The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 02/08/2011 Item #17B 2/8/2011 Item 17.8. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PUDZ-2007-AR-11381, Marsilea Villas, LLC, represented by Tim Hancock of Davidson Engineering, is reqnesting a rezone from an Agricultural Zoning District (A) and an Agricnltural zoning district with a Special Treatment Overlay to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district with removal of the Special Treatment Overlay for a project known as Marsilea Villas RPUD to allow development of up to 27 single-family dwelling nnits. The subject property, consisting of 10.25 acres, is located west of Livingston Road surrounded by Royal Palm International Academy just north of Imperial Golf Estates, Unit 5 in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) review staffs 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 rezone petition; and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: This petition seeks to convert 10.25 acres of vacant, undeveloped land zoned Rural Agricultural (A) to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). The PUD proposes the development of no more than 27 single-family detached residential units with a density of2.63 dwelling units per acre. The buildings will not exceed two stories and will have a zoned height of 35 feet and an actual height of 47 feet. Ingress/egress is currently gained from one access point at the recently renamed and vacated Entrada Avenuc. (Petition numbers PL-2009-2385 and PL-201 0-1595) The Master Plan depicts generalized areas of development, water management, and traffic/pedestrian circulation. The Master Plan also shows that 6.58 acres will be residential area, 1.27 acres will be lake area, .51 acres will be buffer area, and 1.89 acres along the north boundary of the site will be set aside as a preserve area. Notes on the Master Plan reinforce the petitioner's intention to comply with code for 60 percent open space, landscaping, preservation area and project design. 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 Packet Page -734- 2/8/2011 Item 17,8. 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) IMP ACT: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): Comprehensive Planning has found the proposed rezone consistent with the FLUE. For further reference, please see the "Future Land Use Element Consistency Review Memorandum," dated June] 8,2010. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (rrS) and has detennined that this project can be found consistent with policy 5.] of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. For more information, please see the GMP Consistency Rcview contained in the Staff Report. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Staff is of the opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with the policies in Objective 6.1.1 and with the objectives of Policy 2.2.2 of Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME). A more detailed consistency review is contained in the attached Staff Report. Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed RPUD rezoning may be found consistent with the FLUE and the other applicable elements of the GMP. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: The Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC) heard this petition on January 6, 20] 0, and voted unanimously to approve it with the following stipulation (as stated verbatim from the EAC minutes): 1. After one year of clearing of the exotics in the Preserves, the PUD Monitoring Report submitted to County Staff will provide evidence, including photographs, to allow staff to determine if the Preserve re-vegetation is occurring naturally, or if additional re- vegetation measures are required. Subsequent to the EAC meeting, the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) has been amended to include the information contained in the stipulation requested by the EAC. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard petition PUDZ-2007-AR-1 ]381 on December 16,20]0, and by a vote of9 to 0 recommended to forward this petition to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions which have been incorporated into the PUD document: 1. The sidewalk shall be relocated to the opposite side of the street. 2. A minimum20-foot setback shall be required from the external property line of the PUD. Packet Page -735- 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. 3. The EAC stipulation shall be removed from the pun. 4. The references to roads within the Transportation Section of the PUD shall be pluralized. The PUD document and the Master Plan have been updated accordingly. Because the CCPC approval recommendation was unanimous and no letters of objection have been received, this petition has been placed on the Summary Agenda. LEGAL CONSIDERA nONS: [Quasi-judicial, Four-fifths vote for approval] This is a site specific rezone from an Agricultural Zoning District to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Marsilea Villas RPUD. The burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent with all the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), should it consider denying the rezone, to determine that such denial would not be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable, This would be accomplished by finding that the proposal does not meet one or more of the listed criteria below. Criteria for RPUD Rezones Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval or not. I. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. 2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. 3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed RPUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. 4. Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. 5. Is there an adequaey of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development? 6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Packet Page -736. 2/8/2011 Item 17,8. 7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 8. Consider: Conformity with RPUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. 9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan? 10. Will the proposed RPlJD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? 11. Would the requested RPUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? 12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. 13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. 14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? 15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety? 16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? 17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas? 18. Will the proposed change adversely affeet property values in the adjacent area? 19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations? 20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ("reasonably") be used In accordance with existing zoning? (a "core" question...) Packet Page -737- 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. 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 pernlitting 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 undcr the proposed zoning classification. 25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed RPUD rezone on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch.106, art. II], as amended. 26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the RPUD rezone request that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare? The BCC must base its' decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the BCC hearing as these items relate to these criteria. The proposed Ordinance was prepared by the County Attorney's Office. This itcm has bcen reviewed for legal sufficiency and is legally sufficient for Board action. A tour-fifths votc of the Board is necessary for approval. (HFAC) RECOMMENDA nON: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the request for PUDZ-2007- AR-I] 381, subject to the CCPC conditions of approval, which have been incorporated into the PUD document. PREPARED BY: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner, Department of Land Development Services Attachments: I) Staff Report 2) Application 3) Back-up information 3) Ordinance Packet Page -738- 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 17.8. Item Summary: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex-parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ-2007-AR-11381, Marsilea Villas, LLC, represented by Tim Hancock of Davidson Engineering, is requesting a rezone from an Agricultural Zoning District (A) and an Agricultural zoning district with a Special Treatment Overlay to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district with removal of the Special Treatment Overlay for a project known as Marsilea Villas RPUD to allow development of up to 27 single-family dwelling units. The subject property, consisting of 10.25 acres, is located west of Livingston Road surrounded by Royal Palm International Academy just north of Imperial Golf Estates, Unit 5 in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Meeting Date: 2/8/2011 Prepared By Approved By Name: BellowsRay Title: Manager - Planning, Comprehcnsive Planning Date: I II 4/201 I 2:29:09 PM Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, CDES Date: lII4/201 I 4:32:52 PM Name: LorenzWilliam Title: Director. CDES Engineering Services, Comprehensive Date: 1/18/20111:59:01 PM Name: MarcellaJeanne Title: Executive Secretary, Transportation Planning Date: 1/18/20115:02:21 PM Nan,e: FederNorm Title: Administrator. Growth Management Div,Transportati Packet Page .739- 2/8/2011 Item 17.8. Date: 1119/2011 11:27:54 AM Name: AshtonHeidi Title: Section Chief/Land Use-Transportation, County Attor Date: 1/27/2011 11 :40:04 AM Name: StanleyTherese Title: Management/Budget Analyst, Senior,Office of Management & Budget Date: ] /27/2011 2:00:45 PM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney, Date: 1/27/2011 4:59:52 PM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager Date: 1/30/2011 3:14:45 PM Packet Page -740- AGENuM~I..?Q!1ltem 17.8. Co1N~.,. County - ~ - STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION, PLANNING AND REGULATION HEARING DATE: DECEMBER 16, 2010 SUBJECT: PETITION PUDZ-2007-AR-I1381, MARSILEA VILLAS RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) APPLICANT/AGENT: Marsi1ea Villas, LLC 475 Price Court Marco Island, Florida 34145 Tim Hancock, AICP Davidson Engineering, Inc. 3530 Kraft Road, Suite 301 Naples, Florida 34105 REOUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a rezone of the subject 1O.25:t acre site from the Rural Agriculture (A) zoning district with a Special Treatment Overlay (A-ST) to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district with removal of the Special Treatment Overlay for a project to be known as the Marsi1ea Villas RPUD. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located approximately 112 mile west of Livingston Road and approximately 1.5 miles north of Immokalee Road. It is surrounded by Royal Palm International Academy PUD to the north, east and west; to the south is Imperial Golf Estates Unit 5, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See Location Map on following page.) PURPOSElDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This petition seeks to convert 10.25 acres of vacant, undeveloped land zoned Rural Agricultural (A) to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). The PUD proposes the development of no more than 27 single-family detached residential units with a density of 2.63 dwelling units per acre. The buildings will not exceed two stories and will have a zoned height of 35 feet and an actual height of 47 feet. Ingress/egress is currently gained from one access point at the recently Marsilea VilJas RPUD, PUDZ-2007-11381 December 6, 2010 PaQe1of16 Packet Page -741- gl ! ,I; fl:i I ---- z 0 w- "8 !::'< <00 9 a... ( !~ <( ~ C> ~: z - " Z I '" 0 J. ~ ,--..... '" N '" 1 1 ,I ," .~, 1 jl' . _J - -- 1 ! i g I ~, I <0, i '" ~ 0. , ,0 ~ 'I . 01 ~ ~I "'. i 0.. ., cl:! ~I 0, Ni ~j -~~ / ~ 0, - :;J' 0.. .. ! z II e 0, , ~; ;::1 ! , ::l;; , , 'g , ~~i ~~i i~ " H n ' - I' f i wi 0..1 ~-~ ...,..."AlIlNl'lCl:l....I1CllIS_SSJll.Ol.3 II 1ll.;U...~Slf;UNl a... I-z !I< 00 " I:. w- ~!!' <( . ,!- ! !!Ul,o. '_: <( ~ Z :0 ; : ~ () 0 i I 0 Ii :'I~ 0 W I ill , w ~ " , 'I U~' .....J ~ " , II ~, eo , 11 II "'.. " i I , "" , ! '" i . J """"'....' . ! ~gl l~ . i if I,~ $'I',' 1MlJ. 1..........J. i , ~:Ci ... M " Packet Pa e -742- . e"'- 2/8/2011 Item 17.8. " ~ill i .; Ul -' ! Ul ., ;:) o ~ o Ul o :>;1; ;g .,0 ~g: :0 ., !!!;1; ;1; 5 ~ o ~ Ul -' ! CI 1m D..::> . -' ~ z Ul o c;; ~ 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. o ~ ~ r>- Z i p ~ iV) , 0 ~ys I ,---(----"'1 I ~"'c- .~; __-! _! L~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ in w , o z in w " u < " e ~ ~ ~ ~ " u < ~ . ~ < b , 00 5 ~ := :~ ~! ~ ~ ; ~ ~ '" ~ ~ ;~ Sl;; ~ 2~ ~~ ~ ~; ~~ w ~~ ffi~ '.' O. ). ~ <ti ~ E:o N ~ ~; (1 ' > 0 <6 IT'" - .,..,.,. ...;'~~"",....~':-:.~:[i --------, I ~ ~ :::.:::::::.' . I~ ~ :. ::: . . ..:.. : I k 1:::IlJp.Ri;ije~~:.: 18?;1. "'~M . : - f "T;.y; ...... ~bl '! ..~. I <6 PRESERVE I 4~2~2=L~~;~ ::,,; -1 ,,,,,-, I ~ c-+~.n -r~~n~~-:! /-;.-- ,,".J ~i ::, i~ r )I ~!":T-'j .//>/ wen : Il. _-l It Ie 10 I ~ f ~ I 1>> ~ ~! · I' [-1--'" r . rI--- -' w a: " d~ ~:! ...J _ : Iii :::s:: u<( . "'~ ~:! <:( : : I- <( I ;a~ ,: - I ii ...J I'- I :; ~ 'I i g · <"! I w' : ~g ~ I B o. B :~ - i ~ II ---ff -----~}.~ : '~IL !~1 : I . , fEll I \ : ~ ~~ \... .~""--- "- t=:- ~ ' I D~[ @~~ ',: :NJ ~--":;';-,I r~~"'" -~I-~i "----+----------~~- '\ I ;~..: alF1: B ,>.: ail ..-' I!'~~!~ i f~~-I:- ;~ll I I ",:.clIO ~ ' ,-~ \I l;'~' "':77~7" V-/7~/~~L;r-YS/7'!'. ~u i~~ ~>~ oh E~~ OaF !i!Gl~ ~llJ !!! ::z\-uJ ii;~ i!: :o!~Q:i 8 ~~ ~ti~~ll~ S?~!!!~~~:o!~lli o:'uJo-ffi:t::r~~:!' ~ffi~~~S~~:? li!~~~;?~i:~@ ~~~iii~E~-[g~ ;~ <~:iu: a: i? ~l15 uJ....~L1-,a:=Ji: a. 0:::::;: ~~<{tt~;;:uJ~m~ =>_w=>l.J..u..!!-'>-:J :::~~~~~a~;fri ~a~~c;~~g-,o:: 1i~ffiirl~~ili3~~ o:J o~ 0 <l: "- LI-.:luJ ';'; .,.jli!~ll!~!S:::~'; j~a.-, <l: ....rllO~:. " a w' 00 <, "" <~ .< Ci~ >0 ~~~ ::!co ~~g:: ~G~ 0<' *~~ oc~O:: 0;:0 8~g L1-'LLUJ ~~~ H< -::lOO ~~ ~~ ,..; 3!::i " :7 ~ w"l a:U .0 r~ ",0 ~; s. co li!~ wU I U , < o ~ z 5 ~] . > , ~ ~ o o ., . <. "u ~~ ow "~ .w eii:(:j .u. ~tJ2 ~[~ WOC!:: ~-, W -if) >::J>- 0:: a; 0:: woo "''::''lI) wu~ .ow <l...o::u "'....u N"l<l: . " S . < W > . ~I ~ [I [ill:: , ,,: ----1 -,. . f- Z ::> U; Ul U <( a. (/) N ~ $ 25 " < z ffii o"W ~:;:i >" <to;::: " " " , ,. " , " " " " " ~ ::;; ~ z ::> E;. .J ~ Z Ul o c;; ~ .:.; ~ g :i " " > ~ , ~<~~ ,"',,- i-->2~ Co..<;'" ~" . , ~-,r;~~' ,..,,,-,wl--::: fr~u 0) ~ ~ ~'" ",'" d~ _. ;;"'... .... C>! f ':.::"~''':'''~'' ~ ~ I,;..,ll"'~ ""4)~ i 1;,., J..i '- .11..4.\tyM~ .~ ~\:: ,..~. ','01'"' s<"~.-, ,;'.., Fio CI -"', ~ . ~ IA.,o';I;C" C7'~~'~E ~.i,,,'l~ c ii:.r~ .-i'" ...~il~' ~.. , Ih. -t'''~ j.h~"'.~ 0< ;,i .:.; ~ f2 c;j 0: Zz ~Q .,1- ",0 ZW" ~jP ~8~ W;: "0 ~o: o 0: 0- ~ ~ UJ ~ Ul (/) Ul 0:: a. UJ '" :s (/) 0:: Ul 1L 1L ::> <ll f ~: ~ ~~ - "'> o'w :JZQ 0-< >u ~.;; ~.....