Agenda 03/11/2014 Item #17An
3111/2014 17.x..
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
No. 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the
comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by
amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the
herein -. described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential
Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning.district for the project known as Temple Citrus .Grove
RPUD to allow development of up to 512 single family dwelling units and/or two-family and duplex
dwelling units. on property located between Airport- Pulling Road and Livingston Road in Sections
1 and 12,`Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 132.68 +1 - acres;
and by providing as effective date. [PUDZ-PL20120002779]
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) review stafrs findings
and recommendations ., along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning
Commission (CCPC) ,regarding the :above referenced petition and render ,a decision regarding _
this' "PUD rezone :petitlon, and ensure the project is in harmony with'all the applicable codes and
regulations in order to ensure that the community`s' interests are maintained.
CONSIDERATIONS: The subject site is a citrus grove in active production, with an accessory
n farm stand,, zoned Rural Agricultural (A). The applicant requests a rezone to the Residential
Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a maximum of 512 dwelling units on
132.68 acres.
• The subject site has a farm stand that is accessory to the principal use of agriculture. The
RPUD permits. the farm stand to continue operation- until a 'Certificate of Occupancy is
issued for 75 percent (384) of the dwelling units. At that time, all agricultural activity
shall cease.
• No preserve is required within -the RPUD, because the existing vegetation is- all non-
native (citrus).
FISCAL EMPACT: 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 CCPC to analyze this petition.
Packet Page -1178-
3/11/2014 1 7.A.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) EMPACT: Future Land Use Element (FLUE):
The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential
Subdistrict, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use
Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GNP). Relevant to this
petition, this designation allows: residential development (variety of unit types), including
associated accessory recreational uses; agricultural uses; and, recreation and open space uses —
the uses proposed in this PUD. Under the FLUE's Density Rating System, the project is eligible
for a maximum density of 5 DU /A, without providing affordable- workforce housing; eligible
density is not an entitlement. The applicant proposes 512 DUs, yielding 3.86 DU /A.
Base Density 4 DU /A
Roadway Access Bonus +1 DU /A
Maximum eligible density 5 DU/Ax 132.68 acres = 663.4 = 663 DUs
FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area.
Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Planning and Zoning 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 elaracter of
Collier County, the following FLUI✓ 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 trade
without violating intersection, spacing requirements of the Land Development Code.
[Exhibit C -1, PUD Master Plan, depicts direct access to Airport - Pulling Road and
Livingston Road, both classified as arterial roads in the Transportation Element.]
Policy 7.2:
The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce
vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for
traffic signals. [Exhibit C -1, PUD Master Plan, depicts multiple loop roads that
connect to a road that runs through the entire project from Airport - Pulling Road to
Livingston Road.]
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
Packet Page -1179-
3/11/2C14 '17.A.
n regardless of land use type. [Most surrounding lands are developed and
interconnections are not feasible. Exhibit C -1, PUD Master Plan, depicts an
interconnection to the one property where an interconnection appears to be feasible
- site to the south containing a single family dwelling, zoned A, Rural Agricultural,
and under the same ownership as the subject site, but excluded from this PUD.]
Policy 7.4:
The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a
blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and
types. [The PUD allows. for a variety of dwelling unit types. Open space is required
at 60 %, and 63% is provided per Exhibit C -1, Master Plan. A sidewalk will be
provided on both sides of roads except, per Deviation No. 9, on only one side of all
streets with a 40' right -of -way (much of the westerly half of the site) — depicted on
Exhibit C4, sidewalk plan. Approximately one -half of the residential, area abutting
a 40' r/w is single loaded (lot on one side of street only) and about one -half is double
loaded (lot on both sides of the street). Three loop roads comprise all of the 40' r/w
such that the single loaded areas and double loaded areas are intermittent. Two. of
these three loop roads connect to a. 50' r /w, which will have sidewalks on both sides.
Under these specific circumstances, staff does not object to the requested deviation.]
Based upon the above analysis, the proposed RPUD may be deemed consistent with the Future
Land Use Element.
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 GMP.
Conservation. and Coastal 'Management Element (CCME): Environmental Review staff
found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element
(CCME) of the GMP.
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. 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 (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The
n CCPC heard this petition on February 6, 2014, and found that the criteria of Section 10.02.081
Packet Page -1180-
3/11/2014 1 7A
(formerly 10.03.05.I) and 10.02.13.B.5 were met. A motion was made by Commissioner Ebert,
seconded by Commissioner Homiak, and by a unanimous vote (5 to 0 [Commissioners
Chrzanowski and Doyle were absent]) the CCPC forwarded this petition to the BCC with a
recommendation of approval subject to the following additional changes:
• An agreement with Manchester square for wall maintenance is required.
• Plats will include separate tracts for Landscape Buffer Easements and Lake
Maintenance Easements.
• The main entrance from Livingston Road shall have a manned gate house.
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 received, no one spoke at the CCPC
hearing in opposition to the project and the CCPC vote was unanimous. Therefore, this petition
has been placed on the Summary Agenda.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
For this rezone application, the burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposal is
consistent with all of the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the 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 cri teria.
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
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.
Packet Page -1181-
3/11/2014 17.A.
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?
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?
Packet Page -1182-
3/11/2014 i 7 .A.
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. 11], 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: County staff concurs with the recommendations of the CCPC and
further recommends that the BCC approve the request subject to the attached PUD Ordinance
that includes both the staff recommendation and the CCPC recommendation.
Prepared by: Fred Reischl, AICP, Senior Planner, Planning & Zoning Department
Attachments:
1) CCPC Staff Report
2) Application Backup Information; please use this link:
hLtp:// www .collier2ov.net/ftp /AgendaMarch 11 l 4 /GrowthMamt /TempleCitrusGrove
RPUDapplication.pdf
3) Ordinance
Packet Page -1183-
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 17.17.A.
3/11/2014 i 7 .A.
Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission
members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in.
Recommendation to approve an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier
County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the
unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or
maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural
Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district
for the project known as Temple Citrus Grove RPUD to allow development of up to 512 single
family dwelling units and /or two - family and duplex dwelling units on property located between
Airport- Pulling Road and Livingston Road in Sections 1 and 12, Township 49 South, Range 25
East, Collier County, Florida,. consisting of 132.68 + /- acres; and by providing an effective date.
[ PU DZ -P L20120002779]
Meeting Date: 3/11/2014
Prepared By
Name: ReischlFred
Title: Planner, Senior, Comprehensive Planning
2/10/201411:53:26 AM
Approved By
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analvst, Community Development & Environmental Services
Date: 2/14/2014 10:29:12 AM
Name: BosiMichael
Title: Director - Planning and Zoning, Comprehensive Planning
Date: 2/14/2014 3:19:01 PM
Name: BellowsRay
Title: Manager - Planning, Comprehensive Planning
Date: 2/18/2014 9:10:36 AM
Packet Page -1184-
3/11/2014 17..,.
Name: AshtonHeidi
Title: Managing Assistant County Attorney, CAO Land Use/Transportation
Date: 2/26/2014 1:08:31 PM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary, Transportation Planning
Date: 2/26/2014 1:21:08 PM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 2/26/2014 2:48:28 PM
Name: FinnEd
Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior, Transportation Engineering & Construction Management
Date: 2/26/2014 3:56:02 PM
Name: OchsLeo
Title: County Manager, County Managers Office
Date: 2/27/2014 3:01:58 PM
Packet Page -1185-
3/11/2014 i
Co er County
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 2014
SUBJECT: PUDZ- PL20130002779: TEMPLE CITRUS GROVE RPUD
PROPERTY OWNER & APPLICANT /AGENT•
Owners:
Agents:
John A. Pulling, Jr., Trustee of the Land Trust
Robert L. Duane, AICP
Agreement dated 1/12/92
Robert L. Duane & Associates
John A. Pulling, Jr. Trustee of the John A.
4880 Tamarind Ridge Drive
Pulling Revocable Trust dated 2/28/03
Naples, FL '14119
John A. Pulling, Jr, & Marsha. Ford. Pulling
5610 Yahl Street, Suite 6
R. Bruce Anderson, Esq.
Naples, FL 34109 -1921
Roetzel & Andress, LPA
850 Park Shore Drive
Contract Purchaser:
Naples, FL 34103
G.L. Homes of Florida II Corporation
1600 Sawgrass Corporate Pkwy, Suite 400
Kevin Ratteree, AICP
Sunrise, FL 33323
G.L. Homes of Florida
1600 Sawgrass Corporate Pkwy.
Suite 400
Sunrise, FL 33323
REQUESTED ACTION:
The subject site is a citrus grove in active production, with an accessory farm stand, zoned Rural
Agricultural (A). The applicant requests a rezone to the Residential Planned Unit Development
(RPUD) zoning district for a maximum of 512 dwelling units on 132.68 acres.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property is 132.68± acres in size and is located east of Airport- Pulling Road, west of
.-� Livingston Road, approximately one mile north of Pine Ridge Road.
Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ- PL20120002779
February 6, 2014 CCPC
Packet Page -1186-
Page 1 of 16
3/11/2014 1 7.A.
ins of aoa /
Q
O
z
z
0
N
I..L
cQ
G
z
O
F-
0
O
a
n
C
'a
MW
aavn�roa
�
' �bbA3V10fi NY901
�Nn
~
t
¢ygym
„
abbA3Y109 vaveave
Y1NYS qry
o
N� E
nlJn
.Tye
.Mgt
��{2gp t
6 a
U Z
�o O
S
SS
� < se•eavasaaa�s
te•azvaeaaiw
AM
€
5
iI
(rat
�a
�W STON now a
@$ 8
�6 $
aVon NOISS W
16Mrn W4019d
its
Spa
: bad q �5 Oti
sC
�o
lK' a0)
x0'i11aYJ
oVOn'J'nnnd-taoanin
g �N
awn 9rminaanoanly ^
op
ir
�a b
apsW
i
OYp
W'ifJl a HNVn!-3u3lpgp� �^
ry
lit`
i
a2y
x
�� �" 1�i6'a�i
avOa MNVli+311' +'10009
ry
Packet Page - 1187 -�
Q
O
z
z
0
N
I..L
cQ
G
z
O
F-
0
O
a
n
C
'a
MW
3/11/2014 1 7 .A.
PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The petitioner requests a rezone from A to RPUD to create the Temple Citrus Grove RPUD. The
RPUD would permit a maximum of 512 dwelling units on 132.68 acres for a gross density of
3.86 dwelling units per acre (DU /A). Because the subject site has frontage on two arterial roads,
the Density Rating System (DRS) would permit the applicant to request a maximum of 5 DU /A
(base density of 4 DU /A + 1 DU /A bonus), so the applicant's request is consistent with the DRS.
Please note that density is not an entitlement, but is a consideration based on many factors
discussed in this report.
The subject site has a farm stand that is accessory to the principal use of agriculture. The RPUD
permits the farm stand to continue operation until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for 75
percent (384) of the dwelling units. At that time, all agricultural activity shall cease.
No preserve is required within the RPUD, because the existing vegetation is all non - native
(citrus).
Manchester Square is a subdivision which abuts Temple Citrus Grove to the east and south. The
Manchester Square RPUD contains the following language: "The conceptual master plan
identifies a potential interconnection with the property to the north. The interconnection shall
occur if this northern project entrance is constructed, and agreement is reached with the adjacent
property owner, in which the property owner agrees to pay 50% of the construction costs of that
portion of the access drive from Livingston Road to the interconnection, and a proportionate
share of the on -going maintenance costs. The maintenance costs shall be based on the number of
dwelling units and/or square footage, if property is developed with non - residential uses for each
project."
After a careful review of the plat dedications and a clarification through further correspondence
from the original developer of Manchester Square, the plat does provide for a publicly dedicated
access easement. The cross access easement was documented in Board minutes as the identified
access point for the future development of the Temple Citrus PUD. This connection should be
the primary access point on Livingston Road for the Manchester Square PUD and the Temple
Citrus PUD. It has been designed and constructed to serve that purpose and protect the integrity
of Livingston Road.
A SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN
SECTION 12. TOWNS LP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,
r e ear , r e COLLIM? COUNTY, FLORIDA
fIMP1Y ifMA �M.rM�fwwm -\
A detail from the plat of Manchester Square
Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ- PL20120002779 Page 3 of 16
February 6, 2014 CCPC
Packet Page -1188-
4
w
Temple Citrus
Existing walled
ROW � �� I
r
� EI
E'
i
E�
EI
t�
i
E' Me
r�
i
E'
f
it
I T �. ^=
- - -- - - - - -- __ f _
M
r
Square
�G�
N
'1
�5
Ei
0
C
^ F
.1__j
i � E
1
i E
4 M
i
E
' E
t
11 I
Vir
A detail from the Manchester Square Master Plan
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
3/11/2014 17.k.
%n
North: Office buildings, zoned Willow Park PUD; the Walden Oaks residential subdivision,
zoned Lone Oak PUD; and a church and school campus, zoned First Baptist Church of
Naples PUD.
East: Livingston Road ROW, across which is a mix of developed and vacant residential lots,
zoned Estates (E); and the Manchester Square residential subdivision; zoned Manchester
Square RPUD.
South: Malibu Lakes multifamily residential development, zoned Residential Multifamily
(RMF -12); a single - family residence (a remnant parcel retained by John Pulling), zoned
A; a campus owned by Collier County Public Schools, including Barron Collier High
School and* school bus depot, zoned Residential Single Family (RSF -3); and the
Manchester Square residential subdivision; zoned Manchester Square RPUD.
West: Airport- Pulling Road ROW, across which is the Trade Center of Naples subdivision;
zoned Industrial (I); and the Walden Oaks residential subdivision, zoned Lone Oak
PUD.
Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ- PL20120002779
February 6, 2014 CCPC
Packet Page -1189-
Page 4 of 16
Aerial Photo (CCPA)
Subject Property — detail of western portion (Bing Bird's Eye View)
Subject Property — detail of eastern portion (Bing Bird's Eye View)
Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ- PI 20120002779
February 6, 2014 CCPC
Packet Page -1190-
3!11 /2014 i'.{
Page 5 of 16
Subject Property — view to the east from Airport Road (Google Street View)
Subject Property — view to the west from Livingston Road (Google Street View)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential
Subdistrict, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use
Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this
petition, this designation allows: residential development (variety of unit types), including
associated accessory recreational uses; agricultural uses; and, recreation and open space uses —
the uses proposed in this PUD. Under the FLUE's Density Rating System, the project is eligible
for a maximum density of 5 DU /A, without providing affordable- worlcforce housing; eligible
density is not an entitlement. The applicant proposes 512 DUs, yielding 3.86 DU /A.
Base Density 4 DU /A
Roadwav Access Bonus +1 DU /A
Maximum eligible density 5 DU /A x 132.68 acres = 663.4 = 663 DUs
Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ- PL20120002779
February 6, 2014 CCPC
Packet Page -1191-
Page 6 of 16
3/11/2014 ' i
FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area.
Comprehensive Planning 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 C -1, PUD Master Plan, depicts direct access to Airport- Pulling Road and
Livingston Road, both classified as arterial roads in the Transportation Element.]
Policy 7.2:
The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce
vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for
traffic signals. [Exhibit C -1, PUD Master Plan, depicts- -multiple .loop roads that
connect to a road that runs through the entire project from Airport - Pulling Road to
Livingston Road.]
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. [Most surrounding lands are developed and
interconnections are not feasible. Exhibit C -1, PUD Master Plan, depicts an
interconnection to the one property where an interconnection appears to be feasible
- site to the south containing a single family dwelling, zoned A, Rural Agricultural,
and under the same ownership as the subject site, but excluded from this PUD.]
Policy 7.4:
The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a
blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and
types. [The PUD allows for a variety of dwelling unit types. Open space is required
at 60 %, and 63 % is provided per Exhibit C -1, Master Plan. A sidewalk will be
provided on both sides of roads except, per Deviation No. 9, on only one side of all
streets with a 40' right -of -way (much of the westerly half of the site) — depicted on
Exhibit C -4, sidewalk plan. Approximately one -half of the residential area abutting
a 40' r/w is single loaded (lot on one side of street only) and about one -half is double
loaded (lot on both sides of the street). Three loop roads comprise all of the 40' r/w
Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ- PL20120002779
February 6, 2014 CCPC
Packet Page -1192-
Page 7 of 16
3/11/2014 17.A.
such that the single loaded areas and double loaded areas are intermittent. Two of
these three loop roads connect to a 50' r /w, which will have sidewalks on both sides.
Under these specific circumstances, staff does not object to the requested deviation.]
Based upon the above analysis, the proposed RPUD may be deemed consistent with the
Future Land Use Element.
ANALYSIS:
Deviation Discussion:
Deviation 1. A deviation from LDC Section 5.04.04.13.1e, Model Homes and Model Sales
Centers, which limits a model home to a period of three years. The requested deviation would
permit a model home for a period of eight years before requiring a Conditional Use.
The applicant's experience in the housing market indicates that project build -out may be
longer than three years, so the applicant requests the life of a model home be increased to
eight years, with the possibility of longer period via a Conditional use. Staff agrees with
this analysis and has no objection.
Deviation 2. A deviation from LDC Section 5.04.04.B.5.c, Model Homes and Model Sales
Centers, which limits model homes to a maximum of 5 models or ten percent of the platted lots,
whichever is less. The requested deviation would permit a maximum of 16 model homes and a
sales center.
The applicant's experience in the housing market, again, is the basis of this request. The
maximum number of units (512) and the variety of housing types, would support a
maximum of 16 models. The applicant also cites examples of PUDs where a similar .
deviation was approved. Staff agrees with this analysis and has no objection.
Deviation 3. A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.13.6 and 5.06.02.B.8.b, Development
Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, which permits two ground signs with a
maximum height of 8 feet. The requested deviation would increase the maximum height to 10
feet in height.
The applicant requests this deviation to increase exposure along Livingston Road, an
arterial six -lane road with a landscaped median. The applicant again cites examples of
PUDs with a similar deviation. Staff agrees with this analysis and has no objection.
Deviation 4A. A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, Development Standards for Signs
within Residential Districts, which allows a maximum of two ground signs at the entrance to a
project. The requested deviation would permit an additional two ground signs at the entrance to
the recreation parcel.
The applicant states that this deviation is necessary because the LDC does not permit
sufficient size of signage to community gathering areas. In addition, the applicant states
that these signs will have no impact on surrounding properties. Staff has no opinion on
Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ- PL20120002779
February 6, 2014 CCPC
Packet Page 4193-
Page 8 of 16
3/11/2014 17.A.
^. the adequacy of the sign area, but agrees that these signs will only be visible to residents
and visitors to the community, and therefore; Staff has no objection.
