Agenda 09/23/2014 Item #17A9/23/2014 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 No. 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development
Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of
Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the
zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural Zoning
District (A), a Rural Agricultural Zoning District with an ST Overlay (A -ST), a Rural Agricultural
Zoning District with a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands Overlay and Natural Resource
Protection Overlay (A- RFMUD- NRPA), and an Agricultural Zoning District with a Rural Fringe
Mixed Use Sending Lands Overlay and Special Treatment Overlay and Natural Resource
Protection Area Overlay (A- RFMUD- ST -NRPA) to a Residential Planned Unit Development
(RPUD) Zoning District to allow up to 590 dwelling units for a project to be known as the Willow
Run RPUD on property located at 9220 Collier Boulevard in Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14, Township
50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 559± acres; and by providing an
effective date (PUDZ- PL20130000682).
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) review staff's findings
and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning
Commission (CCPC) regarding the above referenced petition and render a decision regarding
this PUD rezone petition; and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and
regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained.
CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner is asking the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to
consider an application for a rezone from a Rural Agricultural Zoning District (A), a Rural
Agricultural Zoning District with an ST Overlay (A -ST), a Rural Agricultural Zoning District
with a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands Overlay and Natural Resource Protection
Overlay (A- RFMUD- NRPA), and an Agricultural Zoning District with a Rural Fringe Mixed
Use Sending Lands Overlay and Special Treatment Overlay and Natural Resource Protection
Area Overlay (A- RFMUD- ST -NRPA) to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD)
Zoning District to allow up to 590 dwelling units for a project to be known as the Willow Run
RPUD. 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
Packet Page -3538-
9/23/2014 W.A.
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):
(excerpts from the CCPC staff report GMP analysis) A portion of the subject property is
designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, and a portion
is designated Rural Fringe Mixed Use District ( RFMUD) Sending Lands and within the Belle
Meade Natural Resources Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay, as depicted on the Future Land Use
Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Growth
Management Plan (GMP).
The Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict allows uses that include: residential development
(variety of unit types), including associated accessory recreational uses, and, recreation and open
space uses — the uses proposed in this PUD; and, allows residential density at a maximum of 1.5
dwelling units per acre (DU /A), unless Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Credits are
utilized (from RFMUD Sending Lands within one mile of the Urban boundary), in which case
the maximum density allowed is 2.5 DU /A. There is also a provision to allow Density Blending
— shifting of density into the RFMUD Sending Lands.
The Urban Residential Fringe portion of the site is eligible for 593 DUs without use of TDR
Credits (395 acres X 1.5 DU /A = 592.5 4 593 DUs). The applicant indicates TDR credits will
not be used. As discussed further below, the RFMUD Sending Lands portion of the site retains 3
DU rights. This PUD proposes a maximum of 590 DUs.
Based upon the analysis contained in the CCPC staff report, the proposed PUD may be deemed
consistent with the Future Land Use Element.
Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic
Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient
capacity to accommodate this amendment 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 CCME. Please note that the Density blending
provision in section B.5.2 of the FLUE is being used. This requires, "For those lands within the
project designated as Sending, the native vegetation preservation requirement shall be 90% of the
native vegetation, not to exceed 60% of the total project area designated as Sending" (FLUE, pg.
52).
GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as
this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of
consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the
FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff
believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE. The proposed rezone is
Packet Page -3539-
9/23/2014 17.A.
consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff
also recommends that the petition be found consistent with the CCME. Therefore, zoning staff
recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the
overall GMP.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPQ RECOMMENDATION: The
CCPC/EAC heard this petition on July 17, 2014 and continued it to August 7, 2014, and found
that the criteria of Section 10.02.08.F and 10.02.13.B.5 were met. By a vote of 5 to 0
(Commissioner Rosen and Commissioner Doyle were absent), with the motion made by
Commissioner Ebert and seconded by Commissioner Homiak, the CCPC recommended
forwarding this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation
of approval subject to the following final changes to the PUD document:
1. Exhibit A: Remove the redundant word "landscape" in Permitted Uses, General: 1. PUD
Boundary Setback.
2. Exhibit A: Remove the prefix "non" from pole lighting.
3. Exhibit A: Add a sentence to the Growth Management Plan section noting that
development of residential units in the sending lands would require a modification to the
limited development agreement.
4. Exhibit B: Revise the Minimum Waterbody Setback (for principal and accessory
structures) to address Lake Maintenance Tracts and add an abbreviation reference as
well.
5. Exhibit B: Revise the Accessory Structures Minimum Side Yard Setback to show that it
will be the same as principal structure.
6. Exhibit B: Revise the timeframe to indicate the timing to show the unit types from
building permit issuance to site development plan or plat.
7. Exhibit B: Add a footnote to indicate that buffers and maintenance easements will platted
separately; they will not be included in platted residential lots.
8. Exhibit E: Revise item #3 to indicate that only one turnaround will be required.
9. Exhibit E: Add Deviation # 11 to allow for windows only (not doors) in zero lot line
development areas.
10. Exhibit F: Revise 2. Transportation commitment #4 to indicate that the owner shall
convey lands to the county upon the permitting agencies notice of intent to issue the
applicable permits.
11. Exhibit F: Revise 2. Transportation commitment #6 to indicate a time frame of 60 days.
12. Exhibit F: Revise 2. Transportation commitment #8 to indicate that stormwater outside
the north and south limits of the PUD cannot be discharged into the Willow Run surface
water management system.
13. Exhibit F: Revise 3. Environmental commitment B to add a wildlife co- existence plan
and require homeowner documents to include environmental information.
14. Exhibit F: Revise 3. Environmental commitment C to require tortoise appropriate
barriers, to be 2 foot tall and into the ground a distance of 2 feet, along all new residential
development and /or private roads.
These revisions have been incorporated into the PUD document that is included in the draft
ordinance.
Packet Page -3540-
9/23/2014 W.A.
No opposition to this petition, per se, has been received. Opposition was voiced at the CCPC
hearing to the proposed Benfield Roadway Corridor, but not to the petition itself. The CCPC
vote was unanimous; therefore the petition can be placed on the Summary Agenda.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS:
This is a site specific rezone to a residential planned unit development. The burden falls upon
the applicant to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent with all the criteria set forth below.
The burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), should it consider denying
the rezone, to determine that such denial would not be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable.
This would be accomplished by finding that the proposal does not meet one or more of the listed
criteria below.
Criteria for RPUD Rezones
Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for
approval or not.
1. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development
proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic
and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities.
2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements,
contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as
they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation
and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained
at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only
after consultation with the County Attorney.
3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed RPUD with the goals, objectives and policies
of the Growth Management Plan.
4. Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which
conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on
design, and buffering and screening requirements.
5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve
the development?
6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of
assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and
private.
7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to
accommodate expansion.
Packet Page -3541-
9/23/2014 17.A.
8. Consider: Conformity with RPUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of
such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications
are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations.
9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and
future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan?
10. Will the proposed RPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use
pattern?
11. Would the requested RPUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated
district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts?
12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to
existing conditions on the property proposed for change.
13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the
proposed amendment necessary.
14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood?
15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create
types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak
volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction
phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety?
16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem?
17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas?
18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area?
19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of
adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations?
20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege
to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ( "reasonably ") be used in
accordance with existing zoning? (a "core" question...)
22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
county?
Packet Page -3542-
9/23/2014 17.A.
23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the
proposed use in districts already permitting such use.
24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site
alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range
of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification.
25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed RPUD rezone on
the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of
service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and
implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code
ch.106, art. II], as amended.
26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the RPUD rezone request that
the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the
public health, safety, and welfare?
The BCC must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the
written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive
Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the
BCC hearing as these items relate to these criteria. The proposed Ordinance was prepared by
the County Attorney's Office. This item has been approved as to form and legality, and requires
an affirmative vote of four for Board approval (HFAC)
RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendations of the CCPC and further
recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the request subject to the
attached PUD Ordinance that includes both the staff's revised recommendation and the CCPC
recommendation.
Prepared by: Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner, Planning & Zoning Department, Growth
Management Division, Planning and Regulation
Attachments:
1) CCPC Staff Report
2) Neighborhood Information Synopsis
3) Application Backup Information due to the size of the document it is accessible at:
http: / /www.colliergov. net/ ftp/ A!�endaSept23 14 /GrowthMgmt/Application for public hearin .p
df
4) Ordinance
Packet Page -3543-
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 17.17.A.
9/23/2014 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 No. 2004 -41, as amended, the
Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning
regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate
zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real
property from a Rural Agricultural Zoning District (A), a Rural Agricultural Zoning District with an
ST Overlay (A -ST), a Rural Agricultural Zoning District with a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending
Lands Overlay and Natural Resource Protection Overlay (A- RFMUD- NRPA), and an Agricultural
Zoning District with a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands Overlay and Special Treatment
Overlay and Natural Resource Protection Area Overlay (A- RFMUD- ST -NRPA) to a Residential
Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District to allow up to 590 dwelling units for a project
to be known as the Willow Run RPUD on property located at 9220 Collier Boulevard in Sections
11, 12, 13 and 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 559±
acres; and by providing an effective date (PUDZ- PL20130000682).
Meeting Date: 9/23/2014
Prepared By
Name: DeselemKay
Title: Planner, Principal, Zoning & Land Development Review
8/14/2014 10:44:36 AM
Approved By
Name: PuigJudy
Title: Operations Analyst, Community Development & Environmental Services
Date: 8/19/2014 5:02:19 PM
Name: BellowsRay
Title: Manager - Planning, Comprehensive Planning
Date: 8/21/2014 4:35:38 PM
Name: BosiMichael
Packet Page -3544-
9/23/2014 17.A.
Title: Director - Planning and Zoning, Comprehensive Planning
Date: 8/27/2014 8:33:45 AM
Name: AshtonHeidi
Title: Managing Assistant County Attorney, CAO Land Use/Transportation
Date: 8/27/2014 8:54:32 AM
Name: MarcellaJeanne
Title: Executive Secretary, Transportation Planning
Date: 9/8/2014 9:04:44 AM
Name: IsacksonMark
Title: Director -Corp Financial and Mngmt Svs, Office of Management & Budget
Date: 9/9/2014 9:06:46 AM
Name: FinnEd
Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior, Transportation Engineering & Construction Management
Date: 9/9/2014 7:31:06 PM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 9/10/2014 3:00:47 PM
Name: OchsLeo
Title: County Manager, County Managers Office
Date: 9/13/2014 1:36:32 PM
Packet Page -3545-
9/23/2014 17.A.
AGENDA ITEM 9 -1)
colk
STAFF REPORT
TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ZONING SERVICES PLANNING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION -- PLANNING & REGULATION
HEARING DATE: JULY 17, 2014
SUBJECT: PUDZ- PL20130000682; WILLOW RUN RPUD
PROPERTY OWNER & APPLICANT /AGENT:
Applicant/Petitioner Owners:
Joseph D. Bonness III, trustee Joseph D. Bonness III, trustee
for Willow Run Land. Trust for Willow Run Land Trust
1910 Seward Ave 1910 Seward Ave
Naples, FL 34109 Naples, FL 34109
Contract Purchaser:
Kitson & Partners Communities Acquisitions, LLC
4500 PGA Blvd., Suite 400
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418
Winchester Lakes Corporation
Joseph D. Bonness III, president
1910 Seward Ave.
Naples FL 341.09
Agent:
Wayne Arnold, AICP
Q. Grady Minor & Associates
3800 Via Del Rey
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an
application for a rezone from a Rural Agricultural Zoning District (A), a Rural Agricultural
Zoning District with an ST Overlay (A -ST), a Rural Agricultural Zoning District with a Rural
Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands Overlay and Natural Resource Protection Overlay (A- RFMUD-
NRPA), and an Agricultural Zoning District with a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands
Overlay and Special Treatment Overlay and Natural Resource Protection Area Overlay (A-
RFMUD-ST-NRPA) to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District to allow
up 590 dwelling units for a project to be known as the Willow Run RPUD. For details about the
project proposal, refer to "Purpose/Description of Project."
