Agenda 10/14/2014 Item # 17A 10/14/2014 17.A.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing
be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an
Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2009-21, the Mirasol Residential Planned Unit
Development, as amended, by increasing the permissible number of dwelling units from 1,121 to
1,233; by amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, the Collier County Land Development Code, by
amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of an
additional 19.7±acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural (A) to the Mirasol RPUD; by increasing the
dwelling units from 1,121 to 1,233; by changing the name of the RPUD from the Mirasol RPUD to
the Esplanade Golf& Country Club of Naples RPUD; by revising the Development Standards; by
amending the Master Plan and revising Developer Commitments. The property is located on the
north side of Immokalee Road (CR 846) bordered on the east by future Collier Boulevard (CR 951)
in Sections 10, 15 and 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of
1,658.3±acres; and by providing an effective date [Petition PUDZA-PL20140000099].
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 amendment petition; and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable
codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained.
CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner is asking the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to
consider an application for a amendment to change the zoning classification of an additional
19.7± acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural (A) to the Mirasol RPUD; by increasing the
dwelling units from 1,121 to 1,233; by changing the name of the RPUD from the Mirasol
RPUD to the Esplanade Golf& Country Club of Naples RPUD; by revising the Development
Standards; by amending the Master Plan and revising Developer Commitments. For details
about the project proposal, refer to "Purpose/Description of Project" in the staff report prepared
for the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC).
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.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: Future Land Use Element (FLUE):
A portion of the total subject property (445.5 acres in Section 22, inclusive of the 19.7-acre
Packet Page-1816-
10/14/2014 17.A.
addition) is designated Urban (Urban-Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), the
remainder of the property (1,212.8 acres in Sections 10 & 15) is designated Agricultural/Rural
(Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Neutral Lands), as identified on the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan(GMP).
Relevant to this petition, the Urban Residential Subdistrict allows residential development at a
base density of four (4) dwelling units per acre, subject to the Density Rating System provisions
(this portion of the PUD is eligible for certain density bonuses but none are sought or needed to
achieve the requested density); recreation and open space; and earth mining and related
processing uses. The proposed amendment would increase the amount of the PUD designated
Urban Residential from 425.8 acres to 445.5 acres, thus increasing the maximum allowed density
on the portion of the PUD located in the Urban Residential Subdistrict (Section 22). For more
details regarding GMP consistency, please refer to the complete report in the CCPC staff report.
Based upon the above analysis, the proposed RPUD is 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). A minimum of 542.3 acres of native vegetation are required to be retained for the
PUD.
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.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The
CCPC/EAC heard this petition on August 21, 2014, and found that the criteria of Section
10.02.08.F (formerly 10.03.05.I) and 10.02.13.B.5 were met. By a vote of 6 to 0 (Commissioner
Rosen was excused), with the motion made by Commissioner Chrzanowski and seconded by
Commissioner Doyle, the CCPC recommended forwarding this petition to the Board of County
Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval subject to the staff and the applicant
agreeing upon revised transportation stipulations.
Packet Page -1817-
10/14/2014 17.A.
These revisions have been incorporated into the PUD document that is included in the draft
ordinance.
No opposition to this petition has been received. The CCPC vote was unanimous; therefore the
petition can be placed on the Summary Agenda.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This is an amendment to the existing Mirasol PUD (Ordinance No. 2009-21). The burden falls
upon the applicant for the amendment to prove that the proposal is consistent with all of the
criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC),
should it consider denial, that such denial is not arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This
would be accomplished by finding that the amendment does not meet one or more of the listed
criteria.
Criteria for PUD 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 PUD with the goals, objectives and policies
of the Growth Management Plan.
4. Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which
conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on
design, and buffering and screening requirements.
5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve
the development?
6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of
assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and
private.
Packet Page -1818-
10/14/2014 17.A.
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?
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...)
Packet Page-1819-
10/14/2014 17.A.
22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
county?
23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the
proposed use in districts already permitting such use.
24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site
alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range
of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification.
25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed PUD rezone on
the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of
service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and
implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code
ch.106, art. II], as amended.
26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the PUD rezone request that
the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the
public health, safety, and welfare?
The BCC must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the
written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive
Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the
BCC hearing as these items relate to these criteria. The proposed Ordinance was prepared by the
County Attorney's Office. This item has been approved as to form and legality. An affirmative
vote of four is required for Board approval. (HFAC)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendations of the CCPC and further
recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approves the request subject to the
attached PUD Ordinance that includes both the staffs revised recommendation and the CCPC
recommendation.
Prepared by: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Department, Growth Management
Division
Attachments:
1) CCPC Staff Report
2) Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis
3) Application Backup Information due to the size of the document it is accessible at:
http://www.col1iergov.net/ftp/AgendaOct1414/GrowthMgmt/Application for Public Hearing Mira
sol.pdf
4) Ordinance
Packet Page-1820-
10/14/2014 17.A.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 17.17.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 amending Ordinance Number 2009-21,the Mirasol
Residential Planned Unit Development, as amended, by increasing the permissible number of
dwelling units from 1,121 to 1,233; by amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, the Collier
County Land Development Code, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by
changing the zoning classification of an additional 19.7±acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural
(A) to the Mirasol RPUD; by increasing the dwelling units from 1,121 to 1,233; by changing the
name of the RPUD from the Mirasol RPUD to the Esplanade Golf& Country Club of Naples
RPUD; by revising the Development Standards; by amending the Master Plan and revising
Developer Commitments. The property is located on the north side of lmmokalee Road (CR
846) bordered on the east by future Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Sections 10, 15 and 22,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 1,658.3±acres; and by
providing an effective date [Petition PUDZA-PL20140000099].
Meeting Date: 10/14/2014
Prepared By
Name: DeselemKay
Title: Planner, Principal, Zoning&Land Development Review
9/17/2014 3:03:27 PM
Approved By
Name: BellowsRay
Title: Manager-Planning, Comprehensive Planning
Date: 9/18/2014 5:16:18 PM
Name: BosiMichael
Title: Director-Planning and Zoning, Comprehensive Planning
Date: 9/19/2014 2:08:17 PM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary, Transportation Planning
Packet Page-1821-
10/14/2014 17.A.
Date: 9/23/2014 11:28:19 AM
Name:PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, Community Development&Environmental Services
Date: 9/23/2014 3:17:28 PM
Name: AshtonHeidi
Title: Managing Assistant County Attorney,CAO Land Use/Transportation
Date: 9/25/2014 9:44:32 AM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 9/25/2014 11:32:48 AM
Name: UsherSusan
Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior, Office of Management&Budget
Date: 10/6/2014 1:53:59 PM
Name: OchsLeo
Title: County Manager, County Managers Office
Date: 10/7/2014 10:09:47 AM
Packet Page-1822-
10/14/2014 17.A.
AGENDA ITEM 9-B
Co 1T90u!lty
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING SERVICES—PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION--PLANNING®ULATION
HEARING DATE: AUGUST 21, 2014
SUBJECT: PUDZ-A-PL20140000099: MIRASOL RPUD, AKA ESPLANADE
GOLF &COUNTRY CLUB
PROPERTY OWNER&APPLICANT/CONTRACT PURCHASER/AGENT:
Applicant/Contract Purchaser: Agents:
Taylor Morrison Esplanade Alexis Crespo,AICP Richard Yovanovich,Esquire
Naples LLC Waldrop Engineering Coleman,Yovanovich Koester
4900 N. Scottsdale Rd. 28100 Bonita Grande Dr Ste 305 4011 Tamiami Trail N Ste 300
Scottsdale,AZ 85251 Bonita Springs,FL 34135 Naples,FL 34103
Owners:
Taylor Morrison Esplanade Peter Di Lillo Trustee
Naples LLC Peter Di Lillo Trust UDT 7-6-90
4900 N. Scottsdale Rd. 128 N 24th Ave
Scottsdale,AZ 85251 Melrose Park,IL 60160-3032
REQUESTED ACTION:
The applicant is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an
application for an amendment to the existing PUD zoned project known as Mirasol Residential
Planned Unit Development (RPUD), to approve several changes to the project. For details about
the project proposal,refer to "Purpose/Description of Project."
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property, with the additional land proposed, consisting of 1,658.3± acres, is located
on the north side of Immokalee Road (CR 846) bordered on the east by the proposed extension
of Broken Back Road and future Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Sections 10, 15 and 22,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (See location map on the following
page).
PUDZ-A-PL20140000099: MIRASOL RPUD Page 1 of 18
August 21,2014 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/14
Packet Page-1823-
10/14/2014 17.A.
.eft i rrALL—41 0-;--
L.
L O
7 r
54%74 0'
1 . ! ' G hn^ `alt P /►_ U/ l pip y1�uu.l 1 111 J i®
1�� 1
aN1 1u�� =)
iji;ji:ij;i;Iiiiiiij::::::i 2
•••••••••• ••• • j : : :
I, ro,..,...... •,. 1
iilii''i'vii":i;i'�jEj : I 1
s
e
h / X11
H -
,P
y!1
a
,.j3p:i:i.;,. +
C 1
..N '�.r Ila,
p� t
iii>i.�iiijii / / _
i;j(i� ol+� a
-.. T! m - : all�i
iii{ji'ii;iii !::I:+iii.:i:.•::.:.::: ' t
l
r
P
111'�.
a.„
r
y 'Vd11 I
n !
4
iii:::i?:':'i'(i;:i:::jii:j.ii;?:::'�:':i:i:i:;::;i:? ,
u, l 1n
uuu In
— .11
1 __
J11
1 ♦ 1 °v
4
�f
�1
I
t
t l
:;ij:jii��
i1 �
%•��I:i ��,i :�:i:�:is ..
;xii: > :j.ij:yipiii;iii!i[i `aY uluR
i::
;ij<1
,. !I
-�:i,i:iiiii :.
1
q• 1 i11,
111111
ji:E�i 1 r
iil'iii
■
i.:p!a Dl Z
'p ;':jii;?j'^iiiipi{;iij ii n u n.
�If I.I
I
u
� 1
.:ijjl:i�i:::i:iil'i::'i:i:::j:i::::: ::: �
II
{,X1:1:1 ,
III
_ -
IIIII
1111111111111111=
t$jti't[ "!f'Y' \it �/
n 111
11
ii°iiijiii'iji i
. e
�f�
>n';,i:?'':..",''•;;'�'... ? E::Sifiiiiijji' 'iiiii';' `: ii.°'ii
un
unm
n
II:
e,uwull_
i jl`':giiEi!yEli;:.'iiji''rE
i
■
el tl
' y'�' ....
I . 1 1
�r
1. III1111ry
Ir. Ialurruy 1f1i1 �� 1;
�= 11II `.
