Loading...
Agenda 05/12/2015 Item # 9B 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 Number 2000-10, the San Marino Planned Unit Development, by increasing the maximum dwelling units from 352 to 650; by removing the Golf Course Uses; by establishing two Development Parcels as Parcel A and Parcel B; by adding Permitted Uses for Parcel B; by adding Development Standards for Parcel B; by adding Deviations; by revising the Master Plan; by revising Developer Commitments for the PUD located on the east side of CR 951 approximately 1.5 miles south of Davis Boulevard in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida consisting of 235± acres; and by providing an effective date (Petition PUDA- PL20140000100) [Companion to CP-2014-2/PL20140000113]. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) review staff’s findings and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) regarding the above referenced petition and render a decision regarding the 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 petitioner is asking the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to consider an application for an amendment to the existing PUD zoned project to allow numerous changes in conjunction with a proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment. For details about the project proposal, refer to “Purpose/Description of Project” in the attached staff report prepared for the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC). FISCAL IMPACT: The PUD amendment by and of itself will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no guarantee that the project, at build out, will maximize its authorized level of development. However, if the PUD amendment is approved, a portion of the land could be developed and the new development will result in an impact on Collier County public facilities. The County collects impact fees 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 of the Growth Management Plan as needed to maintain 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 Planning Commission to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): Comprehensive Planning staff finds that the proposed PUD Amendment may not be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element unless the staff recommended changes are made. Packet Page -92- 5/12/2015 9.B. Please refer to the “Growth Management Plan Consistency” in the attached staff report prepared for the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC). COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard petition PUDA-PL20140000100, San Marino RPUD on April 2, 2015. The CCPC unanimously voted 4 to 0 to forward this petition along with the companion Growth Management Plan Amendment, PL2014-0000113/CP-2014-2 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval. The approval is subject to the following CCPC conditions of approval which have been incorporated into the PUD document: 1. The applicant’s modified and highlighted language shall be accepted subject to the CCPC comments that were made at meeting. 2. The process for acknowledging contact with the northern property owner regarding interconnection shall be documented in the PUD document. 3. The major entry road may have a 6-foot wide sidewalk along one side of the road. 4. The Staff recommendations contained in the Staff Report shall not be supported (due to changes as noted in these stipulations and elimination of the Deviation for the additional real estate sign). 5. PUD Section 2.7 shall be deleted. 6. The language regarding carports and utility buildings as accessory uses in Parcel B shall be removed from the PUD Document. 7. The PUD boundary setback shall be 15 feet. 8. The PUD boundary setback for recreational uses shall be 100 feet. 9. PUD Section 4.2.A.5 shall not be deleted and shall remain. 10. PUD Sections 5.4.A, B, and C shall be deleted. 11. The landscape buffers shall be noted on the Master Plan and shall be noted in the Deviation for clarity. 12. The Master Plan shall be revised to show a minimum 50-foot wide preserve extending along the eastern property line so as to match the northern limit of the lake in the adjacent Willow Run PUD. As there is a recommendation of denial of the companion Growth Management Plan Amendment, this petition will be placed on the regular agenda. Packet Page -93- 5/12/2015 9.B. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS : This is an amendment to the existing San Marino Planned Unit Development (PUD) (Ordinance No.2000-10). The burden falls upon the applicant for the amendment to prove that the proposal is consistent with all of the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), should it consider denial, that such denial is not arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the amendment does not meet one or more of the listed criteria. Criteria for PUD Amendments 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 PUD 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 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. 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? Packet Page -94- 5/12/2015 9.B. 10. Will the proposed PUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? 11. Would the requested PUD 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. Packet Page -95- 5/12/2015 9.B. 25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed PUD 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. 26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the PUD rezone request that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare? The BCC 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 BCC hearing as these items relate to these criteria. 