PUDZ- PL20130000682; WILLOW RUN PUD
July 17, 2014 CCPC
Revised: 7/7114
Packet Page -3546-
Page 1 of 22
9/23/2014 17.A.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION:
The subject property, consisting of 559± acres, is located on the east side of Collier Boulevard
north of Rattlesnake Hammock Road, at 9220 Collier Boulevard in Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14,
Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (See location map on the following
page.)
PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
The applicant's agent provided the following summary of the petition:
The PUD rezone proposes to permit a variety of residential dwelling unit types and
accessory uses on 560± acres to allow a maximum of 590 dwelling units. A conceptual
PUD master plan has been developed which depicts the location of the residential
development tracts, lakes, and preserves. The site is currently zoned A, Rural
Agricultural and has been operating as an earth mine with an asphaltic batch plant
since the mid- 1980's via conditional use approvals..... The Willow Run RPUD master
plan identifies preserves, recreational amenity area, lakes and buffers.
The Master Plan shows one access point onto Collier Boulevard and no interconnections to the
north, east or south due to the location of preserve areas. The applicant is seeking approval of
eleven deviations (see deviation discussion for more detail.)
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
North: San Marino PUD, a partially developed project; Forest Glen of Naples PUD, a
developed residential golf course community; and A (RFMUO), undeveloped
East: undeveloped lands and Swamp Buggy Grounds, with zoning designations of
Hacienda Lakes DRI/PUD, A (RFMU'O& ST) and NRPA
South: undeveloped lands zoned A, Hacienda Lakes DRIPUD, A (RFMUO & ST), NRPA
West: undeveloped land and Swamp Buggy Grounds with zoning designations of A and
Hacienda Lakes DRi/PUD
PUDZ- 13120130000682; WILLOW RUN PUD
July 17, 2014 CCPC
Revised: 7/7114
Packet Page -3547-
Page 2 of 22
I It
Ip
�J
9/23/2014 W.A.
i
3
son
IN
3� m ;W/
. ... _.._._ ._p- -- .-
CL
S�
cD
z
z
0
N
�I
�I
z
0
U
0
1!
0
N
a
N
a
z
0
tz
w
IL
Lu
A
a'
n y
°
r z
0 0
I 3
00
Q
<g
W�
< I
E
y
S
3
zV
e y
n US
n
g
m
a Amnm a��
Eli
W C
5 as
�
gg
a
:�
z
��au� •wxun�am
gg:��b
�i
��
c
� ��
S�m
4�
g"a'
R� �&
r
�
�
n
d$
� �
tlF
®o
s
D�rLc+ D�orc _'2Cd52_
. ... _.._._ ._p- -- .-
CL
S�
cD
z
z
0
N
�I
�I
z
0
U
0
1!
0
N
a
N
a
z
0
tz
w
IL
9/23/2014 17.A.
x
K[sy(
q
u
4 gr }}!!
=a
rony�W; Raw (Z
T �
V
8cti��p�p
W.
tY
p
a
F
3Y 4- ie
is � w i' ' . � K . i.� � a • 1` L'�' aY' 'L _ 4
�� �. • a ti`"'....,,;�w.f , a - J . �""`."w",..� -_ fill
J r
" W
q gf It �P: R : k' i i oI. i
IN
P: _
Packet Page -3549-
9/23/2014 17.A.
ZONED: SAN MARINO RPLID
USE: RESIDENTIAL,
NAPLES NATIONAL
SAN MARINO
GOLF CLUB f INGRESSIEGRESS
INGRESSIEGRESS
I J
7
.COUNTY PARK HACIENDA LAKES PROPOSED
INGRESSIEGRESS N
INGRESSIEGRESS
jr
R
ZONED: SAN MARINO
Ovi— ac j, 3W' ow
SON-E. V = $00'
RPUD
GradmMinor
WILLOT RUN JRPUD
USE: RESIDENTIAL
'r
ILI
4.
II
EXHIBIT C
MA�7,Ek PLAN I
iM
E.
- POTENTIAL
INTERCONNECT
R LAKE
0
BUFFER PER L D_c
<
>
R
R
ILU
PER LDC
r
ui
ui
POTENTIAL
BUFFER
------
R
INTERCONNECT
ui
l z
ZONED: AGRICULTURAL
USE: UNDEVELOPED
I
ZONED: AGRICULTURAL
; m
R
<
USE: RESTAURANT
I
LAKE
NAPLES CLUB
Z
ESTATES
L CRAKLIW JACKS
INGRESSIEGRESS' I
INGRESSIEGRESS
R
ZONED., HACIENDA
EASTfWEST ROW RESERVATION
LAKES DRIIMPUD,
USE' RESIDENTIAL.
ZONED:. HACIENDA LAKES
DRVMPUD
USE: RESIDENnAL
POTENTIAL
INTERCONNECT
I J
7
.COUNTY PARK HACIENDA LAKES PROPOSED
INGRESSIEGRESS N
INGRESSIEGRESS
jr
Ovi— ac j, 3W' ow
SON-E. V = $00'
KEY MAP.
GradmMinor
WILLOT RUN JRPUD
p"flu 1h 3 M,4
EXHIBIT C
MA�7,Ek PLAN I
E.
Packet Page -3550- . ............. -
URBAN RURAL FRINGE
RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE DISTRICT
FRINGE BELLE MEADE NRPA
ZONED: PDREST GLENN OF
NAPLES RPUD
USE: RESIDENTIAL
K,
. ... .........
N 'ILL011' &UX RP,17D
GradyMill0l,
4,:i%.i Luvd.rolw Amu". EYHIBIT v.
`SLAN 2
Packet Page -3551-
9/23/2014 W.A. i
N
SCALE-, I"= 600'
ZONED: .A (RFMUO)
NRPA SENDING
USE: RESIDENTIAL
ZONED: HACIENDA LAKES
DRI/MPUD (RFMUO, NRPA
SENDING)
USE: RESIDENTIAL
A
mi m w i
MAP
I
ZONED: A (RFMUO) NRPA
SENDING
LL
USE: RESIDENTIAL
ZONED: SAN
MARINO
PPUD
W
I USE
RES IDENTIAL
Co
(PRESERVE)
Lu
w
Lu
Z.
. . . .
. ..
PRESERVE
<
210 +1- ACRES
�w
�R. }. j ..
R
R
A
MATCH UNE - SEE SHEET 4,OF 4
K,
. ... .........
N 'ILL011' &UX RP,17D
GradyMill0l,
4,:i%.i Luvd.rolw Amu". EYHIBIT v.
`SLAN 2
Packet Page -3551-
9/23/2014 W.A. i
N
SCALE-, I"= 600'
ZONED: .A (RFMUO)
NRPA SENDING
USE: RESIDENTIAL
ZONED: HACIENDA LAKES
DRI/MPUD (RFMUO, NRPA
SENDING)
USE: RESIDENTIAL
A
mi m w i
MAP
I
9/23/2014 17.A.'
0 300'
SCALE: I" = 600'
120'VVIDE FUTURE
BENFIELD ROAD
CORRIDOR (SUBJECT
TO A RECORDED
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT)
ZONED: HACIENDA
LAKESDRt/MPUD
TRFMUO,NRPA
SENDING)
USE: RESIDENTIAL
URBAN RURAL FRINGE
RESIDENTIAL MIXED. USE DISTRICT
, tZ.
FRINGE BELLE MEADE NRPA
F,-
ZONED: HACIENDA ZONED: HACIENDA LAKES
LAKES DRUMPUD DRUMPLID
USE: RESIDENTIAL USE RESIDENTIAL
12OWDE FUTURC.BENFIELO
ROAD CORRIDOR THROUGH
HACIENDA LAKES DRI
URBAN RURAL FRINGE
RESIDENTIAL MIXED. USE DISTRICT
, tZ.
FRINGE BELLE MEADE NRPA
F,-
Packet Page -3552-
KEY MAP
WILLOW RUAI RPUD
G t i (Jvi nor
m
.. ...........
qflEk� 4 'J�
Packet Page -3552-
9/23/2014 17.A.
Aerial Photo (subject site depiction is approximate)
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): A portion of the subject property is designated Urban,
Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, and a portion is designated Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands and within the Belle Meade Natural
Resources Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan
(GMP).
The Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict allows uses that include: residential development
(variet), of unit types), including associated accessory recreational uses, and, recreation and open
PUDZ- PL20130000662; WILLOW RUN PUD
July 17, 2014 CCPC
Revised: 717/14
Packet Page -3553-
Page 3 of 22
9/23/2014 17.A.
space uses — the uses proposed in this PUD; and, allows residential density at a maximum of 1.5
dwelling units per acre (DU /A); unless Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Credits are utilized
(from RFMUD Sending Lands within one mile of the Urban boundary), in which case the
maximum density allowed is 2.5 DU /A. There is also a provision to allow Density Blending —
shifting of density into the RFMUD Sending Lands.
The Urban Residential Fringe portion of the site is eligible for 593 DUs without use of TDR
Credits (395 acres X 1.5 DU /A = 592.5 4 593 DUs). The applicant indicates TDR credits will not
be used. As discussed further below, the RFMUD Sending Lands portion of the site retains 3 DU
rights. This PUD proposes a maximum of 590 DUs.
The Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict also states: "All rezones are encouraged to be in the
form of a planned unit development. Proposed development in the Subdistrict shall be fully
responsible for all necessary water management improvements, including the routing of all on -site
and appropriate off -site water through the project's water management system, and a fair share
cost of necessary improvements to the CR 951 canal/out -fall system made necessary by new
development in the Subdistrict." This project is submitted as a PUD; Comprehensive Planning
staff defers to Engineering Plans Review staff for water management review.
The RFMUD Sending Lands designation allows a restricted list of uses, including habitat
preservation and conservation uses, and 1 DU /40 acres (0.025 DU /A); allows TDR Credits to be
severed and transferred at a ratio of 1 DU /5 acres (for the base TDR Credit, and each of three
bonus TDR Credits, yielding a maximum severance of 4 TDR Credits /5 acres); allows partial
residential development rights to be retained (e.g. for a 40 -acre parcel, 7 base TDR Credits could
be severed and 1 DU right retained such that l DU could still be built on that 40 -acre parcel);
further restricts land uses once TDR Credits have been severed; requires an appropriate legal
instrument to be recorded in public records once TDR Credits have been severed, to include
stating the remaining allowable uses on the property; and, prohibits provision of central water and
sewer. These same provisions are included in the RFMU Sending Lands zoning overlay in LDC
Sec. 2.03.08A.4.; that LDC Section also provides for a minimum lot area of 40 acres and
minimum lot width of 300 feet.
The PUD Master Plan identifies the RFMUD Sending Lands portion of the site mostly as
Preserve; two areas are [existing] Lakes; and, one small area is R, Residential Development that
includes a road segment and development area.