Deviation 4B. A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6.b, Development Standards for Signs
within Residential Districts, which allows a maximum of 64 square feet total sign area for
entrance signs. The requested deviation allows a combined total of 128 square feet for the
Livingston Road entrance signs and a combined total of 64 square feet for the recreation parcel
entrance signs. The recreation parcel signs shall not exceed the height or length of the wall or
gate upon which it is located.
The applicant states that the 1,050 linear feet of frontage along Livingston Road, the 45
MPH speed limit, and the 275 -foot wide FPL easement all contribute to the request for
increased sign area. Staff agrees that the width of the FPL easement provides justification
for this deviation.
Deviation 5. A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5.b, Development Standards for Signs
within Residential Districts, which allows directional signs to be combined into one sign with a
maximum height of eight feet and a maximum area of 24 square feet. The deviation would
permit no limit on the number of combined directional signs (8 feet in height, 24 square -foot
area) with a minimum separation of 100 feet or a road right -of -way.
The applicant states that the RPUD will be comprised of a number of communities and
that this deviation will permit easier navigation of the site. Staff agrees that these signs
will only be visible to residents and visitors to the community, and therefore; Staff has no
objection.
Deviation 6. A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5.a, Development Standards for Signs
within Residential Districts, which requires on- premise , directional signs to be set back a
minimum of 10 feet from the edge of road, paved surface, or back of curb, excluding public
roadways. The deviation would reduce the setback to 5 feet if there are no safety concerns.
The applicant states that the reduced setback will be a convenience to residents and
visitors. Transportation Staff has no objection to this deviation in general, and will review
individual sign placement for safety concerns at each development order.
Deviation 7. A deviation from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e, Temporary Signs, which limits the
area of temporary signs on residentially zoned property to 34 square feet. The deviation would
increase the maximum to 48 square feet.
The applicant again cites experience in the housing market as a justification for
increasing the size of temporary signs, in addition to the speed limit and width of the FPL
easement. The applicant also cites a similar approved deviation in a PUD (The
Parklands). Staff agrees that the width of the FPL easement provides justification for this
deviation.
Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ- PL20120002779
February 6, 2014 CCPC
Packet Page -1194- .
Page 9 of 16
3/11/2014 17.A.
Deviation 8. A deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01.0 and Appendix B, which require cul -de-
sacs and local streets to have a minimum 60 -foot wide right -of -way. The deviation would permit
a reduction in width to a minimum of 40 feet.
The applicant states that all required infrastructure can be included within 40 -foot and 50-
foot right -of -way cross - sections. The applicant cites a similar approved deviation in a
similar PUD. Transportation Staff has reviewed this deviation and has no objection.
Deviation 9. A deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.1, Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway
Requirements, which requires sidewalks on both sides of a local street. The deviation would
allow a sidewalk five feet in width on one side of a street 40 feet in width.
The applicant states that most rights -of -way proposed to be 40 feet wide, will have
houses on only one side of the street. In the case of 40 -foot wide rights -of -way, the
applicant proposes a sidewalk in front of houses on both sides of the street.
Transportation Staff reviewed this deviation and has no objection.
Deviation 10. A deviation from LDC Section 4.07.021, Off -Street Parking for Planned Unit
Developments, which requires off -street parking requirements for comparable type, density and
intensity of the uses in the PUD. The deviation would permit the recreational tract to provide
parking at 75 percent of LDC requirements.
The applicant states that the RPUD will be pedestrian- and bicycle - friendly and that the
proposed deviation will allow adequate parking while reducing the amount of impervious
surface.
Staff's analysis indicates that in LDC Section 4.05.04 Table 17, the required parking for a
community with a majority of residents more than 300 feet away from the recreational
facilities, parking may be reduced to 50 percent of the requirement. For example, a
fitness center requires 1 parking space per 100 square feet; therefore, according to the
LDC, a fitness center as an accessory to a private community would require 1 parking
space per 200 square feet. This deviation would reduce that further to 0.75 parking space
per 200 square feet. Further calculations show that a 1,000 square -foot fitness facility in
this RPUD, without this deviation, would require 5 parking spaces and the same size
facility with this deviation would require 4 parking spaces. Staff does not believe this
deviation to be significant and has no objection.
Deviation 11. A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.2 which requires a 15 -foot wide buffer
on the northern property line adjacent to the Lone Oak PUD and the Willow Park PUD. The
deviation would permit a 10 -foot wide buffer in that location.
The applicant states that along this property line, adjacent to Willow Park, the Master
Plan indicates houses only on the south side of the road, across the street from the
property line. For the portion of the border adjacent to Walden Oaks, a wall will be
constructed. The applicant believes that these conditions ameliorate the reduction in
buffer width. Staff agrees with the analysis and has no objection.
Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ- P120120002779
February 6, 2014 CCPC
Packet Page -1195-
Page 10 of 16
3/11/2014 1 ;
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval of these 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:
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"
(Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold):
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 PUD and believes that it is compatible with the
surrounding properties and will not adversely impact infrastructure.
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.
Evidence of unified control has been established and is provided in the attached
application.
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 determined that this petition may be found
consistent with the GMP.
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.
Staffs review indicates that the applicant has designed the RPUD to be compatible with
adjacent properties by incorporating appropriate buffers and by placing residential uses
next to other residential uses.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
A majority of the site is currently open space; however, it is an active agricultural
operation, not usable open space. The proposed RPUD will incorporate usable open space
in addition to the residences and infrastructure.
6 The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ- PL20120002779 Page 11 of 16
February 6, 2014 CCPC
Packet Page -1196-
3/11/2014 17.A.
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
It is Staff's opinion that the timing of the planned development will assure adequacy of
public and private improvements and facilities.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
One of the uses on the subject site is the farm stand. That use will only be permitted
transitionally during development, and will eventually be sunsetted. The replacement
residential use will help to accommodate expansion.
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 proposed RPUD is consistent with PUD regulations, with the proposed deviations, and
seeks to meet a desired purpose of serving the residential needs of buyers in the urban area.
Rezone Findinas: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land,
the report and recommendations from 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" (Staff s 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.
Staff's analysis indicates that the proposed RPUD may be deemed consistent with the
GMP.
2. . The existing land use pattern;
The existing land use pattern was reviewed and the proposed RPUD will not substantially
alter that pattern. In fact, the eventual removal of the farm stand use, will make the site
more compatible with surrounding land uses by removing an accessory commercial use.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts;
Staffs analysis indicates that the proposed RPUD is compatible with surrounding land
uses and will not create an isolated district.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
Staff's analysis indicates that existing district boundaries are logically drawn.
S. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning
necessary.
The petitioner believes that the changing real estate market will result in quick sales for the
Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ- PL20120002779
February 6, 2014 CCPC
Packet Page -1197-
Page 12 of 16
3/111201'4 17.A.
^ proposed residential units.
6 Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood;
Staff is of the opinion that the RPUD, with the commitments made by the applicant, can
been deemed consistent the County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future
Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. The project includes standards that are designed
to address compatibility of the project. The RPUD 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.
Staffs analysis of the applicant's traffic study indicates that the RPUD will not cause the
Level of Service of both Airport- Pulling Road and Livingston Road to fail.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem;
South Florida Water Management District regulations and Collier County regulations will
be required to be observed.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas;
The proposed dimensional standards, when reflected in the final residential structures, will
not affect the light and air circulation to adjacent areas, in Staffs opinion.
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 many factors including
zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is
driven by market conditions.
H. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations;
All surrounding properties are developed. (The remainder agricultural parcel to the south
may at some future date request a rezone. The sole access of this remainder parcel is an
interconnection through the Temple Citrus Grove RPUD.)
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual
owner as contrasting with the public welfare;
The proposed development complies with the GMP which is a public policy statement
supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with the 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.
Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ- PL20120002779
February 6, 2014 CCPC
Packet Page -1198-
Page 13 of 16
3/11/2014 17.A
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance
with existing zoning;
The subject property could continue to operate as a citrus grove and farm stand; however,
the petitioner believes that the residential use will provide necessary housing in a changing
real estate market.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
County;
Staffs analysis indicates that the RPUD may be found 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 applicant desires to provide housing in the urban area, and this site provides a large
site in the urban area. The proposed RPUD is consistent with the GMT 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 100—N
proposed zoning classification.
This project will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development
regulations during the site development plan approval process and again 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 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 GMP as part of the PUD process and Staff has concluded that the Level of
Service will not 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.
Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ- PL20120002779
February 6, 2014 CCPC
Packet Page -1199-
Page 14 of 16
3/11/2014 17.A.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION•
The CCPC, sitting as the EAC, is not required to hear this petition because no environmental
issues were identified.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM)•
The applicant held two Neighborhood Information Meetings (NIMs). The first was held on
August 15, 2013. The second NIM was held on November 5, 2013, after the applicant
incorporated an additional 5f acres (the farm stand) into the RPUD. The NIM summaries,
prepared by the applicant, are attached.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
This Staff Report was reviewed by the Office of the County Attorney on January 29, 2014
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the CCPC seriously consider the interconnection of the subject site with
the Manchester Square RPUD at the location indicated on the Manchester Square RPUD Master
Plan.
Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDZ- PL20120002779, the Temple Citrus
Grove RPUD, to the BCC with a recommendation of approval.
Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ- PI-20120002779 Page 15 of 16
February 6, 2014 CCPC
Packet Page -1200-
PREPARED BY:
,
FREQWSCHL, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
REVIEWED BY:
RAYM V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR
PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
APPROVED BY:
NK CASAL N IDA, ADMINISTRATOR
GROWTH MAKAGEMENT DIVISION
DATE
� � -A�
DATE
DATE
t� ru
DATE
3/11/2014 17.A.
Tentatively scheduled for the March 11, 2014 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ- PL20120002779
February 6, 2014 CCPC
Packet Page -1201-
3/111/2014 1 ? .A
Robert L. Duane & Associates
Land Planning & Zoning Consultants
A.I.C.P.
4880 Tamarind Ridge Dr. Naples FL. 34119
Office (239)353 -4167 cells (239)595- 5096/682 -1339
robertrosalba.duaneQvahoo.com
NIM
Minutes Aug. 15, 2013
The meeting began at 5:30 pm and was attended by 46 residents, at the Italian
American Club.
Robert Duane of Robert L. Duane & Associates began with an introduction of
Kevin Ratterree, Vice president of GL Homes, the primary presenter, Ted Treesh
from TR Transportation and Bruce Anderson Esq. from Roetzel & Andress, LPA.
Fred Reischl, AICP was the county planner in attendance.
Robert indicated the application was filed 3 months ago and the public hearings for
the rezoning application will be held later this year or next spring.
Kevin introduced the project comprising 512 dwelling units (D.U.'s) on 128 acres
and reviewed the surrounding projects and land uses. The project density is four
units per acre and 5 units per acre are allowed by the Growth Management Plan
(GNP).
GL Homes does not own the property but expects to close after the first of the year
if zoning approvals are obtained and construction would commence shortly
thereafter.
Kevin also encouraged those in attendance to visit GL Homes other communities.
Saturnia Lakes, Marbella Lakes, and Riverstone that may be the best to visit
because the gates are currently open. The subject property will be a gated
community separated from Livingston Road by a wide FPL Easement.
Access will be from Livingston Road, the primary entrance, with a right in right
out. Kevin indicated that the project was not allowed a left in or left out due to the
existing median openings located to the North (North Naples Baptist Church) and
South (Manchester Square) of the subject property on Livingston Road. Access on
Airport Road will be right -in -right out and a South bound turn lane into the project
from Airport Pulling Road.
I
Packet Page -1202-
3/11/2014 17.A.
As currently planned based on today's real estate market the housing types ^
proposed comprise three residential housing types and the Recreation Area. Single -
family homes are proposed in the northeastern portion of the project; Zero lot
homes to the Southeastern portion of the project; and duplex homes to the West
side of the project. The attached conceptual plan depicts the general location of the
three housing types, subject to variations based on market conditions and
conditions that may be imposed on the project.
The zero lot line detached homes are anticipated to be on 45 foot wide lots and 130
foot deep. Single family detached homes on 52 wide lots and 130 deep.
The buffers will be 15 feet in width; but ten (10) feet by Lone Oak, with a wall.
However, the walls on the north and west property lines of Manchester Square will
be the Manchester Square existing walls. The west and north side of the
Manchester Square wall are not painted and GL has agreed to paint. GL and
Manchester Square are entering into a maintenance agreement for that purpose.
Trees will be spaced on 25 foot wide centers and the 15' buffer (10' by Lone Oak)
will be a separate tract not included on individual lots to insure proper
maintenance.
Questions from residents including topical areas are summarized below: ^
1. Density - Can it be increased? (From several residents). Kevin said not
without going through the PUD amendment process. The present property
owner John Pulling indicated later in the meeting that the density based on
his contract cannot be increased (laying this issue to rest). The density of
Manchester Square at ±3.6 D.U's per acre is comparable to 3.99 D.U's per
acre proposed for the subject property.
2. Height Concerns from residents. Kevin indicated that the three products
types would be one or two story; but, the duplexes would likely remain one
story. Height would be ±35 feet or 40 feet maximum to the top of the roof.
Flexibility is needed according to Kevin to sell either a (1) one or (2) two
story product, the same as allowed in Manchester Square.
3. What will be composition of property owners of neighborhood resident?
Kevin indicated that the community would not be an adult only (55 +)
restricted community, and that sales in GL's Riverstone community and
Marbella Lakes have been approximately 60% families and 40% retirees.
Retirees prefer the duplex units. (Composition subject to market conditions.)
2
Packet Page -1203-
3/11/2014 17.A.
--� 4. What are the sales prices of the units? Kevin, average sales pricing of
duplexes expected to be ($300,000 to $350,000 after inclusion of home
amenities /upgrades and lot premium. Zero Lot size homes, average sales
pricing expected to be $400,000 to $450,000 after inclusion of home
amenities /upgrades and lot premium. Single - family homes, average sales
pricing expected to be $500,000 to $550,000 after inclusion of home
amenities /upgrades and lot premium.
5. How many units in each product type neighborhood asked by residents?
Duplexes 4-200 D.U's; single family ±161 D.U's; Zero lot line + 106 D.U's.
The number of type of units contemplated at this time is subject to change
and market conditions, but will not exceed 512.
6. Will affordable housing be provided on or off site? Kevin ... No. This has
not come up. Fred Reischl ... This is not a policy the B.C.0 is presently
imposing on projects. That policy has not been imposed for several years.
7. What are the sizes of the units? (a neighborhood resident) Kevin... smallest
duplex 1,754 s.f. under air; 2,503 in total. Largest duplex 2,066 s.f. under
air; 2,836 s.f in total. Several product types are in between the smallest and
the largest. Utilizing the Zero lot line product at Riverstone, homes from
1,853 s.f. under air; 2,557 s.f. in total to the largest at 3,359 s.f. under air;
4,054 s.f. in total; Utilizing the single family homes product in Riverstone,
homes from 2,081 s.f. under air; 2,869 total s.f to the largest at 4,113 s.f
under air; 5,022 s.f. in total. Kevin reiterated that the product sizing for
Temple Citrus is still being prepared, but that Riverstone and Marbella were
comparable projects.
8. Why is the buffer width 10 feet adjacent to Walden Oaks and not 15 feet?
(Walden Oaks resident) Kevin...The narrow length of property South of
Walden Oaks resulting in the lots South of Walden Oaks needing the
additional lot depth to be marketable. The same number of plantings will be
contained in the 10 feet wide buffer with a wall that will result in a
negligible impact on Lone Oaks.
9. Noise from the recreation area by a Walden Oaks resident on the property.
Kevin. In Riverstone, the basketball court is contained inside the Club
House. If Walden Oaks desires additional landscaping behind the recreation
area this will be considered.
3
Packet Page -1204-
3/11/2014 7.A..
10. Are sidewalks going to be contained in the project? (A Walden Oaks
resident asked). Kevin answered it "Yes!" on both sides of the spine road
and within the single - family area; on most 40 feet wide right -of -ways; and
single loaded streets with lots on one side of the street sidewalk only on one
side. The sidewalk adjacent to the Airport Pulling entry road is located on
the south side of the roadway. (See Attached Sidewalk Plan. Exhibit C -4).
11. Traffic concerns by residents to exit onto Airport Pulling road. Also, traffic
has increased by 20% in the recent past... resident said according to the
County. Kevin ... discussed county concurrency requirements that do not
allow the issuance or permitting of a development order until site plan or
subdivision plat approval, after the approval of zoning, and then only if the
roads are operating at an acceptable level of service. Ted Treesh ... Noted
that traffic was evaluated through 2019 and that the project road impacts
could be accommodated by the proposed project. After 2019 it is the
responsibility of the county to maintain the capacity and safe operation of
the road system. Ted also reviewed trip generation and traffic distribution
with neighborhood residents and how peak hour traffic volumes were
considered.
12. What is the access from Livingston Road? (asked a resident) Kevin ... No
left hand turn lane can be provided due to the spacing of access points to the
North and to the South of the project. Traffic signals likely not mandated at
the present time on Livingston Road.
13. Preserve area requirements (asked a resident). Kevin and Fred Reischl ... No
preserve area required because there are not native trees.
14. Airport Pulling Road frontage not included in the application. What is the
future use? (From several residents) Kevin ... an amendment to the Growth
Management Plan will be required to change the use of this -4-5 acre property
prior to rezoning approval. GL Homes typically would find and end user,
before requesting such change in use.
When asked, Fred Reischl said, "Future use could be determined by the
B.C.0 ". However, with residential to the south and office to the north he
opined that lower intensity commercial uses might be considered, such as,
C -1 with C -5 being the most intensive.
4
Packet Page -1205-
3/11/2014 17.A.
15. Duplex units converted to carriage homes concern expressed by the
residents. Kevin... Duplexes likely to remain and not converted to carriage
homes, but could be.
16. Increase buffer area may be desirable on the South side of the project on
Livingston Road Entrance (Resident of Manchester Square to reduce
lightning impacts). Kevin... indicated he thought the landscaping and wall
would be adequate. He also noted more landscaping in some cases might
cause more problems with maintenance at a later date. GL Homes indicated
they would consider additional landscaping at this location, but not
guarantee it. Kevin suggested to the residents to visit other G.L. Home
Communities to evaluate the quality of their landscaping that is a high
priority in their communities. Kevin also indicated that he was willing to sit
down with community representatives to discuss any issues they have and
that he has already been corresponding with the Vice President of the
Manchester Square HOA, David Crouch.
17. Pedestrian or vehicular access to the school board property to the South.
Kevin... indicated that vehicular access was problematic to the property
from the South Pedestrian access will be considered and will be the subject
of a meeting with the School Board on Sep. 4t', 2013 at 9:00 am.
