Loading...
Agenda 04/22/2014 Item #17B 4/22/2014 17.B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance 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 Mobile Home (MI!I) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district to allow up to 44 residential dwelling units for a project to be known as the Dockside Planned Unit Development. The subject property is located east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) on Henderson Creek Drive in Section 3,Township 51 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida consisting of 6.0±acres; and by providing an effective date(PUDZ-PL20130001163). OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)review staff's findings and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC)regarding the above referenced petition and render a decision regarding this PUD rezone petition;and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner is requesting a rezone from the Mobile Home (MH) Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit Development District (RPUD) to allow development of a maximum of 44 dwelling units with customary residential development accessory uses. The Master Plan shows one access point located on Henderson Creek Drive on the north perimeter of the project with a centralized roadway that ends at a turnaround/cul-de-sac at the southern portion of the project. There are residential tracts on both sides of the central roadway and two potential recreation areas between the residential tracts and the southern tree preservation area adjacent to Henderson Creek. The petitioner is not seeking deviations from Land Development Code(LDC)with this petition. FISCAL IMPACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan as needed to maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. Packet Page-1459- 4/22/2014 17.B. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP)IMPACT: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, and is within the Coastal High Hazard Area(CHHA), 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). The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP, and further detail is provided in the attached staff report. 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 CCPC heard this petition on March 6, 2014. By a unanimous vote (7 to 0) recommended forwarding this petition to the BCC with a recommendation of approval subject to the following changes to the PUD document: 1) Approved new language introduced and provided at the hearing by the applicant. 2) Add language to the recreational uses consistent with County Attorney recommendation and adding that it is intended for private use by residents and their guests only. 3) Revise asterisk 4 of the development standards table to specify that it does not apply to setbacks from riparian lines. 4) Revise the location of asterisk 4 of the development standards table to the left column so that it applies to all categories. 5) Remove footnote 1 from the development standards table. 6) Add a requirement that a Type B landscape buffer shall be provided along the western boundary at a reduced width of 10 feet. 7) Add a requirement that the owner will be required to repair any damage to Henderson Creek Road/Drive as a result of construction activity for this project. These revisions have been incorporated into the PUD document that is included in the draft ordinance. No correspondence in opposition to this petition has been submitted for the current proposal; no one spoke at the CCPC hearing voicing opposition to the project and the CCPC vote was unanimous. Therefore,this petition can be placed on the Summary Agenda. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is a site specific rezone from a Mobile Home Zoning District to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Dockside RPUD. The burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent with all the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), should it consider denying the rezone, to determine that such Packet Page-1460- 4/22/2014 17.B. .-. denial would not be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the proposal does not meet one or more of the listed criteria below. Criteria for RPUD Rezones Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval or not. 1. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. 2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. 3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed RPUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. 4. Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which �-. conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. 5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development? 6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. 7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 8. Consider: Conformity with RPUD 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 RPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? Packet Page-1461- 4/22/2014 17.B. r-� 11. Would the requested RPUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? 12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. 13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. 14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? 15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety? 16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? 17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas? 18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? 19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations? 20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ("reasonably") be used in accordance with existing zoning? (a"core"question...) 