The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 07/27/2010 Item #17DAgenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 1 of 205 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031: Rock Creek Holdings, LLC, represented by R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire of Roetzel and Andress, LPA and Tim Hancock, A1CP of Davidson Engineering, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project that is currently known as the Meridian Village RPUD, to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for a project that will be known as the Meridian Village MPUD to allow for development of community facility uses including adult care centers, churches and up to 480 beds for assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement community facilities and /or independent living units or to allow for the site to be developed as a 120 -unit multi - family residential project including 15% of the total dwelling units as affordable workforce housing units and 5% of the total dwelling units as affordable gap housing units. The 11.68± acre subject property is located at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Airport - Pulling Road and Estey Avenue in Section 2, Township 50 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 the petition; and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: The petitioner is proposing to rezone the Meridian Village Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to allow development of a maximum of 120 residential dwelling units or community facilities (CF) uses, including assisted living facilities (ALF), continuing care retirement community facilities or independent living units for age 55 and up. The maximum size for the ALF shall not exceed a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.60 and 480 beds. The project may also be developed with community facility uses including adult care centers and churches. The PUD document and the Master Plan indicate primary access to the site will he via Estcy Avenue with a secondary right in - right out access point on Airport- Pulling Road. The exact alignment of the Estey Avenue access point and building placement will be determined at the Site Development Plan (SDP) approval stage. The subject property was rezoned fi-om the Residential Multi - Family -6 (RMF -6) and Commercial (C -4) zoning districts to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district in Ordinance No. 06 -28 which was approved on June 6, 2006. That ordinance approved a maximum of 120 multi - family or townhouse dwelling units. As part of that rezoning, the developer agreed to reserve 15% of the dwelling units for those persons that earn less than 80% of the Collier County median family income; and 5% of the dwelling units would be reserved for _ persons that earn less than one- hundred fifty 150 °% of the Collier County median family income. Page 1 of'7 Meridian Village MPUD; PUDA- PL2009 -2031 Revised 7111110 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 2 of 205 The proposed petition seeks to do the following: • retain previously approved residential density of 10.27 dwelling units /acre or up to 120 dwelling units (DUs) total, and customary accessory uses; • add community facility uses, including adult day care centers, churches, civic and cultural facilities, social and fraternal associations, museums, family care facilities and nursing homes - subject to LDC Section 5.05.04, and assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities and independent living units - with a residential conversion ratio of 4 beds: l DU, an FAR of 0.60 and a maximum of 480 beds; and • add essential service uses limited to police, tire, emergency medical, public parks and public libraries. FISCAL IMPACT: The PUD rezone by and of itself will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no guarantee that the project, at build out, will maximize its authorized level of development, however, if the PUD rezone is approved, a portion of the land could be developed and the new development will result in an impact on Collier County public facilities. The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan as needed to maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected are for informational purposes only; they are not included in the criteria used by Staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed - Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The subject site is also within the Traffic Congestion Area, part of the Density Rating System, and the site is entirely within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), which is described as an area lying within the Category I evacuation zone as defined in the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council Hurricane Evacuation Study Update. This FLUE allows a variety of residential and non - residential land uses including mixed -use developments such as what is proposed. Based on the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff has detennined that the proposed rezone is consistent with the FLUE. For the full analysis of the GMP issues, please refer to the Collier County Planning Commissioner (CCPC) staff report. Page 2 of 7 Meridian Village MPUD; PUDA- PL2009 -2031 Revised 7/1//10 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 3 of 205 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: This petition did not trigger the need for a hearing before the EAC because no environmental issues are being changed from what was approved in the original rezone, COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard petition PUDA- PL2009 -2031 on June 17, 2010, and by a vote of 8 to 0 recommended to forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval subject to the following changes to be made to the PUD document: Exhibit A: Community Facilities (CF): I ) The following Principal Uses shall be removed: ♦ Child Care Centers, (8351, limited to child care centers). 150 students requiring care only. ♦ Civic & Cultural Facilities including Public Recreational Facilities, including but not limited to community centers, swimming pools, tennis facilities, theatrical, symphonic, orchestral and or operatic productions. ♦ CiN °ic, Social and Fraternal Associations (8641) ♦ Museums (8412) ♦ Essential Service Facilities, limited to police; fire, emergency medical, public parks and public libraries. ♦ Water Management Facilities /Lakes and related structures. 2) Guardhouses and Gatehouses use shall be added to B. Accessory Uses. 3) The phrase, "with pull cords designed" shall be removed from item C.6. Residential (R) I) Item 115 under A Principal Uses, "Sales and administrative offices for the developer, project management or managing development association, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses," shall lie moved to B. Temporary Uses as Item 14. 2) Guardhouses and Gatehouses use shall be added to B. Accessory Uses. Exhibit B: The Maximum Actual Height for Principal Structures in Table II Residential Development Standards, shall be reduced from 52 feet to 45 feet for both townhouse and multi - family dwellings. Exhibit C: I) The Master Plan shall be revised to remove what looks like a roadway from Lot 22 (Rock Creek Terrace). 2) The Master Plan shall be revised to re- incorporate the turnaround to be constructed at the end of Steeves Avenue. Exhibit F: Affordable Housing Commitment: 1) The missing text in the Affordable Housing Workforce -Gap Housing Commitment introductory paragraph shall be re- incorporated into the document. 2) Item � 8 under "Affordable Housing... " shall he revised to read as follows: Page 3 of7 Meridian Village MPUD; PUDA- PL2009 -2031 Revised 7/1//10 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 4 of 205 The dwelling units to be offered for sale to persons meeting the affordable workforce and affordable gap housing guidelines set forth herein shall be offered for sale to such qualified persons and to Collier County or its designee beginning with the date of issuance of the building permit for each building containing said dwelling units, and continuing for six (6) months after the Certificate of Occupancy for each building containing said dwelling units is issued, after which time any unsold unit may be sold at market rates. Four (4) months after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a building containing affordable or gap housing, the County Manager or his designee shall be notified in writing by the owner that units remain available for purchase by Collier County. Transportation Commitment: I ) Item 44 shall be revised to reflect correct trip information based upon changes to permitted uses noted for Exhibit A above. The new language reads as follows: a. For a maximum of 120 multi - family residential units (LUC 230), 70 PM Peak Hour, two way trips. b. For a maximum of 480 units of group housing (LUC 254), 143 PM Peak Hour, two way trips. e. For a maximum of 150 Adult day care (LUC 560), 114 PM Peak Hour, two way trips. d. For a maximum 1,150 seat Church (LUC 560), approximately 70 PM Peak Hour two way trips (10% daily traffic). 2) The missing text in the item #2 shall be re- incorporated into the document, such that the commitment again references the turnaround as depicted on the MPUD Master Plan. 3) Item #6 shall be revised as follows: Relative to permitted CF uses, for services and other periods and events of significant traffic generation as determined by Collier County Staff, the property owner shall provide traffic control by law enforcement or a law enforcement approved service provider as directed by Collier County staff, with staffing and locations(s) as directed by the Collier County Mansur r.-.....pei4,tien administrator or his designee. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is a site specific rezone from a Residential Planned Unit Development Zoning District to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Meridian Village MPUD. 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. Page 4 of 7 Meridian Village MPUD; PUDA- PL2009 -2031 Revised 7/1//10 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Pane 5 of 205 Criteria for MPUD Rezones Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval or not. 1. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. 2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. 3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed MPUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. 4. Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. 5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development? 6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. 7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 8. Consider: Conformity with MPUD 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 politics and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Managemcnt Plan? 10. Will the proposed MPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? 11. Would the requested MPUD 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. Page 5 of Meridian Village MPUD; PUDA- PL2009 -2031 Revised 7/1//10 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 6 of 205 13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. 14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? 15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety? 16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? 17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas? 18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? 19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations? 20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ( "reasonably ") be used in accordance with existing zoning? (a "core" question...) 22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county? 23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. 24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. 25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed MPUD 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.11], as amended. 26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the MPUD 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 ge 6 of 7 Meridian Village MPUD; PUDA- PL2009 -2031 Pa Revised 7111110 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 7 of 205 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 Executive Sunnnary has been reviewed for legal sufficiency and is legally sufficient for Board action. (HFAC) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners Approve the request for PUDZ -A- PL2009 -2031 subject to staffs and the CCPC conditions of approval as listed in the attached Ordinance. PREPARED BY: Kay Deselem, Principal Planner, Land Development Services /Zoning Services, Growth Management Division, Planning and Regulation Attachments: 1) Application; 2) staff report; 3) location map; 4) Ordinance ge 7 ol'7 Meridian Village MPUD; PUDA- PL2009 -2031 Pa Revised 7111110 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 8 of 205 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number: 17D Item Summary: This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031: Frock Creek Holdings, LLC, represented by R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire of Roetzel and Andress, LPA and Tim Hancock, AICP of Davidson Engineering, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project that is currently known as the Meridian Village RPUD, to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development Qv1PUD) zoning district for a project that will be known as the Meridian Village MPUD to allow for development of community facility uses including adult care centers, churches and up to 480 beds for assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement community facilities and /or independent living units or to allow for the site to be developed as a 120 -unit multi - family residential project including 15% of the total dwelling units as affordable workforce housing units and 5% of the total dwelling units as affordable gap housing units. The 11.68 acre subject property is located at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Airport - Pulling Road and Estey Avenue in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida.(CTS) Meeting Date: 7,'27/2010 200:00 AM Prepared By Kay Deselem, ACID Planner, Principal Date " - Community Development & Environmental Services Zoning & Land Development Review 7/1/2010 12:29:39 PM Approved By Norm E. Feder, AJCP Administrator - Transportation Date Transportation Division Transportation Administration 7122010 9:02 AM Approved By Ray Bellows Manager - Planning Date Community Development & Environmental Services Zoning & Land Development Review 712/291010:04 AM Approved By Nick Casaianguida Director - Transportation Planning Date Transportation Division Transportation Planning 7;2112010 3:46 PM Approved By wililam D. Lorenz. Jr.. P.E. Director - CDES Engineering Services Date Community Development & Environmental Services Engineering & Environmental Services 7'312010 9:51 AM Approved By _ Judy Puig Operations Analyst Date Community Development & Community Develcpment & Environmental Services Ervi,ronmertal Ser vices 716/2014 2:40 PM Approved By Heidi F. Ashton Section Chief /Land Use - Transportation Date County Attorney County Attorney 718i2010 1:50 PM Approved By OMB Coordinator Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 7/8/2010 3:02 PM Approved By Jeff Klatzkow County Attorney Date 7/912010 1:38 PM Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 9 of 205 Approved By Leo E. Ochs, Jr. County Manager Date County Managers Office County Managers office 7/1812010 446 PM AGi3Aq T.iu (y 2� 2010 Page 10 of 205 Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION HEARING DATE: JUNE 17, 2010 SUBJECT: PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031; MERIDIAN VILLAGE MDG✓D USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner Rock Creek Holdings, LLC 200 American Way Glasgow, KY 42142 REOUESTED ACTION: Agents: Bruce Anderson, Esquire Roetzel & Andress 850 Park Shore Drive Trianon Centre, 3rd floor Naples, FL 34103 Tim Hancock, AICP Davidson Engineering, Inc. 3530 Kraft Road, Suite 301 Naples, FL 34105 The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a rezone from the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for a project known as the Meridian Village MPUD to add community facilities as a permitted use. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 11.68± acres, is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Airport- Pulling Road and Estey Avenue, in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the following page) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposed RPUD to MPUD rezone, if approved as proposed, would allow a maximum of 120 residential dwelling units or community facilities (CF) uses, including assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement community facilities or independent living units for age 55 and up. The r. maximum size for the ALF shall not exceed a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.60 and 480 beds. The project may also be developed community facility uses including child care centers and churches. The PUD Meridian Village, PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 Page 1 of 16 Revised: 6/8/10 u a 4P a b a3ero P F < LL 4 - Lv1LwMi A op q� w o < 8884 F 3 a 3 p D ; Niac 3ralx3J �- a k,ga O � ' fi A✓s� 6\ _� €z6 mov wmna -.eomn i I i.Q 9 00 IVWN30 �. g5g5g5 ,p] yy 3aore.CVe z z t} — (¢ - x'J7 oma Dxrnne- laoaan • ` . LUAU U I nvxx�xnx y^ • R R R G ;R p a - ^ d R SAMS LL I� O° Ir F Q 3 5 CL ol r,y, iaY,Ma 163 W - 3, A' cur' or ysx3co 1 ^- 0 V Z 7 O Q O J M ,J� i 4 - Lv1LwMi op q� w o < 8884 3 a 3 �- �- a k,ga � ' fi A✓s� 6\ _� €z6 mov wmna -.eomn i I i.Q 9 �. g5g5g5 ,p] yy 3aore.CVe • r,y, iaY,Ma 163 cur' or ysx3co 0 V Z 7 O Q O J M O W x z Quo zE� gg)LL S S F ¢<Z OOE W W' O C7 u V H Z i N N W Z O wo J To> 4 Up LL y� N fL g N m o a � g iLLLLOO ox�xfii � 5azzz N 6255a to W U) 0 3 t_ N W 6 / / I / / I / VIasn ON VI i3gOadW1�3ONINOZ �0 U I «`°"� . -- 'N9:Yynm —jp % � �— �IUbMG'�iWi643nr ✓13 �® �.- 9 N ti W m F" usw ZD ww F w 'L w m w Q W J nr Z U N w Z O m LLO $ o m e m o o Up < z rc O i�u G $:: ➢ ( B e 01 11 11 fl I ° X -x 3 v en 6 W W \ n I (W < IL ® 2W OEW N� �< � O I I � i L J I , N N N N M N O Z O K a F w i y �m m W g � IUK a¢ y a U m uC w O U Q a o / / I / / I / VIasn ON VI i3gOadW1�3ONINOZ �0 U I «`°"� . -- 'N9:Yynm —jp % � �— �IUbMG'�iWi643nr ✓13 �® �.- 9 N ti W m F" usw ZD ww F w 'L w m w Q W J nr Z U N w Z O m L a� 'J W z o Up < z rc O i�u G $:: ➢ ( B e 01 11 11 fl I Z w' r -x 3 v en 6 W W \ n I (W < IL ® 2W / / I / / I / VIasn ON VI i3gOadW1�3ONINOZ �0 U I «`°"� . -- 'N9:Yynm —jp % � �— �IUbMG'�iWi643nr ✓13 �® �.- 9 tj Ze _zo _ I� LL ZWyky am �2P 0 Wff -s m° w &�_ mg MT 2 6 a °oE C�nu E z: l 0 Q J J N.. 05 2 a.- He w i U; Y w �i aanoadwI:3Sn asn an U>oU -\ g 57:`JNIN m�AN r fl I / N \ \ \ I ➢S G2 L I n i Z �'F { Y��jjijj, y ss Y .I 0 0 07, N W N Y�S�J�� \\ $:: ➢ ( B e 01 11 11 fl I ` MT91id'Yi 3JVtlb31 X33tYJ M'JOtl I� — — — — \ n�W I �33 nny I 2W OEW N� �< � O I I � i L J I , tj Ze _zo _ I� LL ZWyky am �2P 0 Wff -s m° w &�_ mg MT 2 6 a °oE C�nu E z: l 0 Q J J N.. 05 2 a.- He w i U; Y w Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 13 of 205 document and the Master Plan indicate primary access to the site will be via Estey Avenue with a secondary right in - right out access point on Airport- Pulling Road. The exact alignment of the Estey Avenue access point and building placement will be determined at the Site Development Plan (SDP) approval stage. Currently the site is a partially- wooded tract with a mangrove fringe area along Rock Creek that is a state -owned navigable waterway. The site consists mainly of grassed areas with some scattered slash pines and other trees. Existing exotic vegetation consists of ear -leaf acacia, Brazilian pepper, downy rose myrtle and Australian pine. Several large trees were damaged or destroyed in Hurricane Wilma, but many large trees remain. The site is kept clear of additional exotic invasion by periodic mowing of the grassed areas. The existing development in the area has altered the natural historic overland water drainage pattern flow from the east and south. The project's stormwater management system will provide on site water retention lakes with outfall to Rock Creek, in compliance with South Florida Water Management District and Collier County design criteria. The subject property was rezoned from the Residential Multi- Family -6 (RMF -6) and Commercial (C -4) zoning districts to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district in Ordinance No. 06- 28 which was approved on June 6, 2006. That ordinance approved a maximum of 120 multi- family or townhouse dwelling units. As part of that rezoning, the developer agreed to reserve 15% of the dwelling units for those persons that earn less than 80% of the Collier County median family income; and 5% of the dwelling units would be reserved for persons that earn less than one - hundred fifty 150% of the Collier County median family income. The proposed petition seeks to do the following: • retain previously approved residential density of 10.27 dwelling units /acre or up to 120 dwelling units (DUs) total, and customary accessory uses; • add community facility uses, including adult day care centers, child care centers, churches, civic and cultural facilities, social and fraternal associations, museums, family care facilities and nursing homes - subject to LDC Section 5.05.04, and assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities and independent living units - with a residential conversion ratio of 4 beds:lDU, an FAR of 0.60 and a maximum of 480 beds; and • add essential service uses limited to police, fire, emergency medical, public parks and public libraries. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Rock Creek, then Rock Creek RV Resort, a developed RV park with a zoning designation of TTRVC East: Airport- Pulling Road, then various developed retail and convenience commercial uses within a zoning designation of C -4 South and West: Estey Avenue and a combination of single- and multi- family homes along Steeves Avenue, most of which are owner - occupied within the Rock Creek Terrace Subdivision, with a zoning designation of RMF -6 Meridian Village, PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 Page 2 of 16 Revised: 6/8/10 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 14 of 205 West: Naples Grove Truck Company's Little Farms No. 2 Subdivision, developed with multi - family uses (Oak Forest Villas) with access from Oak Forest Drive, with a zoning designation of RMF -6 Aerial Photo (Subject property depiction is approximate) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed - Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The subject site is also within the Traffic Congestion Area, part of the Density Rating System, and the site is entirely within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) - that area lying within the Category 1 evacuation zone as defined in the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council Hurricane Evacuation Study Update. Relevant to this petition, the Urban Mixed — Use District permits a variety of residential and non - residential land uses including mixed -use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. The existing RPUD, approved in 2006 (Ordinance No. 2006 -28) by the Board of County Commissioners, was found to be consistent under the Conversion of Commercial density bonus provision and Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element. Meridian Village, PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 Page 3 of 16 Revised: 6/8110 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 15 of 205 Project History: Prior to the RPUD rezoning, a portion of the project site was zoned C -4 (4.98+ acres) and the remaining acreage was zoned RMF -6 (6.70+ acres). The Density Rating System allows for an eligible base density of 4 dwelling units /acre (DU /A) throughout the Urban - Mixed Use District (except for the Urban Residential Fringe capped at 1.5 DU /A), whether in or out of the CHHA. But, because the site is located within the Traffic Congestion Boundary it was subject to a 1 DU /A reduction, thereby making the site eligible for an adjusted base density of 3 DU /A. However, the subject site was eligible for a higher density through the FLUE Conversion of Commercial density bonus provision and Policy 5.1. The C-4 zoned portion (4.98 acres) of the subject site was eligible for the Conversion of Commercial Zoning density bonus which states: "if the project includes conversion of commercial zoning that is not consistent with any Subdistrict allowing commercial uses, a bonus of up to 16 dwelling units may be added for every 1 acre of commercial zoning which is converted." This provision also allows the dwelling units to be distributed over the entire project (including the RMF -6 acreage). As with all residential rezones, density afforded by the Density Rating System is the density that a given project is eligible for - it is not an entitlement; for the petition, the density range from 0 -16 DU /A could have been found consistent with the FLUE. As the site was zoned commercial (C -4), it had no assigned density or entitled density; the C-4 district allows a wide variety of retail, office, personal service and institutional uses but does not allow residential uses (dwelling units). The RMF -6 zoned portion (6.70 acres) of the subject site was eligible for 6 DU /A pursuant to FLUE Policy 5. 1, which states that properties zoned prior to the adoption of the Plan [in 1989] and found to be consistent through the Zoning Re- evaluation Program, are consistent with the Growth Management Plan and designated on the Future Land Use Map series as properties Consistent by Policy. This is true of the referenced project acreage - the density was not and is not consistent with the Density Rating System; however, through the Zoning Re- evaluation Program it was determined to be "improved property". FLUE Policy 5.1 goes on to provide that these properties may be rezoned provided there is no increase in the number of dwelling units or overall use intensity. The requested density for the subject acreage of approximately 40 multi - family dwelling units was deemed consistent with the type of use /intensity and density permitted by the RMF -6 zoning district. Density calculations for the existing RPUD project Conversion of Commercial density Bonus (C -4) 16 DU /A X 4.98 acres = 79.68 DUs RMF -6 zoning 6 DU /A X 6.70 acres = 40.20 DUs Total Density Requested 10.27 DU /A (11.68 acres) (119.88 or 120 DUs) Affordable- Workforce Housing Development Commitment As a condition of the previous rezoning approval, the applicant agreed to construct affordable - workforce and affordable -gap housing units as noted below. Without such a commitment, the BCC may not have approved the maximum density bonus (16 DU /A) for conversion of commercial zoning; Comprehensive Planning staff is only aware of one instance where the BCC approved the maximum density utilizing this bonus provision. Meridian Village, PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 Page 4 of 16 Revised: 6/8110 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 16 of 205 • Fifteen (15 %) percent of the dwelling units ultimately developed within the project shall be sold by the developer to individual or families that earn less than eighty (80 1/o) of the Collier County median family income; and, • Five (5 %) percent of the dwelling units ultimately developed within the project shall be sold by the developer to individuals or families that earn less than one - hundred fifty (150 %) percent of the Collier County median family income. Proposed Project: In addition to the approved residential density referenced in the previous section, the applicant is proposing to include community facility and essential service uses within the project. The Urban designation is intended to accommodate a variety of non - residential uses, including those community facility and essential service uses proposed by this petition. Additionally, FLUE Policy 5.8 specifically allows Group Housing (ALF, nursing homes, care units, etc.) within the Urban designated area - subject to the definitions and regulations as outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code. As proposed, the project would be developed with either residential uses or community facility uses, but not both uses together. Affordable Workforce Housing Commitment: The applicant is proposing to retain the affordable- workforce housing commitment for the residential component of the PUD only (not applicable to Group Housing use - ALF /Care Unit use). Projections from the University of Florida Shimberg Center for Housing indicate that the average annual increase of cost burdened households (households spending >30% of income on housing expenses) in the County over the next 20 years will be approximately 740 units. It is estimated by county staff that approximately 3,881 affordable- workforce housing units (figure includes 24 units committed by this project) have been approved, but not yet built. The affordable housing projections represent a continuing demand for affordable- workforce housing units that may not be met by the present supply over the next 10 or 20 -year planning horizons. It is acknowledged by staff that a decline in housing prices has increased the number of affordable housing units. However, these housing units are "unrestricted" (not subject to regulatory control of rental or sale price, occupant income level, time period to remain affordable, etc.) and are likely to increase in value as market conditions change over time. This in turn will likely reduce the affordable - workforce housing supply in the County. Securing " restricted" affordable— workforce housing units will reduce the long -term demand and increase the affordable- workforce housing supply. The developer's commitment to construct affordable- workforce housing in the proposed project location (Commission District 4) is consistent with, and furthers, Goal 1, Objective 1 and Policy 1.4 of the Housing Element, which calls for the equitable distribution of affordable housing throughout the County in areas where adequate infrastructure and services are available to serve the project. The proposed project is located in an area where the lowest number of affordable- workforce units has been approved since 1999 (120 units). Meridian Village, PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 Page 5 of 16 Revised: 616/10 Agenda Item No. 17D JUIy 27, 2010 Page 17 of 205 Other Relevant Goals, Obiectives and Policies of the GMP: Relevant GMP provisions and policies are stated below (in italics); each policy is followed by staff analysis (in bold). FLUE Policy 7.1. The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. The master concept plan depicts direct access to Airport- Pulling Road, an arterial road as identified in the Transportation Element. FLUE Policy 7.2 The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. The proposed MPUD Master Concept Plan depicts access points onto Airport - Pulling Road and Estey Avenue. By default, an internal access road/drive will have to be provided to serve the project. Due to the small size of the project and likely development with limited number of individual tracts, a loop road likely is not feasible. FLUE Policy 7.3 All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The MPUD fronts two streets and has access to each — to the east and south. The petitioner has stated that access to the adjoining roadway to the west — Steeves Avenue — has not been allowed previously due to neighborhood opposition. FLUE 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. Since no deviation was requested, sidewalks are required per the LDC. The MPUD provides open space, preserve areas and recreational amenities; allows for a variety of housing unit types; and, if the developer commitment to construct affordable — workforce housing units is retained as originally approved, then the project would provide for housing for various income ranges. Economic Element: Policy 1.2 Collier County will support the opportunity for development and establishment of hospitals, nursing homes, and additional medical related facilities in order to promote a continuum of care to enhance the quality of life throughout the County. The proposed project may provide for various Group Housing opportunities, such as ALF, nursing homes, care units, etc. Based on the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff has determined that the proposed rezone is consistent with the FLUE. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed this petition's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) included in the application back -up material and the PUD document to ensure the PUD document contains the appropriate language to address this project's potential traffic impacts, and to offer a recommendation regarding GMP Transportation Element, Policy 5.1. Those policies require the review of all rezone requests with consideration of its impact on the overall transportation system, and specifically notes that the County should not approve any request that significantly impacts a roadway Meridian Village, PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 Page 6 of 16 Revised: 6/8/10 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 18 of 205 segment already operating and/or projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service (LOS) within the five -year planning period unless specific mitigating stipulations are approved. The most recently submitted data represents roughly a net -zero increase in Trip Generation from the currently- approved uses. Transportation Planning staff recommends that the TIS addendum, and the PUD amendment it was written for, be found consistent with GMP Transportation Element Policy 5.1. Transportation Planning staff indicates that staff would complete an in -depth operational review of the proposed uses, if the applicant (or his successors in title) should ever choose to exercise some of them on an SDP in the future, e.g., Cultural Facilities including buildings for theatrical, symphonic, orchestral and or operatic productions. Facilities such as a 3,000 seat theatre which was the limitation proposed by the petitioner's agent at one time, are anticipated to create significant traffic impacts during off -peak hours, which may have an adverse impact on the local roadway network. Although these uses may be found consistent with the Transportation Element as part of the rezone action, such a finding does not automatically grant final approval to the implementation of those uses without any necessary network improvements to accommodate them. An analysis of network improvements would be required should this use be included in any Site Development Plan application. Conservation and Coastal Management Element: Pursuant to Objective 2.4 and Policies 2.4.1 & 6.5.1, an Environmental Impact Statement was provided to staff for review. In accordance with Policy 6.1.1, 25 percent of the existing native vegetation shall be retained on -site and it has been set aside as preserve areas. The requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to Policy 6.1.8 has been satisfied. Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required in Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. In accordance with Policy 6.2.6, required preservation areas are identified on the PUD Master Plan. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed PUD rezone. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM, and any other relevant GMP elements such as the Transportation and Conservation and Coastal Management Elements is a portion of the overall finding that is required. In conjunction with the PUD and Rezoning Finding provided later in this report, staff believes the petition is consistent with all relevant GMP elements. Therefore, staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the overall GMP. ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC 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 Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its 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: Meridian Village, PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 Page 7 of 16 Revised: 618110 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 19 of 205 Environmental Analysis: Stormwater and Environmental Planning staff members have reviewed the petition and the MPUD document and are recommending approval. This petition did not require a hearing before the Environmental Advisory Council since there will be no impact to wetlands or listed species and the applicant requested the waiver as allowed in the Code of Laws and Ordinances. Transportation Review: Transportation Department staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right -of -way and access issues. The applicant has incorporated Transportation staffs revisions within the PUD document (Exhibit F of the PUD), and Transportation Planning staff recommends approval subject to the Transportation commitments contained in the PUD document. Utility Review: The Utilities Department staff has reviewed the petition, noting that this PUD is located within the Collier County Sewer District, and is subject to application for and conditions associated with a Sewer Availability Letter from the Collier County Utilities Division. Potable Water is served by the City of Naples. Affordable Housing Review: Financial Administration and Housing Department staff has been in contact with zoning staff and have indicated that a representative will attend the CCPC hearing to respond to questions about affordable housing issues. Naples Airport Authority: See attached letter from the Naples Airport Authority dated May 26, 2010. Zoning Review: Staff has evaluated the uses proposed and their intensities and/or densities; the development standards such as building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers; building mass; building location and orientation; the proposed location of access points and general internal traffic circulation; and traffic generation/attraction of the proposed uses. The development standards contained in Exhibit B of the PUD document reflect a design approach that will provide Assisted Living Units along with other more comprehensive aging -in -place opportunities or townhouse multi - family housing opportunities. The PUD indicates a minimum front -yard setback of 20 feet and side setbacks of 0.5 feet will be provided for all principal multi- family or townhouse units with additional perimeter setbacks to be provided along Airport- Pulling Road (25 feet) and from the west and south boundaries east and west of Steeves Avenue (50 feet) for all uses. These setbacks were approved in the original zoning. The minimum rear setback is proposed to be five feet for townhouses and 10 feet for any other multi- family dwellings. That was also the setback approved in 2006 for that product type. Townhouse or multi- family buildings uses could have a maximum zoned height of three stories except structures could not exceed 45 feet in height. Actual height of the multi - family and townhouse units would be limited to 52 feet. The 2006 RPUD zoning allowed structures to be a maximum of 3 stories up to a maximum of 45 feet in zoned height. The 2006 ordinance did not address actual height however. The PUD document proposes a rear setback for all CF uses of 25 feet or '/Y the building height. The proposed minimum front and side setback for all CF uses would be 25 feet and the rear setback for all CF uses would be 25 feet or %z the building height. The proposed zoned height for all CF uses would be three stories, but not to exceed 45 feet; with the actual height, limited to 57 feet for all CF uses except a church steeple would be allowed to be a maximum of 75 feet tall. Meridian Village, PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 Page 8 of 16 Revised: 618110 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 20 of 205 The adjacent properties are developed with single -story structures, and the RMF -6 zoning district limits building heights to a maximum of 35 feet. The project's property development regulations do provide additional building setbacks for certain areas as explained above, which could offset the height difference. The PUD Master Plan indicates that the minimum code required buffers (15 foot -wide Type B) would be provided along the boundary shared with the lots within Rock Creek Terrace subdivision, however Exhibit F of the PUD document contains a Landscaping commitment that would provide an increased landscape area as shown below: The landscape buffer on the west property line and the south property line that extends east and west of Steeves Avenue shall contain trees with a minimum height of 12 feet spaced no more than 25 feet on center. Existing trees that can be saved within the buffer shall remain if practicable and be counted as buffer trees as allowed in the LDC. Hedges in the enhanced buffer shall be a minimum of ten gallon plants five feet in height, three feet in spread and spaced a maximum four feet on center at planting. The more specific written text would apply, thus the buffer noted above would be the requirement. Additionally, the petitioner has offered to provide a wall to separate uses listed under A.6 and A.7 of Tract A along any residentially zoned property boundary (see Exhibit F - Landscaping 42.) Staff therefore is recommending that this project be found consistent with GNP FLUE Policy 5.4 that requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. Regarding the affordable housing issue, zoning staff concurs with the recommendation of Housing and Comprehensive Planning staff members in believing that it is appropriate to retain the already agreed upon affordable housing component. Although the current housing market has provided more buying opportunities for more persons because housing prices have fallen from the peak prices of several years ago, this trend may not continue. Staff believes that over time, there could be a serious deficit in available, restricted affordable housing units. There is data to support the contention that the housing market in Collier County has "bottomed out." As these currently perceived but unrestricted "affordable housing units" are reabsorbed into the market, the prices can go up, thus taking them out of an affordable range. [Please refer to the attached document entitled, "Collier County & City of Naples Comprehensive Plan Housing Element" prepared on May 6, 2010, and signed by Frank Ramsey, Collier County Housing Manager.] The original rezoning was approved with the affordable housing units restricted; staff believes that distinction should remain. PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.13.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" " (Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traff=ic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Staff has provided an extensive review of the proposed uses and believes that the proposed CF uses are compatible with the residential uses to the west with the additional setbacks, buffering Meridian Village, PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 Page 9 of 16 Revised: 6/8/10 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 21 of 205 and wall placement proposed by the petitioner. Therefore, the commitments made by the applicant provide adequate assurances that the proposed change will not adversely affect Wing conditions in the area. 2.Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the developments will be required to gain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). 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. Staff has provided an extensive review of the proposed uses and believes that the uses proposed are compatible with the surrounding area. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. 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. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as road capacity, wastewater disposal system, and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments Meridian Village, PUDZ- A -PL200 9-2031 Page 10 of 16 Revised: 618/10 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 22 of 205 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 ofsuch regulations. The petitioner is seeking one deviation to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06A). 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 deviation 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 10.02.13.13.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report for a more extensive examination of the deviations. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners ... shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The zoning analysis provides an in -depth review of the proposed uses. Staff is of the opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with neighborhood development with the additional setback, buffering and wall commitments provided by the petitioner. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the 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 adjacent existing land use pattern is a mixture of single -and two family residential uses. Other land uses are separated by Rock Creek to the north; Airport Pulling Road to the east and Estey Avenue to the south. 3. The possible creation ofan isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The proposed PUD rezone would not create an isolated zoning district because the subject property is already zoned PUD. Additionally, the zoning boundary mirrors the existing property ownership boundary. Meridian Village, PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 Page 11 of 16 Revised: 6/6/10 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 23 of 205 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed district boundaries are logically drawn. S. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary, per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes. 6 Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change, with the commitments made by the applicant, is consistent with the County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Therefore, the proposed change should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time; however staff has concerns about the potential impacts from non -peak hour traffic for some of the proposed uses; that impact will be addressed as part of the site development plan approval process should those uses be considered. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have other specific regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new developments. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this petition were approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. This project's property development regulations do not indicate that exceedingly tall structures would be included in the project; therefore the project should not significantly reduce light and air to adjacent areas; thus the development proposed, if approved, should not negatively affect light and air permeation into adjacent areas. Meridian Village, PUDZ- A -PL200 9-2031 Page 12 of 16 Revised: 618/10 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 24 of 205 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; Properties around this property are already developed. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan which is a public policy statement supporting Zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; The property already has a PUD zoning designation and could be developed within the parameters of that zoning ordinance; however, the petitioner is seeking this rezone in compliance with LDC provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed rezone meets the intent of the PUD district and further, believes the public interest will be maintained. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; As noted previously, the proposed rezone boundary follows the existing PUD zoning and property ownership boundary. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban - designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Meridian Village, PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 Page 13 of 16 Revised: 6/8/10 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 25 of 205 There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a particular zoning petition. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP as discussed in other portions of the staff report. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as it may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD document. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking one deviation from the requirements of the LDC. The deviation is listed in PUD Exhibit E with the petitioners' rationale provided to support each deviation provided in the Supplemental Deviation and Justification Summary document that is included in the application material. Deviations are a normal consequence of the PUD rezoning process following the purposed and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC Section 2.03.06 which says in part: It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning design, and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs .... may depart from the strict application of setback; height, and minimum lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the public interest .... Meridian Village, PUDZ- A -PL200 9-2031 Page 14 of 16 Revised: 618/10 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 26 of 205 Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 6.06.01.0 which 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. Petitioners' Rationale and Staff Analysis: The petitioner states he is seeking this deviation so he can develop the project providing "a sufficient private right -of -way network in a 50 -foot width." The applicant asserts "the LDC required width is excessive in this case and would waste valuable development area. The deviation would provide area for a 24 -foot drive with an additional 26 feet set aside for drainage and utility easements and pedestrian walkways." Staff does not necessarily agree that the LDC requirement is excessive as stated by the petitioner; however staff does recognize that LDC Section 6.06.0l.0 allows developers of any type (zoned) project to seek alternatives at the time of platting. Those requests must be accompanied by "documentation and justification for the alternate section based on sound engineering principals and practices." These alternative designs are often sought as part of the PUD zoning process so the developer can have some assurances that the proposed Master Concept Plan is viable if the Master Plan siting was calculated using an alternative design. The PUD deviation process provides a way for the petitioner to acquire that assurance without being required to submit the alternative design in compliance with LDC Section 6.06.01.0 later. Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is accommodated. Recommendation: Staff believes the alternative proposed in this deviation will be adequate. Zoning and Land Develonment Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation finding that in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3 the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health safety and welfare of the community." and LDC Section 10.02.133.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "iustified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The agent for the applicant held the required N1M on May 25, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. at the Naples Airport. See the attached synopsis provided by the applicant's agent. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for this petition on June 4, 2010. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ- A- PL2009- 2031 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval subject to the conditions of approval that have been incorporated in the PUD Ordinance of Adoption. Meridian Village, PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 Page 15 of 16 Revised: 6/8/10 W131=Vol 1 i KAY SELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES U*1111 XL2 D] 13 "w RAYMO V. ELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 27 of 205 16-1120110 _ DATE S Z 7/10 DAtE WA4n - LN I — — oG- oS-Zo/D &VILLIAM D. LO Z, JR., P. C., DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES APPROVED BY: ' NICK CASALANGU D PUTY ADMINISTRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGE NT DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the July 27, 2010 Board of County Commissioners Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: w MAt P. TRAIN, CYLkIRMAN G -(1 -(0 DATE Attachments: Collier County & City of Naples Comprehensive Plan Housing Element, signed by Frank Ramsey, Collier County Housing Manager Letter from Naples Airport Authority, dated 5/25/10 NIM synopsis from the agent Meridian Village, PUDZ- A -PL200 9-2031 Revised: 614/10 Page 16 of 16 COAT County Public Services Division Housing & Human Services COLLIER COUNTY & CITY OF NAPLES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSING ELEMENT Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 28 of 205 GOAL ONE To create on adequate supply of decen4 safe, sanitary and affordable housing for all residents of Collier County. OBJECTIVE ONE The number of new affordable- workforce housing units shall increase by at least fifteen percent of the units approved to be built in the County per year, but not less than 1,000 units per year averaged over a five -year period in an effort to continue meeting the current and future housing needs of legal residents with very-low, low and moderate income, including households with special needs such as rural farmworker housing in rural Collier County, INTRODUCTION Goal One, Objective One, of the Housing Element of the Growth Management Plan, provides that Collier County shall increase the affordable - workforce housing units by at least fifteen percent of the units approved, but not less than 1,000 units per year averaged over a five -year period. The purpose of this memorandum is to analyze this specific requirement to determine if a downward adjustment is appropriate considering the current economic climate of Collier County, specifically unemployment, cost burdened household projections and housing price decline. UNEMPLOYMENT; The average annual rate of unemployment in 2009 for the state of Florida was 10.5 %. Collier County s average annual rate of unemployment in 2009 was 11.2 %, or 0.7% above the state average. Please note that this number does not include persons who have exhausted unemployment benefits and that the actual unemployment rate in Collier County may be much higher. An elevated unemployment rate suggests a continued need for the provision of affordable housing, both rental and homeownership, in Collier County as required by the current Growth Management Plan's Housing Element. COST BURDENED HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS2 Although the available cost burdened 3data is based upon the 2000 Census, which may not necessarily depict current need, it remains the most current and reliable data from which one may assess future affordable - workforce housing needs. The following is a summary of the projected increases in cost burdened households in Collier County, growth rate by year. Years Average Annual Increase 2010-2015 645.40 units per year 2015-2020 776 units per year 2020-2025 783.40 units per year 2025-2030 753.40 units per year 1 Source: Agency for Workforce Innovation, released March 10, 2010. z Source: Shimberg Center for Housing Studies, April 2010. 3 Cost burdened is defined as spending greater than 30 percent of household income on housing related expenses. Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 As reflected above, the average annual increase in cost burdened households does not excea— V83240of 205 units per year; the projections reveal a 216.60 unit per year need less than the current 1,000 unit requirement. This suggests that perhaps the Housing Element should be amended to reduce the minimum annual unit production of affordable- workforce housing. A further analysis of the above data shows and annual average over 20 years to be 739.55 units. A newly revised minimum unit per year production of 750 units may be more appropriate based on the available data. HOUSING PRICE DECLINE While the available data suggests a current deficit of available affordable- workforce housing, the size of the deficit is uncertain. For example, there are currently an estimated 3,900 affordable- workforce housing approved in Collier County not yet built`. It is unknown how many of those approved units will be built and when they would become available. Furthermore, housing prices in Collier County have declined 48.3% from the peaks. Another measure of the change in the Collier County housing market is the number of units sold per quarter that were affordable to a household earning the local area median income 6. An analysis of the data since 1998 reveals that the housing market in Collier County peaked during the fourth quarter of 2005, with a mere 16.3% of homes sold being affordable to a household earning the area median income. Since that time, the number of market, unrestricted units, sold that were affordable has dramatically increased. During the second quarter of 2009, 68.1% of the units sold were affordable to a household earning the local area median income. Interestingly, the data reveals that this trend is beginning to reverse, with 60.8% of the homes sold in the fourth quarter 2009 being affordable; Collier County may have reached the bottom in the downward adjustment of housing prices, highlighting the need to maintain a requirement to provide affordable - workforce housing. The result of the decline in housing prices has been an increase in affordability. It is important to note that the decline in prices has made available for purchase unrestricted units. Stated another way, when the housing market recovers in Collier County these units may appreciate with no limit, thus creating an affordable housing deficit; it would be dangerous to look at the current inventory and determine there is no need for restricted affordable- workforce housing units. As such, the Growth Management Plan, if amended, should continue to require a minimum percentage approved, as well as a minimum annual provision for affordable - workforce housing. Failure to do so would be short- sighted. CONCLUSION It is important that the Housing Element of the Growth Management Plan continue to require the provision of affordable - workforce housing. The current goal of 15 percent of units approved, but not less than 1,000 units per year may be too aggressive. The current market provides opportunities for persons to purchase unrestricted units at affordable prices. However, as shown above, prices may be on the rebound making any assessment that there is no current or short-term future need short- sighted. The goal of providing affordable- workforce housing should not be to compete with the market. Rather, the goal is to provide an adequate supply of safe, decent and affordable housing for all residents of Collier County. As such, the Housing Element's Goal One – Objective One, if amended, should require at least ten percent of units approved, but not less than 750 units per year, for affordable - workforce housing. These measures may be more appropriate in the short-term future; however, requiring any number less than these measures may put Collier County in jeopardy of failing to meet future demand. Frank Ramsey Housing Manager 4 Source: Collier County Housing and Human Services, April 2010. s Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), 2009. s Source: National Association of Home Builders/Wells Fargo Housing Opportunity Index (HOI). May 26, 2010 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 30 of 205 160 AVIATION DRIVE NORTH - NAPLES, FLORIDA ADM OTRA17ON (239) 643 -07331 FAX 6434084 OPERATIONS 643.04041FAX 6431791, E-MAII, administration0flynaples.com Meridian Village MPUD PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 Kay Deselem, AICP, Principal Planner Engineering, Environmental, Comprehensive Planning & Zoning Services Department Growth Management Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: Meridian Village, PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 Dear Ms. Deselem; Yesterday afternoon I met with the proponents of the above referenced action placed before you for consideration. They have agreed to all of the requested changes, clarifications and additions _. suggested by Naples Airport Authority staff and I have received a copy of their 'revised submission to the County documenting their action. Other than the wisdom of constructing certain proposed uses (church, museum, theatrical, etc.) within such close proximity to an active runway, we have no further concerns or suggested limitations on the proposed development plan. Thank you for keeping us involved in projects contiguous to the airport. We will strive to respond in a more timely fashion in the future. Sincerely Ervin N. Dehn, Jr. Director of Airport Development City of Naples Airport Authority NAPLES MUNICIPAL AIRPORT o „- „ft„ 01 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 31 of 205 Meridian Village MPUD- NIM Meeting Notes 5/25/10 Kay Deselem representing Collier County introduced herself and Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering. Ms. Deselem explained the NIM process and asked to silence all cell phones. She explained that the meeting is being recorded per the LDC. People were in attendance from the surrounding community. Tim Hancock introduced himself, Fred Hood, Bruce Anderson (not in attendance) and Mike Metcalf as the project team for the applicant. Mr. Hancock described the PUD application scope. The following are the points he discussed: - The application for rezone is to change the Residential PUD (RPUD) zoning to a Mixed -Use PUD (MPUD) to allow for a mixture of uses to be developed on the subject property. - The detailed list of permitted uses found in the PUD document (Exhibit A) were discussed. - Mr. Hancock also explained that currently only multi- family residential uses were permitted on the subject property. Mr. Hancock further explained what "multi- family" development is considered. - Mr. Hancock discussed the proposed ALF use and its related services. Also discussed was the possibility for a mixed development with residential uses and how the two or some of the uses could be operated in tandem on the same property- - Mr. Hancock informed the public that the application is also seeking to remove the previously approved Affordable Housing component from the project going forward. A basis for the request is that the economy and surplus of housing stock effectively replaced the need for additional affordable units. - Mr. Hancock discussed additional proposed uses in addition to ALF and limits those uses would have. Some of the uses mentioned were a church, child and adult day care centers and public community facility uses such as pools, parks, museums and or community centers. - Mr. Hancock assured through the application that the preserve area was to largely remain unchanged from the last approval and that removal of exotics would be per the LDC requirements. - Mr. Hancock discussed access to the property as well. He indicated that a existing access point on Airport Rd would remain and be used as a right -in right - out point that would alleviate traffic potentially on Estey Ave. He also pointed out a proposed full access point on Estey Ave. - Mr. Hancock discussed the relationship between the uses and the potential for some of them to work together on the site in a limited form. He discussed a 4 :1 ratio that the CCPC and BCC have approved in the past where for every 4 beds of ALF produced, I multifamily housing unit would be taken off the 120 residential units. This ratio tie between ALF and residential would limit development so that both would not be fully built out on -site. - Mr. Hancock wrapped up his presentation and asked for any questions. Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 32 of 205 The following questions were presented by the public after Mr. Hancock finished his presentation. Each question is followed by a summary of the answer and or additional comment: Question #1: A neighboring resident had a question regarding Community Center/Pool use listed in the PUD document. They asked if it would be a public use? The residents voiced opposition to "Public Recreational Facilities, including but not limited to community centers, swimming pools, tennis facilities" [Exhibit A.A.6] and "Public Parks" [Exhibit A.A.9]. The sentiment was that the residents would be against any public elements for the property that were operated by the County. Opposition was also voiced to the "Essential Service Facilities, limited to police, fire, and emergency medical' use. The neighbors expressed concerns about increased noise from the sirens on emergency vehicles and possible increased traffic. Answer: Mr. Hancock explained that the any recreational facilities would be limited to use by the residents of this project. Further, use #6 as currently listed could be a use that could be built by the County as a recreational facility or as a privately run facility open to the public which is unlikely. Question #2: A neighboring resident had a question regarding the Boat Ramp use listed in the PUD document. They asked what its intent and purpose would be? Answer: Mr. Hancock explained that the proposed use would be more limited launching area. It would not be for public use. It would be for small boats, kayaks and canoes of residents. Question #3: A neighboring resident had a question regarding special environmental areas; specifically the mangroves. They asked were there any environmental areas of concern? Answer: Mr. Hancock explained that the only areas with the exception of the proposed preserve that are areas of priority are the SFWMD Jurisdictional wetland area. This area which is inclusive of the mangroves is off limits for impact or development. Question #4: A neighboring resident had a question regarding the clarification of use #3. They asked will there be a halfway house, etc. ? Answer: Mr. Hancock answered no. The permitted uses are for additional care for individual and families not for things like drug or alcohol rehabilitation and treatment. W. Hancock also offered to email the specific SIC code Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 33 of 205 references to the public if they would like to see for themselves what uses would be permitted on the subject property. After no further questions were asked, Ms. Deselem reminded all in attendance that this meeting and the public hearing process is the public's chance to be involved in the development of the project. She also reminded everyone that if they had any further questions to contact her or the agent for the owner. Mr. Hancock also offered his and Mr. Hood's business cards so that anyone with a question could contact them directly. Meeting ended at approximately 6:40 pm. Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 34 of 205 DeselemKay From: Donna M. Cultra [dmcultra @gmail.com] lent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:19 PM To: DeselemKay Subject: Meridian Village MPUD Good Afternoon.... My name is Donna Cultra and i own a residence in Avion Woods at Coconut Creek Preserve. I am sending this email to voice my concern about the zoning for affordable housing in the Meridian Village MPUD. With the housing market being flooded with foreclosures, thus providing an overabundance of "affordable housing ", I do not see the wisdom of including said housing in the zoning at this point. The overall value of homes has decreased dramatically in the last few years and I would not like to see it go any further. I believe that such housing would contribute to that happening. I would think that a public park or assisted living and related projects to it would be much more beneficial and certainly a more appropriate use of this fine piece of property. Please consider removing the affordable housing from this project and feel free to contact me if need be. Thank you, Donna M. Cultra icultra(dcultra.com 1 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 0.5 of 205 County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WVM.COLLIERGOV NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 643 -6968 PETITION NO PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 REV: 3 PROJECT NAME MERIDIAN VILLAGE MPUD DAT: 4/16/10 DATE PROCESSED DUES 5/14f10 NAME OF APPLICANT(S) ROCK CREEK HOLDINGS LLC. ADDRESS 2670 HORSESHOE DRIVE NORTH SUITE 201 CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP 34104 TELEPHONE # _ CELL # _ FAX # _ E -MAIL ADDRESS: MMETCALFCa'DNAPCOCOMPANIES COM NAME OF AGENT BRUCE ANDERSON ROETZEL AND ANDRESS LAW FIRM ADDRESS: 850 PARK SHORE DRIVE NAPLES FL 34105 PHONE: 649 -2708 FAX -'261 -3659 E -MAIL: BANDERSON RALAW.COM CO- AGENT: TIM HANCOCK AICP DAVIDSON ENGINEERING INC. ADDRESS 3530 KRAFT RD SUITE 301 CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP 34105 TELEPHONE #f239) 434 -6060 CELL # NIA FAX # (239) 434 -6084 E -MAIL ADDRESS: TIMa.DAVIDSONENGINEERING COM BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 36 of 205 co r CCou.xty COLLIER COUNTY. GOVERNMENT. - -- - 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE ---- - DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET- - _ - . (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 643 -6968 Complete the following for all registered Assoctafion(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner's website at hffo:/Iwww.colliercoov.net/index.aspx?paqe=774 NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: NEBUS FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LTD MAILING ADDRESS 3100 NORTH ROAD CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP 34104 NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: NEBUS FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PHASE ONE LTD MAILING ADDRESS 3100 NORTH ROAD CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP 34104 NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: NEBUS FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PHASE TWO LTD MAILING ADDRESS 3100 NORTH ROAD CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP 34104 - NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: ROCK CREEK PHASE II CORPORATION MAILING ADDRESS 3100 NORTH ROAD CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP 3410 NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: OAK FOREST VILLAS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC MAILING ADDRESS 1055 OAK FORST DRIVE CITY NAPLES STATE FL ZIP 34104 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 37 of 205 COTer cmilty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 %k'WW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 643 -6968 a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address % of Ownership- b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address % of Ownership International Investments, Inc. 206 Industrial Drive Glasgow, KY 42141 -wholly owned by: 80% American Materials, Inc. solely b : L. Rogers Wells, Jr. Michael H. Metcalf 10% Ga S. Bell 10% 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 % of Ownership Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 38 of 205 Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT _... —._- . 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE_ ' "' - "' "- - "" DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW .COLLIERGOV.NET._..____ "._._. _ .._,. (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239)643 -6968 _....__ Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 � Page 39 of 205 C dffk")r C., COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET d. If the property is in the name of a GE of the general and /or limited partners 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 643 -6968 NERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address % of Ownership Date of Contract: f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 C O &r county Page 40 of 205 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE--- DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET. _ _: _ (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 643.6968 g. Date subject property acquired ® APRIL 7. 2005 leased ❑ Term of lease yrs. /mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Date of option: Date option terminates: . or Anticipated closing date h. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of 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. IVa4& uoswuuvu ur we uroperry coverea by the application: (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" to 400' scale) if required to do so at the pre. application meeting. NOTE: The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section /Township /Range 2 / 50 S / 25 E Lot: _ Block: _ Subdivision: _ Plat Book _ Page #: _ Property I.D. #: 00386760501 AND 00386761102 Metes & Bounds Description: COMMENCING AT THE EAST 114 CORNER OF SECTION 2 TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH RANGE 25 EAST COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTH 89 0381 0 "WEST 13.00 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF AIRPORT ROAD; THENCE SOUTH 00 031'26 "EAST 1312.46 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF ESTEY AVENUE AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89 °37'00 "WEST 340.07 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF ESTEY AVENUE THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT AS RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 764 PAGE 757. THE FOLLOWING NINE (9) COURSES AND DISTANCES 1) NORTH 01 009'40 "WEST 129.40 FEET; 2) NORTH 88 050'20 "EAST 40.00 FEET: 3) NORTH 01 009'40 "WEST 50.76 FEET: Cal ev County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WWW.COLLIERGOV NET !)—SOUTH 88 050'20 "WEST 125.00 FEET; a NORTH 01 009'40 "WEST 5076 FEET 6) NORTH 88 050'20 "EAST 13S.00 FEET 7) NORTH 01 009'40 "WEST 203.04 FEET 81 SOUTH 88 050'20 "WEST 344.12 FEET Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 41 of 205 2500 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 643.6968 NORTH 00 043'37 "WEST 372.75 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE MEAN HIGH WATER ELEVATION 1.61 INGVD29): THENCE GENERALY MEANDERING NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID LINE 40 FEET MORE OR LESS; THENCE SOUTH 42 006'50 "EAST 46.56 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF AIRPORT PULLING ROAD, THENCE ALONG SAI SIGHT OF WAY LINE 5 UTH 00 031'26 "EAST 1147.75 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED- SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD CONTAINING 11.68 ACRES MORE OR LES Size of aroReert+• various ft. X various ft. = Total Sq. Ft. ;L508.781 Acres11.68 Address /general location of subject Rrrooertv LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION AIRPORT PULLING ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 31 AND ESTEY AVENUE PUD District (LDC 2.03.06): ® Residential ❑ Community Facilities ❑ Commercial ❑ Industrial Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 42 of 205 C.(i �'e-v Co��Lt3, COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT -- - 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE ' -- DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 262.2400 FAX -(239) 643 -6968 Does the owner of the subject 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). Section /Township /Range N/A / N A/ N/A Lot: N/A Block: N/A Subdivision: N/A Plat Book N/A Page #: N/A Property I.D. #: Nt9 Metes & Bounds Description: N/A This application is requesting a rezone from the RPUD zoning district(s) to the MPUD zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: Unimproved Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Residential and or Community Facility Original PUD Name: Meridian Village RPUD Ordinance No.: 06 -28 Zoning Land Use N TTRVC Mobile Home Park S C-5 & PUD Este Avenue & Im roved Commercial E ROW & C -4 Ai ort Road & improved Commercial W RMF -6 Single & Multi-Family Residential, Vacant Does the owner of the subject 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). Section /Township /Range N/A / N A/ N/A Lot: N/A Block: N/A Subdivision: N/A Plat Book N/A Page #: N/A Property I.D. #: Nt9 Metes & Bounds Description: N/A This application is requesting a rezone from the RPUD zoning district(s) to the MPUD zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: Unimproved Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Residential and or Community Facility Original PUD Name: Meridian Village RPUD Ordinance No.: 06 -28 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 43 of 205 comer county COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT - - 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 643 -6968 Pursuant to Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code, staff's analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, 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 (LDC Section 10.02.13.B) 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. This petition seeks to convert the existing Meridian Village Residential Planned Um Development RPUD1 to Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to permit multi- family residential, assisted living facilities (ALF) continuing care retirement communities and independent living units for age 55 plus and senior housing and a variety of other community faalrtv uses permitted in the CF District The property is bound by Airport Pulling Road to the east. Estee Avenue to the south developed and undeveloped single and multifamily residential to the west with Rock Creek and mobile home residential beyond to the north Prjmary access to the site will be via Estey Avenue with a secondary right in - right out access point on Airport- Pulling Road Improved commercial and mstjiutional uses and facilities are located across Airport Pulling Road and Estev Avenue respectively. The proposed project will comply with all buffer requirements set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code. Central water and sewer services exist in this area and the pLoposed Proiect will not adversely affect the current Level of Service iLOS). Based upon these factors the proposed project is compatible with the adjacent properties. 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. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county oforney. The land is owned b the petitioner. Any common areas within the Project, including all preserve areas will be owned and maintained b the property owner or subsequent property owner or designated assocjation(s) 3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth management plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub - district, policy or other provision allows the requested uses /density, and fully explaining /addressing all criteria or conditions of that Sub - district, policy or other provision.) The proposed project is consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan ,SCCGMP) through the application of the development standards contained in this MPUD The proposed project is consistent with the following specific Policies and objectives Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 CA, Comity Page 44 of 205 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT - - - - - -- _- 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE -= DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET __ :____- __ - -,- (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239)643 -696B Policy 5.4 of the CCGMP: The proposed development is compatible with and complimentary to surrounding iand uses in that the property is currently zoned for one of the Droposed uses residential. The proposed MPUD is further consistent in that the additional ALF and communitX facility proposed uses if developed represent a set of complimentary land uses with the residential to the west and heavy commercial uses to the south and east Additionally all of the surrounding properties will be sufficiently buffered as per the LDC and GMP Policy 2.2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) is furthered by the water management design of the oroieft which utilizes dry and wet retention areas for water manaaement. Asa result run-off the cumulative impacts of run o -grg reduced and water quality treatment is improved. The proiect development Is planned to protect the functioning of natural drainage features and natural aroundwater aquifer recharge areas as described in Objective 1.5 of the Drainage Sub Element of the Public Facilities Element The project shall be in compliance with Objective 3.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan With respect to compliance with Objective 7 of the FLUE Please see the following Policy 7.1: Connections have been provided on Estey Avenue and Airport Pulling Road Policy 7.2- Through providing for vehicular connections on both Airport Road and Estev Ave traffic dispersal is improved versus having access on only Estey Ave which should help the intersection functions. but due to the small size of the parcel a loon road is not practical Policy 7.3: With respect to compliance with Obiective 7 of the FLUE and its related policies this proiect has been prohibited access to adjacent residential streets in the east due to concern that it would negatively impact the single fam ily residential areas Policy 7.4: The project is intended as 9--mind-use project with pedestrian connections to Airport Road and Estey Ave. Through the planned preservation of existing Pine Trees on the perimeter of the s:t_e, the site should better reflect a "green" appearance along Airport Road 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 MPUD complies with the buffering requirements set forth in the LDC and GMP The proposed uses, setback requirements and maximum building height are consistent with existing and potential adjacent land uses 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The subiect property is currently undeveloped, the proposed protect will meet or exceed the required open space for the proposed MPUD 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 � Page 45 of 205 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZON114G & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 643.6968 The aroiect will_comaly with the County Adequate Public Facilities ordinance where applicable The site will be served by central water and sewer. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Room for additional expansion is not a consideration as the proposed MPUD will ultimately fully utilize the subject property. 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 of least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The Proposed MPUD complies with alLalmlicable regulatig-gli, set forth in the Collier County Land Development Code for a residential and or a community facility development Deed Restrictions* The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions, however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in 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 pefitions on the subject Property To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? ❑ Yes ® No If so, what was the nature of that hearing? _ Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? ❑ Yes ® No If so, please provide copies. 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 "closed" when the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to supply necessary information to continue processing or otherwise actively pursue the rezoning for period of six (6) months. An application deemed "closed" will not receive further I Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 46 of 205 Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT, -- 2800NORTH-HORSESHOE b—k!VE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 643 -6968 processing and an application "closed" through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed "closed" may be re- opened by submitting a new application, repayment 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 10.03.05.0.) Agenda Item No. 17D JUIy 2/, 2U1U 4 Page 47 of 205 C -lev County �::•'��'sa`'�' :maw- �""''�c•� COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 643 -6968 AFFIDAVIT We /I, Michael H. Metcalf, Managing Member, Rock Creek Holdings. LLC being first duly sworn, depose and say that we /I am /are the owners of the property 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, all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief. We/[ understand that the information requested on this application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or County printed shall not be altered. Public hearings will not be advertised until this application is deemed complete, and all required information has been submitted. As property owner We /I further authorize Bruce Anderson (Roetzel and Andress Law Firm) and Tim Hancock, AICP (Davidson Engineering. Inc./ to act as our /my representative in any matters regarding this Petition. Signature of Property Owner Michael H. Metcalf. Managing Member Rock Creek Holdings, LLC Typed or Printed Name of Owner Signature of Property Owner Typed or Printed Name of Owner The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ON of .6MM4( 200 by tY1ik.Q_ PA"`F- who is personally known to me or has produced as identification. -- ES-�na' otary Public st ate of l londa ssica Ramos State of Florida yCommissionDD789561 (S' nature of N tary Public —State of pires 0 5/7 812 01 2 County of Collier Florida) PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 REV: 1 rf ROCK CREEK MPUD DATE: 11/13/09 DUE: 12/15/09 PUDZ- A- PL2db%1, bA lte RRp117D PP ROCK CREEK MPUR duly 27, 2010 GAer COlA.'Ylty DATE: 11/13109 age 48 of 205 DUE: 12/15/09 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 - WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET. .. (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 643 -6968 COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL The undersigned do hereby swear or affirm that we are the fee simple titleholders and owners of record of property commonly known as Rock Creek MPUD LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION AIRPORT PULLING ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 31) AND ESTEY AVENUE, NAPLES, FL 34104 (Street address and City, State and Zip Code) and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto. The property described herein is the subject of an application for multi -use planned unit development (M PUD) zoning, We hereby designate Mike H. Metcalf, Managing Member of Rock Creek Holdings, LLC , legal representative thereof, as the legal representatives of the property and as such, these individuals are authorized to legally bind all owners of the property in the course of seeking the necessary approvals to develop. This authority includes, but is not limited to, the hiring and authorization of agents to assist in the preparation of applications, plans, surveys, and studies necessary to obtain zoning approval on the site. These representatives will remain the only entity to authorize development activity on the property until such time as a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to Collier County. The undersigned recognize the following and will be guided accordingly in the pursuit of development of the project: 1. The property will be developed and used in conformity with the approved master plan including all conditions placed on the development and all commitments agreed to by the applicant in connection with the planned unit development rezoning. 2. The legal representative identified herein is responsible for compliance with all terms, conditions, safeguards, and stipulations made at the time of approval of the master plan, even if the property is subsequently sold in whole or in part, unless and until a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to and recorded by Collier County. 3. A departure from the provisions of the approved plans or a failure to comply with any requirements, conditions, or safeguards provided for in the planned unit development process will constitute a violation of the Land Development Code. 4. All terms and conditions of the planned unit development approval will be incorporated into covenants and restrictions which run with the land so as to provide notice to subsequent owners that all development activity within the planned unit development must be consistent with those terms and conditions. 5. So long as this covenant is in force, Collier County can, upon the discovery of noncompliance with the terms, safeguards, and conditions of the planned unit development, seek equitable relief as necessary to compel compliance. The County will not issue permits, certificates, or licenses to occupy or use any part of the planned unit development and the County may str ongoing construction activity until the project is brought into compliance with all terms, conditions and safeguards of thplanned unit development. Owner Owner Michael H Metcalf, Managing Member Rock Creek Holdings, LC Printed Name STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this day of who isprrsonally known to me or has produced Printed Name •�o'pP� PO V Rotary ubile State of PloNda Y .iessica Ramos � n My commission 0 07a9,567 200 by {Y��iSt Ct V(�& as identification. DE DAY .1DSON Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 49 of 205 LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION STRUCTURE 1. METCALF, MICHAEL H; MANAGING MEMBER 299 MEL JEN DRIVE NAPLES FL 34105 2. INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS, INC.; MANAGING MEMBER 206 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE GLASGOW KY 42141 • Wholly owned by American Materials, Inc; - Solelly owned by L. Rogers Wells, Jr. 3. BELL, GARY; MANAGING MEMBER P.O. BOX 122 EDMONTON KY 42129 PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 REV:1 ROCK CREEK MPUD DATE: 11 /13/09 DUE: 12115/09 Rock Creel: MPUD: Disclosure of hr[eres( LLC Structue I I VKWW d )\1idsoDCD1ineeri )�.Cnm �3 Grantee S.S. #. - Property Appraiser's Parcel - No. 00386760501 / 00386761102 This instrument was prepared by and after recording return to: Marc F. Oates 10001 Tamiami Trail North Suite 119 Naples, Florida 34108 THIS INDENTURE, de of A ril, 2005 between SIMPSON S L COURTLAND ASSOCIATE is 2920 Satellite Boulevard, 1 hereinafter called Grantor, company, whose address is P. the second part, hereinafter call > an respective heirs, successors and �se; WITNESSETH that: Grantor, Y �' of the sum of Ten and no /100 Dollars ($10.00) in hand paid at and before d c�elivtery of these presents, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold, aliened, conveyed and confirmed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, alien, convey and confirm unto the said Grantee, the following real property in Collier County, Florida: Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 3593839 OR: 37't�el�. YJ51 RICORDFD ip OFFICIAL RWCORDS of COLLIER COVIll FL 04/12/2005 at 08:16AN DWIGHT S. HIOCW, CLWRI COWS 4171000.00 _ RWC FWW 35.50 Rath: DOC•.70 29197,00 NARC F OATFS FICS DI S ace above thi line for recordin data PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 REV:1 ROCK CREEK MPUD DATE: 11113/09 DUE: 12/15/09 C t to f Georgia, whose address r i p� or arties of the first part, IN , L Florida limited liability 2, on en c 1� 29, as party or parties of tee (the words ' n r" "Grantee" to include their where the Conte r permits). See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. THIS conveyance is subject to real estate taxes and assessments for the current and subsequent years, and the Permitted Exception listed on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said tract or parcel of land, with all and singular the rights, members and appurtenances thereof, to the same being, belonging, or in anywise appertaining, to the only proper use, benefit and behoof of the said Grantee forever in FEE w SIMPLE. Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 OR: 370Gi 1 J'ff2 GRANTOR COVENANTS with Grantee that Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey the property and Grantor warrants the title to the property only for any acts of Grantor and will defend the title only against the lawful claims of all persons claiming by, through, or under Grantor. AND THE SAID Grantor will warrant and forever defend the right and title to the above - described property unto the said Grantee against the claims of all persons claiming by, through, or under Grantor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has signed and sealed this deed, the day and year above written. Signed, Sealed and Delivered as SIMPSON COURTLAND ASSOCIATES, LLC to Grant2r in the Presence of: i 1 Name: STATE OF GEORGIA e� COUNTY OF FULTON LE tv. W W. Member The foregoing instrume was acknowledged before me this Z day of April, 2005 by John W. Ellis, who is (trsonally known to me, or ( ) produced as identification. Notary Public f My commission expires: 1(407 40.t UN„C [NOTARIAL SEAL] ;'.