18. How will the other side of the wall adjacent to GL Homes be maintained?
Kevin ... Access will be maintained by gaps in the wall to provide easy
access to the other side of the wall.
Kevin concluded the meeting that he would be happy to meet with a small group of
residents to consider any other constructive suggestions they may have and gave
residents his personal contact information and his home phone number too.
The meeting was concluded at 6:40 pm.
Robert L. Duane, AICP
5
Packet Page -1206-
3/11/2014 17.A.
Robert L. Duane & Associates
Land Planning & Zoning Consultants
A.I.C.P.
4880 Tamarind Ridge Dr. Naples FL. 34119
Office (239)353 -4167 cells (239)595- 5096/682 -1339
robertrosalba.duane(i7vahoo.com
NIM (2nd Meeting) Temple Citrus Grove RPUD
Minutes Nov. 05, 2013
The second NIM meeting for the Temple Citrus Grove meeting began at 5:30 pm
and was attended by 22 residents, at the Naples Italian American Club. The first
meeting was held on Aug. 15t", 2013. Kevin Ratterree was the principal presenter,
Vice - President for G.L. Homes. Also, in attendance Robert Duane of Robert L.
Duane & Associates, Ted Treesh from TR Transportation and Bruce Anderson
Esq. from Roetzel & Andress, LPA. Fred Reischl, AICP was the county planner in
attendance.
Kevin's presentation was generally the same that the first NIM meeting. See also
attached notes for this meeting. Kevin noted this meeting was required because 5
additional acres are now included in the RPUD along Airport Pulling Road,
however, the density will not increase. The Airport Road portion of the RPUD
will include landscaping, a wall, and a lake. Kevin advised the residents of the �-.
general parameters of the proposed RPUD request (512) dwelling units including
access and buffering requirements for the project.
Timing of the project will likely commence next spring and three years are
anticipated for build out. Multi - family uses are no longer proposed in the RPUD.
The three housing types proposed are duplex, zero lot line, and single- family units.
Kevin discussed the price points, product types, and the general location of each
product type. The general location of each housing type proposed is set forth in an
Exhibit attached to the first meeting notes. Kevin indicated the Main Entrance from
Livingston Road would have a man gatehouse. Access from Airport Pulling Road
will not include a gatehouse but will be gated for resident only access. Access will
be achieved by residents via an electronic card reader or electronic scan system.
There will not be a call in box at this location.
A resident had questions on the layout of the recreation area from the Lone Oak
PUD. Kevin will e -mail plan to this resident the plan for the recreation area, and he
welcomed his input, as well as the one coming from other residents of Lone Oak.
Another resident of Lone Oaks had questions about the landscape treatment of the
proposed wall adjacent to Lone Oak. Kevin indicated that G.L. Homes would
provide the shrubs on the Lone Oak side of the wall. A commitment is now
Packet Page -1207-
3/11/2014 1 .A.
?
Robert L. wane & Associates
Land Planning & Zoning Consultants
n A.I.C.P.
4880 Tamarind Ridge Dr. Naples FL. 34119
Office (239)3534167 cells (239)595- 5096/682 -1339
robertrosaiba.d unnenvaboo.com
contained in the RPUD Development Commitments Exhibit 'T', to this effect,
based on this input.
Kevin concluded the meeting and gave residents his personal contact information
and his home phone number to attendees should they need to contact him. He
noted that public hearings for the rezoning application that should be scheduled
over the next several weeks. .
The meeting was formally adjourned at 6:00 pm. However, several residents stayed
after meeting for questions.
Robert L. Duane ,
AICP/Planning Director
Packet Page -1208-
GLHOMES
November 19, 2013
Heidi Ashton - Cicko, Esquire
Managing Assistant County Attorney
3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 800
Naples, FL 34112
RE: Temple Citrus RPUD
Dear Heidi,
3/11/2014 1 / A.
1600 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway
Suite 400^
Sunrise, Florida 33323
Tel 954 -753 -1730
Fax 954 -753 -4509
ww-w.glhomes. com
Please be advised that Naples Associates V, LLLP, a Florida limited liability limited
partnership, hereby consents and agrees to be the Managing Entity for the Temple Citrus
RPUD property.
Please let me know if you need any additional information. ,.-*N
Naples Associates V, LLLP
By: Naples V Corporation, General Partner
e_x & �
Kevin Ratterree
Vice President
cc: Bruce Anderson, Esquire (e -mail copy)
kr /templecitrus /cicko. 111913
Packet Page -1209-
3/11/2014 17.A.
ORDINANCE NO. 14-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 200441,
AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,
WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING
ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY
FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING
DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS TEMPLE CITRUS GROVE
RPUD TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 512 SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING UNITS AND /OR TWO - FAMILY AND DUPLEX DWELLING
UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN AIRPORT- PULLING
ROAD AND LIVINGSTON ROAD IN SECTIONS 1 AND 12, TOWNSHIP 49
SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING
OF 132.68 + /- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
{ P U D Z- PL20120002 779]
WHEREAS, Robert L. Duane, AICP of Robert L. Duane & Associates and R. Bruce
Anderson. Esquire of Roetzel & Andress, LPA representing developer, G.L. Homes of Florida II
Corporation, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification
of the herein described property.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA that:
SECTION ONE:
The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Sections 1 and
12, Township 49 South, Range 25 - East, Collier County, Florida is changed from a Rural
Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning
district for a 132.68+ /- acre project to be known as the Temple Citrus Grove RPUD to allow up
to 512 residential dwelling units in accordance with the RPUD Documents, attached hereto as
Exhibits "A" through "F" and incorporated herein by reference. The appropriate zoning atlas
map or maps as described in Ordinance No. 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, is /are hereby amended accordingly.
Temple Citrus Grove RPUD 1PUDZ- PL20120002779
Rev, 2124/14 1 of 2
Packet Page -1210-
3/11/2014 17.A.
SECTION TWO:
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
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
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: By:
Deputy Clerk TOM HENNING, Chairman
Approved as to form and legality:
Heidi Ashton- Cicko�
Managing Assistant County Attorney
Attachments: Exhibit A - Permitted Uses
Exhibit B - Development Standards
Exhibit C -1 - Master Plan
Exhibit C -1 A - Project I.D. Sign Program
Exhibit C -2 - Internal Roadway Sections & Details
Exhibit C -3 - North Buffer
Exhibit C -4 - Side walk Plan
Exhibit D - Legal Description
Exhibit E - Deviations
Exhibit F - Developer Commitments
CP' 13 -CPS- 01215\80
Temple Citrus Grove RPUD \PUDZ- PL20120002779
Rev. 2/24/14 2 oft
Packet Page -1211-
3/11/2014 17.A.
EXM11T A
PERMITTED USES
TEMPLE CITRUS RPUD
1. GENERAL USES PERMITTED THROUGHOUT THE RPUD
A. Permitted Principal Uses:
1. Interim agricultural uses including related accessory uses and structures. Agricultural
uses in any particular tract shall be completely terminated inated prior to the issuance of any
development order issued subsequent to this Ordinance for that particular tract. All
agricultural uses shall cease prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for
75% of the residential units within Temple Citrus Grove RPUD (See also, Exhibit F,
Number 4).
2. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and wom control structures.
3. . Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, and is
approved through the process set forth in the LDC at the time of the request for such
use,
4. Water management facilities and related structures including lakes with or without
bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments.
B. Permitted Accessory Uses
1. Signs as permitted by the LDC provisions in effect at the time building permits
are requested with deviations as stated in Exhibit E of this Ordinance.
1 Open space uses and structures includin- but not limited to riding trails, fitness
trails and sheltem gazebos, and picnic areas.
3. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses,
and is approved through the process set forth in the LDC at the time of the
request for such use.
2. RESIDENTIAL (R)
A. Permitted Principal Uses
I Single-family detached dwellings,
2. Single-family zero lot line dwellings.
TMVIC Citm P-PW - PL 20120002779
PxVisiW EMW 02-05.14
Packet Page -1212-
3/11/2014 17.A.
3. Two-family and duplex dwellings.
4. Model homes and sales centers conforming to housing types described in 2.A.1
through 2.A.5 above.
5. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses,
and is approved through the process set forth in the LDC at the time of the
request for such use.
B. Permitted Accessory uses
1. Customary accessory uses and structures, including but not limited to private
garages and swimming pools, spas, screen enclosures, and gazebos.
2. Signs as regulated by this PUD and the LDC provisions in effect at the time
building permits are requested.
3. Utility facilities.
4. Docks, piers and the like, for residential use constructed for purposes of lake
recreation for residents, limited to the adjoining residential property.
a. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses,
and is approved through the process set forth in the LDC at the time of the
request for such use.
C. Density
1. A maximum number of 512 dwelling units may be constructed in accordance
with the uses and standards as set forth in the Development Standards Table,
attached as Exhibit B of this ordinance.
2. Single- family housing types may be mixed within the model home row area
(only). This means that a single-family detached (zero-lot -line and non-zero-lot-
line) and single4amily attached may be on adjoining lots provided that each
housing type meets applicable development standards specified in Exhibit B..
The setbacks between mixed housing types shall be the most restrictive, i.e., the
housing type requiring the largest setback Site development standards for
single family, zero lot line, two - family, and duplex uses apply to individual lot
boundaries. Exhibit B sets forth the development standards for the land uses
within Temple Citrus RPU .
