Agenda 03/11/2014 Item # 9Bn
^,
3/11/2014 9. B.
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 of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance
Number 2005 -63, 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/Utility Plan; by deleting Exhibit C, the Location Map; by removing Statement of
Compliance and Project Development 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]
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) review staffs findings and
recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission
(CCPQ regarding the above referenced petition and render a decision regarding this PUD
amendment petition; and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and
regulations in order to ensure thatthe community's interests are maintained.
CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner is asking the Board of County Commissioners to
consider an application for an amendment to the existing PUD zoned project known as the Cirrus
Pointe Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD).
The subject property is undeveloped. It was originally rezoned from Residential Multi- family -6
(RMF -6) and Bayshore Mixed Use District- Residential-2 (BMUD -R -2) to RPUD in Ordinance
#05 -63 on November 15, 2005. That ordinance allowed a maximum of 108 multi- family
dwelling units, and approval of an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement authorizing
the developer to utilize 78 affordable Housing Bonus Density Units (at 7.89 Bonus Density Units
per acre), to allow a maximum of 32 units designated as Low - Income Affordable Housing Units.
Subsequent to that approval, the Board approved Ordinance No. 08 -38 on July 22, 2008 that
increased the maximum number of Affordable Housing Units to 44 Workforce Housing Units.
The proposed changes are summarized below (taken from the application material):
Maintain 108 residential dwelling units [Change the type of units from 64 market rate
units and 44 workforce units, to 108 market rate units (utilizing a concurrently running
small -scale comprehensive plan amendment (GMPA) to create the Bayshore
Drive/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict that will include language addressing use of a portion
of the Bayshore /Gateway density bonus pool available from the Botanical Garden site in
order to achieve the 108 proposed units -- petition number PL- 20120002382/CPSS- 2013 -1)
while eliminating the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement as noted below];
Packet Page -49-
3/11/2014 9.B.
• Delete and terminate the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement; and
• Change the PUD name from Cirrus Pointe RPUD to Solstice RPUD; and
• Add a deviation to allow a reduction in the number of parking spaces for the recreational
amenity; and
• Revise the Master Plan to show additional detail; and
• Delete Exhibit B, the Water Management/Utility Plan; and
• Delete Exhibit C, the Location Map; and
• Remove the Statement of Compliance and Project Development Requirements.
FISCAL IWACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to
help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used
to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element 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) IWACT: Future Land Use Element (FLUE):
The subject site is designated Urban (Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict ) on
the Future Land Use Map of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), and is located within the
Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and within the Coastal High Hazard Area.
Residential development is limited on the subject site to a density of up to 10.89 dwelling units
per acre (DU /A), achieved through the Affordable- Workforce Housing Bonus provision of the
FLUE. The subject PUD amendment request proposes to eliminate the Affordable Housing
Density Bonus Agreement within the existing PUD Ordinance, but retain the approved residential
density of 10.89 DU /A. Because the proposed PUD amendment request does not comply with the
density provisions of the FLUE, the property owner submitted a Growth Management Plan
amendment (GMPA) application (Petition PL20120002382 /CPSS- 2013 -1) that, if approved, will
allow the proposed density on the site.
The petition for the requested PUD amendment may only be found consistent with the FLUE,
contingent upon the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition
PL20120002382 /CPSS- 2013 -1, being approved by the Board of County Commissioners and
Packet Page -SO-
3/11/2014 9.8.
n subsequently becoming in effect. Changes to the GMP amendment as it proceeds through the
hearing process may necessitate changes to the subject PUD amendment petition.
The Adoption hearings for both the Growth Management Plan amendment to the FLUE and the
PUD amendment have been scheduled concurrently for public hearings.
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with
the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning
Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety.
In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of
Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and
redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold
text].
Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better
Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth
policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following
policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where
applicable.
Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their
properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made
without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [Exhibit A,
PUD Master Plan, depicts direct access to Thomasson Drive — a collector roadway.]
Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce
vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals.
[No internal accesses or a loop road are proposed due to the limited site acreage. However,
the PUD Master Plan identifies that the project will have an internal roadway system that
will permit vehicles to safely move throughout the site.]
Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets
and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless
of land use type. [Exhibit A, PUD Master Plan, does not depict interconnections with any
abutting properties. The southern and western property boundaries are adjacent to public
roadways; the northern property boundary abuts a multi - family residential development
and a portion of that development's preserve area/buffer (Pinebrook Lake PUD); and the
eastern boundary abuts a utility easement and canal. No interconnections to adjacent
properties are proposed and staff does not believe it is practicable to provide
interconnections.]
Based on the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed PUDZA
application consistent with the Future Land Use Element contingent upon Board approval of the
companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20120002382 /CPSS- 2013 -1, to
establish the Bayshore / Thomasson Drive Subdistrict.
Packet Page -51-
3/11/2014 9.B.
Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic
Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient
capacity to accommodate this project within the 5 year planning period. Staff recommends that
the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of
the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Bayshore Road and Thomasson Road Impacts: Link 7.0, Bayshore Road, and Link 108.0,
Thomasson Drive, are the first concurrency links that are impacted by this zoning amendment.
Both concurrency links are located within the TCEA, however the petitioner is not requesting
concurrency exemption at this time. The applicant has demonstrated that the project will have a
net decrease in PM peak hour two -way trips.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found
this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME).
GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as
this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of
consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the
FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff
believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE contingent upon Board approval
of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20120002382 /CPSS- 2013 -1,
to establish the Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict. The proposed rezone is consistent with
the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff also recommends
that the petition be found consistent with the CCME. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that
the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPQ RECOMMENDATION: The
CCPC heard this petition on December 19 2013, and found that the criteria of Section 10.02.08.F
(formerly 10.03.05.I) and 10.02.13.B.5 were met. By a unanimous vote (6 to 0) with the motion
made by Commissioner Rosen and seconded by Commissioner Chrzanowski, the CCPC
recommended forwarding this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a
recommendation of approval subject to the following changes to the PUD document:
1. 1,000 square foot minimum for the housing units
2. at least one parking space below each building shall be provided for each unit
3. the developer shall provide a gated entry
4. the developer shall provide security cameras
5. parking in back of the northern units is prohibited
6. construction shall be of concrete block and precast concrete
7. the developer shall completely fence the project
8. the developer shall provide a community pool built by 50% of units constructed
9. no blasting shall be allowed
10. any fence fronting on either street shall be of an architectural design
11. the footnote shall be revised to provide sidewalk clearance from the entry portion of the
parking space
Packet Page -52-
3/11/2014 9.B.
12. the developer shall provide a right -of -way deed prior to 1st building permit
13. the property development regulations table shall be revised to provide a northern 30'
setback.
14. the dumpster shown at the southwest project boundary shall be allowed a 5' setback
15. the majority of units shall be greater than 1,200 square feet
16. housing fund money shall be paid back within 5 years at 50% of total or 100% in 10 years
of approval of this rezone
17. principal uses shall be limited to residential condo /townhouses; rental apartments are
prohibited
18. the density bonus shall be reviewed after 5 -years from of approval of rezoning for
continued applicability unless an SDP is issued and remains valid, (use similar language
as provided for bonus used in MUP process).
19. the master plan shall be revised to reflect the east buffer to be a 15' type B buffer which
will match the currently approval master plan
20. the Affordable bonus agreement shall be terminated
These revisions have been incorporated into the PUD document that is included in the draft
ordinance.
No correspondence in opposition to this petition has been submitted for the current proposal; no
one spoke at the CCPC hearing voicing opposition to the project and the CCPC vote was
unanimous. However this petition is a companion petition to a GMP amendment that must be
formally heard by the BCC, therefore, this petition cannot be placed on the Summary Agenda.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This is an amendment to the existing Cirrus Pointe Residential Planned Unit Development
(Ordinance No. 2005 -63, as amended). 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.
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
Packet Page -53-
3/11/2014 9.B.
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?
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?
Packet Page -54-
n
3/11/2014 9.B.
16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem?
17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas?
18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area?
19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations?
20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to
an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ( "reasonably ") be used in
accordance with existing zoning? (a "core" question...)
22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county?
23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the
proposed use in districts already permitting such use.
24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration
which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential
uses under the proposed zoning classification.
25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed 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 recommendations of the CCPC and further
recommends that the Board of County Commissioners (1) approve the request subject to the
attached PUD Ordinance that includes both the staff recommendation and the CCPC
recommendation; (2) approve the Termination Agreement and authorize the Chairman to execute
the Agreement.
Packet Page -55-
3/11/2014 9.B.
Prepared by: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner, Planning & Zoning Department, Growth ^
Management Division, Planning and Regulation
Attachments:
1) CCPC Staff Report
2) Application Backup Information due to the size of the document it is accessible at:
hgp://www.collier2ov.net/ftp/A2endaJanl 414/GrowthMizmt/ApplicationforC.irrusPointePUD.pdf
3) Ordinance
4) Termination Agreement
Packet Page -56-
n
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 9.9.B.
3/11/2014 9. B.
Item Summary: This item has been continued from the February 11, 2014 BCC meeting: 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 of
the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2005 -63, 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 /Utility Plan; by deleting Exhibit
C, the Location Map; by removing Statement of Compliance and Project Development 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]
Meeting Date: 3/11/2014
Prepared By
Name: DeselemKay
Title: Planner, Principal, Zoning & Land Development Review
3/3/2014 2:07:39 PM
Approved By
Name: BosiMichael
Title: Director - Planning and Zoning, Comprehensive Planning
Date: 3/3/2014 3:16:04 PM
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, Community Development & Environmental Services
Date: 3/3/2014 3:16:10 PM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary, Transportation Planning
Date: 3/3/2014 4:10:35 PM
Packet Page -57-
3/11/2014 9.B.
Name: AshtonHeidi
Title: Managing Assistant County Attorney, CAO Land Use/Transportation
Date: 3/4/2014 8:30:28 AM
Name: FinnEd
Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior, Transportation Engineering & Construction Management
Date: 3/4/2014 8:53:53 AM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 3/4/2014 9:08:30 AM
Name: OchsLeo
Title: County Manager, County Managers Office
Date: 3/4/2014 9:36:19 AM
Packet Page -58-
3/11/2014 93
AGENDA ITEM 9 -B
Co m-ir C014Hty
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING SERVICES - -LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION -- PLANNING & REGULATION
HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 19, 2013
SUBJECT: PUDZA- PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD (AKA SOLSTICE
RPUD) [COMPANION TO PL- 20120002382/CPSS- 2013 -1]
PROPERTY OWNER & APPLICANT /AGENT:
Owner /Applicant: Agent:
Cirrus Pointe Partners LLC Wayne Arnold, AICP
516 Cooper Commerce Drive Suite 200 Q. Grady Minor & Assoc. P.A.
24301 Walden Center Dr 3800 Via Del Rey
Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Bonita Springs, FL 34134
REQUESTED ACTION:
The petitioner is asking the Collier County
application for an amendment to the existing
Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD)
"Purpose/Description of Project."
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an
PUD zoned project known as the Cirrus Pointe
. For details about the project proposal, refer to
The subject property, consisting of 9.92± acres, is located at the northeast corner of Bayshore Drive
and Thomasson Drive, in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.
(See location map on the following page)
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The subject property is undeveloped. It was originally rezoned from Residential Multi- family -6
(RMF -6) and Bayshore Mixed Use District- Residential -2 (BMUD -R -2) to RPUD in Ordinance #05-
PUDZA- PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 1 of 14
December 19, 2013 CCPC
Revised: 12/2/13
Packet Page -59-
_M
3/11/2014 9.B.
I dz. -
z
Z
0
N
O
N
0
D
0-
It
Z
0
F-
w
IC-L- I
Z
0
0
1
Mob
rl b
l
i
_M
3/11/2014 9.B.