~ ..,. . ;;' 6 " u Z. _a .;;; it i~J III.. III~ ZL -Zli 1lI~_ Z :l lIIiLI z.a o~.. fll)ifh elj;~~ >~;;;~ Call" C1~"'~ ~LU rw.. Z }o , ut' .,__ a. ~. Q ~Iw QI...; ';(1% 01 0, ..Ji ~ !;. O~ "'<a ",' - ."sr~ ~ ~~ . a~~3 "'~~ "'8" !i:!, 1-. Packet Page -743-"-_~"-I~__-T I'J~ 2/8/2011 Item 17,B, renamed and vacated Entrada Avenue. (Petition numbers PL-2009-2385 and PL-201O-1595) The Master Plan as provided on the previous page of this Staff Report depicts generalized areas of development, water management, and traffic/pedestrian circulation. The Master Plan also shows that 6.58 acres will be residential area, 1.27 acres will be lake area, .51 acres will be buffer area, and 1.89 acres along the north boundary of the site will be set aside as a preserve area. Notes on the Master Plan reinforce the petitioner's intention to comply with code for 60 percent open space, landscaping, preservation area and project design. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND WNING: North: Vacant, undeveloped with a zoning designation of Royal Palm International Academy PUD, a mixed-use educational and residential PUD approved at 3.4 dwelling units per acre. East: Vacant, undeveloped with a zoning designation of Royal Palm International Academy PUD, a mixed-use educational and residential PUD approved at 3.4 dwelling units per acre. South: A park, then single-family dwellings; zoned RSF-3 (Residential Single-family) at 3 dwelling units per acre. West: Vacant, undeveloped with a zoning designation of Royal Palm International Academy PUD, a mixed-use educational and residential PUD approved at 3.4 dwelling units per acre, AERIAL PHOTO Marsilea Villas RPUD. PUDZ.2007.11381 December 6,2010 Page 4 of 16 Packet Page -744- 2/8/2011 Item 17,B. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): Comprehensive Planning has found the proposed rezone consistent with the FLUE. For further reference, please see Attachment B: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review Memorandum, dated June 18, 20 I O. As to Policy 6.5, the Historic Archeological Preservation Board recommended approval of the Historical Survey waiver request as the site is not located in an area of historical/archaeological probability. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that this project can be found consistent with policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Livingston Road Impacts: The first concurrency link that is impacted by this project is Link 51, Livingston Road from Immokalee Road to Imperial Drive (Lee County Line). The project generates 13 PM peak hour, peak direction trips on this link, which represents a 0.4 percent impact on Livingston Road. This concurrency link reflects a remaining capacity of 2,039 trips in the adopted DRAFT 2010 AUIR (Annual Urban Inventory Report) and is at Level of Service "B." Conservation and Coastal Management Element: This project is consistent with the objectives of Policy 2.2.2 of Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing interconnected dry detention area(s), lake(s) and a wetland(s) to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events. The site is a residential development larger than 5 acres in size in a non-coastal high hazard area. Per Policy 6.1.1, the site is required to preserve 15 percent of the native vegetation on the property. The site contains 4.98 acres of native communities. As a result, the site is required to preserve 0.75 acres. The project is proposing to preserve 1.23 acres of native vegetation and 0.66 acres of non-native areas. As such the site meets the standards of Policy 6.1.1. In accordance with Policy 6.1.1(2), the Marsilea Villas project has aligned the preserve along the northern property boundary. This will allow for the largest contiguous core area and reduce the interface between the preserve and development A portion of the preserve will include restoration in all three strata and the remainder will include preservation of species in all three strata. In accordance with Policy 6.1.1(4) (V) a, the alignment of the preserve along the properties north boundary provides a wildlife corridor for movement of species between the project and the off-site Royal Palm Academy preserve west of the property. Protected species were not observed onsite. However, this can be used for any wildlife that may exist in the area. Marsilea Villas RPUD, PUDZ-2007.11381 December 6, 2010 Paqe 5 of 16 Packet Page -745- 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 10.02.13 B.S., 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 basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the POO document to address any environmental concerns. Staff recommends approval. Transportation Review: Transportation Department staff has reviewed this petition and has recommended approval subject to the petitioner accepting responsibility for maintenance of the roadway serving this project The petitioner has agreed and this commitment is included in POO Exhibit "F' "Developer Commitments." Utility Review: The Utilities Department staff has reviewed the petition and has stated that this project is located within the Collier County Water/Sewer District and is subject to the conditions associated with a Water and Sewer Availability Letter from the Collier County Utilities Division. Any portions of this project to be developed shall be required to comply with the current Ordinance 2004-31, Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures. Currently, County potable water and sanitary sewer transmission mains are not in close proximity to this development The extension is the sole responsibility of the Developer. All water and wastewater utilities constructed or extended within the Public right-of-way shall be conveyed to, owned by, and maintained by Collier County Water-Sewer District The distance from Livingston Road to the new development is approximately 2,920 feet The nearest water and wastewater utility locations are on Livingston Road. Per GIS, there is an existing l6-inch force main and l6-inch water main on Livingston Road. Historic Preservation Review: As previously stated, the Preservation Board recommended approval of the Historical Survey waiver request Emergency Management Review: The Emergency Management staff has reviewed the petition and has stated that the MarsiIea Villas RPOO is located in a Category 3 hurricane surge zone, which requires evacuation during some hurricane events. While there is currently no impact mitigation required for this, it should be noted that approval of this PUD increases the evacuation and sheltering requirements for the County slightly. Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) District Review: The proposed residential development is within the Veterans Memorial Elementary, North Naples Middle, and Gulf Coast High School attendance boundaries. It is estimated that the proposed project will generate a total of 10 Marsiles Villas RPUD, PUDZ.2007.1 1381 December 6,2010 Page 6 of 16 Packet Page -746- 2/8/2011 Item 17,B. students: 4 elementary, 3 middle and 3 high school. At this time there is not sufficient capacity within the Elementary and High School Concurrency Service Areas (CSA). There is sufficient capacity within the Middle School CSA. At the time of site plan or plat, the development will be reviewed for concurrency to ensure there is capacity and that the levels of service standards are not exceeded. At that time, the most current student enrollment will be used and the capacity within adjacent CSA's will be evaluated if necessary. This analysis should not be considered a reservation of capacity or a determination of concurrency. Zoning and Land Development Review: As depicted on the PUD Master Plan, aerial photograph, and the surrounding zoning discussion, the site will be separated from the Royal Palm International Academy PUD to the north by a lOO:t foot wide preserve area. The site will be buffered from the proposed athletic fields of the Royal Palm International Academy PUD to the east by a IS-foot wide Type B Landscape Buffer. The site will be separated from the single- family residences in Imperial Golf Estates to the south by an existing 20 to 60-foot wide park. To the west the site is separated by a designated preserve area located within the Royal Palm International Academy PUD. REZONE FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.03.05 L 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 POO Master Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below: Rezone findings are designated as RZ and PUD findings are designated as PUD. (Staff s responses to these criteria are provided in non-bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the GMP. The Comprehensive Planning Department has indicated that the proposed PUD amendment is consistent with all applicable elements of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). 2. The existing land use pattern. As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed in the zoning review analysis, the neighborhood's existing land use pattern can be characterized as mixed -use residential. There is residential zoning to the south. To the west is a preserve; to the north is a lake and to the east is a school. The land uses proposed in this PUD petition should not create incompatibility issues. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The subject parcel is of sufficient size that it will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. It is also comparable with expected land uses by virtue of its consistency with the FLUE of the GMP. MarsHea Villas RPUD, PUDZ.2007.'1381 December 6,2010 Page 7 of 16 Packet Page .747- 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn In relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The district boundaries are logically drawn as discussed in Items 2 and 3 above. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The growth and development trends, changing market conditions, specifically the development of the site with residences, and the development of the surrounding area, support the proposed PUD, This site is located within an area of development with a mixture of institutional and residential uses projected for constructions, The proposed PUD rezoning is appropriate, as limited in the PUD document and the PUD Master Plan based on its compatibility with adjacent land uses. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change should not adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood because the existing neighborhood residences are buffered by the location of the preserve area and the project buffering and screening. In addition, the development standards and landscaping requirements contained in the PUD document are intended to mitigate any adverse impact to the living conditions in this neighborhood if the proposed rezoning is approved. 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. Evaluation of this project took into account the requirement for consistency with the applicable policies of the Traffic Element of the GMP and the project was found consistent with those policies. Additionally, the transportation commitment is contained in Exhibit uP' of the PUD document. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed development will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore, the project is subject to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The proposed PUD will be required to meet building setbacks and single-story height restrictions as identified in PUD document. When meeting these requirements, light and air will not be reduced to adjacent properties. Marsilsa Villas RPUO. PUDZ.2007.11381 Oecember 6.2010 Page 8 of 16 Packet Page -748- 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. 10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. Staff is of the opinion this PUD amendment will not adversely impact property values. However, zoning by itself mayor may not affect values, since value determination by law is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Property to the south of the subject site is already developed. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the Land Development Code is that their sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan, 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 can be developed within existing Zoning. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. Staff is of the opInIOn that the proposed PUD is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood. Furthermore, the proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan (as stipulated), 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. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. 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. MarsHea Villas RPUD. PUDZ.2007.1 1381 December 6, 2010 Page 9 of 16 Packet Page -749- 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require site alteration and these residential sites will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the building pennit 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 GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance. The development will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must also be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and that staff has concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. To be detennined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 1O.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the Planning Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria: " I, 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. The nearby area is developed or is approved for development of a similar nature. The petitioner will be required to comply with all county regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities. In addition, the commitments included in the PUD exhibit adequately address the impacts from the proposed development. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed 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. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or site development plan approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate Marsilea Villas RPUD, PUDZ.2007.11381 December 6, 2010 Page 10 of 16 Packet Page -750- 2/8/2011 Item 17,8. stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer, 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP, 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The development standards, landscaping and buffering requirements contained in this petition are designed to make the proposed uses compatible with the adjacent uses. The staff analysis contained in the staff report support a finding that this petition is compatible, with the proposed uses and with the existing surrounding uses. Additionally, the Development Commitments contained in the POO document provide additional guidelines the developer will have to fulfill. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Currently, 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. In addition, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. If "ability" implies supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal system, potable water supplies, characteristics of the property relative to hazards, and capacity of roads, then the subject property has the ability to support expansion based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Marsilea Villas RPUD, PUDZ~2007.11381 December 6,2010 Page 11 of 16 Packet Page .751- 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. The petitioner is seeking two deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06 A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes the deviations proposed can be supported, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h., the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviations are "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report below for a more extensive examination of the deviations. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking two deviations from general LDC requirements and has provided justification in support of the deviations. Staff has analyzed the deviation requests and provides the analysis and recommendations below: Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 6.06.02 A.I., Sidewalks, and Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements, which requires sidewalks on each side of a right-of-way terminating cul- de-sac where there are more than 15 units fronting on said right-of-way, to allow for a sidewalk to be constructed along one side of the proposed road. The proposed pathway encircling the proposed lake will tie into the sidewalk adjacent to the road, achieving pedestrian circulation throughout the site. Petitioner's Rationale: This deviation seeks to provide a sidewalk on one side of the proposed 50' private right-of-way. The LDC requirement to have a sidewalk on each side of this smaller and private right-of-way in the planned residential community is unnecessary to fulfill the intent of being pedestrian friendly. The applicant has proposed as an alternative to provide a pathway encircling the proposed lake that will tie into the sidewalk adjacent to the road as a compromise to the LDC requirement. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval 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.S.h., the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation # 2 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 6.06.01 0., which requires right-of-way for local roads to be at least sixty feet (60') wide, to allow a minimum fifty foot (50') right-of-way or roadway width for all project streets in the Marsilea Villas RPUD. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation that the LDC required 60-foot right-of-way width is excessive and in order to conserve development area 50 feet is appropriate. The deviation would allow for a 24-foot wide drive with an additional 26 feet of area for drainage and utility easements, as well as a pedestrian walkway. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has Marsilea Villas RPUD. PUDl.2007.11381 December 8. 2010 Page 12 of 18 Packet Page -752- 2/8/2011 Item 17.8. 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," NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NlM): First NIM: Synopsis provided by Lisa Koehler, CDES Public Information Coordinator: The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM for Marsilea RPUD Rezone on November 26, 2007 at 6:00 p.m. at North Naples Middle SchooL Approximately ten people from the public attended, along with the applicant's team and county staff. Tim Hancock and Fred Hood gave an overview of the proposed rezoning request. The public's comments, questions, and concerns focused on buffering requirements, building height, and preserve requirements. The applicant's agents explained the project would be meeting the county's development standards relating to storm water, traffic, and landscaping and that the project was still 2-3 years from being developed. Issues clarified by the agent were as follows: 1. The proposed rezoning would allow a maximum of 27 single family homes on 7.1 acres and the remaining acreage would be preserve, water managements, streets, etc. They also clarified after questions by the public that this would be single-family detached homes, not condos or townhomes. 2. They would be maximizing preserve requirements by placing the preserve on the west side of the property next to Royal Palm Academy preserve. 3. There will be a minimal impact on traffic and utility infrastructure. 4. They clarified that the maximum building height would be 35 feet which would allow for two living stories. 5. A ten foot buffer is required and will be provided and they would consider adding a wall if the neighbors desired one. The meeting adjourned at 6:30 Second NIM: Synopsis provided by Lea Derence, Technician: The meeting was duly noticed by the applicant and held on October I, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. at the Collier County Public Library. Seven property owners attended, as well as the applicant's Marsilea Villas RPUD, PUDZ~2007-113B1 December 6. 2010 Page 13 of 16 Packet Page .753- 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. representative, Tim Hancock, of Davidson Engineering, and county staff. Tim Hancock gave an update on this project as it had been almost two years since the last neighborhood information meeting. He explained that the access issue had been resolved and the legal right of access for the project now exists from Livingston Road to the project site in cooperation and in partnership with Imperial Golf Estates. Currently, the road is in the process of being designed and constructed. Mr. Hancock further explained that 27 homes are planned on each side of a single road. The project will mirror a lot of the design standards of Imperial Golf Estates, such as, building height being limited to 35 feet The project doesn't contain affordable housing and is not subsidized. Base density for this site is four units per acres. However, the project density will be 2.6 units per acre which is comparable to the density of Imperial Golf Estates. Additional assets noted by Mr. Hancock are as follows: 1. A 1.27 acre lake on the property that will handle storm water. All storm water on-site will discharge to the west through the preserve to the historic surface flow-way then to the Gulf of Mexico, 2. A preserve area of 1.89 acres. 3. A buffer that will be added between the school and project site. 3. A walkway or pathway that will be installed between Royal Palm Academy and the project site. The property owners in attendance had no questions or concerns. Meeting ended at approximately 5:50 p.m. Third NIM: Synopsis provided by Fred Hood, of Davidson Engineering and edited by Nancy Gundlach, Collier County Principal Planner: The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the second NIM for Marsilea RPUD Rezone on November 10, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. at the Collier County Regional Headquarters Regional Library. Three people from the surrounding community attended, along with the applicant's project manager and the County Planner. Mr. Hood described the PUD application scope. The following are the points he discussed: I. That the original plan discussed at the previous NIM is still intact 2. That the application has been in review for several years due to a myriad of private negotiations and additional application reviews, Marsi/ea Villas RPUD, PUDZ.2007.11381 December 6.2010 Page 14 of 16 Packet Page -754- 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. 3. The application for rezone is to allow for no more than 27 single-family residential units to be developed on the subject property. 4. The project will be sufficiently buffered from neighboring properties. 5. A preserve area in excess of the County requirement has been proposed. 6. Mr. Hood also informed the public that an application to vacate a 30-foot portion of an old access easement along the southern edge of the subject property would be heard the next day at the Board of County Commissioner's meeting. The meeting ended at approximately 5:46 pm. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL lEAC) RECOMMENDATION: The Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC) heard this petition on January 6,2010, and voted unanimously to approve it with the following stipulations: I. Within one year of clearing of the exotic vegetation in the preserves, a report shall be submitted to County Staff providing evidence, including photographs, showing if re-vegetation is occurring naturally or not within the preserves. If re-vegetation is not occurring naturally, then additional re-vegetation measures may be required. The petitioner has agreed to submit a re- vegetation planting plan at the time of application for plat or SDP and this is included in POO Exhibit "F' "Developer Commitments." COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-I1381, revised on December 3, 2010. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-11381 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation that the rezoning request from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to RPUD is approved. Attachments: Attachment A: Ordinance Attachment B: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review, dated June 18,2010 Attachment C: EAC (Environmental Advisory Committee) Staff Report Marsilea Villas RPUD. PUDZ-2007-1 1381 December 6, 2010 Page 15 of 16 Packet Page -755- 2/8/2011 Item 17,8. 4 tU:PARED BY: D H, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER T OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES l\ I '2t \0 DA1E REVIEWED BY: ~~j/~ RA YMO V, BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 11/7'f /10 / DAtE ~~ WILLIA'M D. LORENZ ., P,E., DIRECTOR .- uARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES II- 1...4 - Zo/O DA1E APPROVED BY: ~~- NICK CASA A GUIDA, purr ADMINISTRATOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION )1-' -lo DATE UV ~ r Atz-~ (1..-- 1(,- Ie) DA1E MAR P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN Tentatively scheduled for the February 8, 2011 Board of County Commissioners Meeting Attachments: Attachment A: Ordinance Marsiiea Villas RPUD. PUDZ.2007.11381 November 24, 2010 Page 16 of 16 Packet Page -756- 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COlLlERGOV.NET (i) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 403-2400 FAX (239) 643-6968 APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR: o AMENDMENT TO PUD (PUDA) 18I PUD REZONE (PUDZ) o PUDTO PUD REZONE (PUDZ-AJ PETITION NO (AR) PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER DATE PROCESSED ASSIGNED PLANNER To be completed by staff APPLICANT INFORMATION NAME OF APPLlCANT(S): MARS/LEA VILLAS 1/. HC. ADDRESS: 475 PRICE COURT CITY: MARCO ISLAND TELEPHONE # .CELl # STATE: E!. FAX# ZIP: 34145 E-MAIL ADDRESS: JHENNING{a)WEB/LD.COM NAME OF AGENT: TIM HANCOCK, AICP, DA VIDSON ENGINEERING./NC, ADDRESS: 3530 KRAFT RD. SUITE 30 I CITY: NAPLES STATE: FL TELEPHONE #: (239) 434-6060 CELL #: FAX #: (2391 434-6084 E-MAIL ADDRESS: TlM{a)DAVIDSONENGINEERING.COM ZIP: 34105 BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. Application For Public Hearing For PUP Rezone 1/22/07 Packet Page -757- 2/8/2011 Item 17.8. ASSOCIATIONS Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary, NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP NAME OF MASTER ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE_ZIP NAME OF CIVIC ASSOCIA TION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP Disclosure ofInterest Information a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, Ii.t all parties with an ownership intere.t a. well a. the percentage of ....ch interest. (Use additional .heets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownetship Application For Public Hearing For run Rezone J /22/07 Packet Page -758- 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. b, If the property is owned by 0 CORPORA nON, list the officers and stockhalders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Please see attached (Exhibit G) c. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Owner$hip d. If the property is in the name af a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Application For !lllbhc Hearing fOT peD Rezone 1/22/07 Packet Page -759. 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. e. II there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the nomes 01 the controct purchasers. below, including the oflicers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Nome and Address Percentage 01 Ownership Please see attached (Exhibif Gl Date of Contract: I. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired I:8l leased 0 Term of lease yrs./mos. II, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Date of option: Date option terminates: Anticipated closing date . or h. Should any changes 01 ownership or changes in contracts lor purchase occur subsequent to the date af application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Applicul.ion For Public Hearing For PUD Remne Ji22/07 Packet Page -760- 2/8/2oll/tern 17,B. PROPERTY LOCATION Detailed lellal descrintion of the nronertv covered bv the annlication: (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page.) If request involves change to more than one zoning district, include separate legal description for property involved in each district, Applicant shall submit four (4) copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1 If to 400' scale) if required to do so at the pre-application meeting. NOTE: The applicant is responsible far supplying the correct legal description, If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section /T ownship/Range 13 / 48 S / 25 E Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book_~ Page #: Property 1.0,#: 00151240007 & 00150680008 Metes & Bounds Description: Please see attached Legal Description (Exhibit OJ Size of property: 660 ft,X 660 ft. = Total Sq. Ft, 446,670 +/_ Acres 10.25 Addressjgenerallocation of subject property: Subject orooerty is locatecl west 01 Liyinas'on Road surrounded by Royal Palm 'n'ernational Academy ius' north ol/maeria! Goff Es'o'.. Uni, 5. PUD District (LDC 2.03.06): D Residential D Cammunity Facilities D Commercial D Industrial ADJACENT WNING AND LAND USE Zoning Land use N PUD Vaeant S RSF-3 Sinale Family Homes E PUD Vaeant W PUD Vacanf Does the owner of the subj""t property own property contiguous to the subject property? If so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page). No. Secti onlT own.hip/Range / Lot: Block: Subdivision:_~__ Application For Public Hearing For PUD RC7ill1C 1/21/07 Packet Page .761- 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. Plat Book_ Page #: Property 1.0.#, Metes & Bounds Description: REZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from the A & A-ST zoning district(s) to the RPUD zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: Vacant Lancl Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Residential Subdivision Original PUD Name: Ordinance No.: EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant Ia Sectian 10.02,13 of the Collier County Land Development Code, staff's analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commis5ion, and the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria noted below, Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. PUD Rezone Considerations ILDC Section 10.02.13.B) 1. The suitability of the orea 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 utllities, ReSDonse: This Detltlon seeks to convert 10.25 acres of land zoned Rural Aaricultural (A & A-Sn to Residential PUD (RPUDJ for the develoDment of 26 and not more than 27 sino/e..familv residential units. The adiacent DroDerties to the south and southeast are develoDed slnole familv residential subdivisions. The DroDertv to the north is slated for deve/oDment of the Roval Palm Internationai Academv's camDUS. The DroDertv is bounded bv lands also owned and maintained bv the Roval Palm International Academv. These lands shall be used to meet the academy's DreSeNe reQuirement. The subiect DroDertv Is within an area of Collier County with available DubUc utilities and DroDOSed tranSDortation access. Based UDon the DroDosed develooment standards, the PUD is comDatible with neiohborinQ DroDosed institutional and existing residential uses. The oroDOSed RPUD rezone will comDlv with all buffer reQuirements set forth in the Collier County Land Deve/oDment Code (LDC), 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be mlCllde for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendcdions of this type shall be made only after cons.ultation with the county attorney. Application For Public Hearing For POO Rezone J /22/07 Packet Page -762- 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. Response: The land is owned and controlled and/or under a purchase aareement bv the petitioner, Anv common areas within the proiect, includlna all preserve areas, will be owned and maintained bv the owner or a home owners association. 