Ta ocGiMnRPUD— PL2Q12M2779
Revision D4ftM.a5.14
Packet Page -1213-
3/11/2014 1 ?.A.
3. RECREATION SITE (RS)
A. Permitted Principal Uses
1. Community center /clubhouse with dining facilities, health spas, tennis club and
other recreational facilities intended primarily to serve the RPUD residents and
guests.
2. Maintenance and storage buildings.
3. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses,
and is approved through the process set forth in the LDC at the time of the
request for such use.
B. Permitted Accessory Uses
I. Parks, tennis courts, shuffleboard courts, volleyball courts, tot lots and other
facilities for outdoor recreation, intended primarily to serve the RPUD residents
and guests.
2. Customary accessory uses and structures incidental to recreational areas and /or
facilities, and structures constructed for the purposes of maintenance, storage, or
shelter with required screening and landscaping.
3. Commercial /retail establishments customarily associated with principal uses
including tennis equipment sales, gift shops, restaurants, and similar uses
intended primarily to serve the RPUD residents and guests.
4. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses,
and is approved through the process set forth in the LDC at the time of the
request for such use.
4. FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT EASEMENT AREA.
A. Permitted Uses:
1. Private roadways, open space, passive recreation areas, pathways, landscaping
and water management.
Temple CiLm RPUD — PL 20120002779 3
Revision Dm 0105.14
Packet Page -1214-
3/11/2014 17.x,.
2. Project signage.
B. Prior to local development order approval, the developer shall obtain approval from
FP &L for any improvements located within the FP&L easement area.
Temple CiM* RPUD— PL 20120002779
Revision Date 02.05.14
4
Packet Page -1215-
EXHIBIT B
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
TEMPLE CrMUS RPUD
A.
3/11/2014 17.A.
PERMITTED USES AND
Single-
Single
TWO
Guard
Recreation
STANDARDS
Family
Family —
Family
Gate
Detached
Zero Lot
and
Site S
(R)
IAne (R)
Duplex
House
(R)
(ROWS)
Minimum Lot Area
5,000 SF9
4,000
3.50QSF*L
N/A
1 acne
SF *1
Minimum Lot Width
50'
40'
35'
N/A
100'
Minimum Lot Depth
100'
100'
100'
N/A
100'
Front Yard Setbacks
15' *3
159 *3
151'3
*A N/A
25'
Front Yard Accessory Setbacks
18'
1$'
20'
`° N/A.
10'
Side Yard Setbacks., Principal and
6'
0' or 10'
0 or 5' *6
'° N/A
10'
Accessory
Rear Yard Setbacks
'° N/A
Non Open_ Space Lots
15'
15'
1 15'
10,
Rear Yard Setbacks -
*4 N/A
Open Space Lots - *s
1 10'
10'
10'
10'
Rear Yard Accessory setbacks Non
! 5'
S'
S'
'° N/A
10'
Open Space Lots
Rear Yard Accessory setbacks - Open 3'
3'
3'
*` NIA
10'
Spate Lots *;
Maximum Building. Height 2 stories
2 stories
2 stories
2 stories
not to
not to
not to
not to
iexceed
exceed
exceed
exceed
Zoned 1 30'
30'
30'
30'
35'
Actual 40>
4
l.77
'N01 01
40,
•7
*7
Distance Between Principal & Accessory
Structures
0'
0'
0'
N/A
10'
Distance Between Principal Structures
12'
O'er 10'
10'
N/A
10'
Floor Area Wmimum
1500 SF
ISM SF
1500 SF
N/A
NIA
Setback from Tract Boundary
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
25'
Tanpk Gnus RPW— PL 2012MM779 ]
Revision Daft 02-05. 14
Packet Page -1216-
3/11/2014 17.A
*1 SF refers to square feet. All other measurements are in linear feet.
*2 3,500 SF of lot area per dwelling unit for Two Family and Duplex.
*3 Front yards shall be measured as follows:
A. If the parcel is served by a public right -of -way, setback is measured from the adjacent
right -of -way line.
B. if the parcel is served by a private road, setback is measured from the back of sidewalk.
If there is no sidewalk, the setback is measured from the back of curb of the private road.
C. If the parcel has private road frontage on two sides, the setback is measured from the side
with the shortest frontage with the other frontage designated as a side yard. In no
instance shall the principal structure be located within 10 feet of the road right of way
line.
D. The garage door must be setback a minimum of 23 feet for front -entry garages (from
back of sidewalk or from back of curb, if no sidewalk) and 15 feet for side entry garages
(from back of sidewalk or from back of curb, if no sidewalk).
*4 Minimum 5' from road edge of pavement if no curb or back of curb for internal roadways only.
*5 For purposes of establishing the principal and/or accessory use rear yard setbacks established in
Exhibit B: (1) "Rear Yard Setbacks - Open Space Lots" and "Rear Yard Accessory setbacks —
Open Space Lots" shall apply to that portion of the rear lot line that abuts a landscape buffer tract,
water managementtlake tract, and/or open space tract provided the abutting landscape buffer tract,
water management/lake tract, and/or open space tract is a minimum of seven (7) feet in width or
greater, (2) "Rear Yard Setback Non Open Space Lots" and "Rear Yard Accessory setback Non
Open Space Lots" shall apply to that portion of the rear lot line that abuts another residential lot
line or abuts a landscape buffer tract, water management/lake tract(s), and/or open space tract that
is less than seven (7) feet in width. Landscape buffer easements and lake maintenance easements
shall be separately platted.
*6 Where the zero (0) foot side yard setback option is utilized, the opposite side yard setback, from
the property line to the structure, shall be a minimum of five (5) feet. In no instance shall
principal structures be separated by less than 10 feet.
*7 Building height shall be limited to one story and unit type shall be restricted to either Single
Family Detached or Single Family Zero Lot Line within one hundred and fifty (150) feet of the
Manchester Square RPUD. The height for the one story structures are set forth on the.
Development Standards Table (30) feet Actual, and (40) feet zoned height_
B. OPEN SPACE/BUFFERS (OSB)
The perimeter buffers shall be as reflected on Exhibit C -1. (See also, Exhibit C -3 Landscape Cross
Section, Deviation Number 11).
C. SIGNAGE
Entrance Signs: Two ground or wall - mounted. Entrance Signs may be located at the main entrance of the
RPUD on Livingston Road and one may be located at the entrance of the RPUD on Airport Pulling; Road
(see Exhibit C -IA and Exhibit E for deviations for the Livingston Road signage). Two ground or wall -
T=Vle Citrus RPUD - PL 20120002779 6
Revision Date 0105.14
Packet Page -1217-
3/11/2014 17.A.
mounted Entrance Signs may be located at the main entrance of the Recreation Site as shown on Exhibit
C -IA.
Temple Ckms;RPUD —PL 20120002779
Revision Doe 0205.14
Packet Page -1218-
u
u
e�4
n
ceoa uoUSUun
m A v
e�eg
jj
-5i Z.
a
3 -
r
v yc
�T MTf a• L i VU
in
ti
E�
U =
�ff
• � L i q
�E� a
o v
4 p
r
w �
c�
n
lepuipim o
Vic._... — t: 6 0
CL
1el7uaP1�2! <' Q 3 �
g m
3 c 3 �-
Y u C Ln
a< Cr
wv
a� L
a)
Ln
v
g; Z
4..t
O
q Z
3/11/2014 1, 7.A.
S Z �
r_
�
V tom'
Cu
H =
ft5
W
ROB W
V 4
4 3
U
L
4j -a
U
IJ.
i
o f V S t
4 3 u
i a
W
•
♦ t ♦ ♦ i
E
R
t
i
1 { M1
{R N be � jjb
P
O
qg
N Q O
N
A
S A
R
a a A N a sa
R
4
W r
r M CO .D frr�D
V1
�
R M 1!1 tQ
SUI1Wd Uod #V
t0
M N 1a'�f 1 b
P
M
w P P M
a,
V
SYpb
CL
E�
U =
�ff
• � L i q
�E� a
o v
4 p
r
w �
c�
n
lepuipim o
Vic._... — t: 6 0
CL
1el7uaP1�2! <' Q 3 �
g m
3 c 3 �-
Y u C Ln
a< Cr
wv
a� L
a)
Ln
v
g; Z
4..t
O
q Z
3/11/2014 1, 7.A.
S Z �
r_
�
V tom'
Cu
H =
ft5
W
ROB W
V 4
4 3
U
L
4j -a
U
IJ.
i
o f V S t
4 3 u
i a
W
•
♦ t ♦ ♦ i
E
R
f ♦ Y 4
i
1 { M1
{R N be � jjb
P
O
qg
N Q O
A
S A
R
a a A N a sa
R
4
R
r M CO .D frr�D
V1
�
R M 1!1 tQ
SUI1Wd Uod #V
t0
M N 1a'�f 1 b
P
M
w P P M
a,
V
SYpb
CL
O L O
v
giltyL
p L
r_
N E m
y
a
o
•E o
✓ p
W D
C
3 C
�
s.o-n u.�
uFy
N 'p
d
E
u�....,......,
u.
5 -
C J 4
C.
!'J
O
�
L=
✓ G
�j :4 L �.
cc
E�
U =
�ff
• � L i q
�E� a
o v
4 p
r
w �
c�
n
lepuipim o
Vic._... — t: 6 0
CL
1el7uaP1�2! <' Q 3 �
g m
3 c 3 �-
Y u C Ln
a< Cr
wv
a� L
a)
Ln
v
g; Z
4..t
O
q Z
3/11/2014 1, 7.A.