��a• "', ;" `'�': y�aryn�u�p�t Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 52 of 205 OR: 3772 PG: 3153 DESCRIPTION COMMENCING AT THE EAST 114 CORNER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTH 89 °38'10 "WEST 13.00 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF AIRPORT ROAD; THENCE SOUTH 00 031'26 "EAST 1312.46 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF ESTEY AVENUE AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89 037'00 "WEST 340.07 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF ESTEY AVENUE; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT AS RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 764, PAGE 757, THE FOLLOWING NINE (9) COURSES AND DISTANCES; 1) NORTH 01 009'40 "WEST 129.40 FEET; 2) NORTH 88'50'20 "EAST 40.00 FEET; 3) NORTH 01 009'40 "WEST 50.76 FEET• 4) SOUTH 8865V20"WEST 135.00 FEET; 5) NORTH 01 °09'40 "WEST 50.76 FEET; 6) NORTH 88-60-20-EAST 135.00 FEET' , co 7) NORTH 01 09'40'WEST 203.04 IF �✓ � 8) NORTH 88 05020 "EAST 344.12 F 9) NORTH 00 °4337 WEST 372.75 E R LESS TO TH HIGH WATER ELEVATION 1.61 (NGVD29): RE THENCE GENERALY MEANDE IN N Ali LESS; L (JE, 940 FEET MORE OR ^`,i ('j THENCE SOUTH 42 °06'50 "EAST 46 6 E I N ST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF AIRPORT - PULLING ROAD; I l f ! THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT CS NE S TH 00 '26" ST .75 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING iE- PARCEL HERE! S RI SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND' r ICTIONS OF REC Cli'l EXHIBIT "A" IbtSL°{. 1��pp) vr. 011 -GUM Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 53 of 205 OR: 3772 PG: 3154>rlr PERMITTED EXCEPTIONS Riparian and littoral rights are not insured. 2. Any portion of the insured parcel lying waterward of the mean high water mark of Rock Creek. 3. Conditions, restrictions and limitations together with casements and other matters as shown on Plat of Rock Creek, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 40, et seq., of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 4. Boundary Agreement between Caribbean Gardens, Inc., and Neapolitan Enterprises, Inc., dated April 21, 1970, and recorded July 26,1978, in Official Records Book 764, Pages 757 through 760, inclusive, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, S. Collier County Resolution No. 90 -116 dated February 27, 1990, and recorded March 12, 1990, in Official Records Book 1511, Pages 1754 through 1759, inclusive, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. 6. Road Right of Way Easement r� r n J -. / cry l m Oounty � ook 1517, Pages 2094 through 2098, inclusive, of the Public Rec i Collier County, Flop t-' 7• ropos�Riate of Way om�r Cti(i per Gopi r Cou�ty Roa ay lens, Project No. 66032 (Phase ,dated 02/06/ 2. / t ,- �- 8. Collier County Ordinan�j3;�ji��y i waste water collection lation of water distn'bution and Ordinance Num ` 75 -2 whi otects certain trees within Collier County; and Ordi Number 75 -24 whi s knc the "Collier County Zoning Ordinance for the Coastal Inning District'; a I c recorded May C fcial Florida. Book 619, -1,77 through 1381 Y 19, 2975, in Records e4ps' e, of the Public Records of Collier 9. Matters shown on Survey prepared by WilsonM Iler, Inc., dated August 5, 2004, bearing proJect No. X0228-004- 000 -GCS00 and File No. 4C -651, including but not limited to: (i) pavement and concrete sidewalk along the eastern boundary at the northeast comer and the southeast corner of the property located within the right -of -way easement which nets along the eastern boundary of the property; (ii) overhead wires and utility lines running east/west at the northern end of the Property; (iii) no trespassing sign and wood malty signs on the property on the eastern boundary and the southeast comer; (iv) east end of wood carport at the mid- southwest comer; (v) wood planter and south edge of concrete drive from neighboring parcel at mid- southwest corner, (vi) wood shed along western boundary at south end of property; (vii) sanitary northernmost southern boundary, sewer manhole on � U: C t Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 54 of 205 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT _.2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING &LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 643 -6968 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST NAME OF APPLICANT(S) ROCK CREEK HOLDINGS, LLC ADDRESS 2670 HORSESHOE DRIVE NORTH, SUITE 201 CITY NAPLES STATE EL ZIP 34104 TELEPHONE # _ CELL # _ FAX # _ E -MAIL ADDRESS: MMETCALFC&— NAPCOCOMPANIES COM ADDRESS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (IF AVAILABLE): n a Sedion /Township /Range 2 / 50 S / 2S E Lot: _ Block: Subdivision: Plat Book _ Page #: _ Property I.D. #: 00386760501 AND 00386761 102 Metes & Bounds Description: COMMENCING AT THE EAST 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 2 TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH. RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTH 89 °38'10 "WEST 13.00 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF AIRPORT ROAD, SOUTH 00 031'26 "EAST 1312 46 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF ESTEY AVENUE AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING THENCE SOUTH 89 037'00 "WEST 340.07 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF ESTEY AVENUE; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT AS RECORDED IN O R BOOK 764 PAGE 757. THE FOLLOWING NINE (9) COURSES AND DISTANCES; 1) NORTH 01 °09'40 "_WEST 129.40 FEET: 2) NORTH 88 050'20 "EAST 40.00 FEET; 3) NORTH 01 009'40 "WEST 50.76 FEET; 4) SOUTH 88°50'20 "WEST 135.00 FEET; 5) NORTH 01 009'40 "WEST 50 76 FEET; 6) NORTH 88 °50'20 "EAST 135.00 FEET: 7) NORTH 01 009'40 "WEST 203.04 FEET; 8) SOUTH 88 050'20 "WEST 344.12 FEET: 91 NORTH 00 043'37 "WEST 372.75 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE MEAN HIGH WATER ELEVATION 1.61 (NGVD29): i,, Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 55 of 205 Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW,COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 643 -6968 THENCE GENERALY MEANDERING NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID LINE 940 FEET MORE OR LESS THENCE SOUTH 42 006'50 "EAST 46.56 FEET TO A POINT ON_IHJ WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF AIRPORT - PULLING ROAD, THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 00 031'26 "EAST 1147.75 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED, SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD CONTAINING 11.68 ACRES MORE OR LESS (Check applicable system): COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM a. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM F] b. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM PROVIDE NAME c. PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANT (GPD capacity) _ d. SEPTIC SYSTEM TYPE OF WATERSERVICE TO BE PROVIDED a. COUNTY UTILITY SYSTEM b. CITY UTILITY SYSTEM El c. FRANCHISED UTILITY SYSTEM 0 PROVIDE NAME _ d. PRIVATE SYSTEM (WELL) TOTAL POPULATION TO BE SERVED: PEAK AND AVERAGE DAILY DEMANDS: A. WATER -PEAK AVERAGE DAILY B. SEWER -PEAK AVERAGE DAILY IF PROPOSING TO BE CONNECTED TO COLLIER COUNTY REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM, PLEASE PROVIDE THE DATE SERVICE IS EXPECTED TO BE REQUIRED NARRATIVE STATEMENT.• Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 1 Page 56 of 205 County _COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WIAMI.COLLiERGOV.NET -- _. _.. , (239) 252 -2400 FAX -(239) 643= 6968---- " "' COLLIER, C�UIt1i�`;U3ILI31(;pEDICA lO1?I ST I7EMEN,T" If the project is located within the services boundaries of Collier County's utility service system, written notarized statement shall 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 shall also include an 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 shall contain shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. STATi MENT OP AYAILABILtTY GAPAC�TY FROM A7HER, P�OIDERS: 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, a statement from that provider indicating that there is adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. De DAVIDSON PUDZ- A- PL2009- 203 No. 17D ROCK CREEK MPU July 27, 2010 DATE: 11/13/09 page 57 of 205 DUE: 12/15/09 UTILITY PROVISIONS STATEMENT General Description The Rock Creek project is an 11.68± acre property located along the west side of Airport Road fi-om Rock Creek south to Estey Ave. The project is located in Section 02, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Rock Creek is a proposed to be developed as an assisted living facility with medical office space or a multi- family residential development. Existing Conditions The project site is currently undeveloped and does not fall under a current master surface water system permitted by the South Florida Water Management District. Utility Summary The site will be served by Collier County sewer and City of Naples potable water. Potable water and irrigation will be provided via the existing potable water line along Estey Ave. All permits related to dewatering, utilities and construction will be applied for concurrently with the Site Development Plan application when it is submitted. The demand flows have been calculated as follows: Medical [(250GPD /Doctor) + 15 GPD /employee x (2 employees)] /1000 SF = 280 GPD /I OOOSF 20,000 SF x 280 GPD/1000SF = 5,600 GPD Assisted Living Facility (ALF) 100 GPD/BED (not including kitchen flows) + 5 GPD /meal prepared [230 ALF units x 100 GPD/bed) + [5 GPD/Meal x 690 meals] = 26,450 GPD NOTE: .Assumed 3 meals per day for each unit. Total Average. Daily Flow demand: 5,600 + 26,450 = 32,050 GPD or 2226 GPM Peak Flow demand (using a peak factor of 4): 22.26 x 4 = 89.04 GPM fZ Multi -famil y 300GPD /3 bedroom units 1201 -2250 SF 120 MF units x 300 GPD = 36,000 GPD or 25 GPM Average Daily Flow demand: 36,000 GPD Peak Flow demand (using a peak factor of 4): 25 x 4 = 100 GPM Rock Creek MPUD: Utility Provisions Statement www.davicNonengineei ing.con-i p�*3 t icd Y Stormwater Management System Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 58 of 205 The surface water management system will be designed to utilize a series of catch basins, ditch inlets, and stormwater pipes to convey the storm water runoff to a series of retention and detention areas. The system will consist of several detention and retention areas used to collect and convey the surface storm water runoff while providing the required pre - treatment for water quality and 25 year three day storm event attenuation. The detention and retention areas are to be interconnected by the catch basins and stormwater pipes which will acts as equalizer pipes and the conveyance system to the control structure, which is the ultimate outfall to Rock Creek to the north. The proposed stormwater system will have a perimeter berm encompassing the entire project which will contain the storm water flows for the 25 year three day storm event within the project basin boundary and prevent sheet flow onto the adjacent properties. The minimum finished floor elevation will be determined by the 100 year three day storm event modeling results or the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map elevation, which ever is greater. The FEMA elevation for the project is 7.Oft NAVD or 8.3 ft-NGVD. The storm water management system will be permitted by South Florida Water Management District ( SFWMD) per SFWMD and Collier County requirements. The storm water management system will be owned, operated and maintained by the property owner association. Rock Creek NVUD: Utility Provisions Statement 2 xvww.Javidsonengin eel ing.com MEMORANDUM TO: John Podezerwinsky FROM: Frederick E. hood, AICP RE: PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 Meridian Village MPUD John, Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 59 of 205 The attached TIS has been revised to remove the proposed commercial use from the application. This would usually represent a significant trip generation change, but we've asked Norm Trebilcock to revise the analysis to retain the combined 137 pm peak hour threshold by increasing the number of permitted ALF units to 480. This is consistent with what we discussed April 8, 2010. For purposes of the CCPC hearing date we'll prepare a "not to exceed" ratio comparison and a more consistent operational analysis to more clearly illustrate how the additional CF uses will be possible for the subject site i.e. theatrical performance center should the CCPC wish to review it. PU DZ- A- PL2009 -20310 REV: 3 MERIDIAN VILLAGE MPUD DATE: 4/16/10 DUE: 5114/10 3530 Kraft Road, Sulte #301 , Naples, Florida 34105 Phone: 239.434.6060 Fax: 239.434.6064 www davidson engineering com Davidson Engineering, Inc. PUDZ- A- PL2009493j JR� 1 �ZO o MERIDIAN VILLAGE Ij3��p of 205 DATE: 4/16/10 Rock Creek MPUD DUE: 5/14/10 Summary of Multi -Use Trip Generation - -April 8, 2010 - - - - -- Average Weekday Driveway Volumes TIS Proposal & An Total Driveway Vo Note: A zero i 24 Hour AM Pk Hour PM Pk Hour Two -Way Ana Volume Enter Exit Enter Exit Vol 24 Hour AM Pk Hour PM Pk Hour Two -Way rLandUse 1,353 ne iratee nn data ,�nila6ln 641 22 54 83 24 Hour AM Pk Hour PM Pk Hour Two -Way rLandUse Size Volume Enter Exit Enr Eit ing 490 Occupied Beds 1 1,3431 591 74 69 Note- a mrn inAfnsm -- .J, _....:1_LI_ 230 Occupied rViolume 28 Land Use Beds Note: A zero indicates no data available. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS 24 Hour AM Pk Hour I PM Pk Hour Exit Note 1— Museum ITE Trip Generation not available. Trip generation developed by Kaku Associates for CA site. AM Pk Hour PM Pk Hour Land Use Size Enter Exit Enter Exit Assisted Living 230 Occupied rViolume 28 12 35 32 Ubrary 9 Th.Sq.Ft. 4 2 33 35 Total Driveway Volume 32 14 681 67 Nntp• a ea.n i...Iir,te.. ..., a,.., Land Use Beds Note: A zero indicates no data available. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS 24 Hour AM Pk Hour I PM Pk Hour Exit Note 1— Museum ITE Trip Generation not available. Trip generation developed by Kaku Associates for CA site. p §s F 4 g8� a t nil gs By{ @ €@ r $C E &"y@BNE K €L4� 2 F6 'Ft 83j�j j �Ot JinRg ^i, F x € 4{a" " ' 3y¢FF �a�Ee��:g F�6f.:9iFlic;t}� � �a �FEgF�tF 6F5Fgg°EFc € I aoY:aY o B`� �yx _' d@ / � , ' � I . �g i - /d �� .rn 5 � "�F@ • -._ € �� I ,III'; 1 � a @B� s tr�S o K4 p G �j I ,iI I � o F' d S Eg d qt f a F E 6 zbx Ef � s t �F" a^F ��4� tv v &� E td _ ;zFj fill ! g-I 111f M. it lif m' b mo �.Y �i'o ( p S p SF4Ek Of qqggc� R S HF F Y um ..,� L, .•° .�.� �w � 6 B F � if F i 6 � t to sseeeMMM It kip U o RF a n_t. Ij1 n� "- ifs' §i i 9 �E g ii @4 ICI .FtM�a K�6 `i ICJ! $'meF Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 62 of 205 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 643 -6968 PRE - APPLICATION MEETING NOTES Date: _L= Project Name: " Applicant Name: 7 / /Vi } .; z -Y"DO -K Phone: Owner Owner Address: City State ZIP Existing PUD Name and Number Assigned Planner I .c 5A'— "Z2i- s,"g'�/ _ Meeting Attendees: (attach Sign In Sheet) Submittal requirements (see next page checklist): V 1 PUDZ- A-PL2009 -203i REV:1 ROCK CREEK PUD DATE: DUE: 12115109 —1- G: \Current \Pre - Application Forms 2008 \PUD Rezone PUD Amendment PUD to PUD Rezone pre -app 7- 11- 08.doc revised 2009 0 PUD REZONEi(PUDZ) July 27, 2( PUD to PUD REZONE (0UDZ -A) Page 63 of PUD AMENDMENT (PUDA) APPLICATION SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW W /COVET SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION. NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT RE nrrPPTCn REQUIREMENTS # OF COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED 1� £ yI Additional set if located in the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area) l� Copies of detailed description of why amendment is necessary 24 - Completed Application (download from website for current form) 24 Pre - application meeting notes 24 PUD Document & Conceptual Site Plan 24" x 36" and One 8' /2" x.1 I cop 24 x Revised Conceptual Site Plan 24" x 36 "and One 8 1/2" x 11" copy \ 24 Original PUD document and Master Plan 24" x 36" , ,/ ONLY IF AMENDING THE PUD tf 24 Revised PUD document with changes crossed thry & underlined 24 Revised PUD document w amended Title page w ord # s, LDC 10.02.13.A.2 24 Deeds /Legal's & Survey (if boundary of original PUD Is amended) 2 List identifying Owner & all parties of corporation 2 Owner /Affidavit signed & notarized 2 Covenant of Unified Control 2 Completed Addressing checklist 2 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)'" c exemption justification 2 Digital /electronic copy of EIS 1 Historical Survey or waiver request . a q Utility Provisions Statement w /sketches 4 Architectural rendering of proposed structures 4 - —_ Survey, signed & sealed 4 Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) or waiver (with applicable fees) 7 Copy of Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) on CDROM 3 Aerial photographs (taken within the previous 12 months min. scaled 1 "= 200'), showing FLUCCS Codes, Legend, and project boundary 5 Electronic copy of all documents in Word format and plans (CDRom or Diskette) 1 Justification /Rationale for the Deviations (must be on a separate sheet within the / application material; DO NOT include it in the PUD documents) 24 Copies of Official Interpretations and /or Zoning Verifications 1 A Fold bt sm o cono tcDelPlapgtenY- Ctien�t Pr ects + d ^ A. b , �uaw y9 a . w ❑ EDC "Fast Track" must submit approved copy of official application ❑ Affordable Housing "Expedited" must submit copy of signed Certificate of Agreement. 2 F-1 If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas Applicant must contact Mr. Gerry J. Locavera, State of Florida Division of Forestry @ 239 - 690 -3500 for information, regarding "Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan ", LDC Section 2.03.08.A.2.a.(b)i.c. 0 If located within Yv mile of City Of Na Dles send copy of submittal package to: Robin Singer, Planning Director City of Naples 295 Riverside Circle, Naples, FL 34102 —2- GACurrent \Pre - Application Forms 2008 \PUD Rezone PUD Amendment PUD to PUD Rezone pre -app 7- 11- 08.doc revised 2009 T7162 F, 0 ,S-D 0 Fees: Application Fee: Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 64 of 205 ❑ $10,000 (PUD Rezone) + $25 per acre (or fraction of thereof) $8,000 (PUD to PUD) + $25 per acre (or fraction thereof) $6,000 (PUD Amendment) + $25 per acre (or fraction of an acre) ® $150.00 Fire Code Review / $100 for PUDZ -A ❑ ____- .$2,250.00 Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review. =_.__ - - ® $500.00 Pre - application fee (Applications submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last pre-app meeting shall not be credited towards application fees and a new pre - application meeting will be required. ® $925.00 Legal Advertising Fee for CCPC meeting ® $500.00 Legal Advertising Fee for BCC meeting (advertising costs are to be reconciled upon receipt of Invoice from Naples Daily News). ❑ $2500.00 Environmental Impact Statement review fee ❑ $1000.00 Listed or Protected Species survey review fee (when an EIS is not required) ❑ Property Owner Notification fees. Property Owner Notifications $ 1.50 Non- cerfified; $3.00 Certified return receipt mail (to be paid after receipt of invoice from Dept. of Zoning & Development Review) Attach a Separate Check for Transportation Fees (Refer to Exhibit A): $500.00 Methodology Review Fee, if required J ��4p� *Additional Fees to be determined at Methodol gy Meeting 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 Meeting Nates PARKS & REC — Sid Kittila SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS City of Naples — Robin Singer 211:T�T� atv DR/EMI — EMER. MGMT — Jim Von Rinteln V7 IMMOKALEE WATERJSEWER DISTRICT �S !^— TA 1 1S1a / 1h'<. CDES Coordinator — Cheri Rollins - Route Sheet only p.J 7-pw ; c- per-t0 nEev,)& UTILITIES ENGINEERING — Zamira Deltoro RGLESS HO-r. WITH STA�� I4<_Ouo},-B W��C*,Orrw NAPLES AI (LPO r✓ - -fff?t f AS GACurrent \Pre - Application Forms 2008 \PUD Rezone PUD Amendment PUD to PUD Rezone pre -app 7- 11- 08.doc revised 2009 Meeting Nates 211:T�T� atv U1J r �� -, 11za r'c Sr i EQV t SttcN>~, Mdsr ,LA --,e S �S !^— TA 1 1S1a / 1h'<. UM t p.J 7-pw ; c- per-t0 nEev,)& i �• Y:sCUSS RGLESS HO-r. WITH STA�� I4<_Ouo},-B W��C*,Orrw 0-f-/. r✓ - -fff?t f AS lit Ptb . c,E'5tR V -S OIL, L, 4�w p 41 ):1/14-c 6= -z't P, GACurrent \Pre - Application Forms 2008 \PUD Rezone PUD Amendment PUD to PUD Rezone pre -app 7- 11- 08.doc revised 2009 (01 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 65 of 205 NOTES: t I�a�ul 9�UD /%IUsJ�l�i1�f . ,_ C.P `Dh�C6 T"rv- te.Ct- 0-�6- ywo„s.kA vS ihcmwswee�.�— r,• M,�rc..e.2. 175.t. �-�.�- o�.ne., -c.l. b v�roV �s�noi l C ".zsa- 'vcR.� c WIN i► � /i ti7JC G� O /i ♦ ��/ � FrOm:ROCK Creek NPUO 239 434 6084 02/97/2009 12.58 02fi�j�nu��Br No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 66 of 205 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT ADDRESSING DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES,' FLORIDA 34104 Please complete the following and fax to the Addressing Department at 239- 252 -5724 at submit in person to e Addressing Department at the above address, o stoned by Addresetna netsronnel prior to D3! :g meeting, pleass allow 3 days for prooemeln9. Not all Items will apply to every project Items in bold type are required. Forms older than a months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Department. PETITION TYPE (check petition type below, complete a separate Addressing Chsckllst for each Petldon Type) ❑ SL (Blasting Permit) g SDP (Site Development Plan) LJ SOPA (SDP Amendment) BD (Boat Dock Extension) Carnival/Circus Permit E] ( $DPI Insubstantial Change to SDP) ❑ CU (Conditional Use) ❑ SIP (Site Improvement Plan) ❑ SIN (Insubstantial Change to SIP) ❑ EXP (Excavation Permit) ❑ FP (Final Plat ❑ SNR (Street Name Change) j] LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ SNC (Street Name Change — Unpletted) ❑ TOR (Transfer of Development Rights) ❑ PNC (Project Name Change) ❑ PPL (Plans & Piet Review) 171 VA (Variance) ❑ VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) ❑ pSp (preliminary Subdivision Plat) ® PUD Rezone ❑ VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) ❑ RZ (Standard Rezone) ❑ OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of Lengthy description maybe eftach SEE ATTACHED - Pcl r �I 2 � -E- � Z - C7- ZS i '� G (' CJD POLIO (Property ID) NUMSER(s) of above (aftach fo, Or assoclatellth, legal descrlpHon If more than one) 61831560004, 00386760501, AND 00386761102 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, If already assigned) NO SITE ADDRESSES • LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exaat location of projectiaite in relation to nearest public road right -of -way • SURVEY (copy - needed only for unptatted properties) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) ROCKCREEK " Pccm�C-A PROPOSED STREET NAMES (d applicable) NIA SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projectslsites only) SDP or AR# Page 1 of 2 FrowRock Creek MPUD 239 434 8084 02/27/2009 12:59 tt2+'� R Jt:i$(tg9lo. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 67 of 205 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST. PAGE TWO Projector development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) Please Check One: ® Checklist Is to be Foxed back ❑ Personally Picked Up APPLICANT NAME: JESSICA RAMOS, DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC. PHONE 239 -434 -6060 FAX 239 - 434 -6084 Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and /or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Addressing Department. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Primary Number Address Number 1:7011. —15 Address Number k 4 Address Number Approved by: i4 yi *'1 )I ` L Q v Day: C) — C) Updated by: Date; IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED Page 2 of 2 Q:1CUrrontl4ppllcatbn FoimslAddressing Ct�BCkOat rev June08.tlon a 1 III W Q z W c 0 a ta IA O: w z z Q J a 0 W z 0 to t/1 Q co Ln v� C4 1 r Ln 1 M N m E 3 z d C O S CL 0 N N N O 4i U O W W 2 U) z z N 0 N `w U 3 � t d E d •V z tY UA O y tL p d 0 ►•I r"'- c N a N rn c E 0 N u. O fAr'i G d E hW�n� V RI a 0 r�l Q W .rr •H to W Q z W c 0 a ta IA O: w z z Q J a 0 W z 0 to t/1 Q co Ln v� C4 1 r Ln 1 M N m E 3 z d C O S CL 0 N N N O 4i U O W W 2 U) z z N 0 N `w U 3 � t d E d •V z tY UA O y tL p d 0 c O r"'- c N a N rn c E 0 N u. O a N d G d E � 'a Q a 0 o Q W W Q z W c 0 a ta IA O: w z z Q J a 0 W z 0 to t/1 Q co Ln v� C4 1 r Ln 1 M N m E 3 z d C O S CL 0 N N N O 4i U O W W 2 U) z z N 0 N `w U cofter County �� Agenda ite �t� I pp July 27, 20 0 PUDZ.A.PL2009'2031 of REV: 1 ROCK CREEK MPUD DATE: 11/13109 DUE: 12115/09 PUBLIC UTILITIES 3301 Tamiami Trail E, Bldg, H, 3rd fl Ph. 239.252.4215 Fax 239.252.6727 NAPLES, FL 34112 gilbertmoneivaiz@eolli ergov.net September 1, 2009 Ms. Tocia Hamlin Davidson Engineering, Inc. 3530 Kraft Road, Suite 301 Naples, FL 34105 Subject: Rock Creek aka Meridian Village Parcel #00386760501 Wastewater Availability Dear Ms. Hamlin: Sanitary sewer service is available for the above referenced project via existing lines along Estey Avenue. Water in this area is served by the City of Naples, and you need to contact them for availability. They can be reached at (239) 213 -5015. If this project is not to provide the required Collier County Utility Easements (CUES), all sewer facilities shall be owned and maintained by the owner, his successors or assigns. If this project is to provide the required CUES, all sewer facilities shall be owned and maintained by Collier County Public Utilities. Tie -in to sewer lines shall be made after submission and approval of the hydraulic calculations by Engineering Review Services, showing that the downstream systems are adequate to handle the increase hi flow. The District will be making phased expansions to the sewage transmission, treatment and disposal facilities servicing the area in question and other areas of the County, based on demands within the system and other binding commitments. These expansions should provide sufficient capacity to supply the referenced property's anticipated sewage treatment and disposal demands and the remainder of the District's committed capacity. however, no guarantee can be issued that other developments throughout the District will not have an impact on the quantity of sewage treatment and disposal capacity available to this property until each phase has received a commitment for service. Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 70 of 205 Ms. Tocia Hamlin Rock Creek aka Meridian Village September 1, 2009 Page 2 Connections are also subject to the availability of sewer capacity at the time formal application is received. Should sewage treatment and disposal capacity not be available, the Developer would be required to provide an interim means of sewage treatment and disposal until the District's facilities have the adequate capacity to serve the project. Please note that any and all improvements that you construct must be in accordance with all applicable ordinances and policies, including the payment of impact fees. Should you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at (239) 252 -4215. Sincerely, Gilbert Moncivaiz Operations Analyst, Public Utilities Operations cc: Craig Callis, Engineering Review Services Steve Nagy, Wastewater Collections Manager W 1z Z 0 O Qw 9� L LO uj �s Z z • 't A • r Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 hand out frorW&bj &JJ205 5/25/10 N I M Meridian Village MPUD EXHIBIT A PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 »!7►II�IlAY�111iI;1�I.y�_y 7[�r] The Meridian Village MPUD is planned for up to 120 residential units or a combination of residential units and limited community facility (CF) uses including but not limited to assisted living facilities (ALF), continuing care retirement communities (CCRC) and independent living units for age 55 plus and senior housing. Community .Facility (CF) The maximum size for the ALF and CCRC for age 55 plus and similar facilities shall not exceed a floor to area ratio (FAR) of .60 and 480 beds. For each 4 ALF beds constructed, one residential dwelling unit shall be subtracted from the maximum of 120 permitted residential units identified in the Residential section of this document. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following primary uses: A. Principal Uses 1. Assisted Living Facilities (ALF) as defined in the LDC and pursuant to §429 F.S., Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC) and Independent Living Units (ILU) for age 55 plus pursuant to § 410.502 F.S. and ch. 58A -5 F.A.C; § 651 F.S. All ALF and CCRC uses shall be permitted at a combined maximum F.A.R. of 0.60. Nursing and Personal Care Facilities (8051, 8052) shall be consistent with operational characteristics stated on page 3 of this document. The maximum number of beds proposed is 480. 2. Adult Day Care Centers, (8322) limited to 150 adults requiring care. 3. Family Care Facilities, Group Care Facilities (Category I), as defined in the LDC and Nursing Homes, (8051, 8052) subject to LDC Section 5.05.04. 4. Child Care Centers, (8351, limited to child care centers). 150 students requiring care only. 5. Churches & Places of Worship, (8661) not to exceed 1,150 seats. 6. Civic & Cultural Facilities including Public Recreational Facilities, including but not limited to community centers, swimming pools, tennis facilities, theatrical, symphonic, orchestral and or operatic productions. 7. Civic, Social and Fraternal Associations (8641) 8. Museums (8412) Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 73 of 205 9. Essential Service Facilities, limited to police; fire, emergency medical, public parks and public libraries. 10. Water Management Facilities /Lakes and related structures. No building or structure, or part there4 shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following accessory uses to be utilized for the foregoing principal uses: B. Accessory Uses 1. Boat Ramps subject to Section 5.03.06 and the applicable review criteria set forth in Section 5.05.02 2. Customary accessory uses including, but not limited to, maintenance buildings, private garages, carports, clubhouse, indoor and outdoor recreational facilities and swimming pools with or without screened enclosures, unlighted playfields, playgrounds and similar facilities. 3. Lending Library (Group 8231), incidental to ALF and CCRC uses 4. Personal Services (7231, 7241), Dining, Private Restaurant/Lounge and all customary services incidental to ALF and CCRC uses C. Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 74 of 205 The developer, its successors or assigns, shall provide the following services and/or be subject to the following operational standards: 1. The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older. 2. There shall be on -site dining for the residents. 3. Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for the purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportation services shall be coordinated for the residents' individualized needs including but not limited to medical office visits. 4. There shall be an on -site manager /activities coordinator to assist residents with their individual needs. 5. A wellness center shall be provided on -site. Exercise and other fitness programs shall be provided for the residents. 6. Each unit shall be equipped with pull cords designed to notify emergency service providers in the event of a medical or other emergency. 