Loading...
Agenda 02/11/2014 Item # 9A 2/11/2014 9.A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to consider approving the Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict small-scale amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as Amended, for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. (Adoption Hearing) (PL20120002382/CPSS-2013-1) [Companion to Petition PUDZA-PL20120002357] OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to review the proposed small- scale Growth Management Plan amendment and consider adoption and transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. CONSIDERATIONS: The subject petition is submitted as a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment. As such, per Florida Statutes, the request is heard once only by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) and the BCC. If approved by the BCC,the petition is transmitted to the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). Per Chapter 163.3187, Florida Statutes, there are limitations for this type of amendment, as identified below, followed by staff comments in[brackets]. 1. Parcel must be 10 acres or less in size[subject site is ±9.92 acres]. 2. The annual cumulative acreage for all small-scale development amendments adopted by the local government does not exceed a maximum of 120 acres in a calendar year[There have been no small-scale amendments adopted in calendar year 2014]. 3. No text change to the goals, objectives and policies; only a site specific small-scale land use change to the future land use map shall be permitted. However, a text change related directly to, and adopted simultaneously with, a small-scale future land use map change amendment shall be allowed. [The proposed text change is directly related to, and is proposed to be adopted simultaneous with, a small-scale future land use map amendment]. 4. Site is not located within an Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) [the site is not located within the ACSC]. This petition seeks to amend the Future Land Use Element(FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan to establish the Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict to allow up to 108 market rate residential multi-family units through the use of 79 dwelling units from the existing density bonus pool provided for within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and 29 base density units. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Based on the review of this petition, including the supporting data and analysis, staff makes the following findings and conclusions. • There are no infrastructure related concerns. Packet Page-16- 2/11/2014 9.A. • There are no adverse environmental impacts as a result of this petition. • The petition would allow for a project of the same density as is presently approved on the site; however, the project would shift from affordable housing to market rate housing and the density above the base density would be achieved from the density bonus pool within the Overlay. • There are 388 density bonus pool units provided within the Overlay; all but approximately 10 remain available. These units are available for reallocation as an incentive for qualifying redevelopment projects. The proposed project would reduce the density bonus pool by 79 units to about 300 units. • The Affordable Housing Advisory Committee heard the applicant's presentation on this project at their August 19, 2013 meeting, but took no formal action. • The Community Redevelopment Agency (Bayshore/Gateway Triangle) Advisory Board heard the applicant's presentation on this project at their June 4, 2013 meeting and voted 6-1 to support the project. • The Interim Executive Director of the CRA (Bayshore/Gateway Triangle) provided an email to Comprehensive Planning staff, dated September 12, 2013, in support of the petition. • The proposed Subdistrict meets the Overlay criteria approved by the BCC in May of 2013, for a residential-only project, except that the project exceeds the maximum density of 8 DU/A and does not qualify as a redevelopment project. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost to process, review and advertise this petition was borne by the petitioner via application and advertisement fees. Therefore, there are no fiscal impacts to Collier County as a result of the adoption of this amendment. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment is authorized by, and subject to the procedures established in, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, The 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] GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Adoption of the proposed amendment by the BCC for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity will commence the thirty-day (30) challenge period for any affected person. Provided the small-scale development amendment is not challenged, it shall become effective thirty-one days (31) after BCC adoption. Packet Page-17- 2/11/2014 9.A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the BCC not adopt and transmit this small-scale GMP amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. This is based on BCC action taken in May of 2013 in adopting the amendment (Ordinance No. 13-42) to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay that established a density bonus provision for residential-only projects, including limiting residential density to 8 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) and only for redevelopment projects (this project is requesting 11 DU/A and is not a redevelopment project). COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard this petition at their December 19, 2013 meeting. The CCPC voted 6-0 to forward the subject petition to the BCC with a recommendation to adopt and transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, subject to: (1) limiting the multi-family units to townhouse and condominium units only; and, (2) requiring the 79 residential density bonus units be null and void and returned to the density bonus pool unless a Site Development Plan has been issued and remains active for the development by the 5th year of approval of the PUD or the BCC approves an extension of the residential density bonus units to a certain date. Prepared by: Michele Mosca,AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section, Planning and Zoning Department, Growth Management Division/Planning and Regulation Attachments: 1) CCPC Adoption Staff Report 2) Ordinance and Exhibit"A" 3) Project application and documentation are available at: http://www.collieraov.net/ftp/AgendaJan1414/GrowthMgmt/PL20120002382 CPSS- 2013-1 GMPA.pdf Packet Page-18- 2/11/2014 9.A. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.9.A. Item Summary: Recommendation to consider approving the Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict small-scale amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as Amended,for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. (Adoption Hearing) (PL20120002382/CPSS-2013-1) [Companion to Petition PUDZA- PL20120002357] Meeting Date: 2/11/2014 Prepared By Name: MoscaMichele Title: Planner, Principal,Comprehensive Planning 1/14/2014 1:34:25 PM Approved By Name: WeeksDavid Title: Manager-Planning,Comprehensive Planning Date: 1/15/2014 11:50:13 AM Name: BosiMichael Title: Manager-Planning,Comprehensive Planning Date: 1/16/2014 9:17:32 AM Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, GMD P&R Date: 1/17/2014 9:35:00 AM Name: AshtonHeidi Title: Section Chief/Land Use-Transportation,County Attor Date: 1/27/2014 1:47:34 PM Name: MarcellaJeanne Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning Date: 1/30/2014 3:13:32 PM Name: KlatzkowJeff Packet Page-19- 2/11/2014 9.A. Title: County Attorney, Date: 1/31/2014 1:58:24 PM Name: FinnEd Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior,Transportation Engineering&Construction Management Date: 1/31/2014 4:39:25 PM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager, County Managers Office Date: 2/4/2014 10:13:25 AM Packet Page-20- 2/11/2014 9.A. Agenda Item 9B .1** STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION/PLANNING AND REGULATION, PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: December 19, 2013 RE: PETITION CPSS-2013-1/PL20120002382, SMALL SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (Companion to PUDZA- PL20120002357) [ADOPTION HEARING] AGENT/APPLICANT/OWNERS Agents: Wayne Arnold Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Richard Yovanovich, Esq. Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 Applicant: Cirrus Pointe Partners, LLC 516 Commerce Drive Apopka, FL 32703 Owners: Cirrus Pointe Partners, LLC 516 Commerce Drive Apopka, FL 32703 I. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, comprising +9.92 acres, is located within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay at the northeast corner of the Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive, in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, located within the East Naples Planning Community. Packet Page -21- 2/11/2014 9.A. Agenda Item 9B _ -�_k►1� , j + eft 5ti t„rte",• as .- A f ......t " �l< y - 10„, ,:,f. . low. - limit ,I A. 1 - "ii°; ! -—.1 -r ' JYe y cxstcv.t" 4. i - t a ' -1: .".'" s t .1'"" s 1.,,,,, — II. REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant seeks to amend the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) text, Future Land Use Map and Future Land Use Map Series by: 1. Establishing the Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict on 9.92+ acres within the Urban designation (Urban – Mixed Use District) and within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, and providing for the proposed residential density and certain development standards; 2. Amending Policy 1.1 to add the Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict; and 3. Revising the Future Land Use Map to depict the new Subdistrict and creating a new Subdistrict Map as part of the Future Land Use Map Series. The proposed amended Subdistrict text is as follows: (Single underline text is added – as proposed by the petitioner. Staff's recommended modifications to the text can be found at the end of this Staff Report and within the Ordinance Exhibit A.) I. URBAN DESIGNATION A. URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT 17. Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict [new text, page 46] Packet Page -22- 2/11/2014 9.A. Agenda Item 9B This Subdistrict is applicable to the property located within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive, and comprised approximately 9.92+/- acres. The intent of this Subdistrict is to provide for the development of up to 108 market rate multi-family dwelling units on this infill property. Development in this Subdistrict shall be approved through the PUD rezoning process. Buildings shall be limited to a maximum of 3-stories of living area over a single level of parking. Based on the density provisions in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, the project would qualify for 29 base dwelling units. The developer shall be permitted to utilize 79 dwelling units from the existing pool of dwelling units established in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay in order to achieve the maximum 108 dwelling units within this Subdistrict. II. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner is requesting to establish the Bayshore/Thomasson Subdistrict on 9.92+ acres to allow up to 108 market rate, residential multi-family units through the use of 79 dwelling units from the existing density pool provided for within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and 29 base density units. HI. SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Existing Conditions: The subject 9.92+ acres is undeveloped; zoned RPUD-BMUD-R2, Cirrus Pointe Residential Planned Unit Development — Bayshore Mixed Use District — Residential 2 Subdistrict; and, designated Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and the Coastal High Hazard Area. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Residential multi-family residences (Abaco Bay Condominium); zoned PUD, Pinebrook Lakes Planned Unit Development; and, designated Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and the Coastal High Hazard Area. South: Across Thomasson Drive, Del's Convenience Store; zoned C-5-BMUD-NC, Heavy Commercial District, Bayshore Mixed Use District — Neighborhood Center Subdistrict; and, designated Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and the Coastal High Hazard Area; and, residential multi-family units, zoned RMF-6-BMUD- R2, Residential Multi-family (6 units/acre), Bayshore Mixed Use District, Residential 2 Subdistrict; and, designated Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and the Coastal High Hazard Area. West: Across Bayshore Drive, undeveloped acreage; zoned C-3-BMUD-NC, Commercial Intermediate District, Bayshore Mixed Use District — Neighborhood Center Subdistrict; and, designated Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and the Coastal High Hazard Area. 3 Packet Page-23- 2/11/2014 9.A. Agenda Item 9B East: Across a utility easement, residential single-family units; zoned RMF-6-BMUD-R2, Residential Multi-family (6 units/acre), Bayshore Mixed Use District, Residential 2 Subdistrict; and, designated Urban — Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and the Coastal High Hazard Area. IV. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: 1) Background: Development within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA): • Generally, Policy 12.2.5 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element defines the Coastal High Hazard Area as the geographical area lying below the elevation of the Category 1 storm surge line as presently defined in the 2011 Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council's Hurricane Evacuation Study. (Refer to the attached Ordinance Exhibit A Future Land Use Map for the general boundary.) • Policy 12.1.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element provides that land use plan amendments in the Category 1 hurricane vulnerability zone shall only be considered if such increases in densities provide appropriate mitigation to reduce the impacts of hurricane evacuation times. • Objective 3 and related Policies limit public expenditures in the CHHA for certain public facilities needed to support new development permitted by the Future Land Use Element. The subject petition encompasses property within the CHHA, results in a redistribution of previously authorized density within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, and proposes development allowed by the Future Land Use Element. Residential density permitted within the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict: • Residential density is permitted at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre (DU/A). However, properties within this Subdistrict are also within the Coastal High Hazard Area thus are subject to a reduction of 1 DU/A pursuant to the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE); this results in an adjusted base density of 3 DU/A. Through the Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB), up to an additional 8 DU/A could be achieved for a maximum of 11 DU/A. The subject property was initially rezoned by Ordinance No. 05-63 to the Cirrus Pointe RPUD, using the Affordable Housing Density Bonus (AHDB) provision, to allow a maximum density of 10.89 DU/A for a total of 108 dwelling units (78 units via the AHDB of which 32 dwelling units are affordable). Subsequently, the AHDB Agreement was amended by Ordinance No. 08-38 to increase the affordable units from 32 to 44 dwelling units while maintaining the same dwelling unit totals of 108 and 78. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay: • The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay of the FLUE was established in 2000 (Ordinance No.2000-87) to implement the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Area Plan, a guide for the physical and economic revitalization and enhancement of the community. 4 Packet Page-24- 2/11/2014 9.A. Agenda Item 9B • The creation of the Overlay provided for 388 residential density bonus units from the rezoning of the Botanical Gardens property. These bonus units could be reallocated throughout the Overlay to increase density as an incentive for the development of mixed use projects that met certain criteria. • Relevant to this petition, the Overlay was amended in 2013 (Ordinance No. 13-42) to also allow utilization of the density bonus pool for residential-only projects that: (1) have a maximum density of 8 DU/A; (2) utilize no more than 97 density bonus pool units; (3) are rezoned to PUD; (4) are a minimum of 3 acres; (5) constitute redevelopment of the site; and, (6) consist of market rate units only. The proposed Subdistrict is for property located within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, and allows a residential-only project that meets the above stated criteria except: the maximum density exceeds 8 DU/A and this is not a redevelopment site. 2) Environmental Impacts: A Senior Environmental Specialist with the Collier County Surface Water and Environmental Planning Section reviewed the environmental report and provided the following comments: • The environmental information provided for this amendment was the same as provided with the original PUD and is typically more detailed than required for a GMP amendment. No listed species have been documented on the project site and given the location of the site, not likely to occur on the property. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission on-line bald eagle nest locator was checked by staff and no bald eagle nests or nest protection zones are located on the subject property. Native vegetation for retention for the site has been previously identified on the PUD master plan. • The proposed GMP amendment will have no effect on the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME), including that of retention of native vegetation. Historical and Archeological Impacts: • The subject property is not located in an area of historical and archaeological probabability, as shown on the County's Historical/Archaeological Probability maps. A letter received on February 27, 2013 from the Florida Master Site File, indicates no previously recorded cultural resources on the project site. The project will be subject to the requirement for accidental discovery of archaeological or historical sites as required by Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 11.1.3. The provision is also included in Subsection 2.03.07 E of the Land Development Code (LDC). 3) Public Facilities Impacts: • Transportation: The subject project proposes no greater intensity than what is currently allowed by the Growth Management Plan. As such, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5-year planning period, and the subject application can be deemed consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan without mitigation. • Water: The subject project will be served by the City of Naples potable water service area. The anticipated demand for potable water for the project is 82,620 gallons per day. The City of Naples does not object to the proposed GMPA. 5 Packet Page -25- 2/11/2014 9.A. Agenda Item 9B • Wastewater: The subject project will be served by the Collier County Sewer District. The anticipated demand for wastewater for the project is estimated at 23,868 gallons per day. • Solid Waste: The service provider is Collier County Solid Waste Management. The 2012 AUIR identifies that the County has sufficient landfill capacity up to the year 2065 for the required lined cell capacity. The project construction time line is approximately 24 to 36 months. • Drainage: Future development is expected to comply with the SFWMD and/or Collier County rules and regulations that assure controlled accommodation of storm water events by both on-site and off-site improvements. • Park and Recreational Facilities: There will be no adverse impacts to park facilities from the proposed development. • Schools: There will be no adverse impacts to public school facilities from the proposed development. • EMS and Fire: The subject project is located within the East Naples Fire District. The nearest fire station and EMS services are located approximately one-half mile from the project site. The establishment of the Subdistrict with the proposed residential multi- family units is anticipated to have minimal impacts on these safety services. 4) Justification and Compatibility: • Justification: The applicant's justification is that this is an infill project, adequate infrastructure is available, the project is within walking distance to area amenities and services, and, the requested density is necessary for financial feasibility. This petition has the support of the CRA staff and Advisory Board. However, the proposed Subdistrict is not consistent with the amendments to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay adopted by the Board of County Commissioners earlier this year — it exceeds the maximum density of 8 DU/A and is not a redevelopment project. • Compatibility: To the east is single-family development, within the BMUD-R2 zoning overlay with a height limitation of 35 feet; one-story structures are immediately to the east and further to the east, across the local street, is a mixture of one and two-story structures. To the south, across Thomasson Drive, is a one-story convenience store within the BMUD-NC zoning overlay with a height limitation of 56 feet; and, a mixture of undeveloped lots and one-story single family development, within the BMUD-R2 zoning overlay. To the west, across Bayshore Drive, is undeveloped land within the BMUD-NC zoning overlay. To the north is a two-story multi-family development, zoned PUD (Pinebrook Lakes) with an allowed height of three stories. The proposed Subdistrict provides for three-stories over parking; for all surrounding lands, the Future Land Use designation is silent to height limits. Though the proposed Subdistrict allows higher profile structures than are allowed on surrounding properties, Comprehensive Planning staff defers to Zoning staff for compatibility analysis as part of the rezoning process when the entire project is evaluated (building heights, setbacks, buffering, building mass, building orientation, etc.). VI. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) NOTES: Refer to the NIM document immediately following this Staff Report. 6 Packet Page-26- 2/11/2014 9.A. Agenda Item 9B VII. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS: • There are no infrastructure related concerns. • There are no adverse environmental impacts as a result of this petition. • The petition would allow for a project of the same density as is presently approved on the site; however, the project would shift from affordable housing to market rate housing and the density above the base density would be achieved from the density bonus pool within the Overlay. • There are 388 density bonus pool units provided within the Overlay; all but approximately 10 remain available. These units are available for reallocation as an incentive for qualifying redevelopment projects. The proposed project would reduce the density bonus pool by 79 units to about 300 units. • The Affordable Housing Advisory Committee heard the applicant's presentation on this project at their August 19, 2013 meeting, but took no formal action. • The Community Redevelopment Agency (Bayshore/Gateway Triangle) Advisory Board heard the applicant's presentation on this project at their June 4, 2013 meeting and voted 6-1 to support the project. • The Interim Executive Director of the CRA (Bayshore/Gateway Triangle) provided an email to Comprehensive Planning staff, dated September 12, 2013, in support of the petition. • The proposed Subdistrict meets the Overlay criteria approved by the Board of County Commissioners earlier this year, for a residential-only project, except that the project exceeds the maximum density of 8 DU/A and does not qualify as a redevelopment project. VIII. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report has been reviewed by the County Attorney's office. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition CPSS-2013-1 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation not to approve for adoption and transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. This is based on the Board of County Commissioners action taken earlier this year in adopting the amendment to the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay that established a density bonus provision for residential-only projects. However, should the CCPC recommend approval, staff recommends the following revisions for the purpose of clarity and proper format. Words in single underline are added — as proposed by the petitioner; words in double underline are added and words in double eptfiree414r4144344 are deleted —as proposed by staff. 17. Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict [new text, page 46] This Subdistrict is located within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay at the northeast efue4kan4 corner of the fesetierg-ef Bayshore Drive/ awl Thomasson Drive intersection, and comprises d approximately 9.9244- acres. The intent of this Subdistrict is to provide for the development of up to 108 market rate, multi-family dwelling units Develo•ment in this Subdistrict shall be •1 -nt wi h •- .• . .h 5 if he B- sh• -/G-te a Trianale Redevelopment Overta , except this undeveloped site does not constitute re•-v-I••m- t -id t e m-xi m _- all•w-• si- I •e 18 • d1ellin• _n'ts •-r - r- f• a ma ' m of I; •w-Ilin• s - hi-v-• throu•h h- T.- ion if 79 dw-Ilin• 'ts from h- e is in• d-n i •• •••I es -•Ii h-• w h'n th- B- o e/Ga -w. Tri-n•l 'e• v-I••m �t Ov- - • 9 .,s- •w-I ' • I. - sr hi - - - --- _ --____= _ - Buildings shall be limited to a maximum of 3-stories of living area over a single level of parking. '---_- -_- - 7 7 '-'-- _ - ____ 7 Packet Page-27- 2/11/2014 9.A. Agenda Item 9B Prepared By: 'I Date: /7 z - °ch R. Ma,AICP, Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Section, Planning and Zoning Department I . Reviewed By: .. , �''_.,.. Date: I - 2 David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Plan Manager Comprehensive Planning Section, Planning and Zoning Department Reviewed By: Date: Michael Bosi, AICP, Director Planning and Zoning Department l-f ,r Approved By: // '` f'^ e Date: �` y Nick Casalangtiida(t irninistrator Growth Management Division Petition Number: CPSS-2013-1 Staff Report for December 19, 2013 CPCC meeting NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the February 11, 2014 BCC meeting. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: Mark P. Strain, CHAIRMAN 8 Packet Page-28- 2/11/2014 9.A. Cirrus Pointe PUD Petition PUDA-PL2012-2357 and Petition CP2013-1 Neighborhood Information Meeting March 25, 2013, 6:00 p.m. Wayne Arnold, agent for the applicant opened the meeting at 6:10 p.m. and introduced himself and Sharon Umpenhour with Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., Richard Yovanovich with Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A., representing the owner/developer, Jim Fields representing the property owner/developer, Kay Deselem and Michele Mosca representing Collier County Zoning and Growth Management Departments. There were approximately twenty members from the public in attendance. A sign-in sheet was provided. Mr. Arnold began the information meeting explaining the project as it exists and then proceeded to explain the proposed petition requests. He explained the project would increase from 108 units to 144 units and that a new subdistrict in the Comprehensive Plan had been filed to permit the 144 units on the property. He also indicated that the project was to become a rental apartment community. An aerial exhibit and existing and proposed Master Plans were displayed. Wayne showed the existing Master Plan and then the proposed plan and explained that the footprints have been revised slightly. He explained the building height had not increased but was now listed as 50 feet zoned and 60 feet actual rather than the previously approved 40 feet or 3 stories over parking and the reduction in the southern landscape buffer request was due to the 60 foot right-of-way width for Thomasson Drive. Wayne showed a color rendering of the building elevation and explained that the project name would be changing to Solstice RPUD. Rich Yovanovich mentioned that the project would be a market rate rental community and that 44 units would be rented to residents meeting the GAP housing standards for Collier County. He was asked to explain market rate rental and GAP housing and proceeded to explain that the project was not low income but geared towards people who could not afford high rent but didn't qualify for low income. GAP was the term used for people having incomes between 80%and 150%of the median income. Mr. Arnold concluded his presentation and asked for comments or questions from the meeting attendees. Attendees asked several questions regarding the project which included areas such as project and building security. Jim Fields indicated that the project would have a gated entry and security fencing. He further explained that the parking garage below each building would have a secure entrance for vehicles and that the elevators and stairwells would also have secured entrance doors. Page 1 of 4 Packet Page-29- 2/11/2014 9.A. Other areas of questions related to project timing, landscape buffers, term of rental length, and project building materials. Mr. Arnold, Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Fields addressed the attendee's questions. Mr.Arnold reminded the audience that no hearing dates have been scheduled and offered to provide any additional information if requested and to contact, Kay Deselem, Michele Mosca, Sharon Umpenhour or himself if anyone had further questions. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:05 p.m. More specifically questions asked are as follows: How many buildings are there? A total of six buildings are proposed. Will the affordable housing be in each building? No,not specific to a building. So could you please explain what is market rental and instead of doing affordable you are doing GAP? But it's not affordable housing? Rich Yovanovich explained the difference of the two and further explained how GAP work and what the requirements are. He also explained the median income. How big are the units? The units are from 830sf to 1300sf Is there a covenant that runs with it that says you could never rent it, you could always rent it, no one will ever be able to buy it,you can buy it in the future, what's the plan? We do not have a commitment that prohibits from condo conversion. How many parking spaces assigned to each unit? 1 or 2 depending on apartment size. Every unit will have a secured parking stall below building. Who is the owner who will be renting these? Cirrus Point Partners. Do you have a track record of owning other properties like this? Yes, mostly assisted living. Are there a maximum number of occupants per unit or per square feet? There is a County code requirement. What would happen if you didn't add the additional units but kept it at 108,would they be larger units,possibly more appealing? The infrastructure cost determines the units and the bank wanted more units. Page 2 of 4 Packet Page-30- 2/11/2014 9.A. Is this going to be a gated community? We are proposing a gated entry. How do you define gated? You will have to be a resident to enter. You will need a fob to enter the unmanned gate. How sturdy will the gate be because people would still get in? Garages would be secured so only the resident could enter with a code. Are there ground level entrances? Secure stairwells on each end with stairs and elevators.No living units on ground floor. Are you planning on installing peep holes in the doors? Yes and there will be security cameras. What sort of buffer between project to the north? Most of the northern buffer is preserve and there will be an LDC required buffer where there is no preserve. How about lighting? Will there be lights behind the buildings? There is not a need for excessive lighting except for security because there is a preserve and no vehicle access behind the buildings. You said the rent is $900 to $1200 is that$ 900 for affordable units or will they be lower than that? Base rent is$900 a month and those would meet the GAP criteria. Could you talk more about the income qualifications to be able to afford the $900 unit what's that income level. The median income was $72,000 for a family of 4 that would be $100,000 a year. A family of one would be $60,000 for a family of one would qualify for GAP housing. They sign a lease for $900 a month and then you make up the difference because you have the grant money? There is no difference, there is no grant money, there has to be 44 occupants that have to meet the GAP guidelines if not then after 5 years the money has to be paid back to the County. Will there be any restrictions so that people don't rent out by the month or week? There will be restrictive covenants to prevent that. All leases will be for 12 month minimum. You said you are decreasing buffers? Only on Thomasson Drive,because of the sidewalk that was built on the property. Page 3 of 4 Packet Page-31- 2/11/2014 9.A. If you found the market demanded a higher price point would you stay with the 108 instead of the 144 proposed? With the cost to build it is more cost effective to build the 144 units. Did I not read you could not get the financing from the bank unless you did the 144 units? That is correct. What's going to make your project different from other rental projects? Will be an annual lease, income levels are not low it will be a quality rental program. Each unit will have a secure entry and the community will be gated. Will the quality of construction be better than Botanical Gardens? This will be concrete block and precast concrete. If everything goes as planned when will you be ready to construct and when will the units be ready for rental? Plan to start construction by end of the year and the units will be finished within 18 to 24 months. All infrastructure will be built at the same time. Are the elevators going to require a card to go up? Yes entry card will also be keyed to the elevator Are you fencing all the way around? Yes. During construction will you be blasting? No blasting. Who is going to be your general contractor? Working with Don Garrett right now Do you have a management company in mind? Not at this time. Will there be a gated entrance on Bayshore? No,there is no access on Bayshore only Thomasson. Will there be a pool? Yes, there are plans for a community pool. Is there going to be an updated website? Yes, it will be updated. Page 4 of 4 Packet Page-32- 2/11/2014 9.A. THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 4069 BAY SHORE DRIVE, NAPLES, FL 34112 PHONE 239.643.1115 FAX 239.775.4456 BAYSHORE!GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY.REDEVELOPMENT LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES OF THE MAY 7, 2013 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Advisory Board was called to order by Mr. Steve Main at 6:00 p.m. at the CRA Office Meeting Room 4069 Bayshore Drive. '1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Board Members: Larry Ingram, Steve Main, Maurice Gutierrez, Karen Beatty, Peter Dvorak, Chuck Gunther and Mike Sherman. CRA Staff Present: Jean Jourdan, Interim Executive Director, Jean Jourdan, Ashley Caserta, Project Manager, and Ekna Guevara, Operations Coordinator. 2. Adoption of Agenda: Mr. Main asked if there were any additions or corrections to the published agenda. Hearing none, he asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Motion: Larry Ingram. 2"d: Mike Sherman. Approved 7-0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Main asked for a motion to approve the.April 2., 2013 meeting minutes. Motion: Maurice Gutierrez. 2nd: Karen Beatty.Approved 7-0. 4. Executive Director's Report: a. CRA Project Updates. 1- CAPA 17 acre: Staff reported that on March 12, 2013 the BCC reviewed CAPA's offer letter and CRA staff was directed not to proceed with obtaining professional real estate services and work with CAPA on an offer. The purchase requisition was approved by the Purchasing department and a Notice to Proceed was provided on April 9th to obtain an appraisal for the property. Completion to be on or before May Stn 2- Growth Management Plan Amendment: Staff reported that the first sufficiency review has been completed by County staff and comments were received on August 21, 2012. CRA staff responded to the insufficiencies on August 24th. The application was found sufficient by County staff and was heard at the Planning Commission on November 1, 2012. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward the amendment to the BCC with a recommendation to approve and transmit to Tallahassee. On January 8, 2013 the BCC voted unanimously to forward to amendment to Tallahassee for transmittal, once approved by Tallahassee the amendment will go back to the Board for adoption (amendment permits mixed use north of Davis Boulevard and the density bonus pool units to be utilized in PUDs_ No objections from Tallahassee received 2/13/ and the next step is for adoption. Mark Strain of the Collier County Planning Commission requested language changes to the amendment regarding the density bonus units being utilized within residential only PUDs to be limited to redevelopment and bring back May 2 which was approved at that meeting. 3-Residential Lots: Closed on April Stn 4- Gateway Triangle Stormwater Improvements Construction Update: Construction of the Tertiary Stormwater System Improvements in the residential section of the Gateway Triangle began in late June. Staff is working with the May 1,2012 CRA-AB Minutes Page 1 Packet Page-33- 2/11/2014 9.A. consultants to address the corrections and repairs. Commissioner Fiala suggested we invite Stormwater Management to do a presentation for us. 5-Mini Triangle RFP: On hold until further notice. 6- Andrew Drive (FP&L Lights): Staff conducted a site visit and identified properties with existing power poles where lights may be suitable. Letters were sent to survey whether the property owners were in favor of having FP&L install a light at their locations. Ms. Ekna Guevara will be assigned to this project. 