S Z �
r_
�
V tom'
Cu
H =
ft5
W
ROB W
V 4
4 3
U
L
4j -a
U
IJ.
i
o f V S t
4 3 u
i a
W
=
E
R
fLLL
M PVO?J
SUI1Wd Uod #V
R
j
SYpb
giltyL
C
S
iC Tf�!l r�ltilYa�OMY
�
s.o-n u.�
uFy
u�....,......,
u.
5 -
Packet Page -1219-
3/11/2014 17.x,.
m
4
0
i c y
I r• n
N
F�t1( f E Q
C y
i
_ an U
0
P" -Usulml
IIL O
.^ a
O
an -O
i- X
d LA W
l ytf
' = E f
F r
ckn
LA
-� ,
/
_ _x,71.. -• _ •---•1 ,, r � � � a,
f
r t ai
w��
Lu
tj
rk
at
x
, as
V
_. Z
tx
1
W
>c
J
racKelrage -lLLu-
AND n F GSAg
SEWAGE Smarmy �SEWER
FOP40EMM
INTERIOR ROAD SECTION (80' R.O.W.)
MTS.
W RKi1i -0-VAY
q-Fvw
T S S 7 10' 10'
COJC
it 8
MAN / �-+ GRAVITY WATER ANW
SIEWAGE J SAWTARY SEWER C= VALLEY OMER mT1Gu
FORM 1AW INTERIOR ROAD SECTION (50' R.O.W )
Mrs
40' RIGHT-OF-WAY 4
1 C RAAD
C
z
WAVITY
fJ
fQJ SAMT
s SEWER
waTF3 YASk" J OW VALLn amER
SEWAGE
FORCE MAN
INTERIOR ROAD SECTION (40` R O W )
KTS.
GLH ENGINEERING, LLC
1600 SAWGRASS CORPORATE
PARKWAY, SUITE 400
SUNRISE, FLORIDA 33323
PHONE: (954) 753 -1730
AUTHORIZATION NO. 27459
3/11/2014 1 -.A.
1 I
WATER k"M
TEMPLE CITRUS GROVE
TYPICAL INTERNAL ROADWAY SECTIONS Se DETAILS
EXHIBIT C -2
Packet Page -1221-
g
iR/W
v T
i 2'
�' 1HY
2
#,
1
sew
I
C
z
WAVITY
fJ
fQJ SAMT
s SEWER
waTF3 YASk" J OW VALLn amER
SEWAGE
FORCE MAN
INTERIOR ROAD SECTION (40` R O W )
KTS.
GLH ENGINEERING, LLC
1600 SAWGRASS CORPORATE
PARKWAY, SUITE 400
SUNRISE, FLORIDA 33323
PHONE: (954) 753 -1730
AUTHORIZATION NO. 27459
3/11/2014 1 -.A.
1 I
WATER k"M
TEMPLE CITRUS GROVE
TYPICAL INTERNAL ROADWAY SECTIONS Se DETAILS
EXHIBIT C -2
Packet Page -1221-
I /001N
P;;rkpt P;iap
3/11/2014 17.A,
L
-C
0 X
z ui
o
z
rli
C3
z
mm M
H 0 c
an
IA
0 OL
5 E 2�
75
0 E 1�
L)
CL 0
W
tQ
<
0
0
0 LLI
&-a
L-
<
z
(U
0
r
-L
0
m
L-
IL
t)n
Ln
LA
uj
Qj
CL
F14
u C14
I
it's
Ln
U-
P;;rkpt P;iap
3/11/2014 17.A,
L
-C
0 X
z ui
y3 e
Buz
LU
lip
r
C3
z
mm M
H 0 c
an
IA
0 OL
5 E 2�
75
0 E 1�
L)
CL 0
W
y3 e
Buz
LU
lip
r
Pena UOISbUUiI
N PWV 8utpnd '3wodnb
Packet Page - 1223 -'
6
O
Z
C
O
ip
V f
d }
J
Y �
3
L
y F
> 5 yr
.^.y
c
MM
M
t o
d
LIJ u
M M � d[
oll
fi
t
3/11/2014 17.A.
R -
s
8 g
.iJ
Z
X
ill tit
S
yc
C
ii
W\
0
J
L'
v°
L a
y e
E� U
V
'1Y
3/11/2014 17.A.
EXHIBIT D
DESCRIPTION OF A PARCEL OF LAND
LYING IN
SECTIONS 1 & 12. TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
(RPUD DESCRIPTION)
A PARCEL OR TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF COLLIER,
LYING IN SECTIONS I AND 12, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, AND BEING FURTHER
BOUNDED AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25
EAST, THENCE N.W3722 "W., ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 1, A DISTANCE OF
275.08 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MANCHESTER SQUARE, A SUBDIVISION
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 47, PAGES 20 THROUGH 22, OF
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF
THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL; THENCE N.89°33'06 "W., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
SUBDIVISION, A DISTANCE OF 1079.45 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
SUBDIVISION AND TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW V) OF
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST.
THENCE S.00 °13'47 "E., ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID FRACTION AND WEST LINE OF SAID
SUBDIVISION. A DISTANCE OF 1319.27 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
SUBDIVISION AND THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID FRACTION OF SECTION; THENCE
N.89 0'33"40 "W., ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID FRACTION OF SECTION, -A DISTANCE OF
584.95 FEET; THENCE "X.36 °26'31 "W. A DISTANCE OF 442.51 FEET; THENCE N.00°2647 "E., A
DISTANCE OF 305.63 FEET; THENCEN.89 °33'13 "W., A DISTANCE OF 516.11 FEET; THENCE
N.00 00F27 "E., A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET; THENCE N.W30'44 "W., A DISTANCE OF '100.00 FEET;
THENCE 5.00005'27 "W., A DISTANCE OF 10.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAGUNA
BAY, A CONDOMINIUM, ACCORDING TO THE DECLARATION OF CONDOMINUM RECORDED IN
OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 4034, PAGE 2081 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA; THENCE N.89°3241 "W., ALONG THE NORTH LINE' OF SAID CONDOMINIUM, A
DISTANCE OF 2516.95 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE AIRPORT- PULLING CANAL (100
FEET WIDE); THENCE N.00 °4732 "E., ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID CANAL A DISTANCE OF
658.60 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF SECTION 12;
THENCE S.89 033'49 "E., ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 2609.60 FEET TO THE NORTH
QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 12, ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE %) OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST; THENCE
N.03° 10'59 "W., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE '/4), A DISTANCE OF
1086.49 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL
RECORDS BOOK 1735 AT PAGE 386 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
THENCE S.89025'1 6"E- ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL, A DISTANCE OF 2459.14 FEET
TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF A PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS
BOOK 3060 AT PAGE 621 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
PARCEL THE FOLLOWING 3 COURSES: 1) S.01 012'04 "E., A DISTANCE OF 29.70 FEET; 2) THENCE
N 88 °47'56 "E., A DISTANCE OF 12.57 FEET; 3 }THENCE S.0I ° I2'- 04 "E., A DISTANCE OF 1049.69 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
THE DESCRIBED PARCEL CONTAINS 132.677 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
BEARINGS ARE BASED ON NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983, FLORIDA STATE PLANE
COORDINATE S'Y'STEM, FLORIDA ZONE EAST,
Tam1e Ckm RPUD- PL 20120002779 13
- Revision DW 02:05 .14
Packet Page -1224-
3/11/2014 17.A.
4,141111:30
LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC
TEMPLE CITRUS RPUD
No Section of this PUD shall operate as a deviation to the Land Development Code unless it is expressly
listed in this Exhibit E. No Section of this PUD shall operate as a deviation to the Code of Laws and
Ordinances.
1. Deviation No. 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.04.133.e, Model Homes and Model Sales
Centers, which provides that a temporary use permit for a model home (occupied or unoccupied)
shalt be issued initially fora period of three (3) years.
The requested deviation is to allow the model homes to remain in effect up to eight (8) years
without requiring a conditional arse.
2. Deviation No. 2 -seeks relief from LDC Section 5 04.04.B.5.c, Model Homes and -Model Sales
Centers, which provides that a maximum of five (5) models, or a number of corresponding to ten
(10) 'percent of the total number of platted lots, whichever is less, per platted, approved
development shall be permitted prior to final plat approval as specified above.
The requested deviation provides up to 16 model homes and a sales center to be permitted in -the
RPUD. Each time the developer applies for a model building permit, he shall be required to
inform the County bow many model homes have been permitted.
s. Deviation No. 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6. and 5.06.02.B.5b. Development
Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, which allows on- premises signs within
residential, districts. Two ground signs with a maximum height of S feet or wall, residential
entrance or gate signs with -a maximum height of & feet may be located at each entrance to multi-
family or single-family development.
The requested deviation is for two (2) entrance signs as depicted in Exhibit C -lA to be allowed a
maximum of 10 feet in height adjacent to Livingston Road right -of -way. See Deviation No. 4B
for copy area) (See Exhibit C -1A for sign details).
4. Deviation No. 4A seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6.b, Development Standards for
Signs within Residential Districts, which allows two ground signs at each entrance to a multi -
family or single family development.
The requested deviation is to allow two entrance or gate signs on the recreation area depicted on
the RPUD Master Plan, and as shown on Exhibit C -1A.
