Agenda 06/13/2017 Item #17A Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
June 13,2017
Item 17A: The underlined changes below was inadvertently omitted
in the title and in Section One of the draft ordinance. As a result, the
missing language is being added to correct the record.
An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended,
the Collier County Land Development Code, which established
the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area
of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning
atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the
herein described real property from the Neighborhood
Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay
District of the Residential Multi-Family-6 Zoning District (RMF-
6-BMUD-NC) and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of
the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Commercial
Intermediate Zoning District (C-3-BMUD-NC) to a Residential
Planned Unit Development Zoning District within the
Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive
Mixed Use Overlay District for the project to be known as
Mattamy Homes Residential Planned Unit Development, to allow
construction of a maximum of 276 residential dwelling units on
property located in the northwest quadrant of Bayshore Drive and
Thomasson Drive in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 37+/- acres; and
providing an effective date. [PL20160000183]
06/13/2017
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing
be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an
Ordinance, amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development
Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of
Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the
zoning classification of the herein described real property from the Neighborhood Commercial
Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Residential Multi-Family-6
Zoning District (RMF-6-BMUD-NC) and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the
Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Commercial Intermediate Zoning District (C-3-
BMUD-NC) to a Residential Planned Unit Development Zoning District for the project to be known
as Mattamy Homes Residential Planned Unit Development, to allow construction of a maximum of
276 residential dwelling units on property located in the northwest quadrant of Bayshore Drive and
Thomasson Drive in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida
consisting of 37+/- acres; and providing an effective date. [PUDZ-PL20160000183]
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (Board) review staff’s findings and
recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC)
regarding the above referenced petition to render a decision regarding this rezoning petition, and ensure
the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the
community's interests are maintained.
CONSIDERATIONS: The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Bayshore Drive and
Thomasson Drive in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The
petitioner is requesting that the Board consider an application to rezone property from the Neighborhood
Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Residential Multi -
Family-6 Zoning District (RMF-6-BMUD-NC) and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the
Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Commercial Intermediate Zoning District (C-3-
BMUD-NC) to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for the project to be
known as Mattamy Homes RPUD.
FISCAL IMPACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help
offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund
projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) as
needed to maintain an adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet
the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved
by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with
the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees
collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional
revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the
value of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the
criteria used by staff and the CCPC to analyze this petition.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is
designated Urban (Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict) and is within the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO) and the Coastal High Hazard Area
Overlay (CHHA), all of which are identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the FLUE of
the GMP. Both the RMF-6 and C-3-zoned portions of the site are deemed “consistent by policy” on the
FLUM series. Pursuant to FLUE Policies 5.9 and 5.10, the RMF-6 and C-3 zoned portions are allowed to
17.A
Packet Pg. 1227
06/13/2017
develop or redevelop in accordance with the maximum density allowed under the existing zoning
classifications.
For market-rate housing, the Density Rating System would allow four dwelling units per acre (DU/AC)
on the C-3-zoned portion of the site, 19.92 dwelling units, and FLUE Policy 5.1 would allow six DU/AC
on the RMF-6-zoned portion, 193.62 dwelling units. In total, the number of dwelling units allowed
would be 213.54 or as rounded, 214 units. The additional 62 units needed to achieve the requested 276
units are derived from the density bonus pool available in the B/GTRO. The approval to use the 62
density bonus pool units is at the Board’s discretion. See Attachment 4 - FLUE Consistency
Memorandum for the entire analysis by Comprehensive Planning.
Staff determined the proposed RPUD may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. However,
as noted in Attachment 4 - FLUE Consistency Memorandum, a minor text correction to the PUD
Document is needed and stipulated as such in the Recommendation section of the staff report, page 18.
Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s Traffic Impact
Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP using the 2015
and 2016 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR).
Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states the following:
The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications,
conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE)
affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with
consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve
any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in
the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in
the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway
segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of
Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating
stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic
impact statement reveals that any of the following occur:
a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal
to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume;
b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or
exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and
c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is
equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume.
Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and
submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts
on all roadways.
The proposed PUD Amendment on the subject property was reviewed based on the then-applicable, 2015
AUIR Inventory Report. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the proposed new residential
development will generate approximately 138 PM peak hour two-way trips. The previous multi-family
development contained 106 PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the proposed development will have 32 PM
peak hour new trips as listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Road Capacity
17.A
Packet Pg. 1228
06/13/2017
Roadway Link 2016 AUIR
Existing LOS
Current Peak
Hour Peak
Direction Service
Volume/Peak
Direction
2016 Remaining
Capacity
Bayshore Drive U.S. 41 to
Thomasson Drive
B 1,800/South 1,162
Thomasson Drive Bayshore Drive C 800/East 245
Based on the 2016 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the
proposed new trips for the amended project within the five-year planning period. Therefore, the subject
rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth
Management Plan.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found this
project to be consistent with the CCME.
GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions, such as this
proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or
inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with
conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. This petition is consistent with the GMP.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The
CCPC heard petition PUDZ-PL20160000183 on May 4, 2017 and by a vote of five to zero recommended
to forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval subject to the follo wing
conditions:
1. Eliminate the words private intended with respect to the amenity area in Exhibit A.
2 Change the maximum number of stories allowed for townhouses and multi-family dwellings in
the Development Standards table in Exhibit B.
3. Make note #3 in the Development Standards table in Exhibit B applicable to the minimum rear
yard setbacks and drainage easement setbacks required for accessory structures.
4. Modify the Master Plan by adding a note If Agreed to by Windstar HOA, which reintroduces a
vehicular interconnection from the subject property into Windstar PUD that was originally requested by
staff. The interconnection would occur if both parties agree.
5. Modify the Master Plan to show that the wall along Pine Street would not be placed where
abutting the water management area. Instead, a chain-link fence with landscaping on both sides would be
applied along the west and north property lines where the water management area is shown on the Master
Plan.
6. Delete the dimension for the building setback (i.e., 20 feet) on the exhibit of the cross-section for
the right-of-way. This was being requested to avoid future confusion or conflict between the exhibit and
the Development Standards table. This cross-section is associated with Deviation #2 (see page 10 of the
staff report).
7. Adding time frame language to the density bonus units (i.e., seven years) as requested by staff
17.A
Packet Pg. 1229
06/13/2017
condition of approval (see #5 above).
Because the CCPC approval recommendation was unanimous and no letters of objection have been
received, this petition has been placed on the Summary Agenda.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This is a site specific rezone from a Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed
Use Overlay District of the Residential Multi-Family-6 Zoning District (RMF-6-BMUD-NC) and the
Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the
Commercial Intermediate Zoning District (C-3-BMUD-NC) Zoning District to a Residential Planned Unit
Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Mattamy Homes RPUD. The
burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent with all the criteria set forth
below. The burden then shifts to the Board, should it consider denying the rezone, to determine that such
denial would not be arbitrary, discriminatory, or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding
that the proposal does not meet one or more of the listed criteria below.
Criteria for RPUD Rezones
Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval or
not.
1. Consider: 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.
2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of 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? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be
made only after consultation with the County Attorney.
3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed RPUD with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
Growth Management Plan.
4. Consider: 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.
5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development?
6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring the
adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
8. Consider: Conformity with RPUD 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.
17.A
Packet Pg. 1230
06/13/2017
9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land
use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan?
10. Will the proposed RPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern?
11. Would the requested RPUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated
to adjacent and nearby districts?
12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed
amendment necessary.
14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?
15. Will the proposed change 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?
16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem?
17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas?
18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area?
19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property
in accordance with existing regulations?
20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot (“reasonably”) be used in accordance with
existing zoning? (a “core” question…)
22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county?
23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use
in districts already permitting such use.
24. Consider: 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.
25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed RPUD rezone 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 [Code ch.106, art.II], as amended.
17.A
Packet Pg. 1231
06/13/2017
26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the RPUD rezone request that the Board
shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare?
The Board must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written
materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies,
letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the Board hearing as these items relate
to these criteria. The proposed Ordinance was prepared by the County Attorney’s Office. This item has
been approved as to form and legality, and requires an affirmative vote of four for Board approval
(HFAC).
RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendation of the CCPC to rezone the property to
the RPUD zoning district. All other changes are reflected in the attached Ordinance.
Prepared by: Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, Principal Planner, Zoning Division
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. Attachment 1 - Staff Report (PDF)
2. Attachment 2 - Proposed Ordinance (PDF)
3. [Linked] Attachment 3 - Application and Support Material (PDF)
4. Attachment 4 - FLUE Consistency Memorandum (PDF)
5. Attachment 5 - Density Map (PDF)
6. Attachment 6 - City of Naples Letter (PDF)
7. Attachment 7 - Legal Notifications (PDF)
8. Attachment 8 - Emails_Letters from Public (PDF)
9. Attachment 9 - Items Collected at CCPC Hearing (PDF)
10. Legal ad - Agenda ID 3177 (PDF)
17.A
Packet Pg. 1232
06/13/2017
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 17.A
Doc ID: 3177
Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members.
Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to
approve an Ordinance, amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area
of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning
classification of the herein described real property from the Neighbor hood Commercial Subdistrict of the
Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Residential Multi -Family-6 Zoning District (RMF-6-
BMUD-NC) and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay
District of the Commercial Intermediate Zoning District (C-3-BMUD-NC) to a Residential Planned Unit
Development Zoning District for the project to be known as Mattamy Homes Residential Planned Unit
Development, to allow construction of a maximum of 276 residential dwelling units on pr operty located
in the northwest quadrant of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive in Section 14, Township 50 South,
Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 37+/- acres; and providing an effective date.
[PL20160000183]
Meeting Date: 06/13/2017
Prepared by:
Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning
Name: Eric Johnson
05/09/2017 4:27 PM
Submitted by:
Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning
Name: Michael Bosi
05/09/2017 4:27 PM
Approved By:
Review:
Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Division Reviewer Completed 05/16/2017 9:51 AM
Zoning Ray Bellows Additional Reviewer Completed 05/16/2017 9:54 AM
Zoning Michael Bosi Additional Reviewer Completed 05/17/2017 5:08 PM
Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 2 Division Administrator Skipped 05/11/2017 10:49 AM
County Attorney's Office Heidi Ashton-Cicko Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 05/22/2017 1:29 PM
Growth Management Department James French Additional Reviewer Completed 05/24/2017 6:53 PM
Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 05/25/2017 10:33 AM
County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 05/25/2017 10:44 AM
Budget and Management Office Mark Isackson Additional Reviewer Completed 05/31/2017 4:55 PM
17.A
Packet Pg. 1233
06/13/2017
County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 06/04/2017 12:40 PM
Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 06/13/2017 9:00 AM
17.A
Packet Pg. 1234
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 1 of 19
April 26, 2017
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING DATE: MAY 4, 2017
SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20160000183 MATTAMY HOMES
______________________________________________________________________________
PROPERTY OWNER/AGENTS:
Owner/Applicant: Agent: Agent:
Mattamy Naples, LLC D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq.