22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county? 23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. 24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. 25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed RPUD 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 Packet Page-1462- 4/22/2014 17.B. implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch.106, art.II], as amended. 26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the RPUD 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. The proposed Ordinance was prepared by the County Attorney's Office. This item has been reviewed for form and legality. An affirmative vote of four is necessary for Board approval. (HFAC) RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendations of the CCPC including the revisions noted in the approval motion and further recommends that the BCC approve the request subject to the attached PUD Ordinance. Prepared by: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager, Planning and Zoning Department, Growth Management Division, Planning and Regulation Attachments: 1) Staff Report 2) Ordinance 3) Back-up information; Due to the size of this document, a web link has been provided for viewing at: http://www.colliergov.net/ftp/AgendaApril22I4/GrowthMqmt/Dockside- Backup.pdf Packet Page-1463- 4/22/2014 17.B. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 17.17.B. Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance 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 Mobile Home (MH) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district to allow up to 44 residential dwelling units for a project to be known as the Dockside Planned Unit Development.The subject property is located east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) on Henderson Creek Drive in Section 3,Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 6.0±acres; and by providing an effective date (PUDZ- PL20130001163). Meeting Date: 4/22/2014 Prepared By Name: SawyerMichael Title: Project Manager, Zoning&Land Development Review 3/27/2014 4:27:02 PM Approved By Name: BellowsRay Title: Manager-Planning,Comprehensive Planning Date: 3/28/2014 11:02:33 AM Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, Community Development&Environmental Services Date: 3/28/2014 11:39:49 AM Name:BosiMichael Title: Director-Planning and Zoning,Comprehensive Planning Date: 4/2/2014 3:02:54 PM Name: MarcellaJeanne Packet Page-1464- 4/22/2014 17.B. Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning Date: 4/8/2014 3:04:49 PM Name:AshtonHeidi Title: Managing Assistant County Attorney,CAO Land Use/Transportation Date: 4/10/2014 8:42:55 AM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 4/10/2014 9:52:35 AM Name: IsacksonMark Title: Director-Corp Financial and Mngmt Svs, Office of Management&Budget Date: 4/14/2014 9:35:27 AM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager, County Managers Office Date: 4/14/2014 1:27:00 PM Packet Page-1465- 4/22/2014 17.B. AGENDA ITEM 9-B Co ` er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES—PLANNING &ZONING DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION--PLANNING&REGULATION HEARING DATE: MARCH 6, 2014 SUBJECT: RPUD-PL20130001163– DOCKSIDE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) PROPERTY OWNER& APPLICANT/AGENT: Property Owner/Applicant: Agent: Real Estate Technology Corporation of Naples D. Wayne Arnold,AICP Carl J and Joanne M. Kuehner Q. Grady Minor and Associates,P.A. 900 Broad Avenue South, Suite 2C 3800 Via Del Rey Naples,Fl 34102 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for a rezone from the Mobile Home (MH)Zoning District to the Residential Planned Unit Development District (RPUD) Zoning District to allow development of a maximum of 44 dwelling units. For details about the project proposal, refer to "Purpose/Description of Project." GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located on the south side of Henderson Creek Drive and the north side of Henderson Creek, approximately 500 feet east of Collier Boulevard (SR 951), in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. (See location map on the following page). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner is requesting a rezone from the Mobile Home zoning district to the RPUD zoning district to allow development of a maximum of 44 dwelling units comprised of multi-family and townhome units along with customary residential development accessory uses. The Master Plan shows one access point located on Henderson Creek Drive on the north perimeter of the project with a centralized roadway that ends at a turnaround/cul-de-sac at the southern portion of the project. There are PUDZ-PL20130001163-Dockside RPUD Page 1 of 13 February 12,2014(Revised: 02/14/14,2/18/14,2/25/14) Packet Page -1466- 4/22/2014 17.B. iiip 0■wwirjr,„.„).iliral. mit 1Lf4 EN fit ?COWIE&aff IITII Sal — Fr :. v r a �rrrr�.� - Am o eewerAovoovoo a V _ 4'� _ . LL M aeee25011e11 ; c O 4 cm ICIER p0 „da e a ®t ©vo oho .. F d e� ®aa I 2 1 < � � A q o�oaae� � g #4176,1115 BOO oO©� ate,' 0 �,\40051illidalla a-1 Z 3 dWE# k;4*11©Q1�11QOp 1 r lit ,���esbesee�®� 0 ��r ,; N _IF, E-1 v < 1 ' 6 NM 6 ml . AttAi ysp; M 6 I� N a 31V35 0,.«, Q ..••••••••. a 4t I� /r O 11 -- g ! A i ' .4` ' fi 1 4 ( I-- 3 ' : B 7 W O F , 6l � � O 11 R 0— J Q N .z.z oe ean'roo �` J i1 sg n \ ' i o !i - Bit " Z r �`^ g Ili ar d — Se imin y a ., , ■ __ II �- 0 0.. Fi E A A n%tlx8oe aamoo p IP \\4% T. 11 -1,r, 0 z gp t ' 1 .........., ,, ,____/-,, , § N g ~6 g S 1 �m ,,„ g- �..