Loading...
Agenda 12/10/2013 Item #17B 12/10/2013 17.B. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 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 for a project previously known as the Cocohatchee River Trust Planned Unit Development (PUD)which is henceforth to be known as the Bay House Campus CPUD, to remove the Special Treatment Overlay and to allow 400 seats of restaurant/cocktail lounge, a 50 room hotel or motel, and 4,500 square feet of gross floor area of accessory retail uses including a culinary school, specialty retail and restaurant/brew house on property located in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 8.67 +/- acres; providing for the repeal of Ordinance Number 88-30, the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD; and by providing an effective date. (PUDZ-A-PL20120001593) OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) review staff's findings and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) regarding the above referenced petition and render a decision regarding this PUD amendment petition; and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner, Bay House Campus, LLC, is asking the BCC to consider an application for an amendment to the existing PUD zoned project which is currently known as the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD Planned Unit Development (PUD) but which is being developed under the name of Bay House Campus PUD. The Property was originally rezoned in 1988 from Agricultural (A-2 and A-2ST) and Commercial (C-4) to the Cocohatchee River Trust Planned Unit Development (PUD) per ordinance #88-3C. That ordinance approved the development of a 180-seat restaurant. a 160- room hotel, ancillary recreational uses. and open space/preserve areas. While the restaurant uses are fully D11111-out. with two restaurants operating on site — Bay House and Tierney's Tavern. Tire Note uses were never constructed. A: such. the hotel portion was deemed "sunsetted" in accordance with Section 10.02.13.D of the Land Development Code. The proposed changes are summarized below(taken from the application material): Bay House Campus, LLC (`Applicant') is requesting approval of this application to: 1) reduce the number of hotel rooms approved via Ord. 88-30 from 160 rooms to 50 rooms; 2) increase the restaurant uses from 180 seats to 400 seats; 3) and allow for ancillary retail uses to support the "coastal resort village" development concept. Since a portion of the original PUD has sunsetted, this application will also serve to reinstate a PUD document and master plan to guide the future development of the property. The Applicant intends to develop the vacant portion of the property, known as Tract 2, with a boutique hotel, supportive small-scale culinary school, specialty retail uses, and Packet Page-2485- 12/10/2013 17.B. an ancillary restaurant/brew house. The development will be centered on an outdoor courtyard/plaza area that provides usable open space and an area for live entertainment. The existing Bay House Restaurant will be integrated into the overall design and development concept. The development area shown on the PUD master plan will be clustered in upland portions of the site to maximize the preservation of on-site native vegetation. Buffer yards are proposed in compliance with the Land Development Code and will ensure the surrounding rights-of-way, commercial properties, and golf maintenance building are appropriately screened from the proposed development. Therefore, the CPUD will remain compatible with surrounding developments. The petitioner is seeking to change the name from the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD to the Bay House Campus CPUD. The applicant is seeking approval of seven deviations, which are discussed in the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) Staff Report. FISCAL IMPACT: The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan as needed to maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is located within the Urban designated area (Urban — Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), and within the Coastal High Hazard Area. as identified on the countywiae Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict does not allow commercial uses at this location. However, the existing Cocohatchee River Trust PUD, approved for a 160-room hotel and 180-seat restaurant. pre-dates the 1989 adoption of the GMP and is deemed "consistent by policy." Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) provides that the zoning of such properties may be changed so long as the new zoning district is not of a greater intensity than the existing zoning, and provided the overall intensity of the proposed zoning district is not of a greater intensity than the existing zoning — as determined by a comparison of public facility impacts. The petitioner submitted a comparative analysis of the uses allowed by the existing and proposed zoning districts (based upon the original submittal in which some uses now proposed as accessory uses were listed as principal uses), and of the public facility impacts of the existing and proposed use, and asserts that consistency with FLUE Policy 5.1 is achieved. FLUE Policy 5.1 states, in relevant part: Packet Page -2486- 12/10/2013 17.B. All rezonings must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. For properties that are zoned inconsistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section but have nonetheless been determined to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element, as provided for in Policies 5.9 through 5.13, the following provisions apply: a. For such commercially-zoned properties, zoning changes will be allowed provided the new zoning district is the same or a lower intensity commercial zoning district as the existing zoning district, and provided the overall intensity of commercial land use allowed by the existing zoning district, except as allowed by Policy 5.11, is not exceeded in the new zoning district. *** *** text break *** *** *** e. Overall intensity of development shall be determined based upon a comparison of public facility impacts as allowed by the existing zoning district and the proposed zoning district. FLUE Policy 5.1 contains a two-part test. Below is staff's analysis and determination of each part. Part I: Is the new zoning district the same or a lower intensity commercial zoning district as the existing zoning district? This evaluation requires a comparison of existing and proposed uses as they are listed in the commercial zoning districts - lowest zoning classification - in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The existing Cocohatchee River Trust PUD permits a 160-room hotel and 180-seat restaurant. Per the LDC, a restaurant is allowed by right in the C-2 zoning district, and is allowed in excess of 2,800 square feet by conditional use (CU); and, a hotel is allowed by CU in the C-4 zoning district. The proposed Bay House Campus PUD permits a hotel (50 rooms) and restaurant (400 seats) - same uses as presently allowed (though different number of hotel units and restaurant seats) - and adds cocktail lounge ("drinking places") which is allowed by right in the C-3 zoning district. The PUD also proposes to add a variety of accessory retail and personal service uses; all of these accessory uses are allowed as principal uses in the C-1. C-2 and C-3 zoning districts except for commercial schools. which are permitted by right in C-4. Conclusion: The new (proposed) zoning district is the same or a lower intensity commercial zoning district as the existing zoning district. Part II: Is the overall intensity of commercial land use allowed by the existing zoning district nor exceeded in the new zoning district (based upon a comparison of public facility impacts as allowed by the existing zoning district and the proposed zoning district)? The applicant provided a comparative analysis of public facility impacts indicating the following: Arterial and collector roads—approximately 8%reduction in trip generation Potable water and sanitary sewer—approximately 7.5%reduction in consumption/generation Solid waste—approximately 50% reduction in generation Parks and recreation—no change/no impact Drainage—not addressed Packet Page -2487- 12/10/2013 17.B. The applicant did not address drainage impacts; however, staff believes there is no increase in impacts — it is possible that the amount of impervious surface area could be the same under the existing and proposed development scenarios. It is unknown whether the standards used by the applicant for solid waste calculations included recycling; Collier County has a mandatory recycling program which may result in lesser solid waste volumes. Though neither scenario includes a residential use, staff believes some hotel occupants would use parks and recreation facilities, e.g. beaches. Given the reduction in number of hotel rooms, there should be a reduction in impacts to parks and recreation facilities. Staff concurs that there is a decrease in impacts to roads, solid waste, and water and sewer facilities. Conclusion: The overall intensity of commercial land use allowed by the existing zoning district is not exceeded in the new zoning district. Relevant FLUE policies are stated below(in italics); each policy is followed by staff analysis (in bold). FLUE Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. (The proposed PUD fronts,and has access to,US-41, an arterial road.) FLUE Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. (The proposed PUD Master Plan depicts a single drive off of US-41 and off of Walkerbilt Road, connected by parking lot aisles. Due to the size and configuration of the Aggook site, environmental constraints, and type of development proposed, a loop road does not appear feasible and may not be possible.) FLUE Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. (The PUD Master Plan depicts connections to the retail center located to the south and east of this site. Due to existing development, connection to the office development also to the south and east is not feasible. The property to the west contains a golf maintenance facility- interconnection to this property serves no purpose.) FLUE Polio- 5.4: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses as set forth in the Land Development Code. (It is the responsibility of the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety to perform the compatibility analysis.) Based upon the above analysis of FLUE policies, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed CPUD to be consistent with the FLUE. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5 year planning period. Therefore, the subject Packet Page -2488- 12/10/2013 17.B. application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project is providing above the minimum required preserve of 15 percent. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as indicated previously in the GMP discussion. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff also recommends that the petition be found consistent with the CCME. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard this petition on October 4, 2013, and found that the criteria of Section 10.02.08.F (formerly 10.03.05.I) and 10.02.13B.5 were met. By a unanimous vote (7 to 0) with the motion made by Commissioner Ebert and seconded by Commissioner Rosen, the CCPC recommended forwarding this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval subject to the following changes to the PUD document: 1) Exhibit A,1.A.2 Principal Uses and Structures: • Move Drinking Establishments, Group 5813- excluding bottle clubs, to 1.B. Accessory Uses; and • References to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) shall be revised to include the Hearing Examiner; and 2, Exhibit A. .E Accessory Uses: • Remove boat ramp/launch: and • List caretaker. boats and culinary school as accessory uses; and • Revise accessory uses to have a general listing of the more typical accessory uses to the hotel and restaurant: and • Add a statement that accessory uses are limited to association with the hotel and restaurant patrons and shall not be open to the public, except that the culinary school may be open to the public. • Add a prohibition for advertisement and signage for accessory uses, other than the culinary school, which can advertise; and • References to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) shall be revised to include the Hearing Examiner; and Packet Page -2489- 12/10/2013 17.B. 3) Exhibit B, Development Standards: • Revise the maximum actual building height to 75 feet and remove the corresponding footnote; and • Remove the water body setback standard; and • Remove the number of stories standard; and • Change the External Setbacks from US 41 and Walkerbilt Road R-O-W from 25 feet to 40 feet; and • Change the distance between structures from 10 feet to 30 feet; and 4) Exhibit C,Master Plan: • Add a revision date; and • Label the kayak and canoe launch; and 5) Exhibit E, Deviations: Add a limit of 28 days for the temporary signage in Deviation #3; and 6) Exhibit F, Development Commitments: Modify Item 4.1, Transportation to add reference to Collier County. The applicant's agent submitted a draft site plan and draft elevations which shall be included in the record, but not in the PUD ordinance. These revisions have been incorporated into the PUD document that is included in the draft ordinance. No correspondence in opposition to this petition has been submitted for the current proposal; no one spoke at the CCPC hearing voicing opposition to the project and the CCPC vote was unanimous. Therefore,this petition can be placed on the Summary Agenda. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is a site specific rezone from a Planned Unit Development Zoning District currentil. known as the Cocohatchee River Trust Planned Unit Development (PUD) to a Planned Unit Development Zoning District for a project to be known as the Bay House Campus CPUD. The buraen 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 CPUD 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. Packet Page -2490- 12/10/2013 17.B. 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 CPUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. 4. Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. 5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development? 6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. 7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 8. Consider: Conformity with CPUD 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? 1 C. Will the proposed CPLTD Rezone ne appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? 11. Would the requested CPUD 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? Packet Page -2491- 12/10/2013 17.B. 15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety? 16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? 17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas? 18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? 19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations? 20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ("reasonably") be used in accordance with existing zoning? (a"core"question...) 22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county? 23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. 24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. 25. Consider: The.impact of development resulting from the proposed CPUD rezone on the availability of adequate public facilities and service. 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 CPUD 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 is approved as to form and legality and requires an affirmative vote of four for approval. (HFAC) Packet Page -2492- 12/10/2013 17.B. 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 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) Application Backup Information—due to the size of the application, it is accessible at: http://www.col1 iergov.net/ftp/AgendaDec1013/PUDZAPL20120001593BAYHOUSECAMPUS CPUD.pdf 3) Ordinance Packet Page -2493- 12/10/2013 17.B. COLLIER COUNTY Amok Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 17.17.B. Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 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 for a project previously known as the Cocohatchee River Trust Planned Unit Development (PUD) which is henceforth to be known as the Bay House Campus CPUD, to remove the Special Treatment Overlay and to allow 400 seats of restaurant/cocktail lounge, a 50 room hotel or motel, and 4,500 square feet of gross floor area of accessory retail uses including a culinary school, specialty retail and restaurant/brew house on property located in Section 21,Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 8.67+/- acres; providing for the repeal of Ordinance Number 88-30,the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD; and by providing an effective date. (PUDZ-A-PL20120001593) Meeting Date: 12/10/2013 Prepared By Name: DeselemKay Title: Planner,Principal,Engineering&Environmental Ser 10/18/2013 9:05:31 AM Approved By Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst. GMD P&R Date: 10/22/2013 11:32:59 AM Name: BosiMichael Title: Manager-Planning,Comprehensive Planning Date: 11/6/2013 7:51:27 AM Name: BellowsRay Title: Manager-Planning, Comprehensive Planning Packet Page-2494- 12/10/2013 17.B. Date: 11/14/2013 10:47:08 AM Name: MarcellaJeanne Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning Date: 11/15/2013 8:55:51 AM Name: AshtonHeidi Title: Section Chief/Land Use-Transportation,County Attor Date: 11/19/2013 1:55:16 PM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney Date: 11/21/2013 8:15:40 AM Name: FinnEd Title: Senior Budget Analyst, OMB Date: 11/25/2013 6:05:39 PM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager Date: 11/26/2013 10:29:54 AM Packet Page -2495- 12/10/2013 17.B. AGENDA ITEM 9-A Co e-r County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES—PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION--PLANNING&REGULATION HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 3, 2013 SUBJECT: PUDZ-A-PL20120001593: BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD PROPERTY OWNER& APPLICANT/AGENT: Applicant: Owners: Bay House Campus,LLC Bay House Campus, LLC Turtle Bay Holding Company, LLC c/o Edward Negley c/o Edward Negley 7999 Walkerbilt Road 8 Sabre Way 8 Sabre Way Naples, FL 34110 Naples, FL 34102 Naples,FL 34102 (Tract 1) (Tracts 2 & 3) Agents: Alexis Crespo,MCP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Waldrop Engineering,P.A. Coleman, Yovanovich&Koester, P.A. 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Suite 305 Northern Trust Bank Building Bonita Springs, FL 34135 4001 Tamiami Trail North. Suite 300 Naples, FL 3410= REOUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for an amendment to the existing PUD zoned project which is currently known as the Cocohatche: River Trust PUD Planned Unit Development (PUD) which is being developed under the name of Bay House Campus PUD. For details about the project proposal,refer to "Purpose/Description of Project." GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 8.67 ± acres, is located on property located in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the following page) ANoollIk PUDZ-A-PL20120001593: BAY HOUSE CAMPUS PUD Page 1 of 20 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/5/13 Packet Page -2496- 12/10/2013 17.B. - - 0 1332LLS 33FV1YHO]O] �,/ ; 1;fillEMINF0 : co J ti ,11_.;,; . _ � Ci W ® U 1.ti -sn niva.L IV VW Vl ,..ii::, .�; _• Q 2 m iv, ,:-,„.,/ _ F ¢� z 8 : O p W o N K z W t- a Q O ag .J co 1 Iii i r 0 N N a 3WOS 011ON _�/ o 0 a 4t 1 MON NOIS`JNIM n 2„11 0 (1.E 8D W- LL� .” 91 gs �.2 � � mold�Nmnrlaoden f3 �� F- - J � '-',..,0 o i 7S r 1 mb 6 6 t W k 15 _ 3 ` 35 � � W r 'ge aO _U Q� m &Jm �ZI -Z. ti ' - i Z � Pig ; 4 w 6_ o O g 2V_ N $ Q tie . �� -7 io J O 8 _ c ! ro k t se xat' ■ 8 5c - PYG31aooe I► I�� &�q �� 1 ° _ �<°� kt obJf W ;< 1 f di 1 < _ E =a bi �m\H4 �� z - lNW IWWYNI "Will IWYIWV_ � u Lt (t6'S 1u.5..111 n--'' of m ,rwnwl 1M1L FsX ii Fg Is$ ''', aA ` _ `n v � 49 h< . P.'2- r- €im ° g W — to - - ' ame W 2. 0 1 g"" a rm.' I -. (3NNO O1,11030Ntln / y liffaa-airz,_,------ rWit Vir'' J GULF OF MEXICO i I� Packet Pa:e -2497- 12/10/2013 17.B. .0Q,-.1:a1vos OZ s1 . o' 2 V) a �_ 7 8: a 5< CJ] F.-; Z OLLN O 4 e 1 20 11=lei G I W c.) W T.\ VTJ _ W N \ O a U < zw tll< di=-1 co CI U 7 Z U 7 0 0w—U in Z O Z 0 IX X Z In y y 0 J— OU w Q W W K m Z Z z // W U {O WaLL p4�Nl-g d co / ZO F-m LLK� XO U b p K �( �` —< 7 W U m u.1 tli CC 0 Z O W W LL ?? w 0 CC 2. �m O� zw m S Z< <U LL U. O \ `J -1 I-Z J lL Y mJ 1 LL ° ill a 2 < w rmNco z e[ a w __. LL It w < o6 W coO IA< <w < U w< o °aLL co • E d >-m D w W pW Cu 0 al 11.1 ♦ o w w co op r =yt 0...4 1 ao UJ ZJQZw C�yZ -__ fJ DOOpl w¢W �_ N J _ y LL Q' /10i U < A I 1 rx cow / N w LL a \ v-a 7 c p uf e e e e- co co W W W W W W y U U Q H m W¢ n m h O CO 0 O z U U U U U w < a 2 w a a o O a d a a a ¢ rail N o 'a- e e 0 U „ ui W y y rl) y y a Z¢ e Iii C J a t. a y w L y N LL' I� e- o e- r .• 1- U O cc F — LL 0 Z r f aO y 0 0 w o _ v. y y 0 K ., f < LL — O U3 LL t-C LL ILL C H' N M M I tl� L. r. v vi O ID a C L. Ui O x W w O wN N o O° Q 7- coal O = U o o o < CW C b P.N d Z CO D0 CC w a LL ¢ > _ 0 w 70ti go Cu a aQ < " r w Q Z >- Q Z o QJ< y W wF p>'- °< a J I— IN 2 W K y U O ELZ? Z 1 Q W O ly w o¢ 0 W 0 wZZ p n y W> 0 Li aJ O w ° n < 7 0 0 Z 1— 'ti o K yW K I—y1V y Q 2 K O m9 C W m CC a m W p y m y 7 W X g D < z O < U a cox FU zip_D w ...1- o ° n N LL d w J N x U° Zv. O w F- LL Cl) V' N O W y O Z< -J W O r- Q r �w ¢y p U wz U w w w w w C Cl)C)o < U U U U 6 w wM W 14 W W yIY K Z ai y CL aam CO al CO a x Y v r Q Z ?Q zz°3 wa i aO cc_ o LLI ¢o ¢w y>- z ww Cl. W r °W Q o ?° a¢ ia� ¢ No 0 - a O a w¢ r �z OO <-,< ¢ a¢ 1- OI- y < awl 0 Z Z W O U �[ U U?r a< wU ow J 1 U y 0 N O a W Zi a O Ot <Z �� J ~>0 j a 1 C Q y W a p Z O Z U� w� ZQ ¢? z m N Z p m ¢ y U -US a U z O zawa IUO �w irz 5 Z w = U 1' - F 7 a y C7 — d> N 0 J} Ka Ux CL U U CS — ¢ CI y D w y y a' V- w a U U a �1- K >� s 7 W Z y Z 6 y� D J Q W Z . 0 W ¢U K > p W W y K p DW .Ja ED Z = 4Z Y W�{l xU' Jo Z F' w a H I- O a w 2 fall W co a, Q a a a. g r¢ ¢y ¢ h- aE cc CV O w w w Z ~ w m a w O a ] C ‘e, CC x CC M K x I- . S \ a U 0. / \ N of a ui l INV 9Z:VE:6£LOZRZ/h Packet Page-2498-we'd waouo3 ialSew 1.o8-zo-69z\odcopny\sndwe3 esnoH Aee Zo-65zvr 12/10/2013 17.B. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Property was originally rezoned in 1988 from Agricultural (A-2 and A-2ST) and Commercial (C- 4) to the Cocohatchee River Trust Planned Unit Development (PUD) per Ordinance #88-30. That ordinance approved the development of a 180-seat restaurant, a 160-room hotel, ancillary recreational uses, and open space/preserve areas. While the restaurant uses are fully built-out, with two restaurants operating on site—Bay House and Tiemey's Tavern. The hotel uses were never constructed. As such, the hotel portion was deemed "sunsetted" in accordance with Section 10.02.13.D of the Land Development Code. The proposed changes are summarized below(taken from the application material): Bay House Campus, LLC ("Applicant") is requesting approval of this application to: 1) reduce the number of hotel rooms approved via Ord. 88-30 from 160 rooms to 50 rooms; 2) increase the restaurant uses from 180 seats to 400 seats; 3) and allow for ancillary retail uses to support the "coastal resort village" development concept. Since a portion of the original PUD has sunsetted, this application will also serve to reinstate a PUD document and master plan to guide the future development of the property. The Applicant intends to develop the vacant portion of the property, known as Tract 2, with a boutique hotel, supportive small-scale culinary school, specialty retail uses, and an ancillary restaurant/brew house. The development will be centered on an outdoor courtyard/plaza area that provides usable open space and an area for live entertainment. The existing Bay House Restaurant will be integrated into the overall design and development concept. The development area shown on the PUD master plan will be clustered in upland portions of the site to maximize the preservation of on-site native vegetation. Buffer yards are proposed in compliance with the Land Development Code and will ensure the surrounding rights-of-way, commercial properties, and golf maintenance building are appropriately screened from the proposed development. Therefore, the CPUD will remain compatible with surrounding developments. The petitioner is seeking to change the name from the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD to the Bay House Campus CPUD and seeking approval of seven deviations. The deviations are discussed later in this repor SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Cocohatchee River,then A-ST,undeveloped East: A C-4 zoned tract that is developed with various retail uses and then US 41 Right-of-way South: A C-4 zoned tract that is developed with various retail uses with frontage on Walkerbilt Road, then The Old Collier Golf Club, developed as a golf course,known as the Collier Tract 21 PUD, with a zoning designation of PUD PUDZ-A-PL20120001593: BAY HOUSE CAMPUS PUD Page 2 of 20 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/5/13 Packet Page-2499- 12/10/2013 17.B. West: the maintenance facility for The Old Collier Golf Club, part of the Collier Tract 21 PUD, with a zoning designation of PUD i. k P s, 41 `, ti ! M .g " :" z. . ',Sa... It y ,.