I dz. -
z
Z
0
N
O
N
0
D
0-
It
Z
0
F-
w
IC-L- I
Z
0
0
1
7F—
t iiiii=,
AIM
To
w..
(owom
ATIM
3A4p 36%ruve
CD
_M
3/11/2014 9.B.
I dz. -
z
Z
0
N
O
N
0
D
0-
It
Z
0
F-
w
IC-L- I
Z
0
0
1
>f
b K J
LL�
W � �
¢ OO
N WW
Hb
N YI
I------------
II I
I
I I
(I I
� II I
m II I
00 I 84 1'
N0 Imo' da r
W L
I i
I � I
z
f
C
a
°s
�w
aY
a5 w
W
N°
° m
w a
z
6 N
W �
0
4�
3
i
I
z
I <w
� I
<
w w o ,
Z Z
X
I
�
n
ar g� LL
O
I I
I ,
J
UWUa
W
a
<
0
I 1
I
raj
rJa
>Oa2
z W
LL
m
yyyr
I
w`O
m
W
H
W
z
W7
UW
KW=
❑ O
W < K
KWOW
O p
<
W
wLL
I
I
I
Q=
O
f
Mo
a
yFWy
Ho
H
W
I
I j
I I
I I
I I
GmW
2 J r
Y 052
m
m
l
I I
W
a
°
ngz
o
r N
o LL Y 0
W ❑
II
I
W F
z J
�2
0?�
m w
O 7 F
W
O
I
�
WWS
W�w�
rcrWw
O �W
o
I
W
J V_LL�
z0<
rcai
w W J
C.
N
z< a K
U,
a
I I
1
I
W�
i
y rYUW
O < Ix
Zz3LL
Z W
Omao
O
o
I
I
{
2L<,
2
�
g W W
d —
I
QJ
O a <<
�ofo
rgOWF -
w
H
j
w OIGW
I Iii
I.
❑ LL(�1Mrz
Z
WW W
0
1 C
F
I
z
I <w
� I
<
w w o ,
Z Z
X
I
�
n
ar g� LL
O
(OVOH A773N13 1H0 3bOHSAVG
r
°U
0 0
W
N�
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
CI Ck j
�m
�a
a
_ z
I �Y
00
Um
3d
1 co
as nc 1 asc -vi
�JaC
LLB=
�mC
O >W
W
0 16
NW
>j
O
= oz
<
w w o ,
Z Z
X
<ya
m
ar g� LL
O
K J
J
UWUa
W
a
0
raj
rJa
>Oa2
z W
LL
m
yyyr
a
<
w`O
m
W
H
W
i
W7
UW
KW=
❑ O
W < K
KWOW
O p
<
>
wLL
U
J
Q=
O
f
Mo
a
yFWy
Ho
H
W
GmW
2 J r
Y 052
m
NW.d
>;
<a L<
ayaLL
W
a
°
ngz
o
r N
o LL Y 0
W ❑
v�a>
=01 g
z J
�2
0?�
m w
O 7 F
W
H
ry
0
W r z r
Z �O
<_? r
W�w�
rcrWw
O �W
m
W
J V_LL�
z0<
LU U
-00
w W J
C.
N
z< a K
U,
U< O
raaFui
7 0 W
a05 IT
w OZ�q
y rYUW
O < Ix
Zz3LL
Z W
Omao
O
z
'y z
>wa
WWg
Z y F
NW55WD
2L<,
2
N ❑W
g W W
d —
U¢ Q
W <<
QJ
O a <<
�ofo
rgOWF -
w
H
j
w OIGW
N
❑ LL(�1Mrz
Z
WW W
0
F.Q..
�JaC
LLB=
�mC
O >W
W
0 16
NW
>j
O
3/11/2014 9.B.
j
Z
c>; a 5
r a
w
y _-
r
W
o �
D3
Fn� ci ;y m
3
@w e
a
R; a
� C 639
it °e i
3 �a -
b
N
X
0
�
W
>
GmW
2
N�2
0y
X
U
H
ry
° III
H
v
<a
m
as
�..
z
W
2
U¢ Q
W <<
j
W�i�~
WW W
F.Q..
>LLaN
>z❑
�ooJ
m=w<
cr -
I°
r
O
�W,=Oo
W
a
rn
a ¢ >w
a ¢
3/11/2014 9.B.
j
Z
c>; a 5
r a
w
y _-
r
W
o �
D3
Fn� ci ;y m
3
@w e
a
R; a
� C 639
it °e i
3 �a -
b
3/11/2014 9.B.
63 on November 15, 2005. That ordinance allowed a maximum of 108 multi - family dwelling units,
and approval of an Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement auflimizing the developer to
utilize 78 affordable Housing Bonus Density Units (at 7.89 Bonus Density Units per acre), to allow
a maximum of 32 units designated as Low - Income Affordable Housing Units. Subsequent to that
approval, the Board approved Ordinance No. 08 -38 on July 22, 2008 that increased the maximum
number of Affordable Housing Units to 44 Workforce Housing Units.
The proposed changes are summarized below (taken from the application material):
• Maintain 108 residential dwelling units [Change the type of units from 64 market rate units
and 44 workforce units, to 108 market rate units (utilizing a concurrently running small -scale
comprehensive plan amendment (GMPA) to create the Bayshore Drive/Thomasson Drive
Subdistrict that will include language addressing use of a portion of the bonus pool density available
from the Botanical Garden site in order to achieve the 108 proposed units -- petition number PL-
20120002382/CPSS- 2013 -1) while eliminating the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement
as noted below];
• Delete and terminate the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement; and
• Change the PUD name from Cirrus Pointe RPUD to Solstice RPUD; and
• Add a deviation to allow a reduction in the number of parking spaces for the recreational
amenity; and
• Revise the Master Plan to show additional detail; and
• Delete Exhibit B, the Water Management/Utility Plan; and
• Delete Exhibit C, the Location Map; and
• Remove the Statement of Compliance and Project Development Requirements.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: Pinebrook Lakes PUD, developed as Abaco Bay, an existing 160 -unit, multi - family 10 -acre
project developed at 16 units per acre
East: Single - family homes along Dominion Drive that are within the Avalon Estates Unit 1
subdivision, with a zoning designation of RMF -6
South: Thomasson Drive, then Del's Convenience Store with a C -5 zoning designation and
scattered multi- family residences on lots within the Jonesville subdivision, with a zoning
designation of RMF- 6- BMUD -T2
West: Bayshore Drive, then a cleared but undeveloped C -3 zoned tract.
PUDZA- PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD
December 19, 2013 CCPC
Revised: 12/2/13
Packet Page -62-
Page 2 of 14
3/11/2014 9.B.
Aerial Photo (the subject site, shown in yellow, is approximate)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject site is designated Urban (Mixed Use District,
Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict ) on the Future Land Use Map of the Future Land Use Element
(FLUE), and is located within the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay and within
the Coastal High Hazard Area. Residential development is limited on the subject site to a density of
up to 10.89 dwelling units per acre (DU /A), achieved through the Affordable- Workforce Housing
Bonus provision of the FLUE. The subject PUD amendment request proposes to eliminate the
Affordable Housing Density Bonus Agreement within the existing PUD Ordinance, but retain the
approved residential density of 10.89 DU /A. Because the proposed PUD amendment request does
not comply with the density provisions of the FLUE, the property owner submitted a Growth
Management Plan amendment (GMPA) application (Petition PL20120002382 /CPSS- 2013 -1) that,
if approved, will allow the proposed density on the site.
The petition for the requested PUD amendment may only be found consistent with the FLUE,
contingent upon the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition
^ PUDZA- PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 3 of 14
December 19, 2013 CCPC
Revised: 1212/13
Packet Page -63-
3/11/2014 9.B.
PL20120002382 /CPSS- 2013 -1, being approved by the Board of County Commissioners and
subsequently becoming in effect. Changes to the GNP amendment as it proceeds through the
hearing process may necessitate changes to the subject PUD amendment petition.
The Adoption hearings for both the Growth Management Plan amendment to the FLUE and the
PUD amendment have been scheduled concurrently for public hearings.
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the
surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning Services
staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety.
In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of
Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and
redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold text].
Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places:
The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, and
adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be
implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable.
Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties
to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without
violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [Exhibit A, PUD
Master Plan, depicts direct access to Thomasson Drive — a collector roadway.]
Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce
vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals.
[No internal accesses or a loop road are proposed due to the limited site acreage. However, the
PUD Master Plan identifies that the project will have an internal roadway system that will
permit vehicles to safely move throughout the site.]
Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets
and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of
land use type. [Exhibit A, PUD Master Plan, does not depict interconnections with any
abutting properties. The southern and western property boundaries are adjacent to public
roadways; the northern property boundary abuts a multi - family residential development and
a portion of that development's preserve area/buffer (Pinebrook Lake PUD); and the eastern
boundary abuts a utility easement and canal. No interconnections to adjacent properties are
proposed and staff does not believe it is practicable to provide interconnections.]
Based on the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed PUDZA application
consistent with the Future Land Use Element contingent upon Board approval of the companion
Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20120002382 /CPSS- 2013 -1, to establish the
Bayshore / Thomasson Drive Subdistrict.
Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic
Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient
PUDZA- PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 4 of 14
December 19, 2013 CCPC
Revised: 12/2/13
Packet Page -64-
3/11/2014 9.B.
capacity to accommodate this project within the 5 year planning period. Staff recommends that the
subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the
Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Bayshore Road and Thomasson Road Impacts: Link 7.0, Bayshore Road, and Link 108.0,
Thomasson Drive, are the first concurrency links that are impacted by this zoning amendment.
Both concurrency links are located within the TCEA, however the petitioner is not requesting
concurrency exemption at this time. The applicant has demonstrated that the project will have a net
decrease in PM peak hour two -way trips.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found
this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME).
GMP Conclusion: The GNP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this
proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency
or inconsistency with the overall GNP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with
conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM
designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is
consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE contingent upon Board approval of the companion Growth
Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20120002382 /CPSS- 2013 -1, to establish the
Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GNP
Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff also recommends that the
petition be found consistent with the CCME. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition
be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP.
ANALYSIS•
Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon
which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC)
Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the
"PUD Findings "), and Subsection 10.02.08.F., Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission
Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings "), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's
recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the bases for their recommendation to the
Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the
rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below,
under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses:
Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
document to address environmental concerns. This project does not require an Environmental
Advisory Council Board (EAC) review since this project did not meet the EAC scope of land
development project reviews as identified in Chapter 2, Article VII., Division 23, Section 2 -1193 of
the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances.
Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
document and Master Plan for right -of -way and access issues as well as roadway capacity, and
recommends approval subject to the Developer /owner commitments as provided in the PUD
ordinance.
PUDZA- PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 5 of 14
December 19, 2013 CCPC
Revised: 12013
Packet Page -65-
3/11/2014 9.B.
Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and
complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses
and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal
comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities,
development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building
location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. Zoning
staff is of the opinion that this project will be compatible with and complementary to, the
surrounding land uses. To support that opinion staff offers the following analysis of this project.
The petitioner is not actually increasing the number of total units that would be allowable on site,
because the currently controlling ordinances, Ordinances No. 05 -63 and 08 -38, allow development
of 108 units. However in those ordinances, the developer was granted 78 bonus units, but he must
provide 44 affordable housing units to achieve that density, otherwise; he is limited to 30 base
housing dwelling units. In this current proposal, the petitioner is seeking to amend the Growth
Management Plan (GMP) (via a companion GMP amendment) to create the Bayshore
Drive /Thomasson Drive Subdistrict that will include language addressing use of a portion of the
bonus pool density available from the Botanical Garden site in order to achieve the 108 proposed
units. Since no increase in density is proposed, staff believes the density and intensity of the uses
proposed in this amendment is consistent with FLUE Policy 5.4 that requires new land uses to be
compatible with the surrounding area.