7. Each unit shall be designed so that a resident is able to age -in- place. For example, kitchens may be easily retrofitted to lower the sink to accommodate a wheelchair bound resident or bathrooms may be retrofitted to add grab bars. Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 75 of 205 Residential (R) A residential development would be designed to accommodate a full range of residential multi family dwelling types, compatible recreational facilities, essential services and customary accessory uses. A. Principal Uses The number of dwelling units proposed to be constructed is 120 units. The gross project density, therefore, will be a maximum of 10.27 units per acre. 1. Townhouse dwellings 2. Multi - family dwellings 3. Essential services 4. Water management facilities and related structures 5. Sales and administrative offices for the developer, project management or managing development association, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses B. Temporary Uses 1. Model units 2. Project information and Sales centers 3. Construction administrative offices for the developer and authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses C. Accessory Uses and Structures 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted in this District, including neighborhood community recreational facilities and property management and maintenance structures intended to serve the residents and guests of the proposed development. 2. Garages and carports. 3. Administration facilities intended to serve the residents and guests of the proposed development. 4. Swimming Pools, Tennis courts and other recreational facilities and buildings. Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 76 of 205 D. Development Standards Unless set forth in this Document, or as noted in Exhibit B (Table II), the following development standards shall apply to principal structures: 1. Setback from back of curb or edge of pavement of any road - twelve (12') feet except for guardhouses, gatehouses, signage, walls, access control structures and landscape features, which shall meet LDC requirements where applicable. 2. Sidewalks and bike paths may occur within County required buffers, however, the width of the required buffer shall be increased proportionately to the width of the paved surface of the sidewalk, bike path or cart path. Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 77 of 205 PERMITTED USES: TRACT B Preservation (P) A. Permitted Uses 1. Boardwalks, nature trails, gazebos and boat ramps subject to Section 5.03.06 and the applicable review criteri a set forth in Section 5.05 .02 (elevated and at grade as long as any clearing required to facilitate these does not impact the minimum required vegetation). 2. Native preserves and wildlife sanctuaries. 3. Water management structures. 4. Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is compatible in nature with the foregoing uses, and which the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area. Where Preserve areas are shown on the Master Concept Plan and the LDC requires landscape buffers, the preserve vegetation may contribute in part or in whole to the landscape buffer when it is demonstrated that the preserve vegetation meets or exceeds the buffer requirements of the LDC. Landscape buffers must remain exotic free while demonstrating sufficiency to achieve minimum buffer standards. Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 78 of 205 EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Table I below sets forth the development standards for Community Facilities within the proposed Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD). 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 SDP or Subdivision plat. TABLE I COMMUNITY FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CF. MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 Square Feet MINIMUM LOT N'VIDTH 80 feet MINIMUM FLOOR AREA OF 1,000 square feet BUILDINGS MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO 0.60 PUD PERDIETER REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK 25 Feet (FROMAIRPORT PULLING ROAD MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK (FROM WEST BOUNDARY & SOUTH 50 Feet BOUNDARYEASTAND WEST OFSTEEMS AVENUE 014 19 MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS Front: Principal Structure 25 feet Accessory Structure 10 feet Side: Principal Structure 25 feet Accessory Structure 10 feet Rear: Principal Structure 25 feet or'% of the BH (whichever is greater) Accessory Structure 10 feet Internal Drives 15 feet from edge of drive aisle Minimum Distance V2 of the SBH (but no less than 15 feet) Between Structures 1VIAXIMUM HEIGHT Zoned: Principal Structure: 3- stories not to exceed 45 feet Accessory Structure: 20 feet Actual: Principal Structure: 57/75 Feet Accessory Structure: 27 feet PRESERVE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Principal Structures 25 feet Accessory Structures 10 feet Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 79 of 205 CALF /CCRC /ILU and associated medical uses only excluding parking areas under buildings. 2Actual height for a permitted church steeple if developed shall be 75 feet. BH = Building Height (Zoned Height per the LDC) SBH = Sum of Building Heights Setback from a lake for all principal and accessory uses may be zero feet (0') provided architectural bank treatment is incorporated into the design. Architectural bank treatments shall include any structural materials used to retain earth such as concrete stone or wood placed to LDC requirements. Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 80 of 205 Table 11 below sets forth the development standards for Multi Family Residential land uses within the proposed Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD). 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 SDP or Subdivision plat. TABLE II RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS BH = Building Height (Zoned Height per the LDC) SBH = Sum of Building Heights TOU NHOUSE MULTI- FAMILY DWELLINGS MEVIMUM LOT AREA 3,000 Square Feet N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 30 Feet N/A MINIMUM FLOOR AREA OF 1,200 Square Feet 1,000 Square Feet BUILDINGS PUD PERIMETER REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK 25 Feet . 25 Feet FROMAIRPORT- PULLING ROAD) MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK (FROMWESTBOUNDARY& SOUTH 50 Feet 50 Feet BOUNDARYEASTAND WEST OF STEEVES AVENUE ONLY) MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS Front: Principal Structure 20 feet 20 feet Accessory Structure 20 feet 20 feet Side: Principal Structure 0 Feet or 1/z of the BH %z of the SBH Accesso Structure 10 feet 10 feet Rear: Principal Structure 10 feet %z of the BH Accessory Structure 10 feet 10 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures Principal Structure %z of the SBH %z of the SBH Accessory Structure 10 feet 10 feet MAXIMUM HEIGHT Zoned: Principal Structure 3- stories not to 3- stories not to exceed 45 Feet exceed 45 Feet Access2a Structure 25 Feet 25 Feet Actual: Principal Structure 52 Feet 52 Feet Accessory Structure 25 Feet 25 Feet PRESERVE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Principal Structures 25 Feet 25 Feet Accessory Structures 10 Feet 10 Feet BH = Building Height (Zoned Height per the LDC) SBH = Sum of Building Heights Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 81 of 205 Front yards shall be measured as follows: a. If the parcel is served by a public right -of -way, setback is measured from the adjacent right of way line. Sidewalks shall be located in the right -of -way. b. If the parcel is served by a private road, setback is measured from the back of curb (if curbed) or edge -of- pavement (if not curbed). Setback from a lake for all principal and accessory uses may be zero feet (0') provided architectural bank treatment is incorporated into the design. Architectural bank treatments shall include any structural materials used to retain earth such as concrete stone or wood placed to LDC requirements: Garages and carports shall be 10 feet from principal structures if detached. There will be a minimum of a 23 foot setback from the back of a sidewalk to front load garages. Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE Page 82 of 205 I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004 -41, of the Collier County Land Development Cpde, I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and or condominium and civic associations whose members may be impacted by the proposed land use changes for the Meridian Village MPUD application (PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031) at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of property owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the county to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change and the date, time, and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per attached letters and or property owner's list, which are Affidavit of Compliance (Signature of State of Florida County of Collier 1 made a part of this The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this —V day of , 2010 by�� who is personally known e or who has produced as identification. ��e� _ (S gnature of N t Public) Cu,- ACLTUS Printed Name of Notary Notary PubllG =Pte Florida a6a�G6 anID9 y oEfn�,�� °y ®ah�sion DD789581 ° ?pr,�� E >pirna G5ti912p72 Dear Property Owner: Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 83 of 205 May 7, 2010 Please be advised that the sender has made a formal application to Collier County requesting a rezone from the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for a project that is currently known as the Meridian Village RPUD, to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (NTUD) zoning district for a project that will be known as the Meridian Village MPUD to allow for development of up to 480 beds for adult housing which may include assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement community facilities or independent living units and/or to allow for the site to be developed as a 120 -unit multi- family residential project and/or to allow development of a combination of residential uses and community facility uses including child care centers and churches. The 11.68± acre subject property is located at the northwestern corner of the intersection of Airport- Pulling Road and Estey Avenue in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. _.Defile Blvd.. wo a 11 � — GonnMKN AJe:.� In order to provide you an opportunity to become fully aware of our rezone request and to give you an opportunity to influence the form of development intended, we are holding a Neighborhood Information Meeting on May 25s, 2010 at the Naples Airport, Conference Room The Conference Room is located on the 2 I floor of the Airport Office Building at 200 Aviation Drive. The meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. At this meeting we will make every effort to illustrate how we intend to develop the property. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (239) 434 -6060 ext. 2983 or via e -mail at tim(a,davidsonenaineering.com if you have any questions regarding the meeting or the proposed project. Sincerely yours, ,, Tim Hancock, AICP Director of Planning 3530 Kraft Road, Suite 301 — Naples, Florida 34105 — Phone: 239.434.6060•Fax: 239.434.6084 www. davidsonen eineerine.com Easy Peel® Labels i A 9§81930111 Bend along line to I $end Ita r8� Use Avery® Template 5160® 6 Feeo Paper expose Pap -Up EdgeTO �� L�1�® a Page 84 of 205 1115 AIRPORT ROAD LLC AVION WOODS LLC SARTOU. PAMELA SPAULDING PO BOX 1109 PO BOX 1602 3374 POINSETTIA AVE 1PLES,FL 34106 -1110 NAPLES,FL 34106 -1602 NAPLES,FL 34104-4014 BAYSHORE GULF PROPERTIES LLC BERTRON. THOMAS J BLACKMER, RONALD =& VICTORIA 1571 BUNKER DRIVE 3535 AVION WOODS CT STE 601 2351 BACON RD CHESTERTOWN 46304 -8852 NAPLES,FL 34104- -4084 JAMESTOWN.NY 14701 -9353 BLANC, BERTINE BOMER, STEPHEN R =& NANCY E BROTHERS AVION LLC 3374 HIBISCUS ST 1089 S7EEVES AVE 3815 RANYA DR NAPLES,FL 34104 -4010 NAPLES.FL 341041314 COMMERCE TWP,MI 48382 -4471 BROTHERS AMON LLC BRYAN. KENNETH BRYAN, ROBERT R =& DOROTHY 3815 RANYA DR LORNA BRYAN 213 PRICE ST COMMERCE TWP,MI 48382 -4471 1184 STEEVES AVE NAPLES.FL 34113 -8438 NAPLES,FL 34104-4314 BRYAN, ROBERT R- & DOROTHY P BURKHOLDER, LEANN R CAMADA LLC 217 PRICE ST 3525 AVION WOODS CT STE 701 ATTN: CAROL HASTINGS NAPLES,FL 34113--8438 NAPLES.FL 34104 -4077 3125 RUM ROW NAPLES,FL 34102 --0000 CHIONG, ROGELIO =& NORMA CIRCLE K STORES INC CITY OF NAPLES AIRPORT ATHRTY 3377 POINSETTIA AVE RF14T & PROPERTY TAX DEPARTMENT 160 AVIATION DR N NAPLES,FL 34104 --4394 1130 W WARNER RD BLDG B NAPLES,FL 34104 -3568 ATN: RENTS & PROPERTY TAX SUP TEMPE,AZ 85284 - COLLIER CNTY COLLIER CNTY COMMERCIAL PRODUCTIONS LLC 3301 TAMIAMI TRL E - 4001 SANTA BARBARA BLVD z 327 NAPLES.FL 34112 -4961 NAPLES,FL 34104 -8808 COOK, DELL MICHAEL CULTRA DONNA M CUNARD, RICHARD J =& LINDA K 1024 OAK FOREST DR 500 S TAFT ST 3401 HIBISCUS ST NAPLES,FL 34104-4800 PAXTONJL 60957 -1632 NAPLES,FL 34104 -4094 CUSTARD, GARY DANIELS, HENRY E DARBY, HELEN L 3333 HIBISCUS ST 3024 ES7EY AVE 1017 OAK FOREST DR NAPLES,FL 34104 -4009 NAPLES.FL 34104-4308 NAPLES,FL 34104 -4804 AVER, FREDERICK W ERICKSON, RICHARD =& REBECCA FAYARD JR, ALD i3 OAK FOREST DR 1015 OAK FOREST DR 901 AIRPORT PULLING RD N NAPLES.FL 34104 -4813 NAPLES,FL 34104 -4804 NAPLES,FL 34104-6108 f:tiquettes faciles A peter A Repliez h to hachure afin de i www.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit AVERY@ 51600 1 Sens de reveler le rehonf Po U * I chargement P- P - 1- 800 -GO -AVERY Easy Peel® labels i A Bend along One to i j J�N � v *'t ii4i IS Use Avery® Template 5160® 1 Feeo Paper expose Pap -Up Edger^' l� arf' 1 1 a Page 85 of 205 FAYARD JR. AL'D F FAYARD JR, ALM F FAYARD JR. AL'O F 1D6 CAMERON DR 106 CAMERON DR 106 CAMERON OR GRETNA,LA 70056- -7313 GRETNA.LA 70056 -7313 GRETNA.LA 70056 -7313 FAYARD JR, AL'D F FERRER STOCK LLC FIFTH THIRD BAMC ET AL TRS 106 CAMERON DR 1275 AIRPORT RD S % JOAN F TOBIN PR GREfNA,LA 7OD56 -7313 NAPLES,FL 34104 -4816 % NEAPOLITAN ENTERPRISES LLC HOUSTON,TX 77081 -2212 255 13TH AVE S STE 202 JANSS TR. MARILYN L KALMIA COMPANY INC NAPLES,FL 34102 -7246 FILIPPONE, WILLIAM T =& CAROL S FLETCHER, MARGARET FOLEY, BLAIR A 828 BAYTREE LN 6721 LIVINGSTON WOODS LN 120 EDGEMERE WAY S PONTE VEDRA,FL 32062-4162 NAPLES,FL 34109 -3833 NAPLES.FL 34105 -7107 FORD TR, LELAND FRASER. VICKI JOAN GALICIA, MARIA R 1565 DOLPHIN LN 1035 OAK FOREST DR PABLO COLOCHO NAPLES,FL 34102 -1521 NAPLES,FL 341D4 -4812 ANGEL GALICIA HOUSTON,TX 77081 -2212 3312 POINSETTIA AVE JANSS TR. MARILYN L KALMIA COMPANY INC NAPLES,FL 34104 -4014 GAMAGE, HIMALA O U GILLS TRADING CO INC GILL'S TRADING INC 1022 OAK FOREST DR 933 AIRPORT PULLING RD N 933 AIRPORT PULLING RD N NAPLES,FL 34104 -4800 NAPLES.FL 34104 -8108 NAPLES,FL 34104 -6108 GUCCIARDO, ANTHONY M GUCCIARDO, ANTHONY M HILLS. NICOLE R 198 FORTS FERRY RD 198 FORTS FERRY RD 1040 OAK FOREST DR LATHAM.NY 12110 -1234 LATHAM.NY 1 2110 -1 234 NAPLES,FL 34104-4811 HSSC BANK USA NA TR HUMPHRIES, KENNETH =& WANDA IBCFLP INC LITTON LOAN SERVICING 1150 STEEVES AVE 5630 NORTHBORO DR APT 202 4828 LOOP CENTRAL DR NAPLES,FL 341D4 -4314 NAPLES,FL 34110 -9032 HOUSTON,TX 77081 -2212 JANSS TR. MARILYN L KALMIA COMPANY INC KEARNEY, RICHARD P MARILYN L JANSS REV TRUST PO BOX 353 PO BOX 353 T /A/D 6123194 BRAOFORD,PA 16701 -- -0363 BRADFORO.PA 16701 -0363 450 16TH AVE 5 NAPLES,FL 34102 -7446 KEYES TR, VALERIA KRANZ. PAUL R =& JACKI LA GUERRE, SIDONIE =& JEAN R KEVIN J KEYES SR TR PO BOX 336 3352 POINSETTIA AVE VALERIA KEYES TRUST GOODLAND,FL 34140 -0336 NAPLES,FL 34104 -4014 UTD 11/281062576 66TH ST SW NAPLES,PL 34105 -7308 LUEDTKE, MARY A LUEDTKE. MARY A MALLIS, GEORGE =& MERCEDES 6947 MADRID OR 6947 MADRID DR 1161 STEEVES AVE DEMOTTE,IN 45310 -9411 DEMOTTEJN 46310 -9411 NAPLES.FL 34104-4314 @tiquettes faciles a paler I A Repliez A la hachure afin de ; wW W.avery.Com Utilisez le AVERY© 51600 de rdveler le mbord Pop -Up— a 1-800 -GO -AVERY gabarit chSens ent Easy Peel® Labels i A Bend along line to i nda Ife�mg No. 17D Use Avery® Template 51600 i Peea Paper expose Pop-Up EdgeTM d 14VI1 g1u® I Page 86 of 205 1 MCCAUSLAND, FRANCINE MCGUIRK, CAROL A MCLAUGHLIN. GWENDOLYN -1002 OAK FOREST DR 3540 AVION WOODS CT STE 402 3555 AVION WOODS CT STE 501 PLES,FL 34104 -4803 NAPLES,FL 34104 -1087 NAPLES,FL 34104 -4097 MEYER, JOHN W MICHAEL P VALENTINE PROP LLC MICHAEL P VALENTINE PROP LLC 1207 3RD ST S STE 4 1200 SANDPIPER ST 1200 SANDPIPER ST NAPLES.FL 34102 -7232 NAPLES,FL 34102 -2403 NAPLES.FL 34102 -2403 MILLER -& TERENCE M -& DIANA B MILLMAN, BRIAN A MIRZIAI, AHMAD 1126 STEEVES AVE 1020 OAK FOREST DR 989 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES,FL 34104 -4314 NAPLES,FL 34104 -4600 NAPLES.FL 34104 -4346 MIRZIAI, AHMAD MORROW, ZUZANA NAPLES REALTY ADVISORS LLC % A7AR GALLERY 3046 ESTEY AVE % NAPLES MOTORSPORTS INC 989 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES.FL 34104 -4308 1250 AIRPORT RD S NAPLES,FL 34104 -4348 NAPLES,FL 34104--0355 NAPLES REALTY ADVISORS LLC NEADER, JOHN F NEBUS FAMILY LIMITED PRTNRSHP % NAPLES MOTORSPORTS INC DIANE M DUMAS PHASE TWO LTD 1250 AIRPORT RD S 3540 AVION WOODS CT STE 401 3100 NORTH RD NAPLES.FL 34104--4355 NAPLES,FL 34104-4087 NAPLES,FL 34104 -4807 NEBUS FAMILY LIMITED PRTNRSHP NEBUS, IVY JEAN NUNO, SALVADOR PHASE ONE LTD 3100 NORTH RD 1475 CURLEW AVE 13 3100 NORTH RD NAPLES,FL 34104 -4007 NAPLES,FL 34102 -0000 NAPLES,FL 34104-607 OAK FOREST HOMEOWNERS ASSOC IN ONUSKA. ABIGAIL OPPENBERG. THOMAS =& ANNETTE 1055 OAK FOREST DR 3510 AVION WOODS CT UNIT 103 IM SCHNECKENBANGERT 28 NAPLES.FL 34104--4813 NAPLES,FL 34104 --4065 55263 WACKERNHEIM GERMANY, -- OSORIO, FRANCISCO TORRES PALO PROPERTY SOLUTIONS LLC PATEL TR, MRUDULA D NIURKA G OSORIO 1155 SARAH JEAN CIR APT 101 MRUDULA D PATEL REV TRUST 3363 ESTEY AVE NAPLES.FL 34110 -8187 UTD 10/17/94 NAPLES.FL 34104 -4068 3815 RANYA DR COMMERCE TWP,MI 48382 -4471 PELUSO, GEORGIANNE PEREIRO, EDUARDO -& LUISA PEREYRA, MARCOS 3540 AVION WOODS CT UNIT 404 YADIRA PEREIRD 3377 HIBISCUS AVE NAPLES,FL 34104--0087 PO BOX 7343 NAPLES,FL 34104-4009 NAPLES,FL 34101 -7343 ?MAN JR, GEORGE B PUNWASI, RADJINDREPERSAD PUNWASI, RADJINDREPERSAD A OAK FOREST DR 4503 ROSEA CT 4503 ROSEA CT NAPLES.FL 341()4-4812 NAPLES,FL 34104 -4446 NAPLES,FL 34104 -4446 Etiquettes faciles A peler ; ® kepllez 5 la hachure afro de Utilise2 le gabarit AVERY® 5160m aregeme vvww.avery.com ch nt reveler le rebord Pop -Upt- 1- 800 -GO -AVERY Easy Peel® Labels i A woom Bend along ine to i .$e�Td llte�m D. 170 Use very® Template 51600 j Feeo Paper ® expose Pop-Up EdgeTM " � Paage ge 87 , 205 of OS PUNWASI. RNDJINDREPERSAD PUNWASI, SHARDA PUNWASI, SHARDA WANDANA 4503 ROSEA CT 1003 CARDINAL ST 1003 CARDINAL ST NAPLES,FL 34104 -4446 NAPLES.FL 34104 -4401 NAPLES.FL 34104--4401 REFERENCE ONLY REFERENCE ONLY RIDOUT, DEBRA JEAN AVION WOODS A CONDOMINIUM ESTEY AIR PLAZA 1026 OAK FOREST DR BEG 2271600000DEND 22716000521 A CONDOMINIUM NAPLES,FL 34104 -4800 — BEG 3137000000DEND 31370000262 RITOTA JR, JOHN P =8 JUNE ELLEN ROACH, CLAYTON ROCK CREEK HOLDINGS LLC THEODORE C =6 LISA K RITOTA 1051 OAK FOREST DR 5435 JAEGER RD STE 3 919 SEAGATE OR NAPLES,FL 34104 --1813 NAPLES,FL 34109 -5602 DELRAYBEACH,FL 33483 -6617 ROCK CREEK HOLDINGS LLC ROTHSCHILD INVESTMENTS LLC ROTHSCHILD INVESTMENTS LLC 5435 JAEGER RD STE 3 2614 TAMIAMI TRL N STE 700 2614 TAMIAMI TRL N STE 700 NAPLES.FL 34109 -5802 NAPLES.FL 34103 -4409 NAPLES,FL 34103 -4409 SALVATION ARMY, THE SALVATION ARMY, THE SANDERS. KIRK PO BOX 8209 PO BOX 8209 4416 LAKEWOOD BLVD NAPLESFL 34101 -8209 NAPLES.FL 34101 -8209 NAPLES,FL 34112 -6124 SANDEER, DOUGLAS SANDS. GEORGE T =B CHERYL SCALOGNA, JOSEPH 1042 OAK FOREST DR PO BOX 10983 PHYLLIS SCALOGNA NAPLES,FL 34104 -4 81 1 NAPLES,FL 34101 -0983 6031 WAXMYRTLE WAY NAPLESFL 34109 -5938 SCALOGNA, JOSEPH SCHOOL DISTRICT- WIT/LWHIALT SCLAFANI, RICHARD J 6031 WAXMYRTLE WAY LORENZO WALKER INSTITUTE 3520 AVION WOODS CT STE 201 NAPLES,FL 34109 -5939 % SUPERINTENDENT NAPLES,FL 34104 -4069 5775 OSCEOLA TRL NAPLES,FL 34ID9 -0919 SHAARAY PROPERTIES LLC SIGMOND, SCOTT H =8 STERLING C SMITH, MORGAN CENLAND ASSOCIATES 1046 OAK FOREST DR 409 UPPER GULPH RD PO BOX 9507 NAPLES,FL 34104--0811 RADNORPA 19087 -4626 BOSTON,MA 02114 -9507 SOTIRAJ, ILVA STEARNS TR, ROY G =8 SUSAN K STONE, WILLIAM L 5050 N MARINE DRIVE APT 5C ROY G STEARNS TRUST 3386 POINSETTIA AVE CHICAGO,IL 60640 -0000 UTD 05/28198 NAPLES,FL 34104 — 1014 541 23RD ST SW NAPLES,FL 34117 -3:23 STUCKER, KATHLEEN SULLIVAN. JAMES H TANNEHILL, TATIANA P O BOX 374 1155 STEEVES AVE 7180 MILL POND CIR REMINGTON,IN 47977 -0000 NAPLES.FL 34104 -4314 NAPLES,FL 34109 -1777 ttiquettes MOBS a peter I A Repliez 8 In hachure afin de i www.averycom Utilisez le abarit AVERY® 5160® I Sens de rdveler le rebord Po U r°1 ' 1- 800 -GO -AVERY 9 chargement P- P Easy Peel® Labels i A 803M Bend along line to i Use Avery® Template 51600 j Feeo Paper expose Pop-Up Edge° TANNEHILL. TAMANA THEGENUS, MOISE =& EMMELINE 7180 MILL POND GTR 3386 HIBISCUS ST " APLESYL 34109 -1777 NAPLES.FL 34104 -4010 TOMASIC, DIANA D TRETTIS. MARILEE JOHN D TWADDLE 2920 HAWTHORNE CT 1037 OAK FOREST DR NAPLES.FL 34104 -4311 NAPLES.FL 34104--0612 VALENTINE, MICHAEL P VILLEGAS, JORGE R =& GUADALUPE 1200 SANDPIPER ST 3309 HIBISCUS ST NAPLES,FL 34102 -2403 NAPLES,FL 34104-4009 WALLACE, ELEANOR WEIDENMILLER, CASEY 3540 AVION WOODS CT STE 403 MARK L WODLINGER NAPLES,FL 34104 -4007 3059 ESTEY AVE NAPLES,FL 34104-4307 WELLS, TAYLOR C WHITE, JACK =& LAURIE 1011 OAK FOREST DR 210 26TH ST SW NAPLES,FL 34104-4804' NAPLES,FL 34117 -3232 f ticiuettes faclles & peler I A Repliez a la hachure afin de Utifisez le gabarit AVERYm 51600 cha Sensde gement rEveler le mbord Pop -UpTM Page 88 of 205 THOMPSON TR. BRALEY C CATHRYN R THOMPSON TR GRANDMASTER 8 REV TRUST CATHRYN R THOMPSON REV TRUST2162 LONGBOAT DR NAPLES,FL 34104 -3377 TRETTIS, MARILEE L 2920 HAWTHORNE CT NAPLES,FL 34104 -4311 WACHOVIA MORTGAGE CORP 1270 NORTHLAND OR STE 200 MENDOTA HEIGHTS.MN 55120 -1175 WELLS FARGO BANK NA TR CIO JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA 7255 SAYMEADOWS WAY JACKSONVILLE.FL 32256 -0000 YOUMANS, WILLIAAM P JASIN M YOUMANS 1300 N BANANA RIVER DR MERRITT ISLA.ND.R. 32852 -5790 www.averycom 1- 800 -GO -AVERY b Cw` °s; rJux Boa RECEIVED ORDINANCE NO. 06 - 28 ti�7 ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE. NUMBER 20D4- 22o2ss[e9°�/42, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND — - - - DEVELOPMET CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FLORIDA PBYAAMENDINGATHEFAPPROPI COUNTY, APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS; BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY AND RESIDENTTIAL MULTI-FAMILY L o RMF-G) ZONING DISTRICTS TO TIIE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A MAXIMUM OF 120 MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, TO INCLUDE A MAXIMUM OF 24 UNITS OR 20 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL DWELLING UNITS AS WORKFORCE HOUSING UNITS FOR A PROJECT KNOWN AS MERIDIAN VILLAGE RPUD WHICH IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT- PULLING ROAD (COUNTY ROAD 31) AND ESTEY AVENUE, IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 11.68 ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Agenda Item N . 17D July 27, 2010 Page 89 Df 205 f .2 � 1 WHEREAS, R. Bruce Anderson, Esq. of Roctzel and Andress,LPA, and Bruce Tyson of Wilson Miller, Inc, representing Rock Creek Holdings, LLC, in Petition No PUDZ- 2005 -AR- 8126, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the subject 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 subject real property located in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from the General Commerical (C4) and Residential Multi - Family (RMF -6) zoning districts to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district to allow development of a maximum of 120 multi - family residential dwelling units, to include a maximum of 24 units or 20 percent of fire total dwelling emits as workforce housing units for a project known as Meridian Village RPUD, in accordance with the Meridian Village RPUD Document attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. The 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. Page I of 2 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 90 of 205 SECTION TWO This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by supermajority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this V_ day of J U A e. . 2006. ATTEST;......,; D.WIGHT£.;$RCiCr CLERK - 'C erk Attar aq f�t� t!r na l t cae s etgRattM':i. on t: Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: MaijM. Student - Stirling Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: FRANK HALAS, CHAIRMAN Page 2 of 2 �Thiss�faiardlrwnce filed with the I S''Tt y o ote's Office g 'and acknowledgeme�ef, that o'f' received th_ i; �E_+-'l{d�a{y, Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 91 of 205 MERIDIAN VILLAGE, A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Approximately 11.68 Acres Section 2 Township 50 South, Range 25 East Collier County, Florida PREPARED FOR: Rock Creek Holdings, LLC 200 American Avenue Glasgow, Kentucky 42141 PREPARED BY: r . Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 92 of 205 MERIDIAN VILLAGE A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Approximately 11.66 Acres Section 2 Township 50 South, Range 25 East Collier County, Florida PREPARED FOR., Rock Creek Holdings, LLC 200 American Avenue Glasgow, Kentucky 42141 PREPARED BY; WilsonMiller, Inc. 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34105 Roetzel & Andress, IPA 850 Park Shore Drive Trianon Centre - Third Floor Naples, FI 34103 DATE FILED 7/25/05 DATE APPROVED BY CCPC 5/18/06 DATE APPROVED BY BCC 6/6106 ORDINANCE NUMBER 2oo6 -2e Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 93 of 205 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND SHORT TITLE SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1 -1 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2 -1 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 3-1 SECTION IV PRESERVE DISTRICT 4 -1 SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 5 -1 EXHIBIT A MERIDIAN VILLAGE MASTER PLAN (WilsonMiller File No. N0228- 005 -004) EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION 2 Agenda Item N. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 94 f 205 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The purpose of this Section is to express the intent of Rock Creek Holdings, LLC; its successors and assigns (the Developer), to create a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) on 11.68* acres of land located in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The name of this Planned Unit Development shall be Meridian Village. The development of Meridian Village will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The development will be consistent with the growth policies and land development regulations adopted hereunder of the GMP Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and other applicable regulations for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is within the Urban Mixed -Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, and is located within the Traffic Congestion Boundary and the Coastal High Hazard Area, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The purpose of the Urban Residential Subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned facilities are concentrated. 2. The requested density of 10.27 dwelling units per gross acre is consistent with the GMP through FLUE Policy 5.1 and the Density Rating System. The subject project is comprised of properties zoned RMF-6 (Residential Multi- family, 6 dwelling units /acre) and C4 (General Commercial). This existing zoning is deemed consistent with the GMP and the properties are designated on the FLUM series as Properties Consistent by Policy. FLUE Policy 5.1 permits the rezoning of properties deemed Consistent by Policy at the density permitted by the underlying zoning district: therefore the RMF -6 zoning may be rezoned for 6 units /acre. The Density Rating System allows the conversion of commercial zoning to residential at a rate of up to 16 dwelling units for each acre of commercial zoning converted, and allows the units to be distributed throughout the project; therefore, the C-4 zoning may be rezoned to residential at up to 16 units /acre. RMF-6: 6 units x 6.70 acres = 40.20 units per acre C4 rezoned to Residential 16 units x 4.98 acres = +79.68 units per acre Total allowable units on 11.68 acres 119.88 or 120 total units. Total allowable units / total acres = 120/11.68 = 10.27 dwelling units per acre. 3. The subject propertys location in relation to existing or proposed community facilities and services, permits the development's residential density as required in Objective 2 of the Future Land Use Element. 4. The project development is compatible and complementary to existing and future surrounding land uses as required in Policy 5.4 of the Future Land Use Element. 5. All final local development orders for this project are subject to Chapter 6, Infrastructure Improvements and Adequate Public Facilities Requirements, of the LDC, as amended. 11YIOE IANO Ve�U)Biy✓x. xNNM].O'A V WIO:. MI9 Agenda Item N D. 17D July 2-1, 2010 Page 95 of 205 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "MERIDIAN VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE.- 1 -1 SECTION I - -- LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE .....,. _._.. .. __,._.. . Agenda Item N 17D July 27 2010 Page 96 1 f 205 The purpose of this Section is to set forth the legal description and ownership of the Meridian Village RPUD, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The legal description of the Meridian Village RPUD property is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit "B " 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is currently under the ownership of Rock Creek Holdings, LLC, whose address is 200 American Avenue, PO Box 1598, Glasgow, Kentucky, 42141. 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A The project site is located in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, and is generally bordered on the north by Rock Creek, on the east by the Airport- Pulling Road, on the south by Ectey Avenue and to the west by Residentially zoned land (RMF -6). B. The zoning classification of the subject property at the time of RPUD application was C14 (Commercial) and RMF — 6 (Residential). C. Elevations within the site are approximately 3.5 — 4.5 feet -NGVD and a minimum elevation of approximately 3.1 feet NGVD. The site is located in Zone AE 7 for a small portion of the property adjacent to Airport Road and AE -8 for the balance of the property as shown on the Collier County Zoning Atlas, Map Number 0502S. D. There are no known previous uses and the site is open. Most of the exotics have been cleared from the property and it is mowed to minimize exotic infestation. E. The soil types on the site generally include Urban Land, Immokalee, Oldsmar, Limestone Substratum, Complex and Durbin and W uffert Mucks. F. Prior to development, vegetation on site primarily consists of pine upland, exotic species, and mangrove wetland. G. The project site is located within the Rock Creek sub - basin, as depicted within the Collier County Drainage Atlas (May, 1996). Agenda Item N). 