�olec, waowuQ+ , e Z� Packet Page-1467- 4/22/2014 17.B. residential tracts on both sides of the central roadway and two potential recreation areas between the residential tracts and the southern tree preservation area adjacent to Henderson Creek. The petitioner is not seeking deviations from Land Development Code (LDC)with this petition. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Henderson Creek Drive access, then a developed mobile home park with a zoning designation of Mobile Home(MH). East: A developed mobile home park with a zoning designation of Mobile Home (MH). South: Henderson Creek,then a mobile home park with a zoning designation of Mobile Home (MH). West: A developed multi-family development with a zoning designation of Residential Multi-family (RMF-6). ° f„ • • I) I ' a `a + !l , s�7: 4/22/2014 17.B. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, and is within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), 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 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 3 dwelling units per acre (DU/A), without providing affordable-workforce housing which is not proposed—see below; eligible density is not an entitlement. The applicant proposes 44 DUs, yielding 7.32 DU/A. Base Density 4 DU/A CHHA Density Reduction -1 DU/A Maximum eligible density 3 DU/A x 6.01 acres = 18.03 = 18 DUs However, the existing Mobile Home (MH) zoning on the site pre-dates the 1989 adoption of the GMP and has been deemed "consistent by policy;" the site is identified on Map FLUE-12, Existing Zoning Consistent with FLUE by Policy 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12 ("improved property"). Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) provides that the residential zoning of such "consistent by policy" properties may be changed so long as the new zoning district does not allow a greater number of DUs than the existing zoning, and provided the overall intensity of the proposed zoning district is not of a greater intensity than the existing zoning — as determined by a comparison of public facility impacts. The petitioner submitted a comparative analysis of the uses allowed by the existing and proposed zoning districts, and of the public facility impacts of the existing and proposed use, and asserts that consistency with FLUE Policy 5.1 is achieved. FLUE Policy 5.1 states, in relevant part: Policy 5.1: All rezonings must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. For properties that are zoned inconsistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section but have nonetheless been determined to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element, as provided for in Policies 5.9 through 5.13, the following provisions apply: c. For such residentially-zoned properties, zoning changes will be allowed provided the authorized number of dwelling units in the new zoning district does not exceed that authorized by the existing zoning district,and provided the overall intensity of development allowed by the new zoning district does not exceed that allowed by the existing zoning district. e. Overall intensity of development shall be determined based upon a comparison of public facility impacts as allowed by the existing zoning district and the proposed zoning district. FLUE Policy 5.1 contains a two-part test. Below is staff's analysis and determination of each part. Part I: Does the new zoning district allow the same or a lower number of dwelling units as the existing zoning district? • PUDZ—PL20130001163—Dockside RPUD Page 3 of 13 February 12,2014 (Revised:02/14/14,2/18/14,2/25/14) Packet Page-1469- 4/22/2014 17.B. This evaluation requires a comparison of existing and proposed density. The existing MH zoning n district does not have a specified maximum density but does have a minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet(s.f.); this yields a maximum of 44 DUs (43,560 s.f. per acre x 6.01 acres=261,795.6 s.f./6,000 s.f. per lot= 43.63 DUs 4 44 DUs). The proposed Dockside Residences RPUD permits 44 DUs. Conclusion: The new (proposed) zoning district does allow the same or a lower number of dwelling units as the existing zoning district. Part II: Is the overall intensity of residential land use allowed by the existing zoning district not exceeded in the new zoning district(based upon a comparison of public facility impacts as allowed by the existing zoning district and the proposed zoning district)? The applicant provided a comparative analysis of public facility impacts for all category A public facilities (arterial and collector roads, potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, parks and recreation, and drainage), sometimes referencing impact upon level of service (LOS), and concluded that there is no increase in overall intensity. Staff concurs with this conclusion and notes that trip generation decreases and there is no difference for most other facilities. Conclusion: The overall intensity of residential land use allowed by the existing zoning district is not exceeded in the new zoning district. Also, staff notes that the CHHA prohibits new rezoning to allow mobile home development; this petition does the opposite—it removes mobile home zoning. Analysis of relevant FLUE policies is provided below. Future Land Use Element (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 are 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, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 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 7.2: 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. [Due to the property size and configuration, a loop road is not possible. All DUs will access the proposed cul- de-sac.] PUDZ—PL20130001163—Dockside RPUD Page 4 of 13 February 12,2014(Revised:02/14/14,2/18/14,2/25/14) Packet Page-1470- 4/22/2014 17.B. Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [As both adjacent properties are developed, interconnections are not possible. Further, the property size and configuration makes provision of interconnection(s) likely not feasible. Comprehensive Planning leaves review of the Transportation Element to Transportation Planning staff.] 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 property size and configuration limits the ability to provide varying densities, civic facilities, and housing types and prices. Open space is provided for as required by the Land Development Code (LDC). As no deviation is requested,sidewalks must be provided as required by the LDC.] Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUD 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. Therefore, the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation& Coastal Management Element(CCME). GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as indicated previously in the GMP discussion. 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. ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's PUDZ—PL20130001163—Dockside RPUD Page 5 of 13 February 12,2014(Revised: 02/14/14,2/18/14,2/25/14) Packet Page-1471- 4/22/2014 17.B. recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the bases for their recommendation to the n Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading"Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council Board (EAC) review as this project does not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Tree retention is required in accordance with LDC Section 3.05.07.A.2. Native Trees; the PUD Master Plan shows the Tree .Preservation Area. Also, this requirement is provided in the Developer Commitments (Exhibit E). Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues as well as roadway capacity, and recommends approval subject to the Developer/owner commitments as provided in the PUD ordinance. Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. Zoning staff is of the opinion that this project will be compatible with and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. To support that opinion staff offers the following analysis of this project. As noted on page 2 above, this development is within an area that contains a mix of developed mobile home parks, multi-family development and several undeveloped parcels. To the north, east and south are mobile home parks; to the west is a multi-family development. The proposed development is located on Henderson Creek which at this location is downstream and south of the City of Marco Island water treatment facility. The petitioner is requesting as an accessory use the mooring of 9 vessels along Henderson Creek. Staff notes that the LDC provides an allowance of 1 boat dock/slip per unit for multi-family residential developments. Therefore this development would be allowed up to 44 vessel dock/slips following LDC provisions, however due to the limited shoreline along Henderson Creek it is unlikely this number of docks/slips is possible. The proposed 9 vessel accessory use limit is well within LDC standards. Because the development is proposing two potential recreation facility locations both of which are located adjacent to residential developments staff is of the opinion that specific landscape and screening buffers, principal structure setbacks, and limitations regarding lighting and amplified sound should be required to avoid potential compatibility issues with the existing adjacent residential developments (see staff proposed condition of approval on page 12, Recommendations). At the Neighborhood Information Meeting (MM) there were discussions concerning Henderson Creek Drive, a privately owned access road, the type of multi-family units proposed for the development, as PUDZ--PL20130001163—Dockside RPUD Page 6 of 13 February 12,2014 (Revised:02/14/14,2/18/14,2/25/14) Packet Page-1472- 4/22/2014 17.B. well as other development issues. The petitioner is proposing in Exhibit B development standards that are substantially consistent with other multi-family developments within Collier County, and with the issues discussed at the NIM (see attachment C). Zoning staff recommends that this petition be found compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, pursuant to the requirement of FLUE Policy 5.4. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is not seeking deviations from the requirements of the LDC for this development. FINDINGS OF FACT: [Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold, non-italicized font]: PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed uses are compatible with the approved uses and existing development in the area. In addition, the proposed property development regulations provide adequate assurances that the proposed project will be suitable to the type and pattern of development in the area. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the undeveloped portions of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion and the report from Comprehensive Planning staff and the zoning analysis of this staff report. Based on those staff analyses, planning zoning staff is of the opinion that this petition may be found consistent with the overall GMP. PUDZ--PL20130001163—Dockside RPUD Page 7 of 13 February 12,2014(Revised: 02/14/14,2/18/14,2/25/14) Packet Page-1473- 4/22/2014 17.B. 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. As described in the Analysis Section of this staff report, staff is of the opinion that the proposed uses, development standards, developer commitments, and recommended conditions of approval will help ensure that this project is compatible with the surrounding area. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., GMT consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. The project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. Additionally,the PUD document contains additional developer commitments that should help ensure there are adequate facilities available to serve this project. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as road capacity, wastewater disposal system,and potable water supplies to accommodate this project. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The petitioner is not seeking any deviations from the provisions of the LDC and is in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06.A). Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable" (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 is of the opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with neighborhood development. Staff recommends that PUDZ—PL20130001163—Dockside RPUD Page 8 of 13 February 12,2014(Revised: 02/14/14,2/18/14,2/25/14) Packet Page-1474- 4/22/2014 17.B. this petition be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. The petition can also be deemed consistent with the CCME and the Transportation Element. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed it at length in the zoning review analysis. Staff believes the proposed rezoning is appropriate given the existing land use pattern, and development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts,. The proposed PUD rezone would not create an isolated zoning district because the proposed PUD abuts an existing multi-family development to the east and a mobile home park to the east. Further, the proposed number of multi-family units is consistent with both of the adjacent developments and as noted on page 4 the project is consistent with Coastal High Hazard Area mobile home prohibition because the proposed PUD removes the Mil zoning designation. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed district boundaries are logically drawn since the zoning boundary mirrors the existing property boundary. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes and the project's consistency with the GMP. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change, subject to the proposed list of uses and property development regulations, the proposed Development Commitments detailed in Exhibit F, and recommended conditional of approval, is consistent with the County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Therefore, the proposed change should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway and access infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. Staff believes the petition can be deemed consistent with all elements of the GMP. PUDZ—PL20130001163—Dockside RPUD Page 9 of 13 February 12,2014(Revised:02/14/14,2/18/14,2/25/14) Packet Page-1475- 4/22/2014 17.B. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem,. The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems. The developer of the project will be required to adhere to a surface water management permit from the SFWMD in conjunction with any local site development plan approvals and ultimate construction on site. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this petition were approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. This project's property development regulations provide adequate setbacks and distances between structures; therefore the project should not significantly reduce light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market conditions. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; The proposed rezone should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties since ^ all adjacent property is already developed. 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 Growth Management Plan which is a public policy statement supporting Zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact,the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning designations; however, the petitioner is seeking this rezone in compliance with LDC provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed amendment meets the intent of the PUD district, and further, believes the public interest will be maintained. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; PUDZ--PL20130001163—Dockside RPUD Page 10 of 13 February 12,2014(Revised:02/14/14,2/18/14,2/25/14) Packet Page-1476- 4/22/2014 17.B. As noted previously, the proposed rezone boundary follows the existing property ownership boundary. 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. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a particular zoning petition. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP as discussed in other portions of the staff report. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as 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 rezone process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): Please see attachment C: NIM transcript. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office (has not yet) reviewed the staff report for this petition on February 25, 2014. PUDZ—PL20130001163—Dockside RPUD Page 11 of 13 February 12,2014(Revised:02/14/14, 2/18/14,2/25/14) Packet Page-1477- 4/22/2014 17.B. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-A-PL20130001163 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following condition of approval. 