4107 Crescent Park Dr. Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A.
Riverview, FL 33578 3800 Via Del Ray 4001 Tamiami Trail North, suite 300
Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Naples, FL 34103
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an
application to rezone property from the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore
Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Residential Multi-Family-6 Zoning District (RMF-6-
BMUD-NC) and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use
Overlay District of the Commercial Intermediate Zoning District (C-3-BMUD-NC) to a
Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for the project to be known as
Mattamy Homes Residential Planned Unit Development.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive
in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida (See location map on
page 2).
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
This petition seeks to rezone the property to RPUD to allow for the development of up to 276
single-family, variable-lot-line for single-family, two-family, townhouse, and/or multi-family
dwelling units on 37± acres.
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 1235 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Staff Report (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
Ta
mia
mi T
R
L E
5th AVE S
Airport-Pulling RD SDavis BLVD
Bayshore DRThomasson DR
AVEVAN BUREN VAN BUREN AVE
STLUNAR
LINDA DR
HARVEST CTH
A
L
D
E
MA
N
C
R
E
E
K
D
R FULL MOON CTNEW MOON CTDRDRJEEPERS
LIGH THOUSE LANE
LIGHTHOUSESU NSET AVE
BAYSHORESTLNLAKE AVE
FLOR IDA AVE
PINETHOMASS ON DRIVETHOMASSON DRIVE
PALMETTO COURTCO TTAGE GROVE AVE
KAREN DRIVE
BAYSHORE DRREP UBLIC DRIVE
CONSTITUTION DRIVE
LNLIBERTYTRACT B 313335373839424647484952534839403736343154
55
2 561055771425 12265859
74480828487949635678291011125115014494815474645442216434217SOMERSETATWINDSTAR
TRACT E 433932331834351936 BAYSHORECOMMERCIALCONDO
37 383130 39 4029 412827 202625 3221245223 552215
5712
10953TRACT A TRACT B
TRACT B
MO ORH EAD MANOR54
PARCEL ATRACT A
1 2 3
TR B4 TRACT B5TRACTITRACTJ6557 24
TRACT CTRACT A
64 66
56
4340
10557
TRACT B 30 27
TRACT A20 22
58
7
59
5
3
60 2
8 97 10 11 1245 1361
25
24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 7 6 5 4109826
27
29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 4928
1
17 2018191279368131416410111552
62
23
40 4137383926282933343536273130242532
63
99
44 53
64 52 54 55434251
41 50 49 4840 47
39
38
3765
33 3645
PH I
PH II
PH III
PH IV PH VABACO BAYCONDO
61
PH 4PH 1 PH 2 PH 3
PH 12
BOTANICAL PLACE CONDO
108
OR 711/600
PH 8 PH 6PH 7PH 9
52
38 PH 13
SFWMD CONSRV ESMTOR 4491 PG 3216.12 TOTAL ACRES
FIRE STATION#22
97
98
À29À30À32À34À36À40À41À43À44À45
À50À43À46À44À45À47À41À38À35À49À33À32À30À29À28À27À26À1À36
À9 À3À8À4À11À6À12À13À15À16À17À18À20À21À22À23À24 À3À4À5À6À7À8À9À10À11À13À14À15À16À17À18À19À20À21À24À25À56À27À1
À1.4À1.3 À1.5 À1.6 À1À1.7 À72À73À75À76À77À78À1.8 À79À81À83À85À86À88À89À90À91À92À93À95À1.9 À1.10 À9À1.2 À8À10À1.11 À99À1.12 À7À11 À3À4À5À6À12À13À14À15À16À17À18À19À20À21À22À23À24À25 À2À1.1 À1.14À1.15
À1.51 À1.50 À46 À47À100À1.16À1.49 À1 À24À1.48 À23 À25À2À1.17À1.47 À26À1.46 À48À45À45À101À47À1.45 À3À1.44 À21 À27À1.32 À44 À49À1.43 À44À42À41À40À38À1.33 À37À36À35À34À33À1.42 À32À31À30À29À28À27À26 À102 À4À1.34 À1.35 À46 À20 À28À1.36 À50À43À1.18À1.37 À103À1.38 À42 À51À19À1.39 À5À1.19 À29À1.40 À1.41À1 À104 À52À41À6À18À52.2 À30À1.31 À40 À53À105À17À1.30 À7 À31À1.29 À32À1.20À1.28 À54À39À16À106À1.27 À52À1.26 À1.21 À38À1.25 À9À52.1 À107À1.24 À33À1.23 À37 À56À1.22 À10 À14 À34À108 À36À11À13À35
À109À52.3
À109.1 À109.2
À1
À1.2
À1.2
À108.2
À108.1
À53
À1 À2 À3 À4 À5 À6 À7 À8 À9 À10 À11 À12 À13 À14 À15 À16 À17 À18 À19
À1 À43
À1
À1
À1 À2 À3À1 À42 À41 À40 À39 À38 À37 À36 À35 À34 À33 À32 À31 À30 À29 À28 À27 À26 À25À4À6À7À107
À1
À1
À56À1
À57 À58 À59 À60 À61 À62 À63 À65
À56.1
À2
À55 À54 À53 À51 À50 À49 À48 À47 À46 À45À3
À44À4À34À35À36À37À39À41À42
À43
À5
À57
À33X21 À32 À31 À29 À28 À26 À25 À24 À23À6
À13 À14 À15 À16 À17 À18 À19 À21À7À12À1
À8
À11 À10 À9 À8 À6 À5 À4 À3 À2 À1
À9
À1 X11
À10
X13
À103X12X18.1 X18 X14À6À4À3À2À22À1
À60.2À60.7 À60.3 À3 À6 À7 À11À5À4À9À10 À12
À60.4À60.8 À60 À2
À60.5À61.6
À60.6À60.9
À25
À61.3 À23 À22 À19 À18 À17 À16 À12 À11À20 À7 À6 À5 À4À10À9À8À61À60.1
À61.4À61.1
À61.5
À61.2 À27
À29 À30 À31 À38À32 À39À33À34À35À36 À44 À45 À46 À47 À48 À49À41À42À43
À61.10 À28À61.9
À100.43 À100.8À100.6À100.3À100.5À100.15À100.21À100.29À100.28À100.35À100.27À100.42À100.46À100.23À100.45À100.18À100.16À100.41À100.40À100.2
À62
À100.33 À100.1À100.9À100.4À100.7À100.30À100.10À100.13À100.17À100.11À100.36À100.22À100.25À100.14À100.19À100.37À100.20À100.44À100.12
À63
À99
À63.1
À64 À44X8À64.1 À55À54À53À43
À42À98.1
À52À41
À51
À65 À40
À50À39
À48
À38
À37
À45
À33 À36 À97.1À97
À66
À22
À8
À104.1
À61.11
À14
À106.1
À19 À23
À42
X14.1
À56
MUP
CU
V
CU
MUP
PUD
RMF-6-BMUD-R1
MH-BMUD-NC
RSF-4-BMUD-R1
C-2-BMUD-NC
RMF-6-BMUD-R1
PUD
C-5-BMUD-NC
C-3-BMUD-NC
PUD RMF-6-BMUD-R2
RSF-3-BMUD-R1
RSF-4-BMUD-R4
C-5-BMUD-NC
RMF-6-BMUD-R1
MH-BMUD-R3 C-2-BMUD-NCRMF-6-BMUD-R3
VR-BMUD-R3
MH-BMUD-R3
PUDC-3-BMUD-NC RPUD-BMU D-R2
C-4-BMUD-NC
RSF-6-BMUD-R1
RMF-6-BMUD-NCRMF-6-BMUD-R1
RMF-6
RMF-6
RMF-6-BMUD-R2
C-4-BMUD-NC
RMF-6-BMUD-R1
MPUD
BOTANICALPLACE
PINEBROOKLAKE
CIRRUSPOINTE
NAPLESBOTANICALGARDENS
WINDSTAR
CULTURALARTS VILLAGEAT BAYSHORE
Location Map Zoning Map
Petition Number: PL-2016-183
PROJEC TLOCATION
SITELOCATION
¹
Docu ment Path: M:\Graphics\Plats and Record dwgs\Mattamy Home s\PUDZ PL2 016000018 3\Initial Submittal 7-11-2016\workspace\site -locatio n.mxd
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 1236 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Staff Report (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 3 of 19
April 26, 2017
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
The subject project proposes a density of 7.46 dwelling units per acre (DU/AC). This section of
the staff report identifies the land uses and zoning classifications for properties surrounding
boundaries of the Mattamy Homes RPUD:
North:
Tract B (undeveloped), Tract C (undeveloped), and Windstar
Boulevard right-of-way in Windstar PUD (1.71 DU/AC)
East (to the north): Right-of-way for Bayshore Drive, then farther east is multi-family
residential, zoned Botanical Place PUD (10.99 DU/AC)
East: Right-of-way for Bayshore Drive, then farther east is multi-family
residential, zoned Pinebrook Lake PUD (16 DU/AC)
East (to the south): Right-of-way for Bayshore Drive, then farther east is undeveloped
land, zoned Cirrus Pointe RPUD-BMUD-R2 (10.89 DU/AC)
South (to the west): Right-of-way for Thomasson Drive, then farther south are a mix of
vacant lots and single-family homes, zoned RSF-4-BMUD-R1 (4
DU/AC)
South (to the east): Right-of-way for a cultural organization (Naples Botanical Gardens),
zoned Naples Botanical Gardens PUD
West: Right-of-way for Pine Street, then farthest west is the Sunset Homes
subdivision, zoned RMF-6-MBUD-R1 and a mix of single-family and
multi-family residential, zoned RMF-6-BMUD-R2 (6 DU/AC)
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 1237 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Staff Report (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 4 of 19
April 26, 2017
Aerial (County GIS)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban (Urban – Mixed
Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict) and is within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO) and the Coastal High Hazard Area Overlay (CHHA), all of
which are identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the FLUE of the GMP. Both
the RMF-6 and C-3-zoned portions of the site are deemed “consistent by policy” on the FLUM
series. Pursuant to FLUE Policies 5.9 and 5.10, the RMF-6 and C-3 zoned portions are allowed to
develop or redevelop in accordance with the maximum density allowed under the existing zoning
classifications.
For market-rate housing, the Density Rating System would allow four DU/AC on the C-3-zoned
portion of the site, 19.92 dwelling units, and FLUE Policy 5.1 would allow six DU/AC on the
RMF-6-zoned portion, 193.62 dwelling units. In total, the number of dwelling units allowed would
be 213.54 or as rounded, 214 units. The additional 62 units needed to achieve the requested 276
units are derived from the density bonus pool available in the B/GTRO. The approval to use the
62 density bonus pool units is at the Board of County Commissioners (Board’s) discretion. See
Attachment 3 - FLUE Consistency Memorandum for the entire analysis by Comprehensive
Planning.