\,I�Ol,„,„„„a/U/I 111111 �,^�^ 1111Nlirltll� �//tl'
I 111111,! a j'Y, _ ft11111Y1111111111t1c / •11111 IZI:41 1 , ::1
1. _ 1111111 -�1 IJI j11 ^ I� YT
-III Ia111111 ,'...21.r.-1, J/j�// 1,�
_ , .?"...
- :r anm� ! et, 40000:111:•04,11:i. � ull eY
o-�= r 1N�l44 4, ►\ IJ U{{t 41 ♦i t _Inl,ml
$14117 •:1 1/an''''''nnnn► au.,,, agt { 101osU1,41 �:# I 2 O
0A/1111t 7!1111 ra q, I!"^l.Al/ ♦ ` 0/„
r►ai pr4ryq,ryry,1 01,, .0LY.fl�i�1 i ?, -{ ®- J
two a
71!95 01 LON j
O.
AlNnoo a3
I E -
n s o.
oQ a 6 2i
o/II r
... .0 �H :::y �
Ej -
0 .,
/ Otltlh 110 431-n03
a - 337144.1 al ' !I 1 lin P
a tA1 iY &yfi V3 "W ~
1�! . 0000111011V1
� 0
'`3
I 3A00 910 ,1
■ E6 I iI a 5 W
F
+� 7 t
$
1 M& Qtl W!OB 44401 1
i >- ` K
o n P. .w nab "
, 1.4..1
', 1”
J{ S!•31416441/4 mootllNMl o _IV. 8013 mom,4 I10h
"; - Packet PaPP -1824-.
10/14/2014 17.A. ,
SEE SHEET # 2 FOR CONTINUATION•. . . . . ' I. NOTE: C
FOR PLAN LEGEND AND
R�G SPECIAL NOTES SEE "
Ai
SHEET 3 OF 3
�`��
RAG R/G �' N
.....-...•.• "NOP
RIG
TERAFINA I
(POD) RIG Q `',
R/G i SFWMD
i.„,. -,...-'-- PRESERVE
k.
CONCEPTUAL
CLUB HOUSE ' ,
COMPLEX
LOCATIO R/G
\ �i HERITAGE
!' BAY
R/G N. R/G "IS �i (PUD)
FillAN : . . . . • �. _ �! z3 NI
\ SENTRY
o `i/ SIBNABE
Ili �; (TYP.)•to .
y �� i—PRIVATE SPINE
nJ R/G +► B ROAD
2 l,,' 20'TYPE'D'LB.E.
R�G ! too'PROPOSED C.R.951 EXT.
• . .
z
U R.O.W.DEDICATION
r
C.) t5'TY `
O 'B'LB tr:. i _MMNTE:mO:M: iTY(A) TREE FARM
n INBLE-FAMILY (PUB)
• •• /---PRIVATE SPINE
AT
a ROAD 9,` PROPERTY. . •
. 1 A
m /-BOUNDARY
OLDE 38 x •
CYPRESS „ L R/(�° I.
o (PUD)
a ICI 33 NALDROP
En
CU
`
In 3�, :.:;:_:::.::::::' L �, R/G ENGINEERING
N
N PROPERTY ,o R/�► I
CARL ENOIAA:EawO&UM
I X DEVELOPMENT 00N9U[7AN33
p BOUNDARY �. u 29I00BOMA0IANOED9RE-9um399
Q 79 O.OM[A SPRINGS,FL 34786
U `
■• P,239.4057777 Ti 230.406.7999
2. 28 • �'
L MAIL•SdoWdilroPe�tineaisemm
?L FLORIDA CIR.TIPICATY.OP AUTHORIZATION AIe3F
n c .1 ^POSSIBLE ca ESPLANADE GOLF
® 4` / FUTURE 0°a � � �: R!G INTERCONNECT AND COUNTRY
: : FUTURE CLUB OF NAPLES
P ®. ACTIVITY RPUD
z] 2n CENTER
m
2: Hi io0c s:: :• CONCEPTUAL
�' MASTER PLAN
m B'I� —�_ ._I_ !... pli I�_«� a®�-�. _" '"�■fi■1MUM
C IMMOKALEE ROAD(C.R.846) `\ EXHIBIT"C2'I
H
20.TYPE - 2 23
tli In 'D'LB E ENTRY 27 28 SHEET 1 OF 3
SIBNAAE
N (TYP.) FILE NAME:27600E0602.dwg
"J a UPDATED:2014-03.06
43 Packet Page -1825-
10/14/2014 17.A.
k
N
4 3 9 2
9 10 LEE COUNTY 1@ N
COWER.COUNTY•
VACANT
OUT PARCEL
OWNER:
FLAMAX Lit
PROPERTY
PARKLANDS BOUNDARY
(PUD)
N VACANT
°w
0
0
c
U
V
VACANT
8
I AI
c
b D 10 1011
To
a TERAFINA ,•.•,••••••••••••••••-.••••••••••••••••••••"•••••••••••*•••••••*••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••-•% A
.............
$ (POD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WALDROP
N
ENGINEERING
CIVIL EN&NEERINO&LAMB
•'• • , a / .•` .•. . . . • • ' • • • • • • DEITEePNCNr C O N P A I L T A N I S
Cy 28100 BON80.GRANDE DRIVE-SURE SOS
SEE SHEET # I FOR CONTINUATION 239-406-7777 UUNIr5 F FL 34135
U P: uoMr R 220J00.7800
1 EMAIL{nte4W Win
<f NOTE: PANDA CPATimcnre or AURIUflttA"oN4WS
FOR PLAN LEGEND AND SPECIAL NOTES SEE SHEET 3 OF 3 ESPLANADE GOLF
E. AND COUNTRY
D.
CLUB OF NAPLES
o R'UD
N
N
Z CONCEPTUAL
MASTER PLAN
EXHIBIT"CT'
W m SHEET 2 OF 3
N
co F-. N FILE NAME:27600E0602.dwg
a UPDATED:2014-03-06
Ih r Packet Page-1826-
10/14/2014 17.A.
I
I. CONCEPTUAL LAKE LOCATIONS
* R/G RESIDENTIAL /GOLF
•.^._.,j PRESERVE
RIGHT-OF-WAY
* LAND USE AREAS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND SUBJECT TO
RELOCATION/IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LDC.
TA SPECIAL NOTES:
3, I) WHERE APPLICABLE ALONG PROJECT BOUNDARY AND UNLESS
ki OTHERWISE NOTED PRESERVE AREAS SHALL SERVE AS BUFFERS.
IF AFTER EXOTIC REMOVAL THE PRESERVE VEGETATION FAILS TO
c, MEET MINIMUM CODE BUFFER STANDARDS ADDITIONAL PLANT
c MATERIAL SHALL BE REQUIRED.
k
G
1 NATIVE HABITAT SUMMARY:
U
a EXISTING NATIVE HABITAT= 903.8 Ac. -
N REQUIRED NATIVE HABITAT = 542.3 Ac. I
p. PROVIDED NATIVE HABITAT (ON SITE) = 542.3 Ac. -±-
g
ACREAGE SUMMARY:
I fAl
SECTION 22 = 445.5 Ac.
SECTION 15 = 634.6 Ac. -t-
§ SECTION 10 = 578.2 Ac. :I--
a TOTAL = 1,658.3 Ac. :L-
it
0
0 TOTAL AREA OUTSIDE DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY = 928.8 Ac. -_* WALDROP':
iii
TOTAL AREA WITHIN DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY= 729.5 Ac. ±
ENGINEERING
ti CIVIL ENGINEERING&LAND
0 DEVELOPMENT OMMULTANTS
216100 BONITA RAM DRIVE.SUITE 305
Q IONIM SPRINGS,FL 34135
C.)
Po 23114054777 Fg 239105.71166
DIMUMIeDwalttrommOseerigsmeng
PIANRM CGATAICAI➢DP AU 1JOREZAT10N D1ti16
ESPLANADE GOLF
a AND COUNTRY
s CLUB OF NAPLES
J_ 7�T7'T�
❑yy RPUL
DI
5.
Z CONCEPTUAL
MASTER PLAN
a Q EXHIBIT"CT'
N SHEET 3 OF 3
NN FILE NAME:27600E0602.dwg
I° UPDATED:2014-03-06
"' Packet Page -1827-
10/14/2014 17.A.
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an
application for an amendment to the Mirasol RPUD, governed by Ordinance Number 2009-21,
to allow the following changes:
• Rezone the Property from RPUD and Rural Agricultural to a unified RPUD;
• Add 19.7+/-acres into the project boundary;
• Increase the unit count from 1,121 units to 1,233 units(an increase of 112 units);
• Change the PUD name from"Mirasol RPUD"to"Esplanade Golf&Country Club of Naples
RPUD";
• Revise Exhibit A, Permitted Uses, to add reference to the increased unit count and Hearing
Examiner process;
• Revise Exhibit B, Development Standards Table, and correct scrivener's errors in the
footnotes;
• Revise Exhibit C,PUD Master Plan;
• Revise Exhibit D,Legal Description;and
• Revise Exhibit F,PUD Commitments.
According to the Petitioner's Agent's description,the following constitutes the project's history:
The Property was originally rezoned in 2001 from Rural Agricultural with ST Overlay to
a Planned Unit Development per Ordinance 2001-20. In 2009, the Property was rezoned
to RPUD to allow for 799 dwelling units, 36 golf course holes, 780+/- acres of on-site
preserve, and additional off-site preserve, thus repealing Ordinance 2001-20.
In 2012, the RPUD was amended to add 95+/-acres of land, reduce the development
footprint, and increase on-site preserve areas. The amendment was unanimously approved
pursuant to Ordinance 12-41. Since this approval site development has commenced,
including the installation of roadways, utilities, lakes, golf course, and the temporary pro
shop. Model homes have also been constructed and the community is open for sales of
single-family homes.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: City of Bonita Springs in Lee County, developed with the Village Walk single-family
residential development, with a zoning designation of Mixed Use Planned Development
East: The partially developed Heritage Bay DRI/PUD, a mixed use 2,562± acre mixed use
project, approved for a density of 1.3 units per acre in Ordinance #2003-40, a 20 acre
undeveloped tract with an Agricultural zoning designation, and two undeveloped Commercial
Planned Unit Development zoned projects, Tree Farm PUD and Addie's Corner PUD
PUDZ-A-PL20140000099: MIRASOL RPUD Page 2 of 18
August 21,2014 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/14
Packet Page-1828-
10/14/2014 17.A.
South: Agriculturally zoned tracts ranging in size from 0.5 to 2.5 acres with frontage along
Immokalee Road,Nursery Lane,Woodland Avenue, and Rose Boulevard. There is also one small
C-3 zoned undeveloped tract, then Immokalee Road (CR 846). On the south side of that road are
the developed Laurelwood PUD, a 78-acre, residential PUD zoned project known as Ibis Cove,
developed at a density of 5.96 units per acre in Ordinance#94-63; and the Richland PUD, a mixed
used PUD developed as Pebblebrooke Lakes, which includes commercial and residential
components,the residential density was approved at 3.1 units per acre.