1. Any recreation facility/amenity located adjacent to external properties shall have a principal structure setback of a minimum 30'-0" from property boundaries and a Type B Landscape Buffer consistent with LDC Section 4.06.00 with a 6' masonry wall/fence to be provided between the amenity and the external property. Additionally, amplified sound is prohibited, and site lighting if provided will have cut-off shielding or have bollard type fixtures. Attachments: A. Application B. PUD Ordinance C.NIM meeting transcript PUDZ—PL20130001163—Dockside RPUD Page 12 of 13 February 12,2014(Revised:02/14/14,2/18/14,2/25/14) Packet Page -1478- 4/22/2014 17.B. PREPARED BY: 7-7 ;\ .-.v c, _ / / , 0,00, , '2_. l '-)44 me' •1 S• Iv YE , PROJECT MANAGER DATE DEP♦ • MENT OF LANNING AND ZONING REVIEWED BY: RAYMO V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING ,, == 2, I ~- j MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING r APPRO :Y: . _' 2 '26- N NICK CASALANG 'CA, -f" STRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the April 22,2014 Board of County Commissioners Meeting RPUD-PL20130001163—Dockside Residences Page 13 of 13 February 7,2014(Revised.) Packet Page-1479- 4/22/2014 17.B. ORDINANCE NO. 14- 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 MOBILE HOME (MH) ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW UP TO 44 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE DOCKSIDE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) ON HENDERSON CREEK DRIVE IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 6.0± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PUDZ-PL20130001163) WHEREAS, Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., representing Real Estate Technology Corporation of Naples, 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: Zoning Classification. The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from a Mobile Home (MH) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a 6.0± acre parcel to be known as the Dockside Planned Unit Development in accordance with Exhibits A through E, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. 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. SECTION TWO: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. Dockside RPUD`PUDZ-PL20130001163 Page 1 of 2 Rev.31181144 Packet Page-1480- 4/22/2014 17.B. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ,2014. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk TOM HENNING, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: (At' 0-1 Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A— Permitted Uses Exhibit B—Development Standards Exhibit C—Master Plan Exhibit D—Legal Description Exhibit E—List of Developer Commitments CP\13-CPS-01248\46 Dockside RPUD PUDZ-PL20130001163 Page 2 of 2 Rev.3/18/14 Packet Page-1481- 4/22/2014 17.B. EXHIBIT A FOR DOCKSIDE RESIDENCES RPUD Regulations for development of the Dockside Residences RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this RPUD Document and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate. Where this RPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. PERMITTED USES: A maximum of 44 dwelling units shall be permitted within the RPUD. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: RESIDENTIAL A. Principal Uses: 1. Dwelling Units- Multiple-family and townhouse. 2. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") or the Hearing Examiner. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Model homes and model home centers including sales trailers and offices for project administration, construction,sales and marketing. 2. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, gazebos, boat and canoe docks, fishing piers, picnic areas, fitness trails and shelters. 3. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the principal uses permitted in this District, including but not limited to garages,carports, swimming pools,spas and screen enclosures. 4. Essential services as described in Section 2.01.03 of the LDC. S. Any other accessory use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and consistent with the permitted accessory uses of this PUD as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Hearing Examiner. 6. Mooring for a maximum of nine vessels shall be permitted as accessory to residential dwellings. Dockside Residences RPUD ?oae 1 of 7 CCPC rev 3/18/2014 Packet Page -1482- 4/22/2014 17.B. RECREATION A. Principal Uses: 1. Clubhouses, no restaurants shall be permitted. 2. Community administrative facilities. 3. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, bikeways, gazebos, boat and canoe docks, fishing piers, picnic areas, fitness trails and shelters (private intended for use by the residents and their guests only). 4. Indoor or outdoor recreation facilities, such as a community swimming pool, tennis and basketball courts, parks, playgrounds, pedestrian/bikeways, and passive and/or active water features (private intended for use by the residents and their guests only). 5. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") and the Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). B. Accessory Uses: 1. Community maintenance areas, maintenance buildings, essential services, irrigation water and effluent storage tanks and ponds, utility pumping facilities and pump buildings, utility and maintenance staff offices. 