials exist on site and demand is present; and • The project will not impact a Flow Way Stewardship Area (FSA) or Habitat Stewardship Area(HSA), nor negatively impact a Water Retention Area(WRA). The meeting concluded at approximately 6:30 PM. Hogan Island Quarry,CU-2006-AR-10805 Page 11 of 14 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission recommend approval of Petition CU-2006-AR-10805 to the Board of Zoning Appeals, subject to the following conditions: Planning 1. The Conditional Use to allow construction materials mining shall be limited to that which is depicted on the conceptual site plan, identified as the "Hogan Island Quarry Conceptual Conditional Use Plan" dated June 2006, a 9 page plan, prepared by RWA Consulting, Inc. (Subject to Change after the CCPC meeting) 2. Excavation shall be limited to the 3 or fewer proposed lakes (consisting of 7 mining cells comprising 700 acres) for limestone and sand mining totaling no more than 740 acres of excavated area (post construction) as permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP). 3. The site plan noted is conceptual in nature for Conditional Use approval. The final design must be in compliance with all applicable federal, state and county laws and regulations. The Department of Zoning and Land Development Review Director may approve minor changes in the location, siting, or height of buildings, structures, and improvements authorized by this conditional use, so long as these minor changes remain consistent with all applicable development standards. 4. Expansion of uses identified and approved within this Conditional Use approval, or major changes to the approved plan, shall require the submittal of a new conditional use application, and shall comply with all applicable County ordinances in effect at the time of submittal, including Chapter 10.02.03, Site Development Plan (SDP) review and approval, of the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance 04-41, as amended. Public Utilities 5. Prior to the issuance of an excavation permit, the applicant shall provide four well site easements. The four well site easements consisting of three well sites of 100 feet x 100 feet each and one well site of 150 feet x 150 feet on the property. The necessary utility easements for access and underground pipeline/power/telemetry and appurtenances from the well sites to the public right of way on Immokalee Road shall also be provided. The utility/access easement should be 20 feet wide unless it is contiguous to a public right-of- way. Environmental Services 6. Prior to issuance of an excavation permit, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Policy 5.6.3.f. If agency permits have not provided for wetland mitigation consistent Hogan Island Quarry,CU-2006-AR-10805 Page 12 of 14 with this policy, Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that of the jurisdictional agencies prior to approval. 7. During the review of the development order, the wetland line approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be delineated on the site plan. 8. Restoration planting plan and conservation easement approval for on-site and off-site preserves will be required prior to approval of the excavation permit or development order prior. Recording of the conservation easement will be required within 90 days of first development order approval. 9. The applicant shall obtain and prepare excavation permit construction drawings consistent with, written Technical Assistance from US Fish and Wildlife Service and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, prior to issuance the of the excavation permit. 10. Littoral shelves for wading birds shall be constructed around areas designated "OM-1" and"OM-2 in addition to those shown on the site plan. Transportation 11. The applicant shall provide a$1.00 payment for every loaded vehicle which exits the site. The payments shall be made quarterly. 12. The applicant shall be fully responsible for designing, permitting, and constructing both left and right turn lanes at the project entrance on Immokalee Rd and both east and west bound acceleration lanes on Immokalee Road per FDOT standards. 13. The applicant shall provide traffic monitoring reports every six months or alternatively may install 2 permanent count stations per County standards. 14. The County will perform random annual intersection analysis at Everglades Boulevard and Immokalee Road in the first three years of operation and, if at such time the site generates trips during the 3-year study period that exceed 40 left turning movements from Immokalee onto on to Everglades Boulevard, then the applicant shall design, permit, and construct a westbound to southbound left turn lane on Immokalee Road to Everglades Boulevard. 15. The County and applicant agree that any road plans (i.e., turn lanes, acceleration lanes and so forth) shown in the Conditional Use application are conceptual. Final construction plans shall be submitted through the right-of-way permit process and shall be subject to full review. Hogan Island Quarry,CU-2006-AR-10805 Page 13 of 14 PREPARED BY: WILLIE BROWN, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: _- ot. 1.. —/ • Z -08 MARDI. ' 1 STUDENT-STIRLIN + DATE CHIEF ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY �, 5 z og RAYMOND V. BE LOWS, ZONING MANAGER ATE DEPAR _ NT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW �8'[JSAN MURRAY ISTENES, AICP, ZONING DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: cos' JO: : 'H K. SCHM TT, ADMINIS RATOR DAT • ► 1 ITY DEVELOPMENT& ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES is project is tentatively scheduled for the BCC's July 22, 2008 meeting. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE Attachments: Attachment A- Findings of Fact CU-06-AR-10805 Page g BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU-AR-10805 The following facts are found: 1. Section<text> of the Land Development Code authorizes the conditional use. 2. 3. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes No B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingress & egress Yes No C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: No affect or Affect mitigated by<text> Affect cannot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use within district Yes No Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) (should not)be recommended for approval<text>. DATE: CHAIRMAN: Attachment A FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR The following facts are found: 1. Section<text>of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes No B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience,traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingress & egress Yes No C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: No affect or Affect mitigated by<text> Affect cannot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use within district Yes No Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) (should not)be recommended for approval <text>. DATE: MEMBER: RESOLUTION NO. 08 - A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN EARTH MINING OPERATION IN THE RURAL AGRICULTURAL WITH MOBILE HOME OVERLAY (A-MHO) ZONE DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS HOGAN ISLAND QUARRY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED OFF IMMOKALEE ROAD IN SECTIONS 9, 10, 15, 16, 21, AND 22, TOWNSHIP 47 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 67-1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has conferred on Collier County the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 2004-41) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of Conditional Uses; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals (Board), being the duly appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a conditional use for an earth mining operation in the Rural Agricultural with Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) Zoning District pursuant to Subsection 2.03.01.A.1.c.1. of the Collier County Land Development Code on the property hereinafter described, to be known as Hogan Island Quarry, and the Collier County Planning Commission has found as a matter of fact (Exhibit "A") that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 10.08.00.D. of the Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: Page 1 of 2 The petition filed by Robert J. Mulhere, AICP of RWA Consulting, Inc., representing Rinker Materials of Florida, Inc., with respect to the property hereinafter described in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, be and the same is hereby approved for a Conditional Use in the Rural Agricultural-Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO) Zoning District for an earth-mining operation for a project to be known as the Hogan Island Quarry, in accordance with the Conceptual Master Plan (Exhibit "C"), subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "D," which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. BE TT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this Board. This Resolution adopted after motion, second and super-majority vote, this day of , 2008. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: ,DEPUTY CLERK TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: 1 Marjorie Student-Stirling Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A: Findings of Fact Exhibit B: Legal Description Exhibit C: Conceptual Plan Exhibit D: Conditions of Approval CU-2007-AR-10805/MMSS(5/23/08) Page 2 of 2 BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR CU-AR-10805 The following facts are found: 1. Section<text>of the Land Development Code authorizes the conditional use. 2. 3. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes No B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingress & egress Yes No C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: No affect or Affect mitigated by<text> Affect cannot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use within district Yes No Based on the above findings,this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) (should not)be recommended for approval<text>. DATE: CHAIRMAN: Attachment A FINDING OF FACT BY COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR The following facts are found: 1. Section<text>of the Land Development Code authorized the conditional use. 2. Granting the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property or uses in the same district or neighborhood because of: A. Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan: Yes No B. Ingress and egress to property and proposed structures thereon with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience,traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe: Adequate ingress & egress Yes No C. Affects neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: No affect or Affect mitigated by<text> Affect cannot be mitigated D. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district: Compatible use within district Yes No Based on the above findings, this conditional use should, with stipulations, (copy attached) (should not)be recommended for approval <text>. DATE: MEMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION . 2 4 t?t. ';la s((k at C S ol)(s `+aw iitatrg• P,.1.Q;15,...16 2L&22/ 47 / 28 Lot 1316e;:,._.......__................._,Subdivision: _. ._ Flat Book Page#f: Property LD.!€a 011114600008:001 143320100:00114560106z 0011456 0104,QOl 1 300J)5:00114040I.05&00114080107 Orr et air wm..irsetikeitti_s . .tT . 7.■.# 1.. SIZE OF FROYElat raril$ft..X vait4 lutal 42,1 5C4843. a&rut,.,. ADDRESSICMIAL LOCAVIIM "8t111,11F PROPERTY: 7570 Oil"Well Rawl the siie iq baled:IA. �� k P=tsr - � agile : or_gm it lee .t Attachment B CO 1 64 11 Cej 1 W 121 o F � z s ! : Y Y &j s 5 y 1 o c 1 F s 9M$$ S P F C NZ �W 3 g °I t i p iUh1I E W S O U III Y 1 II IF i ' sg vim/ E II `> z !I'I n ° a ` F � 4r°>f tit 1 E c0i ® , I 111 -- I i t i 11 z _ "ti n�rnu►uw+Ill r g 0 lil i • 0 11/ it i 1 • la i il Y E Z F K a ,III, ,�ll: Y 1'l 4 1#'lli (I1�11I . P 1. 4111 ' 1 1 1 t., !�i;l�llil;, I! 4111 l IJII IYJIII I•Ili II! Iii 111 111,1 l+I,yliili I,I! I f', , I.11 t t�M o '1' ' I I' I ,I!,41,' /. li I'''''j1 1. I �. �;,., ��j 11 1141, 1 11y4h4411 lrl1;%1/1,1, ils$$ l,1ir'114�'l14 d 111 ll 1 •j. /,z ,?/ %iii,',/ I x Ill I'l I'l I l II.'/' ..r /.S:L;:'/.,:;: 'yi }y It- ,„,,, �, I�� I ly III �? i% lop!,'ll ill. l i 1144"'(� %• - {af,�,�' 11 lin r..is !1 i ' !!iiI .si$ is, :�: ;, r ,, li , l, I ',1 II 1141 {, a 4 111';1,h1!1'l�,Ii y..�1, '� 9 iii�:;%�i,�f� +. Ali 4;1.l!�I,/ / 's .°%%��✓%i q�¢i id ,'I �.;'y�.i/i 1 tl - -- ! 1'1�11I!1'I,I;�II1'I`^I'IIII'Illll',Al1 1!111111.;1'!1' & C3 1 III 1+�'I'b1l�l,,,,l'1,l�'11Ir11 1+11111y11'10,0111,0111I,0111 I�11�"'TTf`;W11�"1�1,'lll I!I'I,I;�I,III'I,''•II'I1I1••.1,41 J i�� �' f'.II,1YI',I�IIli14111 I II 11111141',�yll,lj 0'1 �;�1, ll I, d 11 a �u k l l p I, C i' n • r ,' I'I !Ii4,'l4 Ii i ,!11141141', M` lot ,, .1 ilk !ill 11 i 1 1 1 )/ Ili/ —__.__ - : / 11 1 J .,,7/ 111 1�j I 'I! � ! ••-- l' I/ 111 +�1#p 1.1� � c7 14; , rt/ 7 , • I ' ,' S � ;g �'l W "+ ' l 114'.' .a. I*. 1 4 11 1 _• i t. 11 1 R.I III , - 41 ..I -7 1114 �i' �� _ I I,IIt�I1 I. !141!11 1�1 ! ! � 11.. d --i1 ° r 1 hilly I I U 1I 1I1 II 1 - .I II1 1I 41 • ,k, ` 1 a1 illy I ' k1 i ' I lIl111j l !�'I1lli 1�lj i1 `l J < f 1x1 {l N ,p 1 1,1 ! t 1111 141 1! i iiiiiiiiii CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Hogan Island Quarry CU-2006-AR-10805 Planning 1. The Conditional Use to allow construction materials mining shall be limited to that which is depicted on the conceptual site plan, identified as the "Hogan Island Quarry Conceptual Conditional Use Plan" dated June 2006, a 9 page plan, prepared by RWA Consulting, Inc. (Subject to Change after the CCPC meeting) 2. Excavation shall be limited to the 3 or fewer proposed lakes (consisting of 7 mining cells comprising 700 acres) for limestone and sand mining totaling no more than 740 acres of excavated area (post construction) as permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP). 3. The site plan noted is conceptual in nature for Conditional Use approval. The final design must be in compliance with all applicable federal, state and county laws and regulations. The Department of Zoning and Land Development Review Director may approve minor changes in the location, siting, or height of buildings, structures, and improvements authorized by this conditional use, so long as these minor changes remain consistent with all applicable development standards. 4. Expansion of uses identified and approved within this Conditional Use approval, or major changes to the approved plan, shall require the submittal of a new conditional use application, and shall comply with all applicable County ordinances in effect at the time of submittal, including Chapter 10.02.03, Site Development Plan (SDP) review and approval, of the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance 04-41, as amended. Public Utilities 5. Prior to the issuance of an excavation permit, the applicant shall provide four well site easements. The four well site easements consisting of three well sites of 100 feet x 100 feet each and one well site of 150 feet x 150 feet on the property. The necessary utility easements for access and underground pipeline/power/telemetry and appurtenances from the well sites to the public right of way on Immokalee Road shall also be provided. The utility/access easement should be 20 feet wide unless it is contiguous to a public right-of-way. Environmental Services 6. Prior to issuance of an excavation permit, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with Policy 5.6.3.f. If agency permits have not provided for wetland mitigation consistent with this policy, Collier County will require mitigation exceeding that of the jurisdictional agencies prior to approval. 7. During the review of the development order, the wetland line approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be delineated on the site plan. CU-2006-AR-10805 ATTACHMENT D 8. Restoration planting plan and conservation easement approval for on-site and off-site preserves will be required prior to approval of the excavation permit or development order prior. Recording of the conservation easement will be required within 90 days of first development order approval. 9. The applicant shall obtain and prepare excavation permit construction drawings consistent with, written Technical Assistance from US Fish and Wildlife Service and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission prior to issuance of the excavation permit. 10. Littoral shelves for wading birds shall be constructed around areas designated "OM-1" and "OM-2 in addition to those shown on the site plan. Transportation 11. The applicant shall provide a $1.00 payment for every loaded vehicle which exits the site. The payments shall be made quarterly. 12. The applicant shall be fully responsible for designing, permitting, and constructing both left and right turn lanes at the project entrance on Immokalee Rd and both east and west bound acceleration lanes on Immokalee Road per FDOT standards. 13. The applicant shall provide traffic monitoring reports every six months or alternatively may install 2 permanent count stations per County standards. 14. The County will perform random annual intersection analysis at Everglades Boulevard and Immokalee Road in the first three years of operation and, if at such time the site generates trips during the 3-year study period that exceed 40 left turning movements from Immokalee onto on to Everglades Boulevard, then the applicant shall design, permit, and construct a westbound to southbound left turn lane on Immokalee Road to Everglades Boulevard. 15. The County and applicant agree that any road plans (i.e., turn lanes, acceleration lanes and so forth) shown in the Conditional Use application are conceptual. Final construction plans shall be submitted through the right-of-way permit process and shall be subject to full review. CU-2006-AR-10805 ATTACHMENT D AGENDA ITEM 9-C 9911iëT9ou3Y STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT&ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: JUNE 5, 2008 SUBJECT: PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, HEAVENLY COMMUNITY FACILITIES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CFPUD) APPLICANTS: The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. Mission Possible Ministries, Inc. 6926 Tamiami Trail North 621 Ridge Drive Naples, FL 34108 Naples, FL 34108 AGENTS: Michael Fernandez, AICP Richard D. Yovanovich,Esquire Planning Development Incorporated Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson,P.A. 5133 Castello Drive, Suite 2 4001 Tamiami Trail, Suite 300 Naples,FL 34103 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to rezone the subject property from the RSF-1 Zoning District to the Community Facilities Planned Unit Development (CFPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as Heavenly CFPUD, which would allow a maximum of 148,000 square-feet of houses of worship and associated day care facilities, schools and other related accessory uses. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The approximately 15.93-acre subject site is located at 6926 Trail Boulevard and comprises the entire block formed by Trail Boulevard, Ridge Drive, Myrtle Road and West Street, in Section 3, Township 49, Range 25 East of Collier County, Florida (see location map on the following page). The area is identified as "Block 0" on the plat, and is also referred to by this name. PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD e Z •aa lndarvo c W O O&M' 11 ;71■67.1! , ) 0_ O , k t E .1.331.1.33111S 133aLS 1S3M ..._.._.iii 33LS 1S3M 0 Z : : : : :::: !il!li11111!:11111!iilt;11111111iiiiii111111i1111111111iia , O a vn3lnoe lroal lti-S fl -rya MIr1V1 N Id 000111110 K,Lg, _ y F O J--. J \ 0 D 5 13 g t w O N P4 3710S eL ION / 7 G CL -Iw - - - �•1 L• ace tionerMn 2 II ravn NYJff�l F i _ 'a o I" aw er,nr aosev 1 @! -p �� am amra�aww 4 �i�' I � 1B ® 4 i I.L.., X11 11 1 gi �„ 12 v o j� _3 Q 1 ill'T� , , - a 9 1 1 Imj iii �■`. — '� 0 OH lra . A.$12 a ilk k 0 ME I i Mt; . a _ _ ,.. ....- ,�T „�� •Ip,'-- Mtn, ,NaLwawa / ` as Y � il . Ir. � � ma J z r �!. �_ ,�� l fig 4 ' 1 -_ .. -.,�- ..... ..1111.11,11 II WI GULF OF MEXICO i 5 iIii1AIItlf93ZI0Now sapi I0A0W!9 LI9 N.oa op!I 5A000 IIW9tli 93Z1LO9 N IS o alo 1-i58 :6wuoz 1-is :6wuoz l-!So c&u!uoz .oa...ars — A. �F gtra-!WW ey i I I r■ ' I , I I f Im1 ,� �/ / 4r s arias s W 4014 y. eaie luawe6euew �/ ; % r §1M _ ieleM/Cip paoue ua c '81 I 1 padeospuel y c I a i # moo. , i IH 1 1 lkIi!lli lila' 11 Y '1.1 111 a D m d ' I / 1 1 i _ 5 g� amdv o III /�`�. E P / % JI 3 ° y1 III `eel` . I /® ® 3P �' �W�I I _� `, ` I /l D a ;3 1 PZmI I I1 / E I /m > °mZ m /g 3g$ u. r ' iE,9• 3 � ; �c a., m v . i \// / O —Q — _ l*—� I am 2, et 1 a3 1sara 11 Q m � m $ = /0 ma■ce:11 : , t j m I ..' 1 :1 o / • m. .• 14® w I r g o I 11 I ;; ' I �/ /a m :Wn (g• \ /� s $ n gee• • 1,141 I I ulewai on m V� ® % / s YN $ °a• I 1 ° '� mi \�%_ % ® / Jn _ ra a —t I 1 'III!LII Y— (. 0 11 m ; . ii• : 2. / g / g ge I 11 ' +m t ; W EI - � I i Rcl / IN E ° l 1 E (1• .. ...'/�I s iihil -et agi Z00098LBZL9 :oN o!loi 0000v8L8ZL9 aN ap!I 800008[@ZL9 oN o!!oJ '�I I i i$' Ch gil i e §1 xx} S ! AIIWtli 31ON15:asn AIIWis 31ON15:asn AIIWtl!3IONI5:asn ?gap, f • _a 11 F1 S€° 1 I I -!sa E11,1: 1-na :b„!uo: 1-445 :6u!uoz � ��I I F F s2 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject property currently contains twelve, one-story, principal structures totaling approximately 50,000 square feet. These structures are generally scattered around the centrally located 3.3-acre Lake Cardinal and, except for one building located at the corner of Myrtle Road and West Street, are currently utilized for uses associated with three churches: Covenant Presbyterian Church, Mission Possible Ministries, and Living Word. According to the applicants, these churches presently have a combined capacity of approximately 750 seats. The Pine Ridge neighborhood in which the subject site is located was platted in 1956. Houses of worship were originally permitted by-right in the RSF-1 Zoning District until the 1968 Zoning Ordinance, amended in February of 1973, began requiring Provisional Use (now called Conditional Use) approval for houses of worship in the district. Consequently, these church uses were rendered legally nonconforming and precluded from any site alterations that would increase their size, pursuant to Land Development Code (LDC) Section 9.03.02., Requirements for Continuation of Nonconformities, unless a Conditional Use or a rezone of the properties was sought and approved. With the subject petition the latter of these two options is being pursued. According to the applicants, this is due to the greater design flexibility afforded by the CFPUD Zoning District; and the fact that, as houses of worship and, therefore, dependent upon long-term fundraising for development, PUDs do not expire after three years if construction has not been completed, as do Conditional Uses. Rather, PUDs expire after a five-year time limit with an option to seek a two-year extension, offering a total of seven years to meet the development thresholds of LDC Subsection 10.02.13.D., Time Limits for Approved PUDs. As shown on the submitted Master Plan on the preceding page, the site is divided into two tracts. Tract A, at approximately 14 acres, encompasses the majority of the site; and Tract B comprises the remaining 1.9 acres situated in the site's northeastern corner, at the intersection of West Street and Ridge Drive. Two of the existing structures on the site, owned by Mission Possible Ministries, are proposed to remain and, as such, are depicted on the Master Plan in the eastern half of Tract B. The remainder of the structures on the site are located on Tract A and are owned by Covenant Presbyterian Church. Only two of the principal structures on Tract A (which are connected by a breezeway and, therefore, appear to be one building on the Master Plan), located adjacent to the aforementioned buildings on Tract B, would remain. (It should be noted that any of these structures, although proposed to remain, would still be eligible for redevelopment at any point in the future, provided that they were redeveloped in accordance with the development standards of the CFPUD document.) According to LDC Subsection 2.03.06.C.6, the Community Facilities Planned Unit Development District (CFPUD) is intended to accommodate public facilities, institutional uses, open space uses, recreational uses, water-related or dependent uses, and other governmental, religious and community service activities that complement and are necessary to serve other zoning districts. The proposed CFPUD, if approved, would allow for a maximum of 148,000 square-feet of houses of worship and associated accessory uses. These uses and their maximum permitted area have been summarized in the table on the following PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD 2 page. The applicants are also requesting that a school, limited to first through third grades, be permitted solely by subsequent Conditional Use approval. As shown in the table below, the combined maximum square-footage permitted on the two tracts would be 148,000 square-feet. Of this area, 124,000 square-feet would be permitted on Tract A and 24,000 square-feet would be permitted on Tract B. It should be noted, however,that the square-footages provided for each of the uses in the table (and in the PUD) is merely speculative and the applicants have reserved the right to revise them provided that the total square-footage for each tract does not exceed 124,000 and 24,000 square feet,respectively. Proposed Permitted Uses Principal Uses Accessory-Uses Max.Square-Footage Tract A Tract B House(s)of worship 28,000 5,600 (1,000-seat (200-seat maximum) maximum) Community gathering hall 28,000 5,600 School (pre-K and kindergarten) classrooms and music hall 20,000 4,000 Health and fitness center 16,000 1,600 Adult day care center 6,000 1,600 Children's day care center 6,000 1,600 Circulation/maintenance/storage 20,000 4,000 Total: 124,000 24,000 The remaining development standards for both Tracts and B, described in detail on page eight of this report, would be identical except that new structures built on Tract A would be required to have a 200-foot minimum setback from the adjacent residential dwellings that surround the site on three sides (as opposed to 30 feet for Tract B); and new structures on Tract B would be limited to a maximum zoned height of 35 feet (as opposed to 50 feet for Tract A). As shown on the conceptual Master Plan, a total of five access points are proposed for Tract A: two along Trail Boulevard; one at Myrtle Road; one at Ridge Drive, and one on West Street. Tract B has one access point along each of its two abutting roadways, both of which would be required to close if/when this tract redevelops, as conditioned by staff(see condition of approval 3 in the Recommendations portion of this report). "Primary" access points, through which 95 percent of all trips have been calculated to be handled, according to the Transportation Impact Statement (TIS), are depicted on the Master Plan with solid, black arrows along Trail Boulevard, Ridge Drive and Myrtle Road. (For a graphic of the anticipated distribution, see Appendix 3, entitled "Project Traffic Distribution, Heavenly Mixed-Use PUD"). The remaining five percent of trips would be handled by the "secondary" access points along West Street and Ridge Drive, until such time that Tract B redevelops and those accesses are closed, and access for the tract would only be afforded from Tract A. Services held on the site would have traffic control PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD 3 provided by law enforcement or a law enforcement-approved service at location(s) determined by the County Transportation Administrator. Stormwater management for the site would be provided within two lakes totaling approximately two acres and within an additional 2.5 acres of dry storage areas. One lake is proposed along West Street and the other would be situated in the southeas t corner of the site, abutting the intersection of Myrtle Road and West Street. Four landscaped dry retention areas are also proposed adjacent to Trail Boulevard, Myrtle Road and Ridge Drive. Throughout the phased development of the site, the applicants would maintain the minimum 30 percent of open space required pursuant to LDC Subsection 4.07.02.G.3., Open Space Requirements; however, they have committed to ultimately providing 40 percent open space at build-out, or 6.3 acres, of the site's total area. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Ridge Road,then single-family homes; zoned Residential Single-Family(RSF-1) East: West Street;then single-family homes; zoned RSF-1 South: Myrtle Road, then single-family homes; zoned RSF-1 West: Trail Boulevard, Tamiami Trail North(US 41),then single-family homes; zoned Pelican Bay PUD Aerial View w'—'''',C-V----CM PPD'1£aN A-,,r4k 4 :,,¢¢ ��... +€ # �. i � ate -' : &- rye , .. y, , � t V --,'-, -- w,,-: .4? ( ( +3 G.�S x�, +. � I fix" -.� h h 'Ys C � '2- St ° � `� - :t - 1 kR t n 9 ;. c.-� �, ` .�• J �. F,---..-- '� 4 r Y om,, �� � F,. ` k l r ttt x 1 - _ 1I g` i --` 1 . .,' ,. l , , -kr..,, ' . = '...'--.: 1'4,-, 7,,. ' �, 1--,-----r1-- A t: a ' s -. A . _j s :fry L - d ,1 ,rw"' , a�` .�. gg - ! .. 1 _ e- L. ,.c s ..,,-? ry _ ter . �; �!,tV- 3T ' .q ,. �t / V' iC7� .»;si.;�°4. .Y `"`'iL 'y 1 B t I L Y l ,I-- - i �a�rH �� S y fit ,,,-7,01-„. 0, PUDZ-2007-AR-12097,Heave 4 nly CFPUD GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The 15.93-acre site lies entirely within the Urban Residential Subdistrict. The purpose of this subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. Urban-designated areas of the county contain a vast array of residential and non-residential land uses. The Future Land Use Element (FLUE), Section (XV) 1. Urban Designation, (I) (XV), states that Urban- designated areas are intended to accommodate community facilities such as churches, group housing uses, cemeteries, schools and school facilities co-located with other public facilities such as parks, libraries, and community centers, where feasible and mutually acceptable. As the proposed uses of the CFPUD are the same as those specifically provided for in the Subdistrict, this project would be consistent with the GMP. GMP Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety; however, would note that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses/densities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis might include a review of both the subject proposal and surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location, traffic generation/attraction, etc. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the vehicular trips generated by the proposed rezone would not have an adverse affect on the adjacent roadways and, therefore, would be consistent with Policy 5.1 and Policy 5.2 of the Transportation Element. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document supporting land use decisions such as the subject CFPUD. Staff is required to make a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of its recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial of a rezoning petition. Staff believes this petition is consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), the FLUE, and the applicable provisions of the Transportation Element. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed uses may be deemed consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the GMP. ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsections 10.02.13.B.5., Planning Commission Recommendation, and 10.03.05.H, Planning Commission Hearing and Report to the Board of County Commissioners, which establish factual bases to support a recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. These evaluations are completed as PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD 5 separate documents, and have been attached to the staff report as Appendices 1 and 2, respectively. In addition to these documents, staff offers the following analysis: Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed this application and has required the applicants to provide 44 native canopy trees, 14 feet in height at the time of planting, which would be the minimum number required to replace the existing native trees that would be lost on the previously developed portion of the site; and an additional 0.12 acres of native vegetation to replace the 0.8 acres of existing native vegetation on the only undeveloped portion of the site (0.8 acres X required 15 percent = 0.12 acres). The applicants have proposed to incorporate the 44 native trees into the perimeter buffers adjacent to West Street and Myrtle Road to further enhance the vegetation within these areas; and to locate the 0.12 acres of native vegetation in a created preserve area within the dry stormwater management area in the southern portion of the site (labeled on the Master Plan as CP for"created preserve"), subject to jurisdictional agency review and approval. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the applicants have incorporated Transportation staffs recommended changes into the CFPUD document,with the exception of the provision of a bus shelter to be located adjacent to US 41 (at the stub-out in the median separating Trail Boulevard and US 41, as depicted on the Master Plan). As such, Transportation Planning staff is recommending approval of the petition subject to a condition of approval requiring a bus shelter at this existing Collier Area Transit stop; as well as to the other transportation-related commitments made by the applicants, which are contained in Exhibit F of the CFPUD document. Staff has also recommended limiting the combined number of users of the adult and child day care and pre- K through Kindergarten school to 220 users, as supported by the TIS (see page 16). Utility Review: According to the current Water and Sewer Master Plan update, this project is located within the Collier County Water and Sewer District Service Area. Any portion of the project to be developed would be required to comply with Ordinance 2004-31. According to the County's Geographic Information System (GIS), there is an existing 12-inch water main on Tamiami Trail North and a 20-inch force main on Myrtle Road. Emergency Management: The Heavenly CFPUD is located in a CAT 3 Hurricane Surge Zone, which requires evacuation during many hurricane events. However, as the project is for community facilities and not residential units, the Emergency Management Department has no issues with its approval. Zoning Review: As previously stated, the proposed uses are consistent with the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the GMP, which recommends, among other uses, churches, schools and school facilities for this area. To achieve compatibility with adjacent uses, the site has been designed to create the least impact possible on the surrounding residential Pine Ridge neighborhood. As depicted on the Master Plan, the proposed stormwater management lakes would be located along the eastern boundary of the site, set back a minimum of 25 feet, in order to serve as buffers between the largest and most intense uses on the site and the residential uses PUDZ-2007-AR-12097,Heavenly CFPUD 6 across West Street. This design approach has been repeated along Myrtle Road and Ridge Drive, with the location of the proposed dry stormwater management basins abutting these roadway frontages. It should be noted that although the applicants have opted to fill the existing 3.3-acre Lake Cardinal, which does not meet County development standards for lake cross-sections, slopes or littoral zones, they have committed to providing the same capacity of the lake within the combined stormwater management areas proposed for the site; or the capacity required by water management standards for a three-day, 25-year storm event— whichever of the two is greater. Although no stormwater management is proposed to be developed on Tract B, additional, compensating capacity would be provided on Tract A. Furthermore, the proposed lakes would accept additional drainage from the site's abutting roadside swales, as well as serve as the outfall for the project's dry stormwater management basins. The subject site would be buffered from the residential uses surrounding it on three sides by 60-foot right-of-way frontages and Type D buffers, as required pursuant to Table 2.4 of LDC Subsection 4.06.02.C.4, Table of Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classification, whose width the applicants have committed to providing at 20 feet instead of the required 10 feet. This vegetated buffer would consist of a double-staggered hedgerow of shrubs planted at a height of 24 inches and maintained at three feet; and to enhance screening, canopy trees (as opposed to utilizing the maximum 30 percent palm trees, as permitted by the LDC) would be planted 30 feet on center. Along the parking areas abutting the northern end of West Road Proposed Buffer Yards vs. Required Type D Buffer per LDC Section 4.06.00 Proposed Required Buffer width 20 feet 10 feet Hedgerows Adjacent to West St.& Double-staggered; maintained Ridge Dr. at 4 feet tall Double-staggered,planted Adjacent to parking lots Double-staggered; maintained 2 feet tall and maintained at on West St.&Ridge Dr. at 5 feet tall 3 feet tall Adjacent to stormwater Double-staggered; planted at 5 lakes on West&Myrtle feet and maintained at 12 feet tall Trees Adjacent to residential Only canopy trees,30 feet on Trees planted 30 feet on center; center up to 30 percent of which may Adjacent to Trail Blvd. Only Royal Palms, 30 feet on be palms center and along Ridge Drive, the applicant has committed to maintain a hedgerow height of five feet (two feet taller than required); and adjacent to the proposed stormwater management lakes along West Street and Myrtle Road, to plant native shrubs five feet high and four feet PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD 7 on center, to be maintained at a minimum height of 12 feet (instead of the required three feet). The remaining perimeter buffers that abut residential uses (i.e., along the two dry stormwater management basins adjoining Ridge Drive and Myrtle Road) would be per code, but also 20 feet in width. The result of such a vegetative buffer would be a continuous hedge that, at full height, would provide a transitional screen that significantly obscures visibility of even the tallest structures proposed for the site from the residential uses, as depicted in the site-line graphic contained in Appendix 3. (It should also be noted that the aforementioned buffers would be installed concurrently with the associated redevelopment within their proximity.) Furthermore, as already mentioned in the Environmental Review portion of this report, an additional 44 native trees would be incorporated into the perimeter buffers adjacent to West Street and Myrtle Road to further diminish the site's visibility from these viewsheds (see Appendix 4 for a graphic depiction of the typical West Street, lakeside perimeter buffer cross-section). According to LDC Section 5.03.02.E., Fences and Walls, a four-foot high masonry wall would also be required at the property's three interfaces with RSF-1-zoned properties. However,the applicants have requested a deviation from this requirement, which is described in detail in the Deviations section of this report, on page 12. Adjacent to Trail Boulevard, a 20-foot wide Type D buffer would also be provided; nevertheless, the applicants are requesting a deviation to permit all of the required trees to be Royal Palms, also described in the Deviations section of this report. Overall, the applicants have committed to providing a combined open space for the site, comprised of the perimeter buffers, stormwater management areas, parking lot landscaping, and the building foundation plantings, of 6.3 acres, or 40 percent of the site, which is a 133 percent increase over that required by LDC Subsection 4.07.02.G.,Design Standards. To mitigate potential impact from light pole glare on the adjoining residential uses, the applicants have committed to illuminating the site's pedestrian plaza by approximately 48- inch tall bollards. Other lighting on the site would be landscape lighting, building fixture and parking lot/access lighting as required by the LDC. Finally, because of the surrounding homeowners trepidation that that the 38 percent increase in the size of the houses of worship (from 750 seats to 1,200 seats) and the 114,400 square feet of proposed accessory uses (an approximately 129 percent increase in square-footage on the site when compared to the entire square-footage that presently exists) would generate constant activity seven days a week, staff requested that the applicants limit the hours of operation to assuage residents' concerns. However, as the applicants are adamantly opposed to restricting the hours of operation of the churches to address their neighbors' concerns, staff has included a stipulation of approval in the Recommendations portion of this report limiting the hours of operation on the site from 7:00 a.m. 6:00 p.m. on Sundays, and 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on the remaining days of the week, excluding religious holidays (e.g. Christmas Eve, etc.). Staff arrived at these hours after listening to the concerns of the neighbors, discussing with the applicants their needs, and researching the operating hours of other county churches similarly situated adjacent to residential uses. PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD 8 The project's development standards are contained in Exhibit B, Table I. of the CFPUD document. In this exhibit, the table is split into two, representing Tract A and Tract B. However, for the purposes of this report, staff has combined the information into one table, included below. As LDC Subsection 2.03.03, Commercial Zoning Districts, allows churches by right in the Commercial Convenience (C-2) through Heavy Commercial (C-5) Zoning Districts, staff has evaluated the proposal's development standards against the Commercial Intermediate (C-3) Zoning District standards: Proposed Development Standards for Principal Structures vs.C-3 Standards of LDC ��^-e--.r-a-,�' •� - r+-�z .r ,car _. ?fir 's m a� ;� -x. ;c - 40,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq.ft. 150 feet 75 feet r ,{ ,;` 2,500 sq.ft. 700 sq.ft.