17D July 27, 2010 Page 97 of 205 1 -2 1.5 DENSITY r Meridian Village is to be developed on 11.66± acres In western Collier County. The number of dwelling units proposed to be constructed is 120 units. The gross project density, therefore, will be a maximum of 10.27 units per acre. Agenda Item NJ. 17D July 27 2010 Page 98 if 205 2 -1 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to generally describe the plan of development for the Meridian Village RPUD, and to identify relationships to applicable County ordinances, policies, and procedures. 2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES A. Meridian Village, a master planned community, will include a range of multi-family housing and related amenities, which will provide services and facilities that support its residents, including, but not limited to club facilities, community meeting rooms, and a recreation center. B. The Master Plan is illustrated graphically on Exhibit "A" (WilsonMiller, Inc., File No. N022 8-005004). A Land Use Summary indicating approximate land use acreages is shown on the plan. 2.3 COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY ORDINANCES A. Regulations for development of the Meridian Village RPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this RPUD Ordinance, and to the extent they are not inconsistent with this RPUD Ordinance, applicable sections of the Land Development Code (UDC) and the Collier County GMP which are in effect at the time of Issuance of any development order, to which said regulations relate which authorizes the construction of improvements, such as but not limited to, final site development plan, excavation permit and preliminary work authorization. Where this RPUD Ordinance does not provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the speck sections of the LDC, that are otherwise applicable, shall apply. B. Unless otherwise defined herein, or as necessarily implied by context, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the LDC in effect at the time of development order application. C. Development permitted by the approval of this PUD will be subject to Adequate Public Facilities sections of the Collier County LDC. D. Unless a deviation from the LDC is approved as part of this RPUD, the provisions of other applicable sections of the LDC remain in effect with respect to the development of the land which comprises this RPUD. E. All conditions imposed herein are part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the land may be developed. R The Site Development Plans sections, of the LDC shall apply to the Meridian Village RPUD. Aaenda Item N 17D July 27 2010 Page 99 f 205 2 -2 r 24 ROADWAYS Roadways within the Meridian Village RPUD may be privately owned and maintained. Standards for platted roads shall be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the LDC regulating subdivisions, unless otherwise modified, waived or excepted by this RPUD or approved during preliminary subdivision approval. The developer reserves the right to request substitutions to Code design standards in accordance with the LDC. The developer retains the right to establish gates, guardhouses, and other access controls as may be deemed appropriate by the developer on all intemal and privately owned and maintained project roadways: These gates, guardhouses or other access controls will be subject to compliance with the applicable LDC regulations. 2.5 GENERAL PERMITTED USES Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses throughout the Meridian Village RPUD except in the Preserve Areas. General permitted uses are those uses which generally serve the residents of the Meridian Village RPUD and are typically part of the common infrastructure or are considered community facifities. A. General Permitted Uses: 1. Essential services as set forth under the Essential Services section of the LDC, including sewage lift station, water lines, sewer lines, gas lines, telephone lines, cable lines, electrical distribution lines and appurtances. 2. Water management facilities and related structures. 3. Lakes, including lakes with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. 4. Guardhouses, gatehouses, and access control structures. 5. Community and neighborhood parks, trails and recreational facilities and buildings. 6. Benches, gazebos, fountains, plazas and open space uses. T. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the developer and authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses. 8. Landscape/hardscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms, fences, water features and walls subject to the standards set forth in the LDC. The landscape buffer on the west property line and the south property line that extends east and west of Sleeves Avenue shall contain trees with a minimum height of 12 feet spaced no more than 25 feet on center. Existing trees that can be saved within the buffer shall remain if practicable and be courted as buffer trees as allowed in the LDC. Hedges in the enhanced buffer shall be a minimum of ten gallon plants five feet in Agenda Item N . 17D July 27 2010 Page 100 Of 205 2 -3 height, three feet in spread and spaced a maximum four feet on center at ._. planting. 9. _ Fill storage, site filling and grading are subject to the standards set forth --- -' "' - -- Section 2.9 of this RPUD, except within Preserve Areas. B. Development Standards: Unless otherwise set forth in this Document, or as noted in Table 1, the following development standards shall apply to principal structures: 1. Setback from back of curb or edge of pavement of any road — twelve (12) feet except for guardhouses, gatehouses, signage, walls, access control structures and landscape features, which shalt meet LDC requirements. 2. Minimum floor area - None required. 3. Minimum lot or parcel area - None required. 4. Sidewalks and bikepaths may occur within County required buffers, however, the width of the required buffer shall be increased proportionately to the width of the paved surface of the sidewalk, bikepath or cartpath. 5. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses, where such standards are not specified herein are to be in accordance with the LDC provisions in effect at the time this RPUD is approved 2.6 OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS The Collier County LDC requires that residential projects maintain open space at a minimum of 60% of the project areas. The RPUD Master Plan identifies preserves, lakes, and buffers as open spaces. These areas, in conjunction with open space areas included within the Residential District, will satisfy the 60% open space requirement of the LDC for residential developments. 2.7 NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION Pursuant to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP, and the LDC, a minimum of 25% of the viable naturally functioning native vegetation on site shall be retained. Based on the existing 8.74 + /- acres of native vegetation, a minimum of 2.19+/ - acres of native vegetation shall be retained or supplemented on -site, where shown on the PUD Master Plan (Exhibit A). 2.8 RECREATION FACILITIES The developer will provide a Consumer Product Safety Commission and American Society for Testing and Materials certified commercial grade equipment and playground area recommended for children between the ages of 2 and 12 prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy. This facility will be available for residents and guests of the project. 5!WItlM -\6I2W Y¢r61�01pv. ,✓II66)OAuv KK.5T10 Agenda Item N . 17D July 272010 Page 101 of 205 3-1 SECTION III RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within the Meridian Village RPUD designated on the Master Plan as "R." 32 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS The maximum number of residential dwelling units permitted within the "R" District is 120 and represents a gross project density of 10.27 dwelling units per acre. 3.3 GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Residential District Is designed to accommodate a full range of residential multi- family dwelling types, compatible recreational facilities, essential services, and customary accessory uses. _ The approximate acreage of the "R" Distract is indicated on the PUD Master Plan. This acreage is based on conceptual designs and is approximate. Actual acreages will be provided at the time of site development plan approvals in accordance with the LDC. Residential tracts are designed to accommodate internal roadways, open spaces, recreational facilities and other similar uses found in residential areas. 3.4 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1. Townhouse dwellings 2. loulti- family dwellings B. Temporary Uses: 1. Model units 2. Project information and Sales centers C. Accessory Uses and Structures: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted in this District, including neighborhood community recreational facilities, 2. Tennis courts and other recreational facilities and buildings. 10 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 102 of 205 3-2 3.. Swimming pools. - 4. Public (non- commerciaq administration facilities intended to serve the - residents and guests of the proposed development- -- - 5. Garages and carports. 6. Common non - commercial buildings used for property management and maintenance and intended to serve the residents and guests of the proposed development 3.5 DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS A. Table I sets forth the development standards for land uses within the W District B. Standards for parting, landscaping, signs and other land uses, where such standards are not specified herein are to be in accordance with the LDC in effect at the time of site development plan approval. C. Development standards for uses not specifically set forth in Table I shall be established during the site development plan approval process as set forth in the LDC and shall be in accordance with those standards of the zoning district which is most similar to the proposed use. 1t v`+�sam.oxi vnnwsane Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 103 of 205 3 -3. TABLE MERIDIAN VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR "R" RESIDENTIAL AREAS BH: (euil0in9 Mvipny: Zonal nei9M. a¢aM »9 b uhe LpC. a Bit (sum or BUildnp MmphSk Gmndrhetl luiphl P!MV atljxeM buJeinps tar We PUryose of eelennininp Delbeck rcpuuemerns, M dstarxzs are in ten uNen oUreMSC roled Setback fmm a lake M ai''. lnr ,w and ..w usas may b tam fpb( (0') pv+afab et M.2h21 bank bP ,W Is in'.9ryaaletl irao Ina tlesipn. AmhIh Ural yank aeabnenm shall 1n .d. any--p l—a is Used b retain aaM such as cdvcU,. alm Dr hhooe plaxtl b LDC m i,A eraa. FmM MMe sta11 bm9asuRd es!glow:: a. F i he 1v M Servetl by a wuic n9hrof -xeY rig is moasuree FOm N adl IN riur d) Yllro. SleeMal4's eha� be baleC In tlla M19Mbfr2Y. B, Y. No parvA'u- at tat a pave@ roa1, zDtivrf, l5 measUraE Inn tlro back DI drb (M WrOetl) M aopD D(pavemerA QI rKK MbeEf, •1 - Seib ry tmrn lake b al! � uso' may be D feel Pmvielno emJ.Mecnual bank lmamanl n Irvnroraletl into eaaipn amt subject b v Ian apo .a hum Erglneerinp $ is. 2- Wr!4amlly use 0u9lrv.a mullNamry unit ez d fire inC ra, CDUmy LU, 9 - Ganges end oq Shell be 101aU bbm pendpal swnmes M di,L he . 7 1m2 mi be n minimum d a 221 seta fmm bhe Lary Dra 4Cer21k to ji rj Ira, pm, -4 - RDatlways. Pam, Areas ara, PavM 51eeualks shah be It I ,m Preserve. 12 TOWNHOUSE MULTIFAMILY Accessory DWELLINGS' Uses Minimum Lot Area 3,000 SF I NA NA Minimum Lot Width 30' NA NA Minimum Front Yard Setback (Principal and Accessory) 20' 20' 20' 2 Minimum Rear Yard Setback Principal 10' ,5 BH NA Minimum Rearm, Setback (Accessory) 10 10 10 Minimum Side Yard Setback 0 or .5 BH .5 SBH 10' Minimum Setback from West 50' 50' 50' Boundary and South Boundary East and West of Steeves Ave. only Minimum Building Setback 25' 25' 25' from Ai ort- Pulling Road Maximum Height 3 stories for a 3 stories for a 25' maximum of 45 maximum of 45 feet eel Floor Area Minimum SF 1200 SF 1000 SF NA Minimum Distance Between Structures ,5 SBH .5 SBH 10' Separation Distance Between 25' 25' 25' Preserve and Structures /Uses BH: (euil0in9 Mvipny: Zonal nei9M. a¢aM »9 b uhe LpC. a Bit (sum or BUildnp MmphSk Gmndrhetl luiphl P!MV atljxeM buJeinps tar We PUryose of eelennininp Delbeck rcpuuemerns, M dstarxzs are in ten uNen oUreMSC roled Setback fmm a lake M ai''. lnr ,w and ..w usas may b tam fpb( (0') pv+afab et M.2h21 bank bP ,W Is in'.9ryaaletl irao Ina tlesipn. AmhIh Ural yank aeabnenm shall 1n .d. any--p l—a is Used b retain aaM such as cdvcU,. alm Dr hhooe plaxtl b LDC m i,A eraa. FmM MMe sta11 bm9asuRd es!glow:: a. F i he 1v M Servetl by a wuic n9hrof -xeY rig is moasuree FOm N adl IN riur d) Yllro. SleeMal4's eha� be baleC In tlla M19Mbfr2Y. B, Y. No parvA'u- at tat a pave@ roa1, zDtivrf, l5 measUraE Inn tlro back DI drb (M WrOetl) M aopD D(pavemerA QI rKK MbeEf, •1 - Seib ry tmrn lake b al! � uso' may be D feel Pmvielno emJ.Mecnual bank lmamanl n Irvnroraletl into eaaipn amt subject b v Ian apo .a hum Erglneerinp $ is. 2- Wr!4amlly use 0u9lrv.a mullNamry unit ez d fire inC ra, CDUmy LU, 9 - Ganges end oq Shell be 101aU bbm pendpal swnmes M di,L he . 7 1m2 mi be n minimum d a 221 seta fmm bhe Lary Dra 4Cer21k to ji rj Ira, pm, -4 - RDatlways. Pam, Areas ara, PavM 51eeualks shah be It I ,m Preserve. 12 4.1 PURPOSE 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page. 104 of 205 4 -1 SECTION IV PRESERVE DISTRICT The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within Meridian Village RPUD designated on the Master Plan, as "P.' GENERAL DESCRIPTION Areas designated as Preservation Area on the Master Plan are designed to accommodate conservation, passive recreation, and water management uses and functions. PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A- Permitted Principal Uses and Structures 1. Boardwalks, nature trails (elevated and at grade as long as any clearing required to facilitate these uses does not impact the minimum required native vegetation), and gazebos. - 2. Water management structures. 3. Any other conservation and related open space activity w use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, and which the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) determines to be compatible in the Preservation Area. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Building setback for principal structures — Twenty -five feet (25'). B. Building setback for roads and parking areas — Ten feet (10'). LANDSCAPE BUFFERS Where Preserve areas are shown on the Master Plan and the LDC requires landscape buffers, the preserve vegetation may contribute in part or in whole to the landscape buffer when it is demonstrated that the preserve vegetation meets or exceeds the buffer requirements of the LDC. Landscape buffers must remain exotic free while demonstrating sufficiency to achieve minimum buffer standards. 13 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27. 2010 Page 105 of 205 4 -2 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 106 of 205 51 SECTION V GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS -- ... 5.7 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the general development commitments within the Meridian Village RPUD. 5.2 PUD MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN All facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the final site development plans and all applicable state and local laws, codes and regulations in effect at the time of approval of the development order to which such regulations apply except where specifically noted. In addition, the Master Plan and the regulations of the RPUD Document, as adopted, along with any other specific conditions or stipulations as may be agreed to in the rezone hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall control and be applicable to development of the subject property. The developer shall be bound by said regulations and stipulations 5.3 MONITORING REPORT An annual monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to the LDC. 5.4 AFFORDABLE- WORKFORCE -GAP HOUSING COMMITMENT AND RESTRICTIONS: Fifteen (15 %) percent of the dwelling units ultimately developed within the project, shall be sold by the developer to individuals, or families that earn less than eighty (60 %) percent of the Collier County median family income. For the purposes of this RPUD, these specific units shall be described as "affordable- workforce housing units ". Five (5 %) percent of the dwelling units ultimately developed within the project, shall be sold by the developer to individuals or families that earn less than one - hundred fifty (150 %) percent of the Collier County median family income. For the purposes of this RPUD, these specific units shall be described as "affordable -gap housing units ". The median income of the area as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) shall be the then current median income for the Naples Metropolitan Statistical Area, established periodically by HUD and published in the Federal Register, as adjusted for family size, in accordance with any adjustments that are authorized by HUD or any successor agency. In the event that HUD ceases to publish an established median income as aforesaid, the developer and the County shall mutually agree to a reasonable and comparable method of computing adjustments in median income. - 15 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 107 of 205 5 -2 The following limitations and performance standards shall be adhered to: 1. No affordable- workforce housing unit in the development shall be sold by the developer to those whose household income has not been verified and certified to be less than eighty (80 %) percent of the median family income for Collier County. Such verification and certification shall be the responsibility of the developer and shall be submitted to the County Manager, or his designee for approval. 2. No affordable -gap housing unit in the development shall be sold by the developer to those whose household income has not been verified and certified to be less than one - hundred fifty (150 %) percent of the median family income for Collier County. Such verification and certification shall be the responsibility of the developer and shall be submitted to the County Manager, or his designee for approval 3. No affordable- workforce housing unit or affordable -gap housing unit is to be sold, shall be sold, or otherwise conveyed to a buyer whose household income has not been verged and certified in accordance with this RPUD Document. It is the intent of this RPUD to keep affordable housing as such; therefore, any person who buys from the developer an affordable - workforce housing unit or an affordable -gap housing unit must agree, in a lien instrument to be recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, Florida, that if the affordable. workforce or affordable -gap housing unit is sold, (including the land and /or the unit) within 15 years after its original purchase at a sales price in excess of five percent per year of its original purchase price that he /she will pay to the County an amount equal to one -half of the sales price in excess of five percent increase per year. Such payment shall be maintained in a segregated fund, established by the County solely for affordable housing purposes and such money shall be used to encourage, provide for, or promote affordable housing in Collier County. The lien instrument may be subordinated to a qualifying first mortgage. 4. No affordable- workforce housing unit or affordable -gap housing unit in any building or structure in the development shall be occupied by the developer, any person related to or affiliated with the developer, or a resident manager. 5. When the developer advertises, sells, or maintains the affordable- workforce housing unit or the affordable -gap housing unit, it must advertise, sell, and maintain the same in a nondiscriminatory manner and make available any relevant information to any person who is interested in purchasing such affordable- workforce housing unit or affordable -gap housing unit. The developer agrees to be responsible for payment of any real estate commissions and fees for the initial sale from the developer to the buyer. S. The developer shaft submit a yearly report to the County indicating the status of the affordable- workforce and affordable -gap housing units. 16 w> xunoanom I. xr,< Agenda liem No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 108 of 205 5-3 7. This Affordable- Workforce -Gap Housing commitment will allow Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services Division permitting to be completed on an expedited basis as provided by the appropriate Collier County ordinances and resolutions. 5.5 TRANSPORTATION A. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy the developer shall construct an additional eastbound left turn lane on Estey Avenue at its Intersection with Airport Road. The length of the turn lane is to be determined by Collier County Transportation Staff up to a maximum distance that can be accommodated along the developer's frontage. The length will further be determined given consideration to the project's access location and normal transportation engineering practices. B. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy the developer shall construct a turnaround within the existing Steeves Avenue Right -of -Way, as depicted in the RPUD Master Plan. A 12 -foot wide gate with a lock box, for use by emergency vehicles only, shall be constructed along the Meridian Village property line to separate Steeves Avenue from Meridian Village. C. The developer shall be allowed to use the existing curb cut on Airport Road during the construction of Meridian Village RPUD. Once construction of the development is completed, the developer shall close the existing curb cut D. All traffic control devices, signs, pavement markings and design criteria shall be in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design Standards, current edition, and the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), current edition. All other improvements shall be consistent with and as required by the LDC. E. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at at access points. Access lighting shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy (CO). F. Access points, including both driveways and proposed streets, shown on the RPUD Master Plan are considered to be conceptual. Nothing depicted on any such Master Plan shall vest any right of access at any specific point along any property frontage. All such access points shall be approved or denied during the review of required site plan or final plat submissions. All such access points shall be consistent with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Res. No. 01 -247), as it may be amended from time to time, and with the Collier County Long -Range Transportation Plan. The number of access points constructed may be less than the number depicted on the Master Plan; however, no additional access points shall be considered unless a RPUD amendment is to be processed. 17 ,`uorisomamvwarc. »ne Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 109 of 205 5-4 G. Site - related improvements (as opposed to system - related improvements) necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier County Transportation Staff, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits, All required improvements shall be in place and available to the public prior to the issuance of the first CO. H. Road impact fees shall be paid in accordance with the transportation impact fee ordinance and appropriate sections of the LDC. I. All work within Collier County rights -of -way or public easements shall require a right -of -way permit J. All proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution No. 01 -247), as It may be amended, and the LDC, as it may be amended. Collier County reserves the right to modify or close any median opening existing at the time of approval of this RPUD which is found to be adverse to the health, safety and welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but are not limited to, safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity. K. Nothing in any development order shall vest a right of access in excess of a right inlright out condition at any access point Neither shall the existence of a point of ingress, a point of egress or a median opening, nor the lack thereof, be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by the developer, its successor in title, or assignee. L. All internal roads, driveway, alleys, pathways, sidewalks and interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer. Collier County shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. 5.6 WATER MANAGEMENT A South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Environmental Resource Permit shall be required and obtained. 5.7 ENVIRONMENTAL A. The development of this project shall be consistent with the environmental section of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP and the LDC in effect at the time of final development order approval. B. Areas that fulfill the native vegetation retention standards and criteria of the GMP shall be set aside as preserve areas. If an SDP is submitted, the preserve areas shall be identified and protected by a permanent conservation easement. Perimeter berms shall be relocated outside of upland preserve boundaries. 18 xoaam+.aw um,n. znn Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 110 of 205 5-5 C. All Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, shall be removed from within preserve areas and subsequent annual - - removal of these plants in perpetuity shall be the responsibility of the home owners' association or condominium association. D. A preserve area management plan shall be provided to Environmental Staff for approval prior to site /construction plan approval identifying methods to address treatment of invasive exotic species, and maintenance. F. The development of this project shall comply with the guidelines of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission for impacts to protected species. A habitat management plan for those species shall be submitted to Environmental Review Staff for review and approval prior to site plan approval. G. All approved agency (SFWMD, ACOE, FFWCC) permits shall be submitted prior to final site plan /construction plan approval. 5.8 UTILITIES A. Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission systems shall be constructed throughout the project by the developer. Potable water and sanitary sewer facilities constructed within platted rights -of -way or within dedicated County utility easements shall be conveyed to Collier County or the City of Naples or both, pursuant to applicable County ordinances and /or the City ordinances as may be amended, except as may be provided in Subsection 2.3 of this Document. B. Upon completion of the utility facilities, they shall be tested to insure they meet FDEP, City of Naples and Collier County's utility requirements in effect at the time construction plans are approved. C. All customers connecting to the potable water system shall be customers of the City of Naples and sanitary sewer system users shall be customers of Collier County. 5.9 ENGINEERING A. Except as noted herein, all project development will be consistent with applicable engineering requirements of the LDC. 5.10 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS In September 2005 a Phase 1 archaeological assessment was conducted on the Meridian Village PUD parcel. The entire parcel was investigated based on aerial photograph reconnaissance and a subsequent pedestrian survey. No archaeological or historic sites were found. ,9 NOYp.otlNf vxgW 10i�0 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 111 of 205 5 -6 5.11 PROXIMITY OF PROPERTY TO NAPLES AIRPORT A. The developer shall provide the following to the Naples Airport Authority: 1. An executed Avigation Easement and Release (first five pages), once the RPUD has been approved by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. A statement within the Project's Condominium Documents, that states the following: "The Naples Municipal Airport is located less than one mile to the Northwest of the Condominium, in close proximity to the community. Purchasers can expect all the usual and common noises and disturbances created by, and incident to, the operation of the Airport". Purchasers shall acknowledge they have read the Condominium Documents by signing a letter, which the developer shall send to the Naples Airport Authority. The Homeowner's Association shall not have the right to remove this clause at any time from their documents. 1 Future SDP applications shall be forwarded to the Naples Airport Authority for review, B. No residential structures shall be placed inside the Proposed New Surface Approach Zone, as labeled on the RPUD Master Plan. 5.12 ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS Architecturally, it shall be the intent of the project to present appealing facades, particularly to the abutting residences to the west Facades shall be designed to reduce the mass /scale and uniform appearance of large walls. Facades shall provide, through the use of detail and scale, visual interest that is consistent with the community's identity and character. At the time of SDP approval detailed architectural plans demonstrating these commitments shall be provided. 2.0 c..o F'genda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 112 of 205 co L a 9g2yq € g a\ - S`s9 i�i c JIIp DOD �I0 8 lO ° ,U I} °°111= I \ 3EEW JE Exhibit A PROJECT: MERIDIAN VILLAGE PUD CLIENT: ROCK CREEK HOLDINGS, LLC ils in, '"°'O`'`- `"'°' °' "vh'"14 PUD MASTER PLAN stun Y =200' 4 19 O6 L fte. 2 TM SOS xe c^5n Plenien . Gvzm . Ee4g' e p - Bi^*Ya'e • Pe WdxYYav . i/vWe'1et� GasxlerL {�BOnMI�Y, I,'IC.. ma�cN� 28 -00] -000- xoao -oos Z.I un LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR MERIDIAN VILLAGE DESCRIPTION Agenda Item No, 17D July 27, 2010 Page 113 of 205 COMMENCING AT THE EAST 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; - THENCE SOUTH 89° 3810"WEST 13.00 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF AIRPORT ROAD; THENCE SOUTH OD' 31'26 "EAST 1312.46 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF ESTEY AVENUE AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89" 3700'WEST 340.07 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF ESTEY AVENUE; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT AS RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 764, PAGE 757, THE FOLLOWING NINE (9) COURSES AND DISTANCES; 1) NORTH 01° 09'40'WEST 129.40 FEET; 2) NORTH BB° 50'20 "EAST 40.00 FEET; 3) NORTH 01° 9'40-WEST 50.76 FEET; 4) SOUTH BB' 50'20-WEST 135.00 FEET; 5) NORTH 01° 09'40'WEST 50.76 FEET; 6) NORTH 88° 5020 "EAST 135.DD FEET; 7) NORTH 01' 09'40'WEST 203.04 FEET; 8) NORTH 88° 50'20 "EAST 344.12 FEET; 9) NORTH 00° 43.37 -WEST 372.75 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE MEAN HIGH WATER ELEVATION 1.61 (NGVD29): THENCE GENERALY MEANDERING NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID LINE, 940 FEET MORE OR LESS; THENCE SOUTH 42° 06'50 "EAST 46.56 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF AIRPORT- PULLING ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 00° 31'26 "EAST 1147.75 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD CONTAINING 11.68 ACRES MORE OR LESS Exhibit B ,,. STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) Agenda ±em No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 114 of 205 I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of: ORDINANCE 2006 -28 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 6th day of June, 2006, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 12th day of June, 2006. DWIGHT E. BROCK Clerk of Courts',sand Clerk Ex- officio tv!Fioa;d'•of County commiss`iuners,. C B Heidi R. Rockhold, Deputy Clerk 5: z:zaPU: u o s s1 e o ;>ao E.a Ag-n'e,9 ILem I Oec 11 03 03 :51p CB Richard Ellis 23965Bn022 p.2 ,IGIy 11 U 15 1 1 U U 17 5 i} Page 11 0 % g 12 6 h st I!R 12 r11 r': 3a OR BOOK PAGE GOLI.Er, c nt rY RECORDED RESOLUTIDN 140. 