2. Any other use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and consistent with the permitted accessory uses of this PUB as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. TREE PRESERVATION AREA The tree preservation area is the area where existing native trees shall be retained or supplemented with native plantings. Structures shall be permitted subject to the development standards for the Recreation Area in Exhibit B. A. Uses permitted: 1. Open space uses and structures such as, but not limited to, boardwalks, nature trails, gazebos, boat and canoe docks, fishing piers, picnic areas, fitness trails and shelters. Mooring for a maximum of nine vessels shall be permitted as accessory to residential dwellings. DocKside Residences RP M Pang 2 of 7 CCP,�. rev 3)181014 Packet Page-1483- 4/22/2014 17.B. 2. Any other use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and consistent with the permitted accessory uses of this PUD as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Hearing Examiner. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Exhibits B sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Dockside Residences RPUD Subdistrict. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. Dockside Residences RPUD Pon« 3(if 7 CCPC rev 3118!2014 Packet Page -1484- 4/22/2014 17.B. EXHIBIT S FOR DOCKSIDE RESIDENCES RPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARDS*3 TOWNHOUSE MULTI-FAMILY RECREATION Minimum Lot Area 1,800 SF N/A N/A Minimum Lot Width 18 feet N/A N/A Minimum Lot Depth 100 feet N/A N/A Min. Front Yard Setback*2 20 feet 20 feet N/A Min.Side Yard Setback 0 or 5 feet 10 feet N/A Min, Rear Yard Setback Principal 15 feet 15 feet N/A Accessory 10 feet 10 feet Maximum Building Height Zoned 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet Actual 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures 10 feet 1 Story—12' N/A Principal Structures*1 2 Story—20' Floor Area Min.(S.F.),per unit 750 SF 750 SF N/A Min.PUD Boundary Setback 15 feet 20 feet 15 feet Min. Preserve Setback N/A N/A N/A ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Min. Front Yard Setback 20 feet i 20 feet N/A Min.Side Yard Setback 5 feet 0 feet*1 equal to buffer width Min.PUD Boundary Setback 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet Minimum Distance Between 0/10 feet 0/10 feet 0 feet Structures Maximum Height Zoned 25 feet 25 feet 20 feet I Actual 30 feet 30 feet 25 feet Minimum lot areas for any unit type may be exceeded. The unit type,and not the minimum lot area,shall define the development standards to be applied by the Growth Management Division during an application for a building permit. `1—Building distance may be reduced at garages to a minimum of 0' where attached garages are provided and a 10'minimum separation is maintained,if detached. *2—Front entry garages must be a minimum of 23'from back of sidewalk. Porches,entry features and roofed courtyards may be reduced to 15'.All parking areas must remain clear of sidewalks. *3—Not applicable to riparian lines for dock/boating facilities adjacent to Henderson Creek Canal. Note:nothing in this RPUD Document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in a list of deviations Dockside Residences RPUD PC Packet Page-1485- CCPC rev 3/18/2014 . 4/22/2014 17.B. ZONED:MH USE-MOBILE HOME PARK (HOLIDAY MANOR COOPERATIVE) ,.... 1 ' HENDERSONTCREEK DRIVE—/ -- ' __.. ... _ _ - - -- - --raw .....---.....F--mim- —11111111111111E -1•11•11111111-- - I Th. . C\ji - ------ IL,_______ i____J___V_INIDEU.E. 1- --- ,-1 !.' , —ExisTiNG TI :::;: .......""F"."' I ■11 1,,... , i- 1 0' WIDE TYPE D - ii fq ;,t,,,= 11 1 i LANDSCAPE BUFFER i -.''.i,,fk.. 4 I - !' . . - _ , ,,. ,,,, - ..-, -5,4Thr:.5 I I 1 1 1 ' I /I I 1: : 5 • : ( I 1 ZONED:RMF-6 . , USE:MULTI-FAMILY(HENDERSON CREEK 1' I —15` WIDE. TYPE VILLAGE A CONDOMINIUM) I RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL , _ . 1 AD :..A-: BO'-...._,e ' I " i . , IUl ■ ZONED:MH __________„-sr II g I 1 USE MOBILE HOME RESIDENCES 10. viNDE TYPE B LANDSCAPE gurFER I ' w m 1 ' SITE DATA I '6 Il . 1' 1 ■ i TOTAL SITE AREA: 6±AC IUJ 1 41-4 I MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS: 44 1 - 1 BUFFER PER . BUFFER PER ,, I _ __LOC _ ,,_ NOTES . ! , , POTENTIAL _ POTENTIAL ' . RECREATION ) THIS 1 i 1. IS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN RECREATION AREA --A- .....REA. ,„-..../,...--...,; ! •—..... .... .... , NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO I . , MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO 1 . ' I AGENCY PERMITTING I rr \ ,,------■. ''■I REQUIREMENTS. r TREE 3)r I I' - t PRESERVATION .).., 2. ALL ACREAGES ARE AREA \ -__-/ :t' . il ./ 1 ., r .1", • /- 5` WIDE TYPE. B APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT I ? -:\Th-... ------c ../i/ LANDSCAPE BifFr:EF: -:-.---" ' TO MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL IN I il'. ..„---- .,./ --- .----- --- ------:...---e j, ACCORDANCE VVITH THE LDC. L--m1k. it --__.----„:::.-!----;- ,„_------ ,..,_,./-c.:.-"---'" -----7-- _------ ---- 3. NO NATIVE VEGETATIVE 1 ,- ..._ ,- N COMMUNITY EXISTS ON-SITE. I \.,. ,-- ___------c,s.K ---- . -- 25% OF THE 77 NATIVE TREES -- sOw• - - ' - -- -'- WILL BE RETAINED AND 1---A-- -;-- - --- IDENTIFIED AT THE TIME OF -- ._------ __---- SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL AND- ---- LOCATED SOUTH OF THE _ -. - ZONED MH 1 I-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT USE:MOBILE HOME PARK AREA. (HOLIDAY MANOR COOPERATIVE) DOCKSIDE RESIDENCES RPLJD t•.11t, e•IN ........._ .... It(..th Mi11.11 OW M1mrtit1411,.T, iou woe CB GradyMinor MOO'{1411/01■•■ ..t.t ro..lag.,Stw Florki.,In:,1 LXHIBIT DM Chil I IngIttypiN • lAiltd Suriryart• • Plafilitil• • 1.011(14MW ArelIllyels MASTER pLA% /IL:HAUL Cert ta mak rn0005151 eon r4Aott 1240,1154 Know..It AMOWN. Illtlitio7411.1.0. 238.947.1144 Ivo ir,Gr.•"4/ixor row Pon My.,239 6■01)IAM -•,c;••••■Lac..