Loading...
Agenda 05/12/2015 Item # 9A1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to deny the single, 2014 Cycle 1 Growth Management Plan Amendment petition PL20140000113/CP-2014-2 specific to the San Marino Planned Unit Development. (Adoption Hearing) (Companion to rezone petition PUDA-PL20140000100, San Marino Planned Unit Development) OBJECTIVE : For the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to deny (not adopt) the single petition in the 2014 Cycle 1 of amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) and not to approve said amendment for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. CONSIDERATIONS : • Chapter 163, F.S., provides for an amendment process for a local government’s adopted Growth Management Plan. • County Resolution 12-234 provides for a public petition process to amend the Collier County GMP. • For this Adoption hearing, the sole petition in the 2014 Cycle 1 of GMP amendments being considered is PL20140000113/CP-2014-2, applicable only to a portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development. • The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), sitting as the “local planning agency” under Chapter 163.3174, F.S., held its Transmittal hearings for the subject petition on November 6, 2014. The BCC held its Transmittal hearing on December 9, 2014. Their respective transmittal recommendations/actions are contained in the CCPC adoption hearing Staff Report. • The CCPC held its adoption hearing on April 2, 2015. The staff and CCPC adoption hearing recommendations are presented further below. • After review of the Transmitted GMP amendment, the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) rendered its Comment Letter indicating “no comment” within the agency’s authorized scope of review, as did the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS), Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SWFRPC) and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The Florida Department of Education (DOE) rendered comments within their authorized scope of review, indicating The Collier County School District complete the school planning level review per the Collier County Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning and School Concurrency; the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) conducted a planning level analysis and rendered comments within their authorized scope of review. FDOT indicates that the proposed amendment is not anticipated to adversely impact important State transportation resources or facilities, and provided details regarding operating conditions on impacted State roadways. DOE commented specifically, as follows: Packet Page -20- 5/12/2015 9.A. 2 The Department recommends the changes associated with the proposed amendment CP- 2014-2 be reviewed as required by Section 8 of the Collier County Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning and School Concurrency before adoption consideration. In response to the DOE Comment, staff notes the Transmittal package of materials was provided to School District representatives and subsequently reviewed in accordance with Interlocal Agreement Section 8. Determinations from their Section 8 review are found in a letter dated January 22, 2015, as attached hereto, and summarized below. In accordance with Interlocal Agreement subsection 8.2, Collier County notified the School District of the proposed GMP amendment that may increase school enrollment. In accordance with Interlocal Agreement subsection 14.2, the Collier County School District subsequently conducted the school planning level review per the Collier County Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning and School Concurrency and responded. The School District response indicates at this time there is sufficient capacity for the proposed development within the middle and high school concurrency service areas the development is located within and the adjacent currency service area for the elementary level. 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. At the time of site plan or plat the development would be reviewed for concurrency to ensure there is capacity within the concurrency service area the development is located within and adjacent concurrency service areas such that the level of service standards are not exceeded. The remaining review agency (Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources) did not provide a Comments Letter. All review agency Comments Letters received are contained in the back-up materials. • This adoption hearing considers amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) text. Note : Because the support materials are voluminous, and some exhibits may be oversized, the Agenda Central system does not contain all of the related documents pertaining to this GMP amendment petition. The entire Executive Summary package, including all support materials, is included in the binder that is available for review in the Comprehensive Planning Section office at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, as well as in the Clerk of Courts/Minutes and Records office at 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 401, Naples. Petition PL20140000113/CP-2014-2 is a petition submitted by Alexis V. Crespo, AICP, for Stock Development and H & LD Venture, LLC requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) to introduce two site-specific exceptions from existing limitations in the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, affecting the transfer of TDR credits among properties in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) and the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict. Adoption of these amendments will grant new rights exclusive to [the undeveloped portion of] the San Marino Planned Unit Development (PUD) property - to utilize 52% more Packet Page -21- 5/12/2015 9.A. 3 TDRs than other development in the URF, and allow those TDRs from distant RFMUD Sending Lands. Note: A companion PUD rezone petition is scheduled for this same hearing. Staff analysis of this petition is included in the Transmittal CCPC Staff Report. There was one public speaker at the CCPC adoption public hearing, who spoke in support of the request. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS : This Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment is authorized by, and subject to the procedures established in, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, he Community Planning Act, and by Collier County Resolution No. 12-234, as amended. The Board should consider the following criteria in making its decision: (1) consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, including analysis of impact on public infrastructure; (2) consistency with the Land Development Code, including compatibility analysis; and, (3) review of data and analysis to support the proposed amendment. This item is approved as to form and legality. It requires an affirmative vote of four for approval because this is an Adoption hearing of the GMP amendment. [HFAC] FISCAL IMPACT : No fiscal impacts to the County result from this amendment if it is adopted. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT : This is an adoption public hearing for the single petition in the 2014 Cycle 1 of amendments to the GMP. Based upon statutory changes that occurred during the 2011 Florida Legislative session, this GMP amendment is presumed to be “in compliance” with applicable Florida Statutes. After adoption, the DEO and other applicable review agencies will have 30 days (from the date DEO determines the adoption packages are complete) to review the adopted Plan amendment and, should they believe the amendment is not “in compliance,” file a challenge [appeal] to the presumed “in compliance” determination with the Florida Division of Administrative hearings. Similarly, any affected party also has 30 days (from the date of BCC adoption) in which to file a challenge. If a timely challenge is not filed by DEO or an affected party, then the amendment will become effective. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES : The majority of the petition site is forested with native vegetation, twenty five percent of which is required to be retained in accordance with applicable policies in the CCME. Approximately 71 percent of the site (139.50 acres) contains State and Federal jurisdictional wetlands. No listed wildlife species were observed during the survey conducted in February, 2014. However, two listed plant species were identified on the property; they are subject to the Land Development Code requirements for possible relocation. HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT : According to the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, no significant archaeological sites or cultural resources are recorded for the San Marino site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION : That the CCPC forward Petition CP-2014-2, as proposed, to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation not to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. Packet Page -22- 5/12/2015 9.A. 4 Staff did, however, recommend approval of a different version of FLUE text: allowing for the transfer of TDR credits from Sending Lands property more than one (1) mile from the Urban boundary; removing the density increase; and, incorporating non-substantive changes for proper code language, format, clarity, brevity, etc. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION : The Collier County Planning Commission held its required Adoption public hearing on April 2, 2015. The CCPC recommended that the BCC adopt petition CP-2014-2, including the petitioner- proposed changes and staff-recommended revisions (vote: 5/0). STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS : Same as to the CCPC – Not to adopt and transmit petition PL20140000113/CP-2014-2, as submitted, to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, for the following reason: • The Urban Residential Fringe is intended for, and developed with, lower “transitional” residential densities; a more compatible and consistent development pattern would be maintained without approval of the proposed higher residential density. It is staff’s opinion that the application has not provided the necessary data and analysis for the changes being proposed. Based upon this deficiency, the application has not satisfied the Statutory requirement establishing the need for the amendment, therefore Comprehensive Planning is providing a recommendation not to adopt. (Note: The Board of County Commissioners heard staff’s objections on December 09, 2014 during the transmittal hearing and voted to transmit.) Staff does, however, recommend approval of a different version of FLUE text: allowing for the transfer of TDR credits from Sending Lands property more than one (1) mile from the Urban boundary; removing the density increase. Prepared by: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, and David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Division, Growth Management Department Attachments: 1) CCPC Adoption Staff Report; 2) Adoption Ordinance with Exhibit “A” text; 3) DEO and Reviewing Agency Comment