Because the petitioner is eliminating the Affordable Housing Density Bonus as part of this PUD, the
document that was attached to Ordinance No. 05 -63 must be officially terminated. The proposed
termination agreement is attached to this staff report (See Attachment 1). That agreement must be
executed concurrent with any approval of this amendment petition.
The area to the north is developed with the Pinebrook Lakes PUD, developed as Abaco Bay, an
existing 160 -unit, multi- family 10 -acre project developed at 16 units per acre. The buildings are
two story structures, however the PUD does allow three story structures. To the east, are mix of
one- and two -story single - family homes along Dominion Drive that are within the Avalon Estates
Unit 1 subdivision, with a zoning designation of RMF -6. To the south, is Thomasson Drive, then
Del's Convenience Store with a C -5 zoning designation and scattered single- and multi - family
residences on lots within the Jonesville subdivision along Cottage Grove Avenue, with a zoning
designation of RMF- 6- BMUD -T2. To the west is Bayshore Drive, then a cleared but undeveloped
C -3 zoned tract.
The development standards contained in the PUD document reflect a design approach that will
provide multi- family housing opportunities. The PUD indicates and a minimum front -yard setback
of 15 feet and side setbacks of 7.5 -feet for a one -story structure, 10 -feet for a two -story structure,
and 11.25 feet for a taller structure. A perimeter boundary setback of 15 feet would be provided for
one- or two -story structure and a 25 -foot setback for anything higher. A 50 -foot wide setback will
be provided for any buildings with three habitable stories along the eastern RPUD boundary. The
minimum rear setback is 20 feet. The project boundary setback that is dependent upon the number
of stories is an important consideration when determining compatibility.
PUDZA- PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD
December 19, 2013 CCPC
Revised: 12/2/13
Packet Page -66-
Page 6 of 14 n
3/11/2014 9. B.
The petitioner is amending the height to reflect both zoned height and actual building height as is
now required. The buffer along the eastern property has been reduced from a 15 foot wide type B
buffer to a 10 foot wide type A buffer. When questioned about the change, the applicant's agent
stated that he was reducing the buffer to the minimum required by the LDC. This 10 foot wide A
buffer, combined with the existing utility easement, and the project boundary setback should
provide adequate separation between the taller structures in this development and the structures in
Avalon Estates.
Based upon the analysis above, staff believes the intensity of the uses proposed in this amendment
is consistent with FLUE Policy 5.4 that requires new land uses to be compatible with the
surrounding area.
Deviation Discussion:
The petitioner is seeking approval of one deviation from the requirements of the LDC. The
deviation is listed in the PUD document in Exhibit D. Deviations are a normal derivative of the
PUD zoning process following the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC
Section 2.03.06 which says in part:
It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity,
innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or
redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control.
PUDs .... may depart from the strict application of setback; height, and minimum
lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum
standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the public
interest....
Deviation 1 seeks relief from Section 4.05.04.H of the LDC, Parking space Requirements, which
requires that small-scale recreational amenities within multi- family project where a majority of the
units are within 300' to provide parking at 25% of the normal parking requirements for recreational
facilities, to allow the small scale recreational amenity to provide one parking space for short term
drop off/pick -up and one ADA compliant space.
Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following:
This deviation is warranted given the central location of the recreational amenity to
all of the dwelling units. The buildings have been arranged so that all buildings are
within 400 feet of the amenity which will consist of a swimming pool with restrooms.
No clubhouse or other recreational amenity will be provided at the centralized
amenity. Providing one parking space for short term use of residents to drop off
items at the pool will be sufficient parking for this small -scale amenity given the close
proximity to all units within the complex. Sidewalks are provided throughout the
project which provides safe and convenient pedestrian access to the recreational
amenity.
PUDZA- PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 7 of 14
December 19, 2013 CCPC
Revised: 12/2/13
Packet Page -67-
3/11/2014 9. B.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved, noting that the LDC requires a minimum of 2 parking places and the developer will be
providing two spaces albeit the spaces are somewhat atypical. Zoning and Land Development
Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC
Section 10.02.13.A.3 the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a
detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section
10 02 13 B 5 h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public
purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations."
FINDINGS OF FACT:
LDC Subsection 10.03.05.I.2 states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and
recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners ... shall show
that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the
following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the
Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional
criteria as also noted below. [Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold, non - italicized
font]:
PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the
CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria"
(Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font):
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to
physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water,
and other utilities.
Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and believes the uses and property development
regulations are compatible with the development approved in the area. The commitments
made by the applicant should provide adequate assurances that the proposed change should
not adversely affect living conditions in the area.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may
relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of
such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense.
Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's
Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be
required to gain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that
appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of
infrastructure will be provided by the developer.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives
and policies of the GMT within the GMP discussion and the zoning analysis of this staff
report. Based on those staff analyses, planning zoning staff is of the opinion that this petition
PUDZA- PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 8 of 14 11—N
December 19, 2013 CCPC
Revised: 12/2/13
Packet Page -68-
3/11/2014 9.B.
may be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element contingent upon Board approval
of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment, Petition PL20120002382 /CPSS-
2013-1, to establish the Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict.
4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include
restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening
requirements.
Staff has provided a review of the proposed uses and believes that the project will be
compatible with the surrounding area. The uses are not changing as part of this amendment
and the uses approved in the original PUD rezone were determined to be compatible. The
petitioner is revising some property development regulations, but staff believes uses remain
compatible given the proposed development standards and project commitments.
S. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The amount of native preserve aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the
LDC.
6 The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time,
i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation
Element consistency review. The project's development must comply with all other applicable
concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. Additionally,
the PUD document contains additional developer commitments that should help ensure there
are adequate facilities available to serve this project.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as road capacity, wastewater disposal
system, and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments
made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be
addressed when development approvals are sought.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in
the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public
purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.
The petitioner is seeking approval of one deviation to allow design flexibility in compliance
with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section
2.03.06.A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development
PUDZA- PI-20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 9 of 14
December 19, 2013 CCPC
Revised: 12/2/13
Packet Page -69-
3/11/2014 9.B.
standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that
would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff has provided an 10—N
analysis of the deviation in the Deviation Discussion portion of this staff report, and is
recommending approval of the deviation.
Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10. 02.08 F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land,
the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County
Commissioners ... shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed
change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staffs responses to these criteria are
provided in bold font):
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the
Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan.
The zoning analysis provides an in -depth review of the proposed amendment. Staff is of the
opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the
project to be compatible with neighborhood development. Comprehensive Planning staff
finds the proposed PUDZA application consistent with the Future Land Use Element
contingent upon Board approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment,
Petition PL20120002382 /CPSS- 2013 -1., to establish the Bayshore/Thomasson Drive
Subdistrict. The petition can be deemed consistent with the CCME and the Transportation
Element. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP
contingent upon Board approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment,
Petition PL20120002382 /CPSS- 2013 -1, to establish the Bayshore/Thomasson Drive
Subdistrict.
2. The existing land use pattern;
Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning"
portion of this report and discussed it at length in the zoning review analysis. Staff believes
the proposed amendment is appropriate given the existing land use pattern, and development
restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts;
The proposed PUD amendment would not create an isolated zoning district because the
subject site is already zoned PUD. No land is being added to the PUD as part of this
amendment.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions
on the property proposed for change.
Staff is of the opinion that the district boundaries are logically drawn given the current
property ownership boundaries and the existing PUD zoning.
S. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning
necessary.
The proposed amendment is not necessary, per se; but it is being requested in compliance with
PUDZA- PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 10 of 14
December 19, 2013 CCPC
Revised: 12/2/13
Packet Page -70-
3/11/2014 9.B.
the LDC provisions to seek such the amendment to allow the owner the opportunity to
develop the land with uses other than what the existing zoning district would allow. Without
this amendment, the property could be developed in compliance with the existing PUD
ordinance regulations.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood;
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendment, with the commitments made by the
applicant, can been deemed consistent County's land use policies that are reflected by the
Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GAP. The project includes numerous restrictions
and standards that are designed to address compatibility of the project. Development in
compliance with the proposed PUD amendment should not adversely impact living conditions
in the area.
7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create
types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or
projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the
development, or otherwise affect public safety.
The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project with the
mitigation that will be provided by the developer (Developer Commitments). Staff believes
the petition can be deemed consistent with the Transportation Element of the GAP.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem;
The proposed amendment should not create drainage or surface water problems. The
developer of the project will be required to adhere to a surface water management permit
from the SFWM1) in conjunction with any local site development plan approvals and ultimate
construction on site.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas;
If this amendment petition is approved, any subsequent development would need to comply
with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. The
setbacks and project buffers will help insure that light and air to adjacent areas will not be
substantially reduced.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area;
This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or
external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including
zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is
driven by market conditions.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations;
The proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent
properties.
PUDZA- PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 11 of 14
December 19, 2013 CCPC
Revised: 12/2/13
Packet Page -71-
3/11/2014 9.B.
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasting with the public welfare; �
If the proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan through the
proposed amendment, then that constitutes is a public policy statement supporting zoning
actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the
proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE
is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans
are in the public interest.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with
existing zoning;
The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning
designations; however, the petitioner is seeking this amendment in compliance with LDC
provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed
appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed amendment
meets the intent of the PUD district, if staffs conditions of approval are adopted, and further,
believes the public interest will be maintained.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
County;
As noted previously, the majority of the subject property already has a zoning designation of
PUD; the PUD rezoning was evaluated at the rezoning stage and was deemed consistent with
the GMP. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity
of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban - designated areas of Collier
County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer
commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community.
15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in
districts already permitting such use.
The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and
staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed
amendment is consistent with the GMP as it is proposed to be amended as discussed in other
portions of the staff report.
16 The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would
be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed
zoning classification.
Additional development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site
alteration. This project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and
local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval process
and again later as part of the building permit process.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as
PUDZA- PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 12 of 14
December 19, 2013 CCPC
Revised: 12/2/13
Packet Page -72-
3/11/2014 SIR
defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as
�. amended.
This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements
of the GMT as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no
Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD
document.
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM)
See Attachment 2.
BAYSHORE /GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMETN AGENCY (CRA):
See Attachment 3.
HOUSING, HUMAN AND VETERANS SERVICES (HHVS):
The owner received a Housing and Urban Development (HUD) loan that has not been repaid by the
owner to date. HHVS has no objections to the developer's repayment plan as outlined in Section 5.6.1)
(Development Commitments) of the Solstice PUD Ordinance. These funds will be utilized to support
affordable housing projects in the future.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on November 19, 2013.
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning
Commission forward Petition PUDZA- PL20120002357 to the BCC with a recommendation of
approval subject to the following stipulation:
1. The Termination Agreement for the Affordable Housing Density Bonus allowance must be
executed prior to or concurrent with any approval.
PUDZA- PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD Page 13 of 14
December 19, 2013 CCPC
Revised: 12/2/13
Packet Page -73-
PREPARED BY:
1 "S'0mL&1
KAY SELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
REVIEWED BY:
I/'?zj
RA ND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
IS113
/ DATE
/%- /.�- q
DATE
DATE
Tentatively scheduled for the February 11, 2014 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
Attachments:
1. Termination Agreement
2. Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis
PUDZA- PL20120002357, CIRRUS POINTE RPUD
December 19, 2013 CCPC
Revised: 11/18/13
Packet Page -74-
3/11/2014 9.B.
Page 14 of 14 r1
3/11/2014 9.B.
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.
Pagel of 4
Attachment 2
Packet Page -75-
3/11/2014 9. B.
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 -76-
3/11/2014 9.B.
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 -77-
3/11/2014 9.B.
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 -78-
3/11/2014 9.B.