Three tax parcels comprise the RFMUD Sending Lands portion of the site. TDR Credits have
been severed from all three parcels (per County records); the northerly parcel - Preserve on the
PUD Master Plan - retained 0 DU rights, the middle parcel — Residential, Lake and Preserve on
the PUD Master Plan - retained 2 DU rights (2 DUs may be built on the site, but not clustered),
and the southerly parcel — Lake and Preserve on the PUD Master Plan - retained 1 DU right (1 DU
may be built). A limitation of development rights agreement has been recorded on the property to
limit development to that under LDC Sec. 2.03.08.A.4.b., Uses Allowed Where TDR Credits Have
Been Severed; also, a conservation easement has been recorded over these Sending Lands.
However, the applicable Density Blending provision may still be utilized.
For properties that straddle the URF and RFMUD designations, the FLUE includes a density
blending provision; the applicant indicates the project "may, but is not required to, utilize" this
PUDZ- PL20130000682; WILLOW RUN PUD
July 17, 2014 CCPC
Revised: 7/7/14
Packet Page -3554-
Page 4 of 22
9/23/2014 17.A.
provision. However, it is only via use of density blending that density may be "transferred" from
Urban Residential Fringe lands to RFMUD Sending Lands, and clustered. Otherwise, Sending
Lands are limited to 1 DU /40 acres and cannot be clustered. As the proposed PUD does not
include Sending Lands development standards for the Sending Lands portion of the PUD, which
includes a residential area, and as the agent and owner in prior meeting with staff indicated the
desire to be able to place density in that residential area, the PUD must use density blending. The
PUD Exhibit "A" needs to be revised to reflect this. The density blending provision is as follows
(FLUE text is followed by staff analysis /comment in [bold text]):
5. Density Blendinc:
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 Mined 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:
2. Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for Properties Straddling the Urban
Residential Fringe Sub - District and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending lands:
(a) The project must straddle the Urban Residential Fringe Sub - District and the Rural
Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands; [The subject property does straddles this
boundary.]
(b) The project in aggregate must be a minimum of 400 acres; [The total site is ±559
acres.]
(c) At least 25% of the project must be located within the Urban Residential Fringe
Sub - District; [Approximately 71% of the project is within the URF (395 acres in
URF /559 acres total).]
(d) The project must extend central water and wastewater treatment facilities (from the
urban designated portion of the project) to serve the entire project, unless alternative
interim water and wastewater treatment provisions are authorized by Collier County;
[County water and wastewater serves this site.]
(e) The Project is currently zoned or will be zoned PUD; [This project is submitted as a
PUD.]
(f) The density to be shifted to the Sending Lands from the Urban Residential Fringe is to
be located on impacted or disturbed 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 wildlife habitat with adjacent preservation and/or habitat areas;
[Review of the aerial of the site appears to indicate development proposed for the
RFMUD Sending Lands portion of the site is disturbed (cleared); however,
Comprehensive Planning staff defers determination of consistency with this
criterion to Environmental Planning staff.]
PUDZ- PL20130000682; WILLOW RUN PUD
July 17, 2014 CCPC
Revised: 7/7/14
Packet Page -3555-
Page 5 of 22
9/23/2014 17.A.
(g) Native vegetation shall be preserved as follows: [Comprehensive Planning staff
defers determination of consistency with this criterion to Environmental Planning
staff.]
(1) The Urban portion of the project shall comply with the native vegetation
requirements identified in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (for
Urban designated lands), or in the case of projects where the native vegetation
requirement for the Sending Lands portion of the project is the maximum required
60 percent of the total Sending Land area, in order to promote greater preservation
of the highest quality wetlands and listed species habitat, the required native
vegetation for the Urban portion of the project may be shied by providing native
vegetation preservation in the Sending Lands portion of the project exceeding the
60% maximum preservation requirement as set forth in subsection (2) below. The
ratio for such native vegetation preservation shall be two acres of Sending Lands
(exceeding the 60% maximum preservation requirement) for each acre below the
required amount of native vegetation for the Urban portion of the project. In no
instance shall less than 10 percent of the required amount of native vegetation be
retained in the Urban portion of the project. Significant Archeological Sites
identified by the State of Florida Division of Historic Resources shall be preserved
and cannot be mitigated for.
(2) For those lands within the project designated as Sending, the native vegetation
preservation requirement shall be 90% of the native vegetation, not to exceed 60%
of the total project area designated as Sending, unless the provisions found in
subsection (1) above are met.
(3) Wetland areas that are impacted through the development process, but which result
in enhanced wetland function, including habitat and/or flowways, shall be
considered as part of the native vegetation requirement set forth in this provision
and shall not be considered as impacted areas. These wetland areas and/or
flowways may be used for water storage provided that the water discharged in these
areas is pre - treated.
(h) Permitted uses for density blending under this provision include residential
development and associated amenities, including golf courses meeting the criteria for
golf courses within the Neutral area. This provision is not intended to eliminate any
uses permitted within the applicable underlying land use designation. [The proposed
PUD allows residential uses, associated recreational uses, and open space — all
allowed under the FLUM designations.]
In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of
Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and
redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold text].
Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places:
The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, and
adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be
implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable.
Policy 7. l: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
PUDZ- PL20130000682; WILLOW RUN PUD
July 17, 2014 CCPC
Revised: 717114
Packet Page -3556-
Page 6 of 22
9/23/2014 17.A.
violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [Exhibit C, PUD
Master Plan, depicts direct access to Collier Boulevard (CR 951), classified as an arterial
road in the Transportation Element.]
Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce
vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals.
[Exhibit C, PUD Master Plan, depicts one loop road, and internal access for all development
areas.]
Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets
and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of
land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in
Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [Cursory review suggests interconnections could be
provided to the north (San Marino PUD) and south (Hacienda Lakes PUD and A -zoned
lands). Exhibit C, PUD Master Plan, identifies a "potential interconnect" to the north and to
the south, and these are also listed in Exhibit F, List of Developer Commitments, #2.C.1
Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with
a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types.
[The PUD allows for a variety of dwelling unit types, and allows typical community uses such
as a clubhouse which are sometimes used for civic purposes, e.g. polling place. Though the
amount of open space required and provided is not indicated, Exhibits C, PUD Master Plan,
and F, List of Developer Commitments, identify the required preserve is 149 acres whereas
210 acres (over 1/3 of the site) are provided; large lakes are shown on Exhibit C; the PUD
allows typical accessory recreation uses, e.g. community clubhouse, tennis courts, swimming
pool, etc.; and, yards will be provided around buildings and structures. Exhibit E, List of
Requested Deviations, #1, provides that sidewalks will be provided on both sides of local
streets except "on one side of the street only for streets with homes on one side of the
street "); this is a common deviation request and one which Comprehensive Planning staff
does not object.]
Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the Future
Land Use Element.
Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic
Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient
capacity to accommodate this amendment 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 (COME): Environmental review staff found
this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME).
Please note that the Density blending provision in section 13.5.2. of the Future Land Use Element
is being used. This requires, "For those lands within the project designated as Sending, the native
vegetation preservation requirement shall be 90% of the native vegetation, not to exceed 60% of
the total project area designated as Sending" (FLUE, pg. 52).
PUDZ- PL20130000682; WILLOW RUN PUD
July 17, 2014 CCPC
Revised: 717/14
Packet Page -3557-
Page 7 of 22
9/23/2014 17.A.
GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as
this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of
consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval,
approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the
FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff
believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE. The proposed rezone is
consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff
also recommends that the petition be found consistent with the CCME. Therefore, zoning staff
recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the
overall GMP.
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. The PUD Master Plan provides 210 acres of
Preserve, which exceeds the minimum requirement of 149.19 acres.
This project does require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project meets
the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2 -1 1.93 of the Collier
County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Specifically, the project contains RFMU District Sending
Lands. Please refer to the Environmental Impact Statement for further details regarding the
environmental review.
Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD
document and Master Plan for right -of -way and access issues as well as roadway capacity, and
recommends approval subject to the Developer /owner commitments as provided in the PUD
ordinance. The access location for this development may allow for a traffic signal, for which the
developer will be required to contribute a proportionate share toward the installation if warrants
are met.
Additional stipulation not addressed by the [modified] Developer Commitments: As a stipulation
of approval, Staff is requesting that the developer commit to provide reimbursement to the County
to maintain the "convenience" signal benefitting this private development.
In addition to that stipulation, staff requests that the CCPC include the following stipulations in
any recommendation for approval:
PUDZ- PL20130000682; WILLOW RUN PUD
July 17, 2014 CCPC
Revised: 7!7/14
Packet Page -3558-
Page 8 of 22
9/23/2014 17.A.
1. The developer or his successors shall reserve 120 feet of land for right- of-way within the
easterly 400 feet, north to south across the subject site;
2. The developer or his successors shall provide disclosure to residents that a four -lane
roadway could be located in proximity to the homes within this project; and
3. The developer or his successor shall at no cost to Collier County, accept stormwater from
the Benfield Road (or whatever name this road has at the time) into this project's stormwater
management system.
Utilities Review: Utilities staff has asked that the following stipulation be included in any
approval:
Prior to its last phase of development, the Developer shall identify and provide an
interconnection stub -out to either Hacienda Lakes or San Marino PUD for water
distribution; plans shall be reviewed and approved by CCWSD at time of SDP or plat.
This commitment can be terminated by CCWSD if its staff determines that
interconnection at either property line is not possible.
The applicant is in agreement with the stipulation.
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.
As noted earlier in the staff report, the area to the north is partially developed with two residential
projects and an undeveloped agriculturally zoned tract. To the east, south and west, there are
undeveloped portions of the Hacienda Lakes DR1/PUD zoned project, that allowed a mixture of
residential, attraction (Swamp Buggy grounds), and commercial uses. Zoning staff is of the
opinion that this project will be compatible with and complementary to, the surrounding land uses.
Deviation Discussion:
The petitioner is seeking approval of ten deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The
deviations are listed in PUD Exhibit E. Deviations are a normal derivative of the PUD zoning
process following the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC Section
2.03.06 which says in part:
It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage
ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or
redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control.
PUDs .... may depart from the strict application of setback; height, and minimum
lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum
PUDZ- PL20130000682; WILLOW RUN PUD
July 17, 2014 CCPC
Revised: 7/7114
Packet Page -3559-
Page 9 of 22
9/23/2014 17.A.
standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the
public interest....
Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway
Requirements, which requires sidewalks to be constructed on both sides of local streets, to allow
sidewalks on one side of the street only for streets with homes on one side of the street.
Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following:
Providing a sidewalk on both sides of a private street where homes are provided on a
single side of the street is unnecessary in order to provide safe pedestrian access within
the community. This is consistent with the direction Transportation Planning Staff has
been discussing with regard to future LDC revisions.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff can support this deviation, subject to the stipulation
that the developer provide 1 canopy tree (or canopy tree equivalent) per 30 linear feet of sidewalk.
Canopy trees located within 10 feet of the sidewalk may count towards a sidewalk canopy tree.
This stipulation shall serve to assist in the implementation of LDC Section 4.06.01.A. f and g and
B.2. h and i of the landscape and buffering requirements that states:
Improve environmental quality by reducing and reversing air, noise, heat and chemical
pollution through the preservation of canopy trees and the creation of shade and microclimate;
and
Reduce heat gain in or on buildings or paved areas through the filtering capacity of
trees and vegetation.