3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objedive. and policies of the growth management plan. Response: The RPUD rezone is consistent with the Collier Countv Growth Manaaement Plan (GMPl throuah the application of the developmant standards contained in this PUD, The RPUD rezone Is consistent with the followina specific policies and oblectlves: . The sublect property is within the Mixed-Use: Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Urban Deslanatlon as described and identified In the Future land Use Element and Future Land Use Map respectlvelv, This Subdistrict princlpallv allows residential development. . Policv 5.4: The proposed development Is compatible with and complimentarv to surroundina land uses in that to the south Is a similar slnale-famlfv residential communltv. To the east and north of the subiect property Is the Roval Palm Academv proposed Institutional PUD development. The proposed RPUD rezone poses no inconsistency of compatible uses. The proposed development will provide adeauate bufferlna as per the LDC and 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. Response: The proposed RPUD complies with the bufferina reauirements set forth In the Collier Countv Land Development Code. The proposed RPUD also limits the number of residential unIts to a maximum of 27. This limitation further mltlaates any potential over-development of the propertv and the Immediate !!M.:. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Response: The subiect propertv is currentlv un-developed. The proposed project will meet or exceed the reauired open space for an RPUD. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Response: The prolect will complv with the Countv Adeauate Public Facilities ordinance. No capacitv issues are known at this time. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Response: Room for expansion is not a consideration as the proposed RPUD will fully utilize the portion of the subiect property that ;s eliaible for rezonina. Application For Public Heating For PUD Rez.onc 1 -'22;07 Packet Page -763. 2/8/2011 Item 17.8. 8. Conformily with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree alleasl equivalent to literal application of such regulations, ResDonse: A deviation from the R,O.W. width and sidewalk reaulrements wlff be reauesteel. It Is believed that the aTOaosed RPUD comal/es with the aaal/cable reaulatlons set forth In the Colf/er Countv LDC for an RPUD. The two deviations mentioned from the LDC are herebv reauested. Deed Restrictions: The County Is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions, however, mony communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contad the civic or property owners association tn the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. Previous land use oetitions on the subied DroDerty: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on 1I1is property within Ihe 1051 year? 0 Yes I:8J No if so, what was the nature of that hearing? NOTICE: This application will be considered "open" when the determination of "sufficiency" has been made and the application is assigned a petition processing number, The application will be considered uclosed" when the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to SUDolv necessary information to continue orocessina or otherwise actively Dursue the rezonina for a oedod of six (6) months. An application deemed "closed" will not receive further processing and an application "closed" through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed "dosed" may be re- opened by submitting a new application, repoyment of all application fees and granting of a determination of "sufficiency", Further review of the project will be subject to the then current code. (LDC Section 10.03.05,Q,) Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 1/22107 Packet Page -764- 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. 1. The suitability of the areafor 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. This petition seeks to convert 10 acres of land zoned Rural Agricultural (A) to Residential PUD for the development of 26 and not more than 27 single- family residential units. The adjacent properties to the south and southeast are developed single family residential su hdivisions. The property to the north is slated for development of the Royal Palm International Academy's campus. The property is bounded by lands also o\\'Iled and maintained by the Royal Palm International Academy. These lands shall be used to meet the academy's preserve requirement. The subject property is also within a developed area" of Collier County with available public utilities and proposed transportation access, Based upon the proposed development standards, the PUD is compatible \\ith neighboring institutional and residential uses, The proposed project will comply \\ith all buffer requirements set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code, 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified conn'ol and suitability of any proposed agreenIents, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those pl'oposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provi.<;ion..<; 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 thi.<; type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney, The land is O\\'Iled and controlled by the petitioner. Any common areas within the project, including all preserve areas, \\ill be ovVIled and maintained by the O\\'Iler or a home O\\'Ilers association, 3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth managementplan. The proposed project is consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan through the application of the development standards contained in this PUD. The proposed project is consistent with the follo\dng specific policies and objectives: · The subject property is vvithin the Mixed-Use: Urban Residential Subdistrict of the Urban Designation as identified on the Future Land Use Map, This Subdistrict principally allows residential development. . Policy 5.4: The proposed development is compatible with and complimentary to surrouncling land uses. Packet Page -765- 2/8/2ollltern 17.B. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The proposed PUD complies with the buffering requirements set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code, The proposed PUD also limits the number of residential units to a maximum of 27, This limitation further mitigates any potential over-development of the property and the immediate area. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The subject property is currently un-developed. The proposed project will meet or exceed the required open space for a Residential PUD. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The project will comply '"\lith the County Adequate Public Facilities ordinance. No capacity issues are known at this time. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Room for expansion is not a consideration as the proposed PUD will fully utilize the portion of tl1e subject property that is eligible for rezoning. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. A deviation from the RO.W, width and sidewalk requirements shall be requested. It is believed that the proposed PUD complies with the remaining applicable regulations set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code for a Residential PUD, The two deviations mentioned from the LDC are hereby requested. Packet Page -766- STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. I' ,.,,'.,.." 'f," . :1t.f.PJ.lcAillTtNFoRMlU~a..N . '-, '-. _,'-~" "'. ....,....".^."'... .'.- " ,.',,--,- ,-, ,,,,,",,, ..'....- .-. ". ";>f',:"- I NAME OF APPLlCANT(S) Jeffrev Hennina ADDRESS 4431 CorDoration Sauare. Suite #1 CITY: NaDles TELEPHONE # E-MAIL ADDRESS: STATE: FL CELL # JHENNING@WEBILD,COM ZIP: W.f!.1. FAX # ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (IF AVAILABLE): No street addres .... ". .L~GA1J)ESC-RlgTtQN. SeotionfTownshipJRange: 13/48S/25E Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page #: Property 1.0.#: 00151240007 & 00150680008 Metes & Bounds Description: THE WEST X OF THE SOUTHWEST Ji OF THE NORTHEAST Ji OF THE SOUTHWEST Ji OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA AND THE EAST X OF THE SOUTHWEST Ji OF THE NORTHEAST Ji OF THE SOUTHWEST Ji OF SECTION13. TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SAID PARCELS CONTAIN 446.670 SQUARE FEET OR 10.25 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, RESER VA TlONS OF RECORD AND TAXES FOR CURRENT AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS I TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED (Check applicable system): COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM a. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM b. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM PROVIDE NAME d. PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANT (GPO capacity) e. SEPTIC SYSTEM ~ o o o o STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS - page 2 Application For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone U1/2'2./U7 Packet Page -767- I .' :::: : :>:;:;~;:: ..:,:J'Y:;E;O~)VArERiSmlGE~~'fiti;WIDED:' "~' 2/8/2011 Item 17.8. 7" '1 a. COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM b. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM c. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM PROVIDE NAME d. PRIVATE SYSTEM (WELL) [8J o o o !fOT AI,.'1'0J>UlATf9N TO ~":SER.VeD: 27 units @ 3,000 SF (400 GPD average) PJ;A-K.~ijDi'A:VJ:R~~E1)A.I,~tP~~~QS: A. B. WATER-PEAK: SEWER-PEAK: 44.000 GPO 44,000 GPD AVERAGE DAILY: AVERAGE DAILY: 11,000 GPO 11,000 GPD IF PROPOSING TO BE CONNECTED TO COLLIER COUNTY REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM, PLEASE PROVIDE THE DATE SERVICE IS EXPECTED TO BE REQUIRED: RESPONSE: Service continaent UDon acceS$. NAllll.ATi\fESTATeMENT: Provide 0 brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used os well os 0 specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil Involved sholl be provided from tests prepared and certified by 0 professional engineer. RESPONSE: The sanitaN sewer will be collected throuahout the site with a series 01 DiDes, A lilt station will then DumD the sewage into an existina 16" force main runnina down the West side 01 Livinaston Road. COLt./ER COUNTY UTILlTYDEDI(:ATIOJII STATEMENT, If the project is located within the services boundaries of Collier County's utility service system, written notarized statement sholl be provided agreeing to dedicate to Collier County Utilities the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at the at time. This statement sholl also include on agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County, If applicable, the statement sholl contain shall contain on agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. RESPONSE: Service and subseauent statement of dedication is continuent UDOIJ site DC cess. STATEMEN:rOF AVAILABILITY CAf>ACI'!'YFRO.MeOTHERPROVlDERS: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre-application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, 0 statement from that provider indicating that there is adequate capacity to serve the project sholl be provided. RESPONSE: NIA. Applic81ion For Public Hearing For PUD Rezone 0]/22107 Packet Page -768- 2/8/2011 Item 17.8. AFFIDAVIT I, JeHrv Hennina. as Manaaina Member of CYFL. LLC Manaaina Member of The Emeroent GrouD, LLC as Manaaina Member of Marsilea Villas II. LLC. being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the owner of the proper!)' described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of interest information, 011 sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true to the best of my knowledge and belief, I understand that the infonnation requested on this application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this fonn, whether computer generated or County printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until 1his application is deemed complete, and all required infannation has been submitted. As property owner I further authorize Tim Hancock. AICP /Davidson EnQineerin9. Ino. to act as my representative in any matters regarding this Petition.. roperty Owner Signature of Property Owner l. JeHrv HenninQ Typed or Printed Name of Owner Typed or Printed Name of Owner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ) :r day of July 2010, by ~ HenninQ who is aersonally known to me or has produced as Identification. State of Florida County of Collier - /" \,; .. - . J: (.' \. \ I _ i!J..1iiiJ./J I)) v i( "n !,0T!L\. (Signature of Notary Public - State of Florida) 'o;;.~"~ TloMElA fo'.SCHROD! R +0\ Notary Publi: . 5t,If 0: ,tnrid.l .! My Comm. fxplrt~ Il.pl \ ~~ 2'013 ~... l CommtulfIf'. D~! F 7 . 7& "".,,,:.', ,,' f~.,1rr, Tr>re: I>UfL (Print, Type, or Stomp Commissioned Name of Notary Public) Packet Page -769 , Pi-cpared by: John Paulich ill Ja,ouJich, Slack & Wolff, P.A. ;7 CasteDo Drive . ,dples, Florida 34103 File Number. O6-OOTI J 3985051 OJ 2/8/2011 Item 17.8. RECORDED in OFFICIAL RECORDS of COLLIIR COURTY, PL 03/09/2007 at 02:48PK DWIGHT E, BROCK, CLERK CO!S 1060000,00 RBC PI! 18.50 DOC', 70 1420,00 Ratn: WILLIAK G KOlRIS pm UP General Warranty Deed Made Ibis February ;;; 7. 2007, by Isaura O. Kreisel, individually and as Trustee of the Isaun O. Kreisel Trust Agreement elated 8123191, amended 10102/06, 107 Myrtle Road, Naples, FL 34108, hereinafter called the grantor, to MaralJea vnw, LLC, a F10ridallmltedllabWty company, whose post office .is.;..475 Price Court, Marco Island, FL 34145, hereiDafter called - tbegrantee: ~\t.R CO~ (Wh.........cd......tbclCnU.__ond._.. porUa;"'1his:--:: < ~ hciro,lepl ......_;_ond~of illdivOluoJs. ond tbc " .. ami ...ip of . ~ ~11.~ Witnesseth. that the grantor, for~ . n ..f tho ""lit'" Ten D Ian;,\~,~?.-.,OO) and other valuable lOClISiderations, receipt whereof is hereby 8C11 cd, here '~' sells, 'eIIS, . s, releases, conveys and confirms the grantee, all that certain land sitnate in o' , . \ The West 112 of the Southwest 114 of the o~. 14 u 1140, S ti. ~~kownshiP 48 South, Range 2S East, CoDier County Florida. I,;"';:. "- 1 J .0:: . "'''' \~ ~ ~ Said property is Dot the homestead of the Granto ~~ the laws and c~~ D l(J. ~e' State of Florida in that neither Grantor(s) or any members of the household ofGramor(s) reside ~CjY ;::''"'.' / Jp "'-~\)\ Parcel ID Number: 8D1506llDOO8 {'flE CIR C Together with all the lenemenlll, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. To Have and to Hold. the same in fee simple forever. ADd the grantor hereby covenants with said gzantee that the gzantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the grantOr has good right JlDd lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defCld the same against the lawful claims of all penons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances except taxes acauing subsequent to December 31, 2006. DEED lDljyjduaJ W_ Deed With Non-H""","",",,-Legal on F... amm' Choice Packet Page -770- *** OR: ~...