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 1238 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Staff Report (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 5 of 19
April 26, 2017
Staff determined the proposed RPUD may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP.
However, as noted in Attachment 3 - FLUE Consistency Memorandum, a minor text correction to
the PUD Document is needed and stipulated as such in the Recommendation section of this staff
report, page 18.
Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s Traffic Impact
Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP using
the 2014 and 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR).
Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states the following:
The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications,
conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element
(FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development,
with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall
not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway
segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment
that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway
segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to
operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning
period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application
has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following
occur:
a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is
equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume;
b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is
equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and
c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point
where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume.
Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant
and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant
impacts on all roadways.
The proposed PUD Amendment on the subject property was reviewed based on the then-
applicable, 2015 AUIR Inventory Report. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the
proposed new residential development will generate approximately 138 PM peak hour two-way
trips. The previous multi-family development contained 106 PM peak hour trips. Therefore, the
proposed development will have 32 PM peak hour new trips as listed in Table 1 on page 6.
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 1239 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Staff Report (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 6 of 19
April 26, 2017
Table 1. Road Capacity
Roadway Link 2016 AUIR
Existing LOS
Current Peak
Hour Peak
Direction
Service
Volume/Peak
Direction
2016
Remaining
Capacity
Bayshore Drive U.S. 41 to
Thomasson
Drive
B 1,800/South 1,162
Thomasson
Drive
Bayshore Drive C 800/East 245
Based on the 2016 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate
the proposed new trips for the amended project within the 5-year planning period. Therefore, the
subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the
Growth Management Plan.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found
this project to be consistent with the CCME.
GMP Conclusion:
The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions, such as this proposed rezoning.
Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency
with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or
denial of any rezoning petition. This petition is consistent with the GMP.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Applications to rezone to or amend RPUDs shall be in the form of an RPUD Master Plan of
development, along with a list of permitted and accessory uses and a development standards table.
The RPUD application shall also include a list of developer commitments and any proposed
deviations from the LDC. Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use
petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in
LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the
“PUD Findings”), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission
Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC’s
recommendation. The CCPC uses the aforementioned criteria as the basis for their
recommendation to the Board, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 1240 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Staff Report (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 7 of 19
April 26, 2017
or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the
heading “Zoning Services Analysis.” In the following sections, staff offers analysis of the
application.
Drainage Review: The current permitted downstream drainage infrastructure for this project, as
proposed, will meet stormwater concurrency, provided the specific condition requiring the
replacement of the drainage pipe under Pine Street is addressed at the time of site development
(see Recommendation section of this staff report, page 18).
Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
Document to address environmental concerns. A preserve is not required on this site as there is
no native vegetation that meets the definition in LDC Section 3.05.07.A.1-2. This project does
not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC
scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County
Codes of Laws and Ordinances.
Landscape Review: The project is required to provide a 15-foot wide, Type B buffer along the
north property line. The Master Plan shows compliance with this requirement. The project is also
required to provide 20-foot wide, Type D buffers along the south (Thomasson Drive), east
(Bayshore Drive), and west (Pine Street) property lines. The petitioner is requesting a deviation
to allow these buffers to be 15 feet wide instead of 20 feet. The petitioner’s justification for this
request and staff’s recommendation are provided in the Deviation Discussion section of this staff
report, page 9. Staff supports this deviation.
Staff supports a 15-foot front yard setback for accessory structures with the additional condition
that smaller canopy trees shall be used. The provision to reduce the front setback for porches,
entry features, and roofed courtyards is only applicable when those accessory structures do not
exceed 50% of the front façade (primary structure), excluding the garage, and a 20-foot area is
provided to accommodate the smaller canopy trees (see Recommendation section of this staff
report, page 18). A list of LDC-approved, smaller canopy trees, has been provided in the
Developer Commitments, Exhibit F of the PUD Document.
An alternative design option to ensure compliance with the canopy tree requirement is to have a
street tree program as provided for in LDC Section 4.06.05.A.1. However, Deviation #2, which
seeks to reduce the width of the right-of-way from 60 feet to 50 feet, essentially eliminates the
possibility of implementing a successful street tree program. Also, the proposed side and rear
yards are not able to accommodate the requisite trees either, due to their limited space. For
example, rear building setbacks may be reduced to zero feet where abutting a landscape buffer
easement (LBE).
School District: There is sufficient capacity within the elementary, middle, and high school
concurrency service areas for this proposed development. At the time of site development plan
(SDP) or plat review (PPL), the development would be reviewed for concurrency to ensure there
is capacity within the concurrency service areas the development is located within or adjacent to
concurrency service areas. This finding is for planning and informational purposes only and does
not constitute either a reservation of capacity or a finding of concurrency for the proposed project.
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 1241 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Staff Report (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 8 of 19
April 26, 2017
Transportation Review: During the review process for this petition, the agent requested that this
sidewalk requirement be addressed through the payment-in-lieu provisions of the LDC. Staff does
not agree with this request. Staff’s recommended condition of approval is based on the August
2010, Collier MPO, Walkable Community Study that lists Pine Street as a Tier 1 rated facility.
The study recommends a five-foot sidewalk on one side of the road as a phase one
recommendation.
Further, staff attended the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Local Redevelopment Advisory Board
Meeting on April 4, 2017 at which time this sidewalk segment was discussed and a
recommendation to construct was unanimously voted on and approved. Based on this information,
it is staff’s opinion that this segment of sidewalk should be constructed instead of the payment-in-
lieu proposed by the agent.
Utilities Review: The project lies within the City of Naples water service area and the south
wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District. Wastewater service is readily
available via an existing eight-inch gravity sewer along Bayshore Drive with two existing stub-
outs to the property. Downstream wastewater system capacity must be confirmed at the time of
SDP or PPL permit review and will be discussed at a mandatory pre-submittal conference with
representatives from the Public Utilities Engineering and Project Management Division and the
Growth Management Development Review Division.
Any improvements to the Collier County Water-Sewer District’s wastewater
collection/transmission system necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be
the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the Collier County Water-Sewer
District at no cost to the County at the time of Preliminary and Final Acceptance.
Zoning Services Review: The RPUD is currently comprised of two parcels. Aerial photography
from the Collier County Property Appraiser reveals that the larger of the two was developed with
multi-family buildings between 1975 and 1985 and subsequently razed sometime before the 2011
imagery was taken. The smaller of the two parcels has remained vacant. The subject parcels are
located within the BMUD-NC Overlay District. The purpose and intent of the BMUD is to
encourage revitalization of the Bayshore Drive portion of the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment Area with pedestrian-oriented, interconnected projects. The BMUD encourages
uses that support pedestrian activity, including a mix of residential, civic, and commercial uses
that complement each other and provide for an increased presence and integration of the cultural
arts and related support uses. When possible both commercial and residential buildings are located
near the street and may have front porches and/or balconies. The purpose and intent of the BMUD-
NC is to encourage a mix of low intensity commercial and residential uses, including mixed-use
projects in a single building. This subdistrict provides for an increased presence and integration of
the cultural arts and related support uses, including galleries, artists’ studios, and live-work units.
Developments will be human-scale and pedestrian-oriented.
With respect to project density, staff compared this RPUD with the densities of the abutting and
adjacent properties (see Attachment 4 - Density Map). The maximum proposed density for this
RPUD would be 7.46 dwelling units per acre. Staff determined the density proposed for this RPUD
would be acceptable when compared with the abutting and adjacent properties.
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 1242 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Staff Report (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 9 of 19
April 26, 2017
This RPUD proposes a range of residential uses including single-family detached, variable-lot-line
single-family homes, two-family dwellings, townhouses, and multi-family dwellings. Staff
compared the principal uses proposed in this RPUD to those allowed in the surrounding properties.
Abutting the subject property to the north is Windstar PUD (Ordinance 1993-23) a residential
development approved for 549 dwelling units. The south perimeter of the subject property fronts
on Thomasson Drive. Much of the land south of Thomasson Drive is zoned Naples Botanical
Gardens PUD; however, there is a small pocket of homes on lands zoned RSF-4-BMUD-R1
nestled in between the Naples Botanical Gardens PUD. To the east of the subject property, across
the street from Bayshore Drive, is Botanical Place PUD, which was approved for a maximum of
218 dwelling units pursuant to Ordinance 2003-38. To the south of Botanical Place PUD is
Pinebrook Lake PUD, the 10-acre development that was approved for up to 160 multi-family
dwelling units (Ordinance 1980-56). To the south of Pinebrook Lake PUD is Cirrus Pointe RPUD,
which is currently the undeveloped 9.92-acre RPUD that was approved for up to 108 multi-family
dwelling units, of which 44 are designated as workforce housing. To the west, adjacent to the
subject property, is the Sunset Homes subdivision, which is zoned RMF-6-BMUD-R1. This
Zoning/Overlay District allows single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings, duplexes,
rowhouses, and multi-family dwellings. To the south of Sunset Homes subdivision is a strip of
lots zoned RMF-6-BMUD-R2, allowing the same residential uses as those within the RMF-6-
BMUD-R2 Zoning/Overlay District.
The uses proposed in the RPUD are comparable and compatible with the surrounding properties.
Staff evaluated the development standards for the principal and accessory uses/structures proposed
in the RPUD and compared them to the same standards found in the residential tract of the
Botanical Place PUD, the residential tract of Windstar PUD, the cluster housing provisions of the
LDC Section 4.02.04, the townhouse provisions of LDC Section 5.05.07, and the applicable
BMUD provisions of the LDC Section 4.02.16. With the exception of the front setbacks, staff
determined that the proposed standards would be comparable and compatible with the
aforementioned developments and relevant provisions of the LDC. Staff is recommending
changes to the front setbacks as a condition of approval (see Recommendation section of this staff
report, page 18).
DEVIATION DISCUSSION:
This petitioner is requesting three deviations, which are itemized in Exhibit E in the RPUD
Document. The petitioner’s justification and staff analysis/recommendation is outlined below:
Proposed Deviation #1
A deviation from LDC Section 4.02.16.A.1, Design Standard in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment area, which requires dimensional standards as shown in Table 1, Dimensional
Requirements in the BMUD-NC, to allow Mattamy Homes to establish their own residential
development types and dimensional standards within their PUD.
Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner justified the deviation request as follows:
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 1243 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Staff Report (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 10 of 19
April 26, 2017
Mattamy Homes is rezoning to a PUD rather than using the MVP (sic) process, Mattamy
Homes is an experienced homebuilder and has many unit types and floor plans which have
established architectural standards. Mattamy Homes will utilize their proven development
standards tailored for their products.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved and staff’s conditions of approval are accepted. Zoning staff recommends APPROVAL
of this deviation, contingent upon the acceptance of staff’s condition of approval #2 regarding the
front setback, 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.”