THE BAYSHORE /GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENTAGENCY
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 Proiect 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.
n
June 4, 2013 CRA -AB Minutes Page 1
Attachment 3
Packet Page -79-
3/11/2014 9.B.
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 Pinata.
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 Pinata. 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 -80-
n
W
3/11/2014 93.
ORDINANCE NO. 14-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE
NUMBER 2005 -63, 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 MANAGEMENTUTILITY
PLAN; BY DELETING EXHIBIT C, THE LOCATION MAP; BY
REMOVING STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND PROJECT
DEVELOPMENT 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. IPUDZA- PL20120002357I
WHEREAS, Cirrus Pointe Partners LLC, represented by Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q.
Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman,
Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the
RPUD.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION ONE: Amendment to RPUD Document.
The RPUD Document, attached as Exhibit ` �A" to Ordinance No. 2005 -63, as amended, is
hereby amended and replaced with the RPUD Document attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION TWO: Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Solstice RPUD'N PUDZA- PI.20120002357 Page I oft
Rev. 116/14
Packet Page -81-
3/11/2014 9.B.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super - majority vote of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2014.
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
M
Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form and legality:
Heidi Ashton -Cicko
Managing Assistant County Attorney
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
0
TOM HENNING, Chairman
Attachment: Exhibit A - RPUD Document including revised Master Plan
CPA 3-CPS-01 205%46
Solstice RPUD PUIDZA- PL20120002357 Page 2 of 2
Rev. 1/6114
Packet Page -82-
3/11/2014 9. B.
OLSTICE RESIDENTIAL PUD
A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNING THE 6RRUS
POINTESOLSTICE RESIDENTIAL. PUD, A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PURSUANT TO PROVIBISIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
PREPARED FOR:
jAMES j. FIELDS
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34444 Cirrus Pointe Partners LLC
516 Commerce Drive Suite 200
Apopka, Florida, 32703
PREPARED BY:
sera 6 1 A M 6 HOOVER A IGR
HOOVER PLANNING & DEVfiLQ12MEN.T4NC-
3786
.,
NAP ES , F- f'- OA 441066
D. WAYNE ARNOLD AICP
Q. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES P.A.
3800 VIA DEL REY
BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34134
and
RICHARD D. YOVANOVICH
GOODL-E E COLEMAN. YOVANOVICH &JOHNSONKOESTER, P.A.
4001 TAMIAMI TRAIL N., SUITE 300
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34103
DATE FILED Dere" b i- �? � 2004
DATE REVISED October 2013
DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC December 19, 2013
DATE APPROVED BY BCC
ORDINANCE NUMBER
Packet Page -83-
3/11/2014 9. B.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS 11
LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES ill
STATEMENT OF- CAM,PLIANGE
SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 3
SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 5
SECTION III RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN 9
SECTION IV PRESERVE AREAS PLAN 43
SECTION V DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 14
U
Words s+F*e44lfa�k are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision 6 I -2 -2014
Packet Page -84-
3/11/2014 9. B.
LIST OF EXHIBITS AND TABLES
EXHIBIT "A" PUD MASTER PLAN
E'YtJ&T+_ " RW WATERR M hlAf'`EMENTt1 ITII IP4 PLAN
EXI4I84 "G 6ODA:PQ VAR
TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Solstice RPEID
iii
Words stmek thfzottgh are deleted; words underlined are added.
Revision 6 I -2 -2014
Packet Page -85-
3/11/2014 9.B.
a s
a
w-
_ f.
Words su%ek-t t are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1 -3 -2014
Packet Page -86-
■/0-1�1
2
Words swuek threug# are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1- 2 -2 014
Packet Page -87-
3/11/2014 9.B.
3/11/2014 9.B.
SECTION I
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION
111 LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The subject property being 9.92± acres, is located in Section 14, Township 50
South, Range 25 East and is fully described as, "All of Lot 103 of Naples Groves
and Truck Company's Little Farms No. 2, according to the plat thereof, as
recorded in Plat Book 1, at Page 27 -A, of the Public Records of Collier County,
Florida."
1.32 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
The subject property is owned by . . IRS.,
Stfeet Suite 300. 1laales �I��irE-► ids n0 -rk
34449- Cirrus Pointe Partners LLC 516
Florida, 32703 Commerce Drive Suite 200 A o ka
Words s�� e are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision b I -2 -2014
Packet Page -88-
3/11/2014 9.B.
•-a . • a.
Ira�� • c _ • - r - s
• -
nmn-
! - - - - •-
4
Words stmete k are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPLtD Revision. b 1- 2 -2014
Packet Page -89-
SECTION 11
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
F91a#ienskips:
3/11/2014 9.B.
r•
5
Words stpael& # are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1- 2 -2014
Packet Page -90-
._ _ -
r•
5
Words stpael& # are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1- 2 -2014
Packet Page -90-
. r _
r•
5
Words stpael& # are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1- 2 -2014
Packet Page -90-
3/11/2014 9.B.
r
J
rM
♦ �t o -
!1 - REM "MMON-9-100=21UTZOM-1;
"A",
sueh easements as Fieresswy (utility, pFiVate, semi publiG, ete.) shall be
E*hibit .u( a
J • ♦ AVAJAPJ J
• s r • ♦ J
! r J i =A� a t J
• _ o MMVr*VAFAVVJMTWA _ w •
44 • a ♦ r J ♦ -
1 Js J • t
o � �a r
2.41 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT DENSITY OR INTENSITY OF LAND USES
The maximum of 108 residential dwelling units may be constructed in the total
project area. This is based on a gross acreage of 9.92 acres and a maximum of
10.89 dwelling units /per acre, consistent with the Bayshore/Thomasson Drive
Subdistrict of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth
Management Plan.
6
Words stek thfough are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1 -2 -2014
Packet Page -91-
3/11/2014 9.B.
- . ■ f f ■ a _ — — — — _
— — • • •
MMONOMMATI M-1
• t PLAN
7
Words swaek-thFet� are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1 -2 -2014
Packet Page -92-
—. —
—
ME _ . ■
— — • • •
MMONOMMATI M-1
• t PLAN
7
Words swaek-thFet� are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1 -2 -2014
Packet Page -92-
11—N, .
3/11/2014 9.B.
r s
Words fiveeie4hfan t are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1 -2 -2014
Packet Page -93-
SECTION III
RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN
3.1 PURPOSE
3/11/2014 9.B.
The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for the
residential areas as shown on Exhibit "A ", RPUD Master Plan.
3.2 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS
The maximum of 108 residential dwelling units may be constructed in the total
project area equaling 29 base units and 79 units from the Bayshore Gateway
density pool, as limited herein. This is based on a gross acreage of 9.92 acres
and a maximum of 10.89 dwelling units /per acre, consistent with the
Bayshore/Thomasson Drive Subdistrict of the Future Land Use Element of the
Collier County Growth Manaaement Plan.
3.9 dwelG
J'_'f'9 r: ;hlP C- 9 Sinn PeRsib, 'mans AgFeepAeRt (AL..lDB)
r zr �
3.3 PERMITTED USES
No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land
used, in whole or part, for other than the following:
A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures:
Multi- family dwellings, limited to townhouse and condominiums. No
rental apartments shall be permitted.
2. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the
foregoing list of permitted principal uses. as determined by the
Board of Zoninq Appeals ( "BZA ") by the process outlined in the
Land Development Code (LDC).
B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures:
1. Customary accessory uses and structures including —ce e
garages, gazebos and utility buildings.
2. Recreational uses and facilities including swimming pools, tennis
courts, volleyball courts, fishing off- walking paths, picnic areas,
recreation buildings, and basketball /shuffle board courts.
3. Temporary sales trailer and model units.
Words stmek dwaao# are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1 -2 -2014'
Packet Page -94-
3/11/2014 9.B.
11-1*1.
4. Gate#ewseGatehouses. and access control structures.
5. Interim and permanent utility and maintenance facilities necessary
to service this RPUD.
3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
A. Table I sets forth the development standards for land uses within the
ale- ReinteSolstice RPUD.
rle� la
Words stmek4hrevg# are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision 6 t -2 -2014
Packet Page -95-
3/11/2014 9.B.
TABLE I
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
STANDARDS
MULTI- FAMILY
Minimum Lot Area (per unit,)
NA
Minimum Lot Width
NA
Front Yard Setback (1)
15'(2)
Side Yard Setback (1)
1 -Story
7.5'
2 -Story
10'
3-Story afld 4- &oFy_0ver Parking
11.25'
Rear Yard Setback (1)
Principal Structure
20'
Accessory Structure
10'_(5
RPUD Boundary ndary Setback (1)
1 -Story and 2 -Story Homes
15'
3-Story-Over Parking and 4
(3)
Accessory Structure
10'
Preserve Area Setback
Principal Structure
25'
Accessory Structure or infrastructure
10'
Lake Setback (4)
20'
Distance Between Structures
Main /Principal
1 -Story
15'
2 -Story
20'
3 -Story
22,5'
Accessory Structures
10'
Maximum Height:
Principal Building
Zoned 49=50' or 3 habitable stories over parking not to
exceed 50'
Actual 60'
Accessory Building 4-25'
Minimum Floor Area 9591,000 Sq. Ft. (6)
(1) Buildings, structures and pavements shall not encroach into required landscaped buffers.
(2) The multi fa
peFP9RdiG;zilar-l`1aFk;R- and a 5 foot wide sidewalk aFe IGGated within SUGh #9Rt yaFd
setba sk -Al! narking spaces shall be designed so that they do not encroach into or
impede any internal sidewalk.
(3) All buildings with 3 habitable stories shall be set back a minimum of fifty feet from the
eastern RPUD boundary and 30 feet from the northern property line.
(4) Lake setbacks are measured from the control elevation established for the lake.
(5) Dumnster enclosure adjacent to the ROW dedication area may be setback 5 feet from the
PUD boundary.
(5) 51 percent of the residential units shall be 1,200 souare feet or more in size
Solstice RPUD
11
Words svuek through are deleted; words underlined are added.
Revision 6 1 -2 -2014
Packet Page -96-
3/11/2014 9.B.
, kTT9 r_
1-0,006i It
F111"k. NMI
�a •
- li�lssl-
WIT M
•
n rune
s�'cu-.r.
County Land DevelqpmeAt Gede-.
B. Deviations:
12
Words stwek theme# are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1 -2 -2014
Packet Page -97-
WIT M
III MIN M I
a
County Land DevelqpmeAt Gede-.
B. Deviations:
12
Words stwek theme# are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1 -2 -2014
Packet Page -97-
3/11/2014 9.B.
Deviation 1 seeks relief from L.DC Section 4.05.04.G, Parking Space
Requirements. which requires that small -scale recreational amenities
within multi - family proiects where a maiority of the units are within 300` to
provide parking at 25% of the normal oarkina requirements for recreational
facilities, to allow the small scale recreational amenity to provide one
Parking space for short term drop off /pick -up and one ADA compliant
space.
13
Words stmeh thretgh are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision b 1 -2 -2014
Packet Page -98-
3/11/2014 9.B.
SECTION IV
PRESERVE AREAS PLAN
4.1 PURPOSE
The purpose of this Section is to identify specific development standards for the
Preserve Areas as shown on Exhibit "A ", PUD Master Plan_
4.2 PERMITTED USES
No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land
used, in whole or part, for other than the following:
A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures:
1. Passive recreational areas.
2. Hiking, and nature trails, and boardwalks.
3. Water management structures.
4. Native preserves and wildlife sanctuaries.
14
Words strraek4hfeegh are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1 -2 -2014
Packet Page -99-
SECTION V
DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS
1, – - -
5.31 RPUD MASTER PLAN
3/11/2014 9.B.
ie M-
A. Exhibit "A ", RPUD Master Plan illustrates the proposed development and
is conceptual in nature. Proposed area, tract, lot or land use boundaries
or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may
be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as final platting or site
development plan approval. Subject to the provisions of Subsection
10.02.13E. of the Collier County Land Development Code, amendments
may be made from time to time.
B. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be
granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service
utilities and all common areas in the project.
5.42 SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENTIMONITORING REPORT AND SUNSET
PROVISION
15
Words stfnek thfeugh are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1 -2 -2014
Packet Page -100-
3/11/2014 9.B.
A. The landowners shall proceed and be governed according to the time
limits pursuant to Section 10.02.13D. of the Land Development Code.
B. Monitoring Report: An annual monitoring report shall be submitted
pursuant to Section 10.02.13F. of the Collier County Land Development
Code.
C. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD
monitoring until close -out of the PUD and this entity shall also be
responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close -out of the
PUD. At the time of this PUD approval the Managing Entity is Cirrus
Pointe Partners LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the
monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a
copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal
sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval the Managing
Entity will be released of its obligations upon written aggroval of the
transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the
Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts the Managing
Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an
acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new
owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments
through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entice shall not be relieved
of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed -out then
the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and
fulfillment of PUD commitments.
5.€3 WATER MANAGEMENT
�\ 16
Words strttek tai k are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1 -2 -2614
Packet Page -101-
3/11/2014 9.B.
-DA. Lake setbacks from the perimeter of the RPUD may be reduced to twenty -
five (25) feet where a six (6) foot high fence or suitable substantial barrier
is erected.
B. No blasting shall be permitted.
5.74 UTILITIES
A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water
and /or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project shall be designed,
constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with Collier
County Ordinance No. 04 -31, as amended, and other applicable County
rules and regulations.
CB. Although the site is entirely within the Collier County Water /Sewer District,
potable water is served by the City of Naples. Even though the site
contains a 4 -inch force main, it shall not be used to provide service unless
a hydraulic capacity report has been submitted and approved by the
County Public Utilities Division. In lieu of connection to the
aforementioned 4 -inch force main, connection to either the 12 -inch force
main on Bayshore Drive or 12 -inch force main on Thomasson Drive shall
be preferred.
5.95 TRAFFIC
17
Words stmeli thfeugh are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision b 1 -2 -2014
Packet Page -102-
- M
CB. Although the site is entirely within the Collier County Water /Sewer District,
potable water is served by the City of Naples. Even though the site
contains a 4 -inch force main, it shall not be used to provide service unless
a hydraulic capacity report has been submitted and approved by the
County Public Utilities Division. In lieu of connection to the
aforementioned 4 -inch force main, connection to either the 12 -inch force
main on Bayshore Drive or 12 -inch force main on Thomasson Drive shall
be preferred.
5.95 TRAFFIC
17
Words stmeli thfeugh are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision b 1 -2 -2014
Packet Page -102-
3/11/2014 9.B.
e
• _ - - r r •
OWN
A. The sole point of ingresslearess to the RPUD shall be onto Thomasson_
Drive. No access shall be allowed on Bayshore Drive
r 1s
Words std th+eag# are deleted; wards underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1 -2 -2014
Packet Page -103-
r . ■ • -
_
„ _
MKININ
r
- - - _
_ .
- _ _
M
-winr
_ • .
e
• _ - - r r •
OWN
A. The sole point of ingresslearess to the RPUD shall be onto Thomasson_
Drive. No access shall be allowed on Bayshore Drive
r 1s
Words std th+eag# are deleted; wards underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1 -2 -2014
Packet Page -103-
3/11/2014 9.B.
M. Nothing in aRy deyelepmeRt efdeF Shall vest a Fight ef arsess dR exress e
the !aGk thereof, be the basis fOF ally fUtUFe rsause ef aGtieA fGF damages
.
M.
ThemassoR DFive with a 6 feet. wide GeRGFete sidewalk pFi9F t9 Vhle
NB. The developer has provided Collier County with a right -of -way easement
along a portion of Thomasson Drive for intersection improvements. This
conveyance is recorded in Official Records Book 1090 Page 1697 Prior to
appFaval -the issuance of the site develepment pleff first residential building
Permit, the owner shall de6d - eve FConvev the area of the right -of -way
easement to Collier County in fee simple free and clear of all
encumbrances and at no cost to the County. Me right -of -way easement
is located at the southwest comer of the subject property tO
C#y.
5.96 PLANNING
Solstice RPUD
19
Words stMek4hreegh are deleted; words underlined are added.
Packet Page -104-
Revision 6 1 -2 -2014
3/11/2014 9.B.
the F499#19— 1-1-F
D$ way ale" the pmjest's
deveI9pmeR ffiaf,,:
A. All buildings lighting signage landscaping and visible architectural
infrastructure shall be architecturally and aesthetically unified Said unified
architectural theme shall include: a similar architectural design and use of
similar materials and colors throughout all of the buildings signs and
fences /walls to be erected on all of the subiect parcels.. Landscaping and
streetscape materials shall also be similar in design throughout the subject
site. All roofs, except for camorts shall be peaked and finished in the
metal. or architecturally - designed shingles (such as Timberline) The
residential buildings shall be concrete or precast concrete construction
B. A homeowner's association or similar entity will be established and will be
responsible for maintenance of common elements
C. The proiect shall be gated and fenced and the developer will provide each
parking area.
E. Outdoor security cameras shall be provided within the arolect
F. The pool amenity shall be completed no later than the issuance of the 55m
certificate of occupancy
G. Any wail or fence facing Bayshore Road or Thomasson Drive shall be
required to have architectural features and finish
H. The Affordable _Housing Bonus Density Agreement shall be terminated
upon the effective date of this PUD
20
Words stdek-thKmO are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1 -2 -2014
Packet Page -105-
3/11/2014 9.B.
J. Within seven (7) days of the closing for each unit, the Developer or
successors, shall remit $2.962.96 to Collier County. However, within 5
through the per unit sale. This payment shall fully satisfy the repayment of
the former $320,000 -grant which was issued for acquisition of the subiect
property for development of affordable housing.
5.x-87 ENVIRONMENTAL
tWeMy five (25) feet fFeR; the !andwaFd edge- of wetiall
i
4; aGGeFdaRee with the State
21
Words stmek Ehreugh are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1 -2 -2014
Packet Page -106-
- - s. •_ _
tWeMy five (25) feet fFeR; the !andwaFd edge- of wetiall
i
4; aGGeFdaRee with the State
21
Words stmek Ehreugh are deleted; words underlined are added.
Solstice RPUD Revision 6 1 -2 -2014
Packet Page -106-
3/11/2014 9.B.
E A e s e n Area -Mt ` eRta l e icy e
4e
me #: of s—te adder tfetatment e,`- Eflyesfife-- eXvz;o SpeGfes- fife
FR a Ra-gepi } - maintenaRG&
I shall. be submitted pFiGF } C ageRGy
app4:aval eF site rrrefirkfl? 9a {:
G. This crol In shall
} the
t i'efe5 ` v 'the time G-f fiRal } �r4Ui
eppFgva-l-
This RRUD shall Gamply with c r•- r t 'Q
4443 aG=S ` . . r. t-�a f r is- thn
^^
rpeoi2: shall be submitted }zn G tal Sep -ice s Staff fn ie d
}
.-;c pp;4vat;
• ^} + ' all ' have a mini mf'r iim 'I " . eT7aGl- E)F
25 feet IY'17"d i"T•iTTe"
Y$ 4 } i;
t r iqvasive $ t ute- 3s- a` fFt by the- FIGFida Exet;G p" - -��ariz
QE)Wnni! Shall he
A minimum of 25% of the on -site native vegetation must be retained 7.25±
acres of native vegetation exists reauiring preservation of 1.81± acres of native
vegetation. A minimum of 1.81 acres of preserve areas are required to be
orovided on -site. emohasizinq the largest continuous area possiblQ as described
in Section 3.05.07 of the Land Development Code
Solstice RPUD
22
Words 4. f*ek- t hr*tw,4i are deleted; words underlined are added.
Packet Page -107-
Revision 6 1 -2-2014
3/11/2014 9.B.
I �
3 � W
pN
2 z E C Q
z
- = 1f^i
E � �aii i i 1 �pLL S
LL
Lj-�
amo 6VwO s C
zHz g $ �¢
ni66 ;' WF E { •mss 0, y
8 r ZC °WO
Z �HN
S S
NZ 7 SY
Q W J ?< CU� 1,{ 5 . Cc,
j E UaF g y W4 LS
U f
i k EE sF?vH ZZW4 3
BODO
Wcc
-
�y c� U T 0 r Ir CD
�0 N < WI
m
O a
I'D
I! f IIE I �I- f4';
31 i
Ci / if
W �
<
z
°zZ
' K C@ i • a .. i l...f E C� . U C
O �y w
tr
-_,.
�. w
_ — mes °PO
..... .-= _. ( nn /1 � ?
10MY AM)/) 3AI80 3WHSAVS
_•_._--- - - - - --- -- _� QZW S
abW tea
uji W .d < W
> x W
b l: Wx7p mow¢
_
Dig a� a¢or o�rca
raLnc ragc -iVU
3/11/2014 93.
This space for recording
AMENDED AND RESTATED
AGREEMENT AUTHORIZING AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE HOUSWd
DENSITY BONUSAR03MOSING COVENANTS AN
REST PROPERTY
G
THIS AM ED A4D ESTA"fEIGRE 'MEN is as of the day
of 08 b a a s s (the "Developer") and
the Collier Junty Board t un y Commissio rs mission "), collectively, the
� o
"Parties," and replaces the i inal Aare i` ' s ire .'
Ir
�0 .�,.
C w
oa
c.n
w
A. The Developer owns act of rea operty described in Exhibit "A" attacked
hereto and incorporated h n (The "Property"). the Developerls intent to construct
a maximum of 108 sidential units (the "Units ") a density of 10.89 units per
gross acre on Property. The gross acreage of Prop is 9.92 acres. The
number o fEardable- workforce housing units constructed Developer shall be
33 , representing 39 forty (40) percent of the total number esidential Units
roved in the development, or 56.4 percent of the approved bonus u
Vol
Page 1 of 31
4112/06 ended ned text is added, stwek *Feugh text is deleted
A
Packet Page -109-
3/11/2014 SIR
In order to construct the Units, the Developer must obtain a density bon
from the mmission for the Property as provided for in the Collier County Affor le
Housing De ity Bonus Ordinance No. 90-89, now codified by Ordinance 0 1, as
Land Develop nt Code (LDC) § 2.06.00 et seq., which density bonus n only be
granted by the Co ission and utilized by the Developer in accordant ith the strict
limitations and applic ility of said provisions.
C. The Com sion is willing to grant a density bo s to the Developer
authorizing the constructio of 78 bonus Units on the P perty, if the Developer
agrees to construct affordable orkforce and Qap Units as cified in this Agreement
NOW, THEREFORE, in
bonus of 7.89 units per ac
thereby on the Property, a d i t J
sufficiency of which are er
hereby covenant and agr
1. Recitals. Th vE
herein by reference.
2. Developer Agreem
construct up to _33 44 a4-
born val and grant of the density
by the D r and the benefits conferred
uabl co sideration, the receipt and
to er and the Commission
F-�
and are incorporated
by agrees that he it shall
units, not to exit' ed 40 % of the a
units,
Units shall be sold in
accordance with the t 1 11 1, s and conditions of this Agreement . d as specified by the
attached Appendice & B, Exhibits A, B, & C, and Appendix C, ich Appendices are
incorporated by r erence herein and which constitute a part of this
a. a following provisions shall be applicable to the
and gap
workforce
-A
F ' Defined terms: In the event of a conflict between terms as deft' in the
in Ordinance No. 90 -89, Section 4, the definitions of the LDC will control' en
g or interpreting this Agreement. In addition to these defined terms and t
text is added, stwf44hfatigh text is deleted
Page 2 of 31
_r_ Packet Page -110-
0
.sue.
cis
oc,
c„r
w
LXV
3/11/2014 9.B.
licability of LDC § 2.06.04 'Phasing' shall mean: (a) the phased construction
but ' gs or structures in separate and distinct stages as shown on a PUD master an,
i
subdiv ' n master plan or site development plan; or (b) in developments wher hased
constructs is not depicted on a PUD master plan, subdivision master n or site
developmen an, the construction of buildings or structures in a clean efined series
of starts and fins es that are separate and distinct within the develop nt.