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 and further recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approves the request for PUDA- PL20140000100, San Marino Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), subject to the approval of the companion Growth Management Plan Amendment specific to the San Marino RPUD, PL2014-0000113/CP-2014-2. Prepared by: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA Zoning Services Division, Growth Management Department Attachments: 1) Staff Report 2) Proposed Ordinance 3) Ordinance number 2000-10 4) Location Map 5) Master Plan 6) Neighborhood Information Synopsis 7) Density Map 8) Application- go to: http://www.colliergov.net/ftp/AgendaMay1215/GrowthMgm t/San Marino%28PUDA-PL20140100%29Application.pdf 9) Legal Ad Packet Page -96- 5/12/2015 9.B. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.9.B. 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 Number 2000-10, the San Marino Planned Unit Development, by increasing the maximum dwelling units from 352 to 650; by removing the Golf Course Uses; by establishing two Development Parcels as Parcel A and Parcel B; by adding Permitted Uses for Parcel B; by adding Development Standards for Parcel B; by adding Deviations; by revising the Master Plan; by revising Developer Commitments for the PUD located on the east side of CR 951 approximately 1.5 miles south of Davis Boulevard in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida consisting of 235± acres; and by providing an effective date (Petition PUDA-PL20140000100) [Companion to CP-2014- 2/PL20140000113]. Meeting Date: 5/12/2015 Prepared By Name: GundlachNancy Title: Planner, Principal, Comprehensive Planning 4/15/2015 11:26:43 AM Approved By Name: BellowsRay Title: Manager - Planning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 4/16/2015 1:53:31 PM Name: BosiMichael Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 4/17/2015 2:28:27 PM Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, Community Development & Environmental Services Date: 4/20/2015 10:19:09 AM Name: AshtonHeidi Title: Managing Assistant County Attorney, CAO Land Use/Transportation Packet Page -97- 5/12/2015 9.B. Date: 4/23/2015 2:19:34 PM Name: CasalanguidaNick Title: Deputy County Manager, County Managers Office Date: 4/27/2015 9:04:41 PM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 4/30/2015 9:59:53 AM Name: UsherSusan Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior, Office of Management & Budget Date: 5/4/2015 10:41:37 AM Name: CasalanguidaNick Title: Deputy County Manager, County Managers Office Date: 5/4/2015 11:32:03 AM Packet Page -98- 5/12/2015 9.B. Pa c k e t P a g e - 9 9 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 0 0 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 0 1 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 0 2 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 0 3 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 0 4 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 0 5 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 0 6 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 0 7 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 0 8 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 0 9 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 1 0 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 1 1 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 1 2 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 1 3 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 1 4 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 1 5 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 1 6 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 1 7 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 1 8 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 1 9 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 2 0 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 2 1 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 2 2 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 2 3 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 2 4 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Pa c k e t P a g e - 1 2 5 - 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 5 9 . B . Packet Page -126- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -127- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -128- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -129- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -130- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -131- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -132- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -133- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -134- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -135- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -136- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -137- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -138- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -139- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -140- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -141- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -142- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -143- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -144- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -145- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -146- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -147- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -148- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -149- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -150- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -151- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -152- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -153- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -154- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -155- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -156- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -157- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -158- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -159- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -160- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -161- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -162- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -163- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -164- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -165- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -166- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -167- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -168- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -169- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -170- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -171- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -172- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -173- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -174- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -175- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -176- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -177- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -178- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -179- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -180- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -181- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -182- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -183- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -184- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -185- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -186- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -187- 5/12/2015 9.B. Page 1 of 5 Memorandum To: Kay Deselem, AICP & Corby Schmidt, AICP From: Alexis Crespo, AICP cc: Richard Yovanovich, Esq. Date: October 28, 2014 Subject: San Marino (PUDA-PL20140000 100) & (CP-2014-2 /PL-2104-0000113) Neighborhood Information Me eting (NIM) Synopsis Stock Development and H&LD Venture, LLC, in conjunction with Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., Waldrop Engineering, P.A., an d Collier County Staff conducted a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) on Tuesday, October 21, 2014. The meeting was held at 5:30 p.m. at the South Regional Library at 8065 Lely Cultural Parkway. The sign-in sheet is attached as Exhibit “A”, and demonstrates approximately 19 residents were in attendance, not including the consultant team. Handouts were distributed outlining the project overview, proposed uses, and site development regulations, and are attached as Exhibit “B”. Alexis Crespo (Agent) conducted the meeting with introductions of the consultant team, and an overview of the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment and PUD Amendment applications. Ms. Crespo outlined the project location and existing PUD approval. Ms. Crespo explained the two (2) applications under review by Staff will allow for increased density (843 units versus the 352 units currently approved) through the use of TDRs; ability to utilize TDRs outside the 1 mile Urban boundary; and various modifications to the PUD document relating to allowable uses, development regulations, devia tions, and commitments. Ms. Crespo discussed the handouts provided to attendees and presented th e approved PUD Master Plan and proposed PUD master plan in detail, as well as an aerial of the site, noting the location of preserve area in proximity to Forest Glen, and where the additional units will go in place of the permitted public golf course. Ms. Crespo also discussed the requested deviations relating to signage. Ms. Crespo also outlined the public input opportun ities throughout the process, and noted the GMPA transmittal hearing before the Collier County Planning Commission is scheduled for November 6, 2014, and clarified this hearing only covers the Growth Management Plan Amendment application. She noted the public hearings for the PUD Amendment would likely occur in early 2015. Packet Page -188- 5/12/2015 9.B. Page 2 of 5 Richard Yovanvoich noted that the project has not u tilized any of the available TDR density, so there are 196 units available for development on the Property today without the amendments. Following the Consultant’s presentation, the meeting was opened up to attendees to make comments and ask the Agent questions regarding the proposed development. The following is a summarized list of the questions asked and responses given. Question/Comment 1: Are you looking for a stop light? Response: There’s a condition that if a signal is warranted we would have to pay our proportionate fair share for that signal. That is all based upon warrants dictated by the County, but there is a provision in our zoning for a traffic signal if needed. Question/Comment 2: Typically how long does (the permitting process) take? Response: Takes a while. We filed our application