- -- ~~..._ .I.....J. Prq>arcd by; John Paulich III Paulich, Slack & Wolff, PA 5147 CIL~ello Drive Naples, Florida 34103 2/8/2011 Item 17.8, File Number: 06-0077 In Witness Whereof, the said grantor has signed and sealed these presents the day and year fIrst above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence: J~ ~ - " . -;C2R ro nd.. Trustee of the 1..~~~~ Wil=;s Pril1ledName-P~ tJ ~ R-lt1-JC..j:l <0 ~~~ ' ;N:reement d.ted 8/23191, .meade<! 101212006 / L; / Ad<U..., 10 ~,Road, Naples, FL 34108 ! /~~"Vb \ I I 'l,"\ r'rlY<-.~---1CCJ(1\\ 'ND VI I State of Florida \ r; ~~ "-0 JS JJ, It) County of :~I~:egOing instrument was aC~~d before me this ~%~/~ry, 2007, by lsaura O. Kreisel, individually and as Trustee of the lsourn O. Kreisel Trust Agr~~ted 8:23/91, ~~:~>ei106, whE.,is ersonall known to me or who has produced Driver's License as identification. '-.."J.f:'> , -X \.../ ",ii-ir (, . ! '-/.~ --...:..-=:--.:- arv PubUc Prinl Name: S Q)~.... I..M1I,CBllllGESs 1"( l MY COI.lIIISSION, 00 427236 . EXPIRES: Moy 9, 2009 .. ~TrlruNalalyPUllc~'l1 M)' Commh:sion Erpir'M: DEED Individual WIIIT8flty Deed With Non~Homestead-Legal all Face CIOSO"'$' Choice Packet Page -771- ~ 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. W ARRAN1Y DEED (STA TIlTORY FORM-SECTION 689.02 F .S.) 1lIIS INDENTtIRE, Made thi.;;fitJ..y of luly, 2006, BETWEEN BIGGS PARTNERS. LLC, . FIoridJI Uari!ad U.blllty c.......y. whose post of1icc: addre.. i. 1415 P...!her Lane, Napl.., Florida 34109. ~ and Manlloo VWu, LLC,. Florida Limifod Uability Compo.y. whose post office addms is 475 Price Court, Marco Island, Florida Florida 34145. GBnt..' , WfThIESSETlI. That said gnntor. for ond in COIlSidmtion of lb. sum ofTen Dol~ 8lld other good ond valuable coasideratioos to said gnntor in haDd paid by said grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowIedpI, has ~ bmpiDecI ond ooId to the laid grantee, and _....'. boits llIIlIassi8D$ forewr, the foll.wing doooribed land, silua, Iylng ond being ill Collier County, Florida, l<> wit Th. Eat lIl.f III. Sou_est 1/4 oCtile Nortb.... 1/4 of lb. 5o._t 1/4, Section 13. TowuhJp .s So.1II, RaJoct 25 Eut of CoWer Couty, Florida; Propeny Appraloer Foil. No.: 00151240007 subject to euc:meots, rcsbictions, nr.ervations (;OrDmon to the subdivision. and ad valomn taMs fOT the year 2006 and oubsoq_ yoars; an4 said gnntor does hereby fully wmnmt the title to said land. and will defead the _ .,.ins! the IawfiJI cIaiJns of all petsoIl$ whomsoever. ."'Grantor" .md "Grutee'" are used for siDguw or plural, as context requires. . Giosdbeck, as Presid.... .r Glaelbcck HoIdlup, 1IIe:. .. lit. Ceo. I P......r .r Tile GiueJbeck F....ily Lbai.... P......nlalp. Maucmc Member 4f"> 3883643 OR: 4085 PG: 0972 RlCORDBD in OmCIAt RlCORD! of COUIIl ComT, n 08/08/2006 at 12:34PI DIIGHT B. BROCI, CLIRI COBS 1800000,00 RBe FBI 18.50 DOC-.lO 12600,00 Ret!l: 10LD i SCHIll flel OP Fag. I w.....tyDeed Packet Page -772- *** OR: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER 2/8/2011 Item 17,8. .... w." . _.. ..., I V I I HEREBY CERTIFY lIJIt oa this dzy before me, an officer duly qualified to take acknowledplent<, personally appeared HERBERT w, BIGGS. Maaqlae Member Dr BIGGS PARTNERS, LLC,. FIorido LlmlIOd LiobWty Compoii)', to me well known to be !be person described m and who executed the foregoing ins:tnunent IUtd aclmowledgcd before me thar be executed the same. /2.v--' WfINESS my hand IlJId offioial seal i llIld to last ~wd this 0' day of July,2006. kli n.... A fl (SEAL) Hr1~ . bIiC;~~ .1(0 (Priii Type or Stomped Commissioned Nome of Notary Public) Commissioa # Poncm&lly Known _ OR / _od ldeouficauon L T~fl_catiOllProducod -U [)'--' ,.,..,,~ ~yr~_ '~>> ......, .--. ,:, . MYCOMI.GSSI:JNI lD5Ul11l2 !XPIRES ",' MardI ~ 2010 ""f.~~ IOHOEDTHllUTIO'ffNNJralJRAIQ,INC. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER ......__- ---- <'ER C0 I HERESY CERTIFY ~ ~., 0 ~.Iy qualified to toke ..knowledgmentS, persoually ,. Pour Giooelbeok, ~ of G_beck HoIdlap, IDe. .. tbe Gee....1 Portaer of beck FomlIy Umlted P p; MaIlllCiD& M....ber Dr BIGGS PABTNERS, " ~led Liability Compoay, m~1I known to be the person described in ond wbo 1uted-ihe ~ i~l:nowl m. thot b. """,uled the same. to '/\ \ ;tC~ WITNESS my d . tb doy of July, 2006. i 1JJI 1]1 I - (SEAL) \~,. ~ d---- li;~"~. Suoan r N ~ ) ( d.. if"' t~ :~ WYmf 901# . EXJlIRfS (Print, S issioned ~~ """"'~~~. Nom. ofNotary~~ nun;,sion # ~.J/" Per=lly ~~R ,~ ~. ~D_ '-'-oJ /J h.T€~ ., 'on Producod ~ THIS INSTRUMENT WAS PREPARED WITHOUT EXAMINATION OR OPlNlON OF"lTILE INSURANCE BY, CHARLES C. LEHMAN, ESQUIRE CHARLES C. LEHMAN, P A $4SS Jaeger Rood, Sui1e B Naples, Florido 34109 (239) 592-9710 Page 2 W=ty o..d Packet Page -773- 2/8/2011 Item 17.8. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLlERGOV.NET (i) 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 403-2400 FAX (239) 643-6968 PRE-APPLlCA TION MEETING NOTES .0 PUD R-ezone (PUDZ) o pun to PUD Rezone (PUDZ-A) o PUD Amendment (PUDA) Dale:~Time: 2.'.\5~~ Firm: \).,.-i\~S<\h ~~""~'0 ..!roiecl Name: ----.M .....S\ k.. .'1).,\\", ~ Sin of Project Sile: \1:>.1.5 acres Applicanl Name: t'-i\~~\'t- ~~ Owner Name: \'11\"'''-$'.\""" -J..\\c<~ lLC Phone: 5"')'1 ~ :; 'ilL .. Phone: 137 - (.(,(,C-l (~\ "t.~<..) Owner Address: 4'15 C><'.....t.. t-'t- City"""..,.;1:~\...klale +' L ZIP '04\"\.5-2.'iSf,. Existing PUD Name and Number N\.o.<'s"\c:..o.. \1"\\4S \>v.\:rL-'C"\ J4>\~-t..a2.9 Assigned Planner W'.\\:-t.- -b';!..,w,,", M.wing Aftend..s; (allach $ignln Shllli1) Su.l!mlltaJr"q\liremeniS (ieellext page <f!eckli.jJ: -1 - G:ICurrentlNew Pre-Application Forms 20061PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment PUD to PUD Rezone pre-app 050404.doc Packet Page .774- Fees: Application Fee, 2/8/2011 Item 17,8. S;10,000 (PUD Rezone) + $25 per acre (or Iraction thereol) o $8,000 (PUD to PUD) + $25 per acre (or fraction thereof) o $6,000 (PUD Amendment) + $25 per acre (or fraction thereol) o $1 50.00 Fire Code Review o $2,250.00 Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review 0" $500.00 Pre-opplication fee (Applications submitted 9 months or more after the date 01 the last pre-app meeting shall not be credited towards application fees and a new pre-application meeting will be required. o $729.00 legal Advertising Fee for CCPC meeting (to be reconciled upon receipt of Invoice Irom Naples Daily News), o $363,00 legal Advertising Fee for BCe meeting ~ $2500,00 Environmental Impact Statement review fee o Property Owner Notllicatian fees. Property Owner Notifications $' ,00 Non-certified; $3,00 Certified return receipt mail (to be paid alter receipt 01 invoice from Dep!. of Zoning & Development Review) ffo rtation Fees, if required: $500.00 Methodology Review Fee, il required $750.00 Minor Study Review Fee, il required o $1,500.00 Major Study Review Fee, if required Fee Total $ PLANNER MARK IF NEEDED TO BE ROUTED TO REVIEWERS BELOW: Comments should be forwarded to the Planner prior to the due date SCHOOL DISTRICT PARKS & REC - Amanda Townsend SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS IMMOKALEE WATER/SEWER DISTRICT OR/EM1 - EMER. MGMT - Jim Von Rintein UTILITIES ENGINEERING - Zamira Deltoro COES Coordinator - Linda B. Route Sheet only Meeting No.tes I , ->I!:::.~f::.,8t.AP1J:' 'uJ~fV ';";f)P 'S,~-'FrlJ\rtjpE: A;RA-0) J J1A p,gfUAd /,-')' vr~ (~~ '2.e..MYJL[A PA) r-,uPhzr f? r- {J. t!)JJ I" J~ ~R.2- (' ~c t-v1J. Ar:A:tH ":)r ~ j; -3- G:ICurrentlNew Pre-Application Forms 2006\PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment PUD to PUD Rezone pre-app 050404.doc Packet Page -775- PUD AttONE(PUD.Z) PUD 10 PUOR.EzONE (PUDl.A) PUD .AMENDMENT (PUlilA) . APPUCATllilN SUBMITTAL CHECKlist 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. I I THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPUCATION PACKET IN THE EXACT ORDER USTED BELOW W/COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION. NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITT ALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED, . #OF NOT REQUIREMENTS COPIES REQUIRED REQUIRED STANPJ\N){ . ~"'" ,,"'."., 1 Additional set if located in the Bay.hore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area) Copies of detailed description of why amendment is necessary 24 V Completed Application (download from website for curren' Form) 24 V/ , Pre.<:!.PEJicafion meeti~notes 24 >/ . PUD Document & Conceptual Site Plan 24" x 36" and One 8 Y2" x II" c"py 24 v' , Revised Conceptual Site Plcn 24" x 36"ond One 8 Ij2H x II" copy 24 Originol PUD document and Master Plan 24" x 36" - ONLY IF AMENDING 24 THE pun Revised PUD document with cha!!9~ crossed thru & underlined 24 Revised PUD document w/omended Title page wlord #'s, LDC 10.02.13.A.2 24 2 Cop!&.~hlie~Ii>WI!>sI.2':'? ':'d"~S.3.iL'-'" .... . Deeds/Lego!'s & Survey (if boundary of original PUD is amended) 2 J(" " identifying Owner & all parties of corporation 2 v' . ner / Affidavit signed &. notarized 2 ./ Covenant of Unified Control 2 Completed Addressing checklist 2 V Environmentallmpoct Statement (EIS) and dig~al/electronic copy of EIS or ./ exemption rustlfleotlon 3 Hist,Qricol Survey o(woiver reque!!> 4 0/ Utility Provisions Statement w /sketches 4 ....... Architectural rendering of proposed structures 4 ,/ , Survey, signed & sealed 4 ./ ~ Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) or waiver 3 ri.{J {. ~ r7 7 v--- Recent Aerial Photograph (wfth habftat areas defined) min scaled 1" 400' V 5 Electronic copy of all documents in Word format and plans ((DRam or ,./ Diske"~ 1 Aff!!r4l:1bl~JoIO...iitgl!r~,,!,..I~'~~#~!SO~,ii.Il!I~,!jlli~.;_ '.. .... .... ". 0 EDC "Fost Track" must subm~ approved copy of official 2 application 0 Affordoble Housing "Expedited" must submit copy of signed Certificate of Agreement. . . If located in RFMU (Rural Frinae Mixed Use} Receivina land Areas Ae.e.licant must contod Mr. Gerry J. locovero, State of Florida r >n of Forestry @ 239-690.3500 for information regarding jfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan", LDC Section 2.o3.0B.A.2.a.(b)i,c, -2- G:\Current\New Pre-Application Forms 2006\PUD Rezone, PUD Amendment PUD to PUD Rezone pre-app 050404.doc Packet Page -776- ~ = ",.!IIM( -- ~. .~ I~ = o ..,.IIi( - e:: ~ ...... - ....Q.. c.. ..(. ~. ~ Eo- GI ~ 00- C .;: 0- m o ~ 0... 2/8/2011 Item 17,8, -t .: ~ <n I.LI ~ Q o <( .... <( :E r.b. ~ LLI a2 :E ::) Z LLI Z o :I: 1:1. ..,. e "" N m ,; ~ N- e ,') - a:> -a .. "' ii I (f) Z z: ~ U5 10 D D N "' E o u. c .Q m .!.! p--- I- 1:1. LU Q I Z ~ Q:E <n~ >u. Q .. >- 0 I- Z ::) o u l<l 0:: rJ w z z <( .. LLI w Cll :E :E .... 1:1. ..a <( <C .... Z Q c: Z I- W ~ U Z Z w ~ Cll .... 0 V1 c: 0:: V1 0 ... <( ..c: Co. - C GI E l1. o 1i > GI C "tl C C -' ~ Cl .~ c: o ..J N . - -::;:; .... - ~~ Cll E - .. c VI l1. VI Cll Cll Q .. "tl "tl <( c :E I W .. a:" '" .. z "" c ~ :; y o 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. I ~ . .., ;:::!> VI W , a!: '-D 0 ~ Q ~ <( -' <( 0 " :2. ';;/ . LI,I ...D . , - " -D. ~ a:::: f'- ...... w ~ ~ &:Q t: :2' 0-- ::) I:l J K z I ~ I .10\.1 ~ " I Z ( ~ 0 N ::c ~ <Y> CL. t\- - ~ - \J ..... --.J <0 CL. w "-oj -.,\, Q - ~ ~ ] z ~ z 0.:= ~ '.:!. Vi ~. ::. I;,.> ~ S;:ii: ~ is .. .. ~ 0 , <I! >- } ~ ..... t z ::) 'i- l ; 0 -.. .~ u ~ ..\ l.. v ~ , , .. J " 0 . , , ~ ~ u w \ 3 ~ ~ .c i ~ oj . ~ ~ ~ D -i ;1 :: ~ <;;) ~ Packet Pa e -778- g Q '" C:! 0> :> 1! N ~ 03 i:j <I) '" 'S; 1! o o " f-' w W I (/} Z Z (9 u; <0 o o N '" E o u.. c:: .2 n; .S! 0. Q. <( ~ "- ;: .. z 'E 1! :; S2 (9 2/8/2011 Item 17,B. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF WHY REZONE IS NECESSARY This rezone petition proposes to rezone a 10.25-acre parcel of land (the "Property") from A - Agriculture to RPUD - Residential Planned Unit Development. The Property is located west of Livingston Road and is currently landlocked. Bordering the Property to the south is the 145-unit Imperial Golf Estates residential subdivision. To the west, north and east is vacant forested land owned by the Royal Palm International Academy. The zoning for Imperial Golf Estates is RSF-3. The zoning for Royal Paim International Academy is PUD (Planned Unit Development). The RSF-3 district permits development at densities between one and three units per acre, while the PUD district allows further density flexibility at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. The Property is currently zoned A - Agriculture. If the rezone petition to RPUD is approved the Property will provide a more consistent zoning designation and land use with neighboring properties and increased development potential. The Property's new zoning designation will continue and advance the character of the existing neighborhoods to the immediate south and southeast. The proposed rezone will restrict the general uses permitted on the Property to single-family residential similarly as it may be developed under the current zoning. The intended use is compatible with the single and multi-family residential developments surrounding, and in near proximity to the Property. The proposed residential development will be buffered from surrounding land uses via landscaping as required by the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) and shall conform to the dimensional standards in the RPUD developments standards table. Planned access via an easement is contemplated from the east directly connecting the Property to Livingston Road. Packet Page .779- 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. De DAVIDSON ~ "H.''''[''~ ING SUPPLEMENTAL DEVIATION AND JUSTIFICATION SUMMARY 1, Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.l Sidewalks, and Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements, which requires sidewalks on each side of a right-of-way terminating cul-de-sae where there are more than 15 units fronting on said right-of.. way, to allow for a sidewalk to he coostrueted along one side of the proposed road. The proposed pathway eneireling the proposed lake will tie into the sidewalk adjacent to the road, aehieving pedestrian circulation throughout the site. Summary: This deviation seeks to provide a sidewalk on one side o( the vrovosed 50 " private rif!ht-of-wav. The iDC reouirement to have a sidewalk on each side o( this smaller and private rizht-of- wav in the planned residential communitv is unnecessary to meet the fulfill the intent o( heinf! pedesfl'ian (riendlv. The aPDlicant has proposed as an alternative to Drovide a vathwav encirclinl?: the vroposed lake will tie into the sidewalk adiacent to the road as a compromise to the iDC requirement. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.0 whieh establishes the minimum right-of-way width of 60 feet be utilized, to instead establish that all internal roadways shall be subject to a 50-foot right-of-way configuration. Summary: This deviation seeks to vrovide a sufficient Drivate rif!ht-of-wav network in a 50-(00t width. The IDC required width is excessive in this case and would waste valuable delleloDment area. The deviation would vrovide area (or a 24-(oot drive with an additional 26 (eet set aside (or drainuf!e and utilifl' easements and pedestrian walkwuvs. r,,1arsilea Vi11as RPUD: Suppkmenl<iJ De\'Lation Justiliclltion & Summary (Revi~cd ~.3.10) \"''.vw .davidsonenginceri I1g,COI11 Packet Page -780- 2/8/2011 Item 17,8, De P.