(ground floor t The greater of 30 feet or structure's height 50%of building height;but>25 feet 200 feet(except 50 feet from Trail Boulevard) The greater of 15 feet or'/2 50%of building the buildin_hei: t hei: t;but>15 feet n/a 50%of building t;but>15 feet £qty ? (' F� 4 The greater of 15 feet or'/2 none -- sum of buildin_ hei: is i 4 roj - 50 feet 50 feet As shown in the table, the CFPUD would provide appropriate setbacks from its abutting roadways. To ensure compatibility with the residential uses that surround it, any new principal structure built on Tract A would be required to be set back a minimum of 200 feet from the property boundary along Ridge Drive, West Street and Myrtle Road, which would exceed the LDC standard for the C-3 Zoning District by a substantial 150 feet. Existing principal structures expanded on Tract A, or any new principal structures built on Tract B, would be required to be set back a minimum of 30 feet, exceeding the LDC standard by five feet. Maximum zoned height for structures on Tract A would be 50 feet, limited to two-stories and an actual height of 65 feet, exclusive of steeples. For Tract B, the maximum zoned height would be 35 feet, also limited to two-stories, and an actual height of 50 feet, exclusive of steeples. Such appurtenances on both tracts would be permitted a maximum height of 20 feet above the roofline, inclusive of a cross or other religious symbol. Overall, the proposed development standards for principal structures meet or exceed those of the C-3 zoning district. As illustrated in the table on the following page, the CFPUD would require accessory structures to have front yards and side yards that are the same as the principal structure's (S.P.S.). PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD 9 Maximum zoned height would be 35 feet and two stories, with a maximum actual height of 50 feet. These standards are also consistent with those required by the C-3 zoning district. Proposed Development Standards for Accessory Structures vs.C-3 Standards of LDC 7`g7 77' ¢pf ia1.0.) S.P.S. S.P.S. 2a S.P.S. S.P.S. n/a S.P.S. S.P.S. 10 feet A tfs -E. F1 ®.: fR€ y 4ATd _ 35 feet none t t fa5,ir < 400 sq.ft. <5 percent of lot area It should be noted that the applicants originally requested that parking garages, normally permitted by right as accessory uses, be permitted with a subsequent Conditional Use approval, provided that they were limited to two-stories. Because of the glaring incompatibility between an above-grade parking facility and the neighboring residential uses adjacent to Tract B, the tract intended for the structure, both staff and the surrounding community were opposed to such a proposal. Consequently, the applicant committed to prohibiting parking structures on the site and limiting the number of parking spaces to 100 on Tract A and 500 on Tract B, which combined is 86 spaces more than the minimum required by LDC Subsection 4.05.04.G., Table 17, Parking Space Requirements, which calls for three spaces per seven seats (1200/7=171 x 3= 513 parking spaces). With the remaining development standards and the stipulations for approval recommended by staff, it is staff's opinion that the project would remain compatible with the residential uses with which it has coexisted for the last 40 years. By serving as a buffer between US 41 to the west and the single-family residences to the east, the institutional uses proposed for the subject site would be an appropriate transition from the adjacent six-lane highway and the residential uses of the Pine Ridge neighborhood. Deviations: In Exhibit E of the CFPUD document, the petitioners seek approval of six deviations from the design standards of the Land Development Code and have provided justification to support these deviations. Staff has analyzed these deviations and offers the following analyses and recommendations: Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02, Sidewalk and Bike Lane Requirements; which calls for the provision of sidewalks and bicycle lanes and that they be located within the right-of-way. PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD 10 Proposal: The applicants propose to provide the required sidewalks within the rights-of-way along Trail Boulevard and along the western portion of Myrtle Road (between Trail Boulevard and the project's ingress-egress driveway), which are the most likely to be utilized by pedestrians in the area; however,to utilize the remaining rights-of-way for the stormwater management system in order to permit both greater retention and detention capacity on the site. To compensate for the sidewalk segments not being provided along the remaining frontages within (in Tracts A and B), the applicants have committed to providing sidewalk segments within the Trail Boulevard right-of-way between Ridge Drive and Sand Pine Drive (which intersects Trail Boulevard north of Ridge) that would connect to the existing sidewalk on Sand Pine Drive and, ultimately, a commercial corridor. They would also construct one sidewalk extension across Trail Boulevard, from the central building campus to US 41, to provide access to an existing bus stop there, as depicted on the Master Plan. Staff's Determination: Staff supports this deviation since, if sidewalks were constructed along the remaining frontages, they would connect to nowhere as the surrounding single-family lots were developed without any sidewalks. Furthermore, Transportation Planning staff has determined that the improvements described above would be a more beneficial alternative. Nevertheless, as previously noted, Transportation Planning has requested that the applicants provide a bus shelter at the location depicted on the Master Plan since the inclusion of a bus stop would encourage public transportation for the churches and their ancillary facilities. However, because the applicants do not believe that users of the churches or their accessory uses would utilize Collier Area Transit (CAT), the applicants are opposed to providing this shelter and have not proffered it in Exhibit F of the CFPUD documents, List of Developer Commitments. As such, staff has included it as a condition of approval. Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 4.06.02.D.5.a., Natural and Manmade Bodies of Water, which requires the naturalization of manmade lakes and water management areas through the use of curvilinear edges. Proposal: Instead of a physical, curvilinear contour, the applicants propose to accomplish the intent of this requirement through the use of a curvilinear landscape pattern. Staff's Determination: Because the County Landscape Architect has determined that a curvilinear landscape design could effectively achieve a result similar to an actual lake contour and the fact that this design strategy would enable the project to provide greater stormwater management capacity, staff supports this deviation. Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 4.06.05.C.2.a., Trees and Palms, which allows no more than 30 percent of the canopy trees within an individual Type D Buffer to be substituted by palms. PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD 11 Proposal: The applicants are requesting this deviation to permit 100 percent palm trees in the Type D buffer along Trail Boulevard, which parallels US 41, provided that the overall percentage of palms within the site's required perimeter buffers does not exceed 30 percent. The objective of this deviation is two-fold: first, to provide all shade trees along the site's Ridge Drive, West Street and Myrtle Road frontages to further enhance the vegetative screening from the perspective of the adjacent single-family homes; and second, to make a grand statement to the public traveling along US 41 by providing only Royal Palms along Trail Boulevard, which would complement the existing row of stately Royal Palms that exist along the northern end of Trail Boulevard, running south from Vanderbilt Beach Road, as well as those planted single-file in the US 41 median, just south of the subject property. Staff's Determination: As the proposed deviation would ultimately fulfill the LDC requirement relative to the total percentage of palms permitted, while at the same time distributing this elegant native species throughout the site's Type D buffers in a very pragmatic and aesthetically-pleasing way, staff supports this deviation. Deviation 4 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 5.05.08.E.2.c., Pedestrian Pathway Minimum Ratios, which requires pedestrian pathway connections from a building to adjacent road pathways at a ratio of one per each vehicular entrance to a project; and drive aisles leading to main entrances to have at least one walkway adjacent to them. Proposal: The applicants request a reduction from these requirements to provide six pedestrian walkways, as depicted on the Master Plan: two leading to Trail Boulevard, two to West Street, one to Myrtle Road and one to Ridge Road. The applicants' justification for this deviation is that the proposed number would be adequate for the site. Staff's Determination: Because pedestrian pathways would be provided around the main campus' plaza, and six connections from the surrounding roadways have been provided—which is one more than the total number of permanent access points on the site—staff believes the intent of this requirement would be met and, therefore, supports this deviation. Deviation 5 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 4.06.02.A, Buffer Requirements, which requires landscape buffers between adjacent land uses. Proposal: The applicants would like to eliminate the buffer required between Tracts A and B provided that the equivalent square footage of the eliminated ten- foot wide buffer, including its tree requirement of 1 tree per 30 linear feet, is relocated elsewhere within each of the tracts. Staff's Determination: Due to the applicants' creation of a church campus with compatible uses on Tracts A and B, including pedestrian pathway connections, PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD 12 common access drives and shared parking, coupled with the fact that the plant material composing this deleted buffer would merely be redistributed to other areas of the site, staff supports this deviation. Deviation 6 seeks relief from LDC Subsections 5.03.02.E.2. and 5.03.02.E.4., Fences and Walls, which require, respectively, nonresidential development located opposite a residentially-zoned district to provide a masonry wall or prefabricated concrete wall and/or fence; and, said wall and/or fence to be four feet in height and located at a minimum of three feet from the rear of the right-of- way landscape buffer line. Proposal: The applicants are proposing to instead provide a six-foot tall, black- vinyl, chain-link fence situated between double hedgerows within the enhanced Type D buffers adjacent to the lakes for safety reasons; and waiving the requirement along the remaining perimeter boundaries in favor of the modified buffer described beginning on page seven of this report. Staff's Determination: Due to the generous buffers provided and the fact that the proposed land uses would be separated from the adjacent residential uses by a two-lane local road with a 60-foot right-of-way; and that, when combined with the associated building setbacks, this separation would be a minimum of 140 feet for existing buildings and 310 feet for new buildings, staff believes that the single-family residences would be well protected from potential headlight glare or any other adverse impacts and,therefore, supports this deviation. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC): As all but 0.8 acres of this site have already been developed, the applicants were not required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this petition, nor were they were they required to have a hearing before the EAC. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicants duly noticed and held the required NIM at 5:30 on October 5, 2007, at the Covenant Presbyterian Church. Approximately 30 people attended, most of whom identified themselves as residents of Pine Ridge. Also present were County staff, Michael Fernandez, the agent for the applicants, and three of the agent's staff. Mr. Fernandez opened the meeting by explaining that 13 buildings currently exist on the site, totaling approximately 50,000 square feet of area, and that the CFPUD proposed 148,000 feet of churches and accessory uses. He stated that the maximum actual height of the new churches would not be much higher than the building heights that currently exist on the site, which he estimated to be approximately 65 feet. He also noted that substantial buffers would be provided along the roadways adjacent to the residential uses and that stormwater would be pretreated in open space areas before being transferred to the newly relocated lake, per the requirements of PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD 13 the LDC. Finally, he explained that current access to the south would be closed and that some access points along the northern boundary would probably also be lost. Most of the questions posed by the attendees centered on stormwater impacts due to the fact that flooding is an issue in the neighborhood during severe storm events. Residents expressed concern that the increase in impervious surface area proposed with the project, coupled with the lake's relocation, would only exacerbate this problem. They also wanted to know where the stormwater would outfall. Mr. Fernandez explained that the project's stormwater management system had been deemed feasible by the County's Engineering and Environmental Services Department, and that the engineering details of the system would be worked out at the time of site development plan(SDP), as dictated by protocol. Although he stated that the project would never solve the Pine Ridge community's long-standing drainage problems associated with old, collapsed drainage pipes in the neighborhood, he promised nevertheless that the proposed system would be equal to or better than the stormwater management presently provided by Lake Cardinal during three-day, 25-year to storm events. Vehicular impacts caused by cut-through traffic from Goodlette-Frank Road were also of concern to many residents, especially since the project proposed a school, which would increase weekday trips. Mr. Fernandez explained that, based upon the Transportation Impact Statement's (TIS) analysis of trip distributed on the surrounding roadway network, 90 percent of all trips would access the site from US 41, so impacts from cut-through traffic would be minimal. One resident wanted to know what the maximum student enrollment for the school would be. Mr. Fernandez was not able to provide that number. Another resident was concerned that if the CFPUD were approved it would trigger more PUD development in the neighborhood. This resident, and many others, were also troubled by the conceptual nature of the project's Master Plan; and, as such, stated that it would be preferable if the applicants applied for a Conditional Use due to the fact that the LDC requires more specificity on the submitted Master Plan for Conditional Uses than PUDs and,therefore, affords much less flexibility in design after approval. Mr. Fernandez explained that Conditional Uses expired after three years, and that because the churches were dependent upon long-term fundraising and an approximately 25-year development horizon, a Conditional Use would be impractical and cost-prohibitive for his clients. Although members of the Pine Ridge Civic Association were in attendance, they and others from the subdivision had complained before the meeting about not being notified of the NIM by mail (due to the fact that they live outside of the 1,000-foot notification radius prescribed by the LDC, a distance they believe to be inadequate). Therefore, Mr. Fernandez volunteered to hold a second NIM in which he would ensure that everyone who wanted to attend would be invited. He also promised to present the community with a revised Master Plan that was less conceptual and that provided more specificity. The NIM ended at approximately 7:30 p.m. This second NIM was held at 5:30 p.m. on February 13, 2008 at Covenant Presbyterian Church. After reiterating the background information provided at the initial NIM, Mr. Fernandez presented a new Master Plan, which increased open space in the site from 30 percent to 40 percent; for new structures on Tract A, proposed 200-foot setbacks from West Street, 100-foot PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD 14 setbacks from Ridge Drive and Myrtle Road, and 50-foot setbacks from Trail Boulevard; 25- foot (instead of 15-foot) Type D perimeter buffers containing stormwater management area; and parking lots designed to accommodate the 1000-seat capacity of the church on the Tract A. Several residents remained steadfastly opposed to the project because Mr. Fernandez could not provide calculations to quantitatively demonstrate how the stormwater management system would work. Mr. Fernandez again explained how these calculations were not required at the rezone stage, but would be required at the time of SDP; and that at the time of SDP the project would be required to provide stormwater capacity equal to or greater than the existing capacity afforded by Lake Cardinal—due to his clients' commitment to do so in the PUD documents—or lose some of the project's developable area in order to meet that target. The residents stated that they still objected to the lake's relocation. Residents were also still concerned about cut-through traffic, especially due to the number of access points along West Road and Ridge Drive. Mr. Fernandez said that the southernmost access from Tract A to West Road would be exit only, and that he would commit to closing it if it became problematic. (Transportation Planning staff required this egress point to be removed from the Master Plan, which the applicants agreed to do. Therefore, it is no longer shown.) One resident requested that the applicants commit to a maximum church and school population. Mr. Fernandez said that they would not, and that the square-footage limit on the uses contained in the CFPUD document would serve to restrict the number of users. Another resident asked that the applicants commit to the prohibition of parking garages within the development. Mr. Fernandez said that they would not. The only other issue discussed at the meeting concerned glare caused by parking lot lighting. Mr. Fernandez said that bollard lighting would be used throughout the campus pedestrian areas to illuminate the ground only, and LDC-required pole lighting would be used in the parking lots and at access points. The NIM ended at approximately 7:30 p.m. Staff has received one letter of support (from the Pelican Bay Foundation), one letter of objection, and a petition objecting to the proposal that was signed by 48 residents of Pine Ridge (representing approximately 32 households) at the time of the applicants' first submittal (see Appendix 6). Staff was also copied on two letters from the Architectural Control Committee of Pine Ridge Subdivisions to Covenant Presbyterian Church, both dated February 1, 2008 (also in Appendix 7). One of these letters from the committee contained the March 5, 2008 iteration of the CFPUD document, with suggested deletions shown in strike-through format and additions inserted in red font. Most of these suggested changes involved design standards that were ultimately incorporated by the applicants into the CFPUD document. However, the applicants did not limit the number of on-site lakes to two or commit to replacing "an existing storm management pipe" (the committee failed to mention where) as requested. It must also be stated that, until a week prior to the finalization of this report, the applicants had proposed to limit the use of the site's principal and accessory uses to members of the churches and their guests, exclusively. However, as evidenced by the version of the CFPUD document PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD 15 attached to the ordinance, the applicants have now deleted this limitation. Due to the applicants' inability to define the maximum square-footage for each of the proposed uses (only flexible approximations are shown in the tables in Exhibit B of the CPUD document, which have been recreated on page three of this report); unwillingness to regulate the number of users for each of the uses; and refusal to control all of the site's hours of operation as requested by staff, the community has expressed serious concern about the applicants' suddenly eliminating this constraint. Their apprehension is that the activity generated by uses that are open to the public- at-large would be much more intense than that generated by a congregation with a seating capacity of 1,200 people or less. Furthermore, the community gathering hall (or even the churches) could be leased out to the public at will, generating even more activity on the site. According to the applicants, the adult and child daycare and school serve as arms of their community outreach, and therefore, they refuse to re-insert the members-only limitation into the CFPUD document. While staff appreciates the applicants' outreach mission and the fact that they have at least recently agreed to limit the hours of operation for the child/adult day care to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., staff can not support such a modification to the CFPUD document. Staff is still troubled by the fact that, until a week ago, the community was led to believe that the proposed uses would be restricted to the enjoyment of members of the churches and their guests. This information was communicated to residents at both of the NIMs, as well as on all of the various iterations of the PUD document, which staff had regularly been forwarding to several concerned residents throughout the process of its review. As such, staff has incorporated a condition of approval limiting all the uses on the site to members and their guests. Further, staff supports the applicants' 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. operating limitation on the day care and school, provided that the users are indeed members, or guests of members, of the respective houses of worship. Finally, although no formal letters of objection were received, staff has maintained close communication via several meetings, telephone calls, and email exchanges with at least five residents from the neighborhood who were opposed to the project. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-12097 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval, subject to approval of the applicants' requested deviations and the following conditions of approval: 1. Any plan submitted pursuant to this CFPUD shall be in substantial conformance with the approved conceptual Master Plan entitled "Exhibit C Master Plan," prepared by Planning Development Incorporated, consisting of one sheet, dated May 16, 2008. 2. The access points located on West Street and Ridge Drive, depicted on Tract B of the Master Plan, shall close when this tract redevelops. 3. The adult day care, children's day care and pre-K through Kindergarten school shall have a maximum daily enrollment limited to 220 persons. 4. All parking shall be contained on-site and limited to 600 spaces. 5. Hours of operation for the houses of worship and all accessory uses on the site shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on all other days of the week, PUDZ-2007-AR-12097,Heavenly CFPUD 16 excluding religious holidays, in which no hours of operation shall apply to the houses of worship. 6. All permitted uses shall be for the exclusive use of congregants of the houses of worship and their guests. 7. A bus shelter shall be provided at the stub-out in the median separating Trail Boulevard and US 41 depicted on the Master Plan, in order to provide shelter for users of this existing stop along the Collier Area Transit route. This shelter shall be constructed as part of the first development order. 8. Created preserves on the site shall be separate from any water management areas. APPENDICES: 1. PUD Findings 2. Rezone Findings 3. Project Traffic Distribution, Heavenly Mixed-Use PUD 4. Site Line from West Street 5. Typical West Street Perimeter Buffer Cross-Section 6. Letter of Objection, Letter of Support, and Petition of Objection 7. Architectural Control Committee of Pine Ridge Subdivisions' Letters and Recommendations PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD 17 PREPARED BY: - S llo 6O JOHN DAVID OSS, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: MARJO 011 M. STUDE T-STIRLING a DATE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY lvlc/ - // 5—z.7-0 be RA /•ND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW T.- zg- oS SAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: 41....immi _lAdAddAdt/ ■510.2 Ev.,„/ .116 PH K. SC `ITT ADM ISTRATOR DATE ITY DEVELOPMENT& ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the July 22, 2008 Board of County Commissioners Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, Heavenly CFPUD 17 PUD FINDINGS Appendix 1 PETITION PUDA-2007-AR-12097 Heavenly CFPUD Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning Commission to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the following criteria: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer,water, and other utilities. The purpose of the Urban Residential Subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. The urban-designated areas are intended to accommodate community facilities such as churches, group housing uses, cemeteries, schools and school facilities co-located with other public facilities such as parks, libraries, and community centers. The proposed CFPUD fulfills the objectives of this designation and will have to be in accordance with all applicable sections of the Land Development Code (LDC) at the time of issuance of any development order. In addition, the subject property has been used for churches and church-related activities for over 40 years. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Evidence of unified control was provided with the application. All arrangements for the development of the CFPUD are contained within the PUD documents. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The project as proposed is consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) which designates the subject property as Urban Residential Subdistrict. The subject petition has been found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP, as explained in the staff report. 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. Section 4.07.02 of the LDC has specific development requirements for PUD districts to insure that they are compatible with established uses of the surrounding neighborhoods. As noted in the staff report, the subject parcel is located in Urban Residential Subdistrict, which permits churches and other community facilities. The applicants have committed to Page 1 of 2 providing enhanced buffers adjacent to the surrounding residential uses, which include taller hedgerows and 100 percent canopy trees, as described in the staff report 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Approximately 6.3 acres, or 40 percent of the site's area would be retained as open space, which is 10 percent greater than that required by LDC Subsection 4.07.02.G., Design Standards. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. No capacity issues are known at this time and the petition has been reviewed by County Transportation staff who has determined that no Level of Service (LOS) standards would not be adversely affected. Policy 2.3 of the GMP requires the certification of public facility availability prior to the issuance of a final local development order. Because of this provision, the development must be in compliance with applicable concurrency management regulation. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The utility and roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed CFPUD and the surrounding development at the time of its build-out. 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. Staff has reviewed this petition and found it to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and the other elements of the GMP. The proposed development standards are comparable to the development standards of the C-3 zoning district. Additionally, the proposed buffers and deviations recommended by staff will ensure compatibility with the adjacent properties. Page 2 of 2 Appendix 2 REZONE FINDINGS PETITION PUDZ-2007-AR-12097 Heavenly CFPUD Chapter 10.03.05.G of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following, where applicable: 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. Pages three and four of the staff report explain how this petition is consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the Growth Management Plan (GMP). As stated, the subject property is Urban Residential Subdistrict. The purpose of this subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. Urban-designated areas of the county contain a vast array of residential and non-residential land uses. The Future Land Use Element (FLUE), Section (XV) 1. Urban Designation, (I) (XV), states that Urban-designated areas are intended to accommodate community facilities such as churches, group housing uses, cemeteries, schools and school facilities co-located with other public facilities such as parks, libraries, and community centers, where feasible and mutually acceptable. As the proposed uses of the CFPUD are the same as those specifically provided for in the Subdistrict, this project would be consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; The subject site is bordered by the RSF-1 zoning district to the north, east and south; and by US 41 to the west. All of the abutting parcels have been developed with single-family homes. With the proposed development standards and the stipulations for approval recommended by staff, the project would continue to be compatible with the residential uses with which it has coexisted for the last 40 years. By providing an appropriate buffer between the single-family residences surrounding the subject property and US 41 to the west, the institutional uses proposed for the site would serve as an appropriate transition between the residential uses of the Pine Ridge neighborhood and the adjacent six-lane highway. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; Approval of this CFPUD would not create an isolated district. As noted above, the subject site has been developed for decades with churches and church-related uses. These uses are normally permitted in the RSF zoning district with conditional use approval, as they are deemed compatible subject to certain conditions. The proposed CFPUD is also consistent with the FLUE of the GMP, as noted above. Page 1 of 4 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The subject property was created by the applicants'assemblage of available parcels in the area. The location map on page two of the staff report highlights the boundary of the subject parcel. As shown, the boundaries of the CFPUD are logically drawn. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed CFPUDA is not obligatory at this location. However, the request is reasonable because the property owners are unable to redevelop their facilities without a land use action on their property since the RSF-1 zoning district no longer allows churches without at least Conditional Use approval; otherwise, the properties remain legally non-conforming. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; The proposed CFPUD would not adversely affect the living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed uses for the property would be similar to that already existing on the site; and with the conditions of approval recommended by staff, any adverse impacts would be mitigated. 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 applicant submitted the required TIS, and Transportation Planning has reviewed the application. Subject to the conditions of approval and the developer commitments, the project will not create any adverse traffic impacts. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed change would not create drainage or surface water problems, as the water management system would be designed to prevent drainage problems on the site. As noted in the staff report, the applicants have committed to providing the same capacity of Lake Cardinal within the combined stormwater management areas proposed for the site; or the capacity required by water management standards for a three-day, 25-year storm event— whichever of the two is greater. Although no stormwater management is proposed to be developed on Tract B, additional capacity on Tract A would be provided to compensate for it. Furthermore, the proposed lakes would accept additional drainage from the site's abutting roadside swales, as well as serve as the outfall for the project's dry stormwater management basins. Page 2 of 4 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; The proposed change will not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties in terms of light and air. 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 the market. There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; The proposed uses are existing, and all adjoining properties have already been developed. Therefore, the proposal would 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; As stated, the proposed amendment complies with the Urban Residential Subdistrict designation of the GMP. Furthermore, land use applications are subject to a public hearing process to insure that they do not constitute a grant of special privilege or are inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity in which they are situated. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; There are no substantial reasons why the property could not be used in accordance with existing zoning. However, as legally non-conforming uses, without a land use action they are unable to make any site alterations that would increase their size. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; The proposed amendment conforms to the goals and objectives of t`he GMP and is compatible with the surrounding property. However, even though staff believes the size of the project has been mitigated through the design standards, such as 200-foot setbacks, and enhanced vegetative buffers, area residents have expressed concerns about the project's scale. Page 3 of 4 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There are many sites that are already zoned to accommodate the proposed development; however this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a rezoning decision. The proposed CFPUD was reviewed and deemed compliant with the GMP and the LDC. Furthermore, the churches have been operating on the site for approximately 40 years. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development would require some site alteration and the subject site would have to cleared to execute the proposed development plan. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The proposed CFPUD petition would not have an adverse impact on public facilities or services. Page 4 of 4 N 50% W !� - E RIDGE ROAD S 1 - - - ♦ 5% ♦ N.T.S. 1 I II 1 WW 1 i f � I I �- - _ - - -- -- --J MYRTLE ROAD f ♦ 5% 40% LEGEND 1-20%-* PERCENT DISTRIBUTION "F? TRANSPORTATION PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION Appendix 3 CONSULTANTS, INC. HEAVENLY MIXED USE PUD jimArillit- 1161d01.1 1• A s>•IUai won 4a�w •r� halt-wlm�avYr U 4h WfrC NMI WW1 3 VMS 7AISQ OTIIiB►9 CC/9 , K /.COEI-B►and d71Qd s� mom �anw•+ee - wwi erwr•.wwe 86f$flOfd!0 1N0�8 1 S/J311FOIN3dOSOW7OWSIONNOld aitilM95/NEITIM 0 1113111 0 7 3 9 3 0 t ird �® IS dot KM and d711�V�i „r�,, 031b2 1OddOoNI1N3Wd073/1309NINNV7d i o x fA< �i V F V <U ` U I ? \ i2 ii iS sr I e sr sr \ 65. I sr I • \ e- 8 1 er HEIGHT Q x 1-- co H O) W \ W Jn d LL �'` j R W Z 1 m x J U_ I W t W\ o & w s C V m C LI U �S� g c\ G < g 1' : U W m Z Y F 3 Y f H Ii AV z a_ 0 3Nn'dOild 1 =I < O LSIG `' D N rc a- U W v) Z W,,h� K m 60 Appendix 4 [ j (01711/07_i.S37dON (f2!;;11)1 ..Y.Y.Yi 3...A.,Y) (."— L6027-ZIV a f 101 ATMS!'trait GinF.,,,,„,--• SSINDOHd lil aNOZ371 WI d( - NOLLIZS SSOUD TY/11./SONOD DIDIddal 71 ifddl•I..11117 Icsrm woe=se azzranaroara.11andOIZUCI mom/0/3 HDEOLLID YWYSLUILItts:OMOLLOO afld A7NHAVZH ..II. It0101001f Ad C.41•11.-11•141.P•11-1•111•N COT*E YO71107,1 T:11TdYll'0 LLIIIS 2.4Mtl OTT:LLOYD MIS ammo wr ....5 MVP....Ma - M.1,S.....81.•/9.9.0 E SIDOIDIONYWIDSONY7ONYRI3Weld'SLOOODAOWYYLTIONOODBM107300 i• '. 031tRi0d2109N111■1311d073A30 ONINNY7d Ei ; C -74... .111.OW.. q-,dr•Id) , • C 10n 'no, .. ..• .:. ..................:i. ....L.:...i...• • ' .• .... .7.• •. ••• '• .... . • •.• .' .'.''•• . '.' • .. . . . . . ...' '' .. .. . ' '' ''' ' '' ' ""•" ... . . . ' ''.... .. . .. . . .. .... .. .......... .. . . . •.•. . .. •.. •.....•.• •.••• • •• ...... . .. .. . . 7.•.. ••.- . .. . .. .. ... . ... . . . .. .......... ... 04 ' •• '• • '' • • ' ..- •1.1 .. . . ... ... .. . "0 ...... ... .. .. ............. .... .. Cie --••--- .. --... .. - C20 •. . •.•.-... • . - rz. . . . ... . •.. .. .. . . ....... -..!C .• ..••••• •••••••••••• ••• ... ... . ... ........ . . . . .. ... . .... .•••.• •• •... .• .-.•-• ..-..--.. ! •••••• • •• • - • • ..- -• .• -. . - •.•-. • _- . -.' . ...- \ / ; .. • f1 / / \ r. / \ / \ = / • • .. r[ Zit - - fr [11 . " ij s•is:!•"•• . ... . \ .. . \ / ' ••• c') <■-• / / • xs 5' 0 • ..... / Ontnnthhttn. 1.1.1 -.7 •C 0) X 5 -----1 .--,' .------ , ,, E-::"----- . __. .iiiili ....111111 ea k num . ----..-.'"'-----..----\\ .." x 0 !Ik/i ix Sid / \ : \ 6 1 g Iiikist \ I ce N i Ekiihligi I ril pit ,m,s . 2 Ig 'Iligli 1 . kk 5 • / \ r,. :1111i; I-- z \ / \ , N / , f --.•___a__/ / &I / \ :.• i ____- s .• i ---\-+ 1 __---- __....11111 _ . I ..-- __- i - .....-.. f '1414341':# F la..MLA MUM,MN A .z-•-■......_.._ ......1.111111 C--...-- -- -.":rlfilfE4 --...--......... -J 1.1•0 1 "-..s....'... '41411V 11.1 ,. la_ . \ ---7'-' „.....——\ \ / ...--- \ . \ / KAMM 31■7i OTOS 3041•710 Z / \ ::::: / / \ \ ,.. / / \ . -------_/ lA ar / \ ce 11 I PIA LY 11=.713 1.1011 VMS ammo I s I- N :II I I-- cn 1 / •• 1 sitamem: LA 3 . •orrs M0111.116 1117. 011M9 ZIMI/3 \ / \ / . 111101,0115 0,117MINIS I \ / Si .... N, .....„ / 017•13%1 40 WRI .......•••-_J Appendix 6 Joe&Teresa Bandy 603 West Street Naples,FL 34108 October 31, 2007 Michael R.Fernandez,AICP President '141 5133 Castello Drive, Suite 2, Naples,FL 34103 RE: Proposed Heavenly Mixed Use MPUD Rezone 6926 Trail Boulevard Neighborhood Information Meeting(NIM) PDI PN: 07.01007 Rezoning from Residential Single Family(RSF)to Heavenly Mixed Use Planned Unit Development(MPUD) Dear Mr.Fernandez: In response to your letter dated October 25,2007,we are very much concerned with your Proposal Rezoning Plan on the above captioned property owned by the Church Group. We are fearful of any change to our quality of life,which includes increase in auto traffic,people traffic,noise, etc. We are also concerned about our property depreciating and becoming less valuable. :hen,there are the evening traffic bright lights,music, singing and noise. Je are paying a very Iarge tax bill due to the fact of where we live. We oppose the change.III 1 7/ rely/ -ek.12.4-0.