The trees shall be those identified in 4.06.05.D 1 & 2. These additional trees should provide a
needed enhancement for the sidewalk on one side of the road and make using it a more pleasing
experience.
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the
stipulation noted above, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner
has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health,
safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has
demonstrated that the deviation is "Justified as meeting, public purposes to a dearee at least
eguivalent to literal application of such regulations."
Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N, Street System Requirements and Appendix
B, Typical Street Sections and Right -of -Way Design Standards, which establishes a 60 foot wide
local road to allow a minimum 40' wide local road See Exhibit E -1, Private Road Cross Section.
Petitioner's Rationale. The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following
The proposed 40' wide private road ROW is sufficiently wide to accommodate the required
roadway improvements. Utilities and sidewalks can be placed within easements outside
the private ROW. The site has some areas where physical constraints will limit the ability
PUDZ- PL20130000682; WILLOW RUN PUD
July 17, 2014 CCPC
Revised: 7/7114
Packet Page -3560-
Page 10 of 22
9/23/2014 17.A.
to provide a standard 60' ROWfor a local road. ne internal project roads will be private
and the standard public ROW is not necessary for internal traffic volumes.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
awroved Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this
deviation finding_ that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has
demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety
and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.133.51, the petitioner has demonstrated
that the deviation is 'Justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations.'
Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.J, Street System Requirements, which limits cul-
de -sacs to a maximum length of 1,000 feet to permit cul -de -sacs to be a maximum of 3,500 feet in
length with placement of no through traffic signage.
Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following:
The proposed residential development tracts due to their separation by existing lake areas
and other geographic factors, require access via cul -de -sacs. The 1, 000' length will need to
be exceeded in order to gain adequate vehicular access to all development areas within the
PUD. The cul -de -sacs can be identified with appropriate signage indicating that the roads
are not through streets.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
approved but staff believes it would be appropriate to place a turn- around at a least one strategic
location since the proposed cul -de -sac length far exceeds the allowable 1,000 feet.
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the
stipulation that the developer place a turn- around at 1,500 feet that can accommodate emergency
and waste management sized vehicles, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section
10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a
detrimental effect on the health safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section
10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public
purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations."
Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02, Buffer Requirements, which requires a
fifteen foot type "B" landscape buffer between single family and multi - family residential uses to
allow no landscape buffer.
Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following:
This deviation from the standard landscape buffer requirements is justified due to the
presence of recorded preservation areas located adjacent to proposed residential
development tracts within the PUD along a portion of the north and west property line. To
the west, the residential tract is separated from the adjacent San Marino PUD residential
development area by a 170' wide FPL easement and their recorded native vegetation
PUDZ- PL20130000682; WILLOW RUN PUD
,10y 17, 2014 CCPC
Revised: 717/14
Packet Page -3561-
Page 11 of 22
9/23/2014 17.A.
preserve area Providing the required buffer in these described conditions is not necessary
to insure proper separation of land uses or for compatibility.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
ap removed Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this
deviation for those only those areas described above, finding that, in compliance with LDC
Section 10.02.13.A.3-the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a
detrimental effect on the health safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section
10 02 13 B 5 h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public
purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations."
Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C, Fences and Walls, 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, and a 12' tall wall, berm, or combination wall/berm along
Collier Blvd. frontage.
Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following:
The proposed deviation will allow for additional visual screening and mitigation of noise pollution
resulting from traffic along CR 951, a 6-lane divided arterial roadway. Additionally, the project
ground elevation will be altered to accommodate a new bridge structure making it necessary to
obtain additional height for the wall along Collier Boulevard. The wall will be landscaped on the
Collier Boulevard facing side. Approval of this deviation will serve to promote public health, safety
and we fare, as well as enhance the aesthetic appeal of the proposed community and the Collier
Boulevard corridor.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is
improved Zoning- and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this
deviation for those only those areas described above, finding that, in compliance with LDC
Section 10.02.13.A.3 the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a
detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section
10.02.13.B.5.h the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public
purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations."
Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.04.B.5, Model Homes and Model Sales Centers,
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 four (4) model homes per
development tract, not to exceed 20 model homes within the overall RPUD.
Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following:
The RPUD proposes a variety of product types to accommodate various demographics and
income levels. Due to the size of the project, the phased nature of the development, and the
variety of dwelling types proposed the Applicant is seeking an additional model home
allowance to ensure the community is properly marketed to prospective buyers. The
PUDZ- PL20130000682; WILLOW RUN PUD
July 17, 2014 CCPC
Revised: 717114
Packet Page -3562-
Page 12 of 22
9/23/2014 17.A.
proposed deviation provides the County with the necessary safeguards to ensure an excess
of model homes are not constructed. Therefore, public health, safety and welfare will not be
negatively impacted upon approval of this deviation.
Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Due to the size of the project, staff agrees that some
allowance can be made to allow additional model units. Hacienda Lakes PUD, which was
approved for over 1,700 residential units received deviation approval to allow up to 60 model
homes. Bent Creek Preserve PUD received approval to allow 15 model homes for 450 dwelling
units. With this project's proposed number of units (590), allowing a maximum of 20 models
seems appropriate therefore; staff concurs with the applicant's assessment of the situation for this
particular project. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated.
However, the developer should provide documentation at each building permit requested for a
model home stating how many models are in operation to ensure the total of 20 is not exceeded.
This stipulation is included in staff's recommendation.
Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoninr? and Land
Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in
compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3 the tpe itioner has demonstrated that "the element
may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health safety and welfare of the community."
and LDC Section 10 02 13 B S h the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as
meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations."
Deviation #7 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e, Temporary Signs, 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.
Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following:
Due to the property's substantial setbackfrom Collier Boulevard, as well as the high travel
speeds along the roadway, the Applicant is seeking an increase to the allowable banner size
to ensure visibility of this new community. The requested banner size is in accordance with
deviations approved for similar residential projects throughout the County.
This same deviation was approved for Naples View PUD, which is an 11 -acre, 66 -unit residential
project on Airport Pulling Road. That project, like this one, has approximately 400 feet of
frontage on the roadway providing access to the project. Both roadways are busy arterial
roadways, thus staff sees the need to temporarily bring attention to this new project. The
temporary sign would need to conform to all other requirements for temporary uses and signage.
Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land
Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in
compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3 the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element
may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health. safety and welfare of the community,"
PUDZ- PL20130000682; WILLOW RUN PUD
July 17, 2014 CCPC
Revised: 78114
Packet Page -3563-
Page 13 of 22
9/23/2014 17.A.
and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as
meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations."
Deviation #S seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.8.2, Development Standards for Signs within
Residential Districts, which permits one (1) real estate 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 one
(1) real estate sign on the Collier Blvd. frontage, to be setback a minimum of 5' from the property
line.
Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following:
The property line is set back approximately 100 feet from Collier Blvd. a six (6) lane
arterial roadway. Due to the setback and the high- travel speeds along the road, the
Applicant is seeking a reduction to the setback in order to ensure visibility of this new
community.
Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land
Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that. in
compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element
may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community,"
and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "iustified as
meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations."
Deviation #9 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5, Development Standards for Signs within
Residential Districts, 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 Collier Blvd.
Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following:
This deviation will allow for the development of appropriate directional signage internal to
the RPUD. A unified design theme will be utilized for all signage throughout the community,
thereby ensuring a cohesive appearance and increased aesthetic appeal. Furthermore, this
deviation is typical of many of the large -scale master planned developments throughout
Collier County.
The proposed community will be master planned with a unified, cohesive signage theme.
The reduced setback will allow for flexibility of signage placement, while ensuring public
health, safety and welfare is protected.
Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved Zoning and Land
Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in
compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element
MM be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safe!X and welfare of the community,"
PUDZ- PI 20130000682; WILLOW RUN PUD
July 17, 2014 CCPC
Revised: 717114
Packet Page -3564-
Page 14 of 22
9/23/2014 17.A.
and LDC Section 10.02.13.13.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as
meeting - public purooses to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations."
Deviation #10 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, Development Standards for Signs within
Residential Districts, 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 face.
Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following:
The subject property is accessed via an arterial roadway with high travel speeds.
Additionally, the property has a significant street setback due to the location of the canal
along the property's frontage. Due to the setback from southbound travel lanes and the
property's location along an arterial road, the Applicant is seeking an increase to allowable
entry signage height and area to ensure visibility of the community. This deviation request is
similar to previous requests approved for large master planned communities within Collier
County. The required setback from rights -of -way for entry signs will meet LDC standards,
thereby ensuringpublic, health, safety and wed e is protected.
Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved with the stipulations that
these signs shall be limited to only the Willow Run entrance on Collier Boulevard, and that the
"per sigif language is removed as shown below:
Deviation ##10 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06 02.B. 6, Development Standards for
Signs within Residential Districts, 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
Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding
that, in compliance with LDC Section 10,02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the
element may be waived_ without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the
community " and LDC Section 10 02 13 B 5 h the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation
is "justified as meeting _public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such
regulations."
FINDINGS OF FACT:
LDC Subsection 10.02.08.E states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and
recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners ... shall
show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the
following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires
the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the
additional criteria as also noted below. [Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold,
non - italicized font]:
PUB Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "in support of its recommendation, the
PUDZ- PL20130000682; WILLOW RUN PUD
July 17, 2014 CCPC
Revised: 717/14
Packet Page -3565-
Page 15 of 22
9/23/2014 17.A.
CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria"
(Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font):
1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to
physical characteristics of'the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water,
and other utilities.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed uses are compatible with the approved uses and
existing development in the area. In addition, the proposed property development
regulations provide adequate assurances that the proposed project will be suitable to the
type and pattern of development in the area.
2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may
relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of
such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense.
Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's
Office, demonstrate unified control of the 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.
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 Section 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 with the surrounding area.
5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the
development.
The amount of open space 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
PUDZ- PL20130000682; WILLOW RUN PUD
July 17, 2014 CCPC
Revised: 717/14
Packet Page -3566-
Page 16 of 22
9/23/2014 17.A.
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 seeldng several deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the
purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06.A). This
criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations
proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the
most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes the deviations can be supported,
some with stipulations, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A3, the
petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect
on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the
petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a
degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Please refer to the
Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report for a more extensive examination of the
deviations.
Rezone Findines: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land,
the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County
Commissioners... shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed
change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staffs responses to these criteria are
provided in bold font):
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of
the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan.
Staff is recommending that this project be found consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4
requiring the project to be compatible with neighborhood development and with all other
applicable policies of the GMP if the companion GMPA is adopted.
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 in the zoning review analysis. Staff believes the
proposed rezoning is appropriate given the existing land use pattern, and development
restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance.
PUDZ- PI 20130000682; WILLOW RUN PUD
July 17, 2014 CCPC
Revised: 717/14
Packet Page -3567-
Page 17 of 22
9/23/2014 17.A.
3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts;
The proposed PUD rezone would not create an isolated zoning district.
4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions
on the property proposed for change.
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed district boundaries are logically drawn since the
zoning boundary mirrors the existing property boundary for the contract purchaser.
5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning
necessary.
The proposed change is not necessary, per se; but it is being requested in compliance with
the LDC provisions to seek such changes, and the proposed rezoning is being requested in
concert with a request to amend the GMP.
6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the
neighborhood;
Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change, subject to the proposed list of uses and
property development regulations 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 taff c 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 were approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the
applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. This
project's property development regulations provide adequate setbacks and distances
between structures; therefore the project should not significantly reduce light and air to
adjacent areas.