�b. y �_ z �. 6 �.i f..lx�: ' IOW I 2 � 'ft- . 1' al if N I 1 ,l'' ' � s F.� .es-,-e' Sh or it : ' 20 I J Googse ■ a Aerial Photo (subject site depiction is approximate' GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The subject property is located within the Urban designated area (Urban — Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), and within the Coastal High Hazard Area. as identified on the countywide Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict does not allow commercial uses at this location. However, the existing Cocohatchee River Trust PUD, approved fora 160-room hotel and 180-seal: restaurant, pre-dates the 1989 adoption of the GMP and is deemed "consistent by policy." Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) provides that the zoning of such properties may be changed so long as the new zoning district is not of a greater intensity than the existing zoning, and provided the overall intensity of the proposed zoning district is not of a greater intensity than the existing zoning—as determined by a comparison of public facility impacts. The petitioner submitted a comparative analysis of the uses allowed by the existing and proposed zoning districts (based upon the original submittal in PUDZ-A-PL20120001593: BAY HOUSE CAMPUS PUD Page 3 of 20 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/5/13 Packet Page -2500- 12/10/2013 17.B. which some uses now proposed as accessory uses were listed as principal uses), and of the public facility impacts of the existing and proposed use, and asserts that consistency with FLUE Policy 5.1 is achieved. FLUE Policy 5.1 states, in relevant part: All rezonings must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. For properties that are zoned inconsistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section but have nonetheless been determined to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element, as provided for in Policies 5.9 through 5.13, the following provisions apply: a. For such commercially-zoned properties, zoning changes will be allowed provided the new zoning district is the same or a lower intensity commercial zoning district as the existing zoning district, and provided the overall intensity of commercial land use allowed by the existing zoning district, except as allowed by Policy 5.11, is not exceeded in the new zoning district. *** *** text break *** *** *** e. Overall intensity of development shall be determined based upon a comparison of public facility impacts as allowed by the existing zoning district and the proposed zoning district. FLUE Policy 5.1 contains a two-part test. Below is staff's analysis and determination of each part. Part I: Is the new zoning district the same or a lower intensity commercial zoning district as the existing zoning district? This evaluation requires a comparison of existing and proposed uses as they are listed in the commercial zoning districts - lowest zoning classification - in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The existing Cocohatchee River Trust PUD permits a 160-room hotel and 180-seat restaurant. Per the LDC, a restaurant is allowed by right in the C-2 zoning district, and is allowed in excess of 2,800 square feet by conditional use (CU); and, a hotel is allowed by CU in the C-4 zoning district. The proposed Bay House Campus PUD permits a hotel (50 rooms) and restaurant(400 seats, - same uses as presently allowed(though different number of hotel units and restaurant seats) - and adds cocktail lounge ("drinking places") which is allowed by right in the C-3 zoning district. Tne PUD aiso proposes to add a variety of accessory retail and personal service uses; all of these accessory uses are allowed as principal uses in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 zoning districts except for commercial schools,which are permitted by right in C-4. Conclusion: The new (proposed) zoning district is the same or a lower intensity commercial zoning district as the existing zoning district. Part II: Is the overall intensity of commercial land use allowed by the existing zoning district not exceeded in the new zoning district (based upon a comparison of public facility impacts as allowed by the existing zoning district and the proposed zoning district)? The applicant provided a comparative analysis of public facility impacts indicating the following: Arterial and collector roads—approximately 8%reduction in trip generation Potable water and sanitary sewer—approximately 7.5%reduction in consumption/generation Solid waste—approximately 50%reduction in generation PUDZ-A-PL20120001593: BAY HOUSE CAMPUS PUD Page 4 of 20 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/5/13 Packet Page -2501- 12/10/2013 17.B. Parks and recreation—no change/no impact. Drainage—not addressed The applicant did not address drainage impacts; however, staff believes there is no increase in impacts — it is possible that the amount of impervious surface area could be the same under the existing and proposed development scenarios. It is unknown whether the standards used by the applicant for solid waste calculations included recycling; Collier County has a mandatory recycling program which may result in lesser solid waste volumes. Though neither scenario includes a residential use, staff believes some hotel occupants would use parks and recreation facilities, e.g. beaches. Given the reduction in number of hotel rooms, there should be a reduction in impacts to parks and recreation facilities. Staff concurs that there is a decrease in impacts to roads, solid waste, and water and sewer facilities. Conclusion: The overall intensity of commercial land use allowed by the existing zoning district is not exceeded in the new zoning district. Relevant FLUE policies are stated below(in italics); each policy is followed by staff analysis (in bold). FLUE Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. (The proposed PUD fronts,and has access to,US-41,an arterial road.) FLUE Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. (The proposed PUD Master Plan depicts a single drive off of US-41 and off of Walkerbilt Road, connected by parking lot aisles. Due to the size and configuration of the site, environmental constraints, and type of development proposed, a loop road does not appear feasible and may not be possible.) FLUE Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. (The PUD Master Plan depicts connections to the retail center located to the south and east of this site. Due to existing development, connection to the office development also to the south and east is not feasible. The propert to the west contains a golf maintenance facility - interconnection to this property serves no purpose.) FLUE Policy 5.4: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses as set forth in the Land Development Code. (It is the responsibility of the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety to perform the compatibility analysis.) Based upon the above analysis of FLUE policies, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed CPUD to be consistent with the FLUE. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5 year planning period. Therefore, the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). PUDZ-A-PL20120001593: BAY HOUSE CAMPUS PUD Page 5 of 20 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/5/13 Packet Page -2502- 12/10/2013 17.B. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project is providing above the minimum required preserve of 15 percent. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as indicated previously in the GMP discussion. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff also recommends that the petition be found consistent with the CCME. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.03.05.I, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the bases for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading"Zoning Services Analysis."In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. This project does not require an Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review since this project does not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews a: identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. The entire proiec'. site contains 7.74 acres landward of the mean high water line. A minimum of 1.16 acres of native preserve is required(15% x 7.74 acres); the project provides a 1.64 acres on on-site native preservation. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD documen: 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. Utility Review: Utilities staff has reviewed the petition and recommends approval. Fire Review: It is understood that the proposed development outlined in the PUD documents is conceptual in nature. And as there is not enough information at this time to offer specific comment regarding compliance with currently adopted Fire Codes, please note that as the site development progresses, all permits will be subject to compliance with all Fire Codes, Standards, Ordinances and local FCO Policy & Procedures adopted and in place at the time of the respective permit. This shall PUDZ-A-PL20120001593: BAY HOUSE CAMPUS PUD Page 6 of 20 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/5/13 Packet Page-2503- 12/10/2013 17.B. include, but not be limited to fire lane widths, turning radii and dead-end requirements, hydrant locations, fire flow requirements, etc. Also, any type of floating or fixed docks or piers and associated structures require a separate permit and shall be in compliance with the requirements of NFPA 303 (2006 ed.)Fire Protection Standards for Marinas and Boatyards. Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. Zoning staff is of the opinion that this project will be compatible with and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. To support that opinion staff offers the following analysis of this project. The subject property is located northwest of the US 41, a six-lane arterial roadway, and Walkerbilt Road (a two-lane local roadway) intersection with frontage and access to both roadways. The subject site is not directly at the corner of said roadways, but rather is separated from the actual intersection by three separate commercial developments of a 1.6± acre tract developed with a mix of retail uses that fronts directly on US 41, a 1.0± acre mixed use office and retail structures with access from Walkerbilt Road, and a 0.94 acre office and retail tract that fronts on Walkerbilt Road. Other adjacent uses include a golf maintenance facility associated with the Old Collier Golf Club to the west. The Cocohatchee River abuts the property to the north. Avow The Bay House Campus is compatible with the surrounding area based upon the placement of required landscape buffers, lakes, and preserve areas. The proposed development area is clustered within the central portion of the site to avoid impacts to adjacent parcels and screen views from US 41. The existing Bay House Restaurant is also screened from the adjacent golf maintenance facility to the west via an existing buffer yard. Lastly, the Cocohatchee River and uses north of the water body are adequately buffered by the proposed preserve area. The PUD document has been developed using the newer criteria wherein there are Exhibits A-F rather than the Sections shown in Ordinance # 88-30. As noted in the Proposed Development Description, the applicant is reducing the number of hotel units from 160 to 50, and increasing the restaurant uses from 180 seats to 400 seats. The external setbacks are being reduced. When questioned about the proposed changes, the petitioner's agent stated the following: The original PUD approved a 160-room hotel in one (1) large structure. The current application proposes a clustered resort village concept achieved through several smaller buildings that are interconnected with the common areas, and demonstrate a unified architectural theme. . . . The intent is to develop smaller structures at a pedestrian scale, which directly supports the Applicant's request for the setbacks. Moreover, the reduced setbacks will achieve the clustered building format, while remaining in compliance with Florida Building Code. Asso PUDZ-A-PL20120001593: BAY HOUSE CAMPUS PUD Page 7 of 20 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/5/13 Packet Page -2504- 12/10/2013 17.E. The subject property was approved for an administrative height variance in 2001 to allow for a maximum height of 68 feet. The maximum proposed height in this application has been modified to 50'zoned/60'actual. The surrounding area's zoning and land uses have not changed to the east, south and north. However the land use and zoning to the west has changed somewhat since this petition was originally approved, requiring the 50 foot wide setback to the west. In 1988, the 5± acre tract to the west was zoned Agricultural and undeveloped; as part of rezone for the Collier Tract 21 PUD, the 5± acre tract was added to that PUD and designated for golf course uses. Subsequent to that, that 5± acre tract was developed as the maintenance facility for the Collier Tract 21 PUD that is developed as the Old Collier Golf Club, Inc. The Surrounding Zoning and Land Use discussion on page 2 of the staff report and the Master Plan all reflect zoning and uses that were in effect in 2003. Staff is supportive of the proposed changes in setback and height. Below are excerpts the existing PUD Master Plan and the proposed Master Plan. Comparing the two documents one can see the similarities as well as the differences as noted in the petitioner's explanation. The development standards contained in Exhibit A of the PUD document show the following changes from the originally approved development standards. r .. . ..r. - 1 swot' - ' . i to " • f _Woks* R A' Vr.tionaia f 4' e i 0 yOret "a.plq/t - rccrN.r 4.4' A ,.,.. ) . liaslawa! wwtlsnk lima 1 , -17: —=---1- ... 4------1,_ i. , -, . . ; ' unit. J �... O." ] iron i• di 40 - . . - 40, INV bap cL, ` 200 woo- a m •oitr.. Excerpt from Existing Cocohatchee River Trust PUD Ordinance#88-30 PUDZ-A-PL20120001593: BAY HOUSE CAMPUS PUD Page 8 of 20 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/5/13 Packet Page -2505- 12/10/2013 17.B. .,.--,RE IAN.D USE: JREAN RESIZWNTIAL SJEDISTRICT ONlt, AST G RS t1µ:=5) 1/ _XIsilNC LAN?US= �- 4;CC.0.4ATCH L IJvZk gtfi* �y�;,;c' >i, \— f xl_Ttk 3 F. SIB^. WALE a iMORAN IXIS1ING %.T y PATIO ARE r.. ms`s ii F.:.; T ' \it ;Ix E ! ARFa . 1 r YIz». Excerpt from the proposed Master Plan for the Bay House Campus PUD Zoning staff recommends that this petition be found compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses,pursuant to the requirement of FLUE Policy 5.4. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking approval of six deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are listed in PUD Exhibit C. 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 it part: It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs . . . . may depart from the strict application of setback height, and minimum lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the public interest. . . . Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.04.02 which requires all commercial projects to provide interconnections and shared access to adjacent properties. The requested deviation is to allow for the existing interconnections to the commercial retail property to the southeast only, as shown on the PUD master plan. PUDZ-A-PL20120001593: BAY HOUSE CAMPUS PUD Page 9 of 20 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/5113 Packet Page-2506- 12/10/2013 17.B. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation is requested due to the orientation and nature of the professional office building to the south and the golf maintenance building to the east, which do not prompt a need for interconnection with the proposed resort village. The access points to the office building are oriented towards Walkerbilt Road with the rear of the building facing the subject property. This orientation, as well as the established buffer yards, precludes a viable interconnection. For obvious reasons, the golf maintenance building to the west does not warrant an interconnection, as there is no need for patrons of the proposed resort village to access this private facility. The Applicant is proposing an interconnection to the retail center to the southeast, based on the nature of the use and the complimentary orientation of that development, which satisfies the intent of the LDC Sec. 4.04.02. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated. This interconnection is consistent with what was required in the previous Ordinance for this project. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, fording 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 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.H, which requires 218 parking spaces based upon the proposed mix of principal and accessory uses, to allow for a 10% reduction to required parking spaces for the project. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The intent of the PUD is to create a cohesive, multi-use resort village with a range of tourist- oriented amenities for patrons. The TIS anticipates internal capture for patrons of the project, whici. directly correlates to the proposed deviation. The County has approved a 10i( administrative parking deviations for this property in the past due to the adequacy of parking fo,- the restaurant's needs (APR-PL-2010-1439). Approval of this deviation will allow .fo" the continuation of this existing deviation, and prevent the majority of the site from being used as parking for this multi-use destination. As such, the deviation will directly contribute to the coastal village feel of the project. The owner/developer will continue to provide valet services for restaurant patrons, as well as valet services for the hotel to support this request. Table I below provides a quantitative analysis of the request. PUDZ-A-PL20120001593: BAY HOUSE CAMPUS PUD Page 10 of 20 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/5/13 Packet Page -2507- 12/10/2013 17.B. TABLE 1: PARKING SUMMARY Use LDC Requirement Units Required Spaces PRINCIPAL USES Restaurant/Bar 1 1 space/2 seats&1/200 s.f.of 240 seats&2,271 s.f. 119 spaces* (Bay House) non-public areas Hotel 11 spaces/10 rooms 50 Rooms 55 spaces ACCESSORY USES Retail&Culinary 1/400 s.f. 4,500 s.f. 11 spaces School** Meeting/Convention 1/100 s.f. 2,000 s.f. 20 spaces Space** Restaurant/Bar 2** 1 space/100 s.f. 1,500 s.f. 15 spaces Handicap Spaces 7 spaces/201-300 spaces N/A 7 spaces TOTAL REQUIRED 227 spaces LESS 9 BOAT SLIPS 218 spaces TOTAL PROVIDED WITH 10%REDUCTION 196 spaces *89 parking spaces approved for existing 180-seat restaurant per APR-PL-2010-1439.Existing **Parking provided for accessory hotel uses in accordance with Sec.4.05.05 Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff has evaluated the proposed deviation as it is currently proposed and can support it. This deviation has been revised several times based upon staff's concerns about the potential lack of parking spaces and the applicant has responded to our concerns. The Administrative Parking Reduction APR-PL-2010-1439 (see Attachment 2), granted a reduction from the required 101 parking spaces,to allow 89 parking spaces to be provided for a 150-seat restaurant. 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.' Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e, which allows temporary signs on nonresidential or mixed use properties up to 32 square feet in area and 8 feet in height. The requested deviation is to allow a temporary sign or banner up to a maximum of 48 square feet in area and a maximum of 12 feet in height. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The requested deviation will allow for increased temporary signage to enhance the visibility of the property and the emerging tourist destination being proposed. The site has minimal visibility from US 41 considering the dense preservation along the frontage. Additionally, the subject property is not located in an up and coming area of new construction, which compels the need for additional signage to adequately market the property. The sign will be temporary, PUDZ-A-PL20120001593: BAY HOUSE CAMPUS PUD Page 11 of 20 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/5/13 Packet Page-2508- 12/10/2013 17.B. and will undergo the requisite temporary sign permit process in accordance with Section 5.04.06. The sign will be limited to 28 calendar days per year. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved for one 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." Deviation 4 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.G, which allows off-premise directional signage up to 12 square feet in size. The requested deviation is to allow off-premise directional signage up to 16 square feet in size. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: Due to the location of the proposed preserve area, the subject property has minimal visibility from US 41, thus making it extremely difficult for northbound vehicles to locate the property until passing the Walkerbilt/U.S. 41 intersection. This limited visibility creates the need for u- turns on six-lane arterial roadway which negatively impacts public health, safety and welfare, particularly considering the location of the Cocohatchee River Bridge just north of the property line. The proposed increase to off-premise signage is intended to notify patrons of the Walkerbilt access in advance of the intersection to reduce the need southbound u-turns. For these reasons the Applicant respectfully requests approval of this deviation as it directly contributes to the County's objective to increase public safety. It is understood off-premise signage must comply with all other applicable regulations in the LDC prior to permit approval. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviatior_. finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3. the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element ma, 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 Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, which requires developments to provide 5 foot wide sidewalks on both sides of private rights-of-way or easements internal to the site. The requested deviation is to allow a 5 foot wide sidewalk on one side of the easement that connects the development area to US 41. PUDZ-A-PL20120001593: BAY HOUSE CAMPUS PUD Page 12 of 20 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/5/13 Packet Page -2509- 12/10/2013 17.B. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The Applicant is proposing to place the sidewalk on the northern side of the access easement entering the site from US 41, as it will provide the requisite pedestrian and bicycle interconnection, while limiting an unnecessary impervious pavement on the site. The sidewalk will provide a direct connection from US 41 to the proposed on-site development area. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: 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"justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least eduivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 6 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.05.08.F, which prohibits project sites with more than one building where the aggregate gross building area is 20,000 square feet or more from undergoing the administrative determination of deviation process, to allow the project site to qualify for administrative determination of deviations where the aggregate gross building area is 70,000 square feet. Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation: The Applicant is requesting the ability to undergo the administrative deviation process at the time of SDP/PPL review. Approval of this deviation will allow for design flexibility to support the Applicant's unique coastal resort village concept. While more than 20,000 square feet of building area is intended for development, it will occur within numerous pedestrian-scale buildings, and not one "big box" structure. The Applicant has provided general guidelines for the architectural style in previous submittals, which further supports this request and provides Staff an understanding of the project's need for architectural flexibility beyond the bounds of the LDC. It is understood that the Applicant will provide building elevations and the requisite level of detail at the time of administrative architectural review to ensure the intent of the LDC is met. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff does not objection to the concept presented above- however, it is important to note that zoning staff is NOT approving any specific deviation: this PUD deviation approval, if ultimately granted, will only allow the applicant to seek a deviation as part of the SDP/PPL review process. The final determination as to the appropriateness of any deviation at tha: time will be determined by the County staff that is reviewing the specific request. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation to allow the developer to seek administrative approval for a building with a maximum aggregate gross building areL of 70,000 square feet, 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." PUDZ-A-PL20120001593: BAY HOUSE CAMPUS PUD Page 13 of 20 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/5/13 Packet Page -2510- 12/10/2013 17.B. FINDINGS OF FACT: LDC Subsection 10.03.05.I.2 states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below. [Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold,non-italicized font]: PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and believes the proposed uses and property development regulations are compatible with the development approved in the area as limited by staff. The commitments made by the applicant should provide adequate assurances that the proposed change should not adversely affect living conditions in the area. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the undeveloped portions of the property.Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned `unit Deveiopment with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion and the report from Comprehensive Planning staff and the zoning analysis of this staff report. Based on those staff analyses, planning zoning staff is of the opinion that this petition may be found consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Staff has provided a review of the proposed uses and believes that the project will be compatible with the surrounding area. The proposed changes in uses should not create any incompatibility PUDZ-A-PL20120001593: BAY HOUSE CAMPUS PUD Page 14 of 20 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/5/13 Packet Page -2511- 12/10/2013 17.B. issues, and the uses approved in the original PUD rezone were determined to be compatible. The petitioner is revising some property development regulations, but staff believes uses remain compatible given the proposed development standards and project commitments. (See zoning analysis for more details.) 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. The project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. Additionally, the PUD document contains additional developer commitments that should help ensure there are adequate facilities available to serve this project. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as road capacity, wastewater disposal system, and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. As stated by the petitioner's agent: The existing restaurant is serviced by a private lift station located southeast of the building. This lift station will continue to service the restaurant until the proposed hotel and retail uses are developed At such time, the facility will be expanded as required by the project, and turned over to the County. 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 six new 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 has provided an analysis of the deviations in the Deviation Discussion portion of this staff report, and is recommending approval of the deviations. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1 states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): igifok PUDZ-A-PL20120001593: BAY HOUSE CAMPUS PUD Page 15 of 20 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/5/13 Packet Page -2512- 12/10/2013 17.E. 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The zoning analysis provides an in-depth review of the proposed amendment. Staff is of the opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with neighborhood development. Staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. The petition can also be deemed consistent with the CCME and the Transportation Element. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed it at length in the zoning review analysis. Staff believes the proposed amendment is appropriate given the existing land use pattern, and development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The proposed PUD amendment would not create an isolated zoning district because the subject site is already zoned PUD. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Staff is of the opinion that the district boundaries are logically drawn given the current property ownership boundaries and the existing PUD zoning. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed amendment is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such the amendment to allow the owner the opportunity to develop the land with uses other than what the existing zoning district would allow. Without this amendment, the property could be developed in compliance with the existing PUD ordinance regulations. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood: Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendment, with the commitments made by the applicant, can been deemed consistent County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. The project includes numerous restrictions and standards that are designed to address compatibility of the project. Development in compliance with the proposed PUD amendment should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. PUDZ-A-PL20120001593: BAY HOUSE CAMPUS PUD Page 16 of 20 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/5/13 Packet Page-2513- 12/10/2013 17.B. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project with the mitigation that will be provided by the developer. Staff believes the petition can be deemed consistent with all elements of the GMP if the mitigation is included in any recommendation of approval. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed amendment should not create drainage or surface water problems. The developer of the project will be required to adhere to a surface water management permit from the SFWMD in conjunction with any local site development plan approvals and ultimate construction on site. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this amendment petition is approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. The location of the proposed buildings, combined with the setbacks and project buffers will help insure that light and air to adjacent areas will not be reduced. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market conditions. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; The proposed PUD amendment 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 Pian 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, if staff's conditions of approval are adopted, and further, believes the public interest will be maintained. PUDZ-A-PL20120001593: BAY HOUSE CAMPUS PUD Page 17 of 20 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/5/13 Packet Page -2514- 12/10/2013 17.B. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; As noted previously, the majority of the subject property already has a zoning designation of PUD; the PUD rezoning was evaluated at the rezoning stage and was deemed consistent with the GMP. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMP as it is proposed to be amended as discussed in other portions of the staff report. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Additional development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration. This project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Lev& 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, safet7. and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. HISTORIC &ARCHAEOLOGICAL PRESERVATION BOARD (HAPB): This petition was heard by the HAPB on June 19, 2013. By a vote of 5-0, the HAPB accepted the conclusion of the Phase I Cultural Assessment that no historic or archaeological sites, regarded as potentially eligible for Listing on the National Register of Historic Places, occur on the parcel; with the condition that a certified archaeologist be on-site during excavations. PUDZ-A-PL20120001593: BAY HOUSE CAMPUS PUD Page 18 of 20 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/5/13 Packet Page-2515- 12/10/2013 17.B. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant's agents conducted a duly noticed NIM on December 10, 2012, at the Bay House Restaurant at 799 Walkerbilt Road. Please see attached synopsis Exhibit 1). COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on September 4, 2013. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-A-PL2012000159 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval. oak PUDZ-A-PL20120001593: BAY HOUSE CAMPUS PUD Page 19 of 20 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 9/5/13 Packet Page -2516- 12/10/2013 17.B. PREPARED BY: r KA [SELEM,AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEWED BY: U . f ----- c'. az• !> RAYMf D V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DA'Z'E DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING MIKE BOSI, AICP,DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVED BY: try I NICK.'CASALANGUIDA, AbMINISTRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION- Tentatively scheduled for the December 10. 