for the Growth Management Plan Amendment in February. Once we get through this zoning then we have to do construction plans, we have to get our permits from the South Florida Water Management District for water management, we also have to get environmental permits for the preserve areas, so I would think it would be another couple years before you’d see construction commence. Question/Comment 3: Are there going to be any apartments for rent? Response: Zoning doesn’t dictate rental or ownership, but I can tell you based on Stock’s involvement that they don’t do that type of product type. There’s a significant 350-unit apartment complex to the south, so I wouldn’t imagine there would be any market demand for apartments. Question/Comment 4: Do you know what the price point for these single-family homes will be? Response: It’s premature to guess, but I know from working in other new communities, single- family in Collier County is above $400K at this point for the most part. Question/Comment 5 & 6: What is the square footage of majority of the homes? Response: We aren’t at that stage yet. Question/Comment 7: Who’s the builder? Response: I don’t know who the builder will be right now. Stock is the Applicant and working through the zoning process with the landowner. They may or may not be the ultimate developer. But I think you are probably familiar with projects that Stock’s been involved with, so quality won’t be an issue or a concern. Question/Comment 8: Several years ago they were meeting to do a mixed-use development out here, a Habitat (for Humanity) project, a low market rate, that’s not what they are planning? Response: No, that’s off the table. This is not an affordable housing project. Question/Comment 9: I noticed on your handout that you are thinking of boat, canoe docks, fishing piers, are you putting a lake there? Response: Yes, we have several lakes. We try to do large expansive lakes as an amenity for the residents. Question/Comment 10: So the shaded areas are lakes? Packet Page -189- 5/12/2015 9.B. Page 3 of 5 Response: Yes, we have three lakes shown on the PUD Master Plan. Willow Run PUD to the south has the big mining lakes. Question/Comment 11: Will there be any retail area? Response: There’s no commercial proposed in this application. Question/Comment 12: What other projects has this developer developed? Response: Stock Development has been involved in Lely Resort, Olde Cypress, Grandezza, Paseo, Fiddler’s Creek. High-quality Development. They are also building homes in Quail West. Question/Comment 13: But it’s not a plan to just develop it and then sell the whole thing? Response: No, Stock has been involved since the application preparation stage, guiding us through, so the intent is to partner with them because they are a quality builder. Question/Comment 14: Where I come from we have planners that sort of concur with what the developer is doing, is it the same process here in Florida? Response: Yes, we have the (County) Staff here. They review our applications and are in the process of preparing a staff report. The zoning staf f report has not been completed yet, but it’s under review. Question/Comment 15: As a result of this meeting it may be changed? Response: Certainly, neighborhood information meetings are intended to get input from the community on the proposed development. Question/Comment 16: Who’s that (Staff)? Response: Corby Schmidt and Mike Sawyer work for Collier County. Question/Comment 17: Will there be a wall? Response: Walls are permitted around the perimeter of the subject property, we have asked for a slightly taller wall along Collier Blvd. to serve as a sound barrier similar to the projects to the south, such as Hacienda Lakes, I believe a 6 foot tall wall is the maximum height permitted by the code. And the intent is to be gated, so walls are intended. Question/Comment 18: I assume if you did walls like that you would do appropriate landscaping, so that from the road side you didn’t just look at a wall? So you don’t even notice the wall? Response: Code requires us to plant landscaping on the public side of the wall. Question/Comment 19: But it would be a landscaping wall, not a block wall? Response: A wall with landscaping, and there are also different requirements for walls to make sure they are architecturally designed in a way that’s consistent with the development. The walls can’t be unfinished concrete. Question/Comment 20: And if this wasn’t accepted we could end up with a lot worse? I just want everyone to get that message as well, this is a good thing compared to other options as well. Response: Collier Boulevard is an emerging part of Collier County, this is where people want to be. Question/Comment 21: Is there any chance with all that you’re doing here you’d have to plant anything in the median going up and down Collier Boulevard? Packet Page -190- 5/12/2015 9.B. Page 4 of 5 Response: No, the County would look at beautification projects. Question/Comment 22: It’s strictly residential with no amenities in it at all? Response: No commercial (is requested), we are asking for an amenity site in the central portion of the property, which would be include a clubhouse, pool and sport courts. There would be no restaurants or retail or anything of that nature, strictly residential and accessory amenities for residents. Question/Comment 23: So why would people want to be there if there are no amenities? Response: We are doing an amenity site in the central portion of the site to provide recreation for residents. Question/Comment 24: Does Collier County