~Y}.9;;'~,~ EXHIBIT G: DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST INFORMATION Parcels # 00151240007 & 00150680008 Owned by Marsilea Villas 11, LLC Marsilea II VIllas LLC Corporate Breakdown: Shareho lders Principal Partner Pereent Dennis Casey Dennis Casey 12.75% PDG Enterprises, LLC . Paul Garnett - 90% . Tyler Garnctt - 5% . Traci Froscheiser - 5% 33.08% Paul Garnctt The Emergent Group, LLC . Jeffrey Henning - 80% . Alan Koch - 20% 33.76% Jcffrcy HemUng CYFL, LLC . Jeffrey HemUng - 50~", . BJ Baker - 50% 20.41 % Jeffrey HemUng M:1rsiJe:1 VillBS RPLD: Dj~.cl()sU1C Dr Irl:cn:sl \,"\\W .d;.: vi dst\ncnginecrin g, com Packet Page .781- 2/8/2011 Item 17,B. Packet Page -782- '-l.l..U ~ ~a e!tJ", ". ". "'''41 2'; ~~ ~,~ :':~,..J ~ 15"- ._1- t:j "'W 1'i ~t1 ~~..: w ",,,< o<t~ C\J~V) VlVlW ':::;)~ ljt3e~ ~tJ W-' >-"'''' '" >-" "'W'" (t~~~ l5::cL..l l..J)~ >-;." b<Jk~ ~@3~fj ~tjQ:: ~~V)o: , ~ ~~..- \,fl~~ <'"'"4~ -:;:'~7 7<;' '" .. ~ '7.- , N ~ .FF'FL9 'I'I.IT,FO.OO'S "- ~~:'~:r-.. ..I-.!"-.,O\ '~'Q <-(fJ '-',:,)\0 S;~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~''-' Co::O "'". -;....-; ",c" "'''' ~ J:J: , , "'''' ~"<t~ ~~ ~ . . 0"" COCO vle,,; ~ '1,. ~ .. r',:, ~ ~ %~ "'" ~~ "'~ ",'" " ~J:' , :> ,,' ",'" , '" "'''' "" ",' CO'" ,CO '<r ~ ~ ~ ~ , '" .. (., -~r- 0.....-~ ~"'~~\.J v' ,>4- ~(?z7 ~? ~ , .. - ~ ~ , , l u~ \ I (101' I -" I : .1 j :~::Q :>: I :~:i ~~~ S: i ffl ~:;~ ~~ ! l,i!l'r-':l!-<.;I l'....~ ,--~::ti _ I : 'ct, L_ ':;: '" '~-;1. : ~o"_ I ~.3J . " l ,t,. I 1<I't'...'""... I , , , , , , I I . . . , , , I I 1 . , 1 1 1 I ,OO'Of: I 1 1 1 1 1 , , (WMB'F:L9 3.!;;2,LO.OO'N 1 (:J),!;6 CL9 '3.Cf;,CO.OO'N : ---------------------------------------------~---------------------------------------~- . ~ 1 , , 1 , 1 , 1 I 1 1 1 , , , , , , , 1 1 , , , , I frLE 3!Jtid : 8fi? )lDDE! '''I'D: lN3W3Stl3 ,09 ' , , I 1 I I I . . 1 "- ~ , '" .. , "). ~ '" ~ <<,.. ~~ ~~ ;"7 -::., ''7.- , << ~ , ,,, -:;;, "- .. ., .. ~ ~ , '" << , "). ~ '" '\. ~"rl -'a 7if1'i:. ;"7 -:;;, -z; .. ~ ~ - ~ , N ~ 7 (:J),8i?N9 (W),89'pL9 .. ~ i' , q , ~~ ...b -IN ~ ~ (H),6CI:L 9 (:J},J9"CL 9 3.LO,80.00'N '3.fp,pO.OO'N "':, ~ ... -, ~ ":,. '1,. ":,. ~ ~ ~ '1'I.60,CO.OO'S '!'"Li?, FO.OOS ~ ~ ~ , '" .. , ~~r- u,,-~ 0'r"~v ,>"- ~o-7 -'to -? '7 , ~ - ~ ~ ~ '~i I", I ~., J Z: --,"" >- :::: ~ ,'1" CI,', I ~l I I I 1 1 , , , 1 . 1 I~: "~I "'tj:l " , o..~l CO , ~ l ~\J . l ~~ 1 .. 1.: h ,_.......1 ,......:01 ;!=b _J."'~-I~j -'~I",,- ~J Lu 1 ~: 1 I 1 ~~'~ ! . 1 , 1 '" 1 "" ~I ~~ : ".q 1 ~~ : Ln 1 '" 1 '" 1 CO 1 <:: i ~ ~f.l ~~ ",,,, > w v , '-' '- '-' " l': I "", .,., , , I,OO'OC 1 1 ... Jan 08 07 10:19a Collier Co. ADDRESSING FrOll: Davidson Engineering 239 liS7 5195 941-659-5724 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. 1l1l05/2007 10: 15 " Jl;-9I>>Al05.__ 11, ''''';Oc .il>DRESSlNG CHECKUST Please complete the fullowingAND FAX (139-659-5724) OR SUBMIT IN PERSON TO THE ADDRESSING SECTION. FORM MUST BE SIGNED BY ADDRESSING PERSONNEL PRIOR TO PRE- APPLICATION MEETING. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are rcq1rin:d. 1. Legal descrfp tiOD of subject proPerty or properties (copy of length)' description may he alluched) Attached - Po.-.- ~ So s:;" D ~ Co -s !~ \ -os _ 4. % _ Z-.s ., . ~-.r- . 2, Folio (property ID) Domber(s) of above (a/tach UJ, or associate with, legal description if more titan one) 0015068000 d 001 2400 7 3, Street address or addresses (as applicable, if already aSsigned) N/A -'L) 4. Location map, showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right-of-way (al1ach) 5. Copyofsurvcy (NEEDED ONLY FOR UNPLATTED PROPERTIES) 6. Proposed proj ect nllIlle (if applicable) Marsilea Villas 7. Proposed Street names (if applkable) 8. Site Development Plan Number (FOR EXISTING PROJECTS/SITES ONLY) SDP_ ...9. Petition Type - (Complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition Type) DSDP (Site Development Plan) o SDPA (SDP Amendment) o SDPI (SDP Insubstantial Change) o SIP (Site Improvement Plan) o SIPI (SIPI Insubstantial Change) - 0 SNR(StreetNameChange) o VegetationlExotic (Veg. Removal Permits) !8] Land Use Petition (Variance, Conditional Use, Boat Dock Ext, Rezone, PUD rezone, etc.) o Other - Describe: o PPL (plans & Plat Review) o PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) o FP (Final Plat) o LLA (Lot Line Adjuslment) o BL (Blasting Permit) o ROW (Right-of-Way Permit) o EXP (Excavation Permit) o VRSFP (Veg. Removal &. Site Fill Permit) o IDR (TrlIIlSfer ofDc:velopment Rights) 10. Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documentll (if applicable; indicate whether proposed or existing) 11. Please Check One: Checklist is to be Faxed Back Personally Picked Lip 12. AppliCllJ1t Name Michelle Tamavo. Davidson Enllineerine. Inc. Phone 597-3916 Fax 597-5195 13: Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Projeet and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Addressing Section. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Primary Number :;"i (" ""; AddressNumb""7.llL~1 Address Number Address Nwnbcr Approved by ..f) 'U'" '.J; <<~a_ Date O~-GS-O"l ~-'-- PUDZ-2007-AR.l1381 REV: 1 Project: 20070tOOl0 Date: 3/12/07 DUE: 4/9/07 Packet Page -784. -----~ -- 2/8/2011 Item 17.8. MARSILEA VILLAS Trip Generation Report Prepared For Jeffrey Henning 4344 Corporation Square, Suite 1 Naples, FL 34104 Prepared by Davidson Engineering, Inc. 3530 Kraft Road, Suite #301 Naples, Florida 34105 April 2007 September 2007 February 2008 July 2009 Packet Page -785- 2/8/2011 Item 17.8. INTRODUCTION This project is a proposed 27 Lot Single-Family development that will be provided a shared access with Imperial Lakes Subdivision, Thc access will be within the existing RIW tying into Livingston Road. The site is composed of two 5", aere parcels loeated on tbe north side of Imperial Lakes just west of Livingston Rd N. in Section 13, Township 48, Range 25E (Figure 1), Existing Conditions Currently, the site is vacant with no improvements. The project is currently zoned agricultural with an existing 30' R/W on the south property line to be vacated. Proposed Improvements The applicant is proposing to rezone the pareel as a Residential planned Unit Development (PUD) from agrieultural to provide for the development of 27 homes. Marsilea Villas PUD Traffic Impact Statement 2 Packet Page -786- 2/8/2011 Item 17.8. Trip Generation Trip generation rates are per the Institute of Transportation Engineers publication, Trip Generation Eighth Edition. The Land Use Category and associated units used for the project are: A) Number of Dwelling Units The total number of Dwelling Units is 27. B) Description of development and ITE category for trip generation. This development will consist of single family residenees. The lTE category that will be used to generate trips will be: Single Family Detaehed Housing (LUe 210), Calculated Traffic Equation Entering Exiting Daily Traffic ~ 312 Ln(T)~O.92Ln(X)+2.71 156(50%) t56(50%) AM Peak Hour Traffic~ 29 T - 0.70(X)+9.74 7(25%) 22(75%) PM Peak Hour Traffic-32 Ln(T)-0.9oLn(X)+o,51 20(63%) 12(37%) Table 1. Single-Family Detached Housing (LUC 210) X=27 Site Aeeess The project shall be accessed via a proposed road connecting the Southeast comer of the site to Livingston Road. The full median opening allows traffic to be able to go North or South on Livingston Road. Marsilea Villas PUD Traffie Impaet Statement 3 Packet Page -787- 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. TRIP DISTRIBUTION Figure 2. Trip Distribution ~) '-/ ----~ r-- \ P<<~~bl't"'T_ \1 lII"t"IIA.LClR . ,/ \ ~ ~- o"/f\~~ \l J - -+- I \ [ 0" f~ ...L==r=-,:=1 -. -T ,---: I "--41Wio SIT( ~'~I' /' 100%:~ '- .J 'h) ~ rl; /1] I j(l ' ,~ .... : If ""\. ------ '- ) \ EXISTING BACKGROUND TRAFFIC Existing traffic counts were obtained from tbe most recent publisbed Collier County Department of Transportation AUIR, for tbe year 2008. LOS Ratings werc obtained fi'om tbe Collier County 2008 AUIR. Tbc affccted roadway segment will be Livingston Road, from Imperial Street to Immoka1ee Road; ID #51. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The proposed improvements eonsist of 27 Single-Family Homes in a Residential Subdivision. The proposed aeeess roadway ,,~1I be built and costs shared witb tbe existing residential development to the South (Imperial). This will be a private road with only the two sites ba'~ng access onto Li'~ngston Road. Marsilea Villas PUD Traffic Impact Statement 4 Packet Page -788- 2/8/2ollltern 17.B. Figure 3, AM Peak Hour project trip distribution ',-- --;1- '-~~ 3 E:~:;ing (y ) 9 EXltmg L/ ( -~ -~, \1 ---\f; I ~ L// / /1~~'-\,hl~ <~/~ il. ! J I I I " I ~ /J '/1'-1- I ~J ,J~/l'V\'-" --~/--1\..' .-_f __ ----r-, _ '. -1-, I _ -r-- ~ --+, / I \ ...:~~ .o.ca.::iS I'(J~._ "'-.., ,.. " ' ....--SITE .-.....J"'"......-.,. / // ~/ 1lf"rn1~1.-:\ ~F"'C"'''''H I ~ n:"'G.oJ!MH Ul ~ - I tmllM~ 100% 7 Entering 22 Exiting Figure 4, PM Peak Hour project trip distribution Marsi1ea Villas PUD Tramc Impact Statement 5 Packet Page -789~ 2/8/2011 Item 17,B. I ~~ \ 40%. ) \~ 8 Ente:mg \) 5 EXltmg _~ 'o~':::;~' ~r ~- ~ ~ ,,\ P1fOl"02D "CCl.S~ l'ti:M!IWJ,y ,. o C.4.STl! G"AJ'lDO.: IJ.l "- 2 TIAGAAOfN IN , ~ 100% 20 Entering J 2 Exiting ./ J ~ 8 i~ I~ ,. i" 60% 12 Entering 7 Exiting lIP!Jll41.01!: .- ~ /'h"\ '1-i'-8=:. ~ ~ --- ^ _.". I f ----....-- II Table 2. Impacted Segments ID# Segment Service BT TB PT RC LOS Volume 51 Livingston Road 3,260 1,039 155 13 2,053 B ImDerial St. to Immokalee Rd. . BT= Baekground Traffic (Existing) . TB= Trip Bank . RC= Remaining Capacity . PT = Project Trips . LOS= Level of Service Project impact on segment %; 0.40% < 2% Therefore, the proposed traffic will meet concurrency requirements and no further analysis is necessary. Marsi1ea Villas PUD Traffic Impact Statement 6 Packet Page -790- 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. Table 3. 5-Year Historical Growth 5-yT Seg, Avg. HisL # 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Growth Collier County Station AUlR AUlR AUlR AUlR AUlR Rate 51 Livingston Road 570* 980 1,020 1,080 1,039 2.06% Imperial St, to Immokalee Rd. *Note: 5-Yr Avg. hlStonc growth rate calculated usmg Colller County 2005-2008 AUIR. The 2004 AUIR traffic count was omittedfrom the historical average growth rate because the roadway segment hadjust been opened during this yew' and does not provide an accurate representation of the bockground traffic. Verified with Collier COl/my staff on 7/23/09. Table 4. 2.015 Horizon Background Traffic The eA'Pected build out year for this project is 20:11. Therefore, we shall look at the planning h01-izon out to 2015. 2008 AUlR 2015 + Segment ID #: 51 Background 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Project Traffic , Trips Livingston Road Imperial SL to 1,039 1,060 1,082 1,104 1,127 1,150 1,174 1,211 Immokalee Rd, With the addition of this projeet's peak hour, peak direetion traffic of 13 trips and the applieation of a 2.06% average historical growth rate, the AUIR Background Traffic wouJd only reach 1,2.11 trips. Since this segment of Livingston Road has a capacity of 3,260, there will be plenty of capaeity remaining. The road would still be operating at an LOS B. TURN LANE ANALYSIS Currently the site is accessible via two turn lanes entering from Livingston Road; a 390 ft right turn lane and a 495 ft left turn lane. These turn lanes are to remain operational during and after construction with no modifications proposed. As per the FDOT Index 301 the applicant is not required to improve the turn lanes, as they will accommodate the expansion of the subject property. CONCLUSION For the impacted segment, the proposed project's additional traffic trips wouJd have a maximum impact of 0.40%. This project will have a minor impact to the existing impacted segments. Marsilea Villas PUD Traffic Impact Statement 7 Packet Page .791- 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. Item VIA ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF January 6, 2010 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT Petition No.: PUDZ-2007-AR-1138l Petition Name: Marsilea Villas Applieant/Developer: Marsilea Villas, LLC Engineering Consultant: Davidson Engineering Environmental Consultant: Boylan Environmental Consultants II. LOCA nON The site is located west of Livingston Road and approximately 1.5 miles north of Immokalee Road in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES The subject site is surrounded by Royal Palm International Academy PUD to the north/east/west and adjacent to the south is Imperial Golf Estates Unit 5. The adjacent land to the North is currently vacant PUD, to the south is RSF-3 (Single Family Homes), to the east is PUD (Vacant), and to the PUD (Vacant). The present land use is vacant land, and the proposed use of the property is Residential Subdivision. ZONING DESCRIPTION N- PUD Royal Palm International Academy S - RSF-3 Imperial Golf Estates residential subdivision E - PUD Royal Palm International Academy W - PUD Royal Palm International Academy Packet Page -792- 2/8/2011 Item 17.8. EAC Meeting Page 2 of 12 IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The petitioner is requesting to rezone 10.25 acres from the A (Agriculture) and A- ST (Agriculture-Special Treatment) Zoning Distriet to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) Zoning District at a density of2.63 dwelling units per acre for a maximum of 27 dwelling units. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY A. Future Land Use Element The subject property is designated Urban (Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), and is within Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA), as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of four (4) residential units per gross acre and recreation and open space uses. This project requested a density of 2.6 units per acre. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning and Land Development Review as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. Since this project is within Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area, the following policies shall be addressed for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Policy 6.3 In order to be exempt from link specific concurrency, new residential development or redevelopment within Collier County's designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) shall utilize at least two of the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, as may be applicable: (Staff Comment: This vro;ect may be sub;ect to link svecitic concurrency. Comvrehensive Plannin!! Staff defers to Transvortation Plannin!! Staff for a tin din!! ofvro;ect consistency with these measures) Packet Page -793- 2/8/2011 Item 17,B. EAC Meeting Page 3 of 12 a) Including neighborhood commercial uses within a residential project. b) Providing transit shelters within the development (must be coordinated with Collier County Transit). c) Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with conneetions to adjacent eommercial properties. d) Including affordable housing (minimum of 25% of the units) within the development. e) Vehicular access to adjacent commercial properties. Policy 6.4 All rezoning within the Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) is encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Any development contained in a TCMA, whether submitted as a PUD or non- PUD rezone shall be required to be consistent with the native vegetation preservation requirements contained within Policy 6.