10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area,
PUDZ- P1 20130000682; WILLOW RUN PUD Page 18 of 22
July 17, 2014 CCPC
Revised: 717114
Packet Page -3568-
9/23/2014 17.A.
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;
Properties to the north of this property are zoned PUD but remain undeveloped with the
uses that would be allowed by that zoning. Rezoning this property to a PUD district seems
appropriate and allows for the interconnection shown on the PUD Master Plan. Therefore,
the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent
properties.
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, if the proposed
amendment is adopted, which is a public policy statement supporting Zoning actions when
they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change
does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further
determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in
the public interest.
13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with
existing zoning;
The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning
designations; however, the petitioner is seeking this amendment in compliance with LDC
provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed
appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed amendment
meets the intent of the PUD district, 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 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,
PUDZ- PL20130000682; WILLOW RUN PUD
July 17, 2014 CCPC
Revised: 7/7114
Packet Page -3569-
Page 19 of 22
9/23/2014 17.A.
staff has evaluated the appropriateness of this particular zoning petition. There are other
sites in Collier County that would allow the proposed uses; however the proposed uses are
also appropriate at this location as well. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for
compliance with the GMP and the LDC. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP as
discussed in other portions of the staff report.
16 The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would
be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed
zoning classification.
Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site
alteration and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and
local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval process
and again later as part of the building permit process.
17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services
consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and
as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as
amended.
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 agents conducted a duly noticed NW on December 12, 2013. Please see attached copy of notes.
COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW:
• The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on June 25, 2014.
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition
PUDZ- PL20130000682 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval subject to the following
stipulations:
PUDZ- PL20130000682; WILLOW RUN PUD
July 17, 2014 CCPC
Revised: 717114
Packet Page -3570-
Page 20 of 22
9/23/2014 17.A.
1. Deviation #1 is recommended for approval subject to the stipulation that the developer
provide 1 canopy tree (or canopy tree equivalent) per 30 linear feet of sidewalk. Canopy trees
located within 10 feet of the sidewalk may count towards a sidewalk canopy tree;
2. Deviation #3 is recommended for approval subject to the stipulation that the developer
place a turn- around at 1,500 feet that can accommodate emergency and waste management sized
vehicles; and
3. Deviation #6 is recommended for approval subject to the stipulation that the PUD
document be revised to include the following requirement: 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 twenty (20) model homes is not
exceeded.
4. Deviation #10 is approved subject to The following stipulations:
M.
a) These signs shall be limited to only the Willow Run entrance on Collier Boulevard,
b) The "per sign" language is removed.
5. The developer shall revise the PUD commitments to provide for reimbursement to the
County to maintain the "convenience" signal benefitting this private development.
6. Prior to its last phase of development, the Developer shall identify and provide an
interconnection stub -out to either Hacienda Lakes or San Marino PUD for water distribution;
plans shall be reviewed and approved by CCWSD at time of SDP or plat. This commitment can be
terminated by CCWSD if its staff determines that interconnection at either property line is not
possible.
7. The owner or his successors shall reserve 120 feet of land for road right -of -way within the
easterly 4000 feet, north to south across the PUD.
8. The developer or his successors shall provide disclosure to residents that a four -lane public
roadway is planned within the easterly 400 feet of this PUD and it could be located in proximity to
the homes within this PUD.
9. The owner of his successor shall, at no cost to Collier County, accept stormwater from the
proposed Benheld Road Corridor into the PUD's stormwater management system.
PUDZ- PL20130000662; WILLOW RUN PUD
July 17, 2014 CCPC
Revised: 717/14
Packet Page -3571-
Page 21 of 22
I w il.4 MEN t-Al Do 0-1IT
KAY 'DOELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
1 19 Oki I
RAYMWD V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING
"et
GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Attachment: NIM transcript
9/23/2014 17.A.
,ql I
DATE
#'4
DATE
DATE
6n -Z -7 —1 '�
DATE
This petition -arill has been tentatively scheduled for a September 23, 2014 BCC hearing
PUDZ-PL201300006132; WILLOW RUN PUD
July 19, 2014 CCPC
Revised: 6120114
Packet Page -3572-
Page 22 of 22
9/23/2014 17.A.
Willow Run RPUD
Petition PL2013 -0682
Neighborhood Information Meeting
December 12, 2013, 5:30 p.m.
Wayne Arnold, representing Winchester Lakes Corporation and Willow Run Land Trust,
opened the meeting at 5:35 p.m. and introduced himself and Sharon Umpenhour with Q.
Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., Kay Deselem representing Collier County Growth
Management, Jim Banks from JMB Transportation Engineering, Joe Bonness and
Maureen Bonness as the property owners. Nine members from the public were in
attendance. A sign -in sheet was provided.
Mr. Arnold began the information meeting by explaining the current zoning and land use
and explained that this is a request to rezone the property from the earth mine to a
residential PUD for up to 684 dwelling units on 560± acres. Wayne proceeded to explain
the hearing process and the noticing requirements for the hearings. At this time no
nearing dates have been set: however, the Planning Commission likely will be in
February.
An aerial was displayed showing the location of the subject property and also a color
rendering of the conceptual Master Plan. Wayne described the different land uses and
showed the proposed and potential access points, preserve, residential and lake areas on
the conceptual Master Plan. Wayne also talked about the conservation easement that was
already in existence on the property and explained that the project was required to
preserve 25% of the native vegetation on site. The conceptual Master Plan shows
approximately 210 + /- acres of preserve area.
Wayne also discussed the Benfield Road corridor shown on the conceptual Master Plan
and long range plans for the road that will parallel Collier Boulevard.
Wayne turned the meeting over to the members of the public for questions. The
following questions were asked.
Will the green area shown remain preserve forever?
The green area on the conceptual Master Plan is within a conservation easement
and will remain as preserve.
Do you see an impact or change to the waterflow or hydrology of the site or
surrounding areas?
The existing flow and hydrology will not change as a result of the proposed
development.
Packet Page -3573-
9/23/2014 17.A.
Any idea if the development of this project and Hacienda Lakes will have an impact
on the ability of 951 to handle the additional traffic?
There is available capacity, but as more parcels are developed the capacity will
diminish. The County is planning the Benfield Road extension for this reason,
Benfield Road will run parallel to Collier Boulevard and relieve traffic on Collier
Boulevard as more of the land is developed.
Are there any plans for sewer plant expansion or additional plants in this area?
No, at this time the County has no plans to expand in this area.
How does this development differentiate from other developments?
At this time there is not a specific developer, but the size of the preserve and lakes
will make it a unique community.
Will there be a marina or boat docks on the lakes?
There will be provisions for small boats on the lakes.
What about commercial, is there any proposed?
No, this is proposed for residential uses and does not propose any general
commercial uses.
How many total units are proposed?
A maximum of 684 dwelling units are proposed.
Mr. Arnold asked if there were any additional questions, there being none he closed the
meeting. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:50 p.m.
Packet Page -3574-
9/23/2014 17.A.
ORDINANCE NO. 14-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.
2004 -41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY
AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY
CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN
DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL
ZONING DISTRICT (A), A RURAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING
DISTRICT WITH AN ST OVERLAY (A -ST), A RURAL
AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH A RURAL FRINGE
MIXED USE SENDING LANDS OVERLAY AND NATURAL
RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY (A- RFMUD- NRPA), AND AN
AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH A RURAL FRINGE
MIXED USE SENDING LANDS OVERLAY AND SPECIAL
TREATMENT OVERLAY AND NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION
AREA OVERLAY (A- RFMUD- ST -NRPA) TO A RESIDENTIAL
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO
ALLOW UP TO 590 DWELLING UNITS FOR A PROJECT TO BE
KNOWN AS THE WILLOW RUN RPUD ON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 9220 COLLIER BOULEVARD IN SECTIONS 11, 12, 13 AND 14,
TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,
FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 559± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. (PUDZ- PL20130000682)
WHEREAS, D. Wayne Arnold of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., representing
Joseph D. Bonness, III, as Trustee for the Willow Run Land Trust, petitioned the Board of
County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described property.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
SECTION ONE: Zoning Classification.
The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Sections 11, 12,
13 and 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from a Rural
Agricultural Zoning District (A), a Rural Agricultural Zoning District with an ST Overlay (A-
ST), a Rural Agricultural Zoning District with a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands Overlay
and Natural Resource Protection Overlay (A- RFMUD- NRPA), and an Agricultural Zoning
District with a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands Overlay and Special Treatment Overlay
and Natural Resource Protection Area Overlay (A- RFMUD- ST -NRPA) to a Residential Planned
[13- CPS - 01255/852078/1] 27
Willow Run RPUD - PUDZ- PL20130000682 Page I of 2
Rev. 8/13/14
Packet Page -3575-
9/23/2014 17.A.
Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a 559± acre parcel to be known as the Willow
Run RPUD in accordance with Exhibits A through F attached hereto and incorporated by
reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance No.
2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is /are hereby amended
accordingly.
SECTION TWO: Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super - majority vote of the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2014.
ATTEST
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
By:
Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form and legality:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
I
Heidi Ashton -Cicko
Managing Assistant County Attorney
Attachments: Exhibit A — Permitted Uses
TOM HENNING, Chairman
Exhibit B — Development Standards
Exhibit C — Master Plan (5 pages)
Exhibit D — Legal Description
Exhibit E — List of Requested Deviations
Exhibit E -1 — Private Road Cross Section Single and Double Loaded Development Tract
Exhibit F — List of Developer Commitments
[13- CPS - 01255/852078/1] 27
Willow Run RPUD - PUDZ- PL20130000682 Page 2 of 2
Rev. 8/13/14
Packet Page -3576-
9/23/2014 17.A.
EXHIBIT A
FOR
WILLOW RUN RPUD
Regulations for development of the Willow Run RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents
of this RPUD Document and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan
(GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations
relate. Where this RPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the
provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply.
PERMITTED USES:
A maximum of 590 dwelling units shall be permitted within the RPUD. No building or structure,
or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other
than the following:
GENERAL
1. Community recreation, clubhouse, indoor and outdoor fitness facilities (spa),
dining facilities, community administration, maintenance buildings, recreational
amenities and other similar uses designed for use by all residents and guests
shall be permitted uses throughout the R designated areas of the PUD.
Development Standards:
Front Yard Setback:
Side Yard Setback:
Rear Yard Setback:
Waterbody Setback:
PUD Boundary Setback:
Setback From Residential Tract:
15'
15' except where adjacent to preserve.
15' except where adjacent to preserve.
0' from lake maintenance easement or
bulkhead
100' for any building or use exceeding 35'
in height, 30' for any building or use 35' or
less in height. When a building or use is
placed less than 100' from PUD boundary
a 15' wide Type B landscape buffer with 6'
high wall shall be provided.
25'
In any case, no setback is required adjacent to the FPL easement areas, as shown
on the Master Plan.
All pole lighting shall be limited to flat panel fixtures. Where a setback is
required, any lighting fixture placed within:
(a) 50 feet of the external boundary shall be limited to 15 feet in height;
(b) 30 feet of the external boundary shall utilize full cut -off shields.
Willow Run RPUD PL20130000682 Page 1 of 19 Last Revised 0811312014
Packet Page -3577-
9/23/2014 17.A.