7- Cirrus Point n/k/a/Solstice: Mr. Jim &Attorney Rich Yovanovich attended the December 4, 2012 CRA Advisory Board meeting. Mr. Fields requested the CRA-AB support a Growth Management Plan Amendment that would permit his development to seek up to 114 units from the density bonus pool to develop 14.4 residential units per acre. The CRA has A GMPA going to the BCC for adoption on May 28th that limits residential development utilizing the bonus density pool to a maximum of 8 units an acre and no project could receive more than 97 units. Presently there is no means to acquire units from the density bonus pool for residential only projects. Staff explained the details entailed with the project. Commissioner Fiala spoke regarding concerns she has for this project and how it will impact our redevelopment area. Maurice explained that the project was presented as high end housing. Discussion among members led to conclude that they withdraw their support for Cirrus Point pending more information regards the project. Motion by: Chuck Gunther. 2"d: Larry Ingram.Approved: 7-0. b. MSTU Project Updates: 1- Staff gave a brief report regarding the Bayview and Lunar Street projects. Bayview will go forward but Lunar has unresolved issues which we are working on. 5. Requests for Payments: None 6. New Business: a. Welcome employee Ekna Guevara b. CRA Loan Update: The Finance Department has successfully negotiated to refinance the CRA's loan with Fifth Third Bank. The loan agreement is scheduled for approval by the CRA Board on May 14th c. CRA Office Space: Staff conducted a study of available office space within the redevelopment area and rental rates. Three office spaces were identified that are visible from Bayshore Drive. A fourth office space was identified on Shadowlawn Drive and is made up of two separate offices. One space could accommodate CRA offices and the other could serve as the CRA's meeting space. CAPA has expressed an interest in relocating with the CRA if there is space. Staff also mentioned that per the MSTU board they agreed to pay up to $10,000 toward our move so long as we stay within Bayshore. Jim Torrey who is the owner of one of the possible rental spaces attended and added to say that he is willing to give us 3months free of rent. Motion to approve by Maurice Gutierrez.2"d Larry Ingram. Approved: 7-0 d. Linda Drive (Presentation Paul Rosen): Mr. Paul Rosen owns lots on Linda Drive and has requested to gain approval from the Advisory Board for the provision of a gate at the entrance of Linda Drive that would open when any vehicle approaches. There was a motion to support the concept. Motion: Peter Dvorak. 2"d: Maurice Gutierrez.Approved: 6-1 (Larry Ingram dissenting). e. Logo and Branding: Staff proposed the CRA adopt and utilize the MSTU's slogan "Creativity in Bloom" and their logo for utilization by all our agencies (the MSTU has authorized the CRA use of the same). Mike Sherman mentioned we May 1, 2012 CRA-AB Minutes 2 Packet Page-34- 2/11/2014 9.A. should hold a discussion forum and have a full marketing plan although the direction we are going is right. Motion to work w/the other two agencies to agree on a common logo and slogan and that we use the initial work done by the MSTU. Motion by: Mike Sherman. 2"d: Maurice Gutierrez.Approved: 7-0. f. Summer Break: Members discussed our summer schedule and agreed on the following meeting dates: June 4, 2013& September 10, 2013. g. CRA Advisory Board Applicant-Interviews: The Local CRA Advisory Board positions were advertised and there were five (6) applications received. 1- Karen Beatty reapplied as a Bayshore Resident. Motion to reappoint Karen Beatty. Motion by: Steve Main. 2nd: Maurice Gutierrez. Approved: 7-0. 2- Peter Dvorak reapplied as a Member At Large. Motion to reappoint Peter Dvorak. Motion by: Steve Main. 2nd: Maurice Gutierrez. Approved: 7-0. 3- Chuck Gunther reapplied as a Gateway Resident. Motion to reappoint Chuck Gunther. Motion by: Steve Main. 2"d: Maurice Gutierrez. Approved: 7-0, 4- Michael Corradi applied as a Davis Blvd Business Owner. Michael spoke on his behalf and mentioned his desire to join the CRA. Motion to approve Michael Corradi as a new member of the CRA made by: Karen Beatty. 2"d: Steve Main. Approve: 7-0 5- John Flathers applied as an At-Large member but was not present to introduce himself. Shane Shadis applied as an At-Large member and spoke on behalf of himself explaining his desire to be more involved in the community within the Bayshore Area. Members voted 5 for Shane Shadis and 2 votes for John Flathers. Motion to recommend to the BCC the elected applicants made by: Maurice Gutierrez. 2"d: Karen Beatty. Approve: 7-0. 7. Advisory Board General Communications 8. Citizen Comments. None. 9. Ad.o'nmen : Mai adjourned the meeting. 41P/Orill Ap•Fo e.. .nd forwarded by Steve Main, CRA-AB Chairman. • May 1,2012 CRA-AB Minutes 3 Packet Page-35- 2/11/2014 9.A. THE BAYSHORE/ GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 4069 BAYSHORE DRIVE, NAPLES, FL 34112 PHONE 239.643.1115 FAX 239.775.4456 BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD MINUTES OF THE JUNE 4, 2013 MEETING The meeting of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Advisory Board was called to order by Steve Main 6:00 p.m. at the CRA Office Meeting Room 4069 Bayshore Drive. 1. Roll Call: Present: Advisory Board Members: Larry Ingram, Steve Main, Maurice Gutierrez, Karen Beatty, Peter Dvorak, Chuck Gunther and Mike Sherman, Shane Shadis, Michael Corradi (excused). CRA Staff Present: Jean Jourdan, Interim Executive Director, Ashley Caserta, Project Manager, and Ekna Guevara, Operations Coordinator. 2. Adoption of Agenda: Mr. Main asked if there were any additions or corrections to the published agenda. Hearing none, he asked for a motion to approve the agenda. Motion by: Peter Dvorak. Second: Maurice Gutierrez. Approved 7-0. 3. Adoption of Minutes: Mr. Main asked for a motion to approve the May 7, 2013 meeting minutes. Larry made a correction to item 6.d. should read "Approved 6 to 1 with Larry dissenting". A motion was made to adopt the minutes with changes. Motion by: Peter Dvorak. Second: Chuck Gunther. Approved 7-0. 4. Executive Director's Report: a. CRA Project Updates. 1-CAPA 17 acre: Staff reported we have received the appraisal and has been submitted to CAPA for review. A representative of CAPA, Chick Heithaus, was present and mentioned that CAPA may not have enough time to review the 100+ page appraisal before the last BCC meeting before the summer break. 2- Growth Management Plan Amendment: Staff reported that the GMPA was approved by the BCC on May 28, 2013 and should go into effect in July. 3- Residential Lots: Staff reported that the Developer has submitted plans for the lots on Linda Drive lots and will begin construction June 15th. Also, the Van Buren lots are planned to be constructed early next year. 4-Gateway Triangle Stormwater Improvements Construction Update: Staff is working with consultants to address any repairs or corrections needed. 5- Mini Triangle RFP: On hold until further notice. 6-Andrew Drive (FP&L Lights): Ekna has been assigned to this project. 7-Cirrus Point n/k/a Solstice: Ms. Jourdan informed the CRA-AB that the item would be discussed under new business. June 4,2013 CRA-AB Minutes Page 1 Packet Page -36- 2/11/2014 9.A. 8- CRA/MSTU Offices: The documents have been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office and is scheduled for the June 25, 2013 Board meeting. b. MSTU Project Updates: 1- Landscape Updates include a repair by Ground Zero who repaired an irrigation line break and replaced the shrubs in front of La Piñata. 