(2) Media Income. For the purposes of this Agreemen he median income
of the area as define ` by the U.S. Department of Housing d Urban Development
(HUD) shall be the then rent median income for the Na s Metropolitan Statistical
Area, established penodica b rof, n the Federal Register, as
adjusted for family size as s n the tables atta ereto as Appendix A. Exhibit
C, which Exhibit shall be a 'us ti a or nce with any adjustments
that are authorized by H s e vent that HUD ceases to
publish an established m sai G ies hereto shall mutually
�o
agree to another reason a nd com ra t mputing adjustments in
�°-
median income.
(3) Eli ibili and r. Family income eligibility is a
three -step process: 1) subm' I of an application y a prospective Owner, 2)
b
'
verification of family housin unit provided under the a dable, workforce, and gap
°w
housing density bonus gram prior to being qualified a he appropriate level of
income (very low, to medeFate workforce, or gap income) i accordance with this
Section; 3) certifi n of eligible Owner by the Fiaaiisia1 Adm. -., Housing
and Human. Se es Department.
The veloper, , shall be responsible for qualifying Owners accepting
applicatio verifying income and obtaining income certification for all rdable,
workfo a and gap units in the subject development. All applications, forms an the
Zrlidocentation required by this Agreement shall be provided to
text is added, sEensk-thicegh text is deleted
Page 3 of 31
Packet Page - 111 -
3/11/2014 9.B.
ousing and Human Services Department. Qualification by the Developer of a
pe ons as an eligible Owner family shall be subject to review and approv in
actor nce with the monitoring and enforcement program in LDC §§ 2.06 and
2.06.06, spectively.
(a) Application. '�
manager, or agent to qualif
owning and occupying an ff
workforce housing densit be
workforce housing unit stfj
and-- Housing and Human
VO
attached to this Agreement a'
(b) Income Verific,
to the developer, owner,
family for the purpose of
y)ursuant to the affordable -
J pplicaiion for affordable_
n Appendix B, Exhibit A,
affordable - workforce housing
unit in the development shall P sold whose househl d income has not been verified
and certified in accordance ifh this Agreement and LDC 2.06.05.
(c) Income V fication. The Developer shall obtt i'n written verification from
the potential occu a X
P p (including the entire household) to veri all regular sources of
income (includin a entire household). The most recent year' ederal income tax
return for the ential occupants (including the entire household) ma be used for the
purpose of come verification, attached to the affordable- workforce ho g Applicant
Income erifcation form, including a statement to release information, ccupant
verifi ion of the return, and a signature block with the date of applicatio The
J ' ication shall be valid for up to one hundred eighty (180) days prior to occupa
deriined text is added, s4mek4hresg#t text is deleted
Page 4 of 31
Packet Page -112-
c>
7v
w
00
-b
c7
w
—r,
I ^,
3/11/2014 9.B.
expiration of the 180 day period, the information may be verbally updated fro
ginal sources for an additional 30 days, provided it has been documented e
reparing the original verification. After this time, a new verification f must
be comp d. The affordable- workforce housing Applicant Income Verif Lion form
shall be pro ed to the ousing and H an Services
Department as own in Appendix B, Exhibit B, attached to thi Agreement and
incorporated by ref nce herein.
(d) Income ertification. Upon receipt of the Preli ary Application for an
affordable- workforce ho g unit and Applicant Inco Verification form, the
Developer shall require that i --t�r r be executed by the potential
occupant (includin g the en �
usehold) prior upancy of the affordable -
workforce housing unit by th o n . ce 'fi ion shall assure that the
potential occupant has a a e 1 w 'ch qualifies the potential
occupant as an eligible fa ab a housing unit under the
affordable-workforce hou density on ra he affordable- workforce
Housing Applicant Income a on form provided by the €4Raesial
Housing and 0 artment as shown in Appendix B,
Exhibit C, is attached to this A ement and is incorpor d by reference herein.
Random i ection of files containing req d documentation to verify
occupancy in accordan with this Agreement and ADC § 2. .00, may be conducted
by the €iearisial -AI- Housing and Human Servi s Department upon
reasonable notice
(4) ual Progress and Monitorin Re ort. The Developer II provide the
Housing and Human Services Departmen n annual
progres nd monitoring report regarding the delivery of affordable- workfor ousing
units roughout the period of their construction and occupancy. The annual p ess
a monitoring report shall, at a minimum, provide any information reasonably requi
deriined text is added, svue44hfeuO text is deleted
Page 5 of 31
Packet Page -113-
0
.sue.
w
oco
C-"
I•+v
0
w
CK>
3/11/2014 9.B.
\shall liance with LDC § 2.06.00, or subsequent amendments thereto. T
filed on or before September 30 of ea ch year and the report s be
e Developer to the Housing an uman
tment. Failure to complete and submit the monitoring rt to the
Housing and Human Services Department (thin sixty (60)
days from the d date shall result in a penalty of up to fifty dolls ($50.00) per day
unless a written ext ion not to exceed thirty (30) days is requ ed prior to expiration
of the sixty (60) day su fission deadline. No more than o such extension may be
granted in a single year.
(5) Occu anc v Res orkforce unit in any building or
structure on the Property sh (b pied by the .e er, any person related to or
affiliated with the Develop t o b 3 ger.
3. Densi B nu o y acknowledges that the
Developer has met all re 1 ali �e sity bonus, in addition to
the base residential densi 3 Is per erefore granted a density
o
bonus of 7.89 density bon s per acre, for fit' ensity (total = density bonus
units per acre X gross acreag r 1. i c, pursuant to LDC § 2.06.00'
WS,,
The Commission further rees that the Developer m construct thereon, in the
G--I
aggregate a maximum number of 108 units on the Prope ' rovided the Developer
'
°'
is able to secure Y_uilis�hg permits) from Collier County.
�
4. Co ion Agreement. During the term of thi greement, the
Commission aa>vting through the Housi and Human
Services ` partment or its successor(s) ovenants and agrees to pre
pa g p .par - nd make
availab "to the Developer any general information that it possesses regardin come
limi Ions and restrictions which are applicable to the affordable. workforce. o -, an
5. Violations and Enforcement
underlined text is added, stuck- tkretgk text is deleted
Page 6 of 31
Packet Page -114-
unit
3/11/2014 9. B.
a. Violations. It shall be a violation of this Agreement and LDC rs
to sell or occupy, or attempt to sell or occupy, an affordable- workforce h sing
tided under the affordable - workforce housing density bonus program cept as
Skpermffitted by the terms of this Agreement; or to knowingly a false or
misleading i mjation with respect to any information required or re3quested by the
Housing and Human Services Depa — t or by any other
persons pursuant he authority which is delegated to them byLC § 2.06.00. Collier
County or its design e shall have full power to enforce the terms of this Agreement.
The method of 'enforcem t for a breach or violation of thisAgreement shall be at the
option of the Commission b imi ei skint to the provisions of Section
125.69, Florida Statutes, or b enforcement as by law.
b. Notic of r on Rid En re ent Board Proceedings_
Whenever it is determin d
2.06.00, that should be a poi
Violation shall be issued n
receipt requested U.S. Mail,
The Notice of Violation shall +
a n is Agreement or of LDC §
e E f iris t Board, then a Notice of
i
e r a � w rtment by certified retum-
ivery th ' on or developer in violation.
nts for such Notices.
C. Certificate' of Occupancy. In the ent that the Developer fails to
maintain the affordable- woilcforce units in accordance i th this Agreement or LDC §
2.06.00, as amended,/ the option of the Commission, but 'ng permits or certificates
of occupancy, as applicable, may be withheld for any futur tanned or otherwise
approved unit I ed or to be located upon the Property until the tire project is in full
compliance w' this Agreement and with LDC § 2.06.00, as amend
6. _Assignment by Commission. The Commission may assig all or part of
its obligations under this Agreement to any other public agency having juris ion over
the P operty provided that it gives the Developer thirty (30) days advance writt once
t ereof. The Developer may not assign, delegate or otherwise transfer all or part its
underlined text is added, stmak titrugh text is delete
Page 7 of 31
Packet Page -115-
01
C--,*
o�
0
.sue•
c�
3/11/2014 9.B.
uties, obligations, or promises under this Agreement to any successor in interest to th
P erty without the express written consent of the Commission, which consent ma e
withh for any reason whatsoever. Any attempt to assign the duties, obligati s, or
promises nder this Agreement to any successor in interest to the Property out the
express writt consent of the Commission as required by this Section sh be void ab
initio.
7. Seve ilit . If any section, phrase. sentence or
is for any reason fiel\dee or unconstitutional by any court
such portion shall be ed a separate, distinct, and indep
other provisions shall remain
8. Notice. Any no
shall be in writing and S 11
Postage prepaid, to the Portia
To the Com
of this Agreement
)etent jurisdiction,
provision, and all
ired or require t given under this Agreement
r
eliv r or shall be sent by mail,
0
Ign
ivapt9; t-loridaV4111204
To the Develop James J. Fields
15544 Monterosso L e #2
Naples, Florida 34110
With cop o:
Any Party may c nge the address to which notices are to be sent notifying the
other Party of ch new address in the manner set forth above.
9. Authority to Monitor The Parties hereto acknowledge that th Collier
County Housing and Human Services Department its
desi ee, shall have the authority to monitor and enforce the Developer's obligatio
999er—llftcd text is added, stws -t xeu text is deleted
Page 8 of 31
Packet Page -116-
0
+t1.s
ao
C-"
0
0
3/11/2014 9.B.
10. Indemnify. The Developer hereby agrees to protect, defend, indemn'
and ho Collier County and its officers, employees, and agents harmless from nd
against an and all claims, penalties, damages, losses and expenses, prof sional
fees, including, ithout limitation, reasonable attorney's fees and all costs litigation
and judgments a -ng out of any claim, willful misconduct or neglige act, error or
omission, or liability any kind made by Developer, its agents or ployees, arising
out of or incidental to the rformance of this Agreement.
11. Covenants. Th Developer agrees that all of i obligations hereunder
shall constitute covenants, restri ESO' whic hall run with the land and
shall be binding upon the and again person then having any
ownership interest at any t' e n, e n '1 th Agreement is terminated
in accordance with Secti n r ie agree that if Developer
transfers or conveys the P,m, so Developer shall have no
further obligation hereund d any, pers se o rce the terms hereof shall
look solely to Developer's su in i erest for t rmance of said obligations.
Y
12. Recording. This Ag !✓ or at County's expense in the
official records of Collier County, orida.
13. Entire A reem t. The Parties hereto agree hat this Agreement
constitutes the entire Agre ent between the Parties. hereto and s II inure to and be
binding upon their resp five heirs, successors, and assigns.
14. Termi tion. Each affordable. workforce, or gap housing it shall be
restricted to rem n and be maintained as the required affordable workforce nd aao
housing as p ided in the LDC §2.06.04.
15. Modification. This Agreement shall be modified or amended only by
written greement of both Parties.
16. Discrimination.
U rlin text is added, simak through text is deleted
Page 9 of 39
Packet Page -117-
0
�a
w
orJ
ca-+
0
.cam
0
r--3.