Maximum Height:
Clubhouse(s): Zoned: 70'
Actual: 75'
Other uses: Zoned: 25'
Actual: 35'
2. Community structures such as guardhouses, gatehouses, fences, walls, columns,
decorative architectural features, streetscape, passive parks and access control
structures shall have no required setback, except as listed below, and are
permitted throughout the "R" designated areas of the PUD; however such
structures shall be located such that they do not cause vehicular stacking into
the road right -of -way or create site distance issues for motorists and
pedestrians.
Maximum Height for Guardhouses /Gatehouses:
Zoned: 25'
Actual: 30'
Setbacks:
PUD Boundary: 10', except fences or walls shall have no setback, except
that which is adequate to provide landscaping on the exterior side of the wall, if
required.
RESIDENTIAL
A. Principal Uses:
1. Commercial excavation, asphalt and concrete batch plants (these uses shall
cease upon issuance of first building permit for a dwelling unit other than model
home(s)).
2. Dwelling Units - Multiple - family, single family attached, single family detached,
townhouse, two - family, duplex, variable lot line (single family) and zero lot line
(single family). (A variable lot line dwelling unit is a single family dwelling where
the side yards may vary between 0 and 10 feet as long as a 10 -foot minimum
separation between principal structures is maintained.)
3. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of
permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ( "BZA ")
or Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the Land Development Code
(LDC).
B. Accessory Uses:
Willow Run RPUD PL20130000682 Page 2 of 19 Lost Revised 0811312014
Packet Page -3578-
9/23/2014 17.A.
1. Other accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the principal uses
permitted in this District, including but not limited to swimming pools, spas and
screen enclosures, sheds /structures and similar structures all designed to serve the
residents and their guests shall be permitted in accordance with the development
standard identified for accessory uses in Exhibit B.
2. Any other accessory use, which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses
and consistent with the permitted accessory uses of this PUD as determined by the
Board of Zoning Appeals or Hearing Examiner.
PRESERVE
A. Principal Uses:
1. Native preserves.
B. Accessory Uses:
1. Water management.
2. Mitigation areas.
3. Hiking trails, boardwalks, shelters without walls, or other such facilities constructed
for the purposes of passage through or enjoyment of the site's natural attributes,
subject to approval by permitting agencies.
4. Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is comparable
in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) or
Hearing Examiner determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS:
Exhibit B sets forth the development standards for land uses within the RPUD Residential
Subdistrict. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable
sections of the LDC m effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN:
This PUD qualifies for the Density Blending Conditions and Limitations for properties straddling
the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands in
Section B.5.2 of the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element. in the event any
lands in the sending land area are developed, prior to residential development in said areas the
limitation of development rights agreement that affects that land shall be modified to reflect
the density blending otherwise allowed by this RPUD.
Willow Run RPUD PL20130000682 Page 3 of 19 Lost Revised 0811312014
Packet Page -3579-
9/23/2014 17.A.
EXHIBIT B
FOR
WILLOW RUN RPUD
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
STANDARDS
SINGLE
TOWNHOUSE
TWO FAMILY
ZERO LOT
MULTI-
VARIABLE LOT
FAMILY
AND DUPLEX
LINE FOR
FAMILY
LINE FOR
DETACHED
SINGLE
SINGLE
FAMILY
FAMILY
Minimum Lot Area
3,000 SF
1,350 SF
2,625 SF
3,000 SF
N/A
3,000 SF
Minimum Lot Width *3
40 feet
18 feet
35 feet
40 feet
N/A
40 feet
Minimum Lot Depth
75 feet
75 feet
75 feet
75 feet
N/A
75 feet
Minimum Front Yard Setback
20 feet *1, *2
20 feet *1, *2
20feet *1, *2
20 feet *1, *2
20 feet *1, *2
20 feet *1, *2
Minimum Side Yard Setback
5 feet
0 or 5 feet
0 or 5 feet
0 feet *4
10 feet
0 - 10 feet *4
Minimum Rear Yard Setback
Principal *1
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
15 feet
10 feet
Accessory *1
5 feet
5 feet
5 feet
5 feet
10 feet
5 feet
Minimum Waterbody
0 feet from
0 feet from
0 feet from
0 feet from
0 feet from
0 feet from
Setback
LME /LMT or
LME /LMT or
LMEAMT or
LME /LMT or
LME /LMT or
LME /LMT or
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
Maximum Building
Height
Zoned
30 feet
45 feet
30 feet
30 feet
75 feet *5
30 feet
Actual
35 feet
50 feet
35 feet
35 feet
85 feet *5
35 feet
Minimum Distance Between
Structures
10 feet
20' for
0 /10 feet
10 feet
20' for
10 feet
Principal Structures
buildings 2
buildings 2
stories or less
stories or less
in height OR
in height OR
sum of the
Y. sum of the
building
building
height for
height for
buildings 3
buildings 3
stories or
stories or
greaterin
greaterin
height *6
height *6
Floor Area Min. (S.F.)
1500 SF
1000 SF
1000 SF
1000 SF
750 SF
1000 SF
Minimum PUD Boundary
15 feet
15 feet or Y.
15 feet
15 feet
20 feet or %
15 feet
Setback
the building
the building
height *6
height *6
Minimum Preserve Setback
25 feet
25 feet
25 feet
25 feet
25 feet
25 feet
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
Minimum Front Yard Setback
20 feet *2
20 feet *2
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
Minimum Side Yard Setback
5 feet
5 feet
SPS
SPS
0 feet
0 feet
Minimum PUD Boundary
15 feet
15 feet or %
15 feet
15 feet
15 feet or %
15 feet
Setback
the building
the building
height *6
height *6
Minimum Preserve Setback
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
Minimum Waterbody
0 feet from
0 feet from
0 feet from
0 feet from
0 feet from
0 feet from
Setback
LME /LMT or
LME /LMT or
LME /LMT or
LMEAMT or
LME /LMT or
LME /LMT or
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
BH
Minimum Distance Between
10 feet
0 /10 feet
0 /10 feet
0 /10 feet
0 /10 feet
0 /10 feet
Structures
Maximum Height
Zoned
SPS
SPS
SPS
SPS
35 feet
SPS
Actual
SPS
SPS
SPS
SPS
40 feet
SPS
SPS - Same as Principal
Willow Run RPUD PL20130000682 Page 4 of 19 Lost Revised 0811312014
Packet Page -3580-
9/23/2014 17.A.
LME — Lake Maintenance Easement
LMT — Lake Maintenance Tract
BH — Bulkhead
Minimum lot areas for any unit type may be exceeded. The unit type, and not the minimum lot area, shall define the development
standards to be applied by the Growth Management Division during an application for a site development plan or plat.
*1— Front yards shall be measured as follows:
A. If the parcel is served by a public road right -of -way, setback is measured from the adjacent right -of -way line.
B. If the parcel is served by a private road, setback is measured from the back of curb (if curbed) or edge of pavement (if not
curbed).
C. If the parcel has road frontage on two sides, setback is measured from the side with the shortest frontage with the other
frontage designated as a side yard. Access shall be from road with full front yard setback.
*2 — Front entry garages must be a minimum of 20', and a minimum of 23' from a sidewalk. The minimum 20' setback for a residence
may be reduced to 15' for a side - loaded or rear entry garage. Porches, entry features and roofed courtyards may be reduced to
15'.
*3 — Minimum lot width may be reduced by 20% for cul -de -sac lots and 50% for flag lots provided the minimum lot area requirement is
maintained.
*4 — Minimum separation between adjacent dwelling units, if detached, shall be 10'.
*5 — The building height shall be limited to a maximum zoned height of 50 feet and an actual height of 55 feet west of the FP &L
Easement.
*6— Setback is measured from zoned height.
*7 - Landscape Buffer Easements and /or Lake Maintenance Easements shall be located within open space tracts or lake tracts and not
be within a.platted residential lot. Where a home site is adjacent to a Landscape Buffer Easement or Lake Maintenance Easement
within open space tracts or lake tracts, the principal and accessory structure setback on the platted residential lot may be reduced
to zero (0) feet where it abuts the easement /tract. Nothing in this RPUD shall diminish the riparian rights nor prohibit a property
owner from use of buffer or lake maintenance easements /tracts for recreational purposes, including but not limited to docks,
fishing, walking, etc., which are not inconsistent with the purpose of the tract /easement. Where a bulkhead is constructed, no
intervening easement or maintenance tract shall be required by this RPUD.
Note: Nothing in this RPUD Document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless it is expressly stated in Exhibit E,
Deviations
Willow Run RPUD PL20130000682 Page 5 of 19 Lost Revised 0811312014
Packet Page -3581-
--.Gum
9/23/2014 17.A.
m
Z�
U,
LAI
fi
wv
cc
cc t
<
LIS
Cr
Lj
nu ti
> rl
Lu
0
>
n. ITT
9 R,
------------
---------------- ---------------
------------
COLLIER UGLIli�VARD
-------------------
--------- ------- --------
9/23/2014 17.A.
m
Z�
U,
O
LAI
cc
cc t
LIS
Cr
Lj
nu ti
> rl
Lu
O
LAI
cc
cc t
Cr
n. ITT
9 R,
------------
---------------- ---------------
------------
COLLIER UGLIli�VARD
-------------------
--------- ------- --------
Packet Page -3582-
O
II
II
II
II
NAPLES NATIONAL { I , -SAN MARINO
GOLF CLUB I I L INGRESS/EGRESS
INGRESS /EGRESS I {
1 1 I
1 I 1 i I
1 I
I I ZONED: SAN MARINO
I
RPUD
USE: I j USE: RESIDENTIAL I
1
1 I — POTENTIAL
MII INTERCONNECT J R
0 III 1
C 1 �l
< I ( BUFFER PER LDC I
O I �l R
f�I BUFFER PER LDC
POTENTIAL
INTERCONNECT I ( I V
1 ZONED: AGRICULTURAL 1
1 J USE: UNDEVELOPED I p
I l I n
. ? I ZONED: AGRICULTURAL M R
1 1 USE: RESTAURANT i t
M 11
NAPLES CLUB I I
ESTATES I CRAKLIN'JACKS I I
INGRESSIEGRESS 1 INGRESS /EGRESS
ZONED: SAN MARINO RPUD
USE: RESIDENTIAL
9/23/2014 17.A.
,
,
R
I
- _-- _--- __-=
I
I
u-
`
10
1
1 LAKES DRI /MPUD
LAKE
R I
�N
ZONED: HACIENDA LAKES
�w
1
DRI /MPUD
1 (
1
USE: RESIDENTIAL
,
r
1 2
R
Iw
III
r
R
W
IZ
L HACIENDA LAKES PROPOSED
I=
INGRESS /EGRESS
I
I
�Q
I
R
I LAKE
i
I
-- — — — —
'1
1,
— — — L_
R
["
I
I
- _-- _--- __-=
_= —_--I�
I
C ZONED: HACIENDA
,
1
1 LAKES DRI /MPUD
USE: RESIDENTIAL
ZONED: HACIENDA LAKES
DRI /MPUD
1 (
1
USE: RESIDENTIAL
,
r
COUNTY PARK I I
L HACIENDA LAKES PROPOSED
INGRESS /EGRESS I 1
INGRESS /EGRESS
1�
dGkK'�J
J.
["
IC Etta 11 ',: C'iIIJ ! f JICN [fJl1n {rtJla. "• U.
Y
f
_ iL 7 �.. ';� I�fv krtl'.4
:fL�IfSEFIi'> u.
0 300• .film'
_
- j -l'ti r f. vl I I -f! 11_N
Jii ACF t 1} G
SCALE: 1" = 600'
_..