2-The Bayview and Lunar project is continuing their process. 3-Ashley will be a member of the selection committee for the Thomasson Drive project which will last about 12 to 18 months. 4- On Danford Street volunteers continue to get the required responses. 5- There was a streetlight which was hit by car in front of La Piñata. This has since been replaced. 6- Lights on Collee Court, Gordon Street and Peters Street are on their way. 5. Requests for Payments: Motion to pay bill made by: Karen Beatty. Second: Maurice Gutierrez. 6. New Business: a. Welcome New Advisory Board Members: Shane Shadis and Michael Corradi. Jim Fields (Question &Answer): Present was Richard Yovanovich who made a presentation on the 10acre parcel off Thomasson/Bayshore. The project is allowed 29 dwelling units. They are requesting the CRA support their request for 79 units from the density bonus pool which will be added to the project totaling 108 units. These units would range from 1,400 to 2,000 sq. ft. and sell for mid $200,000 to mid $300,000. They also mentioned they will return the $320,000 which was granted to them for an Affordable Housing project which they no longer will build. They will pay a portion from every unit sold until full payment is received. Motion to support the project & their request for the 79 units from the density bonus pool. Motion by: Karen Beatty. Second: Steve Main. Approved 6-1 with Larry dissenting. b. Grant Application (Fire Suppression Upgrades): Staff informed the CRA-AB they had submitted the grant application prior to the submittal deadline and hopes to have a response within a few months. c. Community Garden: Staff presented the idea of a community garden in the Bayshore Community. Motion to conduct all necessary steps and plans gearing towards a community garden in the Bayshore CRA. Motion by: Chuck Gunther. Second: Karen Beatty. Approved 7-0. d. Next Meeting: September 3, 2013 7. Advisory Board General Communications. None. 8. Citizen Comments. None. 9. Adjournment: Mr. Main adjourned the meeting at 7:03. Approved and forwarded by Steve Main, CRA-AB Chairman. June 4,2013 CRA-AB Minutes 2 Packet Page-37- 2/11/2014 9.A. ORDINANCE NO. 14- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN TO ESTABLISH THE BAYSHORE/THOMASSON DRIVE SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 108 MARKET RATE, MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS THROUGH THE USE OF 79 DWELLING UNITS FROM THE EXISTING DENSITY POOL PROVIDED FOR WITHIN THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BAYSHORE DRIVE AND THOMASSON DRIVE IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 9.92± ACRES; AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20120002382/CPSS-2013-1] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; 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 authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS. Cirrus Pointe Partners LLC requested an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series to establish the Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict; and WIIEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 163.3187(1), Florida Statutes, this amendment is considered a Small Scale Amendment: and WHEREAS, the Subdistrict property is not located in an area of critical state concern or an area of critical economic concern; and Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict Small Scale GMPA Page 1 of 3 PL20120002382/CPSS-2013-1 —Rev. 1/13/14 Words underlined are added;words struck etch have been deleted; * * * indicates break in pages Packet Page -38- ; r 2/11/2014 9.A. WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) on December 19, 2013 considered the proposed amendments to the Growth Management Plan and recommended approval of said amendments to the Board of County Commissioners: and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County did take action in the manner prescribed by law and held public hearings concerning the proposed adoption of the amendments to the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan on February 11, 2014; and WHEREAS. all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of law have been met. NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,that: SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts this small scale amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series in accordance with Section 163.3184. Florida Statutes. The text and map amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION TWO: SEVERABILITY. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate. distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be 31 days after the state land planning agency notifies the local government that the plan amendment package is complete. If timely challenged. this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits. or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status. a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the state land planning agency. Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict Small Scale GMPA Page 2 of 3 PL20120002382/CPSS-2013-1 —Rev. 1/13/14 Words underlined are added: words srr-ucli- have been deleted; * * * indicates break in pages Packet Page-39- 2/11/2014 9.A. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County. Florida this day of February, 2014. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk TOM HENNING. Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A —Proposed Amended Text and Maps CP'.a CMP-00$72',16 1 Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict Small Scale GMPA Page 3 of 3 PL20120002382/CPSS-2013-1 —Rev. 1/13/14 Words underlined are added;words struck through have been deleted; * * * indicates break in pages Packet Page-40- 2/11/2014 9.A. EXHIBIT A CPSS-2013-1 FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT Policy 1.1: * * * * * A. URBAN— MIXED USE DISTRICT * * * * * * * * * * * * * 17. Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict * * * * * * * * * * * * * I. URBAN DESIGNATION * * * * * * * * * * * * * A. Urban Mixed Use District * * * * * * * * * * * * * 17. BayshorelThomasson Drive Subdistrict [new text, page 46] This Subdistrict is located within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay at the northeast corner of the Bayshore Drive/Thomasson Drive intersection, and comprises approximately 9.92 acres. The intent of this Subdistrict is to provide for the development of up to 108 market rate multi-family dwelling units. limited to townhouse and condominiums. No rental apartments shall be permitted. Development in this Subdistrict shall be consistent with paragraph 5 of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, except this undeveloped site does not constitute redevelopment and the maximum density allowed shall be 10.9 dwelling units per acre for a maximum of 108 dwelling units (achieved through the utilization of 79 dwelling units from the existing density bonus pool established within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and 29 base dwelling units for which the site qualifies). However, the 79 residential density bonus units shall be null and void and returned to the bonus density pool unless a Site Development Plan has been issued and remains active for the development by the 5th year of approval of the PUD or the BCC approves an extension of the residential density bonus units to a certain date. Buildings shall be limited to a maximum of 3-stories of living area over a single level of parking. Words underlined are added;words struck are deleted. Row of asterisks(***)indicate a text break Packet Page-41- SEE... 2/11/2014 9.A. O��1 BAYSHORE /THOMASSON DRIVE SUBDISTRICT EXHIBIT A PETITION CPSS-2013-1 1 N ~_ Tgfh/4 .s ---.8.'s —,----, — \ i \\_...,,j > , , I i cc N \\...._ Q 7-'" m 1 / — ti 2''9 .,..7 N J �f / ■ 11110 ,;.' 