Letters; 4) Transmittal Executive Summary; 5) CCPC Transmittal Staff Report; 6) NIM Affidavit of Compliance 7) Adopted Transmittal Resolution; 8) PL20140000113_CP-2014-2 Petition) due to the size of the entire document, the complete back-up is accessible at: http://www.colliergov.net/ftp/AgendaMay1215/GrowthMgmt/PL20140000113_CP-2014- 2_Adpt_Petition_SanMarino.pdf 9) Legal Ad Packet Page -23- 5/12/2015 9.A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to deny the single petition within the 2014 Cycle 1 of Growth Management Plan Amendments for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for review and Comments response, for an amendment specific to the San Marino project, Transmittal Hearing. OBJECTIVE : For the Board to deny the one petition in the 2014 Cycle 1 of amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (San Marino project). CONSIDERATIONS : • Chapter 163, F.S., provides for an amendment process for a local government’s adopted Growth Management Plan. • Resolution 12-234 provides for a public petition process to amend the Collier County GMP. • The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), sitting as the “local planning agency” under Chapter 163.3174, F.S., held their Transmittal hearing for the 2014 Cycle 1 petition on November 6, 2014 (one petition only, PL20140000113/CP-2014-2). • This Transmittal hearing for the 2014 Cycle 1 considers an amendment to the Future Land Use Element. Note: Because the support materials (petition only) are voluminous, and some exhibits are oversized, the Agenda Central system contains as noted, “confidential” the related document pertaining to this GMP amendment. A link has been provided to the ‘I’ drive on page 4 of this document in order to view the document. The entire Executive Summary package, including all support materials, is available for review in the Comprehensive Planning Section of the Zoning Department office, located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, as well as in the Clerk of Courts/Minutes and Records office at 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 401. Or, the entire Executive Summary package may be viewed on the Comprehensive Planning Section GMP Amendments web page, via http://www.colliergov.net/index.aspx?page=2460 . Petition PL20140000113/CP-2014-2 seeks to amend the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) text of the GMP to introduce two site-specific exceptions from existing limitations in the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, affecting the transfer of TDR credits among properties in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) and the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict. Adoption of these amendments will grant new rights exclusive to [the undeveloped portion of] the San Marino Planned Unit Development (PUD) property - to utilize 52% more TDRs than other development in the URF, and allow those TDRs from distant RFMUD Sending Lands. Presently, properties located within the URF may only receive TDR density transfers from the RFMUD Sending Lands located within one (1) mile of the URF boundary. Stated differently, TDR credits may be transferred from any RFMUD Sending Lands to any RFMUD Receiving Packet Page -24- 5/12/2015 9.A. Lands and Urban area receiving lands except that TDR credits from Sending Lands beyond one (1) mile of the URF boundary cannot be transferred into the URF . Part of this proposed amendment will allow the transfer of TDR credits originating more distant than one (1) mile from the URF boundary for use in [the undeveloped portion of] the San Marino PUD, which is located in the URF. Also, at present, properties located within the URF may receive the above-described TDR transfers at up to 1.0 dwelling unit per acre (DU/A) via the transfer of one TDR per acre - in addition to the base density of 1.5 DU/A. Stated differently, the maximum residential URF density may be increased from 1.5 DU/A to 2.5 DU/A utilizing TDRs through the Density Rating System. Part of this proposed amendment will increase the allowed transfer of TDR credits into the URF from 1.0 DU/A to 1.52 DU/A via TDRs for use in [the undeveloped portion of] the San Marino PUD – increasing total density from the present maximum allowed 2.5 DU/A to 3.02 DU/A via use of TDRs – a 0.52 DU/A increase or an increase of 102 DUs ). [Note: The application identifies the request is to allow 4.0 DU/A for an increase of 1.5 DU/A or 295 DUs. At the Planning Commission hearing, the petitioner reduced the request to 3.02 DU/A for an increase of 0.52 DU/A or 102 DUs. This irregular density figure (0.52 DU/A) is so as to allow development of the site with a total of 300 DUs; the density calculation is described further below.] The site of this GMP amendment request comprises only a portion of the San Marino PUD (196.4 acres of the total 235 acres); the PUD is already approved for the maximum base density of 1.5 DU/A, for a total of 352 DUs; approximately 39 acres of the PUD are developed with an apartment complex consisting of 350 DUs – most of that density being derived from the subject 196.4-acre portion of the total 235 acres in the PUD; and, the subject site will utilize the two (2) remaining DUs approved in the PUD but un-built. All of this may lead to some confusion in attempting to understand the density calculations resulting from this amendment request; the below table may help. Subject site = 196.4 acres Base density (presently allowed) 1.5 DU/A 295 DUs TDR density (presently allowed) 1.0 DU/A 196 DUs TDR density increase – this petition 0.52 DU/A 102 DUs SUM 3.02 DU/A 593 DUs From