Proposed Deviation #2
Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N, Street System Requirements and Appendix
B, Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way Design Standards, which establishes a 60-foot wide
local road, to allow a minimum 50-foot wide local private road. This deviation applies when the
developer proposes to develop local streets in lieu of a private drive or access way.
Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner justified the deviation request as follows:
The proposed 50’ wide private road right-of-way is sufficiently wide to accommodate the
required roadway improvements. Utilities and sidewalks can be placed within easements
outside the private right-of-way if necessary. The internal project roads will be private
and the standard public right-of-way is not necessary for internal traffic volumes. Dual
sidewalks will be provided on any platted local street.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved. Zoning 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.”
Proposed Deviation #3
From LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4, Buffer Requirements, which requires developments of 15 acres
or more to provide a perimeter landscape buffer of at least 20 feet in width regardless of the width
of the right-of-way, to permit a 15-foot wide, Type D buffer adjacent to external rights-of-way.
Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner justified the deviation request as follows:
This deviation is warranted because the site has been previously developed and it has three
road frontages. The Bayshore Overlay permits roadway buffers to be 15’ in width for
multi-family and commercial developments. The Mattamy Homes RPUD provides for a
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 1244 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Staff Report (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 11 of 19
April 26, 2017
variety of dwelling unit types, including multi-family units. The 15’ buffer will include the
same amount of vegetation provided within a 20’ wide buffer. A 15’ wide right-of-way
buffer will provide the flexibility necessary to redevelop the site with new residential
product types meeting the market demand for sale product compared to the rental
apartments, which previously occupied the site.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved. The type of buffers proposed along Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive would be
appropriate for this area. Along Pine Street, the petitioner is electing to install a 15-foot wide,
Type B buffer instead of the 20-foot wide, Type D buffer. Staff determined this substitute would
be acceptable as well.
Therefore, the Zoning 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.”
PUD FINDINGS:
LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, “In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make
findings as to the PUD Master Plan’s compliance with the following criteria in addition to the
findings in LDC Section 10.02.08.”
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 subject site is located within the water service area of the City of Naples and the south
wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District. Water distribution
and wastewater collection facilities are readily available to the site and current treatment
capacities are sufficient to serve the proposed RPUD. Drainage solutions will be evaluated
at the time of development permit review.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly
as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing
operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or
maintained at public expense.
Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney’s
Office, demonstrate unified control of the property.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of conformity with the
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 1245 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Staff Report (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 12 of 19
April 26, 2017
relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion
of this staff report (or within an accompanying memorandum).
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.
As described in the Analysis section of this staff report, staff is of the opinion that the
proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area. Notwithstanding the fact
the petitioner is requesting a landscape buffer deviation, it is the opinion of staff that the
Master Plan proposes the appropriate type and size perimeter landscape buffers. Staff has
concerns regarding the ability for each lot to accommodate the requisite canopy tree. As a
solution, staff is making a condition of approval that would modify the Development
Standards in Exhibit B of the PUD Document (see Recommendation section of this staff
report, page 18).
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The RPUD is required to provide at least 60% of the gross area for usable open space. The
Master Plan indicates that 60% would be provided and no deviation from the open space
requirement is being requested. Compliance would be further demonstrated at the time of
SDP or platting.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the
Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time
of first development order (SDP or PPL), at which time a new TIS will be required to
demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project’s
development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations
when development approvals, including but not limited to any plats and or site
development plans, are sought. With respect to drainage, impacts from the site discharge
will be addressed at time of SDP, PPL, or actual site development. Additionally, the
project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management
regulations when development approvals are sought.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate
expansion.
The area has readily available supporting infrastructure, including public water distribution
and wastewater collection systems, to service this project based upon the commitments
made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be
continuously addressed as development approvals are sought.
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 1246 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Staff Report (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 13 of 19
April 26, 2017
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 requesting three deviations, requiring an evaluation to the extent to which
development standards and deviations proposed for this RPUD depart from development
standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Each
deviation requested by the petitioner is itemized and analyzed in the Deviation Discussion
section of this staff report on page 9. Staff supports all deviations with one minor condition
of approval related to the Master Plan regarding the landscape buffer. With the update to
the Master Plan, it is the opinion of staff that the petitioner has demonstrated that “the
elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of
the community” in accordance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, and that the petitioner has
demonstrated the deviations are “justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least
equivalent to literal application of such regulations” in accordance with LDC Section
10.02.13.B.5.h.
Rezone Findings:
LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, “When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and
recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners…shall show
that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the
following when applicable.”
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies
of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan.
Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP.
2. The existing land use pattern.
The existing land use pattern (of the abutting properties) is described in the Surrounding
Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report. The proposed use would not change the
existing land use patterns of the surrounding properties.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
Lands zoned RPUD are located to the east of the subject property. In addition, there are
PUDs located within close proximity of the subject property. For all intents and purposes,
these lands that are zoned PUD are considered similar and related zoning classification,
because the County did not adopt the RPUD zoning district until 2004 (pursuant to
Ordinance 04-41). Therefore, the proposed petition would not create an isolated district
unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts.
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 1247 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Staff Report (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 14 of 19
April 26, 2017
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
The square-shape boundary of the RPUD logically follows the external boundary of the
parcels assembled for the rezoning.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning
necessary.
The proposed change is not necessary, per se, but it is being requested in compliance with
the LDC provisions to seek such changes.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood.
The proposed RPUD is not anticipated to adversely influence 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.
The roadway infrastructure has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project at this
time. The project is subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in the RPUD
Ordinance, which includes provisions to address public safety.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem.
The RPUD is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area, provided the
petitioner coordinates with Collier County’s Road Maintenance Division to replace the
drainage pipe under Pine Street that connects the project outfall to the adjacent Windstar
PUD lake. The project’s stormwater management system should be designed to a discharge
rate not to exceed 0.15 cubic feet per second/acre. Stormwater best management practices,
treatment, and storage on this project will be addressed through Environmental Resource
Permitting with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). County staff
will evaluate the project’s stormwater management system, calculations, and design
criteria at time of SDP and/or PPL.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas.
It is not anticipated this RPUD would reduce light or air to the adjacent areas.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent
areas.
This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 1248 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Staff Report (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 15 of 19
April 26, 2017
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.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development
of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations.
The Cirrus Point RPUD to the east is currently undeveloped and staff does not anticipate
this proposed RPUD would serve as a deterrent to its improvement.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an
individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare.
If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment,
then that constitutes 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 can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the
proposed design standards cannot be achieved without rezoning to an RPUD.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or
the County.
It is staff’s opinion the proposed uses and associated development standards and developer
commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the
community.
15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed
use in districts already permitting such use.
The petition was reviewed for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not
specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition.
16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which
would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses
under the proposed zoning classification.
Any development anticipated by the RPUD Document would require considerable site
alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state,
and local development regulations during the SDP and/or platting processes, and again
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 1249 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Staff Report (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 16 of 19
April 26, 2017
later as part of the building permit process. This RPUD is for redevelopment that is located
within an established community redevelopment area and key portions of the stormwater
drainage infrastructure, both on-site and off-site, are currently in place.
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 (APF), and the project will need to be consistent with
all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except
what is exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by County staff
responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and
those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service (LOS) will be adversely
impacted with the commitments contained in the RPUD Document. The concurrency
review for APF is determined at the time of SDP review. The activity proposed by this
amendment will have no impact on public facility adequacy in regard to utilities. The
redevelopment of this site will maintain the intended LOS and direction of flow through
the interconnected developments downstream in this part of the area known as
Miscellaneous Coastal Basin (MCB-06), which does not have an official LOS established
in the GMP.
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners
shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The applicant conducted a NIM on September 13, 2016 during a regular hearing of the
Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board. The meeting
was held at 3570 Bayshore Drive, Unit 2 in Naples, Florida.
The applicant’s team consisted of Wayne Arnold, Matt O’Brien, Richard Yovanovich, Mike
Delate, Jim Banks, and Marco Espinar, and the NIM summary is included in Attachment 2 -
Application and Support Material. The public asked questions that included but were not limited
to the proposed number (density) of dwelling units, access, whether the project would be gated,
anticipated price range and size of the dwelling units, traffic lights, infrastructure, maximum
building height, location of amenities, drainage, blasting during construction, lot sizes, and project
phasing.
According to the NIM summary, when discussing the project, Mr. O’Brien stated that no entrance
was being proposed into the Windstar PUD; however, the Master Plan currently shows a potential
interconnection into Windstar PUD. The Master Plan must be modified to remove this
interconnection (see Recommendation section of the staff report, page 18).
Another person asked if a traffic light is proposed at the intersection of Thomasson Drive and
Bayshore Drive, to which Mr. Arnold responded that he thought the County would be installing a
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 1250 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Staff Report (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 17 of 19
April 26, 2017
roundabout. With respect to density, Mr. Arnold explained the previous project for this site was
developed with 200 apartment units, to which an unidentified woman commented that the previous
development “seemed pretty dense there, 200.” Later in the meeting, a resident of Windstar PUD
mentioned the following regarding the proposed density and type of construction:
A Windstar resident. I’m not officially representing the 550 people that live there, but the
president of the master association board did ask me to come as a formal president of the
board and point out that we’re concerned about the density and the type of construction.
These are sort of standard townhome type things. We were hoping for more of an
imaginative use of the property, you know, (indiscernible) or something like that, that
would be more of an urban type feel rather than this sort of straight planned community
type of thing, but the traffic and density are primary concerns.
When asked if a barrier wall would be installed along the property line adjacent to Pine Street, Mr.
Arnold responded by saying, “we’re proposing, I think, Matt, we’re pretty committed to having a
wall along that part of our landscape buffer.”
With respect to traffic, an attendee made the following comments about Bayshore Drive:
Right now, it’s very tough coming out of Windstar to get out onto Bayshore Drive because
the traffic is coming down all the time in the morning. It’s going to be a lot worse when
you put another 200 plus homes in there. We’re also concerned about where you locate
your amenities in terms of any pools and stuff that they not be too close to our entrance
roads here. And, finally, I would point out that there is no agreement to allow that entry
though Windstar at this point in time. It’s something that may be discussed down the road,
but there’s no agreement now.
More discussion ensued about the project being a gated development and the traffic impacts on
Bayshore Drive. Mr. Arnold stated the following:
On this concept, ma’am, and Mike Delate – on that design on Bayshore, we have a turn
lane, a right turn lane on each side. So we would design a right turn lane southbound on
this concept. The gate is actually here. So there would be stacking in the turn lane and
then to the gated area before you get into our community.