KEY MAP
GradyMinor
w� wlaa, arnl,.,,wlnfro �,�v
;I11110 VI4 IMI Iffy
WILLOW RUN RPUD
°` "`'`
-
aw,lln 3prlu,µ, f1u11Jn 31131
'p..rJ0.•
Civil Engineers Lund Surveyor
PlAlOw N Landscape Archlteots
EXHIBIT C
. 78
av tort
fen xnwi ea ftoosls, cnrf wnaul 19 amstsl suslxu waeo9oaea
MASTER PLAN t
Ronne SP-69 239 947 1144 ,r.,. r. >rt
s'.Ntirnr,r•apt Fan My419. 2396994380
919L1T 2 DF
Packet Page -3583-
A
URBAN
RURAL FRINGE
RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE DISTRICT
FRINGE BELLE MEADE NRPA
ZONED: FOREST GLENN OF
NAPLES RPUD
USE: RESIDENTIAL
ZONED: A (RFMUO) NRPA
SENDING
USE: RESIDENTIAL
LL
ZONED: S AN
MARINO
W RPUD
I
Lu USE:
7- RESIDENTIAL
0 (PRESERVE)
LLJ
W
LU p - - - - -
Z
7-
0 PRESERVE
210 ACRES
75
R
r
R R
R R
R MATCH LINE - SEE SHEET 4 OF 4
3 oba") pFlm� �C)tm- RI VIEW 3-C m m t. K-1 s ---
--- -- ----
2 2`20117_
_REVIEW
iCJ9/201 3 PER COUNTY FFL�VljW_
— --------- -
Ry
GradyMinor
1), 1 R"
C 1 P, -crs latild Surveyors Planurr,
1.4indscape ArchUccts
tji 11l" I i1 1:111 "1 111111 Il11X Iljjjl
.1,14 '. 47 t I I I ll.. (.111d1 i,11"t
WILLOW RUA' RPUD
EXHIBIT C
MASTER PLAN 2
Packet Page -3584-
9/23/2014 17.A.
N
i
_300' 600,
SCALE: 1 600'
ZONED: A (RFMUO)
NRPA SENDING
USE, RESIDENTIAL
ZONED: HACIENDA LAKES
DRI /MPUD (RFMUO, NRPA
SENDING)
USE: RESIDENTIAL
KEY MAP
SHEET .7 OF
9/23/201417.A.
RR W W YAW W W- WWWWWW
MATCH LINE -SEE SHEET 3 OF 4 W W W W W
-- - - - - -- _ _ _ —_ __ - — — — — — __�, - - - - -- --- - - - -__ --- - - - - --
R W
1 r W w W y
- I � R
I � W
, R`\
LAKE LAKE 1 W W W p 3pp' sop'
I
SCALE_ 1" = 600'
LL) R W W W W W W W W W W W W
O W W W W W W W W W W
r
PRESERVE
210 +/- ACRES W W
W� � LAKE
W
Tw
yr ( VI W W W W W W W V
-' ZONED: HACIENDA
W LAKES DRI /MPUD
LLI I W W W W W W (RFMUO, NRPA
i
CSI L y u w W W W W V y W W W W W W W W SENDING)
1 I rr
USE: RESIDENTIAL
W,
2I f
UI
Qi ZONED: HACIENDA
�1 LAKES DRI /MPUD ZONED: HACIENDA LAKES
% DRI /MPUD
USE: RESIDENTIAL
l
I
1 % USE. RESIDENTIAL
4`
`` -120' WIDE FUTURE BENFIELD
ROAD CORRIDOR THROUGH
HACIENDA LAKES DRI
URBAN RURAL FRINGE
:SIDENTIAL MIXED USE DISTRICT
FRINGE BELLE MEADE NRPA -
t
1 „r1 +AlP�f 7}
_... ...... ..�
KEY MAP V
WILLOW RUN RP'UD
-`AL
�GradyMinor
��.
„�.Wnnl�ruiltx)Vk.e.P.,
:I,IIMI Vln INI Nny
RuuBe Sy:iup n-Ilda 31131
spry t'WL
E
ve:'wua:
Clvll F.nghlee.NS Land Smveyor7l
PlnrtBt +I�
'81)(18 ape ANCh16eCls
EXHIBIT C
�.1 a.unn F'.900n5151 f n M .h LP IMMISI Sr
b -C—W2fi 2.
MASTER PLAN 3
nu x,tlr.
fSOnllo Swino: 239947.1149 xx t; r.t4117rnxr r•ra
Fan Myers: 2396904380
—
b-flEm 0 or E
Packet Page -3585-
9/23/2014 17.A.
SITE DATA
TOTAL SITE AREA:
559± AC
PRESERVES:
f'.J
REQUIRED
149.19± AC
URBAN RESIDENTIAL FRINGE
. 5-1 Leto
114.83± AC NATIVE VEGETATION X 25% = 28.71± AC
RFMU SENDING
WrLLOW RUN RPUD
133.87± AC NATIVE VEGETATION X 90% = 120.48± AC
PROVIDED
210± AC
URBAN RESIDENTIAL FRINGE =
76.13± AC
RFMU SENDING =
133.87± AC
NOTES
1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR
MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS.
2. ALL ACREAGES, EXCEPT PRESERVE AREAS, ARE APPROXIMATE
AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PLAT
APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LDC.
DEVIATIONS
SEE EXHIBIT E, LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS
Packet Page -3586-
N" REVIEW comm'fjA"-
f'.J
P N -. U�tn,75 F. IEVI
II4
. st °. ?
x.UJP f [ 1,. V7 , CtL7ktE rf7x
. 5-1 Leto
xut Wa rx nei key
® UGrody Nlnur vna LBB1 1xb Pl
GradyMinor
Rxxlu Syrhlpr. IIorIJu 31131
CIA] Engineers • Land Surveyors I'lanners . Landscape ArchlLects
rr.1l of A.O .nnO5151 I'll of M- LB fM1115.51 B.—LL 2O "
11—H. Sprl npx: Yin 9171199 nxw l: rall.vM /nor rn Fatt Myerv. Pan BBG 9380
WrLLOW RUN RPUD
EXHIBIT C
MASTER PLAN 4
^flHffllA
!3B Cnne
x "!-. ='r'
nom
x•, r"�.
_ .
rl:t N+NL
SHEE7 5 OF 5 y
Packet Page -3586-
9/23/2014 17.A.
EXHIBIT D
FOR
WILLOW RUN RPUD
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A TRACT OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 11, 12, 13, AND 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST;
THENCE RUN SOUTH 00 °45'13" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF
1,356.42 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 12; THENCE LEAVING SAID EAST LINE, NORTH 87 °47'32" EAST, A DISTANCE OF
1,318.80 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 12; THENCE RUN ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 12, SOUTH 00 °40'50" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,353.60 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 °4214" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2,707.26 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF
SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE IN AND THROUGH SAID SECTION 13,
SOUTH 00 °39'11" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,345.38 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13; THENCE LEAVING SAID CORNER,
SOUTH 87 °30'27" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,328.58 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50
SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST; THENCE IN AND THROUGH SAID SECTION 14, SOUTH 87 °28'53" WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 1,336.40 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 °47'15" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 671.38 FEET; THENCE
SOUTH 87 °27'18" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 668.30 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 °47'46" EAST, A DISTANCE OF
671.09 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE,
SOUTH 87 °25'49" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2,004.66 FEET, (PASSING OVER THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 11 AT A DISTANCE OF 668.22 FEET) TO THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 11; THENCE
LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 11, NORTH 00 °50'07" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1,371.71 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 87 038'49" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,235.72 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT -OF-
WAY LINE OF COLLIER BOULEVARD (COUNTY ROAD 951); THENCE RUN ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT -OF-
WAY LINE, NORTH 00 °50'49" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 344.10 FEET, THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT -OF -WAY
LINE, NORTH 87 °42'04" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 1,235.58 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00 °50'07" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 1,028.79 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87 051'50" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 2,670.28 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 00 °46'52" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 2,723.04 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
SECTION 11; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF SECTION 11, NORTH 88 °17'54" EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 1,333.91 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 559.05 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
Willow Run RPUD PL20130000682 Page 11 of 19 Lost Revised 0811312014
Packet Page -3587-
9/23/2014 17.A.
EXHIBIT E
FOR
WILLOW RUN RPUD
LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS
1. From LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements, which
requires sidewalks which are internal to the development to be constructed on both sides of
local streets, to allow sidewalks on one side of the street only for streets with homes on one
side of the street. One canopy tree (or canopy tree equivalent) shall be provided per 30
linear feet of sidewalk. Canopy trees located within 10 feet of the sidewalk may count
towards a sidewalk canopy tree.
2. From LDC Section 6.06.01.N, Street System Requirements and Appendix B, Typical Street
Sections and Right -of -Way Design Standards, which establishes a 60 foot wide local road, to
allow a minimum 40' wide local road (see Exhibit E -1).
3. From LDC Section 6.06.01.J, Street System Requirements, which limits cul -de -sacs to a
maximum length of 1,000 feet, to permit cul -de -sacs to exceed 3,500 feet in length with
placement of no through traffic signage and creation of one emergency vehicle turnaround
approximately 1,500 feet from the beginning of the cul -de -sac.
4. From LDC Section 4.06.02, Buffer Requirements, which requires a fifteen foot type "B"
landscape buffer between single family and multi - family residential uses, to allow no
landscape buffer along the western residential tract adjacent to the FP &L easement area and
a 10 foot wide type "B" buffer along the northern PUD boundary adjacent to the San Marino
PUD.
5. From LDC Section 5.03.02.C, Fences and Walls, Excluding Sound Walls, which permits a
maximum wall height of 6' in residential zoning districts, to allow a maximum wall height
of 8' throughout the development, and a 12' tall wall, berm, or combination wall /berm
along Collier Blvd frontage.
6. From LDC Section 5.04.04.B.5, Model Homes and Model Sales Centers, 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 four (4) model
homes per development tract, not to exceed 20 model homes within the overall RPUD.
With each building permit for a model home, the applicant shall provide documentation
as to the current number of model homes in existence.
7. From LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e, Temporary Signs, which allows temporary signs on
residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height, 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.
8. From LDC Section 5.06.02.8.2, Development Standards for Signs within Residential
Willow Run RPUD PL20130000682 Page 12 of 19 Last Revised 0 8/1 312 9 2 4
Packet Page -3588-
9/23/2014 17.A.
Districts, which permits one (1) real estate sign per street frontage that is setback a
minimum of 10' from any property line, to allow for a maximum of one (1) real estate sign
per street frontage setback a minimum of 5' from the property line along CR 951 only.
9. From LDC Section 5.06.02.6.5, Development Standards for Signs within Residential
Districts, which requires on- premise directional signs to be setback a minimum of 10'
from internal property lines, 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 Collier Blvd.
10. From LDC Section 5.06.02.6.6, Development Standards for Signs within Residential
Districts, 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 64 s.f. per sign face.
11. From LDC Section 4.02.04.D, Standards for Cluster Residential Design, which requires the
zero lot line portion of the dwelling unit to be void of doors or windows where such wall is
contiguous to an adjoining lot line to allow windows along portions of the principal
building that is on the zero setback line.
Willow Run RPUD PL20130000682 Page 13 of 19 Last Revised 0811312014
Packet Page -3589-
9/23/2014 17.A.