3/11/2014 9.B.
a. The Developer agrees that neither it nor its agents sh
disc ' inate against any owner or potential owner because of said owners race, or,
religion, ex, national origin, familial status, or handicap.
b. When the Developer advertises, sells or maintains th ffordable-
workforce ho 'ng unit, it must advertise= sell, and maintain the s e in a non-
discriminatory ma er and shall make available any relevant inform n to any person
who is interested in p chasing such affordable - workforce housin nit.
C. The eveloper agrees to be responsibl or payment of any real
estate commissions and f s for which it is liable in a purchase and sale of
affordable - workforce units. rR CQ�
e. The afi
and not segregated from, t
f. The
workforce, and gap housi i
development. All physical
seven (7) of the Developer
shall be the same for i
,rkforce houjKgLi)Rits shall be intermixed with,
nits Iq th4 development.
-V d esign of the affordable.,
me s rate dwelling units in the
e dwe u itr described in item number
for affordabl b ' orce housing Density Bonus
IE . able- workforce units. For
dev/units ts where const tion takes place in more th one phase, all physical
ame described ' item number seven (7) of the De doper Application for
Affoorkforce ousing Density Bonus shall be the same in th the market rate
unit affo ble- workforce units in each phase. units in a s equent phase
may di rent amenities than units in a previous phase so long as amenities
for e units and affordable workforce and a units are the same w in each
pharovided that in no event may a market rate unit or affordable- workfo unit
in a contain physical amenities less than those described in the Develop
17. Phasing. The percentage of affordable- workforce housing units to which
underlined undeTlined text is added, swaek- thfetto text is deleted
Page 10 of 31
Packet Page -118 -
0
.s:�.
w
uw
b
cs
.sue.
c�
c..a
Mw
3/11/2014 9.6.
has committed for the total development shall be maintained in eac
ll be constructed as part of each phase of the development o e
loper commits to 394 Dement affordable - workforce housing its for
\projewith
h � percent of the units in each phase consisting of o rdable-
is sure. The developer shall not disclose to perso , other than the
potential buyer or I der of the particular affordable - workforce sing unit or units,
which units in the devel ment are designated as affordable -w orce housing units.
19. Consistency. This Agreement and autho . development shall be
consistent with the Growth n. F'GO an development regulations of
Collier County that are in eff a time of develo Subsequently adopted laws
and policies shall apply t thi e e ev opment to the extent that
they are not in conflict wi t e , w kforce housing units and
the amount of afforda
nus approved for the
development. a
Q
Pcy
20. Affordable -W sina Den ' ,B s Development Agreement.
This Agreement is a distinct and
g aft from "development agreements"
as defined by Section 163.322 la. Stat., as amended.
21. Preapplication Developer has executed and submitted to the
o
Development Services D artment the Developer Application Affordable - Workforce
Housing Density Bon , a copy of which is attached to this Agre ent as Appendix C
and incorporated b reference herein_
22. G ernin Law. This Agreement shall be governed by an construed in
accordance lth the laws of the State of Florida.
23 Further Assurances. The Parties hereto shall execute and d ' er, in
reco le form if necessary, any and all documents, certificates, instruments, nd
ag ements which may be reasonably required in order to effectuate the intent of t
erlined text is added, sw+4"hreuo text is deleted
Page 14 of 31
Packet Page -119-
3/11/2014 93.
reement. Such documents shall include but not be limited to any docume
req ted by the Developer to exhibit that this Agreement has termin in
accord ce with the provisions of paragraph 14 above.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
Agreement to be executed a day and year fir ;
ATTEST: B R FCC
DWIGHT f�;',t1�OCK,'Cle
,v
w, L
LIU
jS:
Y P By: T n
it CR1`CifRfM`
as to j6rm and legal sufficiency:
nt,founty Attorney
underlined text is added, stmak4krevo text is deleted
Page 12 of 31
Packet Page -120-
:d this First Amendment to
written.
COMMISSIONERS
LORIDA
Lei= =
V O
0
a
Witness
Pned Na
Witness j�
Printed Name 4(J�_ L
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF COLLIER }
3/11/2014 9.B.
DEVELOPER:
s'
y- _ By- � �vu � rtf2
ct F1 0 CU' a�;Z�
R. Cou�T.
The foregoing First Amerldm9n to e
Gap Housing Density Bl U nd I s'`
Property was aAkno ei d • b o
wh G, rsonc
as ' e
WITNESS my hand a official seal
2008.
My Commission
1PARATORE
y�lON t D D 4i 73t6 Rni llmrry�wNO'U�w�.ews
text is added, stfaek tkraagk text is deleted
Page 13 of 31
Packet Page -121-
rn� Agordable, Workforce, and
N
nt , d Restrictions On Real
o
S . + as
to me or has produced w
ao
F �
day o
Q
0
a,
ox
NNary Public
m
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Packet Page -122-
3/11/2014 9.B.
Ca
0
.s'.
0
I-
3/11/2014 9.B.
APPENDIX A, EXHIBIT A
NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE - WORKFORCE
HOUSING UNITS/MONTHLY BASE RENTS
NUMBER OF UNITS BASE RENT
Single Multi Single Multi
Family Family Family Family
GAP INCO E
(51- 150% M
Efficienc
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
4 Bedroom
TOTAL
WORKFORCE INCOME ,y
(61 -80% MI)
Efficiency r�
1 Bedroom
0
c...s
00
C-"
2 Bedroom
0
3 Bedroom
44
4 Bedroom
0
TOTAL
0 44
LOW INCOME
(51%-600/40 MI)
Efficiency
1 Bedr m
2 B om
Bedroom
-1-4
under)- text is added, stfuek t#Mgg# text is deleted
Page 15 of 31
Packet Page -123-
0
c...s
00
C-"
0 2+
VERY LOW I COME
(50% OR LESS I)
Efficiency
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
4 Bedroom
TOTAL
(1) Base residential d sit aq
(2) Gross acreage .92
(3) Maximum numb r o rt
development p u to L.1
(4) Gross residential e
nisi
density bonus unit h ho. (5) Percentage of affor percent of the total n
44
Z
Fits in the deve
ll�
text is added, std � text is deleted
Page 16 of 31
Packet Page -124-
VIA
3/11/2014 9.B.
13 units/acre.
jordable-workforce bonus units allowed in this
housing
ed by the developer (as a �
30 A0 %.
.cam
L...i
00
tr.
G']
0
ca
3/11/2014 9.B.
APPENDIX A, EXHIBIT B
AFFORDABLE- WORKFORCE ROUSING
DENSITY BONUS RATING SYSTEM
LD § 2.06.03, provides for calculation of a density bonus for develope pledging to
construct dable-workforce units within their development. Included in thi 'bit B are
instructions fo d the tables with which to calculate the density bonus for a cular project.
Exhibit C con the current median income and acceptable rents for and very low,
workforce, and gap come households in Collier County.
The affordable- rkforce housing density bonus rating system all be used to determine
the amount of the affo le- workforce housing density bonuses ch may be granted for a
development based on hous old income level, number- ef bedme per- afFeFdable housing unit;
, and
percentage of affordable work a an units the development. To use the
affordable- workforce housing den b� t les A ate, below, shall be used.
Tables A and B shall be review pdated if ne n an annual basis by the Board of
County Commissioners or its d i
First, choose the hou eh d incom a ]o very low, low; workforce. or
a of the affordable -wor or g u p e he evelopment, and - the -Eype Of
benus Fating based en the he is she%% in Table :::0
(� CK>
After- the a&r-dable houst
-eteEmined in Table A; lasat
in Table B, and detefmifte the pxc
unit proposed in the -XV
cs,
, o base gfess aeFe that may Nex determin a of that a of ti
affordable- workforce ho u units ro osed in the development co tired to the total number Q
maximum number oVesidential dwelling units per gross acre that mav%e added to the base
density, These ad ' tonal residential dwelling units per gross acre are the m imum affordable✓
Y,ahousi density bonus (AWHDB) available to that development. D elopments with
es of ordable- workforce housing units which fall in between the perc es shown on
sh receive an affordable- workforce housing density bonus equal the to of the two
t lies between plus 1 /10th of a residential dwelling unit per gross ac for each
percentage of affordable- workforce housing rental units in the developm For
a development which has 24% of its total residential dwelling units as affo le_ housing units, and which has an affordable housing density bonus rating of "fo ill
rec a an
affordable-workforce housing density bonus (AWHDB) of 4.4 residential dweIlt
per gross acre for the development.
declined text is added, souek-&0 text is deleted
Page 17 of 31
Packet Page -125-
3/11/2014 9.B.
oderlin text is added, strasi� t#ragq tent is deleted
Page 18 of 31
Packet Page -126-
0
od
C.
-v
c�
0
.p.
/"*Nl
APPENDIX A, EXHIBIT B
AFFORDABLE-W -HOUSING
DENSITY BONUS RATING SYSTEM
Please cale ate your density bonus in the space provided below. Att
necessary.
3/11/2014 93.
r
additional pages if
- vwi1c1- UQCUP1cu only
* *May only be used in
Total Maximum Allow
Bonus.
In no event shall t <
61netion with at least 10% at or\16uni MI
Density = Base Density + A lbforce Housing Density
urn gross density allowed exceer acre..
ujfcriin ed text is added, 9P.&- m%* text is deleted
Page 19 of 31
Packet Page -127-
0
UJ
C17
r— ►
cv
i • • I► • • •• • •
Household
—�
income
81-150%
•
.
•
•
•
�►�.li.l�
T
I
ISIOMEMNSOVANO
•
or
- vwi1c1- UQCUP1cu only
* *May only be used in
Total Maximum Allow
Bonus.
In no event shall t <
61netion with at least 10% at or\16uni MI
Density = Base Density + A lbforce Housing Density
urn gross density allowed exceer acre..
ujfcriin ed text is added, 9P.&- m%* text is deleted
Page 19 of 31
Packet Page -127-
0
UJ
C17
r— ►
cv
3/11/2014 9.B.
APPENDIX A, EXHIBIT C
Pursuant 4apter 74, Section 74 -402 (a)(1); Collier County Code of Laws and OrdjAnces,
moderate in me is 61% to 80% of the median income, low income of the
median into and very low income is less than 50% of the median
TWO
BEDROOM
UNIT
THREE
BEDROOM
UNIT
FOUR
BEDROOM
T
MEDIAN INCOME 2007
zurrent
$63,300
$1,961
$2,355
Naples, MSA (Collier County)
$3, 4
80%
NUMBER OF M
BERS IN FAMILY rior table deleted follows
$1,451
1
2
3 4 5 6
7
8
150%
73,350
83,700
94,2 � , 0� 1 121,500
129,900
138,150
80%
39,100
44,650
64,750
69,250
73,700
60%
29,340
33,480
0 41,880 ¢$ 48,600
51,960
55,260
50%
24,450
27,900
3 4,900 717 40,500
43,300
46,050
35%
17,115
19,53
1, 2 30 6,390 8,350
30,310
32,235
25%
12,225
13,45 '
r% , 597 2 ,250
21,650
23,025
�
y is lam,
The Florida Housing Finance (
Incentive Loan (SAIL) and the
rents given below are based on
County's Section 8 Rental Assi
Housing Authority.
FHFC) I Ots to use in the State Apartment
o pert i ax Credit (LiHTC) programs_ The
data tility costs are provided from the
Program which is a inistered by the Collier County
HOUSI COSTS BASED ON 30% F LY INCOME
rior table deleted current table fo ws
�r-20-rffllneG text IS added, struek tiFsegh text is deleted
Page 20 of 31
Packet Page -128-
0
.sue
w
oo>
L"
0
ca
ONE
BE OOM
U T
TWO
BEDROOM
UNIT
THREE
BEDROOM
UNIT
FOUR
BEDROOM
T
150%
$1,961
$2,355
$2,720
$3, 4
80%
11,046
$1,256
$1,451
$1,6
60%
$785
$942
$ 1,089
$11 215
500
$654
$785
$907
$1,012
35
$458
$549
S635
$708
°/a
$327
$392 1
$453 IS
506
�r-20-rffllneG text IS added, struek tiFsegh text is deleted
Page 20 of 31
Packet Page -128-
0
.sue
w
oo>
L"
0
ca
3/11/2014 9.B.
underlined text is added, gmek thFough text is deleted
Page 21 of 31
Packet Page -129-
3/11/2014 93.