An unidentified female voice asked, “But what if they’re coming from the south?” Mr. Arnold
started to respond, “If they’re coming from the south,” but another attendee interrupted and spoke
for him saying, “There’s going to be a turn lane there.” Mr. Arnold affirmed the previous speaker’s
comment by stating, “Correct. You’d probably have a turn lane there as well.” The NIM summary
reflects additional discussion and concerns about traffic in the area as well as criticism about
drainage. Later in the meeting, another attendee was worried that any unit constructed on-site that
is assessed for less than $400,000 requires more in public services than it pays in taxes. When
discussing the proposed water management areas, Mr. Delate promised there would be no blasting
in the process of creating the lakes.
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 1251 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Staff Report (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy Homes Page 18 of 19
April 26, 2017
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney’s Office reviewed this staff report on April 19, 2017.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of
approval, contingent upon satisfying the following:
1. To obtain drainage concurrency, prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the
owner shall, at its sole cost, replace the existing 12-inch drainage pipe within the Pine Street right-
of-way with an appropriately-sized drainage pipe that will accommodate stormwater from the
RPUD and from property that currently flows through the Pine Street drainage pipe. Prior to
construction, the Collier County Road Maintenance Department must review and approve the
plans and the owner shall obtain a right-of-way permit.
2. Note #1 in Exhibit B of the PUD Document, which provides for a reduced setback for
porches, entry features, and roofed courtyards, must be modified so that these elements shall not
exceed 50% of the front building façade, exclusive of the garages.
3. The owner, or its successors or assigns, at its sole expense, shall construct a five-foot wide
sidewalk along the RPUD's frontage on Pine Street prior to the issuance of the first certificate of
occupancy for the RPUD.
4. Deviation #3 in the PUD Document must be updated to indicate that a 15-foot wide, Type
D buffer is the minimum required where adjacent to rights-of-way.
5. Revise Exhibit F, #2.b of the PUD Document to read: A maximum of 62 density bonus
pool units, as provided for in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay in the Future
Land Use Element of the GMP, are available for this RPUD for a period of seven years from the
date of approval of this RPUD. If after seven years the bonus units have not been utilized, the
bonus units shall expire and not be available unless reauthorized by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
6. The Master Plan must be modified to delete the Potential Interconnection into Windstar
PUD.
7. A wall shall be installed within the Type B buffer along Pine Street.
8. As promised at the NIM, no blasting shall be used in the process of creating the water
management areas.
Attachments:
1) Proposed Ordinance
2) Application and Support Material
3) FLUE Consistency Memorandum
4) Density Map
5) City of Naples Letter
6) Legal Notifications
7) Emails_Letters from Public
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 1252 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Staff Report (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.1
Packet Pg. 1253 Attachment: Attachment 1 - Staff Report (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.2
Packet Pg. 1254 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Proposed Ordinance (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.2
Packet Pg. 1255 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Proposed Ordinance (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.2
Packet Pg. 1256 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Proposed Ordinance (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.2
Packet Pg. 1257 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Proposed Ordinance (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.2
Packet Pg. 1258 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Proposed Ordinance (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.2
Packet Pg. 1259 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Proposed Ordinance (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.2
Packet Pg. 1260 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Proposed Ordinance (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.2
Packet Pg. 1261 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Proposed Ordinance (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.2
Packet Pg. 1262 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Proposed Ordinance (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.2
Packet Pg. 1263 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Proposed Ordinance (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.2
Packet Pg. 1264 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Proposed Ordinance (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.2
Packet Pg. 1265 Attachment: Attachment 2 - Proposed Ordinance (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
1
Growth Management Department
Zoning Division
Memorandum
To: Eric Johnson, AICP, CFM, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section
From: David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section
Date: April 10, 2017
Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review
PETITION NUMBER: PUDZ-PL20160000183 REV: 5 (electronic)
PETITION NAME: Mattamy RPUD
REQUEST: Rezone +37.25 acres from RMF-6-BMUD-NC, Residential Multi-family zoning district
and Bayshore Mixed Use District – Neighborhood Center (+32.27 acres) zoning overlay, and C-3-
BMUD-NC, Commercial Intermediate zoning district and Bayshore Mixed Use District – Neighborhood
Center (+4.98 acres) zoning overlay, to Mattamy RPUD, Residential Planned Unit Development, to
permit a maximum of 276 residential dwelling units at a density of 7.41 units per acre.
LOCATION: The subject site is at the northwest corner of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive, in
Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Urban (Urban –
Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict) and is within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle
Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO) and the Coastal High Hazard Area Overlay (CHHA) - all as
identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the
Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). Both the RMF-6 and C-3 portions of the site are
deemed “consistent by policy” on the FLUM series and thus, per FLUE Policies 5.9 and 5.10, allowed to
develop or re-develop per the existing zoning. For market rate housing, the Density Rating System
would allow 4 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) on the C-3 portion of the site (19.92 units); and, per
FLUE Policy 5.1, the RMF-6 portion of the site is eligible for 6 DU/A (193.62 units) – for a total of
213.54 units, rounded to 214 units. See further density explanation below. This petition proposes 276
DUs or 7.41 DU/A (276 DUs/37.25 acres = 7.41 DU/A).
The B/GTRO encourages development and redevelopment. One means of doing so is through a density
bonus incentive. The prior zoning of the Botanical Gardens PUD site would have allowed 388 dwelling
units. Those units were placed into a density pool that may be allocated by the Board of County
Commissioners on a project by project basis, either for a mixed use project or a residential-only project.
The subject petition relies upon this density pool, in part, to achieve the requested density of 7.41 DU/A
(276 DUs). The provisions for residential-only projects and for density calculations are provided below,
with staff analysis following in [bold].
5. Properties having frontage on one or more of Bayshore Drive, Davis Boulevard, Airport-Pulling Road
(west side only) or US 41 East, may be allowed to redevelop as a residential-only project at a maximum
17.A.4
Packet Pg. 1266 Attachment: Attachment 4 - FLUE Consistency Memorandum (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
2
density of 8 residential units per acre via use of the density bonus pool identified in paragraph 11 except
that no project may utilize more than 97 units – 25% of the 388 total density pool units available. [The
subject site has frontage on Bayshore Drive; this petition proposes a density <8 DU/A
(7.41); and, this petition requests <97 units from the bonus pool (62).] The 97 unit cap will
terminate when the BCC adopts, by LDC amendment, limitations and a cap on the use of the 388 density
pool units for any one project. In order to be eligible for this higher density the redevelopment must
comply with the following:
a. Project shall be in the form of a PUD. [The subject request is for PUD zoning.]
b. Project site shall be a minimum of three acres. [The subject site comprises +37.25 acres.]
c. Project shall constitute redevelopment of the site. [The RMF-6 portion of the site was
previously developed with apartment buildings which, based upon review of Property
Appraiser online records, were demolished in 2010. The C -3 portion of the site
contains, or previously contained, some infrastructure dating to the early 1990s. It is
staff’s opinion that this project does constitute redevelopment of the site.]
d. All residential units shall be market rate units. [Inasmuch as this petition does not seek the
density bonus for provision of affordable-workforce housing, a component of the
density rating system in the FLUE, and there is no mention in the petition of state or
federal subsidies, the project will be developed with market rate units.]
9. For density bonuses provided for in paragraphs #4 and #5 above, base density shall be per the
underlying zoning district. The maximum density of 12 or 8 units per acre shall be calculated based upon
total project acreage. The bonus density allocation is calculated by deducting the base density of the
underlying zoning classification from the maximum density being sought. The difference in units per
acre determines the bonus density allocation requested for the project. [The RMF-6 portion of the
site yields 193.62 DUs (6 DU/A X 32.27acres). The C-3 portion has no density by right but
is eligible for 19.92 DUs under the FLUE’s density rating system (base density of 4 DU/A,
less 1 DU/A for lying in the CHHA, +1 DU/A for conversion of commercial zoning bonus =
4 DU/A X 4.98 acres). Combined, this yields 213.54 rounded to 214 DUs. This petition ’s
proposed 276 DUs total (7.41 DU/A) less the eligible density of 214 DUs yields a request for
62 DUs from the density bonus pool. PUD Exhibit F, #2.b., states that the project uses 62
density bonus pool units.]
Because there is a finite supply of density bonus pool units (388 total, less about 10 bonus units
previously utilized, yielding about 378 units) to award as an incentive for redevelopment, careful
consideration should be given to each request to use the density bonus pool. In staff’s opinion, this is an
appropriate project in which to do so. Aside from complying with the criteria allowing the use of
density bonus pool units, staff notes this is one of the few sites within the entire B/GTRO of
considerable size without necessity of aggregating numerous parcels – which can be difficult to achieve.
Also, staff notes this very site was previously (2006) awarded 232 density bonus pool units, prior to
establishment of the present cap of 97 units, for a mixed use project known as Arboretum Village (447
DUs total plus 150,000 square feet of commercial development). That project did not come to fruition,
the development order expired, and the awarded density bonus pool units were returned to the pool. On
that note, staff believes it appropriate for this PUD to include a provision for return of any unused
density bonus pool units within a specified time period; such is found in Exhibit F, #2.b. - though words
are inadvertently missing. This insures that any unused units are not permanently attached to the land,
rather are returned to the pool so that they can be awarded to incentivize some other development(s) in
the B/GTRO.
The CHHA prohibits new rezoning to allow mobile home development; th e proposed PUD does not
allow mobile homes.
17.A.4
Packet Pg. 1267 Attachment: Attachment 4 - FLUE Consistency Memorandum (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
3
Certain FLUE policies are provided below, with staff analysis following in [bold].
Policy 5.4 New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land
uses as set forth in the Land Development Code. [Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination
to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff 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 surroundin g 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.]
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. [Exhibit C, PUD Conceptual Master
Plan, depicts a potential access to Bayshore Drive which is a collector road, as identified within the
Transportation Element.]
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. [Exhibit C,
PUD Conceptual Master Plan, depicts a loop road to provide internal access for all residential lots or
tracts.]
Policy 7.3 All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their
interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type.
The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the
Transportation Element. [Interconnections are potentially possible to the north and west. To the west
is a small neighborhood (+50 lots) zoned RMF-6, mostly developed with single family DUs, with
access from Thomasson Drive and containing all dead-end streets. In staff’s opinion, an
interconnection to this neighborhood would provide minimal benefit. To the north is a portion of the
Windstar PUD containing the entrance road (Windstar Blvd.) and ponds; the PUD is built-out.
Exhibit C, PUD Conceptual Master Plan, depicts a potential interconnection to Windstar Blvd.]
Policy 7.4 The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a
blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The
PUD allows for multi-family, townhouse, two family and single-family; allows for typical accessory
uses which could include a clubhouse building – which are sometimes used for civic purposes, e.g.
voting precinct; and, provides for open space. Regarding provision of sidewalks, no deviation is
sought so sidewalks must be provided per the Land Development Code.]
CONCLUSION:
Based upon the above analysis, staff determines that the proposed PUD rezone may be deemed
consistent with the FLUE. However, a text revision is needed as shown below.