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, (Staff Comment: This project was submitted as a PUD. Comprehensive Planninf! Staff defers to Environmental staff for more detailed review for compliance with CCME requirements) In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Policy 7.1 The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. (Staff Comment: As depicted on the master plan and TIS. the project does not abut an arterial road, but the proposed new road will connect to the arterial road. Livinf!ston Road. The provision of the proTJOsed rif!ht-of-wav will serve as the connection of the Imperial Golf Estates and Marsilea villa to Livinf!ston Road. A sidewalk connection will be TJYovided from the proposed development to the proposed rif!ht-of-wav) 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. (Staff Comment: As depicted on the Master Plan. a sinf!le access point onto a new road connectinf! to Livinf!ston Road is provided to this 27 unit project. Given the small size o{the project. a loop road may not be feasible, and is not shown on the PUD Map or conceptual WM Plan) Packet Page -794- 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. EAC Meeting Page 4 of 12 Policy 7.3 All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection point with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. (Staff Comment: Neither the PUD master plan nor the PUD document, nor the application addresses this issue. The petitioner needs to amend the PUD Master Plan and Exhibit F, Development Commitments, to provide and commit to interconnect with adjacent projects or provide credible explanation/rationale whv such is not possible or feasible.) Policy 7.4 The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. (Staff Comment: Given the small size of the project, there is no opportunitv to provide different tvpes of housin!! or blended densitv. This project does show lake and open space. However, Exhibit E indicated a waiver for sidewalk requirement; the petitioner needs to explain how this will be consistent with the provision of walkable communities.) CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis, staff cannot determine the proposed rezone is consistent with the FLUE as more information is needed, as noted above. Depending upon the petitioner's response, the PUD Documents/Master Plan may have to be revised. B, Conservation & Coastal Management Element Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards. To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of storm water runoff, storm water systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system. This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing interconnected dry detention area(s), lake(s) and a wetland(s) to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events. Packet Page -795- 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. EAC Meeting Page 5 of 12 Policy 6.1.1 .... "native vegetation shall be preserved on-site through the application of the following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria" '.. The site is a residential development larger than 5 acres in size in a non-coastal high hazard area. Per Policy 6.1.1 the site is required to preserve 15% of the native vegetation on the property. Per Collier County's definition of native vegetation, the site contains 4.98 acres of native communities. As a result the site is required to preserve 0.75 acres. The project is proposing to preserve 1.23 acres of native vegetation and 0.66 acres of non-native areas. As such the site meets the standards of Policy 6.1.1. Policy 6.1.1(2) "The preservation of native vegetation shall include canopy, under-story and ground cover emphasizing the largest contiguous area possible. " In accordance with Policy 6,1.1(2) the Marsilea Villas project has aligned the preserve along the northern property boundary. This will allow for the largest contiguous core area and reduce the interface between the preserve and development. A portion of the preserve will include restoration in all three strata and the remainder will include preservation of species in all three strata. Per Policy 6.1.1(3) the onsite preserve areas will be placed in a conservation easement or mechanism allowed by the LDC at the time of the next development order. Policy 6.1.1 (4) (11 a "Selection of the preserve areas shall reflect the following criteria"... "Areas known to be utilized"... "or that serve as corridors for the movement of wildlife shall be presenied and protected in order to facilitate the movement of wildlife through the site, "... In accordance with Policy 6.1.1(4) (V) a the alignment of the preserve along the properties north boundary provides a wildlife corridor for movement of species between the project and the off-site Royal Palm Academy preserve west of the property. Protected species were not observed onsite. However, this ean be used for any critters that may exist in the area. Policy 6.1.1 (7) (c) "Where native preservation requirements area not accommodated, the landscape plan shall re-create a native plant community in all three strata (ground covers, shrubs and trees), utilizing larger plant materials so as to more quickly re-create the lost mature vegetation" Packet Page -796- 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. EAC Meeting Page 6 of 12 Despite meeting the native vegetation preservation requirements the project is providing an additional portion of the preserve in a non-native community. The Marsilea Villas project is doing this in order to align the onsite preserve with a portion of the offsite preserve area. Unfortunately this area contains low quality vegetation. Per Poliey 6.1.1(7) (c) the project is proposing to plant this preserve area with native species. Policy 6.1.1:9 "Preservation areas shall be interconnected within the site and to a4foining offsite preservation areas or wildlife corridors. " Per Policy 6.1.1(9) "Preservation areas shall be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off-site preservation areas or wildlife corridors." The placement of the Marsilea Villas preserve along the northern property boundary allows the project to create a contiguous interconnected preserve with off-site preservation areas and wildlife corridors. Policy 6.1. 4 "Prohibited invasive exotic vegetation shall be removed from all new developments. " .... Per Policy 6,1.4 all exotic vegetation is being removed and a long-term maintenance plan will be in effect An inspection will be done at the next development order and prior to certificate of occupancy. Policy 62.1 "As required by Florida Administrative Code 9J5-5.006(1) (h), wetlands identified by the 1994-95 SFWMD land use and land cover inventory are mapped on the Future Land Use Map series. These areas shall be verified by jurisdictional field delineation, subject to Policy 6.2.2 of this element, at a time of project permitting to determine the exact location of jurisdictional wetland boundaries. " Policy 6.2.2 "Wetlands shall be defined pursuant to Section 373.019 Florida Statues. The location of jurisdictional wetland boundaries are further described by the delineation methodology in Section 373.421 Florida Statues. Per Policy's 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 the wetlands were verified on June 29, 2007. Policy 6.2.3 "Collier County shall implement a comprehensive process to ensure wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands are protected and conserved" ....... The property is consistent with Policy 6.2,3 whereas the land use designation on the property based off the future land use map is urban residential. Packet Page .797. 2/8/2011 Item 17.8. EAC Meeting Page 7 of 12 Policy 6.2.4 "Within the Urban designated area, the County shall rely on the wetland jurisdictional determinations and permit requirements issued by the applicable jurisdictional agency. This policy shall be implemented as follows:" .... Policy 6.2.4 states that in urban designated areas where permits issued by the agencies allow for impacts to wetlands and require mitigation, it will be deemed to meet the protection and conservation of wetlands objective. The Marsilea Villas project is providing offsite mitigation for impacts to wetlands as required by SFWMD during the permitting process. Policy 6.4.3 " The county shall assist to assure compliance with all State and Federal Regulations pertaining to endangered and rare species living in such "shared" ecological systems. " The project is in accordance with Policy 6.4.3 a protected species survey has been conducted on the property for endangered and rare species. During the survey on September 7, 2006 and the follow-up May 22, 2007 no protected species or signs thereof were identified Policy 71. 2 "Within areas of Collier County, excluding the lands contained in the RLSA Overlay, non-agricultural development, excluding individual single family residences, shall be directed away from listed species and their habitats by complying with the following guidelines and standards:" .... Per Policy 7.1.2 a listed species survey was conducted on the property. This survey was in accordance with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) guidelines. During the species survey no listed species or signs thereof were observed. Policy 71. 4 "All development shall comply with applicable federal and state permitting requirements regarding listed species protection. " The project is going through the state and federal pennitting proeess and will comply with Poliey 7.1.4. Policy 11.1.2 "There shall be no loss of historic or archaeological resources on County-owned property and historic resources on private property shall be protected, preserved or utilized in a manner that will allow their continued existence. ".... Packet Page -798- 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. EAC Meeting Page 8 of 12 The Marsilea Villas project is in accordance with Policy 11.1.1 and Policy 11.1.2 as the State Division of Historical Resources has been consulted in order to determine if a cultural resource survey will be required Policy 11.1. 3 "if, during the course of site clearing, excavation, or other constructional activities an archeological or historical site, artifact, or other indicator is discovered, development activities at that specific archaeological site shall be immediately stopped an the appropriate agency notified." .... The project is also in accordance with Policy 11.1.3 during the permitting process a clause in regards to historical resources is included in the permit. This clause states that if any artifacts are unearthed or discovered during site work that work shall stop immediately and the states division of historical resources will be contacted. VI. MAJOR ISSUES A. Stormwater Mana2ement The SFWMD Environmental Resource Permit for Marsilea Villas was applied for on March 30, 2007 and received application number 070330-12. The last response from the developer's engineer was received by SFWMD on November 23, 2009.. This report is being written before that response is due back to SFWMD. Section 8.06.030.2. of the Collier County Land Development Code states 'The surface water management aspects of any petition, that is or will be reviewed and permitted by South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), are exempt from review by the EAC except to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated stormwater to be discharged into Preserves as allowed in Section 3.05.07." For this project, treated storm water will be discharged into the wetland preserve. The main water management system consists of a series of water quality swales connected to a single water management wet detention area (lake) that provides water quality retention/detention and peak flow attenuation. It is a standard system. The site sits in the Imperial Outfall Drainage Basin which has an allowable diseharge rate of 0.15 cfs per acre (Collier County Ordinance 2001-27), but it discharges west through the Cocohatchee River Basin which has an allowable discharge of 0.04 cfs per acre. Packet Page -799- 2/8/2011 Item 17,8. EAC Meeting Page 9 of 12 B. Environmental 1. Site Description The property totals 10.25 acres and includes 1.43 acres of uplands and 8.82 acres of a various quality wetlands. The site contains 1.43 acres of Pine Flatwoods, 2.34 acres of Brazilian Pepper Wetland, 2.93 acres of Melaleuca Wetland, 1.53 acres of disturbed Cypress, and 1.97 acres of Pine-Cypress-Cabbage Palm 2. Wetlands The proposed project will impact approximately 6.93 acres of wetlands. The project will preserve approximately 1.89 acres of wetlands. The preserve \\ill connect to the adjacent Royal Palm Academy preserve. Per the request of SFWMD the preserve area includes a portion of the higher quality wetlands along the northern property boundary. Onsite mitigation and offsite mitigation will be provided for impacts to the wetland and will be permitted through SFWMD as required. The onsite mitigation will include the preservation and restoration of 0.66 acres of exotic dominated wetlands. These areas will be mechanically cleared and planted with native desirable species. The property will also preserve and enhance 1.23 acres of mixed forested and cypress wetlands. 3. Preservation Requirements The site is a residential development larger than 5 acres in size in a non-coastal high hazard area. Per Policy 6.1.1 the site is required to preserve 15% of the native vegetation on the property. Per Collier County's definition of native vegetation, the site contains 4.98 acres of native communities. As a result the site is required to preserve 0.75 acres. The native vegetation being preserved is 1.89 acres, including 1.23 acres of native vegetation and .66 acres of non-native vegetation area to be restored. 4. Listed Species The Protected Species Survey indicated no known FFWCC / USFWS listed species inhabiting the site. The listed species which have the highest likelihood of occurring on the property are the listed wading birds and Big Cypress fox squirrel. A protective species survey was conducted on September 7, 2006. The survey was conducted during mid afternoon between tile hours of 1 pm and 3 pm. No listed species were identified on the property. Per the request of the Collier Packet Page -800- 2/8/2011 Item 17,8. EAC Meeting Page 10 of 12 County an update to this survey was conducted on May 22,2007. No protected species were identified. County staff visited the site and did not observe and protected species. The habitat onsite is very disturbed and infested with exotic vegetation. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of Marsilea Villas PUDZ-2007-AR-I138Iwith no stipulations. Packet Page .801- 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. EAC Meeting Page 11 of 12 PREPARED BY: /6 k-o.s DATE STAN CHRZAN SKI, P.E. ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER ENGINEERING AND ENVIRO"NMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT ~OA~~ SU ER ARAQ { SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT /J -/0~[f1 DATE ~ , ~ t6b' -~~ Q MEliSSA NE c3 - PRINCIPAL PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW /~ -/(p' :208)1 DATE Packet Page -802- EAC Meeting 2/8/2011 Item 17.B. Page]20fl2 REVIEWED BY: M SON CIP ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ERlNG AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT /t-lfI-()~ DATE ~,~ /2-/7-01 vd LIAM If. L N J~, PE. DATE ENGINEERlNG AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR ~ 7. wtL STEVE WILLIAMS ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY j;) I;, Q '7 DATE APPROVED BY: SEPH K. SCHMITT OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATOR '~//r~7 DAT Packet Page .803- 2/8/2011 Item 17,B. ORDINANCE NO. 11-_ 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 INCLuDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM AN AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT AND AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH A SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY (A-ST) TO "RPUD" RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITH REMOVAL OF THE SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY, TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 27 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS THE MARSILEA VILLAS RPUD, LOCATED WEST OF LIVINGSTON ROAD (CR 881), IN SECTION J3, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF ]0.25 +/- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Tim Hancock, of Davidson Engineering, Inc., representing Marsilea Villas, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real 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 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from an Agricultural (A) Zoning District and Agricultural Zoning District with a Special Treatment Overlay (A-ST) to "RPUD" Residential Planned Unit Development, with removal of the Special Treatment Overlay, to allow development of up to 27 single family dwelling units in accordance with the Exhibits attached hereto and ineorporated by reference herein as Exhibits A through F. The Marsilea Villas, LLC f PUDZ-2007-AR-I 138 I Rev. 1/06/11 Page 1 of2 Packet Page -804- 2/8/20ll/tern 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: 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 , 2011. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: . Chaimlan , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: i '<0\" Heidi Ashton-Cicko Assistant County Attorney Exhibit A - Pemlitted Uses Exhibit B - Development Standards Exhibit C - Master Plan Exhibit D - Legal Description Exhibit E - List of Requested Deviations from LDC Exhibit F - Development Commitments CP\07-CPS-00700\S8 Marsilea Villas, LLC / PUDZ-2007-AR-11381 Rev. Ii06/] I Poge 2 of 2 Packet Page -805- 2/8/20llltern 17.B. EXHIBIT A PERMITTED USES The Marsilea Villas Residential Planned Unit Dcvelopmcnt (RPUD) is or ]0.25 acres in size and has a maximum number of 27 single-family dwelling units permitted with a density of2.63 units per acre. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altcred or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: I. Single-Family Detached Residential, not to exceed 27 units. 2. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") by the process outlined in the LDC. B. Accessory Uses: I. Gate House 2. Swimming Pools 3. Screen Enclosures 4. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures. Packet Page -806- 2/8/20llltern 17.B. EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENTSTA~DARDS Table I (Exhibit B) below sets forth the dcvclopment standards for land uses within the proposed Residential PUD (RPUD) Subdistrict. Standards not specifically set forth within this application shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the site development plan (SDP) or subdivision plat. TABLE 1- RESIDEIXTlAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SINGLE F AMIL Y PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MINIMUM LOT AREA 6.000 SF MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 60 feet (interior lot) 70 feet (corner lot) I MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 11,000 SF (I story) 1.200 SF (2 story) MIN. FRONT YARD I ] 5 fcctl MIN. SIDE YARD I 7.5 feet MIN. REAR YARD 20 fcct MIN. DISTA1\CE BET\\'EEN STRUCTlJRES 15 feet MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT (NOT TO EXCEED 35 fcet (zoncd) 2-STORIES) 47 feet (actual) MIN. PRESERVE SETBACK 25 fect MIN. SETBACK FROM PROPERTY LINES OF 20 fcet PUD FOR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES ACCESSORY STRUCTURES I IFROl\T -. I Isps I SIDE I S.P.S ! REAR ; 10 feet MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN PRINCIPAL AND I 0 f1~et ACCESSORY STRUCTURES MAX. BCILDlNG HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 35 fcct (zoned) 47 fcet (actual) MIN. PRESERVE SETBACK 10 feet - I. !n 110 case shall thcn~ ix- iess 1h:l1: ;1 c1ciJr are.'l 0l":!3 icd l);;twr:en the b<lck ur the .~id<.'w:llk J.lld U1I.: ti:Jcc or tn!: garage door. SF ;=. SquaH.' F ~(l! or F 001 Packet Page -807- 2/8/20llltem 17.B. S.P.S. = Same as PrincipaJ Structures BH : Building Height GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all eriteria set forth below shall be W1derstood to be in relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures. Condominium and/or homeovmcrs' association boundaries shall not be utilized for detcnnining development standards. The minimum setback shall nol be less than seven and a halffeet (7.5') and the combined setback between principal structures shall be at least fifteen feel (15'). At the time of the application for subdivision plat approval for each tract. a lot layout depicting minimum yard setbacks and the building footprint shall be submitted. -. Packet Page -808- o UJ o >~ ",0 UJe>: uc.. <0 "-UJ "'0:: sZi; o UJ 0:: f- Z 0 :::> ~ UJ UJ U 4: c.. (J) N .:J >< ;;: 0 4: f- :;; (J) f- Z :::> UJ ... -' ~ OJ -' < 4: f- i= Cl z z UJ i: 0 o::wen <l;(J)UJ "-:::>0:: o ~ " < ~ 2 ~ < o o . . o 6 " " < ~ " " ~o:'1 < ~ 2 z ,...: ~lU (J') :::ci'zf u.; w~ ;!~~Qs8 ~~ ~i5~sr:-;: ~~w~~:;;t~t:J ft,.u;:3tl:::r:n~~ ~i:~::n,!::~z2 aJU,I:!!~;;:;lIJWWo 3i~<5>:::~~~lij -c n: if;::) W,.., -(r;!; vi ~_~-"~z;::~g;5~ a::r~:z:.<l:lI:LJ;q:lC"" tt~3:[[;::~~~~ ~:ri5~t:~Q;~a:~ W!::r!.a:)<l:;>:::::><l:;'j5 ~~~~~~~~::O:i 0w5:iJzw~!::$:; 3g~~~g;~g5~ '5;...Jw...ww....<l:...- ~~[5~~gB~~ 0; .J ... '" Zi; " " ~ co '" ... (J) i:5 (J) '" "! (J) N '" 0 0 e>: ~ <0; .:J ;;: ~ UJ -' OJ ~ .J ~ UJ UJ f- > rJ) '" z :::> UJ e>: e>: 9 UJ w 0 rJ) UJ LL Z rJ) UJ '" LL 4: w e>: :) :::> .J e>: c.. CD 'i ,:j " < S~ g~~ ':.. -<< ~, ~ " "' b " L,; ~>1 s. ~" " <" c" '0 'c h <- c< -> Uw ~~B ~~g -',> ;:: c,a <L.:.-CC ~o~ U<ro ~~~ croo ~~~ c~" c~c: """ ~ ~~ ~ H< DOt:) .; o w z ~ " . ' " ~ <1::><: ~, 0 0<<( :;::g: ::::w U~ ow 2~tJ iW2 ~:i:5 ..I;:, ~ e" __ s::fj:' O:::l:~ ~-::l ""'~'n ~~~ !JC....~ ''''J'<l; ~ > . " < . . U Z < Z ~ ~ w < 5 " ~ u U LJ..'<( x' c" . z =w - " ~o ;':;w ~~ '" ;~, :::~ ?C~ t 1~ :t(;,,, UJa . ~1 W t.:l, o C'~ ~~g ....<0.(.1 -::\JJ ':)'''<1) .,:::.c:r: >',::.:>w ;c"-C1. ~~~ ;;!!i!~-( ~"":d <;o~a ii!u,i: ~t:Q~ Bit;~ WJ(IJ~~ "''''~'''' o~!i~ :S"t8~ ~'i ~ ~ ~~~~ "'..:;:c ,,~:;; j;~~~ i~~~ ","-1:.._ ~ ~o:s ~I g~ ~i 0.' w," ~- ~~g~ 000>- di -I _ X 12; u,,,,; '3'; ~: ~ l!,.'~ :Ie. . " ~S? 2, ~ :>:5 "" , 0 " ,,~ ~ "' il:::.: "U ",<( '"'.al' f'-t;: :-;Lf: - ~. !;t ~~~ ~ ~ " >. "" ili~ !to ~ .r; ~l 8:t ~~. L," "- - "- ~~g~~ ~. ~~ ~ffi >. is :~ ", >. ~ii! "0 ~~ -< " h "' h ~~~ ~8~ h' -'8 ~o(c ~g[' 0"-'" ~~~ ",0 Oow " ~ " < z, ffi:::. Dc. :::za o.;.:} ,,< " < > o " :<:;0:2 glt~ ,. ~~& o. E:Si;: DOc ClI;lZ < . "I ~~ ~ ~, ~t ~ w > -] " . . [j . 51 o ;1 ~I D ..... if:':"'" ...., -:~g gi ~mr ~I . . t < "'1 PRESERVE (~'~3 OOrtl1l) ~ (/) w wO:: :.:;:U <t<t -Jt'-- ~ ~" ,f/ / ..:.'..on.," -- 11.1'...... 'K' -. .:r-,C... '''''''', Uo ~.a", G.>!IC..... ~ +1 ~ ,,;' " '- i- 2/8/20llltem 17.B. w......... _ ~ c.... ! ~. . ~ : m r-- -.---, I I ! -', I J I I I ~~ r ~ ~ I ~~ I I I J I I I I I I -"'\ I ,I 1 I , I ~.J ..J~" ~ ., [:i C.>-Ll [~~ ;{,,: ~ o " ',"I..!')I,,"", "'V.N.". .....".....,.."~_............",.:c,......""'..v,,,.,....,""J",~..... "d'))...t"",,,,,~,,-,,':('l"rW""'^''''.'''''J'f''''''''''''''_''''_'l Packet Page -809- ;'1 - , , : , , , , , : " , , , , , , , , ,. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,- , , ," , , , , , , , : " " ~ ~> ""It: .< DO .z Cl.;:) "0 <0 ''1! .~ '~.':' ..-,':":" :,: "~ "~ .,; I~.-,: t--;,~,' -.: ':. :~.j,7-' . _ :~:~ES:~~'-!~' , ::.. ~~ ~I::" :~i~~'~~~~~J::' :1. ;;?[:: ...,,, . I ~~. ~ J~: ;( f'" I I,~ ['ill -J \;0 !(J) "lIJ II~ , In:: rr 8 1, : : ~~ p~~r;RV~. 7 t:::::!~~~~I: I I ~ : "' w" a: U I '" ~" o c I ~ ~ I b ;; I I I I I I I I I I \\ . __ I f: ~ \. ,t" ;-----~---~----_.. ~:~ffi I ~~[9 ~ ' ~~~1 !::!z~~] , ~'3'" I ;J~r I i "'~ :;:: ;" ~ ." L: .]:5~ ' i ~~ g~~ [. ~12~L~..;S.":':LJ~.:.:;:...~~~'.::'::::L~::;/'/2~Jt 1 ' , I'",] ci IY Zz 00 f-_ <f)f- 0(,) zuJ ~ -z ~z ~o " 0(,) tg~ 00 0.1Y 0 IY 0. c.~ '~'.',- "''-. z ~I ~o !~ ~\t'''"" _".<\ 'm,. .":, . @] - "C::''' ., "~,,, ~'.4M"~' l--., o ~~;; ,<' z:"';; C)UJ:l' ["'- dr., ~.~ :t.~ "I = I.!." "- :3 ~,~,;;; ~ a.~';~l ...IX, . ~I ~ .~ ;j '.' ::i~U--1 "'1:::1: '''i Irjl.'.' I'; 'd r,j Z~ _0 -~ C)" Z~ -0 a:ii~ W'o w:3"i' Z~l! ". _z~ 'R_::l "'0- Z~:l w~.....:g " ~ ZU:~g Oo~g <::.,j. . "..01"10 'I#,a::~Z Q~~si _'11:<'1>- >"-Z ~w" ct~5~ Q~zo ~~u W~ ~, 0 ...,~ - l&""":t> -1''''''~:''' -( 4,~4),'t..O (,) J i: )( 1IJ '> .~ o..i '" '" Oz ~ -~ --z '" (,) gl < ~- ='~ ~:o;.,. ~ !~ 2~~ ~~~ _:;7: ~~ ,....:;:;: 2/8/20ll/tem 17.B. EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE WEST Y, OF THE SOGTHWEST Y. OF THE NORTHEAST Y. OF THE SOUTHWEST y. OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THE EAST Y, OF THE SOUTHWEST Y. OF THE NORTHEAST 'I., OF THE SOUTHWEST 'I., OF SECTIONl3, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA SAID PARCELS CONTAIN 446,670 SQUARE FEET OR 10.25 ACRES MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICT10NS, RESERVATIONS OF RECORD AND TAXES FOR CURRENT AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS <';" " ';'1 ;, Packet Page -810. 2/8/20llltem 17.B. EXHIBIT E LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC I. Deviation #1 sccks relicf from LDC Scction 6.06.02.A.! Sidewalks, and Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements, which requires sidewalks on eaeh side of a right-of-way terminating cul-de-sac wherc there are morc than] 5 units fronting on said right-of- way, to allow for a sidewalk to be constructed along one side of thc proposed road. The proposcd pathway cncircling the proposcd lakc will tie into thc sidewalk adjacent to the road, achicving pcdestrian circulation throughout thc site. 2. Deviation #2 seeks rclief from LDC Scction 6.06.01.0, which cstablishcs the minimum right-of-way widths to be utilized, to establish that all internal roadways shall be subject to a 50 foot right-or-way configuration. Packet Page -811- 2/8/20llltem 17.B. EXHIBIT F DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 1.1 ENVIRONMEIXTAL A. The minimum native preservation requirement shall be 0.75 aeres (4.98 acres existing indigenous vegetation x J 5% = 0.75 acres to be preserved). The proposed native vegetation preserved per the master concept plan is 1.89 acres (1.23 acres of native area + 0.66 aeres non-native area) B. Perimeter berms and swales shall be located on the dcvelopmcnt side of the preserve boundary. C. No structures or bcrms shall be placed between on-site and off-site preserves. D. Where removal of non-native and exotic vegetation occurs within the preserve, a combination of natural recruitment and required plantings shall oceur consistent with the LDC. 1.2 UTILITIES All necessary easements, dedieations, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenancc of all serviee utilities in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time approvals are requested. 1.3 TRANSPORTATION At no time shall the County be rcquircd to acccpt maintcnance responsibility for the roadways serving this project. Packet Page -812- 2/8/20llltem 17.B. 20D · Friday, Januar,2:1, ~OU. NapqiiDBOj News NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE Notke is hereby given that on TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2011, in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier County Government ,Center, 3299 East Ta- miami Trail, Naples. Florida. the Board of County Commissioners will consider the enactment of a County Ordinance, The meeting will commence at 9:()() A.M.: The titl.e ~f the proposed Ordinance is a~ follows: " AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER CDUN. TY. FLORIDA. AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COL. L1ER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATlAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONINGCLASSIFICAnON OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPER- TY FROM AN AGRICULTURAL IA) ZONING DISTRICT AND AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH A SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY (A-ST) TO "RPUD" RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT D~ELOPMENT WITH REMOVAL OF THE SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY. TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 27 SINGLE TAMILY DWEUING UNITS FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS THE MARSJlEA VILLAS RPUD, LOCATED WEST OF LIVINGSTON ROAD (CR 081). IN SECTION 13. TOWNSHIP 4B SOUTH. RANGE 25 EAST. COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 10,25 +/- ACRES; AND BY PRO- VIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-11381, Marsilea Villas, lLC, represented by Tim Hanco<k of Davidson Engineering, is requesting a rezone from an Agricultural Zoning District: (A) and an Agricultural zoning district with a Special Treatment Overlay to the Resi- dential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zOntng district with removal of the Spe~ cia1 Treatment Overlay for a project known as Mal'lilea Villas RPUD to allow devel~ opment of up to 27 single family dwelling' units. The,Subject property, consisting of 10.25 acres, IS located west of UViogston Road surrounded by Royaf Palm Interna- tional Academy just north of Imperial Golf Estates, Unit Sin Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. Collier County, Florida. Copies of the proposed Ordinance are on file with the Clerk to the Board and are available for jnspecti~n. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. NOTE: All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register witn the' County .admlnistrator prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. The selection of an in~ dividuaJ to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recog. nized by the Chairmanl 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, writlen 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 prl"sentations before the Board will become a pe'rmanent part of the record. Any person who decides to ~appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a ....erbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evi~ dence upon which the appeal is based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any' accommodation in order to par- tiCIpate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please. contact the Collier County Fadlfties Management Depart:: ment, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Buildin~ W, Naples, Florida 34112, {239)252-8380; AssIsted listening devices for the hearmg impaired are available in the County Commissioners' Office. . BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FlQRIOA FRED COYLE. CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, ClERK By: Teresa Polaski, Deputy Clerk (SEAl) lanuarv J1 )011 Nn 1RR4Jhq Packet Page -813-