1 -\ ---- A , 7-- / j777/– ---,1 . r THOMASSON DRIVE THOMASSON ORFVE N 1 , 1 L8'VEWD .. _... -..._.. BATSBORI/f9DUSSON 8OBDISTART PREPARED RV CIS/CAD MAPP1E10 SEDUM CO►MUNTY OCV!].OPYCR NN DIVRONWETAL'SERVICES DIVISION 0 1100Ff 1200E7 ESE:CPSS-2013-1A.CRCi DATE:10/2013 Packet Page-42- __... 2/11/2014 9.A. , 1 ■ T 46 S T U E T 49 5 T 49 S TEES T SI S T 62 S T 63 S.._. ,., - -.;,;16. ft' ,r ? ' ... -, - 1 "' ,. ., al$' ,- i 111:.-.-,,,':;:--2.-.4.6;Ti;,,:zik.6:,i'fiL,;g.4 rilir:Ir$ g i iiiii '-;110■i Wig ir,: '''''■ "":441-"I' g!V iiiiiii rl ! ". 1101 tii i tjsItit !d'ig iiiill,E10 f7,3EitIgliE10 1^hti 1, . ., ,, 1 /1:111 u , :iili 1.,411i,..liTtillyikkil,lk!„.31fir, .ki rIt-, , 1 . -.,: . .i -, , . i c) LE 2 g: It, V 1 :: • 1 Z V c t'; . ' Oli if iii ?, W■411 tiliii;4 1 : 1 ii :i. 't 1:4 4 , . ,4 z I: ii:. i l; i 0 ....; fg I '-' —1 ' f ;,,,1 1 rt',1 : i filr 1 ; . p I '' P Ill 011100gt:, i = LI_ - ,., I - I 1 o $13, 1 ., •.! t$1 ■ ^ 1 — ' d e- ^- t aa, - $ i t 0K.. ;f`,'.i a g - I a.; it 'I 1 i riir.". ' 4 t fi - Ri. 6 i I ... , ;al a 2 , ..,si ,, $ ta; ;; 1 ...., - , . 0, "-- ., ''',4"',4 ; 52!° '5`; i i ' ; E, .1' ' " ;4 9 iii0 P4.R ' z11 , g1 - l' = !!-' -.--.' I li-',,, ,,t'°4.,. 6... .- h;' P.'? i `= ; 0`` , t, 8 III II' 'CD Jag i id i DD I .1 Din I © fl 1 1 w ...._, tx . ,,,,!.2•q:! 2:, ! g t' i i t . ,,, , .,-,, 151114; :-. . . z E ; " - Q : a,t t. I 5 !I k, t., . , A> s ,. 2i.,,,:;,,E :-, = , k' t ''' ;ti ,1, E C ' *t ' i 1:.i 'L. i IV ; i ir' 11 -i4 -ti L''. F, iiiii -g 0 ik :;,-,!!!! 1 I ... 1 .,', f .,-, ilg, Li.,ivi 0. ,'",; pq : 0 .' '''""-,a I — : ; . - 1 ii!rl iF,. : Al ' E . 6 l!gg$ 1 Eg f '6 r• i ,a' ; ' ,,W .§0.'" ,1 a''' 1 -IV ,0'it . ;Ill 4 i 1 4 ri 411/1 i 111 lig& t g 'i i rial/li' , I .0 .7 11/1-1000:0; I H / „ i , ,c 1 \\ / / : , ' ____ ......... — , .. ...-.A.i. i ... , ... , , s 1 ; t a . i = -.........___L 1 , x = 1 , i w _ i I. / ..,,,,p,,_ :,14,111.,/,,..„,4,.....„.,,,,_„,.:,,,,,,.:. , ,' , 9- . 5 i 4 !L' • i• raiLri:° ' t5 E . te < ■ f , 45 +4. ,,, : ■ ', , _," - w , 0 i el i f„ ■ / , Ot.' ,.. . , g I r , ) , / / ---. LI allilit'I'T.: '1:::'''''' ' ' ' ''' 1"',.51111 wg/ ', 4., ii; ',-- ,.. „I „ ii.: ,,,i , , . ,, , , ''', ff'iut 1 " tf /!1: — ' ''' ..: ' 11,' i■''i Pr .4 / >-. , - ,/ e,,e,A,;...,,,-,,:,!,-;-.t,-.4 t-t-:..;',-;4:';:1,.-=f-,f•;:i,-LrE-,,,.:,-r.1,,I_L=,...,,l;i',.:,1E:-.-".0,".,;„,--;',.:,_.'-,,,,q,,.,-,.„'...04.i4,j,4-,,0,,1,,1„Z,,:,7:.y 7 ,,,-,,,,.., - , s 1 'ti . a / RIAFM„..,4,74,.,w„,:,,..?,,,,z.„-,,,,-,,,,f- „ , , ,.. , ,,,,i,. ■,,,1 3 V ,,,, ., A' d■ "."4,::',...°It !T ' 0,-.""'"'"'',.."1-21,'... ::: ) 1 ••••-•,,k4'Ilk t.W..--. , 1,1 i i ::::::.:::K.:;:',4:::, 1•1 P 1 ,:71'="1°,;(kir7". !,,, .0- ..,,F.,.°':, t1. 1.%,-*'-.- ' —77.L. ;1;1 4 - ,. - tt. 1- ,.,-,...-klziks-,z4-00.,s-p-j: ..+,• 1%,,.0''4-, ' , .','- ,--,-,'. , . - .4 ' .1 7 1, 1 1:4-,11 ;..i111 , 14, ' ' -e g. ' ,, I;:.A111 .1 .`!”....41:0:;,,,;:.:1°- ...:.• - '.. . r.4115;',..V7 `':- ''''''''' "i '..-:\' '-'!' 1:i ' . , wow,. ....... er. i ..., ., ,. . ,. 2. 47,-',-- 4-t*-7.-- -- ,..;;;//l,,,:>;-t,... — tia r.,,, t-g g 0 . --- . ,,,, t:„. I 0 ler x'• ikb ____ f-- 0, „! = Pi L3 kho„. lestiiiime---.7.--arionm- _. ", c -1 co L —w r‘i - :IS . -., - , .- , . = vi- gr ... I" - - .:-! II ,-, ./ = „.... 144, Co0 Cr ,,........,fri"'Ille rTi i ii ,, ,' 1 1 s 1 1 s tt, i I 6 St .I. S 6* .1. ' $ Og 1 I S L4 I I S 19 1 S E9 1 Packet Page-43- 2/11/2014 9.A. NAPLES DAILY NEWS cc Wednesday,January 22;2014 a 23A •.i • I - PUBLIC NOTICE • PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC NOTICE !' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on February 11,2014 in the Board of County Commissioners chamber,Third Floor,Collier County Govern- ment Center,3299 E.Tamiami Trail,Naples,to consider the Adoption of the following County ORDINANCE, for transmittal of the Adoption amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan.The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M. • The purpose of the hearing Is to consider a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to trans- mit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity(DEO)the Adoption of a small-scale Growth Manage- ment Plan amendment(s)to the Future Land Use Element,Future Land Use Map and Map Series,and to consider a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to adopt changes to the Cirrus Pointe Planned Unit Development Ordinance.The ORDINANCE titles are as follows: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida amending Ordinance No.89-05,as amended,the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County,Florida specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan to establish the Bayshore/Thomesson.Drive Sub- district to allow up to a maximum of 108 market rate,multi-family dwelling units through the use of 79 dwelling units from the existing density pool provided for within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay for property located at the northeast corner of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive in Section 14,Township 50 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida consisting of 9.92*acres; and furthermore recommending transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunityr,providing for severability and providing for an effective date.[P1.20120002382/ CPSS-2013-1], AND ' An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida amending Ordinance Number 2005-83,as amended;the Cirrus Pointe Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD)which allows a maximum number of 108 residential dwelling units;by changing the name of the RPUD to Solstice RPUD;by revising the Master Plan;by deleting Exhibit B,the Water Management/UtU lty Plan;• by deleting Exhibit C,the Location Map;by removing Statement of Compliance and Project Develop r ment Requirements;by adding a parking deviation;and by deleting and terminating the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement. The subject property is located northeast of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive in Section 14,Township 50 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida consisting of 9.92+/-acres;and by providing an effective date.(PUDZA-PL20120002357)[Companion to Petition PL20120002382/CPSS-2013-1] • ,:sail ww,osrnw I+nip 18 arnwa " 73 PROJECT 's""s LOCATION s,,rrmrs Mow'�� �CA11,CylG }• eru owc MTLEIIMME A .._ NON) MAL•MI NYYES 7.!,"'"" �. 73` 2.4 sa•wl Pay Mw ti pnv All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment will be made available for inspection at the Planning&Zoning Department,Comprehensive Plan- ning Section,2800 N.Horseshoe Dr., Naples,FL,between the hours of 8:00 A.M.and 5:00 P.M.,Monday through Friday.Furthermore the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office,Fourth Floor,Suite#401,Collier County Government Center,East Naples,one week prior to the sched- uled hearing.Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the Planning&Zoning Depart- ment,Comprehensive Planning Section.Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to February 11,2014,will be read and considered at the public hearing. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners with respect to any 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 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. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS•COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA . TOM HENNING-CHAIRMAN • DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK-By: /s/Teresa Cannon-Deputy Clerk.(SEAL) • No.231150798 • January 22.2014 • Packet Page-44- •