West: Terafina and the Parklands PUD zoned projects. Terafina (approved at a density of 1.3
units per acre) is partially developed as Riverstone; Parklands (approved at a density of 2.5 units
per acre) remains undeveloped. Additionally there are smaller agriculturally zoned tracts that are
used for agricultural and residential purposes; then Olde Cypress (approved at a density of 2.1
units per acre),a developed residential project with a zoning designation of PUD
-)11 I''J I _
roARKLA.VCS MikAnt
NDRITa E';I
TE4Af1PiA YI'AS3L Ong
UA. NiNe1
EStATES IN
CLJE C1'RESS
H�HE
VIF5JL
E 7�
s NE*ITA E
e,-
CUE(C �dESS —
� w w
(OKI;
)R) /CC4ES
H
CC,CotER`•
FfiaNAINT
NAP1 E,5-11"1C?KAL RC),a
MKT
I L3 RI HLA!D --_.,_ ._._._ CREEK L___;r'
t� �c z?KESERtE t
Tt CANy
:7Ct'.E � r
Excerpt from the PUD map (6/2014)
PUDZ-A-PL20140000099: MIRASOL RPUD Page 3 of 18
August 21,2014 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/14
Packet Page -1829-
10/14/2014 17.A.
.1-,:',,,...‘„,•-,k,:z,,,..t.ii:-,..., -, , 1--,---it;-;, • typ•Ni::Alt4
4 t $ ). 1 fit..
rci'' .< r a' Y. h
Z", X Ja'.
+ � a a by . +p; r 7 � �
f A" . 4 .tJ fT1 1-fl
4 ,w 1`f`I �J
4 b
t ,, 1{ .. " - °'Y lO r.
4"'74
gti'i:' ...-3:1-,:.;f...,„: -c_. ?-`,".;-t.! ',7?-;, --4'-'7,
-;•%--.:,...,-.:*,,,:;::.Ci;?:I* 0 1,t; -,-,,..*,A VT,TgAn
1" f":`a A F i'[ r,rte'Y E. xL R; C'
tiv -Isi,,:;,...a-:_-4.44,!$. ;r
I x'19 u'X•24"� :J•c:..* ty— r;a t pS4 12 4 ""
�r '� °" � `�'` fa oaaci c7 1 C R Y�TP.-.-AK
1 �y
Subject property depiction is approximate
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP)CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): A portion of the total subject property (445.5 acres in
Section 22, inclusive of the 19.7-acre addition) is designated Urban (Urban-Mixed Use District,
Urban Residential Subdistrict),the remainder of the property (1,212.8 acres in Sections 10 & 15)
is designated Agricultural/Rural (Rural Fringe Mixed Use District,Neutral Lands), as identified
on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan(GMP).
Relevant to this petition, the Urban Residential Subdistrict allows residential development at a
base density of four (4) dwelling units per acre, subject to the Density Rating System provisions
(this portion of the PUD is eligible for certain density bonuses but none are sought or needed to
achieve the requested density); recreation and open space; and earth mining and related
processing uses. The proposed amendment would increase the amount of the PUD designated
Urban Residential from 425.8 acres to 445.5 acres,thus increasing the maximum allowed density
on the portion of the PUD located in the Urban Residential Subdistrict(Section 22):
Eligible density for property within Section 22 of approved PUD:
425.8 acres x 4 DU/A= 1,703 units
Eligible density for property within Section 22 of proposed PUD amendment:
PUDZ-A-PL20140000099: MIRASOL RPUD Page 4 of 18
August 21,2014 CCPC
Revised: 7/17114
Packet Page -1830-
10/14/2014 17.A.
425.8 acres+ 19.7 acres =445.5 acres x 4 DU/A= 1,782 units
The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Neutral Lands allows for a base density of one (1)
dwelling unit per five (5) acres; golf courses subject to specific standards; and, earth mining and
related processing. The existing portion in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is eligible for a
maximum of 242 units:
Eligible density for property within Section 10 and 15 of approved PUD:
1,212.8 acres x 0.2 DU/A(1 DU/5 acs.)=242 units
With the requested land addition, the entire PUD - Urban Residential and RFMUD Neutral
Lands combined - is eligible for up to 2,024 DUs. The existing PUD permits 1,121 DUs. The
proposed PUD amendment would permit 1,233 residential DUs to be developed in Sections 15
and 22.
If density blending is not utilized, then the maximum number of dwelling units allowed in
Section 22, located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict, and in Sections 10 and 15, located
within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, are to be developed within their respective
District/Subdistrict.
Specific to the Mirasol PUD, Section 5.1(g) of the Density Rating System allows for density
blending between the portions of the PUD that straddles between, and only within, Sections 15
and 22. The proposed PUD amendment seeks to utilize the Density Blending provision of the
Density Rating System of the FLUE which reads as follows (each provision is followed by
staff's analysis in bold):
5. Density Blending:
This provision is intended to encourage unified plans of development and to preserve wetlands,
wildlife habitat, and other natural features that exist within properties that straddle the Urban
Mixed Use and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Districts or that straddle Receiving and Neutral Lands
within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. In the case of such properties, which were in
existence and under unified control(owned, or under contract to purchase, by the applicant(s)) as
of June 19, 2002, the allowable gross density for such properties in aggregate may be distributed
throughout the project, regardless of whether or not the density allowable for a portion of the
project exceeds that which is otherwise permitted, when the following conditions are met:
1. Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban
Residential Sub-District or Urban Residential Fringe Sub-District and either the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral or Receiving Lands:
(a) The project must straddle the Urban Residential Sub-District or Urban. Residential
Fringe Sub-District and either the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral or
Receiving Lands; (Condition met. The total project area straddles between the
Urban Residential Sub District and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Neutral
Lands.)
PUDZ-A-PL20140000099: MIRASOL RPUD Page 5 of 18
August 21,2014 CCPC
Revised: 7/1 7/14
Packet Page -1831-
10/14/2014 17.A.
(b) The project in aggregate is a minimum of 80 acres in size; (Condition met.
Condition 5.1(g) specifically provides for Section 15 only to utilize Density
Blending. The project lands in Section 15 and 22 total 1080.1 acres.)
(c) At least 25% of the project is located within the Urban Mixed Use District
(Condition met. Condition 5.1(g) specifically provides for Section 15 only to
utilize Density Blending. Therefore, the cited minimum applies to the aggregate
lands of the Mirasol PUD located in Sections 15 and 22 only. The project acreage
in the Urban Mixed Use District is 445.5 acres, which is 41.2 percent of the
acreage in those two Sections). The entire project is located within the Collier
County Sewer and Water District Boundaries and will utilize central water and
sewer to serve the project unless interim provisions for sewer and water are
authorized by Collier County; (Condition met. Sections 15 and 22 are eligible for
Density Blending and are within the Collier County Water and Sewer District
boundaries and subject to the "Availability Letter" issued by the Public Utilities
Division at the time of SDP.)
(d) The project is currently zoned or will be rezoned to a PUD; (Condition met. The
subject petition is for the Mirasol/Esplanade Golf and Country Club of Naples
PUD.)
(e) Density to be shifted to the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District from the Urban
Residential Subdistrict is to be located on impacted lands, or it is demonstrated that
the development on the site is to be located so as to preserve and protect the highest
quality native vegetation and/or habitat on-site and to maximize the connectivity of
such native vegetation and/or habitat with adjacent preservation and/or habitat
areas; (Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to the
Environmental staff)
(I) The entire project shall meet the applicable preservation standards of the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District. (These preservation requirements shall be calculated
upon and apply to the total project area. Comprehensive Planning staff leaves
this determination to the Environmental staff)
(g) Section 15 (Township 48 South, Range 26 East), which straddles the boundary of
the Urban Residential Subdistrict and the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, is
designated Neutral, and is in the approved Mirasol PUD, may utilize this density
blending provision, subject to the above criteria. (The existing Mirasol PUD
Conceptual Master Plan Exhibit "C2" — and the proposed Master Plan for
Esplanade Golf& Country Club of Naples-depicts development only in Sections
22 and 15, and thus density blending would be utilized for properties located in
Section 15.)
FLUE Objective 7 and relevant policies are stated below; each policy is followed by staff
analysis in bold italics type.
PUDZ-A-PL20140000099: MIRASOL RPUD Page 6 of 18
August 21,2014 CCPC
Revised: 7/17(14
Packet Page -1832-
10/14/2014 17.A.
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. (The
Esplanade Golf& Country Club of Naples PUD Conceptual Master Plan depicts direct access
to Immokalee Road(CR. 846), an arterial road as identified 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. (The Esplanade Golf& Country Club of Naples PUD Conceptual Master Plan depicts
internal access or loop roads.)
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. (As shown on the Esplanade Golf & Country Club of Naples PUD
Conceptual Master Plan, there is a proposed interconnection to the adjoining property to the
east — Addie's Corner commercial PUD. Native vegetation preserve and open spaces are
proposed between the subject project and the adjoining properties to the north and most of the
properties to the west thereby precluding interconnections in that area. In addition, most
properties to the west are developed with single-family homes. The main access to and from
the proposed PUD is from the south -Immokalee Road)
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.
(Preserves, golf course, lakes and other open spaces are provided; different housing types are
included; a clubhouse is allowed in the PUD — these are sometimes used for civic purposes,
e.g. polling place. Sidewalks are being proposed as part of this petition though an existing
deviation allows them to be provided only on one side of many roadways.)
Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed petition
to amend and expand the Mirasol RPUD to be 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).
PUDZ-A-PL20140000099: MIRASOL RPUD Page 7 of 18
August 21,2014 CCPC
Revised: 7/17114
Packet Page -1833-
10/14/2014 17.A.
Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff
found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element
(CCME). A minimum of 542.3 acres of native vegetation are required to be retained for the
PUD.
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 recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the bases for their
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to
support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these
subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff
offers the following analyses:
Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
document to address environmental concerns. No changes to environmental portions of the
previously approved PUD are proposed except for an increase in acreage of the preserve and the
addition of the Hearing Examiner for determinations on additional allowable uses within
preserves. Pursuant to Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances, the
project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC). There are no
impacts or changes in location to previously approved preserves and no additional listed species
have been identified on-site.
Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues. The PUD document contains the
mitigation discussed in the Transportation Element section of this staff report.
Utilities Review: The applicant has provided the stipulations requested by Utilities Review staff
within the PUD document.
PUDZ-A-PL20140000099: MIRASOL RPUD Page 8 of 18
August 21,2014 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/14
Packet Page-1834-
10/14/2014 17.A.
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 only if other limitations are included. To support
that opinion staff offers the following analysis of this project.