require a second entrance for emergency situations, if so where would that be? Response: Technically this community does have two entrances – there is one here to access what would be the residential community we are proposing (pointing to Parcel B access point), and there is an access point to Aventine at Naples, which is part of the San Marino PUD. Question/Comment 25: Where’s the demand for all of this? Response: We certainly believe there is demand for new residential uses in this portion of the County. Question/Comment 26: The church owns that little space of land there, but there’s no church there is there? Response: No, it’s owned by an entity that is a church. Question/Comment 27: How many acres is that? Response: That parcel is about 40-50 acres in size. Question/Comment 28: And that’s not something you were interested in having to make one big unit, so that would just be at some stage for the church to use themselves or somebody else? Response: Correct, yes. It’s zoned agricultural, so if they want to change they will have to meet with all you folks and present their plans. Question/Comment 29: Can you review the timing of this total project given certain limitations of course? Response: Yes, we have two applications to achieve this plan. We are going to our first hearing on November 6 for the CCPC, that’s called a transmittal hearing for the Growth Management Plan Amendment. Then we go to the Board of County Commissioners on December 9 th for our transmittal hearing, and then this would get sent to the State in Tallahassee where State planners will review it, that takes about 45 days, now we’re into January. Then it’s going to come back and go back to the Planning Commission, let’s say February-March, and then it’s going to go back to the Board in probably April-May and by the time our zoning a nd comp plan amendment will meet up and both applications would be approved on the same day by the Board of County Commissioners in April- May 2015. And then after that we have to get construction permits, and environmental permits and water management permits and that would probably take another year to 18 months. So now we’re into 2016. That’s our best estimate based on where we are today. Packet Page -191- 5/12/2015 9.B. Page 5 of 5 Question/Comment 29: And if there’s any hitches along the way that just extends it? Response: Correct. Question/Comment 29: What kind of hitches would anticipate? Response: None. Question/Comment 29: So if everything goes smoothly I’m looking at mid-2016/2017 before you could even turn dirt? Response: I would estimate that timeframe based on where we’re at today. Question/Comment 29: And then it’s probably going to take you a couple years to build? Response: I would assume a project of this size would be a phased development. Question/Comment 29: Phased over how many [years]? Response: That’s really dependent on market demand, it’s premature to provide specifics, but certainly you don’t go in and build 490 units in six months. Question/Comment 29: And the first phase would be what type of dwelling? Response: We do not have that information yet. Question/Comment 29: And they are all going to be the same type of dwelling unit? Response: We are requesting a mix of dwelling types, single-family, two-family villa type products and multi-family as well as townhomes. So we are requesting a similar kind of mix that you see in Forest Glen and that’s approved in Willow Run. There were no further questions or comments. Ms. Crespo thanked attendees for coming and noted that her contact information was provided in the le tter should anyone have more questions regarding the project. The meeting concluded at approximately 6:10 p.m. The meeting was recorded per the CD attached as Exhibit “C”. Packet Page -192- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -193- 5/12/2015 9.B. SAN MARINO Neighborhood Information Meeting Project Information Sheet Project Size: 235+/-acres Future Land Use: Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Approved Density/Uses: 352 multi-family dwelling units with public golf course Proposed Future Land Use Changes:  Allow the use of Transferable Develo pment Rights (TDRs) from Sending Lands located more than 1 mile from the Urban Boundary;  Utilize these TDR to achieve a density of 4.0 units per acre per the Urban Residential Fringe District versus 2.5 units per acre currently permitted;  The proposed amendment is site specific in that it only applies to the San Marino PUD.  Any increase in density in the San Marino PUD above 1.5 dwelling units per acre will require the use of TDRs; however, su ch TDRs may come from any Sending designated lands. Proposed PUD Amendment/Zoning Changes:  Increase maximum density to 843 dwelli ngs units (including single-family, two- family, townhouse, and multi-family dwelling types) and recreational accessory uses;  Remove the golf course use;  Revise the PUD Master Plan, modify perm itted uses, development standards, and developer commitments; and  Add deviations. Packet Page -194- 5/12/2015 9.B. SAN MARINO PERMITTED USES MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS The maximum number of residential dwelling units within the PUD shall be 843 units. A maximum of 350 dwelling units are permitted within Parcel “A”, and a maximum of 493 dwelling units are permitted with Parcel “B”. PERMITTED USES No building, structure or part th ereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. PARCEL A Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Multi-family dwellings. 2. Golf courses. 