-) e—CL,..1,4_212(.7 oe& Teresa Bandy 03 West Street aples,FL 34108 'c: Linda Bedtelyon Community Planning Coordinator Community Development&Environmental Services Administration 2800 North Horseshoe Drive,Naples,FL 34104 (239)213-2948 / Fax: (239)403-2395 lindabedtelyoniicolliers ov.net pies rezoning Page 1 of 2 • ssJohndavid f m: Terri Fernandez[pditff@aol.com] nt: Tuesday, October 30, 2007 11:16 AM MossJohndavid C PDIMRF @aol.com; 'Sandra Guajardo' ' 7ect: Heavenly MPUD -AR 12097 Gc ' morning, John David: W. re looking forward to the NIM for this project on Monday, November 5, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. See you then. F -our records, please see the email chain below from Lisa Bauer of the Pelican Bay Foundation. aceived our letter relative to the NIM for Heavenly MPUD and discussed it with the Pelican Bay President. As j will see from her email, they have no issues with our zoning change. Tt; tht you might want to include this information in your project file. Thanks for your time and see you next a great day. 1. s, s' :ly, Ferna.4 t.d..e ' • '.63-6934 • m: Lisa Bauer [mailto:lbauer @pelicanbay.org] Tuesday, October 30, 2007 9:54 AM • -ri Fernandez _t: RE: 6926 Trail Boulevard i ink you for your email. I reviewed the information and spoke with the Pelican Bay President and he said we r issues with the zoning change. t Terri Fernandez [mailto:pditff@aol.com] Monday, October 29, 2007 8:48 AM ! .9 Bauer • MRF @aol.com; 'Sandra Guajardo' t: 6926 Trail Boulevard < Horning, Ms. Bauer: you for your email inquiry. For your use and ease of reference, attached please find a location map for :nt Presbyterian Church, which is located at 6926 Trail Boulevard. Trail Boulevard runs parallel and a t to Tamiami Trail North on the east side. It is the location of the existing church facilities. :ur receipt and review, should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not to contact our office. '007 PETITION FOR THE DENIAL REZONING KNOWN AS"HEAVENLY MPUD", We,the property owners,of the Pine Ridge Residential area oppose the proposed rezoning and proposed construction of the Presbyterian Church project. Pine Ridge is a unique and special neighborhood. By allowing the rezoning and proposed project known as"Heavenly MPUD"would increase the traffic and noise on West Street, West Pine,Ridge Drive, Myrtle Street and many other Pine Ridge streets. Storm water overflow from the proposed lake could flood low situated properties. We are dependent on wells for our water supply. Common sense tells us that moving the existing lake would tremendously disturb the underground water quality to the entire area. Also,the runoff of the polluted surface water from the huge parking area in the lake would create a cesspool, seeping into the wells and poison our water. All this,besides other objections would destroy our unique Pine Ridge neighborhood. Therefore,we wish that this rezoning be denied. y` LA, / r_ - ..• Qkfi0A1_+i. \-\12 L z q dce e .. ` i '7 O's c \-01._(A/L h"4-(...1 </ 44 ,a 'I`./ // ` i Z_to s- I l 6- 1-vat . . ) , i a .., L,C)-,1 7 c,) ( 6 • i 13 1 1-)d_. - 4 ,--c___ ,_ q . ('(..�.-e,- / �� r n ,� �- fil I . 7 2 f—� , '-/ / eCL.d Pei''- ,2 7 LL1G.s / CA-C- ,4 �I ("GL2L{. l� yip -��,� 6/6 (") e s 7--- .st- .f 6‘y ,,,,,),,,(,47 , ,4,. -T-J /71.,_____1/„....6„- 676) 6(76...i(pi / ,--L,---,__ . r6 3<-1 (*J €__Ls ‘r-- . 7 &('- .-77. kiec-i- _C-1-1- . , . r I , , ___., , ...ei . _ , ■ 37 - - - :_„...)e---.--.--. ). ..,----2-7.. ,,,.""11.. ..■ , et; 37 ,Q_ mil 4 02641-4: 4_, 67„ : 1,-c- --.57-- ,6q3 /e- 1-- ,5--r---' • • • - ' --a) -4Tha1 l .5-24, V PL. • / , i' , , ., ___5- PAL 4)vj ' i '. ■ ' • ,, -7 '` • :---. _.__ . 1, ,2, . f s 1. 5-- tivl--v_e. ,4 4;A-,,,,RaLvol __S--- 9' LA/Jai/0/(77r V - •olleu/ 'Pak\-vn V- - 5- CI ki\k-M-- '\/0-i_e • ' _.„,p 7- d ,/ — • , 1 1 Ada 4 • Pir TM Air i /11 49* 4 / d 3J 1 e Pvifs 9 '>ye . • fi,„,,,,,,upp,j __ 1. 0 / IWOMEIMMIAMNPlakt__ • . _ - w_e .41=11V- AeOINII Alr:- I. . Li C. Cil , • —41,07,1, 36 Wfti g'-' / ' L357 S dAn Ailk- je ‘/-z si/ Pcxe /( 1 ( _ 5. .19c E; a 0f • r� ,r i f, 1 �Q ��L D t7�- li 003 X0'0 22/ Tu-reto L - cD Appendix 7 -6 Architectural Control Committee '2. of Pine Ridge Subdivisions r y,L^'_VIPP I '� Collier County, Florida .;� ° -� 300 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 217 Naples,Florida 34102 , 01.February 2008 ci/5 Steven J.Brisson,AIA Chairman, Architectural Control Committee of Pine Ridge Subdivisions in Collier County,Florida 300 5th Ave. South Suite 217 '4p /t � Naples,FL 34102 1/ <0�/�c �s?oo Q Covenant Presbyterian Church QFP4 . 8 6926 Trail Blvd. 11 , Naples,FL 34108 RE: "Heavenly Mixed Use Planned Unit Development(MPUD)" To Whom It May Concern: The Pine Ridge Architectural Control Committee has met on several occasions with Mr. Michael Fernandez representing the Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples Inc. and Mission Possible Ministries, Inc. to review and discuss the"Heavenly Mixed Use Planned Unit Development(MPUD)"document. The use of Block "0" of Pine Ridge Extension for "churches and affiliated uses" is long established. This committee's intention is to work to assure that the use Block "0" is not subverted to uses not originally intended by the "Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for Pine Ridge Extension, Collier Community, Florida as amend and filed,or,Book 66,Page 3/8 at the Collier County Records. The PRACC has reviewed the PUD document dated March 5, 2008. The enclosed mark-up of that document contains the Committee's specific review. Please accept the comments of the PRACC. Respectfully I 1// Steven J.Brisson,AIA Chairman, Architectural Control Committee of Pine Ridge Subdivisions in Collier County,Florida Page 1 of 2 Encl.Heavenly Mixed Use Planned Unit Development(MPUD) Cc: Clifford H.Schneider,PRACC Member w/ enclosure Thomas R.Peek,PRACC Member w/ enclosure Mission Possible Ministries,Inc w/ enclosure Joe Schmitt,Collier County Director of Community Development and Environmental Services w/ enclosure John David Moss,Principal Planner,Collier County w/ enclosure George Buonocore,President Pine Ridge Civic Association w/ enclosure County Commissioner Frank Halas,District 2 w/o enclosure County Commissioner Jim Colleta,District 5 w/o enclosure County Commissioner Fred W.Coyle,District 4 w/o enclosure County Commissioner Donna Fiala,District 1 w/o enclosure County Commissioner Tom Henning,District 3 w/o enclosure Michael Fernandez w/ enclosure Page 2 of 2 HEAVENLY MIXED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(MPUD) EXHIBITS A through F 1 of 12 Mark-Up by PRACC—04/09/08 Document Date:March 5,2008 HEAVENLY MIXED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) EXHIBITS A (TRACT A) PERMITTED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1. House(s)of Worship. 2. Family life center/community gathering hall for use by members and guests of the congregation as a complement to an onsite house of worship. 3. School and associated educational facilities for use of members and guests of the congregation as a complement to an onsite house of worship.Limited to nursery through 3t grade. 4. Family health and fitness center for use of members and guests of the congregation as a complement to an onsite house of worship. 5. Family adult and children's day care center for use of members and guests of the congregation as a complement to an onsite house of worship. 6. 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 LDC. B.Accessory Uses: Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures; except for parking garage not permitted—not in character with residential character,which shall require approval of a Conditional Use petition and provided further that such a structure shall be limited to a single parking level above on grade parking. (TRACT B) PERMITTED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1. House(s)of Worship. 2. Family life center / community gathering hall for use by members and guests of the congregation as a complement to an onsite house of worship. 3. School and associated educational facilities for use of members and guests of the congregation as a complement to an onsite house of worship.Limited to nursery through 3rd grade. 4. Family health and fitness center for use of members and guests of the congregation as a complement to an onsite house of worship. 5. Family adult and children's day care center for use of members and guests of the congregation as a complement to an onsite house of worship. 6. 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 LDC. B.Accessory Uses: Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures; except for parking garage Not permitted—not in character with residential character,which shall require approval of a Conditional Use petition and provided further that such a structure shall be limited to a single parking level above on grade parking. 2 of 12 Mark-Up by PRACC—04/09/08 Document Date:March 5,2008 EXHIBIT B.1 Table I (for Tract A) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Table I,together with the text which follows below, sets forth the development standards for land uses within Tract A of this Mixed Use(MPUD) 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 Site Development Plan(SDP). The redevelopment program of this MPUD is based on a 25 year build-out. The Committee's position is that all setbacks must be in compliance with underlying zoning.Additions to any structures shall comply even in the event that an existing structure is not in compliance. PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA 40,000 sq.ft. N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 150ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS(from right of way) Existing,renovated and expanded buildings(5) The greater of 30 feet 50 feet(RSF-1)or the 25 Ft. New structures height of structure 50 Ft. 200 feet;except,50 feet from Trail Boulevard 25 Ft. MINIMUM YARDS(between tracts) Side The greater of 15 feet 30 feet(RSF-1)or 1/2 the 5 Ft. height of the building 30 Ft. MIN.DISTANCE BETWEEN The greater of 15 feet or 1/2 sum of building N/A STRUCTURES heights MAXIMIM HEIGHT(LDC definition) Church/house of worship 50ft. N/A Other permitted uses 35ft.30ft. N/A Accessory use N/A 20Ft. MAXIMUM ACTUAL HEIGHT • Church/house of worship 65 ft.(1X2) N/A Other permitted uses 50ft.30ft(1) N/A MAXIMIM NUMBER OF STORIES 2(2) SPS MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 1000 sq.ft. N/A MAX.GROSS AREA 124,000 sq.ft(4) N/A (1) Above average center line of abutting roads estimated to be between 4 ft.and 5 ft. (2) Exclusive of building steeple with or without religious symbol,which may have a maximum height above the roof line of 20 feet. (3) Exclusive of interior balconies,loft areas and attic or attic storage areas. (4) Should Tract B be subsequently acquired for integration into Tract A,then the permitted intensity shall be aggregated and the respective development standards of each tract will continue to govern. (5) Maximum expansion must be less than 50%of existing building. 3 of 12 Mark-Up by PRACC—04/09/08 Document Date:March 5,2008 A. Redevelopment Buffers perimeter buffers may be phased.Buffers will be installed concurrently with associated redevelopment improvements in their proximity including the relocation of lake and development of dry water management areas.Buffer tree and shrub installation requirements may relocated internal to the site provided they form a continuous perimeter buffer with the distance between the buffer and right-of-way limited to open space features and signage, pedestrians walks and signage. There is no buffer requirement between Tracts A and B. B. Parking Lot Lighting Pole lights shall be restricted to a maximum of 16 feet of height, measured to the top of the emitting fixture, and shall be further restricted to meet arterial level lighting requirements at ingress-egress drives and parking lot lighting requirements. Campus lighting shall be limited to bollards,landscape and building lighting fixtures. C. Fences/Walls In lieu of the LDC buffer wall requirements, a setback of 30-feet 200 feet to buildings and a setback of 25 feet to parking lot areas may be provided when associated with the installation of the required 25 feet wide redevelopment perimeter buffers. The minimum lake setback from the MPUD boundary, as measured at control,shall be 25 feet.A setback of less than 50 feet shall integrate a hidden 6 foot high chain link fence located within a continuous hedge which shall be designed to reach a maintained height of 6 feet within 2 years of installation. D. Existing Ingress-Egress Driveways Existing driveways shall be eliminated or reconfigured, as maybe-appropriate shown on PUD Master Plan, as the various Tracts are redeveloped. E. Open Space The project's master plan for the 15.93 acre site shall provide 133%of the a minimum open space(6.?-1-acr requirement of 30% of 40% of the gross project area (4.8± acres). Open space includes but is not limited to landscaped buffers, interior landscaping,building foundation landscaping,dry water management areas and lakes. Due to the phased redevelopment of the site,this standard may be less during the phased redevelopment of the site;but shall, in no case,be less than the 30%requirement for PUD zoning districts. F. Water Management Tracts A and B currently share a common water feature,a 3.3±acre borrow wpit subdivision lake. - .... . .. - . -- . .., . •. : : . . .. . Omit. The lake may be reconfigured into multiple-lakes no more than (2) lakes and/or reconfigured and/or relocated within the boundaries of the MPUD. The MPUD shall provide the grater of the capacity required by water management design standards for a 3-day, 25-year storm event, or the existing capacity of the lake. Capacity may be met, in part,with fry water management areas. Water management for existing facilities to remain, including those within Tract B,may be met by facilities and capacity in Tract A. These areas may be located outside of Tract A's management containment berm provided that compensating water management for the acreage has been provided. Should Tract B be subsequently redeveloped,Tract B shall be integrated into the master management system.Easement over lakes provided to C.C. The minimum lake setback from the MPUD boundary, as measured at control, shall be 25 feet. See fencing and associated landscape installation standards within this document. Subject to final County permitting, the proposed storm water management designed capacity shall provide for the current requirement of pretreatment (the first half inch of rainfall over the project's impervious area) and the greater of 150% of water quality base requirement(2.5 inches over the site's impervious area)within dry water management areas and 1.5 inches over the entire parcel. The balance of the project's stormwater management capacity shall provide for acceptance of drainage from abutting roadside swales via connections to the wet detention system, in addition to serving as the outfall for the project's dry water management areas. 4 of 12 Mark-Up by PRACC—04/09/08 Document Date:March 5,2008 G. Flat roof prohibition. Flat roofs may not be utilized as a primary or principal roof component.cxccpt Flat roofs may be utilized for secondary roof areas when hidden from view by the use of articulated architectural elements which create and provide for an articulated roof line. H. Project Phasing. The attached Master Plan depicts a general redevelopment of the Tract. It is understood that the redevelopment is likely to be realized over a number of phases which will likely include the retention of one or more existing buildings between phases. This phased program may result in an associated phased implementation of PUD development standards. All infrastructure elements affected by a proposed phase shall be in place prior to the completion at the work of the proposed work phase. 5 of 12 Mark-Up by PRACC—04/09/08 Document Date:March 5,2008 EXHIBIT B.2 Table I (for Tract B) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Table I, together with the text which follows below, sets forth the development standards for land uses within Tract B of this Mixed Use(MPUD) 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 Site Development Plan(SDP). The redevelopment program of this MPUD is based on a 25 year build-out. The Committee's position is that all setbacks must be in compliance with underlying zoning. Additions to any structures shall comply even in the event that an existing structure is not in compliance. PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA 40,000 sq.ft. N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 150ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS(from right to way) The greater of 30 feet or height of the structure 25 Ft. MINIMUM YARDS(between tracts) Side The greater of 15 feet or'A the height of the 5 Ft. building MIN.DISTANCE BETWEEN The greater of 15 feet or 1/2 sum of building heights N/A STRUCTURES MAXIMIM HEIGHT(LDC definition) Church/house of worship 50ft.35ft. N/A Other permitted uses 35ft. N/A Accessory use N/A 20 Ft. MAXIMUM ACTUAL HEIGHT Church/house of worship 65-#I:50ft.(1x2) N/A Other permitted uses 50ft.(1) N/A MAXIMIM NUMBER OF STORIES 2(2) SPS MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 1000 sq.ft. N/A MAX.GROSS AREA 24,000 sq.ft(4) N/A (1) Above average center line of abutting roads estimated to be between 3 feet and 4 feet. (2) Exclusive of building steeple with or without religious symbol,which may have a maximum height above the roof line of 20 feet. (3) Exclusive of interior balconies,loft areas and attic or attic storage areas. 6 of 12 Mark-Up by PRACC—04/09/08 Document Date:March 5,2008 A. Redevelopment Buffers perimeter buffers may be phased. Buffers will be installed concurrently with associated redevelopment improvements in their proximity. B. Parking Lot Lighting Pole lights are restricted to a maximum of 16 feet of height, measured to the top of the emitting fixture, and are further restricted to meet arterial level at ingress-egress drives. Parking lot lighting shall be limited to bollards, landscape and lighting fixtures adhered to building. C. Existing Ingress—Egress Driveways Existing driveways will be eliminated or reconfigured,as may be appropriate,as the Tracts are redeveloped. D. Open Space Tract B shall provide the LDC landscape requirements for buffers, interior landscaping and building foundation planting areas. These and any other landscaped and open space areas shall contribute to the overall open space requirement of the MPUD, of 6.3± acres. Tract B's minimum open space requirement and contribution toward meeting the PUD requirement shall be 10.4 30%of the Tract's gross area. E. Water Management Tract A and B currently share a common water feature, a 3.3±acre borrow pit lake which does not meet County development standards for lake cross sections,associated slopes and littoral zones. The lake may be reconfigured into multiple lakes and/or reconfigured and/or relocated within the boundaries of the MPUD. The MPUD shall provide the greater of the capacity required by water management design standards for a 3 day, 25 year storm event,or the existing capacity of the lake.Capacity may be met,in part,with dry water management areas. Water management for existing facilities to remain, including those within Tract B,may be met by facilities and capacity in Tract A. These areas may be located outside of Tract A's management containment berm provided that compensating water management for the acreage has been provided. Should Tract B be subsequently redeveloped, Tract B shall be integrated into the master management system. F. Flat roof prohibition. Flat roofs may not be utilized as a primary or principal roof component.except Flat roofs may be utilized for secondary roof areas when hidden from view by the use of articulated architectural elements which create and provide for an articulated roof line. G. Project Phasing. The attached Master Plan depicts a general redevelopment of the Tract.It is understood that the redevelopment is likely to be realized over a number of phases which will likely include the retention of one or more existing buildings between phases. This phased program may result in an associated phased implementation of PUD development standards. All infrastructure elements affected by a proposed phase shall be in place prior to the completion at the work of the proposed work phase. 7 of 12 Mark-Up by PRACC—04/09/08 Document Date:March 5,2008 EXHIBIT C MPUD MASTER PLAN (TRACTS A and B) MPUD Master Plan for Tracts A and B 8 of 12 Mark-Up by PRACC—04/09/08 Document Date:March 5,2008 EXIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION (TRACT A) FOLIO NUMBERS: 67285160009,67285280002,67285360003,67285320001 LOTS 1-7 AMID 10-13,BLOCK"0",PINE RIDGE EXTENSION,ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF,AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3 AT PAGE 51,OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. LEGAL DESCRIPTION (TRACT B) FOLIO 67285400002 LOTS 8 AND 9,BLOCK 0,PINE RIDGE EXTENSION,ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF,ROCORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3,PAGE 51 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. 9 of 12 Mark-Up by PRACC—04/09/08 Document Date:March 5,2008 EXHIBIT E LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDU (TRACT A) 1. From LDC Section 6.06.02 Sidewalk and Bike Lane Requirements; except that sidewalks shall be provided along Trail Boulevard and along that portion of Myrtle Road between Trail Boulevard and project's ingress-egress driveway to Myrtle Road. This deviation will allow greater stormwater capacity within the right-of-way of the adjacent public roads. Developer shall make a payment in-lieu of for those sidewalk segments,which would otherwise be required. 2. A substitution from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4.b which requires a 20 ft buffer with a landscape installation of a continuous three gallon double row hedged spaced three feet on center of at least 24 inches in height at the time of planting and attaining a minimum of three feet height within one year to a LDC Section 4.06.02.C.2 Alternative B buffer for frontage designated by the PUD Master Plan. 3. A substitution from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4.b which requires a 20 ft. buffer with a landscape installation of a continuous three gallon double row hedged spaced three feet on center of at least 24 inches in height at the time of planting and attaining a minimum of three feet height within one year to a LDC Section 4.06.02.C.2 Alternative B buffer for frontage designated by the PUD Master Plan to receive a Type D.3 buffer. A 6 ft. vinyl covered chain link fence shall be hidden within the hedge when this buffer is within 50 feet of a lake. 4. From LDC Section 4.06.02.D.1 which restricts water management systems to a maximum of 50% of the square footage of a front yard buffer to permit up to 80% in buffers designated as Type D.1 Buffer, Type D.2 Buffer or type D.3 Buffer by the PUD Master Plan and which provide a minimum of 125%of the 20 ft.25ft.width requirement. 5. From LDC Section 4.06.02.D.2 which restricts water management systems to a maximum of 70% of a front yard buffer width to permit up to 80%in butters designated as Type D.1 Buffer,type D.2 Buffer or Type D.3 Buffer by the PUD Master Plan and which provide a minimum of 125%of the 20 ft.25ft. width requirement. 6. From LDC Section 4.06.02.D.2 which requires a minimum five-foot wide 10:1 level planting area for the accommodation of required trees and hedges to permit the use of up to two areas which have a combined minimum width of 5 feet with planting areas having up to a 4:1 slope in buffers designated as Type D.1 Buffer, Type D..2 Buffer or Type D.3 buffer by the PUD Master Plan and which provide a minimum of 125%of the 20ft.width requirement. 7. From LDC Section 4.06.02.D.5.a. which requires naturalization of man made lakes and water management areas through the use of curvilinear edges; to permit the accomplishment of the intent through the use of a curvilinear landscape installation instead of a curvilinear physical contour. (This provision may not be necessary, the lake form may respect the linear layout of the existing roadways.) 8. From LDC Section 4.06.02.D.5 which requires that 2 of 3 listed amenities be utilized to enhance man made lakes when they are abutting public right-of-way to permit a reduction to one of three relative to lakes when the provided amenity is a fountain and further provided that the lake is screened from public view by a Type D.3 Buffer as defined by item number 3 above. 9. From LDC Section 4.06.05.D.5 which requires that 2 of 3 listed amenities be utilized to enhance man made water management areas when they are abutting public right-of-way to permit such water management areas when they are enhanced by a landscape installation of ground cover,shrubs and trees which provide a minimum of 75%coverage. 10. From LDC Section 4.06.05.B.4 which requires that building foundation planting areas must be located adjacent to the primary public building entrance(s) and/or primary street elevation to permit that the required planting areas be distributed within the pedestrian oriented campus which shall support new structures. 11. From LDC Section 4.06.05.C.2.a which provides that no more than 30% of the canopy trees may be substituted by palms within an individual type D buffer;to permit up to 100%palms along Trail Boulevard provided that all required buffer trees along Myrtle Road,West Street and Ridge Drive shall be canopy/shade trees. 10 of 12 Mark-Up by PRACC—04/09/08 Document Date:March 5,2008 12. From LDC Section 4.05.08.E.2.c Minimum ratios. Pedestrian pathway connections must be provided from the building to adjacent road pathways at a ratio of one for each vehicular entrance to a project.Drive aisles leading to main entrances must have at least a walkway on one side of the drive isle;to permit a reduction of a maximum of four(4);two to Trail Boulevard, one(1)to Myrtle Road and one(1)to West Street along a visual amenity(lake)instead of a driveway. LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC (TRACT B) 1. From the requirement for sidewalks within abutting right-of-way.This deviation will allow greater storm water capacity within the right-of-way for the adjacent public roads.Developer shall make a payment in-lieu of for those sidewalk segments, which would otherwise be required. 2. From LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4.Alternative D;which requires a 20 ft.buffer width for a development of 15 acres or more to permit a 15 foot buffer width. 11 of 12 Mark-Up by PRACC—04/09/08 Document Date:March 5,2008 EXHIBIT F LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS (TRACT A) 1. The initial redevelopment SDP for Tract A shall include: a. The replacement of the existing lake with a new lake(s)and associated dry water management areas; b. The abutting redevelopment landscape buffers to the lake(s)and associated dry water management areas; c. The regarding of abutting right-of-way green space between the PUD boundary and edge of pavement of the four adjacent roadways to enhance storm water management for these roadway areas. d The replacement of existing storm drainage pipes and dedication to C.C. 2. Required perimeter landscape buffer trees shall be shade trees an Ridge Drive,West Street and Myrtle Road. 3. The Developer shall provide 2,500 sq. ft. of created preserve within a dry water management area as located on the PUD Master Plan and a s further defined by and to the standards of LDC. 4. The primary entry and exist driveways to the north and south shall be signed to discourage traffic through the neighborhood by signing Ridge Drive exit as right turn prohibited and signing Myrtle Road exit as left turn prohibited. LIST OF BEVELOPER COMMITMENTS (TRACT B) 1. Required perimeter landscape buffer trees shall be shade trees on Ridge Drive and West Street. 12 of 12 Mark-Up by PRACC—04/09/08 Document Date:March 5,2008 Architectural Control Committee of Pine Ridge Subdivisions I` PP Collier County, Florida rC ----- 300 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 217 Naples,Florida 34102 2� 01. February 2008 Steven J. Brisson,AIA Chairman, Architectural Control Committee of Pine Ridge Subdivisions in Collier County,Florida 300 5th Ave. South Suite 217 Naples,FL 34102 Covenant Presbyterian Church 6926 Trail Blvd. Naples,FL 34108 RE: Heavenly MPUD Dear Sir: The Pine Ridge Architectural Control Committee has been informed that Covenant Presbyterian Church has filed a petition with Collier County to rezone the properties in Block "0" of Pine Ridge Extension from Residential Single Family(RSF-1)to PUD. I t is our under . ,+'• . ;: - •- • •• • Z.? _ e Collier County Records as follows: "PUDZ-2007-AR-12097(JDM)August 20,2007 • • • • • • - q I ••p es, c. and Mission Possible Ministries,Inc,represented by Michael R. Fernandez,AICP of Planning Development,Inc., are requesting a rezone from the RSF-1 Zoning District to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as Heavenly MPUD. The approximately 15.93-acre site is proposed to permit existing churches; associated schools,day care facilities and other related accessory uses. The subject site is located at 6926 Trail Boulevard,and comprises the entire block formed by Trail Boulevard, Ridge Drive,Myrtle Road and West Street in Section 3, Township 49, Range 25 East of Collier County,Florida." `Pine Ridge', is comprised of three platted subdivisions,all recorded in the Records of Collier County,Florida along with each plat's respective Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions as follows: RECEIVED FEB 0 6 2008 ZONING DEPARTMENT Page 1 of 3 Pine Ridge Subdivision,Plat, Plat Book 3,Page 24 Pine Ridge Subdivision,Covenants Deed Book 34,Page 207 Pine Ridge Subdivision,Covenants Modification OR Book Page 66,Page 318 Pine Ridge Extension Subdivision,Plat, Plat Book 3,Page 51 Pine Ridge Extension Subdivision,Covenants OR Book2,Page 427 Pine Ridge Extension Subdivision,Covenants Modification OR Book 66,Page 818 Pine Ridge Second Extension Subdivision,Plat, Plat Book 10,Page 86 Pine Ridge Second Extension Subdivision,Covenants, OR Book 409,Page 540 Each of the three Pine Ridge subdivisions has separate recorded Covenants and Restrictions(deed restrictions). The restrictions all reference one common Pine Ridge Architectural Control Committee. The names and addresses of the Architectural Control Committee members are recorded in the Public Records of Collier County. The Pine Ridge deed restrictions require that all proposed improvements be submitted to the Architectural Control Committee before Construction.Please note that the setbacks and restrictions oc n�tamed in the Pine Ridge Extension Covenants and Restrictions vary from that of the Collier County land development code. Either documents may be more restrictive and the most restrictive criteria rules. The platted lots in Block"0"of the Pine Ridge Extension were originally designated for single-family homes per the Covenants and Restrictions.On or about June 21, 1960,the Covenants and Restrictions of Pine Ridge Extension were modified by the Collier Development Corporation to "allow the construction of churches and other affiliated uses". Single-family homes are permitted in Block"0"per the deed restrictions.The County Zoning is RSF-1. To date,no submission has been made by your organization to the PRACC. We have read some PUD submittal information for your application.The documents that we have seen are vague and do not address specific land uses, setbacks, building heights, number of building stories, storm water management, wastewater treatment/disposal, site lighting, buffering, landscaping, and impacts on neighboring properties. The PRACC is concerned that you may be planning to construct improvements that will not comply with the Covenants and Restrictions. Please submit a detailed site plan and conceptual architectural drawings that specifically describe what you intend to construct. Please furnish the PRACC with three copies of all of the PUD application documents submitted to date, along with any modifications.Also please furnish the PRACC with all subsequent modifications and correspondence relative to your PU)application. Page 2 of 3 The modifications that you propose to your land and uses may require a formal modification to the Covenants and Restrictions of Pine Ridge Extension. The maximum number of building stories in Pine Ridge Extension is two.You are proposing to construct improvements in the water area of the existing Lake Cardinal.The Covenants prohibit the construction of any building or structure over the water except for a small dock. The location of Lake Cardinal is designated on the plat. Modification of the Covenants requires approval of a majority of then owners of the lots in Pine Ridge Extension. Please respond indicating how you plan to proceed with a submission to the PRACC. Sin j y, Al Steve J.Brisson,AIA Chairman, Architectural Control Committee of Pine Ridge Subdivisions in Collier County,Florida End.Covenants and Restrictions Cc: Clifford H. Schneider,PRACC Member w/o enclosure Thomas R.Peek,PRACC Member w/o enclosure Mission Possible Ministries,Inc w/enclosure Schmitt,Collier County Director of Community Development and Environmental Services w/o enclosure George Buonocore,President Pine Ridge Civic Association w/enclosure County Commissioner Frank Halas,District 2 w/o enclosure County Commissioner Jim Colleta,District 5 w/o enclosure County Commissioner Fred W.Coyle,District 4 w/o enclosure County Commissioner Donna Fiala,District 1 w/o enclosure County Commissioner Tom Henning,District 3 w/o enclosure Michael Fernandez w/enclosure Page 3 of 3 AGENDA ITEM 9-D Co ter County STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT&ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: JUNE 5, 2008 SUBJECT: PETITION PUDA-2007-AR-12321, ARROWHEAD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AGENT/APPLICANT: OWNER: MDG Lake Trafford, LLC AGENT: Mr. Robert L. Duane,AICP Orion Bank Center Hole Montes,Inc 2180 Immokalee Road, Suite 309 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 Naples, FL 34110 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a proposed amendment to Ordinance Number 2005-13 for the Arrowhead Planned Unit Development (PUD) to revise the transportation commitments by amending "Section VIII Development Commitments," and "Section 8.5 Transportation" subsections B, K, L.3, M through P of the PUD Document and adding "Section IX Deviations" to the PUD document. No changes are proposed to uses, densities or intensities approved in the existing PUD. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject 307.3 acre PUD is located at the southwest corner of Lake Trafford Road (CR 890) and the proposed extension of Carson Road in Section 6, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, and Section 31, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on following page.) PUDA-07-AR-12321,ARROWHEAD PUD Page 1 of 10 oHV-V I 0 on mii u■ 111111 _111111ii' - 0 - . ■■ 111.1_.`` Ir := = �i . .. n �� ■U 1111 NOsN3D3 WOW Hanna c1=' nom ^ we= 1111 • I r i r $ i rar a ,� ii i . --:'i''.":,'i'i'i'i''"-,'''':'i2 ::::::::::/-:::.04? ......--......:40.,:...!..:::::::::::::::::::::::iii•.:::: 0 A-EIR ���. �® Z t m � at '211\Vllllllllllll�' �g -0 88::'1$,e...4p, -�'�� 4� ` N!III V:r.:.. ....„.„.„..,,..,„,..„7:::::::::::::::„.„::::,..„,,,.....„ 4��;�,: 'r�®t�'��� :7-4i®ice ts'�..... ■... = J.= = "allh'"--414".'411.'417:41:::::.. ..:i:till'.gi:.04t, 1;:44,'441:: . cm "� `IIIIILII IIIIIIIIIII� .��' � �' �g'� � N 11=tiuininnum: ����a�.: X41, co ■IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII■IIIIIIII■vr 1 . s_, ,,, •IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIO■ - < 00 ■111111►12iQ i�111IIuII1■ i N Q 0/1.04 0 m a a 1 z �pp 0 ..- ..., . M a N ry� — N a0 yE. W ce a W W O m N J, a M O N N N QN M N 10_ O 0Z W< 5 -'a en m N G m 0 z m O. ` N V,ry9 a O 2 a m N R• Bz a s 'r1 J ' Z 0 m _ N N N m r N 1� .N m o W m : U M m O�f U m a N N Mm7 — ^ M V m - N (J - -- N N C * M W O N Y W 5� ____---- 3 i 0 g ° - k 1 ,8 . 6 .8 3 5 ,•, V : 1111 : : I! I! II 11 1 4. - i ;! gli Pi 1 i wi i i -•<(2)' ' a ig i J di 1 1 . lig - . - g 14 `4" .--. D LkAA r w al ti. 2 z 9 ' E 2 ? V 2 / gi4 8 zn t ,. pw 0 . . ct, s ci ___ ---_ - __ FuTuRE__-- --A-RsoN` _-_---.-0—AD_R:c1 %=—__-- i _ ,-a.,..Z . . •• •••• • , "1 < { ____ . • • . • • >- Il fi----1:' : .1. 1 rE‘.1.( Nvi li, t --- ----- <b....u.rj< fs') Di. ., .: : ..I. . , • • • 1 , • .'•'.1 fEl; 01 51 - :,..N...... • • •,.. . D •.•.•i .5-.,--,-t,'2 a I I 1 a .ti .. •.••••• "i'-----_____ ,'. 1 21S7i .6' 0 i f■ •.:• % --- .,:.:,. .•.••'' '1qg • •'' 2 4 I-< 0 i ' U Li. w • / :: -• • • • . 6 < i ceP• . . • . , , [1,)1 5J . . . ' . • • • • • . . ,,, . . • . • __ . • .., : :1 11 i : x ...L' _ •!, '... 4 ' - ' if -- • •... , . . .. . ---------------___ , - . • ••• •: ' '•. . . . . il • ' -----=-•--___________-________ - s' lig • . . • •,- „ ., „1, -_ — ... , , , ., I I , --- - . _ firr- • • • •••.• • . . . . • , , . g -- v , . . • . . . I 4 : '59 . ifi'l-y7 ..'...,, ' I I !" i • / •, ••• I Ir • . • 4. I) ' $ • . /4• . ■'•, f 4 .< • •r W :I : 31. :, _ . , -,..... _ - • - ' ':. , . -..".Y ....-- '' :. - ;,:_.•./ r •c i ,1 , ! .-. 0 t - L. , 4,f , , , , 1 , I I I. _ .., • . , , , .,, 1 ; .:4 I .1 ; I ; i E PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Arrowhead PUD was originally approved in 1991 with the adoption of Ordinance Number 91-44. This ordinance was repealed in 2002 with the adoption of Ordinance Number 2002-40. On March 22, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance Number 2005-13 that partially repealed Ordinance Number 2002-40 for the purpose of amending the PUD document and Master Plan to permit a maximum of 1,245 single-family and multi-family dwelling units and 15 acres of commercial uses on the 307.3±-acre project site. A park to serve the residents is provided for and 60± acres of preserves and numerous water management lakes will be provided on site. Access is from both Lake Trafford Road and Carson Road. The County has approved a subdivision plan and plat submittal for Phase One of Arrowhead Reserve (AR-3771), consisting of the first 156 single-family lots; infrastructure improvements to Lincoln Street, Carson Road extension, Immokalee Drive extension, and a turn lane on Lake Trafford Road. The county has also approved a subdivision plan and plat submittal for Phase Two (AR-3974), allowing for the development of 271 more units and a final plat submittal for Block C (AR-10331) allowing for the development of 23 additional single family units. The petitioner is now proposing an amendment to Ordinance Number 2005-15, the Arrowhead MPUD instead of adopting a new PUD by Ordinance and repealing this Ordinance. The amending Ordinance proposes the following changes: • Section 8.5.B.: The applicant is requesting added language to clarify that the turn lanes at Lake Trafford Road and Carson Road will be improved within one year of approval of this proposed Arrowhead Ordinance except that the turn lanes for the commercial tract and the shared north Carson Road entrance shall be required as part of the commercial site development approval. • Section 8.5.K.: The applicant seeks to add language to clarify that the constructed road improvements to Carson Road extension from Lake Trafford Road south to Immokalee Drive and the westerly 450 feet of Immokalee Drive must obtain acceptance from the Collier County Road Maintenance Department. • Section 8.5.L.: The applicant is requesting added language to clarify that the intersection improvements to the intersection of Lake Trafford Road and Carson Road are completed within one year of the approval of this proposed Arrowhead Ordinance. • Section 8.5.M.: The applicant seeks to remove the original section requiring repairs to pavement edges and construction of paved shoulders and replace it with new language. The new language states that the developer will remove the existing sidewalk along the north side Lake Trafford Road from Carson Road to State Road 29 and install a new pathway. In addition, the developer will provide a $30,000 contribution to Collier Area Transit for a bus PUDA-07-AR-12321,ARROWHEAD PUD Page 4 of 10 stop to be located within the Arrowhead commercial area. These will be done within one year of the adoption of this proposed Ordinance. • Section 8.5.N.: The applicant is requesting to delete the original section requiring signalization modifications at the intersection of State Road 29 and Lake Trafford Road and to replace it with new language. The new language states that the developer will make payments totaling $79,200 to Collier County in lieu of providing a signal modification at State Road 29 and Lake Trafford Road and a signal modification at State Road 29 and Immokalee Drive; and in lieu of providing a right-turn lane on Immokalee Drive. • Section 8.5.0.: The applicant is seeking to remove the original section requiring improvements to the intersection of S.R. 29 and Immokalee Drive and new signalization for State Road 29. • Section 8.5.P.: The applicant is requesting to remove the original section, which addresses the timing of the completion of the previous sections 8.5 K through 8.5 0 to replace it with language describing the time commitments as outlined above. • Section IX "Deviations" The applicant is seeking a deviation from the requirement of Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 6.06.02.A.1. which requires a sidewalk on both sides of a road such as Lake Trafford Road to allow a sidewalk on one side of the road only. The petitioner is seeking a deviation to provide a sidewalk along the north side of Lake Trafford Road in lieu of constructing shoulders and other roadway improvements along Lake Trafford Road, for which there exists insufficient area to accommodate (see the struck through language in PUD Section 8.5 M). In addition, a contribution is proposed in the amount of $30,000 to the Collier Area Transport (CAT) to provide for a bus stop in the Arrowhead commercial area. This will enhance pedestrian access in the Immokalee area. Transportation Staff has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to the proposed deviation. No increases in intensity or density are proposed and no changes are proposed to the Master Plan. This petition is incorporating a strike through and underline format to address the specific changes proposed only. It has been determined that this type of PUD amendment does not "open" the entire PUD to additional scrutiny. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Subject Parcel: The subject 307.3 acre parcel has a total of 1,245 permitted dwelling units. This is an affordable housing project: 15 percent of the total dwelling units or 186 dwelling units are reserved for occupancy to families whose combined income is no greater than 80 percent of Collier County's median income. This PUD is partially developed with approximately 97 single family dwelling units and 209 multifamily dwelling units. PUDA-07-AR-12321,ARROWHEAD PUD Page 5 of 10 Surrounding: North: Lake Trafford Road, then Lake Trafford Elementary School and farm land, both zoned Agricultural, and a convenience store(at the corner of Carson Road), zoned C-3 East: Mobile homes and vacant tracts along 29th Street zoned Agricultural-Mobile Home Overlay(A-MHO) South: Forested lands zoned A-MHO West: Agricultural fields, zoned A-MHO i e �y ei a. r .- :.'7:F./.. v F"-. `` .4 i x,. ..R FICTIONS WA. T`�yly!• I 1 ft'r f Mt '.r�A' r � 53fl�lIYfkW. t1. g x•�* ;,1,-.5.„--;::::,,ii-,.1t u ., ^ _ q p _t-. ,- „,, , .ii, a`& ? , r N U` Y If lw 6� .d L a 1 �s : � t t s w.'Z''''''', aJ �� „?..74 � j{ { 11 Ley _ ,� ti Y 1 � '{, � 14,- a. p r.:1 9 � `" *' • p ,z It:' / 1; � , '':, .. °., MY4+'� ,- a d',pC "4-'1.17:.'7? '.*:./ '► i� _ �� 'i m 7,e'f �.�'�"",7� '�r 2jaY•{ 7 a$ :`'; a 3: ice "w ` ,ii. J s t i4,gr, SUBJECT v,;;;:•,‘" ��� A PROPERTY - ''I•`"- - ° AERIAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP) CONSISTENCY: The subject prdperty is designated Urban Mixed Use District, Low Residential Subdistrict and Neighborhood Center Subdistrict on the Immokalee Area Master Plan (IAMP) Future PUDA-07-AR-12321,ARROWHEAD PUD Page 6 of 10 Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. No changes are proposed to the uses, densities or intensities approved in the existing PUD. The Low Residential Subdistrict allows single-family, duplexes, multi-family and mobile home development not to exceed a density of four (4) dwelling units per acre. The Neighborhood Center Subdistrict, encompassing 33.3 acres of the PUD allows a mix of uses including commercial, governmental facilities and residential development up to a maximum of 12 units per acre. The subject site qualifies under Category III (300+ acres) of the PUD Commercial Subdistrict and is allowed to develop up to the maximum of 20 acres with uses found in the C-2, C-3 and C-4 zoning districts. The subject property has 274 acres designated as a Low Residential Subdistrict including 15 acres approved for commercial uses under the PUD Commercial Subdistrict. Therefore, the 259 acres (274-15=259) are eligible for 1,036 dwelling units (maximum of 4 units per acre). The additional 33.3 acres is within the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict and is eligible for 400 dwelling units (maximum of 12 units per acre). The total project is eligible for 1,436 residential dwelling units (4.91 units per acre). The existing PUD is approved for 1,245 residential dwelling units (4.26 units per acre) and fifteen percent of the total number of dwelling units, or 186 dwelling units, are reserved for occupancy to families whose combined income is no greater than 80 percent of Collier County's median income. The existing PUD is approved for 15 acres of commercial uses as allowed by C-2 through C-4 zoning districts. Based upon the above analysis, the existing, approved PUD may be (and previously was) deemed consistent with the Immokalee Area Master Plan and, given that the proposed PUD amendment does not affect the approved density or use intensity, the amendment may be deemed consistent with the Immokalee Area Master Plan. Transportation Element: Transportation staff has determined that the Arrowhead PUD Amendment is consistent with the Transportation Element of the GMP because no additional or new traffic impacts are proposed as a result of this PUD amendment. ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a favorable determination must be based. These criteria are specifically noted in Section 10.03.05 I. and Section 10.02.13.B.5 of the Land Development Code (LDC) and require staff evaluation and comment. The Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC) and the Board of Collier County Commissioners (BCC) also used these criteria as the basis for their recommendation. Appropriate evaluation of petitions for amendments to PUD's should establish a factual basis for supportive action by appointed and elected decision-makers. Each of the potential impacts or considerations identified during the staff review are listed under each of the criterion noted and are summarized by staff, culminating in a determination of compliance, non-compliance, or compliance with mitigation. These evaluations are completed as separate documents and are attached to the staff report (See Exhibit "A" and Exhibit`B"). PUDA-07-AR-12321,ARROWHEAD PUD Page 7 of 10 Transportation Analysis: Transportation Department Staff has reviewed the requested revisions and has recommended approval as shown in amended PUD ordinance. Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis: The proposed amendment to the Transportation Development Commitments in Section 8.5, subsections B, K, L.3, M and P and adding Section IX Deviations will not change the currently approved permitted uses and intensity. The proposed change primarily addresses off-site road improvements. In regards to the proposed deviation to provide a sidewalk along the north side of Lake Trafford Road instead of both sides of the road as required, the petitioner has provided the following justification: a sidewalk is proposed along one side of the road in lieu of constructing shoulders and other roadway improvements along Lake Trafford Road because there exists insufficient area to accommodate the improvements (see the struck through language in PUD Section 8.5 M). In addition, a contribution is proposed in the amount of $30,000 to the Collier Area Transport (CAT) to provide for a bus stop in the Arrowhead commercial area. This will enhance pedestrian access in the Immokalee area. Transportation Staff has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to the proposed deviation. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): Synopsis provided by Linda Bedtelyon, Community Planning Coordinator: The applicant/agent duly noticed and held the required NIM on December 5, 2007, 5:30 PM at the Arrowhead Community Center, 1255 Lincoln Boulevard, Immokalee. Three neighboring property owners attended, as did the applicant, his agent and county staff. Bill Klohn, the applicant and Bob Duane, the agent introduced themselves and briefly explained that the PUD amendment was necessary due to changes to some transportation commitments. • Mr. Duane said "will improve sidewalk on the North side of Lake Trafford Road (from Arrowhead PUD) to the Winn-Dixie Shopping Center, by adding three feet to the existing 5 feet wide sidewalk." The sidewalk will be approximately 4,000 feet long. • When asked, "how many linear feet will the sidewalk be?" Mr. Klohn responded, "5,000 total linear feet." • Mr. Duane stated, "We've had multiple meetings with Transportation (planning) regarding the sidewalk relative to when/if the sidewalk narrows" and providing monies to other improvements: "widen the sidewalk, traffic related improvements; and signalization to Lake Trafford Road." Neighboring property owner, Marizol "Sunnie" Lozano responded, "good idea; we need sidewalks here." There were no objections stated to the proposed PUD amendment and related transportation improvements. The meeting concluded at 5:45 PM. PUDA-07-AR-12321,ARROWHEAD PUD Page 8 of 10 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward a recommendation of approval of Petition PUDA-2007-AR-12321, Arrowhead Planned Unit Development (PUD) that amends Ordinance Number 2002-40, and Ordinance Number 2005-13 the Arrowhead PUD to the Board of Collier County Commissioners. PUDA-07-AR-12321,ARROWHEAD PUD Page 9 of 10 PREPARED BY: 1 4iu� ALL Lei 1 ebb NANCY ( Da H, PRINCIPAL PLANNER 1i' E DEPAR r r : ZONING AND LAND D ELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: /11 •�4i • I/ 1+____//__, - _/%� - �- - . 0 8 MARJ;11 E M. STUDENT-STIRLING 41 D TE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY ra —' OS RAY ELLOWS, MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUSAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR D TE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: ).6‘.4„,‘.zat ix4.41. ..s'..27_2/Ate J it PH K. SCHMITT ADMINISTRATOR DATE MUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND '' VIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the July 22, 2008 Board of County Commissioners Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN PUDA-07-AR-12321,ARROWHEAD PUD Page 10 of 10 EXHIBIT "A" REZONE FINDINGS PETITION PUDA-2007-AR-12321 Chapter 10.03.05 I. of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following, where applicable: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The Comprehensive Planning Department has indicated that the proposed PUD amendment is consistent with all applicable elements of the Future Land Use Element(FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). 2. The existing land use pattern. As noted in the Staff Report, the subject 307.3 acre parcel has a total of 1,245 permitted dwelling units. This is an affordable housing project: 15 percent of the total dwelling units or 186 dwelling units are reserved for occupancy to families whose combined income is no greater than 80 percent of Collier County's median income. This PUD is partially developed with approximately 97 single family dwelling units and 209 multifamily dwelling units. To the north is Lake Trafford Road, then Lake Trafford Elementary School and farm land, both zoned Agricultural, and a convenience store (at the corner of Carson Road), which is zoned C-3. To the east are mobile homes and vacant tracts along 29th Street which are zoned Agricultural-Mobile Home Overlay (A-MHO). To the south are forested lands which are zoned A-MHO. To the west are agricultural fields, which are zoned A-MHO. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The currently approved PUD was deemed to be of sufficient size and did not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts when the PUD was adopted. The proposed amendment does not change the projects consistency with the FLUE. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The proposed amendment to the Arrowhead PUD doesn't change the currently approved district boundaries that were previously deemed to be logically drawn in relation to existing conditions at the time the property was first rezoned to a PUD. PUDA-07-AR-12321,ARROWHEAD PUD Page 1 of 4 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The growth and development trends, changing market conditions, the petitioner's commitment to provide affordable housing units make the proposed amendment desirable. The amendment is not necessary, per se, but it does seem appropriate. The County needs to provide additional affordable housing units, approval of this amendment seems appropriate to help meet that need. The proposed PUD amendment is appropriate, as limited in the PUD document and the PUD Master Plan based on its compatibility with adjacent land uses. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed Transportation amendments will influence the traffic conditions in the neighborhood in that the improvements will occur at earlier time frames than previously committed to, such as within one year of approval of this petition. 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 proposed amendment does not increase the intensity of the approved PUD. Therefore, the proposed PUD amendment will not excessively increase traffic congestion. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed amendment to the Transportation Development Commitments will not change the current approved development plan or intensity of development. Therefore, the proposed amendment will not create a drainage problem. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed amendment will not change the currently approved development standards that have been determined not to seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. PUDA-07-AR-12321,ARROWHEAD PUD Page 2 of 4 The proposed amendment will not change the permitted uses, project intensity or the approved development standards. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that this petition will not adversely affect property values. It should be noted that the value of property 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 by law is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The development of adjacent properties, in accordance with existing regulations, will not be affected if this PUD amendment is approved. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. The Comprehensive Planning staff has determined that proposed amendment to the PUD complies with the GMP. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with said plans are in the public interest. Since the proposed amendment will not increase the projects intensity of use, the proposed change will not constitute a grant of special privilege. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property is being developed in accordance with the existing PUD zoning. The proposed PUD amendment does not seek to alter the current uses or development standards. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; The proposed amendment will not change the scale of the project with the needs of the neighborhood. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The proposed amendment to the Arrowhead PUD will not change the list of permitted uses that has already been approved for the subject site. This petition is consistent with all elements of the GMP, is compatible with the adjacent land uses, has adequate infrastructure and to some extent the timing of the action is consistent with all County codes. PUDA-07-AR-12321,ARROWHEAD PUD Page 3 of 4 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. The proposed amendment will not impact the currently approved physical characteristics of the property or the degree of site alteration required to make the property usable for development. 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. A multi-disciplined team responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP has reviewed this amendment and has found it consistent with the GMP. Staff reviews for adequacy of public services and levels of service determined that required infrastructure meets with GMP established relationships. The proposed amendment will have no affect upon those conditions. PUDA-07-AR-12321,ARROWHEAD PUD Page 4 of 4 EXHIBIT "B" FINDINGS FOR PUD PUDA-2007-AR-12321 Section 10.02.13.B.5 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning Commission to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer,water, and other utilities. Jurisdictional reviews by County staff support the manner and pattern of development approved and developed for the subject property. Development conditions contained in the approved Arrowhead PUD document give assurance that all infrastructures will be developed consistent with County regulations. The proposed amendment will not adversely impact the approved mitigation measures that assure compliance with Level of Service relationships as prescribed by the GMP. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the amendment application provide evidence of unified control. The proposed amendment does not change the approved provisions for continuing operation and maintenance of common areas. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. The currently approved PUD has been found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. A more detailed description of this conformity of the proposed amendment is contained in the Staff Report. 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 analysis indicates that this amendment will not adversely impact the PUD's compatibility, both internally and externally,with the proposed and existing uses. PUDA-07-AR-12321,ARROWHEAD PUD Page 1 of 2 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space currently approved for this PUD is consistent with the provisions of the Land Development Code. The proposed amendment will not change the adequacy of the usable open space. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Given the fact that the Arrowhead PUD is currently under development, the timing or sequence of development in light of concurrency requirements is not a significant problem. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Ability, as applied in this context, implies supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal system, potable water supplies, characteristics of the property relative to hazards, and capacity of roads, is supportive of conditions emanating from urban development. Infrastructure is or will be in place in the vicinity and its adequacy will be determined at the time of SDP approval. The proposed amendment will not adversely impact the ability to accommodate expansion. 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. This criterion essentially 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. The development standards in this PUD are similar to those standards. One deviation is being sought as part of this amendment and is discussed in the Staff Report. PUDA-07-AR-12321,ARROWHEAD PUD Page 2 of 2 AGENDA ITEM 9-E $ e9uy STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT&ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: JUNE 5, 2008 SUBJECT: RZ-2008-AR-12842, TOLL-RATTLESNAKE, LLC (COMPANION TO PETITION PUDA-2007-AR-12043) PROPERTY APPLICANT/AGENT: APPLICANT: AGENTS: Toll-Rattlesnake, LLC Robert L. Duane, AICP 28341 S. Tamiami Trail, Suite 4 Hole Montes, Inc. Bonita Springs, FL 34134 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a rezoning of the easternmost 10±-acre portion of the First Assembly Ministries Education & Rehabilitation PUD from the Planned Use Development(PUD)zoning district to the Agricultural (A) zoning district. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject 10±-acre property is located along the northern side of the extension of The Lord's Way, in Section 14, Township 50, Range 26, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the following page) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject 10-acre site was included in the rezone for the First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehabilitation Campus Planned Unit Development (PUD) with the adoption of Ordinance Number 99- 59 on September 14, 1999. That project is partially constructed with a place of worship and rehabilitation units within mobile homes. The petitioner now proposed to remove this 10- acre site from this PUD because it is to be included in the legal description for a proposed rezone to the Toll- Rattlesnake DRI/PUD project which is currently on hold due to request by the petitioner to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council for the DRI petition to be allowed more time to "facilitate continued analysis of transportation and mitigation of projected impacts; continued analysis of potential site impacts and opportunities to reduce impacts within environmentally sensitive lands as well as on- First Assembly rezoning, RZ-2008-AR-12848 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 1 of 7 Z o J w 1_ Q Ei o o\ _i a m a a- a 3 S< L 0 7Z 0 a N a § ; a § O N O 1 C N F. .r fo d ` N r C9 in U 6 Q w 0 0 N nr3s°i iw N re II Oz a R ° [ii 1 1L1 a. 4 I El a- �V H Z Q PI - g u g p �1 ,1 W Z -� O „, €� I _ I-- wt, q q%t",,,eltID .1142 Ph ° 0 it a i =a Di PE 3 R Rli ''„ € a .4k z 3 Ti 4 ��� � �/ going discussions with stakeholders" [Excerpt from the applicant's agent's April 4, 2008 letter to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council]. Rezoning the 10 acres to the Agricultural zoning district will "hold"the parcel until the Toll-Rattlesnake petitions are ready for public hearings and allow the First Assembly PUD to be amended so the parties involved in that project can go forward with their development plans. No development has occurred on the 10 acre site to date. Because the proposed Agricultural zoning request is being done as a temporary measure as explained above, there are no development plans proposed as part of this rezoning. Actual development plans for the subject site will be addressed as part of the Toll-Rattlesnake petitions. A companion petition, PUDZ-2007-AR-12043, for the First Assembly Ministries PUD is required to revise the legal description and Master Plan to reflect the lensing out of the subject 10-acre site. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: undeveloped agriculturally zoned land (proposed to be part of the pending Toll-Rattlesnake DRI and PUD project(see PUD map excerpt on following page) East: Swamp Buggy Grounds, with a zoning designation of PUD (proposed to be part of the pending Toll-Rattlesnake DRI and PUD project(see PUD map excerpt on following page) South: The Lords Way, a private roadway, and then undeveloped lands with a zoning designation of Rural Agricultural West: other portions of the First Assemblies PUD project, proposed to be developed as a multi- family development known as Fountain Lakes in the companion petition, PUDZ-2007-AR- 12043 i Subject property J k ,q, ha4 L . _ 44-- :fi g a e 7 .y gy �' a^. + d 3 S °0` '..-.4,,...---',_ — _.... -,,.,4 jet. 3..1.11 r 3 !lKJtW65- ,,1• �•`{ -_l -, _ e � -° E M 1 1_, i `- 17;1:1 tit S c r ,+ sc s�i Y Aerial Photo (subject site depiction is approximate) First Assembly rezoning, RZ-2008-AR-12848 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 2 of 7 HOMES OF ISLANDIA 51P CONSERVATION AREA FIRST ASSEMBLY TOLL—RATTLESNAKE NAPLES LAKES as OF GOD (DRI) (F) COUNTRY CLUB U GOOD NUR N l w (P) C-5 McMULLEN PARK SIERRA c CENTRE tf:03, MEADOWS COWER TOLL—RATTLESNAKE A REGIONAL (DRI)(P) coLLEGEwooD CENTER R An excerpt from the PUD Map (Note: P =pending) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the GMP. This Subdistrict allows residential density of 1.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and a variety of community facility, recreation, essential service and other uses generally allowed throughout the Urban designation. The Rural Agricultural zoning district allows a maximum residential density of 0.2 du/ac. (1 du per 5 ac.), a variety of agricultural uses, and numerous conditional uses (e.g., child care facility, church, adult living facility). Specific uses for this subject site have not been determined; uses for this site will be addressed as part of the Toll-Rattlesnake DRI and PUD petitions. In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, adherence to Policies 7.1 and 7.3 is required. Policy 7.1 encourages connection to collector and arterial roads. This subject site does not currently have frontage on an arterial or collector road. Currently, The Lord's Way is a private roadway and the petition appears to be entitled to access to it thru private covenants. If the site is developed as part of the Toll-Rattlesnake project, access will be incorporated into that project's internal roadway network. Policy 7.3 encourages new and existing developments to provide interconnection to other development. The petitioner has not (nor is he required to) submit a site plan for review as part of the rezoning request. Access issues will be addressed either in subsequent rezoning actions or as part of the site plan approval process. As noted above, if the site is developed as part of the Toll-Rattlesnake project, access will be incorporated into that project's internal roadway network. First Assembly rezoning, RZ-2008-AR-12848 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 3of7 Transportation Element: The Transportation Division Planning staff has reviewed the proposed rezoning petition included in the application back-up material to address this project's potential traffic impacts, and to offer a recommendation regarding GMP Transportation Element Policies. Those policies require the review of all rezone requests with consideration of their impact on the overall transportation system, and specifically notes that the County should not approve any request that significantly impacts a roadway segment already operating and/or projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service (LOS) within the five-year planning period unless specific mitigating stipulations are approved. Because the proposed rezoning can be viewed as a "down-zoning," Transportation staff did not require the petitioner to provide a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) as part of this request to rezone to the Agricultural zoning district, noting that transportation impacts of any development will be addressed as part of the Toll-Rattlesnake DRI and PUD petitions currently under review. Transportation Division Planning staff recommends that this petition be found consistent with policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element because the land use action associated with the 10.27 acre "down- zoning"results in a net reduction of trips on the adjacent roadway network. Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME): Environmental staff has evaluated the petition and determined that the site qualified for Environmental Impact Statement exemption based on the LDC section 10.02.02.A.7.h. However,the site is located at the panther primary zone and Red Cockaded Woodpecker habitat range. Environmental staff believes the petition can be found consistent GMP CCME policy 7.1.2 because a wildlife survey was submitted and found complete. Wildlife impacts will be addressed via the applicable development mechanism when development is sought. This site is included in the Toll-Rattlesnake DRI and PUD petitions and evaluation of environmental issues is being addressed as part of those reviews. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning to the Agricultural zoning district. 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 is recommending that the petition be found consistent with the CCME as well. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the overall GMP, and thus based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed uses can be deemed consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria upon which a favorable determination must be based. These criteria are specifically noted in Section 10.03.05.I of First Assembly rezoning, RZ-2008-AR-12848 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 4 of 7 the LDC and required staff evaluation and comment. The staff evaluation establishes a factual basis to support the recommendations of staff. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for its recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn uses the criteria to support its action on the rezoning request. The evaluation is completed as a separate document and is attached to the staff report(See Attachment A). Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition to address any environmental concerns. This petition was not required to submit an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) nor was a hearing before the Environmental Advisory Commission required because the site qualifies for an exemption per LDC Section 10.02.02.A.7.h. The site is not located within a Special Treatment(ST) overlay which would also have required the submittal of an EIS. Transportation Review: Transportation Division Planning staff recommends approval, however nothing in the Transportation Planning staff review should be construed as any form of approval, or recommendation for the adjacent Toll Brothers DRI; or the adjacent First Ministries zoning action. Utility Review: The subject site is located within the Collier County Water-Sewer District boundary, and is subject to the conditions associated with a Water and Sewer Availability Letter from the Collier County Public Utilities Division. All portions of this project to be developed shall be required to comply with current Ordinance 2007-60. According to County records, there are existing 20-inch and 36-inch water mains on Collier Boulevard and an existing 12-inch force main on Collier Boulevard. This site is located in the zone of the existing South Hawthorn Wellfield for the South County Regional Water Treatment Plant (SCRWTP) expansion wellfield to 20 million gallons per day (MGD). The Rules and Regulations for protection of wellfields need to be followed. All existing well sites and pipeline easements located on and close to this project need to be shown on all future site development plan applications. Housing and Human Services: This project does not propose any affordable housing component and was not reviewed by Housing and Human Services. Zoning and Land Development Review: As noted previously,the site is current included within the First Assemblies PUD and is being rezoned to the Rural Agricultural zoning district in anticipation of its inclusion in the Toll-Rattlesnake DRI and PUD project. The plans for that project will be evaluated as those petitions go through the public hearing process. The requested agricultural zoning will function as a holding zone until the Toll- Rattlesnake petitions go forward, and allow the First Assemblies PUD to develop without this tract inclusion. As an agriculturally zoned tract, the uses are innocuous and will not adversely impact the adjacent properties if the property retains its Agricultural zoning in the future. Staff's compatibility analysis of the uses and development standards for this site will be presented as part of the Toll-Rattlesnake projects. Staff will consider the uses proposed and their intensities and/or densities; the development standards such as building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers; building mass; building location and orientation;the amount and type of open space and its location; and traffic generation/attraction of the proposed uses at that time. First Assembly rezoning, RZ-2008-AR-12848 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 5 of 7 As illustrated in the aerial photograph located on page 2 of the staff report, the surrounding zoning discussion of this staff report, and the Master Plan, undeveloped agriculturally zoned land that will be part of the overall Toll-Rattlesnake project abuts this parcel to the north. The Swamp Buggy establishment abuts the project to the east, but that tract is also proposed to be incorporated into the Toll-Rattlesnake PUD project. To the south is The Lords Way, currently a private roadway, then vacant agriculturally zoned land. To the west is the remainder of the First Assemblies PUD project from whence this project seeks separation. In summary, staff is of the opinion that the proposed rezoning to Agriculture Zoning District will not create any compatibility issues between this property and the surrounding area if the rezoning is approved. Therefore, staff believes the proposed rezoning can be deemed compatible with the neighborhood. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (MM): This parcel was included in the discussions during the NIM for the First Assemblies PUD amendment thus it was determined that a separate NIM would not be required for this petition. No concerns were raised about the rezoning of this 10 acre tract. Please see the NIM information contained in the staff report for Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-12043 for details about that meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition RZ-20078-AR-12842 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval of the rezoning request from the PUD Zoning District to the Agricultural Zoning District. PREPARED BY: .120- 9 -(9� IIA II`ESELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW First Assembly rezoning, RZ-2008-AR-12848 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 6 of 7 REVIEWED BY: 0 its . , _ : . �1 $111108 MARJ it I M. STUD NT-STIRLING DATE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY r?' - 5 (0'0 RAYMO f b V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DA DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Lrh J-A0/0 e S SAN M. ISTENES,AICP,DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: ' /9Adartafirilidir d 0 D TE JOSEP SCHMITT ADMINISTRATOR CO 0i ITY DEVELOPMENT&ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the July 22, 2008 Board of County Commissioners Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN,CHAIRMAN DATE Attachment: Rezone Findings First Assembly rezoning,RZ-2008-AR-12848 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 7 of 7 Exhibit A REZONE FINDINGS RZ-2008-AR-12842 Chapter 10.03.05.G of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following, where applicable: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the elements of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The GMP and FLUM discussion of the staff report (beginning on page 3 of that document) provides a detailed analysis of this project's consistent with the FLUM Map and the elements of the GMP. The subject property is designated Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, as identified on the FLUM of the GMP. This Subdistrict allows residential density of 1.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and a variety of community facility, recreation, essential service and other uses generally allowed throughout the Urban designation. The staff report provides the support to justify a recommendation that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; As described in the staff report, the existing land use pattern; therefore has been found consistent with GMP Policy 5.4 of the FLUE which requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. See staff report, page 5 for the Zoning Review discussion that supports this recommendation. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The subject tract's existing zoning is PUD, and the tract is included in the Toll- Rattlesnake PUD rezone pending petition currently under review. In the interim, this rezoning to the Rural Agricultural zoning district will function as a holding zone. The parcels to the north and south are also zoned Rural Agricultural and would allow uses similar to what would be permitted if the Agricultural rezoning is approved. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that this petition (if approved) will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent properties. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The proposed zoning boundaries follow the property ownership boundaries and result in a rectangular shaped tract. The location map on page 2 of the staff report illustrates the perimeter of the outer boundary of the subject parcel. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. May 9,2008 Page 1 of 4 • The proposed change is warranted to assist with the project's inclusion within the Toll- Rattlesnake DRI/PUD project. Rezoning this site to agricultural will allow the First Assemblies PUD to go forward with its revised development plans and hold this site for inclusion in the Toll-Rattlesnake project. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; As described in the staff report, the proposed rezone to the Agricultural Zoning District will not adversely impact the living conditions in the neighborhood. 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. Based upon the Transportation Planning staff review, the permitted uses associated with the 10.27± acre down-zoning results in a net reduction of trips on the adjacent roadway network. Therefore, this petition will not increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic incompatible with surrounding land uses. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed change from PUD to the Agricultural Zoning District should not create drainage or surface water problems. In additional, the LDC provides the prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Any proposed water management and drainage system will need to be designed to prevent drainage problems on site and be compatible with the adjacent water management systems. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new developments. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this rezoning is approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development within the Rural Agricultural zoning district. As its name implies, this zoning district is designed to provide property development regulations for less urban development. Property development regulations of the zoning district do not encourage compact development that could significantly reduce light and air to adjacent areas; thus the rezoning, if approved, should not negatively affect light and air permeation into adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value EXHIBIT A Rezone Findings RZ-2008-AR-12842 May 9,2008 Page 2 of 4 determination is driven by market value. There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; Properties to the north and east are undeveloped or developed with the Swamp Buggy races establishment (east) but both properties are included in the pending Toll- Rattlesnake project as is the subject site; this rezoning should not affect either parcels to the north or east. The area to the south across The Lords Way is undeveloped agriculturally zoned land and should not be affected by this rezoning. The parcel to the west is the already developing First Assemblies PUD and the subject of a companion petition. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan, 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 is shown on the current PUD zoning's Master Plan as Tract D in the northerly portion of the site and Tract B in the southerly portion of the site. These areas are within the Campus Area Plan areas, pursuant to Section III of Ordinance No. 99-59, the prevailing PUD regulations for this parcel. That section of that ordinance sets forth the particular uses that would be permitted on this tract. While the subject property can be developed under the existing PUD zoning, the petitioner has changed his mind about the development of that PUD and is seeking an amendment to establish different development parameters. This petition is a companion to that petition to allow this proposed agricultural zoned property to be developed under a different development plan within a different PUD—the Toll-Rattlesnake PUD. The petitioner has opted to seek this rezoning in accordance with the rezone procedures outlined in the LDC, which is an allowable alternative to strict adherence to development within an approved PUD. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; The proposed agricultural zoning development complies with the GMP, a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be EXHIBIT A Rezone Findings RZ-2008-AR-12842 May 9,2008 Page 3 of 4 acceptable throughout the urban designated areas of Collier County. Therefore staff is of • the opinion that the proposed change 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. While it is possible to find other agricultural zoned properties, the petitioner needs to remove the subject site from the currently PUD zoning district so he can go forward with another development proposal as described in the companion petition. The determinants of the zoning are with consistency with all the elements of the GMP. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP as discussed in 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. The proposed agricultural zoned property could result in site alteration, However, any development would require some site alteration and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities for and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process and those staff persons have concluded that no LOS will be adversely impacted because the proposed development is consistent with all Elements of the GMP. EXHIBIT A Rezone Findings RZ-2008-AR-12842 May 9,2008 Page 4 of 4 RZ-2008-AR-12842 Legal Description LEGAL DESCR/P110N A TRACT OR PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF COWER, LYING IN SECTION 14, 7O11P' 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING THE EAST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST WARIER OF THE NOR1I/NEST WARIER OF SAID SECTION, BEING FURTHER BOUND AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOW& BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE S 8T31'38" W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION, FOR 334.19 FEET 1O THE SOUTHNEST COWER OF SAID FRACAON; ]HENCE N OO4811'E ALONG 7HE NEST LANE OF SAO FRACTION FOR 1,341.38 FEET TO ME NORTHEEST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; THENCE N 8728'42"E ALONG THE NORM LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 334.14 FEET 10 111E NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION; ]HENCE S 0048'00" W ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION FOR 1,341.66 FEET 10 THE PANT OF BEGINNINa PARCEL SUBJECT TO EASEMENT$ RIGHTS-OF-WAY, RESTRICYIOWS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. AWXL CONTAINS 10.27 ACRES WORE OR LESS Exhibit A AGENDA ITEM 9-F Co per County STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT&ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: JUNE 5, 2008 SUBJECT: PUDA-2007-AR-12043: FIRST ASSEMBLY MINISTRIES EDUCATION AND REHABILITATION MPUD (COMPANION TO PETITION RZ-2008-AR-12842) PROPERTY APPLICANT/AGENT: APPLICANTS: AGENT: Pastor David Mallory Bill Klohn, Managing Member Robert L. Duane, AICP First Assembly of God Naples MDG Fountain Lakes LLC Hole Montes, Inc. 3805 The Lord's Way 2180 Immokalee Rod, Suite 309 950 Encore Way Naples,FL 34114 Naples, FL 34110 Naples, FL 34110 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioners request that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an amendment to the First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehabilitation PUD to clarify the list of permitted and accessory uses, to increase the number of multi-family units, and to revise the Master Plan to reflect those changes and others such as the removal of the easternmost 10± acres which is being rezoned to Rural Agricultural zoning district in the companion item: RZ-2008-AR-12842. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject 69±-acre property is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and The Lords Way in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,Florida(See location map on the following page) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject Planned Unit Development (PUD) was first approved on October 8, 1996 with the adoption of Ordinance Number 96-58. This ordinance was repealed with the approval of Ordinance No. 99-59 on September 14, 1999. That ordinance established the allowable uses for the First Assemblies Ministries as it was envisioned at that time. Approved were 120 campsites, a 400-room adult living facility, a 400- bed care unit facility, and 57 multi-family units. First Assemblies Ministries, PUDA-2007-AR-12043 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 1 of 21 ■ N a Z - NmU 0 W— W U O J ; I :' CL a is I, \ ..!!!lill!:!Ii!1:11!!:Iiiillilli:11:11::::::::::::::11::::::::::::::::::::::11. a Q a W V ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: §W Z W 8 Z N p i,O V 1 1 V a Y U O V V a ' N 0 WINO (1c6 •w3) o2VA3 noe N3m00 m co I ) o W yyO Q 0 2°aG N J a rc U v o.: CC .sk3 I = a Alik I 15-NON N a nnSaiION p M a a 11 ll I 0 o w a. R iS CL is U p \ S S�l. Z 3 g. Ola fS gai lik "ib II L_ , i,, i ,,,,, R I . INE th )11c-13 U 111 ill J'' • ill wl i -LTA- E %1 it IL i < ll „ €i i .J 1/ ari F. : Tr161 s ' 1 % il al wl Frz.._ IA ire, 1- —11 11 a lig ; 1 1V11 r F - g P 3 1 ,. ye; ri I ' NoxriNrw B iS o it -y `I ..- .- - mad, ~OA VOW IW t151 dff 'Ctl ,, p ri � ' p, e2 9 / a€>� 2'1'i �� Pz$ ------ -- _-�-ter_ --- 1- ---ti-- .'21 �- --� &E Ll!Nil 5i a•o• I 1111 - it I VJ z a t§v - ,J, 1DV211 _ U Q ,,�:i y �. I I ■ u U — - J Q U LI c4 ,R8xR28 I- Z ., N� v i �� LL i aB;$��?IWW� � �d d�Nd O 3m 1�\\\�` ' : i I t } \ 221482x2 1•"' 1 L� E g dd..71-g g. b_ y - �� z C d . ) .:) 'ice-)). -L.1. M-L. _ '- N 2 N Q [ iit 1 ,;�. fr _. ; Db, } Z f.� 1 o� i 1 k: ) _ ? _ 0 PW. V , K 11 l!IL = G. e a E 1 . , •1 \ ,,t; ,'sue 8`` 1. `j:'' �� a �� �II��I 1 a b I a/ :,� t — '41161E11"E11 l 04 _ t W § .� ' mo, � a�� lt mow/ iti < I,\�\ig ; / "` ill 1 z Z � = W / AVM d0-!Iq ((�' I5 %I4--- / ONIMNVd SSV- 03S0d0tld /j]/ 1� •1 itl5 AVMd SSYSO N1 ld'd I I 1 !� • g-"d I :g ONMeVd SSVVS 03SOdOtld j{- I— — 1 II p`{ Lu ill U 1 1 W zjbl , ° y Q to 1- , .u..,Q 6 1 c U to �. 1 r w W ?c li 1 `� , .�1� it c/3 .,, i W bey �I 1° I W (n F X ,4 cZ 11 .5 -Ei r �k itY 3 II yQ W U 5%-it III W.. l _. may 1 „� L� / ^ ' tY.'^+fNT,. S 1 ? � LiJ V) , key. c x 5 o r � t E _ a ,,V/^�. 1 '�Rfl / � £ . 331311 (n ! I 1 /_ may^® +' . 1 1 S 38 ill ir_ . �i m 1 � i � -�£ �lt�q" - I 1 :z tS6 '21 � d a -R -.-.... �, ..--=., �.-.,.,z.,, - _ . .-,_---- -- -- Also allowed was a 1,800 seat auditorium/church, a 600-seat chapel, a 300 student private school (Kindergarten thru high school or Bible College). A child/adult care facility for up to 450 children/adults was also approved along with an extensive list of accessory uses. To date, a portion of the church facilities have been developed with a chapel and the auditorium/sanctuary being the focus of the development. The communication tower has been erected on site also. There are currently four mobile home units located on site that house persons involved a church-sponsored rehabilitation program. The entry feature and a few other accessory structures have been constructed as well. The petitioner now proposed to repeal Ordinance No. 99-59 with this petition to amend subject PUD document as follows: • Remove the 120 TTRVC units • Remove the 400 room Adult Living Facility • Reduce the size of the 400 bed undefined care unit facility and replace it with 249 residential care units limited to those uses allowed in Standard Industrial Classification Manual (SIC) code number 8361 • Increase the church size from 1800 seats to 2,200 seats • Increase the number of multi-family units from 57 to a maximum of 296 dwelling units consistent with the Comprehensive Plan amendment that established a new GMP FLUE/FLUM Subdistrict to allow the mix of uses that is proposed with this PUD amendment. That GMP amendment, CP-2005-13 became effective on February 19, 2008, establishing the Collier Boulevard Community Service Subdistrict. This PUD amendment will implement the requirements of that new Subdistrict. (see Attachment C) • Decrease the 600-seat chapel to a 200-seat chapel • Decrease the day care facility size from 450 persons to 300 persons • Acknowledge the four mobile homes existing on site that house a maximum of 12 temporary care units and establish timing for their removal • Clarify uses that where ill-defined in the previous ordinance and replace those uses with terms that are recognizable and related to the SIC code • Remove the recreational and church camp/youth ranch use • Establish new property development standards to allow development of the site with the revised list of uses • Establish more measurable parameters for uses such as the vehicle maintenance garage, overnight bus parking • The project will retain the previously approved 300 student school (kindergarten through private Bible college) • In addition to the general changes noted in the "Requested Action" above, this amendment also proposes to adopt a totally rewritten PUD document that has been brought up to current PUD document standards wherein deviations are identified as such—they are not just included in the text of the PUD document as was the case in the previous ordinance. The use list has been modified to more clearly define principal uses and accessory uses, and to establish property development regulations for all the proposed uses. Reiterations of general LDC provisions have been removed and outdated language or LDC references have been corrected. First Assemblies Ministries, PUDA-2007-AR-12043 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 2 of 21 • The petitioners seek approval of numerous deviations to either extend relief that was granted in the 1999 action or obtain relief from other requirements of the LDC such as signage, buffering, sidewalk/bikepath, loading spaces, and parking requirements. The deviations are discussed in greater detail later in this report. • The attached Master Plan for the proposed amendment depicts tracts of development that coincide with descriptions and uses proposed in the PUD. The Master Plan also shows more specific building footprints for many of the various uses along with water management areas and general traffic circulation. The multi-family housing portion of the project shown on Tract G, to be developed under the name of Fountain Lakes, has been awarded a $5 million grant under the auspices of the State of Florida Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program (CWHIP) that was created by Florida House Bill 1363 in the 2006 legislative session. The CWHIP program was designed to help provide more affordable housing opportunities for those persons identified as "essential service personnel," such as "school district employees, community college and university employees, police and fire personnel, health care personnel, skilled building trades personnel, government employees, and employees associated with health, safety and welfare agencies within the county. . . " (excerpt from the Local Housing Assistance Plan). Information regarding this project's involvement in that program has been included in the application package by the petitioners' agent. The PUD document contains alternative language that would allow the petitioner to seek approval of the Affordable Housing Density via a bonus density agreement. That language is consistent with the language of the GMP Subdistrict governing uses on this property. To date no Affordable Housing Bonus Density Agreement has been submitted. Staff anticipates that since the petitioner received the grant noted above, that grant will be utilized instead. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: undeveloped agriculturally zoned land (proposed to be part of the pending Toll-Rattlesnake DRI and PUD project(see PUD map excerpt on following page) East: a ten-acre undeveloped tract that is currently a part of this PUD, but is being rezoning to the Rural Agricultural zoning district as a holding zone (proposed to be part of the pending Toll- Rattlesnake DRI and PUD project(see PUD map excerpt on following page) South: The Lords Way, a private roadway, and then undeveloped lands with a zoning designation of Rural Agricultural West: Collier Boulevard, (CR 951), then the Naples Lakes Country Club, a developed residential community with a zoning designation of PUD First Assemblies Ministries, PUDA-2007-AR-12043 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 3 of 21 I P» i t , Subjects E rt: 2 e _ Property� >,. , .? , ,T s „ .,,e',1 S` .`rte �' ,- }. c -• . ,a. ; . rF.' � k... 1NWRN -C.UJ D 7a ,-s rw�� a ' '- g I 14.,•4: �s, y }fq o6ecGouactY P400aiY.v_..._..._.�N - Aerial Photo (subject site depiction is approximate) HOMES OF ISLANDIA I P CONSERVATION AREA FIRST r. ASSEMBLY TOLL—RATTLE KE NAPLES LAKES a OF GOD (DRI) (P) COUNTRY CLUB Ii GOOD TURN 14 15 V CENTER (p) r- ,.�.", 9 C-5 C ,. McMULLEN V t " „ °' (P) "' ` `E r� '4' PARK SIERRA 'y ::',',:i.,;„1113-`1:F:!,::;!;:CENTRE I MEADOWS , COLLIER TOLL—RATTLESNAKE REGIONAL ' fi MEDICAL (DRI)(P) COLLEGEWOOD J CENTER An excerpt from the PUD Map (Note: P=pending) First Assemblies Ministries, PUDA-2007-AR-12043 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 4 of 21 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The subject property lies within the Urban Mixed Use District, Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict that was specifically adopted to address this subject property. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide community facility uses, primarily institutional uses and other non- commercial uses generally serving the public at large, and residential uses, both affordable-workforce and market rate housing - all in a setting to be compatible with surrounding land uses. The Subdistrict is intended to contain a mix of uses and services which lessens traffic impacts upon the external transportation network and public services, while serving the needs of the community at large. The GMP Subdistrict criteria include a list of specific uses for this Subdistrict and include additional requirements and limitations that apply to the uses. The project is consistent with the use list and the additional requirements and limitations. This petition has been reviewed by Comprehensive Planning Staff for compliance with all provisions of the GMP. The complete review is contained in an April 21, 2008 memo that is included as Attachment C. This project is not subject to the density rating system of the GMP because the Subdistrict establishes the maximum number of units with it based upon the limitations included in the PUD document that require the developer to be designated as a CWHIP project or comply with the Affordable-Workforce Housing bonus density provision of the LDC or enter into some other agreement with Collier County (see PUD exhibit F.2). This project was reviewed for consistency with Objective 7, and the applicable implementing Policies 7.1 through 7.4, of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) that mandate complies with certain Smart Growth provisions. The policies and a staff analysis are provided below. states: 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. Although the site has access to Collier Boulevard, due to the site's proximity to The Lord's Way, all project access is from that Roadway because direct access to Collier Boulevard would interfere with traffic from The Lord's Way. This project is consistent with GMP Policy 7.1 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. All aspects of this multi-faceted project will have access only via The Lords' Way. At this time a signal at The Lords Way and Collier Boulevard is not warranted but that issue can be evaluated again later. This project As noted above, this project will have access via 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. First Assemblies Ministries, PUDA-2007-AR-12043 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 5 of 21 The petitioner has indicated that there are security concerns if access were provided to the north from Tract C which contains the rehabilitation center; the Master Plan does show a potential future interconnection point to the parcel to the east. Staff believes the project is consistent with this policy. Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. Staff believes the site plan is consistent with the policy because walkways will be provided within the multi-family project and along Collier Boulevard and The Lords Way. To summarize, this petition has been deemed consistent with the FLUE/FLUM Subdistrict requirements as well as Objective 7, Policies 7.1 through 7.4, of the FLUE that incorporated certain Smart Growth provisions. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. This determination is included in the Zoning Analysis later in this report. Transportation Element: Transportation Division Planning staff has reviewed the PUD Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) included in the application back-up material and the PUD documents to ensure the PUD documents contain the appropriate language to address this project's potential traffic impacts, and to offer a recommendation regarding GMP Transportation Element Policies. Those policies require the review of all rezone requests with consideration of their impact on the overall transportation system, and specifically notes that the County should not approve any request that significantly impacts a roadway segment already operating and/or projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service (LOS) within the five-year planning period unless specific mitigating stipulations are approved. The difference in the site generated traffic that can be generated under the current approved PUD versus what is projected to be generated by this proposed amendment is approximately 934 trips per day. This project review was based on the current TIS guidelines and with respect to GMP Transportation Element Policy 5.1. The project traffic was distributed on the adjacent roadway network and analyzed through project build out with consideration given to the five-year planning period. First impacted link on Collier Boulevard: The proposed development produces 88 PM peak hour, peak direction trips which represent a 2.7 percent impact on Collier Boulevard between Rattlesnake Road and Davis Boulevard. The adjacent roadway is scheduled to have sufficient capacity to accommodate this project throughout the five-year planning period. This segment of Collier Boulevard will have a service volume of 3,270 trips upon completion in 2009, with a remaining capacity of approximately 933 trips; and is currently operating at LOS "C"as stated by the 2007 AUIR. Second impacted link(s) beginning south of the project: The proposed development produces 35 PM peak hour, peak direction trips which represent a 1.1 percent impact on Collier Boulevard between Rattlesnake Hammock Road and US-41. This segment First Assemblies Ministries, PUDA-2007-AR-12043 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 6 of 21 of Collier Boulevard has a service volume of 3,330 trips, with a remaining capacity of approximately 1,030 trips; and is currently operating at LOS "E" as stated by the 2007 AUIR. Furthermore, the proposed development produces 35 PM peak hour, peak direction trips which represent a 1.1 percent impact on Rattlesnake Hammock Road between Collier Boulevard and Polly Avenue. This segment of Davis Boulevard has a service volume of 3,200 trips, with a remaining capacity of approximately 2,528 trips; and is currently operating at LOS `B" as stated by the 2007 AUIR. Second impacted link(s) beginning north of the project: The proposed development produces 36 PM peak hour, peak direction trips which represent a 1.2 percent impact on Collier Boulevard between Davis Boulevard and I-75. This segment of Collier Boulevard has a service volume of 3,000 trips, with negative remaining capacity of approximately 145 trips; and is currently operating at LOS "F" as stated by the 2007 AUIR. Furthermore, the proposed development produces 45 PM peak hour, peak direction trips which represent a 2.9 percent impact on Davis Boulevard between Collier Boulevard and Radio Road. This segment of Davis Boulevard has a service volume of 3,000 trips, with negative remaining capacity of approximately 86 trips; and is currently operating at LOS "F" as stated by the 2007 AUIR. Limitations on the phasing of development have been proposed by the petitioners, as well as a donation of The Lord's Way right-of-way, as potential mitigation for the project's impacts. Conservation and Coastal Management Element: Environmental staff has evaluated the proposed changes to the PUD documents. No changes are proposed to the preserve selection from the 1999 rezoning action; that petition was deemed consistent with the applicable provisions of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the GMP and staff recommends that this amendment petition be found consistent with the pertinent objectives, goals and policies of the CCME also. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning to CPUD. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the 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 is recommending that the petition be found consistent with the CCME as well. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the overall GMP, and thus based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed uses can be deemed consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the overall GMP. ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria upon which a favorable determination must be based. These criteria are specifically noted in Sections 10.02.13 and First Assemblies Ministries, PUDA-2007-AR-12043 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 7 of 21 10.02.13.B.5 of the LDC and required staff evaluation and comment. The staff evaluation establishes a factual basis to support the recommendations of staff. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. These evaluations are completed as separate documents and are attached to the staff report(See Attachments A and B). Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD documents to address any environmental concerns. The rezoning action in 1999 adequately addressed environmental issues arise from the potential land uses; no changes are proposed to the Preserve area shown on the Master Plan and the only changes to the PUD documents were staff-requested changes to update the language to today's standards. Environmental staff has no objection to this petition's approval. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues. Transportation Division staff has resolved all outstanding transportation issues with the petitioners. Transportation staff's recommended stipulations are, therefore included in this recommendation. The applicant has incorporated Transportation Division staffs revisions in the PUD document, and Transportation Division staff recommends approval subject to the Transportation commitments contained in the PUD document. The current PUD document contains transportation commitments that require the developer to provide right and left turn lanes at The Lords Way and Collier Boulevard, pay fair share contributions toward any traffic signal that same location, make paving and drainage improvements to The Lords Way, provide improvements to the CR 951 canal crossing. The revised PUD document proposed with this amendment requires the developer to reserve up to 55 feet on Tract G and approximately 50 feet on Tract A for an east/west public right-of-way corridor, a portion of which currently includes a 30 foot easement for The Lord's Way. In addition, the signalization fair share contribution requirement has been carried over into the new PUD. The development is required to be phased, consistent with the GMP requirement. The developer is to retain the existing throat length on Tract A, and the existing gatehouse must remain in its present location. The developer is to provide a sidewalk interconnection between Tracts A and G; the developer is required to provide sidewalks on Tract G (the existing 7 foot sidewalk on Tract A has been deemed sufficient with no improvements required; the developer is required to bear any costs of additional turn lanes or turn lane improvements; the developer of Tract A is responsible for relocating landscaping from the existing buffer to the new buffer north of the existing sidewalk at no cost to the County and with no claims for any future disruption to the landscaping in the event of The Lord's Way widening. Utility Review: The subject property is located within the Collier County Water-Sewer District boundary, and is subject to the conditions associated with a Water and Sewer Availability Letter from the Collier County Utilities Division. Any portions of this project to be developed shall be required to comply with Ordinance 2004-31 as it may be amended. According to county GIS records, there are a 20-inch and a 36 inch water main and a 12-inch force main along Collier Boulevard. This future development is located on the zone of the existing South Hawthorn Wellfield for the wellfield-South County Regional Water Treatment Plant expansion to 20 million gallons per day. The rules and First Assemblies Ministries, PUDA-2007-AR-12043 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 8 of 21 regulations for protection of wellfields will need to be followed. All well sites and pipeline easements located on and close to this project will need to be shown on all future site development plans, plats or any other site plan applications. Emergency Management: The Emergency Management Department has no issues with this project. This project is located in a CAT 3 hurricane surge zone, which requires evacuation during some hurricane events. There is currently no impact mitigation required for this, however, it should be noted that approval of this PUD amendment could increase evacuation and sheltering requirements for the county. Parks and Recreation: The Public Services Division did not offer any comments regarding this petition,however in Exhibit F.5 of the PUD documents the petitioners have committed to provide a tot lot on Tract G that will be designed for children between 2 to 12 years of age. The tot lot is to be constructed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy (CO) for the first multi-family building. Housing and Human Services: Housing and Human Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan regarding housing issues. Housing and Human Services staff has resolved all outstanding issues with the petitioners and their concerns have been adequately addressed in the PUD exhibits. Zoning Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. As noted previously, revised property development regulations are proposed that will allow the configuration and combination of uses that are proposed. The surrounding properties—to the north, east and south are undeveloped thus any changes in this project should not affect those properties. To the west is Collier Boulevard, a major arterial roadway that separates the Ministries uses from the Naples Country Club project, which is a developed residential project. Most of the changes proposed will not affect the physical layout of site in a way that would affect Naples Country Club. Staff has evaluated the uses proposed and their intensities and/or densities; the development standards such as building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers; building mass; building location and orientation; the amount and type of open space and its location; and traffic generation/attraction of the proposed uses. Staff notes that the only existing development (Naples Country Club) near the site is separated from this project by Collier Boulevard, which is a busy arterial roadway that will generate its own noise, dust and glare that could affect Naples Lakes irrespective of the impacts from the Ministries project. The Ministries property proximate to Naples Country Club is developed with the existing worship center on Tract A, part of the water management system (Tract D) and the preserve area (Tract E). The buildings on Tract A are further separated from Collier Boulevard and therefore, the Naples County Club units by water management lakes. The buildings on Tract A are oriented in the least obtrusive manner facing south rather than west toward Naples Country Club. Table III of Exhibit B requires a 100 foot front yard setback along Collier Boulevard which offsets the five story, 67 feet (zoned) building height of the church and education facilities that would be the closest uses to Naples Country Club. The 100-foot wide Collier Boulevard setback is the original requirement from the 1999 First Assemblies Ministries, PUDA-2007-AR-12043 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 9 of 21 zoning action; it is not a revision. Staff believes the PUD documents make adequate provisions to address external compatibility. The petitioners had some concerns about the internal compatibility of some of the uses and have sought deviations to address those concerns. The petitioners are seeking to keep the multi-family uses more distinctly separated from the church uses, and have therefore sought a deviation to eliminate the required internal roadway interconnection. The petitioners are seeking a deviation to eliminate the buffer requirement between Tracts A and C, noting that they wish to allow the clients from the Rehabilitation Center to more easily access the Job Training and Rehabilitation Services facilities. As discussed above, staff has evaluated those proposed changes relative to the surrounding area and believes the proposed changes subject to staff's recommendations for the deviations, and thus the petition, can be deemed compatible with the neighborhood uses because the proposed building orientation, building locations and the location of the preserve area will offset any negative impacts the proposed changes may have had on the nearby multi-family use. The petition therefore is consistent with GMP Policy 5.4. Deviation Discussion: The petitioners are seeking numerous deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are listed in PUD Exhibit E with the petitioners' rationale provided to support each deviation provided in a separate document that is included in the application material. Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02 C.4, which requires a 20 foot wide Type D buffer along The Lord's Way, to allow a 10 foot wide buffer along The Lord's Way. As part of this deviation, the petitioners agree to augment the planting requirements as identified in Exhibit F, Development Commitments, Item 4.A, Landscape Buffering Requirements. For a visual aid, see Exhibit C-1, the Master Plan and Exhibit I, The Lord's Way Typical Cross Sections for Tract A and G. Petitioners' Rationale and Staff Analysis: The petitioner states this deviation is needed to allow sufficient area to accommodate multi-family units on Tract G and to compensate for area lost for the right-of-way reservation for The Lord's Way for both Tracts A and G. (See also Exhibit C MPUD Master Plan). As stated above, the petitioners have offered to include additional plantings into the buffer for landscape enhancement. Recommendation: Staff believes the alternative buffering proposed in this deviation will be adequate. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04 C.16.b.i, to allow an off-site premises sign in the southwest corner of the subject property on Tract A. The deviation is to exceed the maximum area of 12 square feet to allow the off-site premise sign to be a maximum size of 32 square feet as an addition to the existing sign. (See MPUD Master Plan and Exhibit G depicting proposed sign detail.) First Assemblies Ministries, PUDA-2007-AR-12043 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 10 of 21 Petitioners'Rationale and Staff Analysis: The petitioner states that this deviation is being requested to enhance the ability of the motoring public to identify the location of the proposed multi-family development on Tract G that is not visible from C.R. 951. (See Exhibit G for sign detail.) LDC Section 5.06.01 sets forth the general purpose why there are sign standards in Collier County citing: Increased numbers and sizes of signs, as well as certain types of lighting distract the attention of motorists and pedestrians, and interfere with traffic safety. The indiscriminate erection of signs degrades the aesthetic attractiveness of the natural and manmade attributes of the community and thereby undermines the economic value of tourism, visitation and permanent economic growth. Staff does not see a need to allow this project to increase the sign size based upon the petitioners' own decision to develop the property with the multi-family uses further from CR 951. That rationale provided could be used for every multi-family project that does not front an arterial roadway, which would result in a proliferation of signs. Furthermore, approval of this deviation would be contrary to the general intent of the sign regulations because the sign could needlessly "distract the attention of motorists and pedestrians, and interfere with traffic safety" and "degrades the aesthetic attractiveness of the natural and manmade attributes of the community. " Recommendation: The current sign requirements of the LDC have been adopted to promote the welfare of the community as noted in the citation above. In staff's opinion, approval of this deviation is not in the best interest of the welfare of the citizen of Collier County. Therefore, Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends DENIAL, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has not 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 not 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 05.06.04.C.1.c, which allows a maximum sign area of 80 square feet; the deviation is to allow a maximum size of 132 square feet in area (the sign is currently 100 feet in area). Petitioners' Rationale and Staff Analysis: The applicant states this deviation is needed to enhance the ability of the motoring public to identify the location of the proposed multi-family development on Tract G that is not readably visible from C.R. 951 and to allow the size of the existing sign to be exceeded. (See Exhibit G for sign detail.) Ordinance No. 99-59, the ordinance that currently governs development of this project, granted approval to allow a sign size of 100 square feet. The existing sign was constructed in compliance with that approval. Staff recognized the existing sign and does not want to create any non-conformity with this amendment thus staff recommends that the deviation be approved to allow existing sign to remain (at 100 square feet), however staff will not support any increase in the size. As explained in deviation #2, staff cannot support larger signs at this location. Additionally any replacement sign must be First Assemblies Ministries, PUDA-2007-AR-12043 June 5, 2008 CCPC Page 11 of 21 constructed in compliance with LDC requirements in effect when permits are sought. Recommendation: The current sign requirements of the LDC have been adopted to promote the welfare of the community as noted in the citation above. In staff's opinion, approval of this deviation to the currently erected sign size but not as requested is in the best interest of the welfare of the citizen of Collier County. Therefore, Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends DENIAL of the requested deviation (to 132 square feet) but APPROVAL of a deviation to allow the 100 square foot sign to remain but noting any replacement sign must be erected in compliance with the LDC requirements in effect when permits are sought, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3,the petitioner has not 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 not 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 05.06.04 C.16.b.ii., that limits the height of the sign to eight feet above the lowest center grade of the arterial roadway and to allow the existing sign to remain 20 feet in height. AND Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04 C.1.a, that limits the size of signs to 15 feet to allow the existing 20 foot tall sign to remain. Petitioners' Rationale and Staff Analysis: The petitioner states that approval of these deviations is warranted to allow the existing 20 foot tall sign to remain, stating approval of the deviations will allow the sign to provide a convenience to the motoring public to identify the location of the multi-family tract, Tract G that is not visible from C.R. 951. While staff does not support the rationale provided by the petitioner, staff will support the deviations for the same reason partial support was tendered for Deviation 3.A—the 20 foot high sign was approved in Ordinance No. 99-59 and constructed in compliance with that approval. Not wanting to create non- conformities, staff will support the deviations as an existing sign. Any replacement sign must be erected in compliance with the LDC requirements in effect when permits are sought. Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of the deviations to allow the existing 20 foot high sign to remain, however any replacement sign must be erected to code, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has not 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, thejetitioner has not 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 5.06.04 C.16.b.v, which requires an off-site premise sign be located within 1,000 feet of the intersection of the roadway to allow the sign to be 1,400 feet from the property it serves on Tract G. First Assemblies Ministries, PUDA-2007-AR-12043 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 12 of 21 Petitioners'Rationale and Staff Analysis: The petitioner states that approval of this deviation is to allow the motoring public to be aware of the location of the multi-family tract as a convenience. This deviation is related to the other sign deviations to allow the multi-family project on Tract G to be advertised on the sign fronting CR 951. Staff did not support Deviation #2 and cites the same reasons for not supporting this deviation. Recommendation: The current sign requirements of the LDC have been adopted to promote the welfare of the community as noted in the citation above. In staff's opinion, approval of this deviation is not in the best interest of the welfare of the citizen of Collier County. Therefore, Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends DENIAL, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has not 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 not demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #7 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02 A.1, Sidewalk and Bike Lane Requirements to allow relief from the requirement that a 6-foot wide sidewalk and bike lane be provided along The Lord's Way that is the requirement for the future condition upon The Lord's Way becoming an arterial roadway. The deviation is to allow the northerly most existing seven foot wide sidewalk to remain west of the existing entrance into First Assembly Ministries on Tract A to satisfy the pedestrian access requirements of LDC Section 6.06.02 A. 1. This deviation will also allow a five foot wide sidewalk to be constructed within a five foot easement area on Tract G the multi-family tract, to satisfy this LDC requirement. (See also Exhibit I,The Lords Way Typical Cross Sections.) Petitioners' Rationale and Staff Analysis: The petitioner states that approval of this deviation is to provide for pedestrian access along The Lord's Way while recognizing the constraints posed by existing conditions on Tract A and G after the reservation of right-of-way for The Lord's Way. Transportation Planning staff has been involved in the negotiations to procure right-of-way along The Lord's Way. Transportation Planning and Zoning staff recommend approval of this deviation as a reasonable alternative to the provisions of the LDC. Recommendation: Staff believes the buffer proposed in this deviation will be adequate. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Deviation #8 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02 A.1, Sidewalk and Bike Lane Requirements that requires sidewalks on both sides of the street and to allow a sidewalk on only one side of the internal access drives for the multi-family Tract G as buildings are proposed only on one side of the access drive. Furthermore, the project includes a proposal for an extensive internal pedestrian circulation system for access throughout the MPUD. First Assemblies Ministries, PUDA-2007-AR-12043 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 13 of 21 Petitioners'Rationale and Staff Analysis: The petitioner states that approval of this deviation is to allow a sidewalk on one side of the access drive because buildings will only be constructed along one side of the access drive. Recommendation: Staff believes this is a reasonable request since the access drive where the deviation is to be applicable is totally confined to the interior of Tract G, and will most likely only be utilized by the residents and guests, not the travelling public. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Deviation #9 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02 A.1, which requires a six foot wide sidewalk and bike lane along C.R. 951, an arterial roadway, to allow an existing seven foot wide sidewalk along a portion of the CR 951 road frontage on property belonging to First Assembly Ministries to satisfy this requirement or by providing money in lieu of providing a sidewalk. A connection will be provided from the sidewalk on The Lord's Way to the sidewalk the County will construct on CR 951 east of the canal at the intersection of The Lord's Way and CR 951. Petitioners'Rationale and Staff Analysis: The petitioner states that approval of this deviation is to allow the existing sidewalk to provide pedestrian access until CR 951 is widened and a new sidewalk connection is constructed to the county's proposed pathway along the east side of the CR 951 canal. Additionally, allowing the seven foot sidewalk to remain on Tract A to satisfy pedestrian access requirements allows the existing pedestrian access system to function as planned and without disturbing the existing pavement area. Recommendation: Staff believes this is a reasonable request. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Deviation #10 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01 B, Street System Requirements, which requires that the layout of all developments be coordinated with surrounding properties to provide interconnections. Petitioners' Rationale and Staff Analysis: The petitioners' agent states that this deviation is to allow private access to both the church campus and multi-family development to be private entrances and to not require interconnection between the two uses. A provision has been made for a potential future access to the east. According to the petitioner, the two primary uses within this project—the church related uses with its rehabilitation center, and the multi-family development proposed for Tract G—are not necessarily complementary uses. The applicant's agent suggests that the two uses be separated rather than interconnected. Staff concurs. First Assemblies Ministries, PUDA-2007-AR-12043 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 14 of 21 Recommendation: Staff believes this is a reasonable request. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Deviation #11 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04 D.1, Group Housing which requires a care units maximum floor area shall not exceed a 0.45 floor area ratio (FAR) to allow the care units to be developed within the 368,000 square feet of floor area for all uses. Petitioners'Rationale and Staff Analysis: Approval of this deviation will allow care units to be grouped in one or more buildings with other accessory uses without computing a separate floor area ratio for the care unit component of the project. There is a maximum limitation of 368,000 for all institutional and other non-residential uses set forth in the Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict of the GMP. The development intensity for the project and therefore the care units is adequately provided by the GMP. Recommendation: Staff believes this is a reasonable request. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Deviation #12 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04 D.3.b that requires 0.75 parking spaces per assisted care unit,to allow 0.75 parking spaces per 10 care units on Tracts A and C only. Petitioners' Rationale and Staff Analysis: According to the agent, this deviation is justified because residents will only have occasional access to motorized vehicles thus lessening the demand for parking for the care units. Furthermore, residents of the care units are required to become members of the church thus that parking space demand has been accounted for in church related facilities. Currently j there are 18 residents in rehabilitation at First Assembly, and only one individual has a motorized vehicle. Staff recognizes that there appears to be a unique circumstance that is marginally documented with the existing facility by the applicant. However, staff believes the reduction in parking spaces should only be applicable to the "Rehabilitation Center" use shown on Tract A that is located EAST of Tract B. The residents from the Rehabilitation Center are located close enough to walk to activities at the main church facilities. The main portion of Tract A located WEST of Tract B houses the place of worship and the educational complex that will be open to, and accessed by the general public. As a general rule, places of worship encourage the general public to attend services, thus parking can be an issue during worship services. Recommendation: Staff believes this is a reasonable request with the limitation noted above. Therefore, Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation for that portion First Assemblies Ministries, PUDA-2007-AR-12043 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 15 of 21 of Tract A located east of Tract B, 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. Deviation #13 seeks relief from LDC Sections 4.06.02 D.4 and 5.03.02 E.3, pertaining to minimum landscape buffer widths and minimum wall setbacks respectively. The LDC requires that a 15 foot wide Type B landscape buffer and a 10 foot wide Type A landscape buffer be provided along the property boundary between Tract G, the multi-family tract, and Tracts A and C of First Assembly Ministries' campus, with the 15 foot Type B buffer to be provided by the more intensive use (i.e., on Tracts A and C) and the 10 foot Type A buffer to be provided by the less intensive use (i.e., on Tract G). The LDC also requires that the non-residential use provide a minimum six foot high concrete (precast or masonry) wall a minimum of six feet from the residential zoning district boundary (i.e., at least six feet inside Tracts A and C). The LDC allows for reductions in required buffer widths to a minimum width of 10 feet provided that compensating increases in width are made elsewhere in the buffer. The deviation is to locate the buffers within platted easements as depicted on Exhibit C, the MPUD Master Plan departing in places from the property line and with portions of either buffer encroaching onto an adjacent tract(s). Areas depicted in the legend represent reductions in buffer width and include compensating increases in buffer width. Portions of the 10 foot Type A buffer on Tract G – Phase 2 (i.e., adjacent to Celebration Blvd., the existing entry road into Tract A) are shown with a reduction in width to less than 10 feet, severed in some places, due to the encroachment of proposed impervious improvements. The required wall is to be located a minimum of six feet from the residential side of the 15 foot Type B buffer. Petitioners'Rationale and Staff Analysis: According to the agent, this deviation is justified because the allowances will accommodate the proposed improvements within the constraints of existing site conditions, including existing utility and access improvements. Furthermore, where the buffers are proposed to be reduced in width—along Celebration Blvd. and behind the proposed multi-family/multi- purpose building on Tract A—the view is less intensive. The adjacent uses are a roadway with no vertical structures proposed in the background and a residential/care facility with architecture similar to that of the proposed multi-family buildings on Tract G. The proposed increases in buffer width are conversely located where future residents of Tract G (Fountain Lakes) would most benefit from additional screening—adjacent to views of the job training and rehabilitation services center on Tracts A and C. Recommendation: Staff believes this is a reasonable request. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. First Assemblies Ministries, PUDA-2007-AR-12043 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 16 of 21 Deviation # 14 seeks relief to LDC Section 4.06.02 C Table 2.4, which requires buffering internal to uses within Tracts A and C. The deviation is to allow no buffering between uses internal to Tracts A and C. Petitioners' Rationale and Staff Analysis: The petitioner's agents stated that this deviation is justified because this standard was allowed by the existing zoning prior to the adoption of this Ordinance to promote on-site bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Staff fails to see the relevance of that statement because the applicable area of Tract A (that area located east of Tract B) and Tract C have not been developed with any structures that have required buffer placement, thus previous regulations have never been utilized. Staff will not usually recommend action that created non-conformities however in this petition that is not an issue since there is no existing buffering that could become non-conforming. The need for this deviation is not readily discernable given the current explanation. On-site bicycle and pedestrian access appear to be readily available via the internal roadway that connects Tract C past Tract C to the project's main access point on The Lords Way. Required buffering should have no effect upon bicycle or pedestrian access between Tracts A and C. LDC Section 4.06.01 states, in part,that the purpose and intent of the landscape code is to: b. Improve the aesthetic appearance of commercial, industrial, and residential developments through the requirement of minimum landscaping in ways that harmonize the natural and built environment; and d. Provide physical and psychological benefits to persons through landscaping by reducing noise and glare; and e. Screen and buffer the harsher visual aspects of urban development; f Improve environmental quality by reducing and reversing air, noise, heat, and chemical pollution through the preservation of canopy trees and the creation of shade and microclimate; g. Reduce heat gain in or on buildings or paved areas through the filtering capacity of trees and vegetation. Approval of this deviation seems contrary to the stated purposes while providing no viable alternative or concrete reason for doing so. Recommendation: The buffering requirements of the LDC have been adopted to promote the health, safety, and welfare of residents of Collier County as noted in the citation above. In staff's opinion, approval of this deviation is not in the best interest of the welfare of the citizen of Collier County. Therefore, Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends DENIAL, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has not 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 not demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #15 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04 G. Table 17, Parking Spaces Required which requires three parking spaces for each seven seats in the chapel or assembly area, to allow a reduction of this standard to a minimum of one space for each four seats to apply only to previously approved church related structures prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Any future church related parking area will require the standard of three parking spaces for seven seats. First Assemblies Ministries, PUDA-2007-AR-12043 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 17 of 21 Petitioners' Rationale and Staff Analysis: The petitioners' agents states the parking space requirement of one space per four seats is currently allowed by the existing PUD and the site development plan for the existing church was approved according to this standard. All future church seating requirements will be provided at one space per seven seats after the adoption of this ordinance. Ordinance No. 99-59,the ordinance that currently governs development of this project, granted approval to allow parking to be provided at one space per four seats. The existing church facilities were constructed in compliance with that approval. Staff recognizes the existing parking situation on the westernmost Tract A and does not want to create any non-conformity with this amendment thus staff recommends that the deviation be approved to allow existing parking allocation to remain (at one space per four seats), for the existing Church and Place of Worship uses shown in Tract A ONLY. Any redevelopment and/or additional and/or new uses will be constructed in compliance with the regulations in effect when development approvals are sought. Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of the deviation to allow the existing parking situation to remain (at one space per four seats), for the existing Church and Place of Worship uses shown in Tract A ONLY, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has not 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 not demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." The petitioners are not in agreement with staff's position for Deviations 2, 6 and 14 which staff is not supporting. The petitioners are also not in agreement with the stipulations staff has recommended on Deviations 3, 4, 5 or 12. The PUD document has not been revised to reflect staffs position on the deviations. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (MM): A duly advertised NIM was held at the First Assemblies of God Church on November 8, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. Approximately 20 persons, other than staff and the petitioners' representatives, attended. Mr. Robert Duane, from HoleMontes, Inc., representing the applicants, and Mr. Bill Klohn, with MGD and Pastor Mallory, the two of the petitioners, were present. Mr. Brian Settle of Naples Community Hospital was also present. Opening remarks about the NIM and public hearing process were given by Kay Deselem, principal planner, representing Collier County. Mr. Robert Duane, of Hole Montes, presented an explanation of the relationship between First Assembly and MGD, the other property owner and a developer, and the subsequent split of the property. Mr. Duane gave an overview of First Assemblies intended development of their portion of the property. Mr. Bill Klohn, of MGD, provided an overview of his proposed plan to develop the land held by MGD property. Mr. Klohn stated that he has applied for CWHIP funding and if the grant is not given, then 150 units of his development may be reserved as affordable housing for essential personnel within Collier County (Fire/Rescue, Nurses, County Employees, etc.). Both briefings outlined the worship centers, First Assemblies Ministries, PUDA-2007-AR-12043 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 18 of 21 conservation areas, rehabilitation center, and residential buildings. Mr. Klohn's artist rendering of the proposed building was satisfactory to the residents in attendance. Mr. Duane and Mr. Klohn stated all but nine of the mobile homes would be replaced with new single-family townhome type structures. Questions were asked about the MPUD zoning. Questions were raised about the reduction of care unit beds from 800 to 249 and if the new total would be written into the MPUD. Questions were asked about the square footage of the proposed improvements to the properties. Questions and concerns were asked about the care units, state of the inhabitants of the care units, and the level of rehabilitation needed for the inhabitants. The following specific concerns were voiced: • Area neighbors would like to see more landscaping along Collier Blvd. • A concern for a need of a traffic signal at the intersection of Lords Way and Collier Blvd. was mentioned. A concern about the school buses not being able to turn into the Lords Way once the Collier • Blvd. widening project is finished was mentioned. (It was suggested that Collier County transportation Division be contacted regarding these concerns.) • A concern about the inhabitants of the care units and what level of care would be needed was raised. • A concern was raised about the number of occupants in each care unit. Developer Commitments (either on behalf of the ministries or MDG as appropriate): • A reduction in the original 800 beds assisted living facility to 249 beds. • An expansion of the Lords Way entrance and road to 4 lanes. • The care facility will have 24 hour security. • Tract G will be developed with concrete block construction with tile roofs buildings and all units in each building will have a minimum of two bedrooms. Synopsis provide by E. Ybaceta, Citizen Liaison However a person attending the Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) did ask the petitioners to increase the buffering along Collier Boulevard; the petitioners did not offer any additional buffering in response to that request. Numerous concerns were raised at the NIM regarding some of the uses that were both allowed in the previous zoning action and proposed to be retained in this amendment (See the NIM discussion later in this report for details). In response to concerns raised, the petitioners did state that the intensity was being reduced because there is a reduction from the original approved 800-bed assisted living facility to a 249-unit care facility (units not beds). There currently is no equivalency factor within the LDC or the PUD documents to compare how many persons might be in a unit, so that comparison may not be accurately depicted as a reduction. The Ministries petitioner has been reluctant to provide a specific number of beds. Due to concerns raised about the clientele, the Ministries petitioner agreed to provide 24-hour security for the care facility. The multi-family petitioner agreed to develop Tract G with concrete block buildings with tile roofs. Further he agreed that all units in each building will have a minimum of two bedrooms. First Assemblies Ministries, PUDA-2007-AR-12043 June 5, 2008 CCPC Page 19 of 21 RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDA-2007-AR-12043 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval of the rezoning request from the Planned Unit Development Zoning District to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development(MPUD) Zoning District subject to the stipulations that have been incorporated into the MPUD document, EXCEPT that staff recommends DENIAL of Deviations 2, 6 and 14 and approval with stipulations for Deviations 3, 4, 5, 12 and 15, as follows: • Deviation#3: Approval of the deviation is limited to a maximum size of 100 square foot sign and any replacement sign must be erected in compliance with the LDC requirements in effect when permits are sought; • Deviation #4: Approval of the deviation is to allow the existing 20 foot high sign to remain, however any replacement sign must be erected to code; • Deviation #5: Approval of the deviation is to allow the existing 20 foot high sign to remain, however any replacement sign must be erected to code; • Deviation #12: Approval of this deviation is limited to that portion of Tract A located east of Tract B only; • Deviation #15: Approval of this deviation to allow the existing parking situation to remain (at one space per four seats), is limited to existing Church and Place of Worship uses shown in Tract A only. PREPARED BY: h� a 5- 9- 0 KAY ESELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: I % 4d1 X11 . tt. !'. , /% . • MA'2ir RIE M. ST DENT-STIRLING ♦ DATE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY 5-z -a8 RAYMON V. BELLO S, ZONING MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW First Assemblies Ministries, PUDA-2007-AR-12043 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 20 of 21 Yr. v_h_,±)/K.(4 V013/700e ,AAALk-)SUSAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR E DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: JOSEP, . SCHMIT ADMINIST' • TOR D• E CO ITY DEVELOPMENT&ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISI•N Tentatively scheduled for the July 22, 2008 Board of County Commissioners Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE Attachments: A. Rezone Findings B. PUD Findings C. Memo from Comprehensive Planning, dated April 21, 2008 First Assemblies Ministries,PUDA-2007-AR-12043 June 5,2008 CCPC Page 21 of 21 ATTACHMENT A REZONE FINDINGS PUDA-2007-AR-12043 First Assembly Ministries Chapter 10.03.05.G of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following, where applicable: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the elements of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The GMP and FLUM discussion of the staff report (beginning on page 3 of that document) provides a detailed analysis of this project's consistent with the FLUM Map and the elements of the GMP. The subject property is designated Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, as identified on the FLUM of the GMP. This Subdistrict allows residential density of 1.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) and a variety of community facility, recreation, essential service and other uses generally allowed throughout the Urban designation. The staff report provides the support to justify a recommendation that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; North of the subject property is undeveloped agriculturally zoned land (proposed to be part of the pending Toll-Rattlesnake DRI and PUD project. To the east is a ten-acre undeveloped tract that is currently a part of this PUD, but it is being rezoning to the Rural Agricultural zoning district as a holding zone (also proposed to be part of the pending Toll-Rattlesnake DRI and PUD project. The Lords Way, a private roadway, abuts the subject property to the south with undeveloped lands with a zoning designation of Rural Agricultural on the south side of that road. To the west is Collier Boulevard, (CR 951) with the Naples Lakes Country Club, a developed residential community with a zoning designation of PUD on the other side of that roadway. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The subject tract's existing zoning is PUD and the PUD is being amended to remove the easternmost 10 acres in anticipation of its inclusion in the Toll-Rattlesnake DRI/PUD. In the interim, it is being rezoned to the Rural Agricultural zoning district to function as a holding zone. The remaining 69± acres will continued to be zoned PUD with some amendments to the uses proposed. The parcels to the north and east are also included in the proposed Toll-Rattlesnake DRI/PUD. Therefore, staff is of the opinion that this petition will not create an isolated district. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The proposed zoning boundaries follow the property ownership boundaries and result in a rectangular shaped tract. The location map on page 2 of the staff report illustrates the perimeter of the outer boundary of the subject parcel. A determination that the PUD May 22,2008 Page 1 of 4 boundaries were logically drawn was made to support the previous PUD rezoning, and the boundaries of this rezone will follow the fractional boundaries identified as part that that action, thus the boundaries remain logically drawn. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The proposed change is warranted to recognize the proposed actions for the rezone companion petition and that property's Inclusion within the Toll-Rattlesnake DRI/PUD project. The proposed amendments are consistent with this project's designation as a Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program (CWHIP) project. Approval of this PUD amendment will allow the First Assemblies PUD to go forward with its revised development plans and hold this site for the Toll-Rattlesnake project. The proposed change is also to reflect the changes from the GMP amendment that created the Collier Boulevard Community Facilities Subdistrict. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change is consistent with the County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Therefore the proposed change will 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. Based upon the Transportation Planning staff review, the difference in the site-generated traffic from the currently approved PUD versus the proposed MPUD will not create or excessively increase traffic congestion. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Any proposed water management and drainage system will need to be designed to prevent drainage problems on site and be compatible with the adjacent water management systems. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new developments. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this petition is approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outline in the PUD document. As its name implies, this MPUD project is designed to provide property development regulations for Church and related ministries and rehabilitation activities as well as the proposed multi-family home Fountain Lakes CWHIP project. Property development regulations of the zoning district do not encourage compact development that could ATTACHMENT A Rezone Findings PUDA-2007-AR-12043 May 22,2008 Page 2 of 4 significantly reduce light and air to adjacent areas; thus the MPUD amendment, if approved, should not negatively affect light and air permeation into adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; Properties to the north and east are undeveloped or developed with the Swamp Buggy races establishment (east) but both properties are included in the pending Toll- Rattlesnake project; this petition should not affect either parcels to the north or east. The area to the south across The Lords Way is undeveloped agriculturally zoned land and should not be affected by the proposed change. To the west is Collier Boulevard then the already developed Naples Lakes County Club PUD. To the west is a ten acre portion of the existing PUD which is proposed for rezoning to the Rural Agricultural zoning district and the subject of a companion petition. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan, 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; While the property can be used under the existing zoning, the petitioners have opted to seek this amendment to clarify the list of permitted uses and to be consistent with the Collier Boulevard Community Facilities Subdistrict of the FLUE of the GMP. Additionally, the easternmost ten acres of this PUD has been incorporated into the Toll- Rattlesnake DRI/PUD project and needs to be removed from the PUD because the ten acres will be developed under a different development plan within a different PUD—the Toll-Rattlesnake PUD. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; The proposed development complies with the GMP, a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable ATTACHMENT A Rezone Findings May PUDA-2007-AR-12043 ay 22,2008 Page 3 of 4 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. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP as discussed in the staff report. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed,zoning classification. Any development would require some site alteration and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities for and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process and those staff persons have concluded that no LOS will be adversely impacted because the proposed development is consistent with all Elements of the GMP. ATTACHMENT A Rezone Findings PUDA-2007-AR-12043 May 22,2008 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT B PUD FINDINGS PU DA-2007-AR-12043 First Assembly Ministries Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning Commission to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the following criteria: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer,water, and other utilities. As discussed in the staff report and the Rezoning Findings, items 2, 6, 7, 8, 16 and 17, the type and pattern of development proposed should not have a negative impact upon any physical characteristics of the land, the surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Furthermore, this project, if developed, will be required to comply with all county regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities pursuant to Section 6.02.00 Adequate Public Facilities of the LDC. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application provided satisfactory evidence of unified control. The PUD document and the general LDC development regulations make appropriate provisions for the continuing operation and maintenance of common areas. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis (see staff report) of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. Based on the analysis contained in the staff report and the FLUE consistency Memo (Attachment C), staff is of the opinion that this petition can 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. The development standards, landscaping and buffering requirements contained in this amendment are designed to make the proposed uses compatible with the adjacent uses. The staff analyses contained in the staff report support a finding that this petition is compatible, both internally and externally, with the proposed uses and with the existing surrounding uses. Additionally, the Development Commitments contained in Exhibit F of the MPUD document provide additional guidelines the developer will have to fulfill. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. May 22, 2008 Page 1 of 2 The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Since the project is currently being developed, the timing or sequence of development in light of concurrency requirements does not appear to be a significant problem for this amendment. In addition the project's development must be in compliance with applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought and the phasing requirements shown in Exhibit F. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Currently, the utility and roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed MPUD as well as the surrounding development at this time, i.e. GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP consistency review indicates (see the staff report). Specific concurrency requirements will need to be met when development orders 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 sixteen deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes some of the deviations proposed can be supported, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviations are "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Staff is supporting some deviations only to the extent required to acknowledge development that has occurred on site in compliance with previous zoning approval. Staff is not recommending approval to expand any approval not in compliance with today's regulations and also staff is recommending that any redevelopment be completed in compliance with the LDC in effect when permits are sought. Please refer to the staff report for a more extensive examination of the deviations. ATTACHMENT B PUD Findings PUDA-2007-AR-12043 May 22, 2008 Page 2 of 2 PUDA-07-12043, First Assembly Ministries Consistency Review Memo To: Kay Deselem, Principal Planner Zoning&Land Development Review From: Corby Schmidt,AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Department Date: April 21, 2008 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PUDA-2007-AR-12043—Review Stage:4 PETITION NAME: First Assembly Ministries Education & Rehabilitation MPUD REQUEST: This petition requests a Planned Unit Development amendment of 69 acres of the existing 79-acre PUD in accordance with provisions of the Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict. The petitioner seeks to amend the Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development predating this Subdistrict,which is presently approved for a mixture of land uses for religious, community social services and residential uses in a campus-type setting, including: 2400 seat church auditorium, 600 seat chapel, 300 student school (K-12), 450 child/adult care facility, 400 bed care unit facility, 120 travel trailer or park model lots, adult living facility for 400 group housing units, and 57 multi-family units along with numerous inside and outside recreational facilities and accessory uses. Only a portion of the PUD-permitted land uses has been developed. Not part of this request is the downzone of a 10 acre portion of an existing 79-acre PUD —returning it to the A, Rural Agricultural District. This easternmost ten acres is being rezoned by separate, concurrent application [Z-2008-AR-12842] and is not part of the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) presently under consideration. The new Subdistrict accommodates a mixed use, residential and institutional development on 69 of the original 79 acres. The petitioner proposes to develop a maximum of 306 dwelling units— 10 units for persons involved on-site with church and church-related community services, 147 units for persons involved with providing essential services in Collier County including 60 affordable-workforce units, and 149 market rate units for any prospective property owner—plus a maximum 368,000 square feet for portions of the religious and institutional uses, and community services already permitted. On CD-Plus System CDES Division-Comprehensive Planning Department -1- Attachment C PUDA-07-12043,First Assembly Ministries LOCATION:The subject property, containing 69 acres more or less,is located at the northeast corner of Collier Boulevard (CR-951) and The Lord's Way intersection, in Section 14,Township 50 South, Range 26 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property lies within the Urban Mixed Use District, Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict. The FLUE provisions for this Subdistrict read as follows: 17. Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict The Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict comprises approximately 69 acres and is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard, approximately one-half mile north of the Collier Boulevard/Rattlesnake Hammock Road intersection. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide community facility uses,primarily institutional uses and other non-commercial uses generally serving the public at large, and residential uses, both affordable-workforce and market rate housing - all in a setting to be compatible with surrounding land uses. The Subdistrict is intended to contain a mix of uses and services which lessens traffic impacts upon the external transportation network and public services, while serving the needs of the community at large. All development in this Subdistrict shall comply with the following requirements and limitations: a. Rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD. b. Allowable land uses: 1) Community facilities such as churches, group housing uses, cemeteries, private schools and colleges. 2) Child care facilities. 3) Residential dwelling units, not to exceed 306 units. 4) Essential services, as defined in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance Number 04-41, in effect as of the effective date of adoption of this Subdistrict. 5) Parks, open space, and recreational uses. c. The maximum floor area for institutional and other non-residential uses shall not exceed 368,000 square feet. d. Of the 306 total dwelling units, a maximum of ten (10) units shall be reserved for occupancy solely by church employees and church-related personnel and their families. The 10 church- related dwelling units will be considered incidental and accessory to the institutional uses within this Subdistrict. e. A requirement shall be put in place at the time of rezoning/PUD amendment that all but nine (9) mobile home units currently on site shall be removed from the subject property prior to the construction of any housing not reserved for church-related employees, staff and program participants. The nine remaining mobile home units may serve as temporary adult care units for program participants, and shall be removed as they are replaced by permanent residential On CD-Plus System CDES Division-Comprehensive Planning Department 2 • PUDA-07-12043,First Assembly Ministries structures, permanent adult care units, or within twenty-four (24) months from the date of adoption of this Subdistrict, whichever is sooner. f. One hundred forty-seven of the 296 affordable-workforce and market rate housing units, as they become available, will be offered first to persons involved in providing essential services in Collier County, as defined in the County's Local Housing Assistance Plan. g. To achieve the density of approximately 4.28 dwelling units per acre, and to allow development of the 192 non-church-related, non-base density dwelling units, the project shall comply with one or more of the following: 1) the Affordable-Workforce Housing Density Bonus provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code Ordinance Number 04-41 in effect as of the date of adoption of this Subdistrict; or, 2) be designated as a Community Workforce Housing Innovation Program (CWHIP) Project by the State of Florida and comply with all requirements and limitations of that designation, and provide a minimum of eighty (80) essential services personnel dwelling units—comprised of a minimum of ten (10) dwelling units for those earning less than 80% of the median income of Collier County, and a minimum of seventy (70) dwelling units for those earning between 80% and 140% of the median income of Collier County; or, 3) enter into an agreement with Collier County assuring that no fewer than 147 affordable-workforce and market rate housing units are constructed and, as they become available, will be offered first to persons involved in providing essential services in Collier County, such agreement being in effect for not less than fifteen (15) years, including a minimum of thirty-five (35) dwelling units for those earning no more than 150% of the median income of Collier County, and a minimum of twenty-five (25) dwelling units for those earning no more than 80% of the median income. h. No more than 57 market rate dwelling units shall be constructed prior to the construction of all affordable-workforce housing dwelling units. i. At the time of rezoning/PUD amendment, the maximum occupancy per dwelling unit in the 296 non-church-related dwelling units shall be addressed, as deemed appropriate by the Board of County Commissioners. j. At the time of rezoning/PUD amendment, consideration shall be given to increasing the landscaping requirements along The Lord's Way beyond existing Land Development Code requirements. k. At the time of rezoning/PUD amendment, the petitioner shall be required to mitigate for the project's impacts upon affected roadways in accordance with the concurrency management system and as otherwise determined appropriate by the Board of County Commissioners. I. Residential development shall be phased. Phase One development shall be limited to 147 dwelling units for persons involved in providing essential services in Collier County and 10 church- related dwelling units. Phase Two development shall consist of the remaining 149 market rate On CD-Plus System CDES Division-Comprehensive Planning Department 3 PUDA-07-12043, First Assembly Ministries units, plus any units allowed but not constructed during Phase One. For the 149 market rate dwelling units in Phase Two, no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until improvements to the existing deficient segment of Davis Boulevard are complete. The institutional uses and community services land uses proposed to remain within the amended PUD include the 30,000 square foot church (auditorium) seating 1,800; the 20,000 square foot church (chapel) seating 600; 10 residential dwelling units for church-related employees,program staff and participants; 400 congregate care units; the private school for 300 K-12 students; and, the 450 child/adult day care center. Plans for the 400-bed assisted living facilities, and the 120"1"1RV camp sites will be eliminated and therefore not be part of the PUD. The assisted living facility has not been developed and plans for doing so are not part of this MPUD. Of the 120 campsites, 23 have been developed and are occupied by mobile homes. These will be eliminated in accordance with Subdistrict provision (e),which states, "[a] requirement shall be put in place at the time of rezoning/PUD amendment that all but nine (9) mobile home units currently on site shall be removed from the subject property prior to the construction of any housing not reserved for church-related employees, staff and program participants. The nine remaining mobile home units may serve as temporary adult care units for program participants, and shall be removed as they are replaced by permanent residential structures,permanent adult care units, or within twenty-four (24) months from the date of adoption of this Subdistrict,whichever is sooner". Approval of this MPUD will allow development of up to 296 affordable-workforce and market rate dwelling units not reserved for church-related employees or staff. Of these 296 dwelling units, 236 would be market rate (80%) —including a portion of those intended for people employed by occupations or professions considered essential. Of the 60 units remaining, 35 would be for those earning <_150%of median income (12%), and 25 units would be for those earning <_80%of median income (8%) [20%gross affordable-workforce]. Staff points out a formal agreement to provide housing to people employed by occupations or professions considered essential is not submitted with this PUDA. Nonetheless, the petitioner's proposal to make 147 residential units available to these people remains an essential part of this Subdistrict—and benefits the County. Petitioner proposes a mix of housing types especially for these people—providing 35 gap units and 25 workforce units. This 35/25 mix varies from the standard [Collier County] Affordable-Workforce Housing Density Bonus requirements of 30/30 in order to reach the desired density of approximately 4.28 dwelling units per acre. Petitioner believes this variation from County standards is justified given their commitment to providing no less than a total 147 housing units to people employed by occupations or professions considered essential. The affordable-workforce housing component is not proposed to meet the definitions and requirements of the Collier County Affordable-Workforce Housing Density Bonus Program,but provides a mixture of Gap and Workforce housing unique to this Subdistrict.