9O- 116 RESOLUTION TO VACATE, RENOUNCE mn DISCLAIM THE RIGHTS OP THE COUNTY AND PUBLIC TO FEC�j CERTAIN ROAD RIGHTS -OP -WAY INTEREST IN A pHr•A-- =-'``o PORTION OF THE ROCK CREEK TERRACE PLAT AND DOG - -- TO VACATE CERTAIN LOTS WITHIN THE ROCK NT CREER TERRACE PLAT AS RECORDED IN PLAT ND� BOOK 1, PACE 40 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 177.101, 336.09 and 336.10, Florida Statutes, the Transportation Services Division has received a petition from W'.lsen, Miller, Barton, Sell 6 Peek, ns agent for ths, proper ty owners, Neapolitan enterprises co. and Caribbean Gardena _o., requesting 'that the Board vacate, renounce and disclaims 'Z-ba rights of the County and '`h =_ P�xblis is House Avenue, Cla_Y__ Straet, Burnhaa) 5ou?eeard I -ID9 South of Rock Creek and Stczvas 3rvsnue, less right- of -wzay ahcutting 7,ots 19 through 26, inclusive, 310ak C and South I/2 of 1,Dt 6, 7,ots 7 'Lhzough 14, inclusive, Blccic D of noc:c creek -a vacs slat ss recorded in Plat Hook 7., Page 410 of the ?ublic Records of Collier County, Florida, and to vacate Lots 1 through 6, inciusive, 31eck A; Lts 2 through 13, inclusive, Ha-ck 3; TVts 1 through 16, inclusive, and I,ut 22 and Lots Z7 through 33, inclusivS, Slock C7 hots 1 through 5, inclusive and ti:e A70rt11 1/2 of lot- C, Block D; and Lots 1 throuch 6, inclusive, Block E of Rock .-rcak Terrace as recorded in Flat Hook 1, page 40 o-." v,spa public Records 02 Collier Coun'cy, Florida; and _ WHEREAS, the ;sti'cionars o; -m the fee simple title to the above - described lr,nds; and W gHEREPS, the noard has This clay held a publio hearing to \' consider such notion to vacate, _rencuncs and disclaim the certain ., road rights -of -way as set forth above and to vacate certain lots '1 as set forth above ili'chin Rock Czee]c Terrace plat, and notice of said public hearing to vacate, -enonnca and disclaim the read rights -of -way interest and the vacation of those certain Sots was giver. as raguired by law; and WHEREAS, the tract to be vacated is not within the corporate 1 1 r HAR 2 1 1990 4o. 17D 7. 2010 of 205 i -9 03 Y:26i'M i+ B i S,ard 1439 Oc9 J9O9 D2o 13 O3 03 51P CH Richartl Ellis 23SE595028 (10151 _ Or BOO Agpndp It M 1 p.3 JUy Page 11 110 (755 PAGE limits of any incozporated city or town; and WHEREAS, the plat vacation will not affect the ownership or rights of convenient access of other property owners including persons owning other parts of the subdivision and not being vacated herein. NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD Or COUNTY COMIS5IONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that in accordance with Sections 336.09 and 336,10, Florida Statutes, the Board vacates, renounces and disclaims any rights of the county and the public in and to Hours Avanue, clorlca Street, Burnham Sonlevard lying South of Rock Croak ate& a-eavms Avanue, less r,ght-oi -way abutting Lots 19 'through 26, inclusive, Block C and South 1/2 of Lot 6, sots 7 through 14, inclusiva, Block D o£ Rock Creek Terrace plat as Sacordad in Plat 9eok 1, gaga 40 of the Public R= -orcls of Collier County, Florida. BE 1T FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with Section 177.101, Florida Statutes, the following described property is hereby vacated: Lots 1 through 6, inclusive, Block A; Lots 1 through la, inclusive, Block B; Lots 2 through 18, inCIU,SiV'e, and Lot 22 and Lots 27 through 33, inclusive, Block C; hobs 1 through 5,' inclusive and the worth 1/2 of Lot 6, Block D; and Lots 1 through 6, inclusive, Block E; and Terrace Island, all heSng located in Rock Creek Terrace, a subdivision, according to the Plat thereof, as retarded in Plat Hook 1, Page 40 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this vacation of the above described property is approved subject to the following stipulations that: 1) The real estate which comprises Lot 22, Block C, ( "Lot 22C ") or Rouk Creek Terrace, a subdivision, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 1, at page 4o, of the Public Records of Collier county, Florida, (10Rook Creek Terrace ^) shall be used only for residential purposes, and if a structure is developed on Lot 22 C it shall be a one unit residential structure. 2. In order to preserve Steeves Avenue as a dead end 2 Jo. 17D 7, 2010 of 205 -t� 01: 2:20P1Ai Wls DESIGN S and :BBB Rag <90H Oec 11 03 03: Sip CH P.i shard Ell's 2896554028 00151 oil BQOK ,�_Je<va�!tem No. 17D p s Jul' 27, 2010 Page 117 of 205 PAGE street, Neapolitan Enterprises Co., its successors or assigns, will construct a county approved tt around at the termination b8 the imnroved street at or near the existing northern terminus Of Steevee Avenua generally located between �rt 27, Block C, and Lot 6, Block Dr Rock Creek Terrace, at ` er prior to the commencement of development of a multi - family residential project on the property locetad adjacent to and west of the commercially zoned property along Airport. Road and Es`cey avenus (the 0nult1- Family Project „) and at or prior to cosmencam =_rt of davclornant -o2 'ne commercially zoned. prop” =_r !DL 22 C shall nevsr .O? uead tO access any Portion Of 'Cho prop,riy. n. A , -rmet d'ascrib n as clar;ce g t__-zc on `cha plat of Rock czeek '2arrac ;ai.11 be vacat-,cl and, t8ierefore, unavailable as a short cu'c ror vehicular access from Airport Road to Estey avenue 'through Steeves Avenue. S. The seal estate located on the multi - family project Will not as rezoned 'ce comaareial or indu =trial, or any other r.on- residential uses. 6. Those stipulations --ball run !>ith the land. 7. 2-his vacation approval is his,, a development order that will entitle the ciiner of the propea-ty to an exerDtion under be proposed zaning ;aevaluation ordinance. RE ?T BVRTBEP. R SOlid.BU, That the clerk is hereby directed to publish, 05v lima, notices o_ he adeptim) of this Resolution within 30 days of the date or this P. =_soauti.on, in a newspaper of general circulmtftcn piblishi d is the county. EE IT FURTHER RESOLVLE), that the proof of pub 11- cat4 on of notice of the public, bearing, i_h=_ proo_ oP publication of the notice OF the adoption of ahjs Resolution and a cartified copy of this Resolution shall be :recorded by the clerk in the official Peeordc of Collier Ceuarty, Flcrida, and the Cl,,), to Hale, the proper notations of this vacation on said plat. 3 Agenda kem No. 17D D11 11 03 03:51P CB Richard Ellis July ?7, 2010 Page 1'8 of 205 0a 1 5 1 D 0 1 7 5 7 OR BOOK PAGE .Thip Res6lution adopted after notion, aecond and majority vote DATEDs Februuy 27. 1990 U EST, BOARD or COUNTY C014MISSiONER3 C.- eGZLBS, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA BY - MAX A. HASSE, 'TR.' Cy Man Al�pr �Imd and legal David C. S9ei'gel As, Sistant County Attcxney .1 - 4 CIVIL ENGINEERING • PLANNING • ENVIRONMENTAL April 14, 2010 Kay Deselem, A1CP Collier County Development Services 2800 N Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 Meridian Village MPUD (formerly Meridian Village RPUD) 3 "d Submittal Dear Kay, PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 REV:3 MERIDIAN VILLAGE MPUD DATE: 4/16110 DUE: 5114/10 We have provided the following items to assist you in completing your review of our application for the Meridian Village MPUD: 1. Five (5) Copies of the Revised MPUD Document; 2. Three (3) Copies of Revised EIS; 3. Five (5) Copies of the Revised Master Concept Plan (24 x 36); 4. One (1) Copy of the Revised Master Concept Plan (8 % x 11); 5. Five (5) Copies of the Revised Supplemental Deviation Justification Summary; 6. Three (3) Copies of the Multi -use Trip Generation Report; 7. Three (3) Copies of the Revised Meridian Village MPUD Application; 8. Three (3) Copies of the Revised TIS and Memorandum of Changes; and 9. Three (3) Copies of a CD of Documents and Exhibits. In response to your letter received January 8, 2010, we offer the following responses: Environmental Review -- Reviewed By: Summer Araque Clearly identify the location of all preserves and label each as "Preserve" on all plans. (LDC 3.050.07.A. 2) Preserves were agreed upon during review of Meridian Village in 2006. This project does not qualify for a tree count. The illegal clearing was discussed as part of the review of the original PUD — the understory has been cleared and maintained. The proposed LDC language does not apply because the Tmderstory was not legally cleared. The preserve needs to be in the Land Use Surmnary. Response: The applicant has decided to forego the tree count option as originally proposed and has provided a preserve area per the LDC. Please see the revised PUD document, EIS and MCP. 3530 Ksaft Road, Suite 301 • Naples. Florida 34105 • Phone: 239.434.6060 www.DavicfsonEngineering.com Fax: 239.434.6084 Provide calculations on the site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to be retained, the max amount and ratios permitted to be created on -site or mitigated off-site. Exclude vegetation located within utility and drainage easements from the preserve locations (LDC 3.05.07.B -D; 3.05.07.F,• 3.05.07.H.1.d- e). Revise PUD document to reflect Preserve as discussed in meeting and emails. This PUD shall have a Preserve. Response: A preserve area of 2.08 acres has been provided on the MCP and defined in the revised PUD document (page 14 of 16) and EIS per discussions and correspondence with Environmental review staff. Please see the revised PUD document, EIS and MCP. 3. Retained preservation areas shall be selected based on the criteria defined in LDC 3.05.07.A.3, include all 3 strata, be in the largest contiguous area possible and shall be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off-site preservation areas or wildlife corridors. (LDC 3.050.07.A.1 -4) Preserves were agreed upon during review of Meridian Village in 2006. The wetland area is the first priority and the buffer next to the wetland would be second. Response: The revised EIS has provided a native preserve area inclusive of the existing jurisdictional wetland area and generally consistent with the previous approved preserve location. Please see the revised EIS. 4. Provide a complete and sufficient EIS (and the review fee) identifying author credentials, consistency determination with the GMPs, off-site preserves, seasonal and historic high water levels, and analysis of water quality. For land previously used for farm fields or golf courses, provide soil sampling /groundwater monitoring reports identifying any site contamination. (LDC 10.02.02) Revise EIS to reflect preserve. PLEASE REMOVE REFERENCE TO TREE COUNT IN EIS TEXT. THE EIS WILL BE REVIEWED FURTHER AFTER THE CHANGES TO THE PRESERVE ARE MADE. Response: The revised EIS has provided a native preserve area inclusive of the existing jurisdictional wetland area. Please see the revised EIS. PUD Document and Master Plan shall state the minimum acreage required to be preserved. (LDC 10.02.13.A.2) Please provide. Further the PUD Document states permitted uses. The 1st submittal permitted uses were approved. However, at the 2nd submittal, another use under Exhibit A, p. 7 was added. The use of "Community and neighborhood parks, trails and recreational facilities and buildings, incidental to a residential development' cannot be approved within the permitted uses for the Preserve. Staff notes that Deviation to 3.05.07. As discussed, this shall be preserve. Please send a pdf to review the deviation prior to submittal. The PUD document also refers to boat ramps on page 2. Staff requests applicant to add that the boat ramp cannot affect minimum acreage of preserve. Response: Item A.2 on page 6 of the PUD document has been removed per staff's suggestion. The PUD document and MCP have been revised to illustrate a preserve area consistent with discussions with environmental review staff. Per discussions and correspondence with environmental staff, relating to uses permitted within the preserve areas, staff in the past has conceded that the minimum acreage calculated for the preserve area must be retained, but that if additional uses inside the preserve as permitted would decrease said acreage, additional preserve area would be provided to meet the minimum area required Therefore, providing additional language for the boat ramp use to guarantee what is already in the LDC would be redundant and has not been provided. Zoning Review -- Reviewed Bv: Kay Deselem 10, 02.13 A.I.d. Identification of all proposed tracts or increments illustrating boundaries It is not clear in the PUD document what uses are to be established on Tracts A and B. The PUD notes that Tract A will be limited to 20,000 square feet of medical office only. With this limitation, what would be the use on Tract A if an ALF, CCRC or ILU is not developed? The PUD document needs to indicate what uses would be located on the Tracts. Response: The commercial component and separate corner outparcel tract have been removed front the application. The remaining proposed principal and accessory uses will be permitted within the revised TractA area. Please see the revised MCP and PUD document. 3 10.02.13 A.2. v. Deviations to sections of the Land Development Code identified - - -- - - -- - The supplemental Deviation and Justification Summary does not provide any quantifiable data to support deviation #1. The justification uses the term "it's assumed tenants would be less likely to drive... "What is this assumption based upon? What will be the distance from the units to the clubhouse? Without detailed plans, it is unlikely that staff can properly evaluate this deviation; therefore, staff support is unlikely. Response: The requested deviation has been removed from the PUD document. Please see the revised PUD document and supplemental deviation summary. 10. 02.13 A.1. e. Proposed and permitted land uses Community Facilities Use A.6. Staff is concerned about the size and scope of this use and therefore, potential impact this use might have upon the neighborhood. The listing appears to envision a use similar to BB Mann or The Philharmonic. Staff research indicates that the BB Mann Center only has 1,850 seats and The Phil has 1,400 -1,500 seats. The Phil occupies 6.5 acres. The 3,000 seat use you propose would be on the 8.18 acre tract. Is it reasonable to assume a use of this size would fit on that tract? Staff has reservations about the appropriateness of this use on this site; support for this use is unlikely. In any case, should you decide to keep the use in the document, please provide SIC codes for the uses proposed. Response: In that the Philharmonic has a 1,500 seat count on 6.5 acres whereas the subject property has close to 12 acres, it is reasonable to suggest that a 3,000 seat facility may be possible for the subject property. Furthermore, the number of seats the facility would hold would be limited by the physical ability to place the use on the site by following the development standards and parking requirements, but more importantly by the number of trips generated from such a use. These trips have been analyzed in comparison to the ALF and residential uses and have been determined to be lesser in impact To avoid confusion and keep the proposed PUD document as simple as possible the applicant prefers to provide permitted uses without the suggested limitations. Sizes and members of proposed uses will be determined at SDP the application of site design criteria as outlined in the Collier County LDC, Code of Ordinances and any other applicable agency requirements at the time of site development approval. Please see the attached Multi -use .Trip Generation Report and revised PUD document 2. Please provide SIC codes for all uses A.1 -10. Response: Missing SIC codes for the referenced uses have been provided The remaining uses that staff has identified (6, 9 and 10) either are self explanatory or do not have codes associated with them per the LDC and are not clearly identifiable per the US Department of Labor OSHA SIC manual. Please see the revised PUD document. 3. Please provide a size limitation for Use A.9-- Museums. Response: Since a museum use encompassing the entire site would produce far fewer trips than what is identified in the TIS, a limitation is not practical, 4. Several uses proposed in the CF portion of the PUD document seem contrary with the narrative statement that proposed an ALF, CCRC or ILF use OR a residential community. For example, how do a Child Care Center (150 students) and a 1,000 seat Church, the Civic & Cultural Facility, Youth Associations, FraternalNeterans lodges or associates and Museum comply with the narrative statement? It seems the scope of the project pursuant to the list of uses exceeds the narrated project. Response: The revised narrative statement states: "The Meridian Village MPUD is planned for up to 120 residential units or a combination of residential units and limited community facility CF uses including but not limited to assisted living facilities (ALF), continuing care retirement communities (CCRC) and independent living units for age 55 plus and senior housing. The uses review staff has identified are community facility uses as defined by Ord 08 -11 and are permitted in the CF zoning district This PUD therefore has included them aspermitted uses. 5. Residential Use List: A. The introduction statement in Exhibit A indicates that this project could be developed with up to 120 residential units or a combination of residential units and limited community facilities. Your 2/9/10 letter, page 4 states that "both uses would not co -exist on the property." The PUD is not in compliance with that statement. Response: The response provided was intended to express that the applicant has decided to forego the "either or scenario" and amend the existing PUD (Ord 06 -28) to include a mix or uses as proposed with this application. The resultant PUD document was revised to include a mixture of residential, ALF and community facility uses to be permitted B. Item A.5 is shown as a temporary use, but it is not grouped with the other items in B which is entitled Temporary Uses. In reality, these uses may be more appropriately grouped under a heading of Accessory Uses. Temporary Uses are addressed separately in the LDC-- listing them in the PUD this way could cause confusion. Response. Item A.5 has been revised to permit principal uses. The temporary uses formerly associated with item A.5 are now defined in item B.3. Please see the revised PUD document. 10. 02.13 A. Ld. Identification of all proposed tracts or increments illustrating boundaries The PUD Perimeter Setbacks Table provided the Master Concept Plan does not appear to coincide with the PUD document. The PUD perimeter setbacks referenced in the PUD document relate to Esrey Avenue and Airport Pulling Avenue for the CF table and from Airport Pulling Road and the South Boundary East and West of Steeves Avenue Only. The table on the Master Plan is confusing and should either be revised to show the proposed setbacks for Steeves Avenue, Airport- Pulling Road, and Estey Avenue or the table should be removed from the Master Concept Plan. Response: The setback table on the MCP has been removed far clarity. Please see the revised MCP and PUD document. 2. The PUD document needs to include property development regulations for the CF uses to show side, front, and rear setbacks for structures that may not front on Airport- Pulling Road or Estey Avenue. Response. The front, side and rear yard setbacks have been included for the proposed CF uses. Please see the revised MCP and PUD document 3. Please consider adding a setback limitation for the CF Development regulations like what is shown on the Residential Standards for Steeves Avenue. Response: Additional PUD perimeter setbacks have been provided for the CF uses. Please see the revised PUD document 10. 02.13 D. 6. ii Approved development must be compatible with existing and proposed uses in the surrounding area Staff does not believe Exhibit A 6 -11, as currently proposed are in compliance with this standard. Response: Uses 6 — 11 within Exhibit A are CF uses that are compatible with the existing residential and commercial uses that surround the subject property. These uses, if so developed, shall be required to meet the development standards that appropriately screen, buffer and setback the proposed uses and their structures from neighboring land uses per provisions of the PUD document and the LDC. 10. 02.13 D.6.b.i the PUD and master plan must be consistent with the current growth management plan including density, intensity and concurrency requirements Zoning staff does not believe LDC Section 4.07.04 -- Special Requirements for Mixed Use Planned Unit Developments Containing a Commercial Component -- is applicable to this petition. The proposal only includes 120 dwelling units which are not enough to qualify for this allowance. Additionally the PUD document and the Master Plan do not indicate that the proposed commercial uses would be located in such a way to limit them to "offering personal services, offices and convenience goods for residents of the PUD." The Master Plan shows the uses with frontage along both roadways which would make the uses clearly visible and assumingly available to use by the general public. Staffs understanding of this Section of the LDC indicates that this provision is designed to provide limited commercial use amenities to residents of larger residential projects. Additionally, the 2 acre tract that appears to be set aside for this use on the Master Plan exceeds the minimum number of units if you proposed that number, which you do not. LDC Section 4.07.04 indicates that this Special Requirement is to be used to implement the PUD Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict of the GMP FLUE. That subdistrict indicates that the facilities are to "be integrated into the PUD," i.e., located interior to the PUD without impacting surrounding OTHER developments. Beds or CCRC, ALF beds or units are NOT residential units and thus this Special Requirement is not applicable to development of this site with those type uses. Any medical office uses would need to be accessory to the ALF type uses. The Health services, office and Clinic uses proposed for this need to be relegated to an accessory function and thus located interior to the project, with no signs, access or use by the general public. Historically for transportation impacts staff has entertained a 4:1 ratio to address ALF to residential unit impacts. With that scenario, 230 ALF units would only equate to 58 dwelling units. Using that ratio for this issue, which has NOT been accepted, this project would need to develop 1,000 ALF uses to qualify for the "Special Requirements. It is doubtful that this site could be developed with that many ALF units due to its size and required developmental regulations limitations. The subject tract is too small to qualify for this "Special Requirement." 7 The original Meridian Village PUD was granted additional density using the Conversion of Commercial Zoning Bonus. That conversion has left this site with NO commercial use allowance. Should you wish to continue to pursue the seemingly free - standing commercial component, please provide a market study to show that 20,000 square feet of commercial use can be adequately absorbed by the proposed ALF /CCRC uses. Zoning staff will not support the use of Tract A for commercial uses, believing that it would not be in compliance with the LDC Section 4.07.04 and the GMT FLUE subdistrict cited therein. Response: The commercial component and separate corner outparcel tract have been removed from the application. Please see the revised MCP and PUD document Miscellaneous Corrections 1. Please add a revision date and page X of Y to each page of the PUD document. Response: The PUD document has been revised per review staffs request Please see the revised PUD document 2. A response was not provided to most of the questions contained in Item 8 on page 6 of your response. Please provide answers to the questions posed. Response. Since the ultimate end user of the PUD has not been identified, it is premature to provide such information for `potential uses ". It is however appropriate in this case to limit the size of such uses as has been provided in the PUD document Due to the location of the property being adjacent to an arterial road and immediately south of a transient facility and Naples Airport, the petitioner is comfortable that the parcel size adequately limits the proposed uses to achieve compatibility. Master Plan Review Checklist responses: 1. Your letter indicates that "Because of the conceptual nature of the MCP and PUD, water management and open space location areas are not appropriate to illustrate at this time." Most PUD MCP documents are conceptual in nature; that fact does not alleviate the project from compliance. Please provide the information. Response. To identify water management areas and system types for conveyance at this zoning stage would be guesswork. These typical development features will however be required and provided during the SDP review process. To alleviate review staff's reservations at this time, the applicant has provided a statement on the MCP that will insure the placement of adequate and appropriate water management and open space areas per the LDC at the time of final SDP approval, Please ,see the revised MCP. 2. Staff has concerns about the minimum buffering proposed along the west and southern boundaries where the site abuts non - roadway areas. The uses proposed seem to have the potential for negative impacts that could be at least partially addressed by additional buffering. Also, the trees on site may not provide an adequate visual screen. The area where the trees are shown may need to be augmented with additional plantings to adequately address potential impacts. Response. Since review staff provided the comment the MCP has been revised to illustrate a native buffer area in the areas that staff has concerns with. Further to the point the originally approved PUD was approved with a largely similar buffering configuration. Please see the revised MCP. 3. Your position to not provide site plan detail regarding pedestrian and roadway system is acknowledged, but note the CCPC may take issue with the MCP lack of detail —in compliance with the LDC requirements. This issue has been raised on other petitions and has caused continuances. Response. Staff's position is acknowledged In an attempt to alleviate review staffs concerns, pedestrian connection arrows have been provided on the MCP to illustrate access to exiting sidewalks along Estey Avenue and Airport - Pulling Road. Please see the revised MCP. 4. The NIM must be scheduled and held. Please contact me to make the arrangements. Please be aware of the following items: a. Please provide the required affidavit and its attachments prior to the meeting (in compliance with the LDC); and b. Please post signs to direct attendees to the exact meeting location; and c. Please ensure that there is sound amplification equipment available and working for this meeting. If there is no permanent equipment, please bring a tested /working portable microphone; and 01 d. Due to county staff reductions, you, as the agent will be required to provide a - written synopsis of the meeting as well as providing the audio /video tape; and e. Please prepare documents for hand out to all NIM attendees and the public hearing file, that show the differences in the uses that would be allowed in the existing and proposed zoning districts. This request is based upon recent CCPC direction. Response: The applicant is in the process of setting up NIM dates and a location. County Attorney Review -- Reviewed Bv: Heidi Ashton Staff Comment: Review comments sent via email 3- 10 -10. Response: Responses to the County Attorney comments have been incorporated into the amended PUD document. Please note that where CF uses are incorporated into the PUD, they are permitted as standalone uses in accordance with the LDC and GMP. Comprehensive Planning Review -- Reviewed By: Michele Mosea Miscellaneous Corrections 1. Provide a detailed explanation/justification for the removal of the affordable - workforce housing component. Response: Due to a significantly depressed residential market, the requirements associated with the construction of affordable housing eliminate the viability of the project unless constructed as market rate units. The project is anticipated to include a mir of residential, ALF and possibly CF tj pe uses which would further affect the viability of constructing affordable housing units. 2. It is unclear to staff which Future Land Use Element (FLUE) commercial provision the applicant is relying on to achieve FLUE consistency. The applicant has referenced two different FLUE provisions - the PUD Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict (specifically referenced) and the Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict (LDC Section 2.03.06.G referenced). Additionally, the applicant did not address project compliance with FLUE Objective 7 and related Policies. In order to complete the project review, the applicant must provide the following information: 10 Agenda Item No. 1 7D July 27, 2010 mile f 205 DAVIDSON ENGIN E L -RING (1) Identify (list) the applicable FLUE commercial provision that the applicant is relying on to achieve FLUE consistency; (2) List the commercial provision/subdistrict criteria found in the FLUE and/or LDC and explain project compliance with each criterion; and (3) List FLUE Objective 7 and related Polices and explain project compliance with each Policy. Response: (1) The applicant no longer wishes to utilize any of the referenced FL UE provisions (PUD Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict and the Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict) to develop a portion of the PUD as commercial. The commercial component and separate corner outparcel tract have been removed front the application. (2) No longer applicable. (3) As outlined on page 10 or the revised application, the project meets the intent of Objective 7 as follows: Policy 7.1: Vehicular connections have been provided on Estey Avenue and Airport - Pulling Road Policy 7.2: Through providing for vehicular connections on both Airport Road and Estey Ave.., traffic dispersal is improved versus having access on only Estey Ave which should help the intersection functions, but due to the small size of the parcel, a loop road is not practical. Policy 7.3: Kith respect to compliance with Objective 7 of the FLUE and its related policies, this project has been prohibited access to adjacent residential streets in the past due to concern that it would negatively impact the single family residential areas. Policy 7.4: The project is intended as a mixed -use project with pedestrian connections to Airport Road and Estey Ave. The project's intended mixed -use development will provide a range of densities and land use types furthering the intent of the policy. Miscellaneous Corrections On page 10 of the application (PUD rezone consideration 0), the petitioner indicates reliance on the PUD Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict and the Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) for the proposed office /commercial component of the PUD. However, in the petitioner's February 8, 2010 response letter, it is stated that the PUD Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict is relied upon. In staff's first review, the petitioner was asked to identify each criterion and explain how consistency is achieved. The petitioner still has not done so. For convenience, staff has provided the Land Development Code criteria to implement both FLUE Subdistriets below. Response: The commercial component and separate corner outparcel tract have been removed from the application. It is the applicant's intention to provide the opportunity to develop the revised uses listed in the PUD document. General Comments — Kav Deselem Staff Comment: Additional comments or stipulations may be forthcoming once a complete application has been submitted for review. Response: Acknowledged 2. Staff Comment: Please be advised that pursuant to the LDC, an application can be considered closed if there has been no activity on the application for a period of six (6) months. That six months period will be calculated from the date you receive this letter. Response: Acknowledged. 