The development standards contained in Exhibit B of the PUD document show the following:
TABLE I
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR
"RG"RESIDENTIAL AREAS
PERMITTED Single Zero Multi- Clubhouse/
USES Fey Lot Two Family Townhouse Family Recreation
AND Detached Line and Duplex *12 Dwelling Buildings
*12 *6
STANDARDS
Principal Structures
Minimum Lot Area 5,000 SF 4,000 SF 3,500 SF per 2,000 SF 9,000 SF n/a
lot or unit
*3
Minimum Lot Width*4 50'*7 40'*7 35'per lot 20' 90' n/a
or unit*7
Front Yard 20'*2*7 20'*2*7 20' *2*7 20' *2 20'*2 25'
Setback 2*
Side Yard Setback/a 5'±-7 0 or 10' 7.5'*7*8 7.5' *8 10'or 1/2 5'
*11 1,7 BH for
structures
exceeding
35 feet*5
Rear Yard Setback*1 15'*7 10' 15'*710' 15'*710' 43-1 ' -1-5-' 10' 0'
Setback From Golf 10' l0'*-7 10' 10' 10' 20'
Course
Setbacks from Preserves 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25'
Maximum Zoned Height 35' 35' 35' 35' 50'(5 stories 50'9
*10 , not to stapes a er
exceed 50') packing-Hat
*9 te-exceed
50')
Actual Height 45' 45' 45' 45' 65' 75'
*10
Floor Area Min.Per Unit 1000 SF 1000 SF 1000 SF 1000 SF 750 SF n/a
(S.F.)
PUDZ-A-PL20140000099: MRRASOL RPUD Page 9 of 18
August 21,2014 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/14
Packet Page-1835-
10/14/2014 17.A.
Distance Between 10' 10' 10' 10' 20'or ',4 15'or.5
Principal Structures SUM of BH BH
for whichever
structures is greater*6
exceeding
35' *5
Single Zero Two Family Townhouse Multi- Clubhouse/
Family Lot and Duplex Family Recreation
Accessory Detached Line Dwelling Buildings
Structures *6
Front Yard SPS*7 SPS*7 SPS SPS SPS SPS
Setback*2
Side Yard Setback 5''7 0 or 10' 5' 5' 10'or 1/2 5'
*-7 BH for
structures
exceeding
35 feet*5
Rear Yard Accessory 5'P 5' 5' 5' 10' 5'
Setback*1
Setback From 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10'
Preserves
Distance Between 0'or 10' 0'or 10' 0'or 10' 0'or 10' 0'or 10' 0'or 10'
Accessory Structures on
the same lot
Distance Between 0'or 5' 0'or 5' 0'or 5' 0'or 5' 0'or 5' 0'or 5'
Accessory and
Principal Structures on
same lot
Maximum Zoned Height SPS SPS SPS SPS 35' 35'
*10
Actual Height SPS SPS SPS SPS 45' 45'
*10
Front yards for all uses shall be measured as follows:
If the parcel is served by a public road right-of-way,setback is measured from the adjacent right-of-way line.
If the parcel is served by a private road, setback is measured from the back of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement (if not
curbed).
*1-Rear yards for principal and accessory structures on lots and tracts which abut lakes and open spaces. Setbacks from lakes
for all principal and accessory uses may be 0 feet provided architectural bank treatment is incorporated into design and subject to
written approval from the Collier County Engineering Review Section.
*2 - Single-family dwellings, as defined in the LDC, which provide for two parking spaces within an enclosed garage and
. ._ .. - . : a riveways may reduce the front yard requirement to 10 feet for a side entry
garage. Multi-family dwellings, as defined in the LDC, which provide for two parking spaces within an enclosed garage and
provide for guest parking may reduce the front yard to 15 feet. This reduction shall not result in an approval to impede or
block the sidewalk,Front loaded garages shall be a minimum of 23 feet from the edge of sidewalk.
*3 - Each half of a duplex unit requires a lot area allocation of 3,500 square feet for a total minimum lot area of 7,000 square
feet.
*4—Minimum lot width may be reduced by 20%for cul-de-sac lots provided the minimum lot area requirement is maintained.
*5- Building distance may be reduced at garages to half the sum of the height of the garages.
PUDZ-A-PL20140000099: MiRASOL RPUD Page 10 of 18
August 21,2014 CCPC
Revised: 7/17114
Packet Page -1836-
10/14/2014 17.A.
*6 Although neither setbacks nor separation between structures are applicable to the clubhouse and other recreation structures
located on a clubhouse tract, neither the clubhouse nor any other recreational structure shall be located closer than 25 feet
from any residential or preservation boundary.
*7-The use of flag lots is allowed to provide maximum flexibility in subdivision design and may vary from the minimum lot
widths. However, neither the minimum lot area, nor the minimum distance between structures may be reduced.
*8-Zero foot(01)setback for internal units.
*9 Inclusive of under building parking
*10 Buildings shall not exceed three stories within 1,250 feet of Immokalee Road.
*11 5' side yard setbacks shall apply to lots equal to or lesser than 70' in width.Lots greater than 70' in width will provide 6'
side yard setbacks.
*12 Maximum length of buildings shall not exceed 300 linear feet.
BH=Building Height
SPS =Same as Principal Structure
Notwithstanding the foregoing; none of the footnotes shall operate as a deviation from the Land Development Code unless
they are listed as deviations on Exhibit E.None of the footnotes operate as deviations from the Collier County Code of Laws
and Ordinances.
The Development Standards Table is not significantly different from what was approved in the
2012 PUD amendment provided above by strike thru and underlining.
As shown in the aerial photograph located on page 2 of the staff report,the surrounding land use
and zoning discussion of this staff report, and the Master Plan,the site is bounded to the north by
developed residential uses within the City of Bonita Springs. To the east in Sections 11, 14, and
23 is the developing Heritage Bay PUD/DRI mixed use project. Also to the east, within Section
22 are the undeveloped commercial PUD zoned projects known as the Tree Farm PUD and
Addie's Corner PUD. The Tree Farm PUD is separated from the subject site by four 5 acre
tracts, three of which have home sites on them; all are agriculturally zoned.
To the west are several residential projects—Parklands PUD/DRI (in Section 9) which is
undeveloped; Terafina PUD (in Section 16) that is developing as Riverstone; and Old Cypress
PUD/DRI (in Section 21 and Section 22) which is largely already developed. In Section 22 east
of Olde Cypress are agricultural and residentially used properties along Nursery Lane Rose
Boulevard and Woodland Avenue that have a zoning designation of Agricultural. There is also a
small C-3 vacant tract fronting on Immokalee Road. To the south is a canal and then Immokalee
Road.
The applicant is adding 20 acres to the Mirasol project. The acreage being added is located to
the southeast of the existing project south of Broken Back Road. The acreage to be added is
shown below in the excerpt from the Zoning Map with cross-hatching. Most of the area being
added will be utilized as developable area shown as R/G or Lakes on the Master Plan. A small
area is shown as preserve area. In any case, preserve areas will separate the developed portions
PUDZ-A-PL20140000099: MIRASOL RPUD Page 11 of 18
August 21,2014 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/14
Packet Page -1837-
10/14/2014 17.A. !'
of the project from the uses along Nursery Lane, Woodland Avenue and Rose Boulevard.
Preserves will also separate this project from Terafina and Parklands and most of Heritage Bay.
The applicant is not proposing to decrease side yard setbacks from what was previously
approved except for the Multi-Family area. Rear setbacks are proposed to be reduced from 15
feet to 10 feet for all uses; but no other changes to the property development regulations are
proposed, thus staff believes the property development regulations keep the project compatible
with the surrounding uses.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
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." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires
the Planning Commission to make fmdings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the
additional criteria as also noted below. [Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold,
non-italicized font]:
PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the
CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria"
(Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font):
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to
physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer,
water, and other utilities.
Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and believes the uses as limited by the
property development regulations are compatible with the development approved in the
area. The commitments made by the applicant should provide adequate assurances that
the proposed change should not adversely affect living conditions in the area.
In addition, as limited above, 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 property. Additionally, the development will be
required to obtain 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.
PUDZ-A-PL20140000099: MIRASOL RPUD Page 12 of 18
August 21,2014 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/14
Packet Page-1838-
10/14/2014 17.A.
3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP).
County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals,
objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based
on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the
overall 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.
As described in the Analysis and Deviation Discussion sections of this staff report, staff is of
the opinion that the proposed uses, development standards and developer commitments
will help ensure that this project is compatible both internally and externally.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the
LDC.
6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of
available improvements and facilities, both public and private.
The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project as noted
in the GMP FLUE and Transportation Element consistency review, if the mitigation
proposed by the petitioner is included in any approval recommendation. In addition, the
project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management
regulations when development approvals are sought.
7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion.
The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal systems and
potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by
the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed
when development approvals are sought.
8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in
the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting
public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations.
The petitioner is not seeking approval of any additional deviations as part of this
amendment.
PUDZ-A-PL20140000099: MIRASOL RPUD Page 13 of 18
August 21,2014 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/14
Packet Page -1839-
10/14/2014 17.A. 4.
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.
The comprehensive Planning Staff has provided an in-depth analysis of the GMP FLUE
and FLUM provisions; zoning analysis provides an in-depth review of the proposed
amendment. The petition can also be deemed consistent with the CCME and the
Transportation Element based upon the review provided by the reviewers responsible for
that task. 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 amendment is appropriate given the existing land use pattern,
and development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance.
An excerpt from the map prepared by the Collier County GIS/CAD Mapping Section is
provided earlier (Excerpt from PUD map 6/2014) that shows the adjacent projects
discussed previously. The uses proposed or developing in the Parklands, Heritage Bay,
Quail West,Terafina and Olde Cypress PUD zoned projects are similar to Mirasol.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts;
The proposed PUD amendment would not create an isolated zoning district because the
majority of the site is already zoned PUD.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing
conditions on the property proposed for change.
Staff is of the opinion that the district boundaries are logically drawn given the current
property ownership boundaries and the proposed purchase and the existing PUD zoning.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning
necessary.
The proposed amendment is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance
with the LDC provisions to seek changes. The rezone and amendment to the existing PUP
will allow the owner the opportunity to develop the land in a manner other than what the
PUDZ-A-PL20140000099: MIRASOL RPUD Page 14 of 18
August 21,2014 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/14
Packet Page -1840-
10/14/2014 17.A.
existing zoning district would allow. Without this amendment, the property could be
developed in compliance with the existing Agricultural zoning and the existing PUD
ordinance regulations.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood;
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed petition, subject to the proposed list of uses and
property development regulations and the proposed Development Commitments detailed
in Exhibit F, 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 infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this
time subject to the Transportation Commitments contained in Exhibit F of the RPUD
ordinance.