\,,Es\po,..,G,atr,- t.,....1...:•,,qc,-1. -"EMOCRSO4 VstiK\ . ..,,,0: _ ■•^, , - ,-,- - . ' • -v Packet Page -1486- 4/22/2014 17.B. EXHIBIT D FOR DOCKSIDE RESIDENCES RPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1: LOT 4, HENDERSON CREEK ESTATES, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS, FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF STATE ROAD 5-951 WITH A UNE LYING 501.493 FEET SOUTH OF THE ESTABLISHED NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH Y2 OF THE SOUTH 'Y2 OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,RUN SOUTH 89 DEGREES 23'55" EAST 498.02 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE SAID ESTABLISHED NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH Y2 OF THE SOUTH Y2 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 23' 55" EAST 150.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 38' 35" WEST 915 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE CENTERLINE OF A COUNTY DRAINAGE EASEMENT ACCORDING TO AN INSTRUMENT IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 76, PAGE 127, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 159 FEET MORE OR LESS, ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO A LINE BEARING SOUTH 00 DEGREES 36' 05" WEST AND PASSING THROUGH THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 36' 05" EAST 957 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AND PARCEL 2: FROM THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF STATE ROAD S-951 WITH A LINE LYING 501.493 FEET SOUTH OF THE ESTABLISHED NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH Y2 OF THE SOUTH Y2 OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RUN SOUTH 89 DEGREES 23' 55" EAST 649.02 FEET, PARALLEL WITH THE SAID NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 34 OF THE SOUTH 34 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 23' 55" EAST 150.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 38' 05" WEST 864 FEET MORE OR LESS, TO THE CENTER LINE OF A COUNTY DRAINAGE EASEMENT, ACCORDING TO AN INSTRUMENT RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 67,PAGE 351 AND OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 76, PAGE 127, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY 159 FEET MORE OR LESS ALONG SAID CENTER LINE TO A LINE BEARING SOUTH OODEGREES 36' 05" WEST PASSING THROUGH THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 36' 05" EAST 915 FEET, MORE OR LESS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SUBJECT TO A ROAD RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT OVER AND ACROSS THE NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF AND 15 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT ABUTTING AND LYING SOUTH OF THE AFOREMENTIONED RIGHT OF WAY. CONTAINING 6.01 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Dockside Residences RPUD Pon. e,f 7 CC PC rev 3/}$/20}4 Packet Page-1487- 4/22/2014 17.B. EXHIBIT E FOR DOCKSIDE RESIDENCES RPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 1. PLANNING Building massing: No building shall contain more than 12 units,or have a wall length greater than 200 feet. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL Seventy-seven (77) native trees exist on-site. Twenty (20) of those native trees (25%) will be retained within the tree preserve area shown on Exhibit C, Master Pian, or elsewhere on site,to be determined at time of SDP. 3. TRANSPORTATION The developer will repair any damage to Henderson Creek Drive as a result of construction activity for this project. 4. PUD MONITORING 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 Real Estate Technology Corporation of Naples, 900 Broad Avenue South #2C, Naples, Florida 34102. 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, 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. Dockside Residences RPUD Pone 7 of 7 CCPC rev 3/18/2014 Packet Page-1488- • 4/22/2014 17.B. • • 24D Wednesday,April 2, 2014 A NAPLES DAILY NEWS NOTICE OF MEETING • • NOTICE OF MEETING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE Notice.is hereby given that on TUESDAY, April 22, 2014, in the Boardroom, 3rd or, Ad Collier 3299 r1Trail East, Naples, Florida,',the Board of County C mmissioners,will consider 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 COLLIER 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 MOBILE HOME(MH)ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED:UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW UP TO 44 RESIDENTIAL DWEWNG UNITS FOR A':PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE DOCKSIDE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF COWER BOULEVARD (CR 951) ON HENDERSON CREEK DRIVE IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,`RANGE.26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 6.0'ACRES;AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.(PUDZ-PL20130001163) Copies of the proposed Ordinance are on file with the Clerk to the Board and are available for.inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County'administrator prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of an 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 material used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. • Any person who decides to appeal'a 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 the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami.Trail East, Building W, Naples, Florida 34112, (239)252-8380. Assisted listening devices-for the hearing impaired are available in the County Commissioners'Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY;FLORIDA TOM HENNING,CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E:.BROCK,CLERK • By: Ann Jennejohn,Deputy Clerk (SEAL) Aoril 2 2014 No.2022176 • • • Packet Page-1489-