Deviation No. 4B seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6.b, Development Standards for
Signs within Residential District, which allows the ground or wall sign not to excel a combined
area of 64 square feet and shall not exceed the height and length of the wall or gate upon which it
is located.
Temple Chm RPUD — PL 2012=2779 14
Revision Date 02.05.14
Packet Page -1225-
3/11/2014 17.A.
The requested deviation is to allow the two project entrance signs on Livingston Road with a
maximum area of 64 square feet per side and a total area of 128 square feet (both sides). (See
Exhibit C -1A for sign details). The recreation area signage shall not exceed a combined area of
64 square feet and shall not exceed the height and length of the wall or gate upon which it is
located.
5. Deviation No. 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.S.b, Development Standards for Signs
within Residential District, which allows directional signs to be combined into one sign with a
maximum height of 8 feet and a maximum area of 24 square feet.
The requested deviation is to allow for no limitation on the number of combined signs provided
they are separated by a minimum distance of 100 feet or a road right-of-way. The directional
signs are subject to the maximum height of 8 feet and maximum area of 24 square feet-
6. Deviation No. 6 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5.a, Development Standards for Signs
within Residential District, which allows on premise directional signs be set back a minimum of
10 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, as applicable.
The requested deviation is to allow the directional sign to be located five feet from a roadway or
platted easement, excluding public roadways, if it does not result in public safety concerns or
obscure vwhility of the motoring traffic, as determined by the County Manager or designee.
7. Deviation No. 7 seeks relief from LDC Section 5..04.06.A.3.e, Temporary Signs, which requires
that tempon uy signs on residentially zoned properties shall not exceed 34 square feet in area in
sign area.
The requested deviation into allow temporary signs and banners to be 48 square feet in area.
S. Deviation No. 8 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.0 and Appendix B which require cul de
sacs and local streets to have a minimum 60-foot-wide right -of -way.
The requested deviation is to allow both 40 -foot -wide and 50 -foot -wide right-of-way widths for
internal streets (See also Exhibit C -2),
9. Deviation No. 9 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.1, Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway
Requirements, which requires sidewalks on boar sides of a local street that is adjacent to the site.
(See Exhibit C4 The Side -walk Plan).
The requested deviation is to allow a sidewalk five feet in width on just one side of the street for
local roadways 40 feet in width (see also Exhibit C -2, and Exhibit C-4 The Side -walk Plan).
10. Deviation No. 10 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.07.02.F -, Off Street Parking for Planned Unit
Developments which requires that off- street parking requirements shall be as for comparable
type, density, and .intensity of uses established in the PUD.
The requested deviation is to allow the recreational facilities to provide parking at 75% of the
normal LDC requirements.
Temple Giuus RPUD— PL 20x20002779
Revision Date 02.05.14
15
Packet Page -1226-
3/11/2014 17.A.
11. Deviation No. 1.1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.2 which requires a 15 foot wide
buffer to allow a 10 foot wide Type B landscape buffer as shown on the Master Plan.
The requested deviation is to allow a 10 foot buffer adjacent to The Lone Oak PUD and Willow
Park PUD. Principal structures located adjacent to the area wherein the 10'foot wide Type B
buffer is provided shall be limited to one story in height.
Tdnpia Citnts RPUD — PL 20120002779
Revision Date 02.05.14
16
Packet Page - 1227 -
EXHIBIT F
DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
TEMPLE CITRUS RPUD
1. TRANSPORTATION
3/11/2014 1 7.A.
A. The developer(s� its successor(s) in title, or assignee(s), shall be responsible for
the cost of a traffic signal at the main development entrance on Livingston Road
located within the Temple Citrus RPUD when determined warranted and
approved by Collier County Transportation Staff. Contingent upon the completed
installation, inspection, burn -in period, and final approval the traffic signal (as
defined by the applicable Developer Contribution Agreement), said traffic signal
shall be conveyed to Collier County for ownership and maintenance. If a traffic
signal is not warranted, as determined by Collier County Transportation's staff,
the developer's obligation for the traffic signal shall end upon the issuance of the
final certificate of occupancy submitted by the developer, his successor, or assign.
B. The development within this project shall be limited to 457 unadjusted two -way
PM peak hour trips; corresponding to the trip generation calculations within the
—� Traffic Impact Study with a revision date of June 12, 2013 allowing for flexibility
in the proposed uses without creating unforeseen impacts on the adjacent roadway
network. For the purposes of calculation of the weekday PM peals hour trip
generation in this PUD, the lesser of the weekday PM peak Hour trips as
calculated in the Institute of Traffic Engineer's (ITE) Report, titled Trip
Generation, 9h Edition or the trip generation as calculated in the then current ITE
Trip Generation Report shall be utilized.
C. A mass transit easement shall be dedicated to Collier County by the property
owner at no cost to Collier County prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of
Occupancy. The size of the mass transit easement shall be 20 feet by 10 feet.
D. The project entrance on Livingston Road shall have a maimed guardhouse.
2. UTILITIES
A. The developer, its assigns or successors may apply to the County for the use of
treated sewage effluent within the project limits for irrigation purposes, subject to
availability. The developer at its sole cost shall be responsible for providinig all
on -site piping and pumping facilities from the County's point of delivery to the
project and may provide full or partial on -site storage .facilities, as rewired by the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, consistent with the volume of
treated wastewater to be utilized and subject to availability of treated effluent.
Temple Ciws RP7JD- PL 20120002779 1
Revision D W 02:05.14
Packet Page -1228-
3/11/2014 17.A.
B. Stubs for future system interconnection with adjacent properties shall be provided
to the north side of the recreation parcel of the project and to Manchester Square
to possibly avoid Livingston Road connection. The precise locations of these
interconnections shall be mutually agreed to by the Utilities Division and the
Developer during the design phase of the project.
�. ENVIRONMENTAL
A. No preserve area shall be required for this RPUD.
4. REMOVAL OF CITRUS STORE AND ACCESS TO CITRUS STORE SITE
A. The commercial use on Airport Pulling Road shall be closed prior to the issuance
of Certificates of Occupancy for 75% of the residential units within the Temple
Citrus RPUD.
5. PUD MONITORING
A. 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 Naples Associates V, LLLP. 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
approval of the transfer by County staff', and the successor entity shall become the
Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, with the exception of
individual residential lots, 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 Entity 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.
6. SCHOOL ACCESS
A. A pedestrian access to Osceola Trail shall be provided along the southern
boundary of the project as depicted on the RPUD Master Plan and shall be a
minimum of 8 feet in width.
B. The recreation site depicted on the RPUD Master Plan shall be designed to
facilitate the turning movements for school buses.
TagAcCi m RPUD— PL2012OW2779 1g
Revision D= 02.05.14
Packet Page - 1229 -
3/11/2014 17.x..
7. LIGHTING
The street light poles shall be a maximum of 15' tall and emit 0 foot - candles at the
Manchester Square RPUD and Lone Oak. PUD property line.
8. LANDSCAPING ADJACENT TO THE LONE OAK PUD
A hedge meeting the minimum requirements of the LDC shall be provided in the buffer
area on the North and West side of the Wall adjacent to the Lone Oak PUD.
'temple Cmw RPUD — PL 20120002779 19
Revision Dote 02,05.14
Packet Page -1230-
3/11/2014 17.A.
i
NAPLES DAILY NEWS a. Wednesday, February' 19, 2014 4 37D
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE
Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, March 11, 2014 in the Board of County
Commissioners meeting room, third floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 East
Tamiami Trail, Naples FL, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) will consider
the enactment of a County Ordinance: The meeting will commence at 9.:00 A.M..
'The title of the proposed Ordinance is as follows:
'AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COWER
COUNTY, . FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004.41, AS AMENDED, THE
COWER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE
COMPREHENSIVE' ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
COWER COUNTY,° FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS
MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN
DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT
TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR
THE PROJECT KNOWN AS TEMPLE CITRUS GROVE RPUD TO ALLOWDEVELOPMENT
OF UP TO 512 SINGLE FAMILY DWEWNG UNITS AND /OR TWO - FAMILY AND
DUPLEX DWELLING UNITS ON. PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN AIRPORT- POLUNG
ROAD AND LIVINGSTON ROAD IN SECTIONS 1 AND 12, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,
RANGE 25 EAST, COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 132.68+/- ACRES;
AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PETITION PUDZ- PL20120002779)
A copy of the proposed Ordinance is on file with the Clerk to the Board and is
available for inspection. All interested parties are invited tolattend and be heard.
NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any. agenda .item must register with the
County Manager prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed.
individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. The selection of any
individual to . speak on behalf of. an organization or group is encouraged. if
recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or organization may'be
.allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item.
Persons. wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda
packets must submit said material a .minimum of 3 weeks' prior to the respective
public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the
Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County-staff a minimum of seven days
prior to the public hearing. All materials used in presentations before the Board
will become a_ permanent part of the record.
Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Board will, need a. record of
the. proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore,-.may need` to ensure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made,, which record includes the testimony
and evidence upon which the appeal is based.
If you are a person with a disability _ who needs any. accommodation in order to
participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision
of - certain assistance. Please contact rthe Collier County Facilities Management
Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail Easi, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112 -5356,
(239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior .to the meeting. Assisted listening devices
for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners
Qfflce.
BOARD OF�COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER - COUNTY, FLORIDA
. TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN
DWIGHT E BROCK, CLERK ,
By: Martha Verggara
Deputy Clerk (SEAL) .
�ebfllaN 19: 2014 - Ne:.2076060
Packet Page -1231-