1. Revise Exhibit F, #2.b., to read: A maximum of 62 density bonus pool units, as provided for in
the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay in the Future Land Use Element of
the GMP, are available to the developer for a period of 7 years from the date of PUD approval.
If after 7 years the bonus units have not been may be utilized, the bonus units shall expire and
not be available unless reauthorized by the Board of Zoning Appeals or Hearing Examiner.
IN CITYVIEW
cc: Michael Bosi, AICP, Zoning Director
Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager
PUDZ-PL20160000183 Mattamy RPUD – REV5 G:\CDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviews\2017\PUDZ dw/4-10-17
17.A.4
Packet Pg. 1268 Attachment: Attachment 4 - FLUE Consistency Memorandum (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
p
0 300 600 900150
Feet
RPUD
RMF-6
RMF-6 C-4 MH
MHC-2
VR
RMF-6
RMF-6
RMF-6
RMF-6
VR
RSF-3
C-5
C-3
RMF-6 RSF-4
RSF-4
RMF-6
C-3 Bayshore DRPUD
MPUD MH-BMUD-R3
PUD
GROSS DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE (UPA) FOR MATTAMY HOMES RPUD AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ³
SUBJECT PROPERTY:MATTAMY HOMES RPUD
Naples Botanical Gardens
Botanical PlaceDensity:10.99
WindstarDensity:1.71 Cultural Arts Village
Pinebrook LakeDensity:16
Cirrus PointeDensity:10.89
Density: 7.2
Density: 3
Density: 3
Density: 6
Density: 6
Density: 6
Density: 6
Density: 3
Density: 4
17.A.5
Packet Pg. 1269 Attachment: Attachment 5 - Density Map (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
City of Naples
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
295 RIVERSIDE CIRCLE ● NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102
TELEPHONE (239) 213-5051 ● FAX (239) 213-5010
Ethics above all else ... Service to others before self ... Quality in all that we do.
Page 1 of 2
April 21, 2017
Mr. Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM
Collier County Growth Management Department
Zoning Division – Zoning Services Section
2800 Horseshoe Dr. North
Naples, FL 34104
EricJohnson@colliergov.net
Subject: Potable Water Service Availability for Mattamy Homes
Folio # 61836520007 – 2765 Thomasson Dr.
Folio # 61836480008 – 4490 Bayshore Dr.
Dear Mr. Johnson:
In response to the request for a Letter of Availability for potable water service (domestic and /or
irrigation use) for the proposed residential dwelling units at Mattamy Homes received via email
on April 18, 2017, this office has reviewed the subject site for available potable water service.
Based on the referenced information and review, this office confirms the following:
1. The subject property is located within the City of Naples potable water service area.
2. The City of Naples has adequate treatment plant capacity for the proposed project.
3. The proposed improvements must meet current City of Naples Utilities Standards and
must be submitted to the Utilities Department for review and approval.
4. Should the scope of proposed project change to impact City utility services, the project’s
engineer of record shall remain responsible to contact the City for appropriate reviews
and analysis.
This letter does not imply or guarantee that adequate potable water distribution main facilities of
sufficient size and capacity exist at the property; such utilities as may be needed for new site
development shall remain the developer’s responsibility to design, permit and construct.
Based on the above, this office has no objections to this project subject to appropriate reviews by
all utility service providers (including the City of Naples), Collier County, and the Fire District.
Should you have any questions or require any additional information or action from this office,
please do not hesitate to call this office at telephone (239) 213-5051 or email
jmartinez@naplesgov.com.
17.A.6
Packet Pg. 1270 Attachment: Attachment 6 - City of Naples Letter (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
Ethics above all else ... Service to others before self ... Quality in all that we do.
Page 2 of 2
Sincerely,
Javier Martinez
Utilities Permit Coordinator
Cc: Allyson Holland, P.E., Deputy Utilities Director
David Banter, Utilities Inspector
17.A.6
Packet Pg. 1271 Attachment: Attachment 6 - City of Naples Letter (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
rs / aiLij .rttto
NaplesNews.com
Published Daily
Naples,FL 34110
Affidavit of Publication
State of Florida
Counties of Collier and Lee
Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Daniel McDermott who on oath says that
he serves as Inside Sales Manager of the Naples Daily News,a daily newspaper published at Naples,in Collier Coun-
ty,Florida;distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida;that the attached copy of the advertising was published
in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published
at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published
in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as
second class mail matter at the post office in Naples,in said Collier County,Florida,for a period of one year next pre-
ceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid
nor promised any person,or corporation any discount,rebate,commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Customer Ad Number Copyline P.O.#
BCC/ZONING DEPARTMENT 1562681 PUBLIC HEARING 45-176563
Pub Dates
April 14,2017
Sign ure of affiant)
Sworn to and subscribed before me 1 /On* IVONNE GORI
This April 24, 17 Notary Public-State o1 Florida •till Commission *FF 900010
f= My Comm.Expires Jul 16.2019
r41 •
er: Bonded through National Notary Assn.
Signatur of affiant) '
17.A.7
Packet Pg. 1272 Attachment: Attachment 7 - Legal Notifications (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
24A Friday,April 14,2017 Naples Daily News
4 dead of injuries consistent PUBLIC HEARING
with methods used by gang
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning
Commission at 9:00 A.M.,on Thursday,May 4,2017,in the Board of County Commissioners
Meeting Room,Third Floor,Collier Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples
FRANK ELTMAN FL.,to consider:
ASSOCIATED MESS
A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
CENTRAL ISLIP,N.Y.-Four young 4
i • f s AN INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE WOLF CREEK RPUD,ORDINANCE
men found dead in a park from injuries :ions.NO.2007-46,AS AMENDED,TO ADD A PRESERVE EXHIBIT THAT REVISES
killedinflicted
by a sharp-edged object were ,,'/p..-THE PRESERVE CONFIGURATION FOR PARCELS 3B AND 9 ONLY, FOR
methods
a way thatM is
3stret
consistent
gang,
wigthe
of the MS-13 street ac- 1 PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD,
cording to police,who declared war i j ,_,-,"` f` APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF MILE WEST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD,IN
against gang violence in the suburbs of r - '°:,, •
Long Island.
SECTION 34,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST COLLIER COUNTY
The victims,ranging in age from l6m Jw.- FLORIDA.CONSISTING OF I89±ACRES.[PDI-PL2010NNx404]
20,were discovered in a wooded area
near a soccer field in Central Islip,Suf- SETH wsMic/AP
folk County Police Commissioner Timo- Suffolk County Police Commissioner Timothy
thy Sini said.He said the bodies had"sig- Sini says the victims were 16-20 years old.
nificant trauma"wounds,and he be- MA.*RD
Heves all the victims were killed there.
He did not definitively say the killings FBI began pouring resources into a PROJECT
were the work of the MS-13 gang but said crackdown after the killings of the girls,p
an
LOCATION
the tactics-using sharp instruments along with two other Brentwood High is
and extreme violence-were consistent School students.
with the gang,which has been gaining a Prosecutors said Kayla Cuevas,16, n' g
foothold on Long Island for years. was targeted last summer by a group of I
This is a long-term war and make no four gang members because she had H
a 4 8
mistake about it it's a war,"Sini told re- been feuding with MS-13 members at I a
0.10n O.scorn
porters,announcing a$25,000 reward school and on social media.The group,
for information about the killings."To- which had been driving around looking
day is a sad day in Suffolk County,partic- for gang enemies,attacked when they w„
ularly for the loved ones and the family came across her walking with Nisa i
members and the friends of those who Mickens,15,in the street.The insepara-
weremurdered,but we maintain our re- ble best friends wereattacked nitro ma- All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed
solve."chete and baseball bats,officials said.
William Tigre told reporters near the Nisa"was simply at the wrong place RESOLUTION will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's office,
scene that an acquaintance told him at the wrong time,hanging out with her fourth floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,suite 401,
Wednesday night that his 18-year-old childhood friend;'former U.S.Attorney Naples,FL,one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Written comments must be tiled with
brother,Jorge,was among those killed. Robert Capers said in announcing the or- the Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section,prior to Thursday,April 20th,2017.The acquaintance also indicated he knew rests.
of the killings because he had been there. Anthony Rubenstein, a 29-year-old Ifs son decides toappeal an decision madethe Collier Coon Planning CommissionTheacquaintance"called saying that electrician who graduated from Brent- person y byCounty g
my brother was here,dead,"Tigre,21, wood High School and lives near where with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will need a record of
said."He just said,'I saw your brother the bodies were found,shook his head in that proceeding,and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
dying,and I escaped.'That's the only frustration about the killings. proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
thing he said.He didn't say nothing else." We had violence back then when I
Sini confirmed to The Associated was in high school but never like this.I appeal is to be based.
Press that police had begun a missing- don't know what it is,but it's definitely
person's investigation for Jorge Tigre on getting worse,"he said. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate
Tuesday. He would not comment on The MS-13 gang,also called Mara Sal- in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance,
whether the teenager was among those vatrucha,is believed to have been found-
killed.
contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division,located at 3335 Tamiami
WiTh,
Angelesegs
a
in
he
mid
19rhood
street gang in Los
Trail Rant,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two days prior to theThediscoveayoftherrestsceight ]
c
the mid-1980s by immigrants
grewaboutamonthafterthearrestofeightfleeingacivilwarinEISalvador.It grew meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of
MS-13 gang members in connection with after some members were deported to El County Commissioners Office.
the September killings of two teenage Salvador,helping turn that country into
girls in nearby Brentwood. one of the most violent places in the
conic,.County Planning CommissionGangviolencehasbeenaprobleminworld.It's now an international criminal
Central Islip,Brentwood and other Long enterprise with tens of thousands of Mark Strain,Chairman
Island communities for more than a dec- members in several Central American
ade,but Suffolk County police and the countries and many U.S.states. April 14,2017 ND-1565605
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning
Commission at 9:00 AM.,on Thursday,May 4th,2017.in the Board of County Commissioner§ Commission at 9:00 AM.,on Thursday,May 4th,2017,in the Board of County Commissioner's
Meeting Room,Third Floor,Collier Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples FL,to Meeting Room,Third Floor,Collier Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples FL.,to
consider: consider:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY
COUNTY,FLORIDA,AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.2004-41,AS AMENDED,THE FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE TO
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,WHICH ESTABLISHED THE ALLOW A FACILITY FOR THE COLLECTION,TRANSFER PROCESSING,AND
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA REDUCTION OF SOLID WASTE AND AN ACCESSORY USE OF INCIDENTAL
OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING RETAIL SALE OF PROCESSED HORTICULTURAL MATERIAL WITHIN A RURAL
ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH A RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE OVERLAY-
HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL RECEIVING LANDS(A/RFMUO-RECEIVING LANDS)PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION
SUBDISTRICT OF THE BAYSHORE DRIVE MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT OF THE 2.03.08.A2A.(3)(C)IV.OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR
RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY-6 ZONING DISTRICT(RMF-6-BMUD-NC)AND THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT OF THE BAYSHORE DRIVE MIXED U.S.41 EAST AND RIGGS ROAD,IN SECTION 20,TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,RANGE 27
USE OVERLAY DISTRICT OF THE COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE ZONING DISTRICT EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA.(PETITION NO.CU-PL20130000320)
C-3-BMUD-NC)TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING
DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS MATTAMY HOMES RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OFA MAXIMUM OF
276 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST T
QUADRANT OF BAYSIIORE DRIVE AND TIIOMASSON DRIVE IN SECTION 14,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA CONSISTING OF T o
37+/-ACRES;AND PROVIDING ANEFFECTIVE DATE.[PL20160000183] 00r 'n a9
I1msq/, d Dams BLVD
I1 a E
I1- 1 PROJECT
11
cg 1 LOCATION
1L'
co 6L40
1111 Tmm...rn,og E.t.a°Ha,nmcH ftO r *-4'.
qa r, ..-r--r,iir
F ' e All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard.Copies of the proposed RESOLUTION
All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard.Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's office,fourth floor,Collier
will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's office,fourth floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,suite 401,Naples,FL,one week prior to
County Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 401,Naples,FL,one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division,Zoning Services
the scheduled hearing.Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section,prior to Thursday,May 4th,2017.