APPENDIX B, EXHIBIT A
\Dateupancy Y APPLICATION FOR AFFORDABLE- WORKFORCE HOyNo
Desired: Date of Application: Amt. Of Sec. Race/National Origin: Handicap: Yes a Race/National Origin: Handicap: Yes
Present Address.
Street City
Name of Landlord
Landlord's Address:
State Telephone No.
How Long at thi s:
Street City State- LAOU, Tel
If you have resided at your prese ss than
Street City
Name of Previous Landlord
Street City S eL
APPLICANT: 0
Present Employers Name CT�-
Address and Telephone No.
How long with Present Employ Job Title
Gross Salary: Hourly $ eekly $ Every 2 Weeks S
Social Security Number Birth Date
Previous Employers e
Address and Telep ne No.
How long with evious Employer Job Title
CO-TEN
Present ployers Name
Ad and Telephone No.
Ho long with Present Employer: Job Title
u erl ned text is added, stFook- owough text is deleted
Page 22 of 31
Packet Page -130-
state previous address:
No.
0
Telephone No.
.x�
w
00
-v
.sue.
Monthly S v'
3/11/2014 9.B.
ss Salary: Hourly $ Weekly $ Every 2 Weeks $ Monthly $
Soc 1 Security Number Birth Date
Previo Employers Name
Address Telephone No.
How long w Previous Employer Job Title
NAMES OF ALL O WILL OCCUPY APARTMENT BIRTH DATE SEX ACE SOCIAISECURM
1.
2.
3.
1. Name: Address:
2. Name: Address:
VIA
underlined text is 3dded, swic4- dwetigk text is delcted
Page 23 of 31
Packet Page -131-
How Long Known:
How Long Known:
C>
0
APPENDIX B, EXHIBIT B
AFFORDABLE- WORKFORCE HOUSING APPLICANT INCOME VERIFICA'
Date:
Applicant' ame: Social Security Number
Co- Tenant's e:: Social Security Number
Present Address:
I hereby make appli Nre
I hereby declare and
I am aware that to leave
stocks, bonds, real prol
Knowingly falsifying inf,
City State Zip
for a single family unit at
all of my sources of income.
omit or fail to report my assets or fc
rt rent, sale or ownership is a fra�
ma non this.ferri%s`rusa.for refufl
I hereby certify that this will
housing. ,
3/11/2014 9.B.
No.
> ' of income from pensions,
ulent act punishable by law.
of occupancy.
that I have no other assisted
I understand that this info ` ag
e
mp ting my annual income to
determine my qualification
lob y
f 1 b
r c
a
housing unit. I understand
that I am not required to
d
e i
or n h
o1
'med property, pensions or
capital gains, etc.
I�
Co- Occupant
0
Amoun
a cy
Amount Frequency
CReceived
of Pay
Wages /Salary
$
$ $
Bonuses
$
S
$ $
Tips
$
S
$ $
Commissions
$
$
$ $
Interest Income
$
$
$ $
Trust Fund Income
$
$
$ $
Unemployment
$
$
$
Workman's Compe ation
$
$
$
Welfare
S
$
$ $
Food Stamps
$
$
$ S
Social Securi
$
$
$ $
Social Secu ' Disability
$
$
$ $
Suppleme al SSI
$
S
$
Family sistance
S
$
$ S
Child pport
S
$
$ $
Vet s Benefits
$
$
$ $
W' ows Benefits
$
$
$ $
erlin text is added. a reogh text is deleted
Page 24 of 31
Packet Page -132-
.,sue
w
oca
c.n
►b
c+
3/11/2014 9.B.
nion Pension $ $ $ $
5 - Employment Business,
Sil t Partner, etc. $ $ $ $
Pnva Insurance Pension $ $ $ $
TOTAL NUAL INCOME $ $
THE VERIFI TION HERE REQUESTED MAY TAKE THE FORM OF MOST RECENT
YEAR'S INCO E TAX RETURN FOR EACH OCCUPANT WHO H ILED AND WILL
OCCUPY THE ORDABLE, WORKFORCE, OR GAP UNIT.
THE SAME MUST E EXECUTED FOR EACH OCCUPANT OF E HOUSEHOLD WHO
CONTRIBUTED TO E ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME. AILURE TO REPORT ALL
SOURCES OF HOUSE D INCOME WILL RESULT IN DISQ IFICATION FOR TENANCY
IN AFFORDABLE, WO RCE, OR GAP HOUSING UNIT.
L'R co
0
o
CD
a
underlined text is added, ugh text is deleted
Page 25 of 31
Packet Page -133-
3/11/2014 9.B.
APPENDIX B, EXHIBIT C
\APPLIC LE- WORKFORCE HOUSING APPLICANT INCOME CERTIFICATIO
Job Title:
Street City to Zip
I, , hereby authorize the release information requested
(ApplicaX
on this certification form.
Cp ature of Applicant
STATE OF FLORIDA
) ss
COUNTY OF COLLIER)
The foregoing was a o
i
Who is personally known to e r o as
identification.
Witness my hand and 1 sea is y 2008.
(notary seal),
ao
C
Notary Public ,
My Commission Expires: -
0
,.suez
OJIF
underlined text is added, swoek -4hFou k text is deleted
Page 26 of 31
Packet Page -134-
a -- 3/11/2014 9.B.
PLOYER CERTIFICATION
App is Gross Annual Income or Rate or Pay: $
Number Hours Worked (Weekly): Frequency of Pay:
Amount of uses, Tips, or other Compensation Received: $
Monthly Annually
Supervi r
i
STATE OF FLORIDA F
COUNTY OF COLLIER)
VER coU
The foregoing was ackno ore me
Who is personally know or has produ as
idencation.
Witness my hand an off
(notary seal) n
Y
My Commission Expires:
THE CERTIFICATION HERE REQ
INCOME TAX RETURN FOR
AFFORDABLE - WORKFORCE
.2008.
o
Notary Public_'"
rim
AY TAKE T OF THE MOST RECENT YEAR'S C-%>
FILED AND WILL OCCUPY THE car.
G]
ca
.ry
N
J
underlined text is added, sisask thmesh taxi is deleted
Page 27 of 31
Packet Page -135-
3/11/2014 9.B.
APPENDIX C
DEVELOPER APPLICATION FOR AFFORDABLE- WORKFORC
HOUSING DENSITY BONUS
Pursuant to DC § 2.06.01 please complete this form and submit it wi any accompanying
documentation the Community Development & Environmental Servi Division, 2800 North
Horseshoe Drive, les, Florida 34104. A copy must also be pr ded to the Collier County
Housing and Human Se ices Department.
All items requested must be rovided. o
I. Please state what zonin propose licant, if any, on the property and the
acreage of each; RPUD -9.92
2. Has an application fo re a do with the affordable, workforce
and tan housing Density bo us? ^
I
X Yes C' No
CZ)
If yes, state date of application -04 if th' been approved, state the
Ordinance number
3. Gross density of the propos develop 1 9 units/acre
Gross acreage of the pro sed development. 9.92 acres -
a
4. Are affordable -work rce housing density bonus units s ght in conjunction with an
application for a planne nit development (PUD)? X Yes No.
If yes, please state n e and location of the PUD and any other identi ' g information.
Zof applicant James I Fields
of land developer ifnot the same as Applicant: N/A
e complete the following tables as they apply to the proposed development. added, st+aseegh text is deleted
Page 28 of 31
Packet Page -136-
ABLE I Total Number of Units in Development
Typ of Owner
Unit Rental Occupied
Efficient 0
One Bedroom 0
Two Bedroom 0
Three Bedroom 108
Other Bedroom 0
TOTAL
TABLE II
in7
Rental
/ {J
Owner
GAP INCOME
51 -150% MI
Efficiency
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedro
Othe
TAL 0 In accordance with
owner occupied
underlined text is added, WurA thsough text is deleted
Page 29 of 31
Packet Page -137-
3/11/2014 9.B.
:u
XORKFORCE INCOME
61390% MI
1 oam
2 Bedr m
3 Bedroo
Other
TOTAL
LOW INCOME
51-60% MI
Efficiency
1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom
3 Bedroom
Other
TOTAL
VERY LOW INCOME
50% OR LESS MI
Efficiency
I Bedroom
2 Bedroo
3 Be om
44
t
44 44
occupied
P=-COUA,..
TOTAL 0 0
eriined text is added, an*"hfouk text is dcletcd
Page 30 of 31
Packet Page -138-
3/11/2014 9.B.
0
.sue.
w
00
c.a-+
c�
cv
n
3/11/2014 9.B.
Please provide a physical description of the affordable- workforce units by type of unit ( ,
very low income, low income, workforce income, gap income) and by number of bedr ms.
Inclu in your description, for example, the square footage of each type of unit, floor erings
used thro out the unit (carpeting, tile, vinyl flooring); window treatments; appli es provided
such as washe er, dishwasher, stove, refrigerator; bathroom amenities, such ceiling exhaust
fans; and any oth amenities as applicable. Attach additional pages as E ibit "D" if needed.
There will be a minimum of
PUD. These- Affekk ble
Inseam Units.
All Aerle Workfo
units. Each unit will co
washer /dryer, basic lightin
The three - bedroom units will
CIRRUS POINTE PUD
rce ousing Units in the Cirrus Pointe
Units comprised of 44 three - bedroom
+i s as owner - occupied multi - family
i Carpe " , refrigerator, dishwasher, stove,
package, an ms will have ceiling exhaust fans. ,A
w
tion of 1526 square feet. Garage c° ;
parking wil/anaJountains, talls for each unit and will also ho storage areas for each unit. G5
The entire onsist of up to 108 multi- family homes d the units that are not
N
designated force Housing Units will be offered as m tely priced multi-
family homity will have the following amenities open to the r dents of Cirrus
Pointe: poos, sidewalks and gated security.
S. Please s ly any othe r information which would reasonably be needed to address this req t for
tesif able, w orkforce and eay housing density bonus for this development. Attach additio eeded.
underlined text is added. gfwek -f#wvn* text is deleted
7t�lLEC'SS$�Sv IA Page 31 of 31
Packet Page -139-
3/11/2014 9.B.
TERMINATION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, as entered into on the day of ,
2014, between CIRRUS POINTE PARTNERS LLC (hereinafter referred to as the
"OWNER "), and the COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
(hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY ").
WHEREAS, James J. Fields and the COUNTY entered into an Agreement
authorizing Affordable Housing Density Bonus and Imposing Covenants and
Restrictions on Real Property in 2005 (hereinafter "Agreement "); and
WHEREAS, CIRRUS POINTE PARTNERS LLC, as successor to James J. Fields,
has petitioned the County to reduce the residential density on its property and terminate
the Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
The Agreement is hereby terminated upon the effective date of the Solstice
Residential Planned Unit Development
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly
executed the date and year last written below.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Deputy Clerk
WITNESSES:
(1}
Signature
Printed/Typed Name
(2)
Signature
Printed/Typed Name
TOM HENNING, Chairman
CIRRUS POINTE PARTNERS LLC
By:
Signature
Printed/Typed Name
Printed/Typed Title
1 of '2
Packet Page -140-
Approved as to form and legality:
Heidi Ashton -CICko
Managing Assistant County Attorney
13 -CPS- 01205124
2 of 2
Packet Page -141-
3/11/2014 9.B.