8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem;
The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the
LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce
the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have other
specific regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new developments.
9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas;
If this petition is 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 value. There is no guarantee that the project will be
marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments.
11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations;
PUDZ-A-PL20140000099: MIRASOL RPUD Page 15 of 18
August 21,2014 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/14
Packet Page-1841-
10/14/2014 17.A.
The proposed changes in this petition are not anticipated to be a deterrent to the
improvement or development of adjacent property.
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 PUD zoned subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing
zoning designations except for the lands being added which are not zoned PUD. The
petitioner is seeking this rezone and amendment in compliance with LDC provisions for
such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate
through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed rezone and amendment
meets the intent of the PUD district regulations, if staff's stipulations are addressed, and
further, believes the public interest will be maintained.
14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
County;
As noted previously, the proposed rezone boundary follows the existing and proposed
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 sole 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. The proposed rezone and amendment are 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.
PUDZ-A-PL20140000099: MIRASOL RPUD Page 16 of 18
August 21,2014 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/14
Packet Page-1842-
10/14/2014 17.A.
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.
The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00
regarding Adequate Public Facilities and the project will need to be consistent with all
applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as it
may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that
is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and
those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with
the commitments contained in the PUD document.
18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC)
shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.
To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM):
The applicant,Taylor Morrison Esplanade Naples, LLC, in conjunction with his agents, Richard
Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. and Alexis Crespo, AICP, of
Waldrop Engineering, P.A. conducted a duly noticed Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) on
July 10,2014. The synopsis of that meeting is attached.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on July 16, 2014.
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County
Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-A-PL20140000099 to the BCC with a
recommendation of approval
PUDZ-A-PL20140000099: MIRASOL RPUD Page 17 of 18
August 21,2014 CCPC
Revised: 7/17/14
Packet Page -1843-
10/14/2014 17.A.
PREPARED BY:
t<a* Lae Lemu 7-- s"- RI
KAYESELEM,AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
REVIEWED BY:7i4--- 7/9(('--(-
RA D V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DA l E
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
MIKE BOSI, AICP,DIRECTOR DATE
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
APP +D BY:
„ 1 /7 '� L ��
/ f '�
f NI r AS • . G ,P!• D IN ISTRATOR DATE
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Attachment: NIM synopsis
Tentatively scheduled for the October 14, 2014 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
PUDZ-A-PL20140000099: MIRASOL RPUD Page 18 of 18
August 21,2014 CCPC
Revised: 0/25/14
Packet Page 4844-
10/14/2014 17.A.
ORDINANCE NO. 14-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE
NUMBER 2009-21, THE MIRASOL RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT, AS AMENDED, BY INCREASING THE
PERMISSIBLE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 1,121 TO
1,233; BY AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, THE
COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, BY AMENDING
THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN ADDITIONAL
19.7± ACRES OF LAND ZONED RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) TO
THE MIRASOL RPUD; BY CHANGING THE NAME OF THE RPUD
FROM THE MIRASOL RPUD TO THE ESPLANADE GOLF &
COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES RPUD; BY INCREASING THE
DWELLING UNITS FROM 1,121 TO 1,233; BY REVISING THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; BY AMENDING THE MASTER
PLAN AND REVISING DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS. THE
PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE
ROAD (CR 846) BORDERED ON THE EAST BY FUTURE COLLIER
BOULEVARD (CR 951) IN SECTIONS 10, 15 AND 22, TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
CONSISTING OF 1,658.3± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. [PETITION PUDZA-PL20140000099]
WHEREAS, TAYLOR MORRISON ESPLANADE NAPLES LLC, represented by
Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. and Alexis Crespo,
AICP of Waldrop Engineering, P.A., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend
the RPUD and change the zoning classification of the additional herein described real 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 approximately 19.7 acres of the herein described real
property located in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida is
changed from a Rural Agricultural zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development
(RPUD) zoning district together with the existing Mirasol RPUD for a 1,658.3± acre project to
be now known as the Esplanade Golf& Country Club of Naples RPUD in accordance with the
revised Exhibits A-F, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate
zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier
County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly.
[14-CPS-01303/1117850/1]84
Mirasol PUDZA\PUDZA-PL20140000099 Page 1 of 2
Rev. 9/18/14
Packet Page -1845-
10/14/2014 17.A.
SECTION TWO: Effective Date.
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: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK 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 B2 - Flag Lot Scenario
Exhibit C2 - Master Plan
Exhibit D - Legal Description
Exhibit E - Deviations
Exhibit F - Developer Commitments
[14-CPS-01303/1117850/1]84
Mirasol PUDZA\PUDZA-PL20140000099 Page 2 of 2
Rev.9/18/14
Packet Page -1846-
10/14/2014 17.A.
EXHIBIT A
FOR
MOD ESPLANADE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES RPUD
PERMITTED USES:
A maximum of 1,121 1,233 residential units and a maximum of 18 golf course holes may be developed
within the RPUD.
I. Residential/Golf Tracts (RG):
A. Principal Uses:
1. Single-family detached dwelling units.
2. Zero lot line dwelling units.
3. Townhouse dwellings.
4. Two-family and duplex dwellings.
5. Multiple-family dwellings.
6. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and
which the Board of Zoning Appeals or Hearing Examiner determines to be
compatible in the "RG" district.
B. Accessory Uses/Structures:
1. Uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted
2. Guest houses.
3. Common area recreation facilities for residents and their guests.
4. 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.
5. Model homes, model home sales centers, and sales trailers, including offices for
project administration, construction, sales and marketing, as well as resale and rental
of units.
6. Golf course, practice areas and ranges, golf cart barns, rest rooms, shelters snack bars
and golf course maintenance yards for residents and their guests.
PUDZ-A-PL2014-099 Strike-through text is deleted Page 1 of 21
Esplanade Golf&Country Club of Naples RPUD Underline text is added
Last Revised: September 16,2014
Packet Page-1847-
10/14/2014 17.A.
7. Golf Club Complex as located on the Master Plan:
i) Retail establishments accessory to the permitted uses in the District such
as,but not limited to, golf, tennis and recreation related sales for residents
and their guests.
ii) Restaurants, cocktail lounges, and similar uses for residents and their
guests.
iii) Pro-shops, golf club, tennis clubs, and health spas for residents and their
guests.
iv) Golf course, practice areas and ranges, golf cart barns, rest rooms,
shelters snack bars and golf course maintenance yards and facilities.
8. Shuffleboard courts, tennis courts, swimming pools, and other types of accessory
facilities intended for outdoor recreation for residents and their guests.
9. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures.
10. Essential services, pursuant to the LDC.
11. Water management facilities and related structures.
12. Lakes including lakes with bulkheads or architectural or structural bank treatments.
13. Parks, recreational facilities, community centers for residents and their guests.
14. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the developer, builders,
and their authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways,
parking areas and related uses.
15. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffer berms, fences and
walls.
16. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and
which the Board of Zoning Appeals or Hearing Examiner determines to be
compatible in the"RG" district.
II. Conservation/Preserve Tract:
A. Principal Uses:
1. Passive recreation uses limited to the following so long as clearing for such uses
does not result in the reduction of preserve acreage below the minimum requirement:
PUDZ-A-PL2014-099 Strike-through text is deleted Page 2 of 21
Esplanade Golf&Country Club of Naples RPUD Underline text is added
Last Revised: September 16.2014
Packet Page -1848-
10/14/2014 17.A.
i. Boardwalks
ii. Environmental uses(wetland and conservation areas)
iii.Pedestrian bridges
iv.Pervious nature trails except where American Disabilities Act requires
otherwise.
v. Native Wildlife sanctuary
vi.Inclement weather shelters, in preserve upland areas only unless constructed
as part of a permitted boardwalk system. The shelters shall be a maximum of
150 square feet each.
2. Environmental research
3. Drainage and water management facilities subject to all required permits.
4. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list or permitted
principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals or Hearing
Examiner through the process outlined in the LDC.
PUDZ-A-PL2014-099 Strike-through text is deleted Page 3 of 21
Esplanade Golf&Country Club of Naples RPUD Underline text is added
Last Revised: September 16,2014
Packet Page -1849-
10/14/2014 17.A.
EXHIBIT B
FOR
MOL ESPLANADE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES RPUD
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the RPUD. 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 site development plan (SDP) or subdivision plat.
TABLE I
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR
"RG" RESIDENTIAL AREAS
PERMITTED Single Zero Multi- Clubhouse/
USES Family Lot Two Family Townhouse Family Recreation
AND Detached Line and Duplex *12 Dwelling Buildings
STANDARDS *12 *6
Principal Structures
Minimum Lot 5,000 SF 4,000 SF 3,500 SF per 2,000 SF 9,000 SF n/a
Area lot or unit
*3
Minimum Lot 50' *7 40' *7 35'per lot 20' 90' n/a
Width*4 or unit*7
Front Yard 20' *2*7 20' *2 *7 20' *2*7 20' *2 20' *2 25'
Setback 2*
Side Yard 5'7 0 or 10' 7.5' *8 7.5' *8 10'or 1/2 5'
Setback t.2. *11 BH for
structures
i exceeding
35 feet*5
Rear Yard ' 15'*7 10' 15'*7 10' 15'*7 10' 44= 10' 44 10' 0'
Setback*1
Setback From 1 10'17 10' 10' 10' 10' 20'
Golf Course E
Setbacks from 25' 25' 25' 25' 25' 25'
Preserves
Maximum 35' 35' 35' 35' 50'(5 stories 50'
Zoned Height not to ev ita rte.
*10 exceed 50') to exceed-5.
*9
Actual Height i 45' 45' 45' 45' 65' 75'
*10
Floor Area Min.Per Unit(S.F.) 1 1000 SF 1 1000 SF 1000 SF 1 1000 SF 1 750 SF ! n/a
' Distance ! 10' 1 10' 10' j 10' 20'or '/z 15' or.5 BH
Between ! ` SUM of BH E whichever is
Principal for greater*6
I Structures structures
exceeding
35' *5
PUDZ-A-PL2014-099 Strike-through text is deleted Page 4 of 21
Esplanade Golf&Country Club of Naples RPUD Underline text is added
Last Revised: September 16,2014
Packet Page-1850-
10/14/2014 17.A.