3. Community centers/clubhouses. 4. Any other principal uses deemed comparable in nature by the Board of Zoning Appeals and Hearing Examiner pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). B. PARCEL A Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: 1. Customary accessory residentia l uses and structures including carports, garages, and utility buildings. 2. Recreational uses and facilities incl uding swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, child ren’s playground areas, tot lots, walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buildings, h ealth club/spa, and basketba ll/shuffle board courts. 3. Managers’ residences and offices, rental facilities, and model units. 4. Water management facilities and related structures. 5. Essential services, including in terim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities. 6. Gatehouse. 7. Clubhouse, pro-shop, offices, cart stor age facility, practice putting greens, driving ranges and other customar y accessory uses of golf courses. 8. Child-care facilities for on-si te residents and their children. 9. Small commercial establishments including gift shops, golf equipment sales, restaurants, cocktail lounges and similar uses, intended to exclusively serve patrons of the golf course or other permitted recreational facilities. 10. Any other accessory use deemed compatible by the Board of Zoning Appeals and Hearing Examiner pursuan t to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). Packet Page -195- 5/12/2015 9.B. C. PARCEL B Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Single family detached dwelling units 2. Single family zero lot line units 3. Two-family, duplex dwelling units 4. Townhouse dwelling units 5. Multi-family dwelling units 6. Clubhouse. 6. Any other principal and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals and Hearing Examiner pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). D. PARCEL B Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: 1. Customary accessory uses and struct ures including carports, garages, and utility buildings. 3. Recreational uses and facilities that serve the residents, including swimming pools, tennis courts, volle yball courts, fishing docks, walking paths, picnic areas, recreation buil dings, and basketball/shuffle board courts. 4. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, bikeways, gazebos, boat and canoe doc ks, fishing piers, picnic areas, fitness trails and shelters. 5. Model homes, model home sales centers, and sales trailers, including offices for project administration, c onstruction, sales and marketing, as well as resale and rental of units. 6. Entry Gates & Gatehouse. 7. Any other accessory use and relate d use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals, pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). Packet Page -196- 5/12/2015 9.B. SAN MARINO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PARCEL B STANDARDS SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED TOWNHO USE TWO FAMILY AND DUPLEX ZERO LOT LINE MULTI- FAMILY CLUB- HOUSE Minimum Lot Area 5,000 SF 1,800 SF 3,500 SF 4,000 SF N/A N/A Minimum Lot Width 50 feet 18 feet 35 feet 40 feet N/A N/A Min. Lot Depth 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet N/A N/A Min. Front Yard Setback 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Min. Side Yard Setback 5 feet 0 or 5 feet 0 or 5 feet 0 feet 10 feet 10 feet Min. Rear Yard Setback 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 0 feet Maximum Building Height Zoned Actual 35 feet 40 feet 45 feet 50 feet 35 feet 40 feet 35 feet 40 feet 65 feet 75 feet 50’ feet 65 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures Principal Structures 10 feet 0/10 feet 0/10 feet 10 feet 20’ for buildings 2 stories or less in height OR ½ sum of the building height for buildings 3 stories or greater in height 15 feet or .5 BH whichever is greater Min. Preserve Setback 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Packet Page -197- 5/12/2015 9.B. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SINGLE- FAMILY DETACHED TOWN- HOUSE TWO- FAMILY AND DUPLEX ZERO LOT LINE MULTI- FAMILY CLUB- HOUSE Min. Front Yard Setback SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS Min. Side Yard Setback 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 0 feet 5 feet Min. Rear Yard Setback 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet 5 feet Min. Preserve Setback 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures 10 feet 0/10 feet 0/10 f eet 0/10 feet 0/10 feet 5 feet Maximum Height Zoned Actual SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS SPS 45 feet 55 feet S Packet Page -198- 5/12/2015 9.B. GROSS DENSITY PER ACRE FOR MAJOR PUDs on CR951 (Radio Rd - U.S. 41) 0 0.5 1 1.5 0.25 Miles I75 Co l l i e r B L V D Tami a m i T R L E Davis BLVD Radio RD Sa n t a B a r b a r a B L V D Rattlesnake Hammock RD Co l l i e r B L V D I75 Forest Glen of Naples Density: 1.29 Cedar Hammock G & C Club Density: 1.9 Willow Run Density: 1.06 Naples NAT'L GC Density: 0.08 Naples Lakes CC Density: 1.56 Hacienda Lakes Density: 0.88 Winding Cypress Density: 1.49 Naples Reserve Density: 1.67 Lely Resort Density: 3.67 Naples Herigage G & CC Density: 1.42 Homes of Islandia Density: 0.18 First Assy. Minst.Density: 4.28 Lord's Way Density: 2.5 Rockedge Density: 5.23 Sierra Meadows Density: 4.95 Project Location:San Marino PUD µ GIS mapping: Beth Yang, AICP Growth Management Division §¨¦75 §¨¦75 £¤41 £¤41 $+951 $+951 $+951 Packet Page -199- 5/12/2015 9.B. Packet Page -200- 5/12/2015 9.B.