* On CD-Plus System CDES Division-Comprehensive Planning Department 4 PUDA-07-12043,First Assembly Ministries *ISte note: The affordable-workforce housing component will eventually meet either the requirements of the Collier County Affordable-Workforce Housing Density Bonus Program, the State of Florida's Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot(C-WHIP)Program, or, an agreement with Collier County assuring that housing is constructed and offered first to persons involved in providing essential services.] Collier County is experiencing a critical shortage of affordable housing for people employed by occupations or professions considered essential—including teachers, educators, other school district employees, community college and university employees,police and fire personnel,health care personnel, skilled building trades personnel and government employees.* Petitioner commits 147 of these 296 units, as they become available, to being offered first to these persons in particular need and demand. This first-offer availability is guaranteed for fifteen years, each time one of these 147 housing units is vacated. *[Staff note: The occupations and professions considered essential are defined in the County's Local Housing Assistance Plan, updated October 10, 2006.] The residential density within the First Assembly Ministries MPUD may be obtained without using the Affordable-Workforce Housing Density Bonus Agreement. The developer has voluntarily agreed to other pertinent provisions of the Subdistrict to qualify for fast track zoning and permitting. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff notes that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses/densities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis is to be comprehensive and include a review of both the subject proposal and surrounding or nearby properties with regard 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, traffic generation/attraction, etc. Objective 7, Policies 7.1 through 7.7, of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) were approved on October 26,2004. This Objective and policies incorporate certain "Smart Growth"provisions into the FLUE. This formulative process was one of Collier County's earliest opportunities to apply more of the practices found in the Toward Better Places -The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida. The Community Character Plan provides the County with a policy document featuring the most useful aspects of traditional neighborhood design (T'ND), smart growth, traffic calming, new urbanism and other contemporary planning practices. 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. On CD-Plus System CDES Division-Comprehensive Planning Department 5 PUDA-07-12043,First Assembly Ministries 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. 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. 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. Policy 7.5 The County shall encourage mixed-use development within the same buildings by allowing residential dwelling units over and/or adjacent to commercial development. This policy shall be implemented through provisions in specific subdistricts. The petitioner has provided responses to FLUE Objective 7 Policies as part of the application's "Evaluation Criteria" statements. Staff agrees with their responses. Generally, the First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehabilitation MPUD provides a unique mixture of religious, educational, institutional,rehabilitational and residential uses and services. Land uses have been arranged to accommodate the introduction of more housing opportunities into the existing setting established by present religious and institutional PUD uses. The Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) decided in July, 2007 that land use change petitioners seeking to utilize the affordable-workforce housing (AWH) density bonus program must submit a financial justification [similar to analysis prepared in the past by Fishkind& Associates] as part of their application materials. This financial justification must demonstrate the relationship between the amount of residential density requested and how it is economically justified and supported by providing AWH units. In sum, sufficient data and analysis that the additional residential density is necessary to support the economic of the affordable-workforce housing units—how the many support the few. Please consider that County toning/current planning staff has no codified criteria or evaluation standards so this issue will be addressed with each AWH bonus-based application. The petitioner's agent can put together the necessary information,get it to staff for review, and have the synopsis included in the Executive Summary. Russ Weyer of Fishkind&Assoc. can be contacted as he has previously prepared this type of analysis. ADDITIONAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: Petitioner's Response Letter, Page 7, Item 13, from Stage 3 materials, re: the proposed deviation to reduce the landscape type D buffer from 20 to 10 feet on The Lord's Way. The proposed deviation directly contradicts Subdistrict provision "j",which states, On CD-Plus System CDES Division-Comprehensive Planning Department 6 P UDA-07-12043,First Assembly Ministries 'Al the time of rezoning/PUD amendment, consideration shall be given to increasing the landscaping requirements along The Lord's Way beyond existing Land Development Code requirements." Due consideration includes fully reviewing petitioner's justification for cutting landscaping standards in half. It first appears that this deviation is not specifically addressed, but is grouped together with other"cost saving measures" generally supported by the Affordable Housing Coalition of Collier County. Further into the petitioner's response letter however, it is addressed. The Deviation response on page 25 provides the justifications for reductions in buffer width only. The number of plantings within the narrowed buffer is actually increased by reducing the spacing between trees to 15 feet-in a Developer Commitment. Page 16, Item 12, from Stage 3 materials,re: the proposed used merchandise store (SIC 5932) for the collection and distribution of clothing and furniture intended to be "open to the general public". The proposed store is not consistent with the provisions of the Subdistrict, as it states: `The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide communi y facility uses,primarily institutional uses and other non-commercial uses generally serving the public at large, and residential uses..."[emphasis added] Commercial or quasi-commercial uses should not be allowed to serve the "public at large" or be "open to the general public"without being limited in some manner. This specific proposed use may be determined to be consistent with the provisions of the Subdistrict if it can be shown to be accessory to other permitted uses and is not advertised or signed except at entries to the Educational Complex building. Note that a similar opportunity is presented with a number of proposed accessory uses listed on pages 2 of Exhibit A, subsection (B). These uses could only be considered consistent with the provisions of the Subdistrict if they are accessory to other permitted religious or institutional uses, temporary or periodic in nature,and/or not advertised or signed except at entries to their respective buildings or with on-premise directional signs. Examples of the accessory uses to which these types of limitations would apply include the book store, radio broadcasting station, coin-operated laundries, and recreational vehicle dealers. Numerous proposed accessory uses are clearly commercial uses, in addition to SIC5932, e.g., 5561, 8011, 7215, 7699 and 8111. Exhibit A must contain adequate restrictions to insure these apparent commercial uses function as accessory uses in this non-commercial PUD. Such restrictions could include limiting their access or use to residents, employees, members,program participants and patrons of the principal uses on site. This is to say, the general public should be limited from accessing medical doctors and offices, obtaining legal services,using coin-operated laundry facilities, shopping at the bookstore, or having items repaired at the repair shop. Further, specific. measurable and enforceable limits are needed, such as size restrictions of areas devoted to these uses, signage restrictions, advertising prohibitions (other than within materials directly associated with principal uses, such as church bulletins, flyers, and circulars available to On CD-Plus System CDES Division-Comprehensive Planning Department 7 PUDA-07-12043, First Assembly Ministries residents, employees,members,program participants and patrons of the principal uses), and possibly internal building access and/or other restrictions. Page 20, Exhibits B, C & D, from Stage 3 materials, re: clarification about the "as they become available" clause, and how this provision coincides with the "57 market rate [dwelling] units. Reiterating comments provided above, "Collier County is experiencing a critical shortage of affordable housing for people employed by occupations or professions considered essential—including teachers, educators, other school district employees, community college and university employees,police and fire personnel, health care personnel, skilled building trades personnel and government employees.* Petitioner commits 147 of these 296 units, as they become available, to being offered first to these persons in particular need and demand. This first-offer availability is guaranteed for fifteen years. each time one of these 147 housing units is vacated."[emphasis added] The 147 residential units proposed to persons involved in providing essential services will be "offered" consistent with the provisions of the Subdistrict each time they become"available" to an occupant, open,vacated or vacant—not just the first time they are constructed and become available. Staff did not acknowledge the petitioner's earlier contention that, "[the] GMP amply provides for this and this is why it is set forth in the Development Commitments the way they are". More implementing specificity was deemed necessary. Staff recommended that the PUD specify a time period [such as 30 or 60 days] during which units are held and offered to essential services persons, before they are offered to others. It is understood that after the 30 or 60 day ESP-related time period expires the affordable-workforce units remain affordable-workforce offerings and the number of market rate units does not increase. PUD documents now specify a time period during which units are held and offered to essential services persons,before they are offered to others. A standard has been incorporated into Exhibit F, the List of Developer Commitments, stating"the period of time that the dwelling units will be reserved for persons providing essential services will be a minimum of 30 days". The 57 market rate [dwelling] units coincide only with the number of residences already allowed in the present Planned Unit Development,but unbuilt. No relationship between the construction of these 57 residential units and the offering first of the 147 essential services persons' units over 15 years is intended or implied. The coincidence is present however between the (no more than) 57 market rate units,and the (no fewer than) 60 affordable-workforce units, to be constructed first. The First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehabilitation MPUD fifteen-year commitment to offer and provide 147 housing units to people employed by occupations or professions considered essential helps meet the County's expressed demand for such housing. Sixty of these 147 units are to be affordable-workforce housing units, also helping the County to reach its affordable housing goal for increasing by at least fifteen percent the number of units approved to be built per year. On CD-Plus System CDES Division-Comprehensive Planning Department 8 PUDA-07-12043,First Assembly Ministries The affordable-workforce housing component provides a unique mix of gap and workforce housing, but will not necessarily meet the definitions and requirements of the Collier County Affordable- Workforce Housing Density Bonus Program. The First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehabilitation MPUD project will be phased, as follows: Phase 1A - - - 60 AWH units + 57 market rate units = 117 ESP units Phase 1B - - - 30 market rate ESP units Phase 2 - - - Remaining 149 housing units [10 church-related housing units - - - no phasing restrictions] This phasing standard has been incorporated into Exhibit F, the List of Developer Commitments. Aside from advancing this PUDA, the petitioner is required to enter into an agreement [in lieu of acceptance into the State C-WHIP Program or the County Affordable-Workforce Housing Density Bonus Program] with Collier County [in accordance with Section (g)(3) of the Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict] for assuring that no fewer than 147 affordable-workforce and market rate housing units are constructed and, as they become available,will be offered first to persons involved in providing essential services in Collier County— such agreement being in effect for not less than fifteen (15) years,including a minimum of thirty-five (35) dwelling units for those earning no more than 150% of the median income of Collier County,and a minimum of twenty-five (25) dwelling units for those earning no more than 80% of the median income. No such agreement proposal is included as a companion to this PUDA. The petitioner has however, elected to file for participation in the State of Florida Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot (C-WHIP) Program,where final notification of participation approval is expected to be announced in May, 2008. Twenty-three (23) 'FI'RV campsites are to be eliminated in accordance with Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict Section (e),which states, "[a] requirement shall be put in place at the time of rezoning/PUD amendment that all but nine remaining mobile home units may serve as temporary adult care units for program participants, and shall be removed from the subject property prior to the construction of any housing not reserved for church-related employees, staff and program participants. The ten remaining travel trailers shall be removed as they are replaced by permanent residential structures,permanent adult care units, or within twenty-four (24) months from the date of adoption of this Subdistrict,whichever is sooner". This requirement is written into MPUD materials. Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff previously concluded the requested PUDA could not be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. The following issue needed to be addressed by the petitioner and/or added to the PUD before consistency could be determined—and has been addressed in this review stage: On CD-Plus System CDES Division-Comprehensive Planning Department 9 PUDA-07-12043, First Assembly Ministries • Uses accessory to other permitted religious or institutional uses, shall: be temporary or periodic in nature, and/or not advertise other-than-within materials directly associated with principal uses, such as church bulletins, flyers, and circulars available to residents, employees,members,program participants and patrons of the principal uses; not utilize signage except at entries to their respective buildings or with on-premise directional signs; be limited with respect to their access or use to residents, employees,members, program participants and patrons of the principal uses on site; possibly be limited to internal building access only; and,be size restricted in areas devoted to these uses. A number of these standards have been incorporated into the PUD in Exhibit A, Church Related Uses and Development Intensity and in Exhibit B, Residential Development Standards. PUD documents have been modified to incorporate additional Accessory Use control statements,which now read, "Accessory uses are uses that are only accessory to permitted religious or institutional uses, temporary or periodic in nature. Accessory uses shall be of lesser area than the size of the principal uses in which they are located. Accessory uses are principally for on-site residents only, however, an incidental component of the program is to allow past program residents or social service agency referrals to attend programs comprising no more than 10% of program participants. Accessory uses shall principally generate their activity from the principal permitted uses for the subject property, including their traffic's trip generation so as to minimize external impacts to adjacent properties and the external roadway network." and, "Accessory uses shall have no signage visible from The Lord's Way or CR 951 and signage shall only be permitted at entries to their respective buildings [or] with on- premise directional signs. No advertising shall be permitted for accessory uses other than with materials directly associated with principal uses, such as church bulletins, flyers, and circulars available to residents, employees, members, program participants and patrons of the principal uses." All Comprehensive Planning-related concerns have been satisfactorily addressed, and the requested First Assembly Ministries Education & Rehabilitation Mixed Use PUD may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. cc: Randall Cohen,AICP, Director, Comprehensive Planning Department David Weeks,AICP, Planning Manager, Comprehensive Planning Department Susan Istenes,AICP, Director, Department of Zoning&Land Development Review Raymond Bellows,Manager, Department of Zoning&Land Development Review CD/FLUE file G:\Consistency Reviews\2008\PUDA-2007-AR-12043 First Assembly Ministries REV 4.doc cs/04/25/08 On CD-Plus System CDES Division-Comprehensive Planning Department 10 JUSTIFICATIONS FIRST ASSEMBLY MINISTRIES EDUCATION&REHABILITATION CAMPUS MPUD REZONE TO EXHIBIT E -LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) 1. The justification for Deviation No. 1 is to allow sufficient area to accommodate multi-family units on Tract G and to compensate for area lost for the right-of-way reservation for The Lord's Way for both Tracts A and C. (See also Exhibit C MPUD Master Plan). Furthermore, additional plantings will be incorporated into this buffer for landscape enhancement. (See also Exhibit F development commitments, landscaping.) 2. The justification for Deviation No. 2 is to enhance the ability of the motoring public to identify the location of the proposed multi-family development on Tract G that is not visible from C.R. 951. (See Exhibit G for sign detail.) 3. The justification for Deviation No. 3 is to enhance the ability of the motoring public to identify the location of the proposed multi-family development on Tract G that is not readably visible from C.R. 951 and to allow the size of the existing sign to be exceeded. (See Exhibit G for sign detail.) 4. The justification for Deviation No. 4 is to allow the existing 20 foot tall sign to remain. This deviation will provide a convenience to the motoring public to identify the location of the multi-family tract, Tract G that is not visible from C.R. 951. 5. The justification for Deviation 5 is to allow the existing 20 foot tall sign located at the southwest entrance to the project to remain to provide a convenience to the motoring public. 6. The justification of Deviation No. 6 is to allow the motoring public to be aware of the location of the multi-family tract as a convenience. 7. The justification for Deviation No. 7 is to provide for pedestrian access along The Lord's Way to be provided while recognizing the constraints posed by existing conditions on Tract A and G after the reservation of right-of-way for The Lord's Way. 8. The justification for Deviation No. 8 is to allow a sidewalk on one side of the access drive because buildings are only on one side of the access drive. 9. The justification for Deviation No. 9 is that the existing sidewalk can provide pedestrian access until C.R. 951 is widened and a new sidewalk connection is constructed to the County's proposed pathway along the east side of the CR 951 canal. Furthermore, Page 1 Justification for the Deviations 5/20/08 allowing the 7 foot sidewalk to remain on Tract A to satisfy pedestrian access requirements allows the existing pedestrian access system to function as planned and without disturbing the existing pavement area. 10. The justification for Deviation No. 10 is to allow private access to both the church campus and multi-family development to be private entrances and to not require interconnection between the two uses. 11. The justification for Deviation No. 11 is to allow care units to be grouped in one or more buildings with other accessory uses without computing a separate floor area ratio for the care unit component of the project. There is a maximum limitation of 368,000 for all institutional and other non-residential uses set forth in the Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict of the GMP. The development intensity for the care units,therefore, is adequately provided by the GMP. 12. The justification for Deviation No. 12 is to reduce this parking requirement for care units on Tracts A or C in this MPUD is that residents only have occasional access to motorized vehicles thus lessening the demand for parking for the care units. Furthermore, residents of the care units are members of the church and their parking has already been accounted for in church related facilities. Based on the 18 residents in rehabilitation at First Assembly, only one individual has a motorized vehicle. 13. The justification for Deviation No. 13 is to accommodate the proposed improvements within the constraints of existing site conditions, including existing utility and access improvements. Furthermore, where the buffers are proposed to be reduced in width—along Celebration Blvd. and behir d the proposed multi-family/multi-purpose building on Tract A—the view is less intensive. The adjacent uses are a roadway with no vertical structures proposed in the background and a residential/care facility with architecture similar to that of the proposed multi-family buildings on Tract G. The proposed increases in buffer width are conversely located where future residents of Tract G (Fountain Lakes) would most benefit from additional screening—adjacent to views of the job training and rehabilitation services center on Tracts A and C. 14. The justification for Deviation No. 14 is that this standard was allowed by the existing zoning prior to the adoption of this Ordinance to promote on-site bicycle and pedestrian traffic. 15. The justification for Deviation No. 15 is that the parking space requirement of one space per four seats is currently allowed by the existing PUD and the site development plan for the existing church, was approved according to this standard. All future church seating requirements will be required at one space per seven seats after the adoption of this ordinance. Page 2 Justification for the Deviations 5/20/08 ORDINANCE NO.08- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS; BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A 69+/- ACRE PROJECT KNOWN AS THE FIRST ASSEMBLY MINISTRIES EDUCATION AND REHABILITATION CAMPUS MPUD TO ALLOW MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND CHURCH-RELATED USES ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 99-59 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE FORMER 79.1+/- ACRE FIRST ASSEMBLY MINISTRIES EDUCATION & REHABILITATION CAMPUS PUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., representing J. David Mallory, President of First Assembly of God of Naples, Florida, Inc., and William L. Klohn, President of MDG Capital Corporation, Managing Member of MDG Fountain Lakes, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District for a project known as the First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehabilitation Campus MPUD to allow multi-family units, community facilities and church- related uses in accordance with Exhibits A through I attached hereto and incorporated herein and by reference made part hereof. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps; as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. PUDA-2007-AR-12043 Page 1 of 2 REVISED 5/22/08 KD SECTION TWO: Ordinance Number 99-59, known as the First Assembly Ministries Education & Rehabilitation Campus PUD, adopted on September 14, 1999, by the Board of County Commissioners is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by a super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,this day of ,2008. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA By: By: ,Deputy Clerk TOM HENNING,CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and legal sufficiency Marjorie M. Student-Stirling Assistant County Attorney PUDA-2007-AR-12043/KD/sp Exhibit A: Permitted Uses Exhibit B: Development Standards/Typical Building Layout Exhibit C: Master Plan/Typical Cross Sections Exhibit D: Legal Description Exhibit E: List of Request Deviations from LDC Exhibit F: List of Developer Commitments Exhibit G: On-site&Off-site premises signage Project History: Ordinance Number 93-57(repealed) Ordinance Number 96-58(repealed) Ordinance Number 96-86(repealed) Ordinance Number 99-59 PUDA-2007-AR-12043 Page 2 of 2 REVISED 5/22/08 KD EXHIBIT A FIRST ASSEMBLY MINISTRIES EDUCATION AND REHABILITATION CAMPUS MPUD CHURCH RELATED USES AND DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY I. CHURCH RELATED PERMITTED USES (TRACTS A-E) The First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehabilitation Campus MPUD will include a mixture of land uses for religious, community social services, and residential uses in a campus-type setting. This wide mixture of land uses is also intended to provide some services on-site, which will provide convenience for the many non-mobile residents and minimize traffic generation from the campus. The key facilities at build-out will include a maximum of: an auditorium for predominantly church use with 2200 seats,a chapel with 200 seats, and a private school for 300 students in elementary and secondary schools or Bible College, a care unit facility with 249 care units and a facility for 300 day care units. The care units will be located in the educational complex on Tract A(183), 66 units in the Rehabilitation Center on Tract A and 20 units will be located in the multi-family/multi-purpose facility on Tract A until such time as the rehabilitation center on Tract A is completed. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES AND SIC CODES: (TRACTS A-E) Land Use Type Tract 1. Religious organizations (Group 8661) A 2. Private elementary and secondary schools(Group 8211)and private colleges(Group 8221) A 3. Residential care units (Group 8361) -249 units A 4. Child daycare services(Group 8351) A 5. Rehabilitative service center(Group 8093)* A a) Job training(Group 8322) A, C b) Individual and family social services(Group 8069) A c) Specialty out-patient hospitals(Group 8399) A d) Social services—not classified elsewhere(Group 8361) A e) Residential care units(Group 8361) 6. 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 LDC. *Principally for on-site residents only, however,an incidental component of the program is to allow past program residents or social service agency referrals to attend programs comprising no more than 10%of program participants. A-1 First Assemblies,AR 12043 revised 5/22/08 B. ACCESSORY PERMITTED USES AND SIC CODES (TRACTS A-D) Accessory uses are uses that are only accessory to permitted religious or institutional uses, temporary or periodic in nature. Accessory uses shall be of a lesser area than the size of the principal uses in which they are located. Accessory uses are principally for on-site residents only, however, an incidental component of the program is to allow past program residents or social service agency referrals to attend programs comprising no more than 10% of program participants. Accessory uses shall principally generate their activity from the principal permitted uses for the subject property, including their traffic's trip generation so as to minimize external impacts to adjacent properties and the external roadway network. Land Use Type Tract 1. Coin-operated laundries (Group 7215) A, C 2. Radio broadcasting stations and tower(church use)(Group 4832) A, C 3. Television broadcasting station and tower(church use)(Group 4833) A, C 4. Book stores for church and school only(Group 5942) A 5. Cemetery(Group 6553) A 6. Christian memorial per MPUD Master Plan A 7. Guard house/campus security office A 8. Cafeteria(shall be an integral part of a principal use for on-site residents and visitors utilizing permitted principal uses on the campus only) A 9. Help supply services for residents only(Group 7363) A 10. Overnight parking for visitors in recreational vehicles or busses(see Developer Commitments, Exhibit F,no. 6) C 11. Recreational facilities, including but not limited to: gymnasiums, football fields,baseball fields, soccer fields,basketball courts, swimming pools,tennis courts, shuffle board courts, waterways A,B, for canoeing, gazebo, boat/fishing docks and boardwalks C,D 12. Grassed parking area for overflow parking within FPL right-of-way B 13. Administrative services for principal uses including offices, meeting and conference rooms for the church and rehabilitative center A 14. Four mobile homes for up to 12 temporary care units A 15. Ten multi-family units for church employees in the multi-family/multi-purpose building A 16. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted accessory uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals(BZA)by the process outlined in the LDC. A-2 First Assemblies,AR 12043 revised 5/22/08 C. PRESERVE SUBDISTRICT PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES(TRACT E) No building or structure or part thereof shall be erected, altered or used, or lands used in whole or part other than the following: A. Permitted Uses and Structures: • 1. Passive recreation areas; 2. Water management facilities in wetlands and water management structures; 3. Mitigation areas; 4. Boardwalks and trails; 5. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted accessory uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) by the process outlined in the LDC. A-3 First Assemblies,AR 12043 revised 5/22/08 H. RESIDENTIAL PERMITTED USES (TRACT G) No building, structure or part thereof located on Tract G, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used,in whole or part,for other than shown below: A. PRINCIPAL USES AND STRUCTURES: 1. Multiple-family and two family dwellings. 2. 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 LDC. B. ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES: 1. Recreational facilities that serve as an integral part of a residential development, including but not limited to a walk path, docks, community center building and office,pool and playgrounds. 2. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the residential permitted uses within this MPUD Ordinance including swimming pools, boat docks recreational building and a tot lot for children. 3. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted accessory uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals(BZA) by the process outlined in the LDC. C. DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY: A maximum of 296 multi-family units are allowed on Tract G that may include three two- family multi-family dwelling units. HI. RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT(TRACT F) Use of this tract is limited to rights-of-way. A-4 First Assemblies,AR 12043 revised 5/22/08 EXHIBIT B FIRST ASSEMBLY MINISTRIES EDUCATION AND REHABILITATION CAMPUS MPUD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LISTING OF TABLES TABLE I - RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY INCLUDING TWO-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES, FOR TRACT G 2 TABLE II - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY STUCTURES,FOR TRACT G 3 TABLE III - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR CHURCH RELATED PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES, FOR TRACTS A, B, C . . . . 4 TABLE IV - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR CHURCH RELATED ACCESSORY STUCTURES, FOR TRACTS A, B, C 5 B- 1 First Assemblies,AR 12043 revised(1)5/22/08 TABLE I RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY INCLUDING TWO-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES For Tract G A. MULTI-FAMILY INCLUDING TWO FAMILY PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES DWELLING UNITS* MINIMUM FRONT YARD 25 FEE;'OR MPUD BOUNDARY SETBACK,WHICHEVER IS GREATER — MINIMUM SIDE YARD NONE,AS LONG AS MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES IS MET MINIMUM REAR YARD 25 FEET MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 850 SQUARE FEET PER DWELLING UNIT MINIMUM SETBACK FROM NORTHERN, 35 FEET PLUS ONE FOOT FOR EACH FOOT OF BUILDING HEIGHT SOUTHERN AND EASTERN MPUD BOUNDARY OVER 35 FEET MINIMUM YARD FROM INTERNAL PAVED 10 FEET UNLESS ATTACHED TO CARPORTS,GARAGES OR VEHICULAR USE AREAS PORTICOS* 15 FEET OR(ONE-QUARTER OF THE HEIGHTS OF THE SUM OF THE MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES ZONED HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURES)WHICHEVER IS GREATER, UNLESS STRUCTURE IS ATTACHED MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURES---FOUR STORIES NOT TO EXCEED 52 FEET AS ZONED AND NOT TO EXCEED 56 FEET ACTUAL TWO-FAMILY STRUCTURES--TWO STORIES NOT TO EXCEED 25 FEET AS ZONED AND NOT TO EXCEED 35 FEET ACTUAL MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM LAKES 20 FEET * This standard does not apply to travel ways that include public rights-of-way but may include parking areas and driveways. See Exhibit B1 typical sketch for distance of principal uses,carports,garages or porticos from travel ways. B. DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY A maximum of 296 multi-family units are allowed on Tract G that may include three two-family dwelling units in separate structures. C. ROOF TREATMENTS All the roofs for multi-family units including two family dwelling unit structures shall be constructed of tile or similar looking material. D. TWO-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS The two-family dwelling units shall be subject to the standards of the LDC for Cluster Residential Design and approved as a Site Development Plan along with other multi-family structures. GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all criteria shall be understood to be in relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures. Condominium, residential cooperative and/or homeowners' association boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development standards. B- 2 First Assemblies,AR 12043 revised(1)5/22/08 TABLE II RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY STUCTURES ForTractG A. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MINIMUM FRONT YARD 20 FEET OR MPUD BOUNDARY SETBACK WHICHEVER IS GREATER MINIMUM SIDE YARD NONE AS LONG AS MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES IS MET MINIMUM REAR YARD 20 FEET DISTANCE FROM PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE 20 FEET OR 10 FEET FOR CARPORTS MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT TWO STORIES NOT TO EXCEED 25 FEET AS ZONED AND NOT TO EXCEED 35 FEET ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHTS MINIMUM SETBACK FROM MPUD BOUNDARY 25 FEET MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM INTERNAL PAVED 10 FEET UNLESS ATTACHED TO CARPORTS OR GARAGES* VEHICULAR USE AREAS* MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM LAKES 20 FEET *See Exhibit B1 depicting location of carport areas adjacent to vehicular use area/travel ways. B- 3 First Assemblies,AR 12043 revised(1)5/22/08 TABLE III DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS F OR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES For Tracts A,B,C A. PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MINIMUM FLOOR AREA FOR CARE 275 SQUARE FEET UNITS MINIMUM FLOOR AREA FOR MULTI- 700 SQUARE FEET FAMILY UNITS MINIMUM SETBACK FROM 35 FEET PLUS ONE FOOT OF SETBACK FOR EACH FOOT OF ZONED BUILDING NORTHERN,SOUTHERN AND EASTERN MPUD BOUNDARY HEIGHT OVER 35 FEET MINIMUM FRONT YARD 100 FEET ALONG CR 951,35 FEET ALONG THE LORD'S WAY AND 25 FEET ELSEWHERE NONE AS LONG AS DISTANCES BETWEEN STRUCTURES ARE MET, HOWEVER THE MULTI-FAMILY/MULTI-PURPOSE BUILDING LOCATED ON MINIMUM SIDE YARD TRACT A,EAST OF THE FPL EASEMENT SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON MPUD MASTER PLAN AND SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 3 FEET(SEE ALSO EXHIBIT 1 DEPICTING THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THIS STRUCTURE) MINIMUM YARD FROM INTERNAL 10 FEET PAVED VEHICULAR USE AREAS MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN 15 FEET OR ONE-HALF THE ZONED HEIGHT OF THE ADJACENT STRUCTURE, STRUCTURES WHICHEVER IS GREATER,UNLESS STRUCTURE IS ATTACHED FIVE STORIES NOT TO EXCEED 67 FEET AS ZONED BUILDING HEIGHT AND NOT TO EXCEED 74 FEET ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT FOR CHURCH, EDUCATION FACILITY,ADULT LIVING FACILITY AND CARE UNITS. ALL MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OTHERS-THREE STORIES IN HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 40 FEET ZONED HEIGHT AND NOT 10 EXCEED 45 FEET ACTUAL HEIGHT. THE HEIGHT TO THE TOP OF THE STEEPLE OF THE WORSHIP CENTER SHALL NOT EXCEED104 FEET. SHALL BE SEPARATED A MINIMUM OF ITS FALL ZONE RADIUS(BASED ON SETBACK RADIO TOWER THE HEIGHT OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE)OF 170 FEET FROM ANY HABITABLE STRUCTURE PRESERVE AREA 25 FEET LAKE SETBACK 20 FEET B- 4 First Assemblies,AR 12043 revised(1)5/22/08 TABLE IV DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY STUCTURES CHURCH RELATED USES For TRACTS A,B,C A. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES CHURCH RELATED USES * MINIMUM FRONT YARD 25 FEET ALONG THE LORD'S WAY;50 FEET ALONG CR 951 EXCEPT FOR FISHING DOCKS THAT HAVE NO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS* MINIMUM SIDE YARD SAME AS PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MINIMUM REAR YARD 20 FEET DISTANCE FROM PRINCIPAL 20 FEET STRUCTURE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT TWO STORIES NOT TO EXCEED 30 FEET ZONED BUILDING HEIGHT AND NOT TO EXCEED 35 FEET ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT" PRESERVE AREA 10 FEET MINIMUM SETBACK FROM MPUD 25 FEET OR FRONT YARD SETBACK,WHICHEVER IS GREATER BOUNDARY MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM LAKES 20 FEET *Fishing docks shall not intrude into the landscape buffer. **The monument honoring the National Christian Armed Forces will have a maximum height of thirty-five (35) feet and its location is depicted along the western edge of this MPUD on the Master Plan. B. SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS Accessory uses shall have no signage visible from The Lord's Way on CR 951 and signage shall only be permitted at entries to their respective buildings with on-premise directional signs. No advertising shall be permitted for accessory uses other than with materials directly associated with principal uses, such as church bulletins, flyers and circulars available to residents, employees, members,program participants and patrons of the principal uses(see also Exhibit A pertaining to accessory uses). C. PARKING OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES(RV'S) Parking for RV vehicles is limited to Tracts A and C only and there shall be no more than three consecutive night stays permitted for each vehicle. A maximum of 25 RVs may be parked at any one time. This parking area shall be only for self-contained vehicles that include sanitary facilities. D. SALE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES(RV'S)OR USED CARS Sales of RVs or used cars shall be limited to a maximum of 10 sales per year. A maximum of 3 vehicles may be stored at any one time on Tract C at the repair site. B- 5 First Assemblies,AR 12043 revised(1)5/22/08 • o +1 x 1 BOOZ 'OZ AV I OBSV132! - r• ` \ c�ii acv -.' n -- 4 s - si u4 ': ^s f 1 NE *7-;IET011,': -., ,,it,..0 : •4. q 1•1 mill_ _ , t y T^®f3�a1 A'>[� I O r"J 'sue M*'. I r,:_;._ Ert:ii.kr.1•4, EL44_-_ ,_---4 - — ] 4s., MX 03 1 w N ' t . I ` ifs . m to N ��'$`tee :�� -�—.� i 4, cn 3 . a i sa n1 Q �t � " _ -''F-7,--=, N irk. Q o mmm lzI' � 0 x ' , rn�mm r4 g OV 41. sau" �xr sx a "l'' ." r -• r i ro°.o o�c � 1 �� � � ( ti,i II t co l F ; No' (L121 r = � _ C J Z /� a' � ' '!k i, _#.t"i3 f, Ml•l i� I ..1 1ti '�y;I f -n D N_ ;; I z z• Orm - „� v E {.. F•,ice,.w I m -k ,'�� 3r f. l a I� �, •' Z . I ,, 1 Y 4 G) BUILDING 0 "IP MO 1:1;-,,,TA:41.0g*,-,,,,,Imo , rrr_ r„ O x • n O n U8 ® r 1 = C�� I Z �' n CARPORT m o 1 F--r--- - :3.i .,_ = z _ m I R^ u C R. 951 ItilLjc I ®= o '2 �5 1 il �.._ 4 . 1 :; w 4*.j.,1-,10,6,.. '.:,--,:- 1 _.,„,-.,,,, _,___,:.- —1 1 \ lit,.'t' ',,,,,L''71:.:::. 5 ��� ---,....&. G to m N%., tliii' ''.-.±.' I, .4,-,1%." --. (- -- ' ' '18b*2 ill `1 1 �, o, t ,1 ¢ — ii fir" e" s i „ m �v -". "< a '' 1 \ , ili., :2,-.2[-: 1 • J gP$ -: I 1 -2, ,!' ; ::' re ..e. _ ,,,,.1 i 4 ri; win-n pl 1 ii , m to 0 I ; _ r '" i r ^ m N; ; [ r 1. , t,g it l�I O N _ etz .I.Vf -C 7 1 I ^ 71 t w. O 'W G 1---- to o�ao,4s ilk 33 �+ C "� L >, mZ , , PROPOSED GRASS PMPING Fg 1, /B/ S> v O D Z Q I P.PA RGNT_OF_MAY !,,,,T T' CT PROPOSED ASS PARIONG —_wg� 7 i ....-4.., q� FA.L piT-Of WAY C Z (. F2 g 2;f g c, / y� F 2g / g \\ti /1) N',+i9 L -�'-..ee -_ -_ ---- Na- 1-,' _ — :i. V. >tr, (Iia1�`�i coca =�c�i. R I 5p r Ra /� 2x , IF "� / , y ° '/ 9 co I 84 ri 7 ■ ���� ---' I n-7=71, -P»mow Z flggl' b ,2 ,`d gyp. /`- & — J _ k >4 y g-. ' T . "" ■ �.r.cccc c Rz cc c c cr I a � v �: _2 p t I-BRPP E y �" r r¢>1` y xe —1!ii =:.°1('''':<;::)::,,1\'‘-''.::' } 1 n - g g r O, F;.G.PP; I `I i 2 >: i ■ Age TRACT 'G' R 82'443a a a 3p � _ • :- g C n- 1 I x _ - - _14 7 N.....14.1. I i f . . ate.°.i�z z N pmt ilA .g 441111dt . ^ o r!, 6 s n2 /" C , % . r- i•if RE aR ^> 2 Mgo !Ili§ A n �q geg o Rg ape oN g 2 ,3 \� d too o g $ $ Oret!r1 N O) 0 Co N 0) O — OD K • N�+aK�sr � ° II m mom J ° D rn Fi _1 1 m o Q II °� Coca IN rn*vv, 0 g g 0 > 1 zz� ,z*,-z,•DCz > �Z m-I-O • gip' 1 ' I N N tn O G) 1I m �$ I ` °)- mr�v x rm w to w U) O.mv °c, I� ° g o1X N Z 0 23 4 x "' _ O) fZ� 1 1l O CN i 1 r �E 0 l c I. ! E /(1) --1 I ' _ ( 0 N m HI m g Dcb F . —Al... wA HI u) h -m ELi I V» TO y P O =•• N to INU= [....1.2.1;2 ° I o ew m .. G. o n CO mom co Z_N . C CmO�m 8 If Z t. ZD I , f -1 [1 mNDn� N o ° Awm N I m u I,1 nZ-1m 0"* Z0Z 001�KI I ' m IL o . o 1 _ . N X10 F. -11 xi o- r+ Om I Zo mo* o f r c °- 1Im c� v _ I ,'- m c _ ICw m° mo * I / * m Po z r m r *0 / op m N I{. O, Z V)* pot X a)• m N 0 7C 0 g W ow >. . z o ym 25 '<<n 0 {D / *Z'y c; 0W -1 E... vm E / I. m � z_, Kt n - Z� - IA 8Qm rz+, CmJ o ro G)Z O o -0--N... m O ° IM p Qp= n z D N i O �4t..D.5-1 0 I Nv C+ D = m 0 - co ryl o �..I...1.. 1.... I 7c " rri I o° m —a. I o m C) mrn U x 0 m A - co Lio I . 2270-° o m E N • DO = o I • vv I 5 ° =m P N m 8 6 °o v 1 a PUDA-2007-AR-12043 First Assemblies PUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (AS FURNISHED BY CLIENT) THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4, LESS THE WEST 100 FEET THEREOF; AND THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1" AND THE WEST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1" OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, ALL SITUATED AND LYING IN COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA. NOTES: THIS PROPERTY SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESERVATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AS BEING S.00'49'12"W. (STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, FLORIDA EAST ZONE, 83/90) ABOVE GROUND IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING ON THIS PROPERTY HAVE BEEN LOCATED HEREON AS SHOWN. ABOVE GROUND INDICATORS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES EXISTING ON THIS PROPERTY HAVE BEEN LOCATED HEREON AS SHOWN. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES HAVE NOT BEEN LOCATED ON THIS SURVEY. ALL OTHER IMPROVEMENTS EXISTING ON OR ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY HAVE NOT BEEN LOCATED OR SHOWN CH THIS SURVEY. ABSTRACT OF TITLE HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY SURVEYOR. THIS SURVEY IS NOT VALID WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. PROPERTY AREA: 68.78 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. CERTIFIED TO: FLORIDA COMMUNITY BANK FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD OF NAPLES, FLORIDA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION 11B BANK OF THE KEYS FIRST TITLE AND ABSTRACT, INC. CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY Legal Description Exhibit D EXHIBIT E FIRST ASSEMBLY MINISTRIES EDUCATION&REHABILITATION CAMPUS MPUD REZONE LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE(LDC) 1. Deviation No. 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02 C.4, which requires a 20 foot wide Type D buffer along The Lord's Way, to allow this buffer to be reduced from 20 feet to 10 feet in width along Tract G, the Multi-Family Tract. This deviation will also allow the existing 10 foot wide buffer to remain on Tract A adjacent to The Lord's Way prior to the widening of The Lord's Way and to allow this Type D buffer to remain 10 feet in width after the widening of The Lord's Way and to be relocated to the north of the existing sidewalk. The plantings in the 10 foot Type D buffer area on Tract A shall be located just to the north of the sidewalk. (See Exhibit C-1, The Lord's Way Typical Cross Sections for Tract A and G.) 2. Deviation No. 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04 C.16.b.i, to allow a off- site premises sign in the southwest corner of the subject property on Tract A. The deviation is to exceed the maximum area of 12 square feet to allow the off-site premise sign to be a maximum size of 32 square feet as an addition to the existing sign. (See MPUD Master Plan and Exhibit G depicting proposed sign detail.) 3. Deviation No. 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 05.06.04 C.l.c, that allows a maximum sign area of 80 square feet, the deviation is to allow a maximum size of 132 square feet in area. The sign is currently 100 feet in area. (See Exhibit G for sign detail and also Deviation no. 2.) 4. Deviation No. 4 seeks relief from LDC Section 05.06.04 C.16.b.ii., that limits the height of the sign to 8 feet above the lowest center grade of the arterial roadway and to allow the existing sign to remain 20 feet in height. 5. Deviation 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04 C.1.a, that limits the size of signs to 15 feet to allow the existing 20 foot tall sign to remain located at the southwest entrance to the project. 6. Deviation No. 6 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04 C.16.b.v, which requires an off-site premise sign be located within 1,000 feet of the intersection of the roadway to allow the sign to be 1,400 feet from the property it serves on Tract G. 7. Deviation No. 7 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02 A.1, Sidewalk and Bike Lane Requirements to allow relief from the requirement that a 6 foot wide sidewalk and bike lane be provided along The Lord's Way (a requirement for The Lord's Way upon E-1 First Assemblies,AR 12043 Revised 5/22/08 becoming an arterial roadway in the future). The deviation is to allow the northerly most existing 7 foot wide sidewalk to remain west of the existing entrance into First Assembly Ministries on Tract A to satisfy the pedestrian access requirements of LDC Section 6.06.02 A. 1. This deviation will also allow a 5 foot wide sidewalk to be constructed within a five foot easement area on Tract G, the multi-family tract, to satisfy this LDC requirement. (See also Exhibit C-1, The Lords Way Typical Cross Sections.) 8. Deviation No. 8 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02 A.1, Sidewalk and Bike Lane Requirements that requires sidewalks on both sides of the street and to allow a sidewalk on only one side of the internal access drives for the multi-family Tract G as buildings are proposed only on one side of the access drive. Furthermore, the project includes a proposal for an extensive internal pedestrian circulation system for access throughout the MPUD. (See MPUD Master Plan.) 9. Deviation No. 9 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02 A.1, which requires a 6 foot wide sidewalk and bike lane along C.R. 951, an arterial roadway, to allow an existing 7 foot wide sidewalk along a portion of the C.R. 951 road frontage on property belonging to First Assembly Ministries to satisfy this requirement or by providing money in lieu of providing a sidewalk. A connection will be provided from the sidewalk on The Lord's Way to the sidewalk which the County will construct on CR 951 east of the canal at the intersection of The Lord's Way and CR 951. 10. Deviation No. 10 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01 B, Street System Requirements, which requires that layout of all developments to be coordinated with surrounding properties to provide interconnections. The deviation is to allow private access to both the church campus and multi-family development to be private entrances and to not require interconnection between the two uses. A provision has been made for a potential future access to the east. 11. Deviation No. 11 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04 D.1, Group Housing which requires a maximum floor area that shall not exceed 0.45 for care units. The deviation is to allow the care units to be developed within the 368,000 square feet of floor area for all uses. 12. Deviation No. 12 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.04 D.3.b. that requires 0.75 parking space per assisted living unit, to allow .75 parking space per 10 care units. 13. Deviation No. 13 seeks relief from LDC Sections 4.06.02 D.4 and 5.03.02 E.3, pertaining to minimum landscape buffer width and minimum wall setback, respectively. The LDC requires that a 15 foot wide Type B landscape buffer and a 10 foot wide Type A landscape buffer to be provided along the property boundary between Tract G, the multi-family tract, and Tracts A and C of First Assembly Ministries' campus, with the 15 foot Type B buffer to be provided for the more intensive use (i.e., on Tracts A and C) and the 10 foot Type A buffer to be provided for the less intensive use (i.e., on Tract G). The LDC also requires that the non-residential t se provide a minimum 6 foot high concrete E-2 First Assemblies,AR 12043 Revised 5/22/08 (precast or masonry) wall a minimum of 6 feet from the residential zoning district boundary (i.e., at least 6 feet inside Tracts A and C). The LDC allows for reductions in required buffer widths to a minimum width of 10 feet provided that compensating increases in width are made elsewhere in the buffer. The deviation is to locate the buffers within platted easements as depicted on Exhibit C, the MPUD Master Plan, departing in places from the property line and with portions of either buffer encroaching onto an adjacent tract(s). Areas depicted in the legend represent reductions in buffer width and include compensating increases in buffer width. Portions of the 10 foot Type A buffer on Tract G — Phase 2 (i.e., adjacent to Celebration Boulevard, the existing entry road into Tract A) are shown with a reduction in width to less than 10 feet, severed in some places, due to the encroachment of proposed impervious improvements. The required wall shall be located a minimum of 6 feet from the residential side of the 15 foot Type B buffer. 14. Deviation No. 14 seeks relief to LDC Section 4.06.02 C, Table 2.4, which requires buffering internal to uses within Tracts A and C. The deviation is to allow no buffering between uses internal to Tracts A and C. See also Deviation no. 7 that provides buffering between Tracts A and C. 15. Deviation No. 15 seeks relief from *L,DC Section 4.05.04 G., Table 17, Parking Spaces Required which requires 3 parking spaces for each 7 seats in the chapel or assembly area, to allow a reduction of this standard to a minimum of 1 space for each 4 seats that is typically only for the expansion allowed due to congregational growth so as to allow this standard to apply only to previously approved church-related structures in existence prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. Any future church-related parking area will require the standard of 3 parking spaces for 7 seats. E-3 First Assemblies,AR 12043 Revised 5/22/08 EXHIBIT F FIRST ASSEMBLY MINISTRIES EDUCATION AND REHABILITATION CAMPUS MPUD REZONE LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 1. GENERAL A. Development of the First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehabilitation Campus MPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections and parts of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to final subdivision plat, final site development plan (SDP), excavation permit, and preliminary work authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the LDC shall apply. 2. AFFORDABLE HOUSING GMP COMMITMENTS A. A minimum of 147 of the 296 affordable-workforce and market rate housing units, as they become available, will be offered first to persons involved in providing essential services as defined in the LDC, as further defined in the County's Local Housing Assistance Plan. The period of time that the dwelling units will be reserved for persons providing essential services will be a minimum of 30 days. The developer shall comply with the following affordable housing commitments upon approval of the SDP for Tract G, the multi-family tract. B. The developer of Tract G, the multi.family tract, shall comply with one or more of the following: i. The Affordable-Workforce Housing Density Bonus provisions in the LDC, in effect as of February 19, 2008, the date of adoption of the GMP provisions affecting the subject property; or, ii. State law applicable to the designation as a Community Workforce Housing Innovation Program (CWHIP) Project by the State of Florida. 1.) the developer shall provide a minimum of 80 essential services personnel (ESP) dwelling units comprised of a minimum of 10 dwelling units for those earning less than 80% of the median income for Collier County, and 2.) a minimum of 70 dwelling units for those earning between 80% and 140% of the median income for Collier County; or, iii. The developer shall enter into an agreement with Collier County assuring that no fewer than 147 affordable-workforce and market rate housing units are F- 1 First Assemblies,AR-12043 revised 5/22/08 constructed and, as they become available, will be offered first to ESP, persons involved in providing essential services in Collier County. Such agreement shall be in effect for not less than 15 years. Such an agreement shall provide that a minimum of 35 dwelling units shall be provided for those earning no more than 150% of the median income of Collier County, and a minimum of 25 dwelling units shall be provided for those earning no more than 80% of the median income of Collier County. iv. No more than 57 market rate dwelling units shall be constructed prior to the construction of all affordable-workforce housing (AWH) dwelling units and the following phasing schedule shall apply, however, more affordable work force housing units may be included in any one phase. Development of the project will be phased, as follows: Phase lA 60 AWH units + 57 market rate units= 117 ESP units Phase 1B 30 market rate ESP units Phase 2 149 housing units v. The maximum primary occupancy per dwelling unit in the 296 non- church-related dwelling units for two and three bedroom units (one bedroom units are not permitted) shall be as follows: 1. Two bedroom units-five occupants. 2. Three bedroom units-seven occupants. C. All but 4 mobile home units currently located on Tract A east of the FPL right-of-way shall be removed from the subject property prior to the construction of any housing not reserved for church-related employees, staff and program participants. The 4 remaining mobile home units may serve as adult care units for program participants, and shall be removed as they are replaced by permanent multi-family residential structures, 20 temporary adult care units and related accessory uses, or within 24 months from the date the GMP Amendment is adopted (February 19, 2008), whichever is sooner. 3. TRANSPORTATION A. Up to 55 feet on Tract G and approximately 50 feet on Tract A up to the existing 7 foot wide sidewalk shall be reserved along the southern portion of this MPUD for Collier County for an east/west public right-of-way corridor, a portion of which currently includes a 30 foot easement for The Lord's Way. The right-of-way shall be dedicated to Collier County in fee simple title and free of any encumbrances upon request by Collier County based upon a demonstrated need for the roadway. Incorporation into the Collier County Capital Improvement Element shall constitute demonstrated need. The right-of-way shall be dedicated at no cost to the County. F- 2 First Assemblies,AR-12043 revised 5/22/08 The right-of-way shall be dedicated to Collier County within 120 days of such demonstrated need. (See also Exhibit C-1 and Tract F on the MPUD Master Plan.) B. Signalization at the Collier Boulevard/The Lord's Way intersection shall be provided when warranted and a fair share contribution shall be provided by the developer of this MPUD. C. The right-of-way reservation for The Lord's Way shall satisfy the developer's mitigation requirements pursuant to Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP so the project can be found consistent with the GMP. (See also Exhibit C-1, The Lord's Way Typical Cross Sections for Tracts A and G.) The mitigation will not alter the phasing requirement set forth in Exhibit F.3.D. D. Residential development shall be phased. Phase One development is limited to 147 dwelling units and 10 church-related dwelling units and will commence upon SDP approval. (See also Exhibit F.2.F.) Phase Two development will permit construction of the remaining 149 units for any prospective property owner, plus any units allowed but not constructed during Phase One. For the 149 dwelling units in Phase Two, no CO shall be issued until improvements to the deficient segment of Davis Boulevard are complete from CR 951 to Radio Road. E. The existing throat length on Tract A shall remain the same after the widening of The Lord's Way and the gatehouse shall remain in its present location. F. A sidewalk interconnection shall be required between Tracts A and G in the vicinity of The Lord's Way and church gatehouse. (See MPUD Master Plan.) G. The cost of any (potential, future) turn lanes onto The Lord's Way created to serve this development shall be borne by the developer, its successors, or assigns. This commitment shall remain valid after such time that The Lord's Way has been publicly dedicated. H. A 5 foot sidewalk will be constructed within the 5 foot easement dedicated to Collier County along The Lord's Way on Tract G, the multi-family tract. The existing 7 foot sidewalk on Tract A shall be deemed sufficient to satisfy pedestrian access requirements on the church's property. (See also Exhibit E, 7.) I. The developer of Tract A shall be responsible for relocating landscaping from the existing buffer to the new buffer north of the existing sidewalk at no cost to the County and with no claims for any future disruption to the landscaping in the event of The Lord's Way widening. F- 3 First Assemblies,AR-12043 revised 5/22/08 4. LANDSCAPE BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS A. The plantings within the Type D buffer area on Tract G shall consist of trees on 15 foot centers. This provision is designed to implement GMP provisions pertaining to enhanced landscaping in the Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict. B. When the existing 10 foot buffer is relocated on Tract A, it shall consist of trees on 15 foot centers. This provision is designed to implement GMP provisions pertaining to enhanced landscaping in the Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict. 5. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES A. A tot lot shall be provided on Tract G for children 2 to 12 years of age, which meets ASTM standards. The tot lot shall be constructed prior to the issuance of the first CO for the first multi-family building. F- 4 First Assemblies,AR-12043 revised 5/22/08 i • - 14'-0"---------- - , 1 - 24' — - 1 0'41 1184 1 • _,_______..__ • ......7...,,, ,,..."07.71.- ....,...... ,..-•-..,,, _. . •ii...... ."'..L.31'.,; • : .z:.,•4—T- ,r...=.1. ...:j . ' '---- 1 T i /•'. A, - -, , • / - . -, ..:.-,,,,,,,,, ,, ::: x-L,.. II . i - - 1 , i . 1/7 : ,.. ,,......,011,-„ ..,. .. .:• ,v, .. i 1 ; • i ii ,; . :. • ' = .- ! I - I - "•• . .- ILLUMINATED 1 1 i MINISTRIES : ' . . DOUBLE—SIDED 11 1 I b 11, PYLON SIGN i 1 1 ,,. ■.., F--.. : ,1 t 1 C L CNI < 1 I . : :4 ! ' ia _ NALS. -" . , i PROPOSED ' _ _ . : ILLUMINATED 1 1 i b 1 • . 1 i • - S_UNDM 1 liskM - i DOUBLE—SIDED i f i 1 ! .1 csi i • ' • Ir—O" ,..,..:..•.. •. -; •.r...4„.- • ,•...,t i,I i I: .._1 1 o. .'.'"'...._-_- -'•:.'::•..'•,•,.• Off-Site P 1 i 5 0 3 1 I I 1 I I i i co.— Premise Sign 8 . 2 __, - ... ... li 12 cp 11 wxx 6 (7) ..... P ro xx ii -4- 0! 2' 9-Q ± 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 ON-SITE & OFF-SITE CHECKED BY: PROJECT No. R.D. 2005.054 Phone: (239) 254-2000 PREMISE SIGNAGE DRA"JoNBY' CAD nu NAME MONTES Florida Certificate of SIGN EXH 911210S-PLANIERS-SUREORS Authorization No.1772 EXHIBIT G DATE: 10/07 EXHIBIT— ITEli G 01- 1 AGENDA Revised COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 2008, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER,3301 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 THEAGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—APRIL 17,2008,REGULAR MEETING 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS—APRIL 29,2008,GMP MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. Petition: PUDA-2007-AR-12322, Livingston Professional Center LLC, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Monies, Inc. is requesting an amendment to the Hiwasse PUD to revise existing development standards, transportation requirements and property ownership information. The +/-12.52-acre subject property is located 1400 feet north of the intersection of Eatonwood Lane and Livingston Road, in Section 13, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. HEARD ON 5/1/08 (Coordinator: John-David Moss) B. Petition: BD-2008-AR-12731, Jim Fountain,represented by Eric Schneider of Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc., requesting the addition of a boatlift to an existing dock. Proposed change includes adding a boatlift and removing an existing floating swim platform on an existing fixed wood dock approved by BDE resolution 2000-18, allowing a total protrusion of 48 feet from MHW. The additional boatlift would not require any further protrusion into the waterway, but the proposed additional slip constitutes a significant deviation from the plan approved with the original extension petition. Property located at 208 San Mateo Drive, Lot 27, Southport on the Bay, Unit One, as recorded in Plat Book 15, pages 51-53, Section 6, Township 48 South, Range 25 East,Collier County, Florida. HEARD ON 5/15/08(Coordinator: Ashley Caserta) 1 C. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-12581, Florida Non-Profit Services, Inc. and The Empowerment Alliance of Southwest Florida Community Development Corporation, represented by Heidi K. Williams, AICP, Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., requesting a PUD rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A-MHO) Mobile Home Overlay Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit Development Zoning District,to be known as Esperanza Place RPUD. The 31.63± acre site is proposed to be developed for affordable single-family and multi-family residential use. The subject property is located on the north side of Immokalee Drive, approximately 1/2 mile west of SR 29, in_Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee, Collier County, Florida. HEARD ON 5/15/08 (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) D. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-9143, Standing Oaks, L.L.C., represented by Dwight Nadeau, of RWA, Inc. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A., requesting a rezone from Rural Agricultural (A) to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to be known as Standing Oaks PUD. The 41.1± acre Rural Agricultural zoned site is proposed to permit 164 single and multifamily residential dwelling units at a density of 4 units per acre. The subject site is located at 6473 Standing Oaks Lane,6400 Standing Oaks Lane, and 6565 14th Avenue N.W., in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. HEARD ON 5/15/08 (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach) 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: SV-2008-AR-13059, Stock Development, LLC, represented by Christopher Mitchell of Waldrop Engineering, is requesting a sign variance to permit a 54 square foot ground monument sign bearing the Edison College logo. The subject property,consisting of 3.93 acres, is located within the Lely PUD at the southeast corner of the Grand Lely Drive and Rattlesnake Hammock intersection, in Section 21, Township 50, Range 26,Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Willie Brown) B. Petition: CU-2006-AR-10805, Rinker Materials of Florida, Inc., represented by Robert Muihere, of RWA, Inc., is requesting conditional use of an earth mine and asphaltic and concrete batch making plant in the Rural Agricultural (A) Zoning District. The subject property, consisting of 967.65 acres, is located '/ of a mile north of the Immokalee Road (CR-846) / Oil Well Grade Road intersection, in portions of Section(s) 9, 10, 15, 16, 21, and 22, Township 47 South, Range 28 East, of Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Willie Brown) C. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-12097, The Covenant Presbyterian Church of Naples, Inc. and Mission Possible Ministries, Inc, represented by Michael R. Fernandez, AICP of Planning Development, Inc., are requesting a rezone from the RSF-1 Zoning District to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as Heavenly MPUD. The approximately 15.93-acre site is proposed to permit existing churches, associated schools, day care facilities and other related accessory uses. The subject site is located at 6926 Trail Boulevard, and comprises the entire block formed by Trail Boulevard, Ridge Drive, Myrtle Road and West Street in Section 3, Township 49, Range 25 East of Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) D. Petition: PUDA-2007-AR-12321, MDG Lake Trafford, LLC., represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to Arrowhead PUD Ordinance Number 02-40,as amended,Section 8.5 Transportation subsections B., K., L.3., M.through P. and to add Section 9 Deviations to revise transportation commitments to construct project turn lanes at Lake Trafford Road and Carson Road project entrances within one year of approval of this ordinance;to construct turn lanes for the commercial tract and the shared north Carson Road entrance at the time of commercial site development plan; to require acceptance of Carson Road extension from Lake Trafford Road south to Immokalee Drive and the westerly 450 feet of lmmokalee Drive by the Collier County Road Maintenance Department;to construct intersection improvements at Lake Trafford Road and Carson Road within one year of approval of this Ordinance; to contribute funds for a bus stop, to remit funds for turn lanes and signal modifications, and to receive credit for a turn lane; and to add Section 9 to seek a deviation from a transportation requirement of sidewalks on both sides of Lake Trafford Road to allow a sidewalk on the north side of the road only. The property is located at the southwest corner of Lake Trafford Road (CR 890) and the proposed extension of Carson Road in Section 6, Township 47 South, Range 29 East,and Section 31,Township 46 South, Range 29 East,Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator:Nancy Gundlach) 2 E. Petition: RZ-2008-AR-12842, Toll-Rattlesnake, LLC,represented by Robert Duane,AICP,of HoleMontes Inc., is requesting a rezone of the easternmost 10±acre portion of the First Assembly Ministries Education & Rehabilitation PUD from the Planned Use Development (PUD) zoning district to the Agricultural (A) zoning district. The subject property is located along the northern side of the extension of The Lord's Way, in Section 14, Township 50, Range 26, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) Companion to PUDA-2007-AR-12043 F. Petition: PUDA-2007-AR-12043, First Assembly of God Naples, Inc.,by J. David Mallory, president; and MDG Fountain Lakes, LLC, William L. Klohn, president of MDG Capital Corporation, managing member; both of whom are represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, Hole Montes, Inc., are requesting an amendment from the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for a 69± acre project known as the First Assembly Ministries Education and Rehabilitation MPUD, to allow multi-family units, community facilities and church-related uses. The subject property is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Collier Boulevard(CR 951)and The Lords Way in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) Companion to RZ-2008-AR-12842 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS A. Scheduling of Adoption hearings for Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendments—2006 Adoption Cycle GMP Amendments (6 petitions), Petition CP-2006-1, Silver Strand Commerce Park in Immokalee; Petition CPSP-2007-7, School Public Facilities Element; and Petition CPSP-2007-6, 10-Year Water Supply Plan(Potable Water Sub-Element). 12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 14. ADJOURN 6/5/08 CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/sp/mk 3 Arrowhead Ownership -10/31/2007 Ownership: MDG Lake Trafford LLC MDG Capital Corporation 2% managing member William L Klohn, LLC 49% Patrick McCuan, LLC 49% 100% MDG Lake Trafford Commercial LLC MDG Capital Corporation 2% managing member William L Klohn, LLC 49% Patrick McCuan, LLC 49% 100% Patrick McCuan LLC W Patrick McCuan 65% managing member McCuan Irrevocable Trust 35% 100% William L. Klohn LLC William Klohn 61% managing member William L. Klohn 1996 Irrevocable Trust 39% 100% MDG Capital Corporation MDG Companies of Naples Inc. 50% William L. Klohn 1996 Irrevocable Trust 50% 100% MDG Companies of Naples, Inc. W. Patrick and Jill McCuan 100% IMMOKALEE CPA Community Redevelopment Agency I The Place to Call Home! Immokalee CRA Advisory Board February 20,2008 Collier County Board of County Commissioners 3301 E. Tamiami Trail Naples FL 34112 RE: Arrowhead Reserve PUD off site sidewalks Dear Commissioners: The Immokalee CRA Advisory Board meeting was held on February 20, 2008. An agenda item included a presentation made by Mark Tolson,developer representative of Arrowhead Reserve at Lake Trafford. Mr. Tolson indicated that the Collier County Transportation Department was recommending an 8 ft. wide pathway/sidewalk on the north side of Lake Trafford Road running from Carson Road to S.R. 29. Mr. Tolson shared photographs with the Committee which displayed hardships and in • some cases impossibilities for the pathway/sidewalk to maintain a constant eight foot width along the entire route. Mr. Tolson indicated that a six foot width is readily achievable for the entire route from Carson Road to S.R. 29. Please be advised that the Immokalee CRA Advisory Board does not object to the reduced width of the pathway/sidewalk and encourages the Board of Commissioners to approve the six foot width request for the entire route from Carson Road to S.R. 29. Sincerely, Fred N. Thomas Jr. Chairman Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency 310 Alachua Street Immokalee, FL 34142 239.252.2310 or 239.252.2313 Page 1 of 1 dr 12 Bill Klohn From: Mark Woodward [MWoodward @wpl-legal.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 5:36 PM To: Denise Larson; marjoriestudent @ colliergov.net; mstrain @colliergov.net; kaydeselem @colliergov.net Cc: Bill Klohn Subject: RE: Toll-Rattlesnake, LLC Ownership This firm represents MDG Fountain Lakes and we have been asked to provide information regarding the ownership/corporate structure of Toll-Rattlesnake, LLC a Florida Limited Liability Company who owns the easterly 10 acre parcel that is the subject of a PUD/Agricultural rezoning petition. From a search of the public records and from information provided to Hole Montes from the attorney for Sembler Family Partnership#42, Ltd the following is the ownership structure of Toll-Rattlesnake, LLC: The Manager of Toll-Rattlesnake, LLC is Sembler Family Partnership#42, Ltd, a Florida Limited Partnership. The General Partner of Sembler Family Partnership#42, Ltd is Sembler Retail II, Inc a Florida Corporation. Officers and Directors of Sembler Retail II, Inc. are: 1) Melvin F. Sembler, Director/Chairman 2) Craig H. Sher, DirectorNice President/Treasurer/Secretary 3) Brent W. Sembler, DirectorNice President/Secretary 4) Gregory S. Sembler, Director/President 5) Jeffrey S. Fuqua, DirectorNice President/Secretary 6) Ronald P. Wheeler, Vice President The Limited Partners of Sembler Family Partnership#42, Ltd are: 1) Melvin F. Sembler Family Trust, u/a/d March 14, 1975 2) Brent W. Sembler Family Trust, u/a/d July 14, 1989 3) Gregory S. Sembler Family Trust, u/a/d September 21, 1989 4) Craig H. Sher Family Trust, u/a/d March 27, 2006 Should additional information be required please advise. Woodward Pires& Lombardo PA Mark J Woodward, Esq. 6/4/2008 2008 LIMITeb LIABILITY COIIVIPtIY ANNUAL _ -- • -- , DOCUMENT#L05000021004 1,,..1r.,�_ AV'1. Entity Name "*:`400,2 r 1 L E Li i TOLL-RATTLESNAKE, LLC K;., 4;r _ us— °8 APR 30 MI 8: 35 4 . Principal Place of Business — Mailing Address 4- 28341 TAMIAMI TRAIL,SUITE 4 28341 TAMIAMI TRAIL,SUITE 4 r��-� x rat �, Q (�1 BONITA SPRINGS,FL 34134 US 8ONITA SPRINGS,FL 34134- US I/'1 II) liii 1 Principal Place of Business-No P.d.RoxN 3. M ting Ass T �l 11 � IIM�� �I� �IlfiF VIII!!!Ii 1111 111!!!I if Suite,Apt.N,etc. Suite,Apt.N,etc. 04282008 Chg-LLC CR2E083(12106) �Ciity&/State `— �R'r City&} to 4. FEI Number !Applied for J I Y GLA&t p� `I Y e-m-S.S t4 UR 20-4037661 �ot App?=•_orbI- x '3 Country Zip Country 5. Certificate of Status Desired $5.00 Additional - • -70 7 (�SA- F� : 3 q3�1�4f Fee Required 0, Name and Address of Current R •!stered A• nt "_ 7. Hams and Address of New Registered Agent �� r -. _ . .. REINERT,RALPH • F."6 L�Q � -C,-.0R S. 28341 TAMIAMI TRAIL,SUITE 4 Street Address(P.O.Box Number is Not Acceptable) r BONITA SPRINGS,FL 34134 _ • City„Sr P r / tg G FL ) Z 8 7 8. The above named enti • its this statement fof th purpose of changing•its registered office o`r reglstererTagenf,or-GM;TFTife Sfile'cif Riddle."I am famTar with,and accept the obligations of ..•- _•agent. - fs Q SIGNATURE 7` --T-yt� 'km"'• orPA.• •,oerue• rod,�yed aaaM and title"Placable . . Rataff id Agent argnaiee wed when ret+etam+pr_ •• . ..•• DA .._„ FILE NOM FEE 13$138.75 Make check payable to • After May 1,2008 Fee will be$538.75 Florida Department of Stab* •:n • 9. MAI1AAs1PI MEIvlBE'R8/MANAGERS 10. AbOf 1ONSICHANGES • TIRE MGR — v — ❑Delete TITLE - O Change Q A•: . NAME SEMBLER FAMILY PARTNERSHIP 342,LTD. NAME sTREETADDnEES 5858 CENTRAL AVENUE - MEET ADDRESS CTIY-Sr-nP ST.PETERSBURG,FL 33707 CRY-sr-sir TITLE MGR '�. ....- TALE 4001 r 54O? Ram 1:1A.-.71:1A.-.77... NAME TOLL FL VII LIMITED PARTNERSHIP NAME OS/01/08--01 C01--0I'3 **143.75 STREET ADDRESS 250 GILBRALTER ROAD STREET ADDRESS CITY-ST-ZIP HORSHAM,PA 19044 CITY-ST-ZIP TITLE — ...- . . .-• .b Delete-,' TITLE Q Change Q A_"n NAME NAME • STREET ADDRESS STREET ADDRESS cTY-ST-ZIP CITY-ST-ZIP TITLE _ .. 1- �. :a. LJ Delete TtTLt ©Change 01.47)A NAME NAME ST ADDRESS STREET ADDRESS CITY.ST-ZIP CITY-ST-ZIP • �� _.. .. I]Delete TITLE ..... ... _ NAME Q Change ❑a,:':. NAME STREET ADDRESS STREET ADDRESS CITY-ST-ZIP CITY-ST-DP ITTLE Q Dole* TITLE -- Q Change 0 A9:iI_r, NAME NAME STREET ADDRESS STREET ADDRESS CITY-SI-ZIP CITY-ST-ZIP _ ,...gym -a�L.,»,.i•..a..�.,_. I I. t hereby certify that the information supplied with this filing does rat quailfy•for the exemptions containeii in"Ch"aptei:TYS, neti4giefute"s.I further certify that the information.. indicated on this report is true and accurate and that my signature shall have the same legal effect as if made under oath;that I am a managing member or manager of the limited liability company or the receiver or trustee empowered to execute this report as required by Chapter 608,Florida Statutes. SIGNATURE- •• �" $ 4 ! 70-7-3 f 51�aao fxSMA Ok PR P SIGNING MANAGING MEUSER,MAl/AGElt,DR AUTHORIZED RiifiRESENTAbV 504:. rNritme Prone Y 61,y •s. • ,,r;. -._-.;.. -...ins:. .: . ® ^ n D m R R > m > \ \ ∎Xi 3M k 3 0 z c 7 � E m m \ $ q -I > wz m w -I 9 m -13 m k k / - m 2 3 �Q m 7 ° 0 m _� -11 = ) O -I \ 0 q z a x c ° n w m -0 � � m > 0) m -I ® z 2 ca E \ � \ m t' E . mm r . m a m U) m> > > 0 I 0 0 > O m r 0 0 0 / 2 x "< < 0 E . m m k I % � n 7 t p ® r. Z - t, Enw w 0 E 22i m m -I � / r p 0 / . @ 2 4 _ -I X c \ / k 0 > e n m 0 m ° m m E O \ 0 0 m CA) -I X m > 0XR 0 0 0 m _t > ca 03 q % / E O ® mE C CO 2 w r K0 § & k \ x M .. 0 0 O 2 > ..-1= II / Q 1 Zm - I f > r 0 ® X y) \ P r -I MDG CAPITAL CORPORATION COLLIER COUNTY Ira J. Sugar Community Development and Chief Financial Officer Environmental Services Division 2180 Immokalee Rood,Ste 309 Naples,Florida 34110 Kay Deselem,AICP Principal Planner Department of Zoning and Land Development Review (239)594-8700 (239)596-4399 (239)287-4970 Office Fax Mobile 239.252.2931 • Fax 239.252.6357 or 239.252.696,8 Isugar @mdgcorp.com 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, Florida 34104 www.mdgeorp.com Email: KayDeselemcacolliergov.net • www.colliergov.net \\ MACVICAR, FEDERICO & LAMB, INC. THE COLINAS GROUP, INC. .�\\\ -- -- — ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS \ WATER RESOURCE&ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING Mark R.Stephens,P.G.,P.E. Thomas K. MacVicar, P.E. Principal Consultant President 2031 E.Edgewood Drive Phone(863)669-9141 Suite 5 Fax(863)669-1742 (561)689-1708(5 ( ) 4524 Gun Club Road,Suite 201 Fax(561)689-1020 6 Lakeland,FL 33803-3601 Cell(863)670-1189 West Palm Beach,FL 33415 c-mail:macsicar@mfl-inc.com stephensmr @cs.com . MDG CAPITAL CORPORATION 1 ' 1 TA INC. Emilio J.Robau,P.E. Water Resources Sector Leader 13( l ` O 16 S 1"L T. \i Senior Engineer el 1 A8IPl ioer 7 1w- •Planning •Visualization *Civil Engineering •Surveying&Mapping 6610 Willow Park Drive 2180 Immokalee Road,Ste 309 Suite 200 Naples,Florida 34110 Naples,Florida 34109 5'l i'-q 4 f (239)597-0575 (239)594-8700 (239)596-4399 (239)alliglitta. Fax:(239)597-0578 Office Fax Mobile ejr @consult-rwa.com Isuogar@mdgcorp.com www.consult-rwa.com www.mdgcorp.com INCIVI kap N.Norma,RE. P+SS Senior Vice President Prirtcipal e Pastor David iltillory HOLE MONTES w :.z. ►� ENGINEERS• PLANNERS• SURVEYORS -. ,' LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE >,SU.i The Lord's Ilan Naples, Florida ;f4114- 4( 950 Encore Way Ph. 239-774-1 1 G. Naples,Florida 34110 Phone:239.2542000 Fax 239_774 0-;:),s GeorgeHermanson@HMeng.com Fax:239.254.2099 „'„,r./i rwasse,iit:i,'/,iinisv,-ics.,„