Single Zero Two Family Townhouse Multi- Clubhouse/
Family Lot and Duplex Family Recreation
Accessory Detached Line Dwelling Buildings
Structures *6
Front Yard SPS*7 SPS*7 SPS SPS SPS SPS
Setback*2
Side Yard 5' 7 0 or 10' 5' 5' 10'or l/2 5'
Setback ? BH for
structures
exceeding
35 feet*5
Rear Yard 5'- 5' 5' 5' 10' 5'
Accessory
Setback
*1
{ Setback From 10' 10' 10' 10' 10' 10'
Preserves
Distance 0'or 10' 0'or 10' 0'or 10' 0'or 10' 0'or 10' 0'or 10'
Between
Accessory
Structures on
the same lot
Distance 0'or 5' 10'or 5' 0'or 5' 10'or 5' 0'or 5' 0'or 5'
Between
Accessory and
Principal
Structures on
same lot
Maximum SPS SPS SPS SPS 35' 35'
Zoned Height
{ *10
Actual Height SPS SPS SPS SPS 45' 45'
*10
Front yards for all uses shall be measured as follows:
If the parcel is served by a public road right-of-way,setback is measured from the adjacent right-of-way line.
If the parcel is served by a private road,setback is measured from the back of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement (if not curbed).
*I - Rear yards for principal and accessory structures on lots and tracts which abut lakes and open spaces. Setbacks from lakes for all
principal and accessory uses may be 0 feet provided architectural bank treatment is incorporated into design and subject to written approval
from the Collier County Engineering Review Section.
*2 - Single-family dwellings, as defined in the LDC, which provide for two parking spaces within an enclosed garage and provide for guest
parking other than in private driveways may reduce the front yard requirement to 10 feet for a side entry garage. Multi-family dwellings, as
defined in the LDC, which provide for two parking spaces within an enclosed garage and provide for guest parking may reduce the front
yard to 15 feet. This reduction shall not result in an approval to impede or block the sidewalk. Front loaded garages shall be a minimum of
23 feet from the edge of sidewalk.
*3 - Each half of a duplex unit requires a lot area allocation of 3,500 square feet for a total minimum lot area of 7,000 square feet.
*4 —Minimum lot width may be reduced by 20% for cul-de-sac lots provided the minimum lot area requirement is maintained.
*5- Building distance may be reduced at garages to half the sum of the height of the garages.
PUD7_-A-PL2014-099 Strike-through text is deleted Page 5 of 21
Esplanade Golf&Country Club of Naples RPUD Underline text is added
Last Revised: September 16,2014
Packet Page -1851-
10/14/2014 17.A.
*6 Although neither setbacks nor separation between structures are applicable to the clubhouse and other recreation structures located on a
clubhouse tract, neither the clubhouse nor any other recreational structure shall be located closer than 25 feet from any residential or
preservation boundary.
*7- The use of flag lots is allowed to provide maximum flexibility in subdivision design and may vary from the minimum lot widths.
However, neither the minimum lot area, nor the minimum distance between structures may be reduced.
*8- Zero foot (0')setback for internal units.
*9 Inclusive of under building parking
*10 Buildings shall not exceed three stories within 1,250 feet of Immokalee Road.
*11 5' side yard setbacks shall apply to lots equal to or lessef than 70' in width. Lots greater than 70' in width will provide 6' side yard
setbacks.
*12 Maximum length of buildings shall not exceed 300 linear feet.
BH= Building Height
SPS = Same as Principal Structure
Notwithstanding the foregoing;none of the footnotes shall operate as a deviation from the Land Development Code unless they are listed as
deviations on Exhibit E.None of the footnotes operate as deviations from the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances.
PUDZ-A-PL2014-099 Strike-through text is deleted Page 6 of 21
Esplanade Golf&Country Club of Naples RPUD Underline text is added
Last Revised: September 16.2014
Packet Page -1852-
10/14/2014 17.A.
•
BUILDING FOOTPRINT a
I � FLAG LOT
1 a
FLAG LOT 1 i 1
•
FIAC LOT Y I
DENOTES LOT LINE
NOTE:
THIS EXHIBIT IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES
TO SHOW NOW CERTAIN GEOMETRY OF A CIVEN
TRACT WOULD FACILITATE THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF A'FLAG LOT'DESIGN LAYOUT.
0 50 100 200
SCALE IN FEET
PR[PAR[p FOR
PR F.M. CI wA
COLLIER JOINT VENTURE .,F
ARIRASOL PUDA
ifl � Cod...el A.NNmimi T N.LB MN M D MiN
.rr�.AGNOLT p�A HwE.
•rsrrrBARBER& FLAG LOT SCENARIO EXHIBIT'B2'
rrrrrECBRUNDAGE,INC. CAA P!:g7. ATOP
Professional Engineers,Planners 6t Land Surveyors eA PF LC NA E a is
Gan.Conn,MN Tn.*,Tni N• R'O NE Wj.D BY. 0.3
w..e.r�.,.�p M as»»-.iste.rw:win sts ilDi s£: OJ pp rue HAVE, 98�<CXB—.Z
egallaRIERMIRMINErallaillignmicana
D'i*MRC 11(5 no.; Ai A
PUDZ-A-PL2014-099 Strike-through text is deleted Page 7 of 21
Esplanade Golf&Country Club of Naples RPUD Underline text is added
Last Revised: September 16,2014
Packet Page-1853-
10/14/2014 17.A.
,
SEE SHEET# 2 FOR CONTINUATION
• •s 451101• • • . .
-•-••••••.•.•...-.•.....-.•f •••••••••••••••••••••••••••• NOTE
jii:
•••••••••••••••••••••••••• •.•.•...•.-.•.•.....•.•.•.• FOR PLAN LEGEND AND
..•....................
" " ' • - ' • ' • R/G - - - • • • • - - - - - • - SPECIAL NOTES SEE
••••••••••••••:::::::•::
• • • • •,.•„•.•'.•. 141■I'' 1,..
.... N
.-.-.-.•.-.-
4i)
R/G
R/G 1,3
Ss.
lill
1
11,
-.-.-.-.-.- RIG 111111111401111 ssl
TERAFINA '.•.*.'.•.' V.I.111" 410
RIM •••••...."." RIG IC]
. . . . . .
R/G §1 ,,.--:ROW
CONCEPTUAL-
\
m 111111 .1,.,.-- tiCESEM
is1111
" • " •
CUR NOUSE
. . . . .
coma
LOCA•110. .,4 R/0
- " • NERITABE
• • • • - .. BAY
RA ail .."-..:::::::...:.. R/G Ills
IMF)
•••••••* SI
- - - •
lh...\ •Z•:::::::::::::::•: ,
• - • • • • hi. :4E3F.•
•.•.•.•.•.•.
• • • " •
• . • • . . .1; 1/4*%041. ,,,, -EWER,
/ SWAIM
R/G la .. ROAD
• • • • - -:•.::::.- -it SO TYPE V'LLE.
••••••••••••-.................-.........•..... :::.: :••..-..
..............
R/G
g..." , li feu rt.:tir.:Epoirxruni En.
........-:-:
••••••••••••••.-.-.-.•.-.- :.:-:-:•:
)
,
, 41,$'711.E.
• . . • . • • • • • . • • -:.:•:•-• -KAIWIENANCE FACILITY
• ,
• ..• ..• • • •.• . . . . . (A) TREE FARO
SINDLE-FARILY (ND)
■ PRIVATE RPM
ROAD
---PROPERTY
,./ aotimmwf
OWE
CYPRESS , RA IBS IAI
(PUS) . ••. • • . . • • 1
44
. R/G WALDROP
am-mil-•••••••••-•-•:-:
g L 1.
11
!u ENGINEERING
4201.800020120 0 LOW
PROPERTY-1111111 El... ....... . . . R/G DEVEWPW11 tIONPILLIONIX
SOUKOARY •.• •.• ... ....
_ 1 17.7.7>t,
-POSSIBLE I
:E ...0:101.110-110FIMMI
U •10.21120.
21000larunIMI.it WIN
PI 1.10.4001,11 h/20.01214210
1 ri =MU 1•1011 .0.0.0.5e.... . ,
I • • • •
. . . .
1g
i. ESPLANADE GOLF
' FUTURE '
11111111:111:14.1-a
• .:. R/G :
, , INTERCONNECT AND COUNTRY
FUTURE CLUB OF NAPLES
RPUD
111 IIIII EC•:•:':•:•:• ' .
1 '•
(, CONCEPTUAL
MASTER PLAN
al _ am
IJIMOKALLE ROAD!e.g..146) EXHIBIT"C2"
20'TYPE -'' -,ST
'-ENTRY ,
'Ir LS.E. SIGNAISE .2 SHEET 1 OF 3
MP.) FILENAME.27600E0602 4n
UPDATED;2014-03.06
PUDZ-A-PL2014-099 Strike-through text is deleted' Page 8 of 21
Esplanade Golf&Country Club of Naples RPUD Underline text is added
Last Revised: September 16,2014
Packet Page -1854-
10/14/2014 17.A.
At
N
♦s sa
w LEE COUNTY. . . i�
R Ti
.vsoLLIERIA�IIYTY
• VACANT
• OUT PARCEL
OWNER:
PTAMM 1St
'--PROPERTY
PARRLAM03 ROUNDARY
(MO
VACANT
r . . . •
(A)
VACANT
110 �•
":41 51
TERAFIMA �.
tl
err _ wa�.nflop
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ENGINEERING
SEE SHEET# FOR CONTINUATION 11610011MIGI KR """"
�m WINK RUM
n►wsse
taw,be go wYwroldr.y,w
NOTE nnaM CnervrllRa.umW riunco era
FOR PLAN LEUENO AND SPECIAL NOTES SEE SHEETS OF 1 ESPLANADE GOLF
AND COUNTRY
CLUB OF NAPLES
RPUD
CONCEPTUAL
MASTER PLAN
EXHIBIT"C2°
SHEET 2 OF 3
ETLE NAME:27600E13E024n
UPDA TttD:2014.03-O.
PUDZ-A-PL2014-099 Strike-through text is deleted Page 9 of 21
Esplanade Golf&Country Club of Naples RPUD Underline text is added
Last Revised: September 16,2014
Packet Page -1855-
10/14/2014 17.A.
L CONCEPTUAL LAKE LOCATIONS
* RIG RESIDENTIAL./GOLF
PRESERVE
RIGHT-OF-WAY
* LAND USE AREAS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND SUBJECT TO
RELOCATION/IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LDC.
SPECIAL NOTES:
1) WHERE APPLICABLE ALONG PROJECT BOUNDARY AND UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED PRESERVE AREAS SHALL SERVE AS BUFFERS.
IF AFTER EXOTIC REMOVAL THE PRESERVE VEGETATION FAILS TO
MEET MINIMUM CODE BUFFER STANDARDS ADDITIONAL PLANT
MATERIAL SHALL BE REQUIRED.