Section,pnor to Thursday,May 4th,2017.If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Phoning Commission
If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will need a record of that
with respect to my matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will need a record of that proceeding,and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings
proceeding,and for such purpose he 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.
is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
If you area person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate If you area person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate
in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. m this Proceeding,you arc entitled,at no cost you,to the provision of certain assistance.
Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division,located at 3335 Tamiami Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division,located at 3335 Tamiami
Trail East,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two days pnor to the Trail East,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two days prior to the
meeting.Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board ot'County meeting.Assisted listening devices for the hcanng impaired are available in the Board of County
Commissioners Office.
Commissioners Office.
Collier County Planning Commission Collier County Planning Commission
Mark Strain,Chairman
Mark Strain,Chairman
April 14,2017 ND-1562881 April 14,2017 ND-1562406
17.A.7
Packet Pg. 1273 Attachment: Attachment 7 - Legal Notifications (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.7
Packet Pg. 1274 Attachment: Attachment 7 - Legal Notifications (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.7
Packet Pg. 1275 Attachment: Attachment 7 - Legal Notifications (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
COLLIER COUNTY
Growth Management Department
April 14, 2017
Dear Property Owner:
This is to advise you that because you may have interest in the proceedings or you own property located within 500 feet
(urban areas) or 1,000 feet (rural areas) of the following described property, that a public hearing will be held by the
Collier County Planning Commission at 9:00 A.M., on May 4, 2017,in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room,
third floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL., to consider:
An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as
amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the
unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the
zoning classification of the herein described real property from the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore
Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Residential Multi-Family-6 Zoning District (RMF-6-BMUD-NC) and the
Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Commercial Intermediate
Zoning District (C-3-BMUD-NC) to a Residential Planned Unit Development Zoning District for the project to be known as
Mattamy Homes Residential Planned Unit Development, to allow construction of a maximum of 276 residential dwelling
units on property located in the northwest quadrant of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive in Section 14, Township 50
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 37+/- acres; and providing an effective date.
[PL20160000183] [Coordinator: Eric Johnson, Principal Planner]
You are invited to appear and be heard at the public hearing. You may also submit your comments in writing.
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 COUNTY STAFF MEMBER NOTED
BELOW , 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 Collier County Planning Commission 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.
If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are
entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management
Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days
prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County
Commissioners Office.
This petition, and other pertinent inform ation related to this petition, is kept on file and may be reviewed at the Growth
Management Department building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. Please contact the
staff member noted below at (239)-252-2931 to set up an appointment if you wish to review the file.
Sincerely,
Eric Johnson
Eric Johnson
Principal Planner
17.A.7
Packet Pg. 1276 Attachment: Attachment 7 - Legal Notifications (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
Ta
mia
mi T
R
L E
5th AVE S
Airport-Pulling RD SDavis BLVD
Bayshore DRThomasson DR
AVEVAN BUREN VAN BUREN AVE
STLUNAR
LINDA DR
HARVEST CTH
A
L
D
E
MA
N
C
R
E
E
K
D
R FULL MOON CTNEW MOON CTDRDRJEEPERS
LIGH THOUSE LANE
LIGHTHOUSESU NSET AVE
BAYSHORESTLNLAKE AVE
FLOR IDA AVE
PINETHOMASS ON DRIVETHOMASSON DRIVE
PALMETTO COURTCO TTAGE GROVE AVE
KAREN DRIVE
BAYSHORE DRREP UBLIC DRIVE
CONSTITUTION DRIVE
LNLIBERTYTRACT B 313335373839424647484952534839403736343154
55
2 561055771425 12265859
74480828487949635678291011125115014494815474645442216434217SOMERSETATWINDSTAR
TRACT E 433932331834351936 BAYSHORECOMMERCIALCONDO
37 383130 39 4029 412827 202625 3221245223 552215
5712
10953TRACT A TRACT B
TRACT B
MO ORH EAD MANOR54
PARCEL ATRACT A
1 2 3
TR B4 TRACT B5TRACTITRACTJ6557 24
TRACT CTRACT A
64 66
56
4340
10557
TRACT B 30 27
TRACT A20 22
58
7
59
5
3
60 2
8 97 10 11 1245 1361
25
24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 7 6 5 4109826
27
29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 4928
1
17 2018191279368131416410111552
62
23
40 4137383926282933343536273130242532
63
99
44 53
64 52 54 55434251
41 50 49 4840 47
39
38
3765
33 3645
PH I
PH II
PH III
PH IV PH VABACO BAYCONDO
61
PH 4PH 1 PH 2 PH 3
PH 12
BOTANICAL PLACE CONDO
108
OR 711/600
PH 8 PH 6PH 7PH 9
52
38 PH 13
SFWMD CONSRV ESMTOR 4491 PG 3216.12 TOTAL ACRES
FIRE STATION#22
97
98
À29À30À32À34À36À40À41À43À44À45
À50À43À46À44À45À47À41À38À35À49À33À32À30À29À28À27À26À1À36
À9 À3À8À4À11À6À12À13À15À16À17À18À20À21À22À23À24 À3À4À5À6À7À8À9À10À11À13À14À15À16À17À18À19À20À21À24À25À56À27À1
À1.4À1.3 À1.5 À1.6 À1À1.7 À72À73À75À76À77À78À1.8 À79À81À83À85À86À88À89À90À91À92À93À95À1.9 À1.10 À9À1.2 À8À10À1.11 À99À1.12 À7À11 À3À4À5À6À12À13À14À15À16À17À18À19À20À21À22À23À24À25 À2À1.1 À1.14À1.15
À1.51 À1.50 À46 À47À100À1.16À1.49 À1 À24À1.48 À23 À25À2À1.17À1.47 À26À1.46 À48À45À45À101À47À1.45 À3À1.44 À21 À27À1.32 À44 À49À1.43 À44À42À41À40À38À1.33 À37À36À35À34À33À1.42 À32À31À30À29À28À27À26 À102 À4À1.34 À1.35 À46 À20 À28À1.36 À50À43À1.18À1.37 À103À1.38 À42 À51À19À1.39 À5À1.19 À29À1.40 À1.41À1 À104 À52À41À6À18À52.2 À30À1.31 À40 À53À105À17À1.30 À7 À31À1.29 À32À1.20À1.28 À54À39À16À106À1.27 À52À1.26 À1.21 À38À1.25 À9À52.1 À107À1.24 À33À1.23 À37 À56À1.22 À10 À14 À34À108 À36À11À13À35
À109À52.3
À109.1 À109.2
À1
À1.2
À1.2
À108.2
À108.1
À53
À1 À2 À3 À4 À5 À6 À7 À8 À9 À10 À11 À12 À13 À14 À15 À16 À17 À18 À19
À1 À43
À1
À1
À1 À2 À3À1 À42 À41 À40 À39 À38 À37 À36 À35 À34 À33 À32 À31 À30 À29 À28 À27 À26 À25À4À6À7À107
À1
À1
À56À1
À57 À58 À59 À60 À61 À62 À63 À65
À56.1
À2
À55 À54 À53 À51 À50 À49 À48 À47 À46 À45À3
À44À4À34À35À36À37À39À41À42
À43
À5
À57
À33X21 À32 À31 À29 À28 À26 À25 À24 À23À6
À13 À14 À15 À16 À17 À18 À19 À21À7À12À1
À8
À11 À10 À9 À8 À6 À5 À4 À3 À2 À1
À9
À1 X11
À10
X13
À103X12X18.1 X18 X14À6À4À3À2À22À1
À60.2À60.7 À60.3 À3 À6 À7 À11À5À4À9À10 À12
À60.4À60.8 À60 À2
À60.5À61.6
À60.6À60.9
À25
À61.3 À23 À22 À19 À18 À17 À16 À12 À11À20 À7 À6 À5 À4À10À9À8À61À60.1
À61.4À61.1
À61.5
À61.2 À27
À29 À30 À31 À38À32 À39À33À34À35À36 À44 À45 À46 À47 À48 À49À41À42À43
À61.10 À28À61.9
À100.43 À100.8À100.6À100.3À100.5À100.15À100.21À100.29À100.28À100.35À100.27À100.42À100.46À100.23À100.45À100.18À100.16À100.41À100.40À100.2
À62
À100.33 À100.1À100.9À100.4À100.7À100.30À100.10À100.13À100.17À100.11À100.36À100.22À100.25À100.14À100.19À100.37À100.20À100.44À100.12
À63
À99
À63.1
À64 À44X8À64.1 À55À54À53À43
À42À98.1
À52À41
À51
À65 À40
À50À39
À48
À38
À37
À45
À33 À36 À97.1À97
À66
À22
À8
À104.1
À61.11
À14
À106.1
À19 À23
À42
X14.1
À56
MUP
CU
V
CU
MUP
PUD
RMF-6-BMUD-R1
MH-BMUD-NC
RSF-4-BMUD-R1
C-2-BMUD-NC
RMF-6-BMUD-R1
PUD
C-5-BMUD-NC
C-3-BMUD-NC
PUD
RMF-6-BMUD-R2
RSF-3-BMUD-R1
RSF-4-BMUD-R4
C-5-BMUD-NC
RMF-6-BMUD-R1
MH-BMUD-R3 C-2-BMUD-NCRMF-6-BMUD-R3
VR-BMUD-R3
MH-BMUD-R3
PUDC-3-BMUD-NC
RPUD-BMU D-R2
C-4-BMUD-NC
RSF-6-BMUD-R1
RMF-6-BMUD-NC
RMF-6-BMUD-R1
RMF-6
RMF-6
RMF-6-BMUD-R2
C-4-BMUD-NC
RMF-6-BMUD-R1
MPUD
BOTANICALPLACE
PINEBROOKLAKE
CIRRUS POINTE
NAPLESBOTANICALGARDENS
WINDSTAR
CULTURALARTS VILLAGEAT BAYSHORE
Location Map Zoning Map
Petition Number: PL-20160000183
PROJEC TLOCATION
SITELOCATION
¹
Docu ment Path: M:\UrbanPlanning\PetitionMgmt\2 016 PLs\Zoning\PL201 60000183-PUDZ-Mattamy Homes\wo rkspace\site-lo cation.mxd
17.A.7
Packet Pg. 1277 Attachment: Attachment 7 - Legal Notifications (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.7
Packet Pg. 1278 Attachment: Attachment 7 - Legal Notifications (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
04/10/201704/10/201704/10/201704/10/201717.A.7
Packet Pg. 1279 Attachment: Attachment 7 - Legal Notifications (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
04/10/201717.A.7
Packet Pg. 1280 Attachment: Attachment 7 - Legal Notifications (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
1
JohnsonEric
From:ANNA <anijimenez@comcast.net>
Sent:Monday, May 22, 2017 12:39 PM
To:JohnsonEric
Subject:PL20160000183: Mattamy Homes (PUDZ)
Good afternoon Mr. Johnson, I am a unit owner at Dover Parc Condominiums, located in
Briarwood. There is significant development happening in our corner and that's why I am writing to
you.