the above table: Of the 593 DUs total proposed, subtract 295 DUs that have already been approved in the San Marino PUD and already built on the 39-acre portion of the PUD to yield 298 DUs (196 + 102); then, add the 2 DUs approved in the PUD but un-built to yield 300 DUs to be developed on this 196.4-acre site. Again from the above table: All 298 DUs (196 + 102) will be derived from TDR credits; this amendment would allow the increase of 102 DUs, and would allow all 298 TDR credits to be derived from any RFMUD Sending Lands (within or beyond 1 mile from the URF boundary). There are three existing exceptions to the 2.5 DU/A cap in the URF; two of these projects include provision of affordable/workforce housing, a priority at the time (First Assembly Ministries PUD Packet Page -25- 5/12/2015 9.A. – approved in 2008, no DUs built, and Rockedge PUD – approved in 2006, no DUs built [a pre- application meeting was held in November 2014 at which the applicant indicated plans to pursue development at a maximum of 2.5 DU/A with no provision of affordable-workforce housing]), and the third is Hacienda Lakes – approved in 2011. Two developments in (or partially in) the URF are approved for density of 2.5 DU/A with use of TDRs – Lord’s Way 30 Acre PUD and Naples Reserve PUD, and another is pending – Lido Isles PUD. All other developments in the URF are approved at no greater than 1.5 DU/A (Forest Glen of Naples PUD, Willow Run PUD, Winding Cypress PUD, and the existing San Marino PUD. Staff’s evaluation and analysis of this petition included/considered: history of the Rural Fringe GMP amendments; the stated intent that the URF provide a transitional density; that the 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report did not identify a need for changes to the URF regarding transitional density or restriction on TDR derivation; the applicant’s justifications; the supply and demand of TDR credits and how they are proposed to be transferred into the San Marino property; environmental impacts; and, traffic capacity/traffic circulation impact analysis and other public facilities impacts. This review resulted in the following findings and conclusions: • Correlating amendments to the San Marino PUD are needed and may be submitted subsequent to, or concurrent with, the Adoption phase of this GMP amendment petition. • Public Utilities’ staff does not have preliminary issues with respect to the proposed amendment. • The part of the GMP amendment allowing the transfer of TDR-derived residential density from more than one (1) mile from the Urban Boundary to the undeveloped portion of the San Marino PUD would satisfy a portion of the potential unmet need in the Urban Residential Fringe for TDR credits. • The proposed GMP amendment will have no affect on the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) and will support the intent of the TDR program by directing development away from environmentally sensitive RFMUD Sending Lands. • The majority of the site is forested with native vegetation, twenty five percent of which is required to be retained in accordance with the CCME. Native vegetation preservation may not change from this amendment, while Goals of the RFMUD may be met without any need for change. • This amendment will result in increased demand for TDRs in one area [Sending Lands beyond 1 mile from URF] but decreased demand for them in another [Sending Lands within 1 mile of URF] while no net benefits are gained for the TDR program. • Impact upon the TDR program could be noteworthy in that a number of TDR credits originally intended for use in areas of RFMUD designated Receiving Lands will be redirected to the Urban Residential Fringe – a reallocation of TDR credits. • The number of TDRs available from “qualified” Sending Lands is sufficient at this time. • This GMP amendment increases the potential devaluation of TDR credits generated from Sending Lands within one mile of the URF. • The Urban Residential Fringe is intended for, and developed with, lower “transitional” residential densities; a more compatible and consistent development pattern would be maintained without approval of the proposed higher density. Packet Page -26- 5/12/2015 9.A. • Continued approval of exceptions to the URF density cap lessens the intended transition and encourages further requests for such exceptions – and suggests that the density cap may no longer be appropriate for the Subdistrict as a whole. Staff found the data and analysis for the subject GMP amendment does not support the proposed changes to the FLUE. Additional staff analysis of this petition is included in the CCPC Staff Report. FISCAL IMPACT : There are no fiscal impacts to Collier County as a result of this amendment, as this is for the Transmittal of this proposed amendment. Petition fees account for staff review time and materials, and for the cost of associated legal advertising/public notice. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS : This item is approved as to form and legality. A majority vote of the Board is needed for adoption of the Resolution. [HFAC] GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT : Approval of the proposed amendment by the Board for Transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity will commence the Department’s thirty (30) day review process and ultimately return the amendment to the CCPC and the Board for Adoption hearings to be held early to late Spring in 2015. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES : The majority of the petition site is forested with native vegetation, twenty five percent of which is required to be retained in accordance with the requirements of the CCME. Approximately 71 percent of the site (139.50 acres) contains State and Federal jurisdictional wetlands. No listed wildlife species were observed during the survey conducted in February, 2014. However, two listed plant species were identified on the property; they are subject to the Land Development Code requirements for possible relocation. As part of the process of obtaining subsequent development orders (e.g. site development plan), the site will be subject to all applicable local, state and federal environmental protection regulations, including applicable portions of the CCME, and the Land Development Code. HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT : No archaeological sites or cultural resources are recorded for or likely to be present within the San Marino site, and it is unlikely that any such sites or resources will be affected. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION : That the CCPC forward Petition CP-2014-2, as proposed, to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation not to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. Staff did, however, recommend approval of a different version of FLUE text: allowing for the transfer of TDR credits from Sending Lands property more than one (1) mile from the Urban boundary; removing the density increase; and, incorporating non-substantive changes for proper code language, format, clarity, brevity, etc. Packet Page -27- 5/12/2015 9.A. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION : The CCPC forwarded petition PL20140000113/CP-2014-2, as modified by the petitioner to reduce the density increase request to 0.52 DU/A (3.02 DU/A total), to the Board with a recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (vote: 7/0), subject to the staff-recommended non-substantive changes. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS : Same as to the CCPC – not to transmit petition PL20140000113/CP-2014-2, as submitted or as revised at the CCPC meeting, to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. Staff does, however, recommend approval of a different version of FLUE text: allowing for the transfer of TDR credits from Sending Lands property more than one (1) mile from the Urban boundary; removing the density increase; and, incorporating non-substantive changes for proper code language, format, clarity, brevity, etc. Prepared by: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, and David Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Department, Growth Management Division Attachments: 1) PL20140000113/CP-2014-2 CCPC Staff Report; 2) PL20140000113/CP-2014-2 Resolution with Exhibit “A” text; 3) NIM Mtg. Affidavit of Compliance 4) CP-2014-2 Application Backup Information (petition only); due to the size of the entire document, the complete back-up is accessible at: http://www.colliergov.net/ftp/AgendaDec0914/GrowthMgmt/PL20140000113_CP-2014- 2_SanMarino_Petition.pdf Packet Page -28- 5/12/2015 9.A. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.9.A. Item Summary: Recommendation to deny the single, 2014 Cycle 1 Growth Management Plan Amendment petition PL20140000113/CP-2014-2 specific to the San Marino Planned Unit Development. (Adoption Hearing) (Companion to rezone petition PUDA-PL20140000100, San Marino Planned Unit Development) Meeting Date: 5/12/2015 Prepared By Name: KendallMarcia Title: Planner, Senior, Comprehensive Planning 4/16/2015 6:55:10 AM Submitted by Title: Planner, Principal, Comprehensive Planning Name: SchmidtCorby 4/16/2015 6:55:11 AM Approved By Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, Community Development & Environmental Services Date: 4/16/2015 2:57:46 PM Name: BosiMichael Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 4/17/2015 2:20:08 PM Name: WeeksDavid Title: Manager - Planning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 4/21/2015 2:39:24 PM Name: StoneScott Title: Assistant County Attorney, CAO Land Use/Transportation Date: 4/24/2015 10:43:44 AM Packet Page -29- 5/12/2015 9.A. Name: CasalanguidaNick Title: Deputy County Manager, County Managers Office Date: 4/28/2015 6:11:25 PM Name: StoneScott Title: Assistant County Attorney, CAO Land Use/Transportation Date: 4/29/2015 10:45:39 AM Name: IsacksonMark Title: Division Director - Corp Fin & Mgmt Svc, Office of Management & Budget Date: 4/29/2015 11:08:46 AM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 4/30/2015 10:10:25 AM Name: CasalanguidaNick Title: Deputy County Manager, County Managers Office Date: 4/30/2015 3:59:30 PM Packet Page -30- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -31- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -32- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -33- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -34- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -35- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -36- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -37- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -38- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -39- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -40- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -41- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -42- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -43- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -44- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -45- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -46- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -47- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -48- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -49- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -50- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -51- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -52- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -53- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -54- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -55- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -56- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -57- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -58- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -59- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -60- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -61- 