NATIVE HABITAT SUMMARY:
EXISTING NATIVE HABITAT= 903.8 M. ±
REQUIRED NATIVE HABITAT= 542.3 Ac. ±
PROVIDED NATIVE HABITAT (ON SITE) = 542.3 Ae.-±
ACREAGE SUMMARY: IAI
SECTION 22 = 445.5 Ae. ±
SECTION 15= 634.6 Ae. t
SECTION 10 = 578.2 Ae. ±
TOTAL= 1,658.3 Ac. i-
TOTAL AREA OUTSIDE DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY= 928.8 Ac. -} WALDROP
TOTAL AREA WITHIN DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY=729.5 Ac. ±
ENGINEERING
ooamIEWr ao•uuawu
11111106 EMU WOW MIME.Q/IEOM
M/f11 IMMO.Ki4U•
P.1a40.f7ft F.2/04•7160
BIM Wholl•Wrovernolnerm
OdDl.�fltl�OCAfW1LYO
ESPLANADE GOLF
AND COUNTRY
CLUB OF NAPLES
RPUD
CONCEPTUAL
MASTER PLAN
EXHIBIT"C2"
SHEET 3 OF 3
FILE NAME:27600E0602Awg
UPDATED:2014-03.06
PUDZ-A-PL2014-099 Strike-through text is deleted Page 10 of 21
Esplanade Golf&Country Club of Naples RPUD Underline text is added
Last Revised: September 16,2014
Packet Page -1856-
10/14/2014 17.A.
EXHIBIT D
FOR
IIRASOL ESPLANADE GOLF& COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES RPUD
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 1-0, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA;
• _ . I. _ - - • . I. - I , *
1) THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST '1 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4,
2) THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 'A,
3) THE NORTHEAST %4 OF THE SOUTHEAST '/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST '/,
- - - - • - a - - • • ' . ! - _ _ _e _ 1 . , - _ _ _e _ - - _ '
AND
ALL OF SECT e• , e ' 8 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AND
• - - • ' •.' ! - - • • e .& - ' • • * - . • • - - a _ • e .'•
FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
THE NORTHEAST 1 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4, AND THE EAST YZ OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF
THE NORTHWEST 1/4,
THE WEST '/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 'A,
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST '/A OF THE SOUTHEAST 'A,
THE EAST ''A OF THE SOUTHEAST '/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4,
THE NORTHWEST '/4 OF THE NORTHEAST '/4; AN THE WEST 'A OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF
THE NORTHEAST 1/4,
- - - _ ' e - - - • a • - - • _ ' e - _ _ e . - - • 1
THE WEST 'A OF THE SOUTHWEST 'A OF THE NORTHEAST 1114,
THE SzT '4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST Y4,
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 'A OF THE SOUTHWEST 'A,
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE WEST ' OF THE SOUTHEAS ' • e - - - _e
THE WEST '/2 OF THE EAST 'A OF THE SOUTHEAST '/ OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4,
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE EAST 'A OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4
- . . _ 1 e _ - ._- 1 e _ - - ORTHWEST '/ OF THE SOUTHEAST '/,
THE WEST '/2 OF SOUTHWEST 'A OF THE SOUTHEAST '/4,
THE WEST 3/1 OF THE EAST 'A OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST '/4,
- - _ - • - ! - - - • e . - • _ a • . - . a - • . .
SECTION 22, TOWNS€IIP 48 SOUTH, ' • • _ - • e _ - ' e -' ' - ! ► e • ,
PUDZ-A-PL2014-099 Strike-through text is deleted Page 11 of 21
Esplanade Golf&Country Club of Naples RPUD Underline text is added
Last Revised:September 16,2014
Packet Page -1857-
10/14/2014 17.A.
AND
THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 1-8 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AND
THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
AND
THE EAST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE EAST HALF OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48
• e • . A . r `.T 7 a.
AND
- - - • - ! - - - e - -e - ! - • • - . a - - - • ! ' - • --
QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY.
FLORIDA,
AND
- • - ! - - - - • - e - ! . - e• - ! - •.' e - - - • m ' -
•♦' evr. . • * T 71 '• .1 a
- • . i - - - - • - • - e - - - - • - • - e - - - • • ' - - • e - - - - • -
HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF
. - a• e ,m .a. - - • i ' -a - - '. ,• - - . - • . e, - ' A 6 - e P it
CONTAINING 1638 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 10.TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH. RANGE 26 EAST. COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA;
LESS AND EXCEPTING THE FOLLOWING FOUR(4) PARCELS:
1) THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4,
2) THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4.
3) THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4,
4 t THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4
AND
ALL OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH. RANGE 26 EAST. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
PUDZ-A-PL2014-099 Strike-through text is deleted Page 12 of 21
Esplanade Golf&Country Club of Naples RPUD Underline text is added
Last Revised:September 16,2014
Packet Page -1858-
10/14/2014 17.A.
AND
ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4, AND THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4
OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4,
THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4,
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4,
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4,
THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4: AND THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4
OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4,
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4,
THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4,
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4,
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4,
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4,
THE WEST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4,
THE EAST 1/2 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4
THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4,
THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4,
THE WEST 1/2 OF SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4,
THE WEST 3/4 OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4,
THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA,
AND
THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA,
AND
THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AND
THE EAST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTH 1/2 OF THE EAST HALF OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 22. TOWNSHIP 48
SOUTH. RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA,
AND
THE WEST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 22. TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST. COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA,
PUDZ-A-PL2014-099 Strike-through text is deleted Page 13 of 21
Esplanade Golf&Country Club of Naples RPUD Underline text is added
Last Revised: September 16.2014
Packet Page -1859-
10/14/2014 17.A.
AND
EAST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA. LESS THE EAST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE EAST
HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF
SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA.
AND
THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP
48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE
NORTH 30 FEET THEREOF AS ACCESS EASEMENT FOR HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY.
CONTAINING 1658.3 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
PUDZ-A-PL2014-099 Strike-through text is deleted Page 14 of 21
Esplanade Golf&Country Club of Naples RPUD Underline text is added
Last Revised: September 16,2014
Packet Page -1860-
10/14/2014 17.A.
EXHIBIT E
FOR
MIRASOL-ESPLANADE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES RPUD
DEVIATIONS
1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.0, which requires cul-de-sacs and local streets
to have a minimum sixty (60') right-of-way width and two (2) ten foot (10') wide travel lanes, to
allow a minimum right-of-way width of 40' for private local streets and 50' for private spine roads.
2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J. Street System Requirements, to allow cul-
de-sacs in excess of 1,000' in length. For any cul-de-sac exceeding 1,600 feet in length, the roadway
must include at approximately 1,600 feet intervals design features which provide for the ability of
emergency vehicles to turn around. Traffic roundabouts, eyebrows, hammerheads or similar design
features shall be allowed.
3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.Q. Street System Requirements, which requires
that street name markers shall be approved by the County Manager or designee for private streets or
in conformance with U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A. This requirement shall be waived. However, breakaway
posts shall be used.
4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.R. Street Requirements, which requires that
street pavement painting, striping and reflective edging of public roadway markings shall be
provided by the developer as required by the U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A. This requirement shall be waived
for private roadways. Traffic circulation signage shall be in conformance with U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A.
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Device standards.
5. Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.H, which requires 1 parking space per 200 square
feet of office/lobby/pro shop/health club/ clubhouse/lounge/snack bar/dining/meeting room associated
with golf courses. The requested deviation is to allow for 3 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of
office/lobby/pro shop/health club/clubhouse/lounge/snack bar/dining/meeting room associated with the
proposed golf course. Parking spaces for golf course holes, exterior recreation uses, and maintenance
buildings will be provided per the LDC.
6. Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.04.A, which limits the developer to 100 acres of
residential, commercial, or industrial lots or building sites to store excess fill generated by lake
excavations within the PUD. The requested deviation is to allow the developer to clear up to 300 acres
of residential, commercial, or industrial lots or building sites to store excess fill generated by lake
excavations within the PUD or project where the excavation is taking place. This is not a deviation from
the Collier County Excavation Ordinance.
7. Deviation #7 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C, which permits a maximum wall height of 6' in
residential zoning districts. The requested deviation is to allow a maximum wall height of 8' throughout
the development. Where abutting an existing or future public roadway, a 20' tall wall, berm, or
combination wall/berm is permitted.
PUDZ-A-PL2014-099 Strike-through text is deleted Page 15 of 21
Esplanade Golf&Country Club of Naples RPUD Underline text is added
Last Revised: September 16,2014
Packet Page -1861-
10/14/2014 17.A.
8. Deviation #8 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.04.13.5, which permits a maximum of five (5) model
homes, or a number corresponding to ten (10) percent of the total number of platted lots, whichever is
less, per platted approved development prior to final plat approval. The requested deviation is to allow
for a maximum of six (6) model homes per development tract, not to exceed forty (40) model homes
within the overall RPUD. As part of the application material for every building permit for a model
home, the developer shall provide documentation stating how many model homes are in existence so
that the maximum of forty(40) model homes is not exceeded.
9. Deviation #9 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e, which allows temporary signs on
residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height. The requested deviation is
to allow a temporary sign or banner up to a maximum of 32 square feet in area and a maximum of 8
feet in height. The temporary sign or banner shall be limited to 28 days per calendar year.
10. Deviation #10 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.2, which permits one (1) real estate pole sign
per street frontage that is setback a minimum of 10' from any property line. The requested deviation is
to allow for a maximum of two (2) real estate pole signs per street frontage setback a minimum of 5'
from the property line along Immokalee Road only.
11. Deviation #11 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5, which requires on-premise directional
signs to be setback a minimum of 10' from internal property lines. The requested deviation is to allow
for on-premise direction signage to be setback a minimum of 5' from internal property lines. This
deviation does not apply to property adjacent to public roadways.
12. Deviation #12 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, which permits two (2) ground signs per
entrance to the development with a maximum height of 8' and total sign area of 64 s.f. per sign. The
requested deviation is to allow for two (2) ground signs per project entrance with a maximum height
of 10' and total sign area of 80 s.f. per sign.
13. Deviation #13 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, which permits two (2) ground signs per
entrance to the development. The requested deviation is to allow for one (1) ground sign at the
property corners fronting on existing and proposed public roadways that provide access to the project,
in addition to two (2) ground signs at each project entrance. The proposed ground signs at property
corners, commonly referred to as "boundary markers", will be permitted at a maximum height of 10'
and sign area of 32 s.f. per sign.
14. Deviation #14 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A, which requires sidewalks on both sides of
roadways internal to the site. The requested deviation is to allow for an 8' wide sidewalk on one side
of the private spine road as shown on the PUD master plan, and 5' wide sidewalks on one side of all
other private, local roadways internal to the development that service residential units on one (1) side
of the roadway, and/or terminate in a cul-de-sac up to a maximum length of 2,500 l.f.
PUDZ-A-PL2014-099 Strike-through text is deleted Page 16 of 21
Esplanade Golf&Country Club of Naples RPUD Underline text is added
Last Revised:September 16.2014
Packet Page -1862-
10/14/2014 17.A.