We know that Naples is popping with new residents, businesses, etc. At the same time, there's has
been no improvements made to Radio Road, except for beautification. Great job on the
landscaping.
Here's my problem, Radio Road is very congested in the am, mainly because all vehicles have only
ONE choice to exit their neighborhood. If you live on the north side of Radio, everyone makes a right
heading west, if you live on the south side of Naples, everyone makes a right heading east. Can the
county take a look at installing a traffic signal somewhere between Circle K and Livingston. Also, the
Mattamy Homes apartment complex is looking to build 320 units, that's another 600 cars. Are you the
responsible party to contact regarding the density of the project? I'm sure Boyd Land Development
is following Collier's guidelines, can we reduce the amount of proposed units, due to the current traffic
situation.
I know that Collier County listens to concerned citizens. I hope you are receiving emails from lots of
us.
Thank you.
17.A.8
Packet Pg. 1281 Attachment: Attachment 8 - Emails_Letters from Public (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
1
JohnsonEric
From:Mike Rosen <Mikerosen66@aol.com>
Sent:Wednesday, August 31, 2016 6:44 PM
To:JohnsonEric
Subject:Re: Mattamy Homes
Thank you Eric
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 31, 2016, at 9:26 AM, JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net> wrote:
Mr. Rosen,
Please see the attached PUD Application. Below is a screenshot of other documents submitted
by the applicant in connection with this petition. Feel free to let me know if there are any others
that you want.
<image003.jpg>
I copied these files from accessing CityView, which you are allowed to access this yourself by
clicking the following link: http://cvportal.colliergov.net/cityviewweb The link will prompt you to
indicate the PL #. The PL # for this project is PL20160000183.
With respect to the NIM, it is the applicant’s responsibility to do the advertising and public
noticing. For a list of property owners, I’m assuming they requested this information from our
GIS staff who routinely performs such mapping or from the property appraiser’s office. Our GIS
staff produced the attached map and property owner list (for County purposes when it comes
time for the County to advertise for public hearing). I assume the applicant used a duplicate list
for their NIM. I will reach out to the applicant and request this information. They are required
to provide me this information anyway, so I might as well ask for it now. When I receive it, I
will forward it to you.
Respectfully,
Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate
Principal Planner
From: Mike Rosen [mailto:Mikerosen66@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:31 PM
To: JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net>
Subject: Re: Mattamy Homes
Thank you Eric, I received Exhibits A, B, C, D, E and F,
However, I did not receive the PUD Application?
I was called after our telephone call today from a member of the Windstar community, who said , in a
conversation today with the MATTAMY rep. that there is a scheduled Neighborhood meeting on Sept.
13 ??
17.A.8
Packet Pg. 1282 Attachment: Attachment 8 - Emails_Letters from Public (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
2
Is this correct and has Windstar residents been Notified?
Thank you
Mike Rosen
239-450-0969
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 30, 2016, at 3:21 PM, JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net> wrote:
Mr. Rosen,
Please see the proposed PUD Document.
Respectfully,
Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM
Principal Planner
Collier County Growth Management Department
Zoning Division – Zoning Services Section
2800 Horseshoe Drive North
Naples, FL 34104
(239) 252-2931 office
(239) 252-6503 fax
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to
a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
<Submittal 1 MHA RPUD Exhibits A-F - Prepared.pdf>
<Submittal 1 MHA Application PUDR - Prepared.pdf>
<POList.xlsx>
<Tax Roll Map PL2016-183.pdf>
17.A.8
Packet Pg. 1283 Attachment: Attachment 8 - Emails_Letters from Public (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
1
JohnsonEric
From:Mike Rosen <Mikerosen66@aol.com>
Sent:Wednesday, August 31, 2016 6:40 PM
To:JohnsonEric
Subject:Re: Mattamy Homes
Thank you Eric,
Mike Rosen
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 31, 2016, at 9:55 AM, JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net> wrote:
Mr. Rosen,
Please see attached affidavit and supporting documents regarding the NIM. The attached is from
the applicant.
Respectfully,
Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate
Principal Planner
From: Mike Rosen [mailto:Mikerosen66@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:31 PM
To: JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net>
Subject: Re: Mattamy Homes
Thank you Eric, I received Exhibits A, B, C, D, E and F,
However, I did not receive the PUD Application?
I was called after our telephone call today from a member of the Windstar community, who said , in a
conversation today with the MATTAMY rep. that there is a scheduled Neighborhood meeting on Sept.
13 ??
Is this correct and has Windstar residents been Notified?
Thank you
Mike Rosen
239-450-0969
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 30, 2016, at 3:21 PM, JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net> wrote:
Mr. Rosen,
Please see the proposed PUD Document.
Respectfully,
17.A.8
Packet Pg. 1284 Attachment: Attachment 8 - Emails_Letters from Public (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
2
Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM
Principal Planner
Collier County Growth Management Department
Zoning Division – Zoning Services Section
2800 Horseshoe Drive North
Naples, FL 34104
(239) 252-2931 office
(239) 252-6503 fax
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to
a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
<Submittal 1 MHA RPUD Exhibits A-F - Prepared.pdf>
<Affidavit of Compliance 08-29-2016.pdf>
17.A.8
Packet Pg. 1285 Attachment: Attachment 8 - Emails_Letters from Public (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
1
JohnsonEric
From:Mike Rosen <Mikerosen66@aol.com>
Sent:Tuesday, August 30, 2016 6:31 PM
To:JohnsonEric
Subject:Re: Mattamy Homes
Thank you Eric, I received Exhibits A, B, C, D, E and F,
However, I did not receive the PUD Application?
I was called after our telephone call today from a member of the Windstar community, who said , in a conversation
today with the MATTAMY rep. that there is a scheduled Neighborhood meeting on Sept. 13 ??
Is this correct and has Windstar residents been Notified?
Thank you
Mike Rosen
239-450-0969
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 30, 2016, at 3:21 PM, JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliergov.net> wrote:
Mr. Rosen,
Please see the proposed PUD Document.
Respectfully,
Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM
Principal Planner
Collier County Growth Management Department
Zoning Division – Zoning Services Section
2800 Horseshoe Drive North
Naples, FL 34104
(239) 252-2931 office
(239) 252-6503 fax
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records
request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
<Submittal 1 MHA RPUD Exhibits A-F - Prepared.pdf>
17.A.8
Packet Pg. 1286 Attachment: Attachment 8 - Emails_Letters from Public (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.9
Packet Pg. 1287 Attachment: Attachment 9 - Items Collected at CCPC Hearing (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.9
Packet Pg. 1288 Attachment: Attachment 9 - Items Collected at CCPC Hearing (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.9
Packet Pg. 1289 Attachment: Attachment 9 - Items Collected at CCPC Hearing (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.9
Packet Pg. 1290 Attachment: Attachment 9 - Items Collected at CCPC Hearing (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.9
Packet Pg. 1291 Attachment: Attachment 9 - Items Collected at CCPC Hearing (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.9
Packet Pg. 1292 Attachment: Attachment 9 - Items Collected at CCPC Hearing (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.9
Packet Pg. 1293 Attachment: Attachment 9 - Items Collected at CCPC Hearing (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.9
Packet Pg. 1294 Attachment: Attachment 9 - Items Collected at CCPC Hearing (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.9
Packet Pg. 1295 Attachment: Attachment 9 - Items Collected at CCPC Hearing (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.9
Packet Pg. 1296 Attachment: Attachment 9 - Items Collected at CCPC Hearing (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.9
Packet Pg. 1297 Attachment: Attachment 9 - Items Collected at CCPC Hearing (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.9
Packet Pg. 1298 Attachment: Attachment 9 - Items Collected at CCPC Hearing (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.9
Packet Pg. 1299 Attachment: Attachment 9 - Items Collected at CCPC Hearing (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.9
Packet Pg. 1300 Attachment: Attachment 9 - Items Collected at CCPC Hearing (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.9
Packet Pg. 1301 Attachment: Attachment 9 - Items Collected at CCPC Hearing (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
cc2.
2N
Ts;
v2
T
2-
a-
00
2
0=
V
Oct
O
a.
a
t!)
2
aA.
JO
vi
N
vly
01
oroo oWOoN
2
Q
2
0
eca2 •
ya-
co
N
N
r >
QY2ys
1-_' " •-•\
1-'
O
o
3
2
vo
Y
O
e
o
Y
mcc
Ym
2 -
2o;
Y
t
oOy
y
av-
V!
NZI
I.
Z
J
O
0 =
02
O
i
o
cc
0
cc .c
y
0•
14:,
2
r
T
v-i
Z
01)
G
y
7
y
v- ""
o
Z
o
r
J
Y
0,A.-
0
t:
6- .
0
00 ,....c
Z
v
O
c
9
6
s,
y
y
2
r
C.
o
1)-
1 -.:::
1
C4
y `
oQ
p
d
2-,
y
ya
y
oo
Y
ci
v
2
0
0
y
cn
vo
y
c
1
20
Z ‘- '
0_'
c.
t
occ-
c-
io
2y
v
N
y
r
O
c
icoc ,
o
r
a
0
2:
1
e
c::
Es
0
a
i
G
T
0.,
0to
a.
6
0
co
Ip
te
t,
i
o-
C
d
2
17.A.9
Packet Pg. 1302 Attachment: Attachment 9 - Items Collected at CCPC Hearing (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)
17.A.10
Packet Pg. 1303 Attachment: Legal ad - Agenda ID 3177 (3177 : Mattamy Homes RPUD)