2013 Board of County Commissioners Meeting Exhibits: 1. NIM synopsis, dated December 14,2012 2. Administrative Parking Reduction APR-PL-2010-1439 Approval Letter 3. Administrative Height Variance PUDZ-A-PL20120001593: BAY HOUSE CAMPUS PUD Page 20 of 20 October 3,2013 CCPC Revised: 8/21/13 Packet Page-2517- 12/10/2013 17.B. IWALDROP ENGINEERING CIVIL ENGINEERING&LAND DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS 4 a, a fft;Ve Memorandum To: Kay Deselem,AICP From: Alexis Crespo,AICP cc: Peter Tierney,Edward"Bud"Negley Date: December 14,2012 Subject: Bay House Campus CPUD(PUDZ-A-PL2012-1595) Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis Bay House Campus, LLC in conjunction with Waldrop Engineering, P.A. and Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. conducted a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) on Monday, December 10, 2012. The meeting was held at 5:00 p.m. at the Bay House Restaurant at 799 Walkerbilt Rd. The sign-in sheet is attached as Exhibit"A", and demonstrates approximately 23 people attended the meeting. A handout was distributed outlining the project overview, proposed uses, and site development regulations,and is attached as Exhibit"B". Alexis Crespo with Waldrop Engineering began the meeting with introductions of the consultant team and an overview of project, including an explanation of the existing and proposed PUD master plans, the proposed 30-room hotel, 400 restaurant seats (including the Bay House), and 4,500 square feet of commercial uses.A description of the boardwalks and preserve was also provided. Alexis also noted several deviations are proposed. the majority for signage. to allow for additional design flexibility. A description of the application's status in the rezoning process was provided, including a description of the public nearing process. Following the applicant's presentation, the meeting was opened for Q&A. The following is a summarized list of the questions asked and responses given. Question/Comment 1: Where will access from Walkerbilt Road be provided? Response: Access will be provided via the existing driveway/access point to the Bay House Restaurant.Also,an access is proposed from U.S. 41. Question/Comment 2: Will you utilize the entire six acres for the proposed uses? Response: No, the preserve shown on the master plan will remain preserve and only 2+/- of the additional 6+/-acres will be developed. Asok Page 1 of 4 Packet Page -2518- 12/10/2013 17.B. Question/Comment 3: Why does the hotel need boat docks? Does the Bay House currently have boat docks? Response: The boat docks will serve as an amenity for hotel guests. Guests will be able to arrive by boat. Tim Hall added that the restaurant currently has a permit to construct boat slips. Bud Negley also added that the intent is to allow guests to kayak and canoe on the river. The river is too shallow for large power boats. The intent is for non-motorized boats and pontoon boats for guests and patrons of the hotel and restaurant. Question/Comment 4: How many docks are you requesting? Response:Nine(9) slips total are proposed,not nine(9)docks. Question/Comment 5: Would the slips be owned by the hotel? Response:Yes,the owners of the site will retain ownership of the slips. Question/Comment 6: If I want to stay at the hotel for a week can I bring my boat? Response: Yes, small watercraft could be kept at the on-site slips, but they would have to be launched elsewhere and arrive by boat. The type of boat would be restricted based on the height of surrounding bridges and the depth of the water. Question/Comment 7:Are you building a boat launch? Response: No,this site will never have a boat launch. The Manatee Protection Plan will not allow a launch for motorized boats. Question/Comment 8: How big is the hotel going to be? Response: 30 room maximum. The maximum height requested is 65 feet or 3 stories. The PUD will be limited to that height. This is a reduction in intensity from the previously approved 160-room hotel. There is also a previous approval for an administrative height variance for 75 feet. Question/Comment 9: Is that a walkway going along the river shown on the PU )Master Plan? Response: Yes, it is a boardwalk. Question/Comment 10: If they approve the docks shown on your plan can you get additional docks in the future? Response: We are approved for 9 slips. We would need to get additional permit approvals to get more slips. The ninth slip is at the end of the boardwalk near the Bay House Restaurant. Question/Comment 11: Can we come to the restaurant by boat if we are having dinner`' Response: Yes,that is what is proposed. Question/Comment 12: I don't understand the PUD rezoning. Are you zoning the property around you to PUD? Response: The subject property was already zoned PUD and it sunsetted, or lapsed in approval. Therefore, we are rezoning to PUD again. We are not rezoning the land surrounding the project. We are only allowed to rezone property owned by the Applicant. Question/Comment 13: Do you have access from US 41? Response: Yes, there is an existing access easement, which the property owner acquired. We have coordinated with DOT on this access. Page 2 of 4 Exhibit#1 Packet Page-2519- 12/10/2013 17.B. Question/Comment 14: Are you closing off the access point to the commercial plaza up front? Response: No, we are extending this existing access into the subject property. It is the existing access to the East Indies Trading Company plaza. There will still be an interconnection to US 41. Question/Comment 15: I like the concept. I am surprised about the building height. Response: We are still evaluating where the first finished floor will be. The maximum height requested is 75' from the roadway. The intent is not to create a tall structure, but to create a structure that is architecturally appropriate. Our goal is to enhance the land and one of the reasons we bought the land was to prevent a 90-foot Embassy Suites hotel from being built next to our restaurant. Question/Comment 16: Are you projecting 2 or 3 stories for the hotel? Response: The concept is an Old Florida style building that is 3 stories in some areas and 2 stories in other areas. It will be taller than the Bay House, but the style will be cohesive. The PUD will be limited to a maximum of 3 stories. Question/Comment 17: Do you feel you have to have the boat docks? Response: Yes.They are permitted boat slips. Question/Comment 18: Do you have adequate parking? Response: We are proposing to expand the existing parking lot that is here today as shown on the plan. We are seeking a deviation to allow for shared parking between the various on-site uses proposed, and are working with staff on this item as part of our resubmittal. It is intended that patrons will come and utilize multiple uses on the site. Also, the proposed uses will have different peak hours. Question/Comment 19: There are kayaks for rent across the river. Will having the kayaks on your property improve your business that much? Response: The slips are an important use and beneficial to the business. The project is not adding boat launches though, and we are not anticipating to generate significant boat traffic. This just creates an additional way to access the property. We are not talking about big boats or power boats. The number of slips is within the low threshold limitation and the PUD will not exceed the number we nave approved today. We do not intend to rent kayaks, but have them available for use by hotel patrons. Question/Comment 20: V are still having more boat usage in the area because of the proposec boat docks. Question/Comment 21: What is going to happen to the drainage area along Walkerbilt Road? Response: The existing dry detention area will be converted to a lake to clean the water before it leaves the site. It is currently a dry detention area, and we are proposing to dig it deeper into a lake to improve the appearance of it. The previous developers intended to cover the lake and build a storage vault underground to treat the water. We are proposing the lake as an amenity for the site, not cover it up with parking. Question/Comment 22: What is the property to the south? Response: That is an existing office building. Page 3 of Exhibit#1 Packet Page -2520- 12/10/2013 17.B. Question/Comment 23:Will you have more meetings on this project? Response: We will continue to work with staff and respond to their questions. Those who live within 500 feet of the property will receive notice when the public hearings occur. Kay Deselem added that residents can also contact Staff with any questions. Question/Comment 24: A resident added that the hotel should be sound proofed because of the night club. Question/Comment 25: Will you have to add fill,or are you not allowed to do that? Response: Yes, we will need to add fill. Once we start the construction process we have to ensure water run-off is kept on-site and treated prior to leaving the site. We will have stormwater management permits prior to site development and are liable for the design. There were no further questions or comments. The meeting concluded at approximately 5:40 p.m. The meeting was recorded per the CD attached as Exhibit"C". Page 4 of 4 Exhibit#1 Packet Page -2521- 12/10/2013 17.B. Al ilk Department of Land Development Services October 8, 2010 Mr. J.J. Bombassaro J.B. Engineering 11338 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 5 Bonita Springs,Fl 34135 RE: Administrative Parking Reduction APR-PL-2010-1439; for the Bay House Restaurant Remodel. The subject property is located at 799 Walkerbilt Road, within the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD, Ordinance 88-030, folio number 26300000250, Section 21, Township 48 South,Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida. Dear Mr. Bombassaro: In your Administrative Parking Reduction (APR) application APR-PL-2010-1439 you request a reduction in the number of parking spaces required for the Bay House Restaurant, in accordance with the Land Development Code (LDC) section 4.05.04.F.2. This section of the LDC states that the County Manager or designee may determine the minimum parking requirements for a use which is not specifically referenced in that section or for which an applicant has provided evidence that a specific use is of such a unique nature that the applicable minimum parking ratio listed in the LDC should not be applied. In your application you request that the proposed Bay House Restaurant provide a total of 89-parking spaces instead of the LDC minimum requirements of 101 spaces. In your narrative you indicate that this restaurant has operating successfully with 92-parking spaces for a number of years. You also note that 3 of the existing spaces will be lost when the Site Development Plan Amendment, SDPA-PL-2010-872 which is currently under review, is completed. The reason for this 3-parking space loss is due to restriping and handicapped parking requirements to meet current LDC and Florida Building Code standards. Further you point out that the PUD limits the total number of restaurant seats to 180 which further limits future parking issues using the existing number of parking spaces. Staff has reviewed the application including the SDPA currently under review. It is staffs opinion that the parking reduction request is reasonable based on the unique historic operation of the restaurant which has successfully utilized parking provided at a lesser rate than that required by the LDC. Further it is reasonable to allow the existing Exhibit# 2 Packet Page-2522- 12/10/2013 17.B. parking, less the 3-spaces required due to the need of addressing health safety requirements, and allow a reduction in the required number of spaces to 89 instead of the normally required 101. For these reasons the APR meets the requirements of LDC Section 4.05.04.F.4. Given the information you have provided, I hereby approve for the Bay House Restaurant a reduction in the number of parking spaces required to a total of 89 spaces including required handicapped space,under the following conditions: A. Approval of this Administrative Parking Reduction is predicated on the information outlined above, the completion and approval of SDPA- PL- 2010-872, and the evidence presented in the application request. Any changes to the facilities or business conditions and/or use shall necessitate a re-review of the parking reduction which may result in the need for additional parking spaces to be provided. B. If at any time it is deemed necessary by Collier County staff the owner shall be required to address any additional parking needs or reduce the number of seats at the restaurant should the 89-parking spaces noted above prove to be inadequate. If you should have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, William Lorenz, P.E., Director Department of Land Development Services cc: Peggy Jarrell, Addressing Section SDP PL-2010-872, file Correspondence file Exhibit# 2 Packet Page-2523- 12/10/2013 17.B. . x COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT -' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION September 25, 2001 �-------- � ----�-- --- PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE Mr. Robert J. Muihere, AICP NAPLES, FL 34104 RWA Inc .. 