15. Deviation #15 seeks relief from LDC Section 10.02.04.0 which limits the developer to one (1) Site
Development Plan submittal for concurrent review with the final plat at such time as the applicant
submits the response to the first staff review comments. The requested deviation is to allow for a
maximum of three (3) Site Development Plan submittals for concurrent review with the final plat at
such time as the applicant submits the response to the staff review comments.
PUDZ-A-PL2014-099 Strike-through text is deleted Page 17 of 21
Esplanade Golf&Country Club of Naples RPUD Underline text is added
Last Revised: September 16,2014
Packet Page -1863-
10/14/2014 17.A.
EXHIBIT F
FOR
MIRASOL ESPLANADE GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES,RPUD
LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
Regulations for development of the Mirasol Esplanade Golf& Country Club of Naples RPUD shall be in
accordance with the contents of this RPUD Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth
Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order in 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.
A. RPUD MASTER PLAN
1. Exhibit "C2", the RPUD Master Plan, illustrates the proposed development and is
conceptual in nature. Proposed tract, lot or land use boundaries or special land use
boundaries, shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent
approval phase such as platting or site development plan application. Subject to the
provisions of Section 10.02.13 of the LDC, RPUD amendments may be made from
time to time.
B. TRANSPORTATION
1. Upon the County's adoption of a CR-951 extension corridor alignment, and within 180
days of the County's request, the Owner, its successors or assigns, shall dedicate to
County fee simple right-of-way for the roadway and drainage system at the agreed upon
appraised value per acre, for those areas located outside the limits of the
residential/Golf Course areas depicted as "R/G" on the PUD master plan. Until such time
that the right-of-way is dedicated to the County. the Owner may utilize the land for
temporary uses during construction as set forth in LDC §5.04.03.
Upon recordation of the deed or other conveyance instrument in the public records of
Collier County for the dedication of the right-of-way, the Developer shall become
eligible for Transportation Impact fee credits in accordance with the consolidated impact
fee Ordinance in effect at the time of recordation of the dedication. If the project is
built out or has prepaid transportation Impact Fees to be assessed for the project,then the
Developer or its successors or assigns shall be eligible to request cash reimbursement.
The Developer shall not be responsible to obtain or modify any permits on behalf of the
County related to the extension of CR-951.
2. The Developer shall construct a 1 0' multi-use pathway to be located along the
Immokalee Road right-of-way on the North side of the Cocohatchee Canal as a part of
the entrance construction. Completion of construction of the pathway shall be completed
concurrently with the vehicular connection to the existing bridge over the Cocohatchee
Canal.
PUDZ-A-PL2014-099 Strike-through text is deleted Page 18 of 21
Esplanade Golf& Country Club of Naples RPUD Underline text is added
Last Revised:September 16.2014
Packet Page -1864-
10/14/2014 17.A.
3. As set forth by the Mirasol PUD Devclepers Contribution Agreement(DCA), dated May
, e' , -- !- - ::- as responsible for a total financial commitment of
• .e. .
- - .. . . -- ' .._ - . _ - - -financial obligations and project vesting was issued by Collier County on April 23, 2009.
4,3. a. Proportionate Share Payment
The Developer, its successors, or assigns, agree that at the time of issuance of a building
permit for the 400th residential dwelling unit authorized by this PUD, or commencement of
construction of the intersection improvements, the Developer, or its successors or
assigns, shall be responsible for their respective fair share of the North leg of the CR-
951/Broken Back Road intersection with Immokalee Road based on 1,233 units, which
includes modification, replacement, or relocation of the at-grade bridge crossing the
Cocohatchee Canal.
b. Timing Restriction
The Developer agrees that no building permits may be sought for the final 112
residential units, or equivalent per 42 Unadjusted Two-Way PM peak hour trips, until
such time that adequate roadway and intersection capacity has been constructed for the
intersection of CR 951 extension and Immokalee Road, and is available to
accommodate these units. However, if adequate roadway and intersection capacity is not
available within four (4) years of this PUD amendment approval, and the Developer has
prepaid impact fees in full for all 1.233 residential units,building permits may be sought
for the final 112 residential units, or equivalent per 42 Unadjusted Two-Way PM peak
hour trips.
5.'1. The development shall be limited to a maximum of 781 823 Two Way, unadjusted PM
Peak hour trips.
6:5. The Developer may use the eastern entrance from Broken Back Road/Collier Boulevard
as shown on the master plan for "construction-only" traffic upon issuance of a County
road right-of-way permit for temporary access. Developer shall be required to install a
stabilized road base and provide for dust abatement measures for the construction traffic.
7-6. At the time that Developer applies for a road right-way-permit for a permanent eastern
entrance from Broken Back Road/Collier Boulevard as shown on the master plan,
Developer shall construct at its cost the two northbound lanes of a future four lane road
design of Broken Back Road/Collier Boulevard (CR-951) from the Quarry's north
entrance (alternatively, from its terminus that may be north of the Quarry's entrance as a
result of road construction by others for their site specific access needs) to the Mirasol
Esplanade Golf & Country Club of Naples project's eastern entrance. The roadway
shall be constructed in accordance with the design standards including drainage features
and sidewalks of a two-lane collector roadway as required by the Collier County LDC
and Code of Laws and Ordinances at the time of issuance of the road right of way
permit. The Developer will be required to construct only those site access
improvements such as turn lanes along Broken Back Road/Collier Boulevard (CR-951)
PUDZ-A-PL2014-099 Strike-through text is deleted Page 19 of 21
Esplanade Golf&Country Club of Naples RPUD Underline text is added
Last Revised: September 16,2014
Packet Page -1865-
10/14/2014 17.A.
that are specific to the Mirasel Esplanade Golf& Country Club of Naples project. In the
event the County at time of issuance of the road right of way permit requests
improvements to Broken Back Road/Collier Boulevard (CR-951) that exceed the
collector standards of the LDC and Code of Laws and Ordinances,then Developer shall
be eligible for impact fee credits for those additional improvements. The County will
accept the roadway by Resolution for ownership and maintenance one (1) year after
acceptance of the construction of the roadway. The Developer shall not be required as
part of this PUD to provide for offsite treatment and storage of stormwater for Broken
Back Road/Collier Boulevard (CR-951) outside of the County's road right of way. The
stormwater is planned to be conveyed to the Quarry for storage/treatment or to another
off-site location as directed by Collier County.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL
The project shall retain a minimum of 537. 1 542.3 acres of native vegetation on-site in
compliance with the Growth Management Plan. Easements or ROW created for access to
outparcels within the preserve or for future extension of the CR-951 corridor shall not cause the
preserve to fall below the minimum native vegetation retention requirement.
D. EXCAVATION
Excavation activities shall comply with the definition of a commercial or development
excavation pursuant to Section 22-106 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier
County Florida. The entire water management pass-thru will be constructed at one
time as per South Florida Water Management permit 41 1-020 31-P,. as amended. prior
to the residential development under an administratively issued "development"
excavation permit as long as no more than 20.000 c.y. of material is removed off-site.
As per Section 22-106 of Code of Laws and Ordinances, a commercial excavation
permit will be required for removing more than the approved 20,000 c.y. of material
off-site.
E. OUTPARCEL IN SECTION 10
A temporary access easement shall be granted by the Owner to the owner of parcel
number of 00178760007, at a location specified by IM Collier Joint Venture it's
successors and assigns. At such time that the northern portion of the Mirnsol Esplanade
Golf& Country Club of Naples RPUD has access to a public road. the developer shall
provide reasonable access from the parcel number 00178760007 across the
Esplanade Golf& Country Club of Naples RPUD to the public road. Both the temporary
and permanent easements shall be granted to the owner of this parcel, at no cost to the
County or the owner of this outparcel.
F. UTILITIES
1. The developer shall connect to the Collier County Water Sewer District (CCWSD) potable
water system at a locations determined by CCWSD when capacity is available.
2. The developer shall connect to the CCWSD wastewater collection and conveyance system
at a locations determined by CCWSD when capacity is available.
3. The developer shall connect to the CCWSD Irrigation Quality water system at a locations
to be determined by CCWSD when capacity is available.
PUDZ-A-PL2014-099 Strike-through text is deleted Page 20 of 21
Esplanade Golf&Country Club of Naples RPUD Underline text is added
Last Revised:September 16.2014
Packet Page -1866-
10/14/2014 17.A.
G. PLANNING
1. The developer shall complete construction of the golf course and temporary golf
pro shop/locker room prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy for the 100
dwelling unit. The developer shall complete construction of the permanent golf pro
shop/locker room prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy for the 500t
dwelling unit 50% of the approved units, or 616 units.
2. The 112 dwelling units added to the Esplanade Golf & Country Club of Naples
RPUD through this PUD amendment approval dated 2014 must be
developed within the 19.7-acre parcel to the east of private spine road in Section 22
(Parcel No. 00187360003).
H. 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 he responsible for sa tisfying all
PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD amendment
approval dated 2014. the Managing Entity is Taylor Morrison
Esplanade Naples, LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring
and commitments to a successor entity. then it must provide a copy of a legally binding
document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney.
After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon
written a. royal of the transfer by County staff, and the successor enti 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.
PUDZ-A-PL2014-099 Strike-through text is deleted Page 21 of 21
Esplanade Golf R Country Club of Naples RPUD Underline text is added
Last Revised: September 16,2014
Packet Page-1867-
10/14/2014 17.A.
NAPLES DAILY NEWS K Wednesday, September 24, 2014 c 23D
NOTICE OF MEETING. -NOTICE,OF MEETING >:
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE
Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, October 14, 2014, in the Board of County
Commissioner Meeting Room, 3rd Floor, Collier Government Center, 3299 Tamiami
Trail East, Naples, Florida, 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 COLLIER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2009-21, THE MIRASOL
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,AS AMENDED, BY INCREASING THE
PERMISSIBLE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS FROM 1,121 TO 1,233;BY AMENDING
ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN ADDITIONAL 19.7 +1- ACRES OF
LAND ZONED RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) TO THE MIRASOL RPUD; BY CHANGING
THE NAME OF THE RPUD FROM THE MIRASOL RPUD TO THE ESPLANADE GOLF&
COUNTRY CLUB OF NAPLES RPUD; BY INCREASING THE DWELLING UNITS FROM
1,121 TO 1,233; BY REVISING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; BY AMENDING
THE MASTER PLAN AND REVISING DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS.THE PROPERTY IS
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR 846) BORDERED ON
THE EAST BY FUTURE COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951) IN SECTIONS 10, 15 AND 22,
OFV1 6583 ++11- ACRES; AND 26 EAST,
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE COUNTY,DATE. CONS/STING
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 to attend 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 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 material 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 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, Suite #101, 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
70M HENNING,.CHAIRMAN
DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK
By: Martha Vergara,Deputy Clerk
(SEAL) No 2035874
SPntemher 24 2014
Packet Page-1868-