5/12/2015 9.A. Pa c k e t P a g e - 6 2 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . A . Pa c k e t P a g e - 6 3 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . A . Pa c k e t P a g e - 6 4 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . A . Pa c k e t P a g e - 6 5 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . A . Pa c k e t P a g e - 6 6 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . A . Pa c k e t P a g e - 6 7 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . A . Pa c k e t P a g e - 6 8 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . A . Pa c k e t P a g e - 6 9 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . A . Pa c k e t P a g e - 7 0 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . A . Pa c k e t P a g e - 7 1 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . A . Pa c k e t P a g e - 7 2 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . A . Pa c k e t P a g e - 7 3 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . A . Pa c k e t P a g e - 7 4 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . A . Pa c k e t P a g e - 7 5 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . A . Pa c k e t P a g e - 7 6 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . A . Pa c k e t P a g e - 7 7 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . A . Pa c k e t P a g e - 7 8 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . A . Pa c k e t P a g e - 7 9 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . A . Packet Page -80- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -81- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -82- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -83- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -84- 5/12/2015 9.A. RESOLUTION NO. 14- 262 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY THATMAY BE ACHIEVED IN THE 196.4 ACRE UNDEVELOPEDPORTION OF THE SAN MARINO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FROM 2.5 UNITS PER ACRE UTILIZING TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS ("TDRS") TO 3.02 UNITS PER ACRE UTILIZING TDRS, ANDTO ALLOW THE TRANSFER OF RESIDENTIAL DENSITY TO THAT PORTION OF THE SAN MARINO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FROM SENDING LANDS LOCATED MORE THAN ONE (1) MILE FROM THE URBAN BOUNDARY, AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. THE SUBJECT 196.4-ACRE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 1-1/2 MILES NORTH OF RATTLESNAKE- HAMMOCK ROAD IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 1PL20140000113/CP-2014-21 WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land DevelopmentRegulation Act of 1985, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensiveplan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authorityfor local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain proceduresto amendadopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, Petitioner, Stock Development, initiated this amendment to the Future Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, on November 6, 2014, the Collier County Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to the authority granted to it by Section 163.3174, F.S., and has recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and 1 14-CMP-00934/1 1 3 1 666/I l-86 1 of 2 Rev. I(/12./14 Words underlined are additions; Words str-uolFthfotigh are deletions are a break in text Packet Page -85- 5/12/2015 9.A. WHEREAS, on December 9, 2014, the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearingapproved the transmittal of the proposed amendment to the state land planning agency in accordance with Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of Collier County's proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, various State agencies and the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) have thirty (30) days to review the proposed amendment and DEO must transmit, in writing, to Collier County its comments within said thirty (30) days pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, Collier County, upon receipt of the written comments from DEO must adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment within one hundred and eighty (180) days of such receipt pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and i WHEREAS, the DEO, within five (5) days of receipt of Collier County's adopted Growth Management Plan Amendment, must notify the County of any deficiencies of the Plan Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), F.S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: The Board of CountyCommissioners herebyapproves the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein, for the purpose of transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity and other reviewing agencies thereby initiating the required State evaluation of the Growth Management Plan Amendment prior to final adoption. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote this °A-k-\ day of ---- e c fix- 2014. ATTES .J d""BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DW*I E. BRO ,K, CLERK COLLIER COUNT LORIDA t' t PI. J I i Ii`' O'er- , N.. 4 ',Deputq eferkt ` 7411.1.' TOMHENNING, a airman Attestaat0 Cbr3 signature only. pproved a to form and legality: leidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit "A" 114 4 M1P-009341131666 I I -86 2 of 2 RCN. I1/12,14 Words underlined are additions; Words s4r-fid,c-tlifeugh are deletions are a break in text 0 Packet Page -86- 5/12/2015 9.A. PL20140000113 CP-2014-2 EXHIBIT "A" FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT Page 28] 2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict Thepurpose ofthisSubdistrict is to provide transitionaldensities betweenthe Urban Designated Area and the Agricultural/Rural Area and comprisesapproximately 5,500 acres and 5% of the Urban Mixed Use District. Residential land usesmay be allowed at a maximum base density of 1.5 units per gross acre, plus any density bonus thatmay be achieved via COME Policy 6.2.5 (6) b.1., and either "a" or "b" below=_ Within the Urban Residential Fringe, rezone requests are not subject to the densityrating system, except as specifically provided below for the Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus. All rezones are encouraged to be in the form of a planned unit development. Proposed development in the Subdistrict shall be fully responsible for all necessary water management improvements, includingthe routing of all on-site and appropriate off-site water through the project's watermanagement system, and a fair share costofnecessary improvements to the CR 951 canal/out-fall system made necessary by new development in the Subdistrict. a. Up to 1.0 unit per gross acre via the transfer of up to one (1.0) dwelling unit (transferable development right) per acre from lands located within onemile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands, except in thecase of with the followingexceptions: i. pProperties thatstraddle the Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 ofthe Density RatingSystem, which may achieve an additionalmaximumdensity of up to 1.3 units per gross acre for all lands designated as Urban Residential Fringe via the transfer of up to 1.3 dwelling units (transferable development rights) peracre from lands locatedwithin one mile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use DistrictSendingLands; or, ii. The Urban Residential Fringeportion of theNaplesReserveResidentialPlanned Unit Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forthabove and mayutilize TDRs from any lands designated Sending within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowabledensity; or, iii. Up to 1.52 additional units peracre may be achieved for Urban Residential Fringe lands within the 196.4 acre portion of the San MarinoPlanned Unit Development described below, via the transfer of 1.52 dwelling units transferable development right) per acre. The Property shall not be subject to theone mile limitation set forth above and may utilize TDRs derived from any lands designated Sendingwithin the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districtto achieve up to the maximum allowable density. The Property is further described as follows: That portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described in Ordinance No. 2000-10, as amended, excepting the ±39 acres located in the South 1/ 2 of the Southwest 1/ 4 of the Northwest 1/ 4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and in the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. 14-CMP-00934/1130955/1] 1 Words underlined are added; words struck-through are deleted. Row of asterisks (**** ""` ****) denotes break in text. CA(Packet Page -87- 5/12/2015 9.A. PL20140000113 CP-2014-2 b. In the case of properties specifically identified below, a density bonus of up to 6.0 additional units per gross acremay be requestedfor projectsproviding affordable-workforce housing (home ownership only) for low and moderate income residents of CollierCounty, pursuant to Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, or its successorordinance, except as provided for below-_ Within the Urban Residential Fringe, rezone requestsarc not subject to the SubdistriGt, Properties eligible for the Affordable-workforce HousingDensity Bonus (home ownership only) will be specifically identified herein. The actual number of bonus unitsper gross acreshall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the conditions and procedures set forth in Section 2.06.00 of the Land Development Code, except that, Section 2.06.03 shallnot apply, and the number of dwelling units required to be sold to buyers earning 80% or less of Collier County's median income, as calculatedannually by the Department of Housing andUrban Development HUD), shall be at least thirtypercent (30%). The followingproperties are eligible for an Affordable-workforce Housing Density Bonus (home ownership only) of up to 6.0 additionaldwelling units per acre. i. Property located on the East side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately 6 tenths of a mile south of intersection with RattlesnakeHammock Road (C.R. 864), in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, and further described as follows: THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 'A OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 ANDTHE NORTHWEST '/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, LESS THE NORTH THIRTY FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY PURPOSES ONLY OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA LESS THE WEST 100 FEET THEREOF, AND; THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST '/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, LESS THE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF FOR ROAD RIGHT OF WAY, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND; THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH '/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 'A OF THE SOUTHWEST '/4 AND THE SOUTH % OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST IA OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDASUBJECT TOAN EASEMENT OVERAND ACROSS THE WEST 36 FEET THEREOF, AND; AN EASEMENT 36 FEET IN WIDTH OVER AND ACROSS THE EAST 36 FEET OF THENORTH 1/2 OF THENORTH 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 14-CMP-00934/1130955/1] 2 Words underlined are added; words str-ue gh are deleted. Row of asterisks (**** **** ****) denotes break in text.Packet Page -88- 5/12/2015 9.A. PL20140000113 CP-2014-2 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST %, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIERCOUNTY, FLORIDA, AND TOGETHER WITH; A STRIP OF LAND DESIGNATED AS RIGHT OF WAY OVER AND ACROSS THENORTH 50 FEET OF THESOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST '/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTYFLORIDA, AND; THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST % OF THE SOUTHWEST '/4, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND; THE SOUTHWEST '/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST % OF THE NORTHWEST '/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 'A, SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND; THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST '/4 OF THE NORTHWEST '/4 OF SOUTHWEST 1/4 LESSTHENORTH 30 FEET FOR RIGHT OF WAY OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND; THE NORTH 1/ 2 OF THE NORTHWEST '/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST '/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST %, LESSTHE WEST 100 FEET OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIERCOUNTY, FLORIDA, AND; THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST %, LESS THE NORTH 328.19 FEET OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA, CONTAINING 55 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM:Page 49] 2. DensityBonuses f. Transfer of Development Rights Bonus To encourage preservation/conservation of natural resources, density transfers are permitted as follows: a) FromUrban designated areas into that portion of the Urban designated area subject to this Density Rating System, in accordance with the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) provision contained in Section 2.03.07 of the Land Development Code, adopted by Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended, on June 22, 2004 and effectiveOctober 18, 2004. For projects utilizing this TDR process, density may be increased above and beyond the density otherwiseallowed by the Density RatingSystem. b) From SendingLands in conjunction with qualified infill development. c) From Sending Lands locatedwithin one mile of the Urban Boundary into lands designated Urban Residential Fringe, at a maximumdensity increase of one unit pergross acre, except for with the following exceptions: pProperties that straddlethe Urban Residential Fringe and the Rural Fringe MixedUse Sending Lands designations, and meet the other Density Blending criteria provided for in subsection 5.2 of theDensity RatingSystem, w may transfer TDRs from Sending Landslocated within one mile of the Urban 14-CMP-00934/1130955/1] 3 Words underlined are added; words strask-h are deleted. Row ofasterisks (**** **** ****) denotes break in text. CM Packet Page -89- 5/12/2015 9.A. PL20140000113 CP-2014-2 Boundary into lands designated Urban ResidentialFringe, at a maximum density increaseof 1.3 units per gross acre. ii. TheUrban Residential Fringe portion of the NaplesReserveResidential Planned Unit Development located in Section 1, Township 51 South, Range 26 East shall not be subject to theonemile limitation set forthabove and may utilize TDRsfrom any lands designated Sending withinthe Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowabledensity increase. iii. Up to 1.52 additional units per acre may be achievedfor Urban Residential Fringe lands withinthe 196.4 acre portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Developmentdescribed below, via the transfer of 1.52 dwelling units (transferable development right) per acre. The Property shall not be subject to the one mile limitation set forthabove andmay utilize TDRs derived from any lands designated Sending withinthe Rural Fringe Mixed Use District to achieve up to the maximum allowable density. TheProperty is further described as follows: That portion of the San Marino Planned Unit Development described in Ordinance No. 2000-10, as amended, excepting the ±39 acres located in the South 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of theNorthwest 1/4 of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and in the Northwest 1/4 of the Southwest IA of Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. In no case shall density be transferred into theCoastal High Hazard Areafrom outside the Coastal High Hazard Area. 1 4-C M P-00934/1130955/1] 4 Words underlined are added; words strudr,through are deleted. Row ofasterisks (**** **** ****) denotes break in text. Packet Page -90- 5/12/2015 9.A. Packet Page -91- 5/12/2015 9.A.