3050 North horseshoe Drive, Suite 270 Naples, FL 34104 Re. Application of Section 2.6.3.2 of the LDC to the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD Hotel Site Dear Mr. Mulhere: Your letter dated September 7, 2001 request our opinion as to the appropriateness of utilizing the provisions of Section 2.6.3.2. of the LDC to allow a hotel to be constructed in the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD which exceeds the maximum height allowed in said PUD for a hotel. Section 2.6.3.2 clearly provides the conditions under which the Planning Services Director may administratively allow a building to exceed applicable height requirements. The scenario which you describe in your letter, whereby you propose two levels of under story parking for four floors/stories of occupied space is consistent with the authorization of Section 2.6.3.2 provided the site master plan is otherwise consistent with the conditions that must be met in order for the Planning Services Director to approve a modification to the height of the building. All of the criteria are measurable and said measurable criteria you have affirmed will be met with the exception of the requirement for compatibility with adjacent property. Relative to the compatibility criteria a preliminary review suggests that while the site is somewhat isolated to the north by its relationship to the coastal area, the site is within close proximity to US 41. Development within the immediate area appears to be 3 stories in height or less. In order to meet the Architectural compatibility of the structure with surrounding buildings, I anticipate it may be accomplished by mitigating the impact of a 68 foot high structure with additional facade or wall height treatment along portions of the building adiacent to U.S. 41. the extent to which will have to be determined during_ the required site development plan review process. The proposed hotel site lies ',e.tlyeen commercial uses of Iand and therefore from the perspective of land uses we find a hotel use to be coninatibie. Assuming you can meet all of the criteria listed as you claim you will do we are prepared to administratively approve a building_ which exceeds a height of 50 feet above the FEMA elevation for a building which contains two stories of parking beneath the building for a maximum total building height of sixty-eight feet. Sincerely Susan Murray. AICP Current Planning Manager for Thomas E. Kuck. P.E. Interim Director. Planning Services Exhibit# 3 page 1 of 4 PHO` -0);3-2,i00 -..---_. Fax 1941 i 643-6968 www.co.collier-fl.us Packet Page -2524- 12/10/2013 17.B. t?W RECEIVED Development& - Z 1. IT-1- -IL Environmental Consultants September 7, 2001 Ms. Susan Murray, AICP, Interim Current Planning Manger Collier County Planning Services Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: Application of Section 2.6.3.2 of the LDC to the Cocohatchee Rive Trust PUD Hotel Site. Dear Ms. Murray: The Collier County Board of Commissioners approved the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD on March 15, 1988. The PUD is located just north of Walkerbilt Road, on the west side of US 41 North(Tamiami Trail), with frontage directly on the Cocohatchee River. The PUD consists 8.66 acres and permits a hotel with up to 160 rooms and a full service restaurant with up to 180 seats. The hotel is permitted at 4-stories, not to exceed 50 feet in height. In January of 1991, an SDP-89-136 was approved for the Bay House Restaurant, which was subsequently constructed and is operational. Parties interested in pursuing the permitted hotel use on the site have recently contacted the property owner. The PUD calls for a unified plan for parking, water management and opens spaces and preserve areas. The property owner recently conducted an environmental assessment of the site which indicates that greater jurisdictional areas than were determined to exist during the previous jurisdictional determination conducted in 1989 and 1990. In order tc address these additional jurisdictional issue and to design the site with integrated parkin_. water management and to maximize on-site greenspace. the owner is nroposintr to place the parking required for the hotel primarily under the buildin In reviewing the PUD find a number of things that support this request: The PUD Master Site Plan is very detailed, but the PUD document allows for submission of a conceptual site plan and allows for administrative staff approval to revisions to the master site plan (as it is cleariv intended to be conceptual and flexible). In addition,the PUD specifically provides for the fo I lowing: 1. Section 2.2 (b): In the case of clustered buildings. development regulations may be waived or reduced with submission of the conceptual site plan. 2. Section 4.4 (a): The PUD Master Plan is an illustrative preliminary development plan. 3. Section 4.4 (b): The design and layout of the master plan shall be understood to be flexible... Exhibit# 3 page 2 of 4 ^OnQ North r-': .&shoe Drive, Suite 270, Naples: 49-1509, tax: (941) 649-7056 • www.consult-rwa.corn Packet Page-2525- 12/10/2013 17.B. RWI\ IN Ms. Susan Murray,AICP Re:Application of Section o to Cocohatchee River Trust PUD Hotel Site 9/7/01 Amok Page 2 of 3 4. Section 4.4 (d): Minor design changes shall be permitted administratively... 5. Section 4.7 (g): The petitioner shall produce stormwater management designs that minimize upland destruction... minimize habitat destruction. 6. Section 4.7 (i): For parking lots,petitioner shall investigate the use of alternative materials in lieu of asphalt to reduce amount of impervious surfaces... In addition, as you are aware, Section 2.6.3.2. of the Collier County LDC allows the Planning Services Director to waive the maximum height requirement "to the extent necessary to permit off-street parking within the principal structure."There are four conditions that must be met in support of this administrative determination: • The number of space required by code for the use may not be reduced; • The waiver in height shall not be greater than that necessary to provide for the off-street parking within the principal structure; • The waiver of the maximum height requirements are compatible with the uses on adjacent properties; and • For each off-street parking space within the principal structure for which the maximum height waiver is granted,300 square feet of additional open space beyond that which is otherwise required by this code shall be provided. In response to these conditions, the owner commits to the following: • The minimum amount of parking spaces required b the LDC for the hotel and restaurant use will be provided; • The request for waiver in height is for the minimum amount necessary to accommodate 2 stories of parking under a four-story hotel. The existing ground elevation is between 6 and 7 NGVD. The required FEMA elevation is 11 feet. Therefore, in order to accommodate 2 stories of under building parking, the actual building height, from the required FEMA elevation of 11 feet will not exceed 68 feet in height. • There are no residential uses in close proximity. The property is adjacen to C-4 zoned lands to the South. US 41 to the East, Collie- Tract _; Commercial PUD to the West, Cocohatchee River and AST lands to the North. The additional height requested to accommodate the under-building • parking will result in enhanced open spaces and preserve areas and will be fully compatible with surrounding lands. • Additional open space in the amount of 300 square feet for each parking space for which the additional height is granted will be provided. Specifics on the actual building height, coverage, and total required and provided open space will be submitted as part of the SDP process. We are requesting that the waiver be granted subject to meeting the above commitments. I have attached an illustration of the proposed hotel as well as a draft of the site plan depicting the under building parking layout. Again the hotel would be a maximum of four stories in height, approximately 45 feet over two levels of under building parking. Given that building height is measured from the minimum DEP/FEMA required Exhibit# 3 1 Packet Page -2526- 12/10/2013 17.B. RWA INC Ms.Susan Murray,AICP Re:Application of Section o to Cocohatchee River Trust PUD Hotel Site 9/7/01 Page 3 of 3 elevation, one level of parking can be accommodating under the 50-foot height limitation for principal structures established by the PUD. The second level of under building parking will require your approval under Section 2.6.3.2 of the LDC. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have additional questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, Robert J. Mulhere, AICP Director of Planning Cc: John Dunnuck, Interim Administrator Community Dev. &Env. Services Division Tom Kuck, P.E.,Interim Planning Director Ron Nino, AICP, Chief Planner Exhibit# 3 Packet Page-2527- 12/10/2013 17.B. ORDINANCE NO. 13- • AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 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 FOR A PROJECT PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS THE COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) WHICH IS HENCEFORTH TO BE KNOWN AS THE BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD, TO REMOVE THE SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY AND TO ALLOW 400 SEATS OF RESTAURANT/COCKTAIL LOUNGE, A 50 ROOM HOTEL OR MOTEL, AND 4,500 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF ACCESSORY RETAIL USES INCLUDING A CULINARY SCHOOL, SPECIALTY RETAIL AND RESTAURANT/BREW HOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 8.67 +/- ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 88-30, THE COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST PUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PUDZ-A-PL201200015931 WHEREAS, Alexis Crespo, AICP of Waldrop Engineering, P.A.representing Bay House Campus, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to repeal Ordinance 88-30, the Cocohatchee River Trust Planned Unit Development, and rezone the subject property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit Development(CPUD)zoning district for a project to be known as the Bay House Campus CPUD, and the Special Treatment Overlay, is removed to allow 400 seats of restaurant/cocktail lounge, a 50 room hotel or motel and 4,500 square feet of gross floor area of accessory retail uses including a culinary school, specialty retail and restaurant/brew house in accordance with the Bay House Campus CPUD attached hereto as Exhibits "A" through "F" and incorporated by reference herein. The Bay House Campus CPUD Page 1 of 2 PUDZ-A-PL20120001593—rev. 10/8/13 Packet Page-2528- 12/10/2013 17.B. appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Ordinance Number 88-30, known as the Cocohatchee River Trust Planned Unit Development is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION THREE: 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 , 2013. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk GEORGIA A. HILLER, ESQ. Chairwoman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B— Development Standard_ Exhibit C —Master P1ar.. Exhibit D—Legal Description Exhibit E—List of Requested Deviations Exhibit F—Development Commitments 12-CPS-01191\26 Bay House Campus CPUD Page 2 of 2 • PUDZ-A-PL20120001.593—rev. 10/8/13 Packet Page-2529- 12/10/2013 17.B. EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD Atiok PERMITTED USES: 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, as limited by Section III of this Exhibit A: I. Campus Tract A. Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Hotel, motel and transient lodging—maximum of 50 rooms(Group 7011) 2. Eating establishments(Group 5812)—maximum of 400 seats Any other principal and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code(LDC). B. Accessory Uses: 1. Boats(All subject to LDC Section 5.03.06): Boat rental Boat slips(limited to 9 slips) Kayak and canoe launch Kayak and canoe storage 2. Two(2)caretaker's residences(subject to LDC Section 5.03.05) 3. School,commercial (Group 8299). Limited to culinary school accessory not to exceed 4,500 square feet. , 4. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the principal hotel and restaurants uses, including but not limited to the following recreational, retail and personal service uses: administrative offices, ATM (automatic teller machine), apparel and accessory stores, barber shops (excluding barber schools), beauty shops (excluding beauty schools), boardwalks and nature trails, book stores, camera & photographic supply stores, child day care services, drugstore, drinking establishments(excluding bottle clubs), educational kiosks and shelters, entry gates & gatehouse, essential services, fences, walls, food store,florists,gift and souvenir shop,jewelry store, museum & art galleries, narking lot, personal service establishments, entertainment facilities, and meeting rooms and auditoriums, physical fitness facilities recreational uses and facilities, including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, chickee huts/bars, and gazebos. Any other accessory use and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals, pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). Accessory uses are for the exclusive use of hotel and restaurant patrons and shall not be advertised to the public via on-site or off-site signage, with the exception of the culinary school, which is open to the public and may be advertised in accordance with the LDC and the provisions of the PUD stated herein. BAY HOUSE CAMPUS—PUDZ-A-PL2012-1593 Page 1 of 8 Last Revised:October 8,2013 Packet Page-2530- 12/10/2013 17.B. II. Preserve Tract A. Principal Uses&Structures Passive recreational uses limited to the following, as long as any clearing required to facilitate the uses does not impact the minimum required preserve. 1. Boardwalks and nature trails (excluding asphalt paved trails) 2. Benches for seating 3. Educational kiosks 4. Signs 5. Viewing platforms 6. Water management facilities 7. Inclement weather shelters without walls 8. Any other preserve and related open space activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals determines to be compatible with the preserve area. III. Development Intensity Development intensity is limited to a 50-room hotel,400-seat restaurant(s)/cocktail lounge(s), and 4,500 square feet of accessory commercial uses within the CPUD. Accessory uses for the exclusive use of hotel and restaurant patrons are not subject to the 4,500 square foot limitation.The gross project area is 8.67±acres. No residential density is permitted,except for the caretakers residences. BAY HOUSE CAMPUS—PUDZ-A-PL2012-1593 Page 2 of 8 Last Revised:October 8,2013 Packet Page-2531- 12/10/2013 17.B. EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD Ith Development of the Bay House Campus CPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to, final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit, and preliminary work authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district shall apply. Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Bay House Campus CPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PERMITTED USES AND STANDARDS Principal Structures Accessory Structures Min. Lot Area N/A N/A Min. Lot Width _ N/A N/A SETBACKS(EXTERNAL) From US 41 R-O-W 40 ft. 25 ft. From Walkerbilt Rd. R-O-W 40 ft. 25 ft. Cocohatchee River 30 ft. 0 ft. Western Property Line 50 ft. SPS SETBACKS(INTERNAL) Internal Access Easements 15' SPS Side 10' 5' Rear 15' 10' Preserves* 0'/25' 0'/10' Min. Distance Between Structures 30' 5' MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT Zoned 150' 35' Actual 75' 45 SPS=Same as Principal Structure *0' setback is permitted for fences or retaining walls permitted as part of the stormwater management system, pathways,and other structures allowed within the preserves tract pursuant to Exhibit A and LDC Sec.3.05.07.H.1.h.iii BAY HOUSE CAMPUS—PUDZ-A-PL2012-1593 Page 3 of 8 Last Revised:October 8,2013 Packet Page-2532- 12/10/2013 17.B. EXHIBIT C-CPUD MASTER PLAN PI a pr rliii -CV11§1P lig g i 1 -521i 'v m 111 id ge En 4 n I F,e, 0 1 3 0 — > g^' 5 - tL" r 2gy 0 gg gm m C giE EA 1 p q 4 o z ,. m c El * Pa PP r la t 1 � � tag 8 µ '< 8 1 i - ; ; n iir, 01; h i v U i u / \ .♦ C - �f1 r li 44i 1r Wig p -it° \Jl I p �Q r, fir n r ' !4 co Q T ,-._ , 2"dc ;,-, ' IbJ _ rrl'•' Pm i F! SyFCr t it t�`6l t !' 6' m ►-7 i'� � 111 r ��% ` '''''' 1 m in TAMIMAI TRAIL/U.S.41(130'R.O.W.) f' 0 3 ai r z a lip:: _o ror IIip © I BAY HOUSE CAMPUS—PUDZ-A-PL2012-1593 Page 4 of 8 Last Revised:October 8,2013 Packet Page -2533- 12/10/2013 17.B. EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD Amok BEING ALL OF TRACT 1, BAY HOUSE REPLAT,ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 50, PAGES 14 AND 15 TOGETHER WITH ALL OF TRACTS 2 AND 3, COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST P.U.D.,ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 18, PAGES 97 AND 98 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.ALL LYING WITHIN SECTION 21,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 377,623 SQUARE FEET OR 8.67 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. BAY HOUSE CAMPUS—PUDZ-A-PL2012-1593 Page 5 of 8 Last Revised:October 8,2013 Packet Page -2534- 12/10/2013 17.B. EXHIBIT E LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD Deviation No. 1: Deviation from LDC Section 4.04.02 which requires all commercial projects to provide interconnections and shared access to adjacent properties. The requested deviation is to allow for the existing interconnections to the commercial retail property to the southeast only, as shown on the CPUD master plan. Deviation No. 2: Deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04.H, which requires 218 parking spaces based upon the proposed mix of principal and accessory uses,to allow for a 10%reduction to required parking spaces for the project.The number of required parking spaces is subject to change at the time of SDP or PPL based upon final square footage of uses. Deviation No.3: Deviation from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.d,which allows temporary signs on nonresidential or mixed use properties up to 32 square feet in area and 8 feet in height. The requested deviation is to allow a temporary sign or banner up to 48 square feet in area and a maximum of 12 feet in height.The sign shall be limited to 28 calendar days per year. Deviation No.4: Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.04.G.2.a,which allows off-premise directional signage up to 12 square feet in size.The requested deviation is to allow for one(1)off-premise directional signage up to 16 square feet in size. Deviation No. 5: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, which requires developments to provide 5'-wide sidewalks on both sides of private rights-of-way or easements internal to the site. The requested deviation is to allow a 5'-wide sidewalk on the northern side of the easement that connects the development area to US 41. Deviation No.6: Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.08.F,which prohibits project sites with more than one building where he aggregate gross building area is 20,000 square feet or more from undergoing the administrative determination of deviation process,to allow the project site to qualify for administrative determination of deviations where the aggregate gross building area is 70,000 square feet. BAY HOUSE CAMPUS—PUDZ-A-PL2012-1593 Page 6 of 8 Last Revised:October 8,2013 Packet Page -2535- 12/10/2013 17.B. EXHIBIT F DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the general development commitments for the project. 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 Bay House Campus, LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written 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. 2. PUD MASTER PLAN Exhibit "C", PUD Master Plan, illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed area, lot or land use boundaries or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as final platting or site development plan approval in accordance with the LDC. 3. UTILITIES 3.1 The project shall connect to the Collier County Water Sewer District (CCWSD) potable water system at a location determined by CCWSD when capacity is available. 3.2 The project shall connect to the CCWSD wastewater collection and conveyance system at a location determined by CCWSD when capacity is available. • 4. TRANSPORTATION 4.'_ The developer, its successors or assigns shall provide a fair share contribution toward the capital costs of traffic signals on U.S. 41 at the project access and at Walkerbilt Road if and when deemed warranted by Collier County. The signals shall be owned, operated and maintained by Collier County. 4.2 The developer, its successors or assigns shall be responsible for required improvements to Walkerbilt Road, including widening, as warranted by County land development regulations for this roadway to accommodate the traffic for this project and shall be initiated within 90 days of the County's request, as applicable. Walkerbilt Road improvements, if warranted shall be BAY HOUSE CAMPUS—PUDZ-A-PL2012-1593 Page 7 of 8 Last Revised:October 8,2013 Packet Page -2536- 12/10/2013 17.B. permitted as part of a Development Order improvement process (PPL or SDP), or approved as a Right-of-Way Permit. 5. ENVIRONMENTAL 5.1 The project shall provide a minimum of 1.64 acres of on-site native habitat preservation in compliance with the Growth Management Plan. Any clearing required to facilitate passive recreational uses shall not impact the minimum required preserve. 5.2 Little Blue Heron, Snowy Egret, and White Ibis have been documented on the property. Management plans for these species shall be submitted in accordance with the procedures and requirements of the Land Development Code. 6. ARCHAEOLOGY&HISTORICAL RESOURCES 6.1 A certified archaeologist shall be on-site during excavations. BAY HOUSE CAMPUS—PUD2-A-PL2012-1593 Page 8 of 8 Last Revised:October 8,2013 Packet Page -2537- 12/10/2013 17.B. • NAPLES o A I LY NEWS (( Wednesday, November 20,2013 (t 27D ' • • -NOTICE.`OF.MEETING NOTICE OF MEETING • NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that on TUESDAY, December 10, 2013, in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida, the Board of County Commissioners 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 COWER 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 FOR A PROJECT PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS THE COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) WHICH IS HENCEFORTH TO BE KNOWN AS THE BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD, TO REMOVE THE SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY AND TO ALLOW 400 SEATS OF RESTAURANT/COCKTAIL • LOUNGE, A 50 ROOM HOTEL OR MOTEL, AND 4,500 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF ACCESSORY RETAIL USES INCLUDING A CULINARY SCHOOL, SPECIALTY RETAIL AND RESTAURANT/BREW HOUSE ON PROPERTY.LOCATED IN SECTION 21,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 8.67 +/- ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 88-30, THE COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST PUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, IPUDZ-A-PL-201200015931 Copies of the proposed Ordinance are on file with the Clerk to the Board and are available for.inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the County administrator prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of an •individual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is ,encouraged. If • recognized by the Chairman, a spokesperson for a group or'organization may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the Board agenda packets must submit said.material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. in any case, written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. f Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, whicn record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is basec. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Building W, Naples, Florida 34112, (239)252-8380. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the County Commissioners'Office. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS . COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA • GEORGIA A.HILLER,ESQ.CHAIRWOMAN • DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK • By: Martha Vergara,Deputy Clerk (SEAL) #, November 20 2013 No 2007244 • • ay Packet Page -2538-