Packet Page -3590-
CD CD
C
0 0
00
af
LO
z
z w
<
C) a. >
z
Li
o
L.J
�J3A00
'NIA
>
Li
C)
0
<
,OC
:j
Ln <
M a
x <
L'i C)
cl� L'i
<
Z
L.J
<
LLJ
Uj
f
z
z
Ln
i5
<
Li
L
LLJ
-J ,
Lo
4 I M,
� LLJ
m
<
LLJ
LLJ
cn
<
Zt
U7
z Ln
Z
<
Cf Z
LLJ
LL�
of
�
Li
< LLJ
of
w LLJ
CJ
Zi V)
Packet Page -3590-
EXHIBIT F
FOR
WILLOW RUN RPUD
LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
1. UTILITIES
9/23/2014 17.A.
A. Prior to its last phase of development, the owner shall identify and provide an
interconnection stub -out to either Hacienda Lakes or San Marino PUD for water
distribution; plans shall be reviewed and approved by CCWSD at time of SDP or plat.
This commitment can be terminated by CCWSD if its staff determines that
interconnection at either property line is not possible.
B. During the Plat approval process, CCWSD shall review and approve the utility design
associated with any cul de sac serving in excess of 149 units.
2. TRANSPORTATION
A. If warranted by the project's traffic counts the Developer shall be responsible for the
proportional share of the cost of a traffic signal, or other traffic control device, sign, or
pavement markings at the Collier Boulevard intersection Upon the completion of the
installation, inspection, burn -in period, and final approval /acceptance of said traffic
signal it shall be turned over (for ownership) to Collier County, and will then be operated
and maintained by the Collier County Transportation Department.
B. The County has identified various future potential road alignments for what is currently
known as Benfield Road, some of which may cross over a portion of the RPUD near its
eastern boundary. At the time of the RPUD adoption, the County has not selected the
final alignment of said Benfield Road. The owner, developer, and their successors and
assigns at the County's request, has agreed to work with the County in the future,
should the final alignment as approved by the Board of County Commissioners and as
permitted by the applicable reviewing agencies, encroach onto the lands of RPUD, with
the following stipulations:
1. If the eventual alignment crosses over RPUD lands: (a) the alignment shall be no
further than 150 feet from the eastern RPUD boundary, except that in the
northernmost ±1,350 feet of the RPUD eastern boundary, the alignment may be
300 feet or less from the eastern RPUD boundary; and (b) in no event shall the
alignment be any closer than 100 feet from any residential or lake tract. The
alignment shall be consistent with the alignment of Benfield Road in the
development south of the PUD, but shall immediately transition to the eastern 150
feet of the RPUD.
Willow Run RPUD PL20130000682 Page 15 of 19 Lost Revised 0811312014
Packet Page -3591-
9/23/2014 17.A.
2. Any portion of Benfield Road that traverses the RPUD lands shall be no more than
120 feet in ultimate right of way width, inclusive of storm water, other than as
provided below.
3. The County shall at all times be responsible for all permitting for Benfield Road,
including any modification of any project permits and easements, including,
without limitation mitigation (e.g. wildlife protection, buffers, and any obligation
imposed on the lands of the RPUD by virtue of the permitting of the Benfield Road)
for the impacts of any such road and replacement mitigation that otherwise is in
place within the RPUD that mitigates the impact of the project and /or the previous
mining operation that occurred within the RPUD historically. The Owner, its
successors or assigns shall not be responsible to obtain or modify any current or
future permits or conservation easements on behalf of the County related to the
planning, platting, replatting, dedication, construction or extension of Benfield
Road. In no event shall Developer be obligated to plat any roadway or depict any
reservation on any plat.
4. The owner or its successors and assigns shall convey the lands to the County by
quit claim deed within 120 days of the County's written request to owner, or its
successors and assigns, but no sooner than the permitting agencies' notices of
intent to issue applicable federal and state permits.
5. The owner, or its successors and assigns, shall be paid the fair market value of the
land at the time of the conveyance to the County, excluding damages. The
Developer shall first become eligible for transportation impact fee credits based
upon the agreed upon fair market value per acre in accordance with the
consolidated impact fee Ordinance in effect at the time of recordation of the deed.
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 entitled to a
cash reimbursement.
6. The County shall maintain at its sole expense any RPUD lands remaining to the
east of the final alignment, if requested by the Owner, its successors or assigns
within sixty (60) days of request, provided County is given a maintenance
easement at no cost to the County.
7. The developer, its successors or assigns, shall provide to any potential resident a
disclosure statement that the County has identified several potential alignments
for Benfield Road which may impact the RPUD lands, and that any such road could
be on the eastern edge of the property, once the appropriate permits and
approvals are obtained by the County. This disclosure statement must be
presented to the buyer prior to entering into any sales contract by Developer or
builders which convey directly to potential residents.
8. Should Collier County ultimately abandon the proposed roadway extension, or the
road alignment is determined not to be within the Willow Run RPUD, the County
shall release the Developer from the Benfield Road obligations of this PUD and the
Willow Run RPUD PL20130000682 Page 16 of 19 Last Revised 0811312014
Packet Page -3592-
9/23/2014 17.A.
requirement for the disclosure statement shall terminate, without the necessity of
an amendment to this RPUD.
9. For any portion of Benfield Road that may be constructed within or adjacent to the
Willow Run RPUD along the easterly boundary and within the north and south
limits:
a. Collier County may discharge treated stormwater into the Willow Run RPUD
stormwater management system for attenuation. Prior to discharge outside
the County owned ROW, the stormwater shall have received full water
quality treatment in accordance with SFWMD requirements at the time of
permitting and shall not compromise the proposed water quality and
proposed water quality and /or recreational use of the lakes. Collier County
shall be responsible for maintenance of water quality for stormwater
resulting from the County roadway. Willow Run RPUD shall be held harmless
if the PUD's stormwater management system experiences a water quality
breach coley due to Benfield Road stormwater. The County shall be
responsible for any remediation and related costs if the SFWMD deems the
ROW is the sole cause of water quality issues. No other stormwater, treated
or untreated, from off -site portions of the ROW outside the north and south
limits of the RPUD boundary shall discharge into the Willow Run RPUD
surface water management system.
b. Lighting must comply with international Dark Skies standards.
C. Potential vehicular interconnections have been shown on the conceptual PUD master
plan in locations which may be appropriate for shared access to the intersecting
driveway with Collier Boulevard. Shared access shall not be prohibited to any property
that is immediately adjacent to the Collier Boulevard intersecting driveway and is willing
to pay its prorated "fair" share of the entry roadway, bridge, Collier Boulevard
improvements, landscaping, lighting, maintenance, taxes and utilities or future
signalization, as computed on a prorated share -by number of PM Peak Hour trips
connected to the driveway. Such shared access shall be granted via executed shared
access easement agreement to such adjacent property within 90 days of receipt of
payment of said prorated "fair" share expenses to the Willow Run RPUD developer or
successor.
Willow Run RPUD PL20130000692 Page 17 of 19 Last Revised 0811312014
Packet Page -3593-
9/23/2014 17.A.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL
A. Vegetation shall be retained in accordance with the criteria established in the
Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP and Section 3.05 of the
LDC.
Total Preserve Required 149.19± AC
Urban Residential Fringe
114.83± AC Native Vegetation X 25% = 28.71± AC
RFMU Sending
133.87± AC Native Vegetation X 90% = 120.48± AC
Total Preserve Provided 210± AC
Urban Residential Fringe = 76.13± AC
RFMU Sending . = 133.87± AC
B. For wildlife protection, roads located within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District will have
a very low speed limit (e.g., 15 mph) and tortoise caution signs will be installed.
Prospective buyers of properties adjacent to the Preserve will be provided with written
information about the Preserve's protected wildlife and management practices which
may have direct effects on their property including:
• gopher tortoises may expand their foraging or burrowing habitat to include
yards.
• periodic prescribed burns will result in smoke in the vicinity.
• wildlife co- existence plan
Project home owner's association documents will contain similar disclosures in
accordance with project permits.
C. If County permits are obtained for new residential and /or private roads adjacent to the
preserve's tortoise- occupied habitat, then tortoise - appropriate fencing or tortoise -
appropriate barriers will be installed by Developer, or its successors and assigns,
between the tortoise preserves or where tortoises exist and the private road and /or
development in that location prior to construction of the new residential development
and /or private roads.
4. PLANNING
A. A maximum of 590 dwelling units shall be permitted in the PUD.
B. No buffer shall be required if the right -of -way reservation as shown on the Master Plan
as an east /west road is constructed as an east /west road along the southern PUD
boundary as shown on the Master Plan. The developer is not obligated to construct the
east /west road along the southern PUD boundary.
Willow Run RPUD PL20130000682 Page 18 of 19 Last Revised 0811312014
Packet Page -3594-
9/23/2014 17.A.
5. WATER MANAGEMENT
The water management system shall be designed to route existing off -site surface water
flows through or around the project. These conveyance facilities shall be sized such that
post construction water levels are lower than or equal to existing water levels on the
surrounding lands. These improvements shall be made prior to the issuance of the first
residential certificate of occupancy.
6. PUD MONITORING
One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until
close -out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD
commitments until close -out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing
Entity is The Willow Run Land Trust, C/O Joseph D. Bonness, III as Trustee, 1910 Seward
Avenue, Naples, FL 34109. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring
and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding
document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After
such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval
of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing
Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written
notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the
PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments
through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its
responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed -out, then the Managing Entity is
no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments.
Willow Run RPUD PL20130000682 Page 19 of 19 Last Revised 0811312014
Packet Page -3595-
` 9/23/2014 17.A.
22D.)) Wednesday, September 3,2014 )) NARLES DAILY NEWS
%T1fV eV MEETING NOTICE C
NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE
Notice is hereby given that on Tuesday, September 23, 2014, in the Board of
County Commissioners Meeting Room, Third Floor, Collier Government Center,
3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples Fl., the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) will
consider the enactment of a County Ordinance. The meeting will commence at
9:00 A.M. The title of the proposed Ordinance is as follows:
An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida
amending Ordinance No. 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for
the unincorporated area of Collier. County, Florida by amending the appropriate
zoning atlas map. or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein
described real propperty from a Rural Agricultural District (A), a Rural Agricultural
Zoning District with an ST Overlay (A -ST), a Rural Agricultural Zoning -District with a
Rural Fringe Mixed Use Sending Lands Overlay and Natural Resource Protection
Area Overlay (A- RFMUD- NRPA), and an Agricultural Zoning. District with a' Rural
Fringe Mixed Use Sending lands Overlay and Special Treatment Overlay and
Natural Resource Protection Area Overlay (A- RFMUD- ST -NRPA) to a Residential
Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District to allow up to 590 dwelling units .
for a project to be known as the Willow Run RPUD on property located at 9220
Collier Boulevard in Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida, consisting of 5594 acres; and by providing an effective date.
{Petition:' PU DZ- PL201300006B2)
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 an agenda item must register. with the
County manager prior to presentation of y the agenda item to be addressed.
Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. The selection of any
individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recog-
nized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or organization may be allotted
10 minutes to speak on an item. .
Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda
packets must submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the, respective
public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the
Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days
prior to,the public hearing.. All materials used in presentations before the Board
will become a permanent part of the record.
Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Board will need a record of
the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a
verbatim record of the proceedinggs 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, Naples, FL 3411 -5356,
(239) 252 -8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices
for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners
Office.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
TOM HENNING,
CHAIRMAN
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
By: Teresa Cannon
Deputy Clerk (SEAL)
�entember 3 7014 No. 2 16
Packet Page -3596-