3. Staff Comment: Please ensure that all members of your review team that may testify before the CCPC and the BCC are registered as lobbyists with the county pursuant to the regulations regarding that issue. Response: Acknowledged 4. Staff Comment: When addressing review comments, please provide a cover letter outlining your response to each comment. Include a response to all comments. Please put revised dates on all exhibits and in the title block of the Master Plan. Response: Acknowledged, 5. Staff Comment: Please provide electronic copies of the documents and exhibits (Word or jpg, as appropriate). Response: Acknowledged 12 6. Staff Comment: A partial resubmittal cannot be accepted; please do not resubmit until you can respond to ALL review comments. Response: Acknowledged Staff Comment: Please make arrangements for the neighborhood information meeting (NIM) pursuant to the requirements of LDC Section 10.03.05.F.3. This petition cannot go to public hearing until that requirement has been satisfied. a. You will need to provide the required affidavit and its attachments prior to the meeting (in compliance with the LDC); and b. You may need to post signs to direct attendees to the exact meeting location if the site is large enough that there could be confusion; and c. You need to ensure that there is sound amplification equipment available and working for this meeting. if there is no permanent equipment, please bring a tested/working portable microphone; and d. Due to county staff reductions, you, as the agent, need to provide a written synopsis of the meeting as well as providing the audio /video tape; and e. Please prepare documents for hand out to all NIM attendees and the public hearing file, that show the differences in the uses that would be allowed in the existing and proposed zoning districts. This request is based upon recent CCPC direction. Response: Acknowledged If you should have any questions regarding this application submittal please call my office at (239) 434 -6060 ext. 2983. Sincerely, Tim Hancock, AICP Director of Planning 13 CIVIL ENGINEERING • PLANNING • ENVIRONMENTAL • LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 f205 DAVIDSON EIV GINEF_RING Kay Deselem, AICP February 8, 2010 Collier County Development Services 2800 N Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 Meridian Village MPUD (formerly Meridian Village RPUD) PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 ROCK CREEK MPUD Dear Kay, DATE: 219110 DUE: 3110110 We have included the following for your review and approval: 1. Ten (10) Copies of the Revised Meridian Village MPUD Application; 2. Five (5) Copies of Revised EIS, including Exhibits B, D, G, H, I, and J; 3. Five (5) Copies of the Code Enforcement research Email from Michelle Arnold; 4. Seven (7) Copies of the Revised TIS; 5. Ten (10) Copies of the Revised MPUD Document; 6. Ten (10) Copies of the Revised Supplemental Deviation Summary; 7, Ten (10) Copies of the Revised Master Concept Plan (24 x 36); 8. One (1) Copy of the Revised Master Concept Plan (8,/2 x i 1); and 9. One (1) CD of Documents and Exhibits. The applicant's address has changed since the first submittal. Elements of the MPUD have also changed per Staffs suggestion Therefore the PUD application has been revised and provided for clarification. In response to your letter received January 8, 2010, we offer the following responses: Addressing— Reviewed Bv: Peggy Jarrell ✓ 1. Need a new PUD name. Rock is overused. Response: The applicant has reverted to the original Meridian Village name. Please see the revised PUD document, MCP and related exhibits. Environmental Review -- Reviewed By: Summer Araoue ✓ 1. Staff Comment: Include acreage for each FLUCFCS. Also, provide line between each code. Response: Exhibit B (Davidson Engineering FLUCCSMap) in the EIS delineates the acreages for each FLUCCS code represented as well as Figures 2 and 3 on pages S & 6 Of 3530 Kraft Road, Suite 301 - Naples, Florida 34105 Phone: 239.434.6060 • Fax: 239.434.6084 www,davidsonengineeri n g.com REV: 2 the Protected Species Survey (Exhibit JI). Each code is separated by lines and are distinguished from one another in different color schemes. Please refer to the submitted documents. 2. Staff Comment: Preserves were agreed upon during review of Meridian Village in 2006. This project does not qualify for a tree count. The illegal clearing. was discussed as part of the review of the original PUD - the understory had been cleared and maintained. The proposed LDC language does not apply because the understory was not legally cleared. The Preserve needs to be in the Land Use Summary, Response: The clearing performed on the property was in response to County Code Enforcement requirements and was performed to satisfy code requirements for maintenance of the property for health, safety and welfare. The allegation of illegal clearing is not correct. The Code Enforcement Director previously issued a determination that the parcel was not illegally cleared Please see attached e-mail from Michele .Arnold to Bruce Anderson. Further, any preserves that may have been agreed on in the then PUD in 2006 are not binding on a new PUD application, especially one such as this which has a different site plan. This site was used as an example for the need to have "tree count" criteria as part of the proposed LDC amendments currently being heard by the CCPC..As such, it meets the proposed criteria whereas a minimum of available strata is represented on -site, the language that we have proposed in the preservation section of the PUD document mirrors the provided language in the LDC amendment Should the LDC amendment be approved prior to approval of this PIED, this language could be removed from the document as being redundant 3. Staff Comment: Preserves were agreed upon during review of Meridian Village in 2006. This property does not qualify for a tree count as the understory was not legally cleared. Revise PUD document to reflect previously approved Preserve. Response: Please refer to the previous response. 4. Staff Comment: Preserves were agreed upon during review of Meridian Village in 2006. The wetland area is the first priority and the buffer next to the wetland would be second. Response: Please refer to the response under #2 above. 5. Staff Comment: Exhibits are not consistent with what was provided. Several exhibits were not readable - Exhibits D, I, J. Exhibit H was missing. Exhibits should be labeled as "previously approved" and "proposed," such as Exhibit G. Revise EIS to reflect previously agreed upon preserve. The PUD document includes a marina and boat ramp as a conditional use. This needs to be addressed in the EIS. Staff does not think that a marina would fit along Rock Creek. A Boat Ramp may be permissible, but needs to go through the proper review. 2 Response: Exhibits D, I and J have been revised and are more legible. Exhibit H is provided and the exhibits have been labeled per Staffs suggestion. Please see the revised EIS. Please refer to the previous response regarding the provision of preserve areas under item #2 in this section. It's agreed that the marina use may be inappropriate for this site. The use has been removed from the permittedleonditional uses for this MPUD. The boat ramp use shall remain and will be permitted through the appropriate agencies at the time of site development review. Such a facility would be ancillary in nature. 6. Staff Comment: PUD document and Master Plan shall state the minimum acreage required to be preserved. Please provide. Response: Please refer to the previous responses regarding the provision ofpreserve areas under item 92. Transportation Planning Review -- Reviewed By: John Podezerwinsky 1. Staff Comment: Show Existing (approved) uses; call out net new trips. (Only total new trips are shown) Response: The TIS has been revised per Staffs suggestion. Please see Table 2B on Page 6 of the revised TIS. 2. Staff Comment: Show PM Peak Hour trips in both directions (Table 3) Response: The TIS has been revised per Staffs suggestion. Please see Table 3 on Page 6 of the revised TIS. 3. Staff Comment: Please verify that none of the principal or Conditional uses being proposed (such as Day Care, Golf Driving Range, Marinas, etc) can create more intense trip generation than the proposed ALF and Medical Office uses that have been evaluated. Response: The proposed ALF use with associated medical office is the maximum trip generator. The PUD document has been revised to limit many of these uses to ensure that the proposed trip generation will be applicable for all proposed uses. 4. Staff Comment: Remove deviation no. 4 regarding the driveway connection to Airport Road. The deviation is not necessary. Response: The PUD document has been revised per Staff's suggestion. Deviation 4 on page 13 has been removed Please see Exhibit E of the revised PUD document Zoning Review -- Reviewed By: Kay Deselem Staff Comment: The project you are proposing is not a mixed use PUD. In the application, page 9, and Exhibit A of the PUD you indicate that you wish to have "either /or" development proposals. As part of this either /or proposal, you wish to retain the elements of the current zoning for Meridian Village PUD in Ord. No. 06 -28. The Director of the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review has determined that you need to pick one or the other. Either you amend the existing PUD or you do not - -your choice. What you propose does not meet the definition of a Mixed Use PUD in the LDC, "This district is intended to accommodate a planned unit development with more than one type of PUD district. The PUD document shall define the mixture of PUD districts as set forth in this section." With an either /or proposal, there is only one PUD district being represented. Please determine what action you wish to take and amend the documents accordingly or withdraw this amendment if you wish to maintain the existing zoning/uses. Response: The "either /or" element was an attempt to include two different uses in one PUD while ensuring that both uses would not co -exist on the property. K was originally thought that this may provide for clarity in review. The revised PUD document treats the residential and ALF uses similar to that approved in more recent MPUD applications where the uses may develop fully or in a variety of combinations based on an equivalency ratio as stated in the permitted uses section of the PUD document. As such, the PUD constitutes a Mixed Use development plan and therefore an MPUD is appropriate. This approach to an MPUD has received the support of staff on numerous projects such as the Magnolia Pond MPUD and the North Naples United Methodist Church MPUD just to name a couple. Lastly, this project seeks to include uses allowed in the CF zoning district, residential uses and 2 acres of associated commercial in compliance with the PUD Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict This mix of uses should support an MPUD designation. EXHIBIT A — Uses in the CF Area Staff Comment: The list of uses in Exhibit A for the CF area includes several uses that require clarification, as follows: • Church, etc (How big, e.g., how many members, seats, etc.' ?) • Civic & Cultural Facilities (What specific uses, need SIC codes and size limitations of some sort.) • Child Day Care (how big, how many kids?) • Essential Services (Limited to what ?) • Parks and Playgrounds (What is this use? Public /Private ?) Response: build out nature T/te referenced permitted uses in Exhibit A have been revised to limit the to address the site related impacts to the surroundin gProPerties. Please see pages I and 2 of the amended PVD document EXHIBIT A — Accessory Uses within CF: 2, Staff Comment: Should you decide to Nursing and other uses," is not a use. Please clearly define the uses) using SIC codes. Item go forward with the CF uses, please note that "Skilled run Library, please explain how you would limit this use. Are you proposing a Public Library run by the County, or a simple lending library within the facility? Response: The "skilled nursing and other uses "previously defined in the accessory section have been defined with SPC coding and bundled with the ALF Principal Uses section. Please see a e 1 o rJ uses P g f the PUD document ttpe uses under the The library use as stated is consistent with the CF Zoning designation in the LDC but has been further refined to reference Public libraries except when developed as an accessory use for an ALF. 3. Staff Comment: Please Provide Note: The CCPC has not een sumore information about the proposed pportive of allowing Conditional Use witditPUD Uses. hin Projects. Please provide parameters for the proposed Conditional Uses. For ex kind of Comm � zoned Facility - -a facility that will ? o enit coup Care Facility Group II uses? maple what p Public? How many courts? What type Tennis p Run by whom? Please provide details about the marina — how many slips manna, this use could include the followin launching facilities, marine fuel and lubricants, : dry oat etc. Per the LDC definition of a g dry boat storage, small boat hauling or restaurants, boat and boat motor sales, and rentals. Staff questions bait appropriateness use at this site and doubts that the use would be Supported. bait and fishing equipment, about the golf driving pported. Please Provide more in formation g ange. Staff has concerns about neighborhood as well as concerns about erra errant golf balls and the adjacent 'It golf balls going into Airport- Pulling Road. Response: Conditional uses have been either moved to document as amended or eliminated altogether. other locations in the PI/D 4. Staff Comment: Please revise B.5 to remove "non- uses." and they should not be included. Structures are not necessary uses Response: Acknowledged Please seepage 2 of Exhibit A in the revised PUD document Staff Comment: Item B.6: If these temporary uses are already governed by a separate portion of the LDC, they should be removed. Additionally, the LDC may contain time limitations for said temporary uses. It is not appropriate therefore to include the phases, `until such time as permanent structures are available." Please remove that phrase. Response: Acknowledged The referenced item has been removed 6. Staff Comment: Item B.7: Lakes are not uses per se, nor are water management facilities. Please revise. Response: Water management facilities, lakes and water management structures are listed as permitted uses in all tracts to avoid the concern over an interpretation at some later point that, since they are not listed in the PUD document they would not be allowed 7. Staff Comment: Item B.8. This listing is not acceptable. The PUD Exhibit A list of uses needs to specifically list the uses proposed. Please remove this item. Response: Acknowledged The referenced item has been removed 8. Staff Comment: For all uses that would be "Places of Assembly" such as churches and other houses of worship; civic social and fraternal organizations, private clubs, private assembly halls, country clubs, etc, please provide the following information: a. Hours of operation b. Days of operation c. Number of seats (where applicable) d. Total number of members and/or users e. Total number of different groups using the site (for churches — number of congregations; for clubs number of different clubs) f. Location, square footage and proposed use for each structure on site (principal and accessory) g. Number of meetings and days and times h. Identify all Principal and Accessory Uses to occur on site (for example accessory day care, educational classes, food service, etc). i. Any planned special events (annual fund raisers, holiday celebrations, etc). j. Complete Trip Generation information. Regarding Churches and traffic generation, the ITE Manual (the older 5th Edition) defines churches as follows: "A church is a building providing public worship services, and generally houses an assembly hall or sanctuary, meeting rooms, classrooms, and occasionally dining, catering, or party facilities for special events." The trip rates are based on statistical averages taken from actual traffic counts for the different land uses studied. The ITE traffic studies for a church do take into account the site generated traffic on a weekday as well as on Saturdays and Sundays. The trip rates are different for each of these categories with the Sunday trip rate the highest generator. These studies have been conducted at churches throughout the USA. However, as more and more churches start leasing space to other denominations and churches increasingly add other functions such as fund raising events, it will take time for the ITE trip generation to reflect these new functions. Therefore, we will require additional trip generation data to cover the proposed project beyond what is covered in the ITE manual in order to get an accurate traffic count. This would include separate trip generation calculations for related uses such as private schools operated by the church as well as regular church store hours if open to the public on a daily basis. Response: The number of seats for a church use has been limited as has been accepted in other recent rezone petitions. The current ITE manual utilized in our submittal is the 8`h Edition, not the 5 1 Edition. Transportation review requires that Trip Generation for church uses incorporate two different calculations to address both weekday and weekend use. As such, we have limited the number of seats for a church to be an equivalent impact to the build out scenario shown in the revised TIS. 9. Staff Continent: The TIS evaluated a maximum of 230 beds for the Assisted Living Facility; please add this maximum limitation to the PUD document. Response: The PUD document has been revised per Staff's suggestion. Please seepage I of Exhibit A. EXHIBIT A — Uses in the Residential Area: 1. Staff Continent: Page 4 — Uses 3 -6 Many of these items are not uses per se, for example a lake is not a use, nor is a bench. Please revise this list to remove non -uses, and refine the items that are uses to provide SIC code or details for said uses. Of those items that actually are uses, it is not correct to list them as Principal Uses; they should be relegated to an accessory use status. Response: The PUD document has been revised accordingly. 2. Staff Comment: Item A.7: Listed as it is as a Principal Use, this could be the sole use on site. That would not be appropriate in an RPUD. Please remove this use. Response: The list of permitted uses has been revised to reflect the requested uses in both CF and Residential land uses, consistent with recently approved MPUD's of this nature. EXHIBIT B — Table I: 1. Staff Comment: Institutional uses that you proposed are not true residential uses. Please change the title from Residential to Institutional. Can one assume that the `Non - Residential' uses you propose relate to the 20,000 square feet of proposed health care office use? Please re -title this header as well. Response: Where you request "Institutional ", the County Attorney has requested "CF" Since the uses in that column are CF uses, the header has been revised to read "CF ". 2. Staff Comment: 13. A floor area ratio is not applicable to most of the non - institutional uses. Please revise the table. Response: The table has been revised per Staffs suggestion. Please see the revised Table I on page 8 of the PUD document. 3. The table does not address yard requirements and height for accessory structures. Please revise. Please provide typical to show proposed development. Response: The table has been revised per Staffs suggestion. Please see the revised Table I on page 8 of the PUD document. EXHIBIT E: 1. Staff Comment: A document entitled Supplemental Deviation Summary was included in the application material; however that document did not include necessary information such as: a. justification in support of each deviation to show that what is proposed will not be to the detriment of the public safety and welfare, and further, that each deviation is justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of the regulations for which a deviation is sought (LDC Sections 10.0213.A.2. v. and 10.02.13.A.3 & 10.02.13.B.5.h.) b. The deviations listed do not include the actual LDC requirement from which you wish to deviate. For example, Deviation #1 does not include the LDC parking requirement; it only provides your alternative. Please revise all deviations to provide all necessary information. Response: Please see the Supplemental Deviation and Justification Summary. This document addresses Staffs suggestion and replaces the former deviation summary. EXHIBIT F: 1. Staff Continent: Please explain the intent of the Affordable Housing commitments and restrictions. F3 Response. The affordable housing language was approved as part of the original RPUD. Since no affordable housing units were obtained through an affordable housing agreement and the market has changed to the point that affordable housing in this location is no longer feasible, these restrictions have been removed. 2. Staff Comment: Please remove the archaeological assessment information, as the language is not regulatory in nature; it is only information. If you wish to provide a statement that is an attachment to the application itself stating same, that would be acceptable. Response: Acknowledged The item was from the previously approved RPUD and has been removed. Staff Comment: Please remove the architectural standards, as the language is not necessary. This project will need to comply with whatever architectural standards are in effect when development approvals are sought unless specific deviations are approved as part of this PUD rezone action. Response: Acknowledged The item was frond the previously approved RPUD and has been removed. 4. Staff Comment: Please remove the Landscaping commitment. This commitment is no longer viable because the AFW petition that it references was based upon an SDP for a project that was never built. Either you can seek a deviation as part of this PUD rezone, or you can seek another AFW allowance later. Response: At the time of site development plan review another AFW allowance letter will be sought for a wall height extension if the developer so chooses. 5. Staff Comment: Please see attached Master Plan Review Checklist for complete review comments regarding the Master Plan. Response. The checklist has been reviewed and the appropriate revisions have been made. The following responses are offered for the items that were in conflict with the intentions of the PUD document as submitted (below references are to section 10.02.13.A.1 of the LDQ. C.* The plat book and page for each abutting parcel to the west and north has been provided Please see the revised MCP. d. The multi family tract and the community facility (institutional) tract are the sane (Tract B). Please note that CF and multi family uses are permitted anywhere on the site. Only the associated medical use is restricted to Tract A. The associated medical office tract referenced is clearly identified as Tract A on the MCP. The conservation/preservation areas are not shown as a singular area due to the way this PUD will address its preserve requirement through the tree count methodology outlined in Exhibit A of the PUD document This language mirrors a current LDC amendment that is under review at this time. Because of the conceptual nature of the MCP and PUD, water management and open space location areas are not appropriate to illustrate at this time. These areas will be more clearly defined at the time of site development plan review. All buffer areas have been shown adjacent to the east, south and some of the western boundary lines as LDC required buffers. The remainder of the western boundary and the northern boundary will be screened by the existing vegetation to be retained per the preservation section of the PUD, and those pockets of native trees represented on the MCP. Detailed cross sections of these areas subject to the preservation section of the PUD will be provided at site development plan review to illustrate the required buffering. Because of the conceptual nature of the PUD with a myriad of potential uses, providing the location and function of all referenced community /public and recreational uses is not appropriate at this time. These areas will be identified at site development plan review. Placement of appropriate buffering serves to address compatibility issues. The notes section on the MCP has been revised recognizing the removal of the "either /or" development scenario from the application. Item e: - The conservation/preservation area and acreage is not shown as a singular area due to way this PUD will address its preserve requirement through the tree count methodology outlined in Exhibit A of the PUD document - The proposed number and density of the proposed units for the subject property is not appropriate to place on the MCP due to its conceptual nature. The PUD document addresses these specific items related to maximum development Tracts A and B are clearly defined graphically and in the land use summary. Please see the revised PUD document and MCP. - The maximum gross leasable area has been provided as note #1 on the MCP. - Because of the conceptual nature of the PUD with a myriad ofpotential building types and uses, providing the location and function of each structure is not appropriate at this time. These areas will be identified at site development plan review. W&I Item n. Because of the conceptual nature of the PUD providing the location of internal roadways is not appropriate at this time. These areas will be identified at site development plan review. Arrows delineating ingress and egress access have been provided to show concurrency. Referring to the conceptual nature of the MCP and the permitted uses it is premature to locate pedestrian networks at this time. Pedestrian connections will be provided and identified and will comply with the LDC at site development plan review. Item is Providing the locations of existing and proposed roads, ROW and pedestrian systems within 1,500 feet of the proposed PUD's boundary is inappropriate to show on a site specific master plan. The access to these systems is evidenced through compliance with the LDC requirements and the County Transportation Access Management policy. Item i• - The overall gross density for a total residential community is 10.27 units per acre (120 units /11.68 ac. = 10.27), which is the same density as is permitted in the existing zoning. County Attorney Review -- Reviewed By: Heidi Ashton Staff Comment: Review comments sent via email 11- 24 -09. Response: County Attorney comments have been incorporated into the amended MPUD. Comprehensive Planning Review -- Reviewed By: Michele Mosca Staff Comment: It is unclear to staff which Future Land Use Element (FLUE) commercial provision the applicant is relying on to achieve FLUE consistency. The applicant has referenced two different FLUE provisions — the PUD Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict (specifically referenced) and the Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict (LDC Section 2.03.06.G referenced). Additionally, the applicant did not address project compliance with FLUE Objective 7 and related Policies. In order to complete the project review, the applicant must provide the following information: a. Identify (list) the applicable FLUE commercial provision that the applicant is relying on to achieve FLUE consistency; 11 b. List the commercial provision/subdistrict criteria found in the FLUE and/or LDC and explain project compliance with each criterion; and c. List FLUE Objective 7 and related Polices and explain project compliance with each Policy. Response: The applicant is requesting up to 20, 000 square feet of associated Medical Office space as a related use to the development of an ALF on the subject property. ALF's typically prefer to locate in close proximity to medical offices, physical rehabilitation specialists, hospitals, medical clinic's, etc. Due to the higher than normal demand for medical services required by residents of an ALF, an increased demand for these services is well served by having them in near proximity to the ALF use. Under the PUD Neighborhood Village Subdistrict, such an allowance is permitted to "serve the daily needs of the residents of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district. "The limitation of 20,000 square feet is designed to ensure a proportional amount of medical services in relation to an ALF and access to Tract A is provided via internal drives with no direct access to either Estey Ave or Airport Road This use is only permitted in conjunction with an ALF and is not authorized should the project develop as a multi family residential development With respect to compliance with Objective 7 of the FLUE, this project has been prohibited access to adjacent residential streets in the past due to concern that it would negatively impact the single family residential areas. Through providing for vehicular connections on bath ,Airport Road and Estey Ave., traffic dispersal is improved versus having access on only Estey Ave which should help the intersection functions, but due to the small size of the parcel, a loop road is not practicaG The project is intended as a mixed -use project with pedestrian connections to Airport Road and Estey A ve. Through the planned preservation of existing Pine Trees on the perimeter of the site, the cite should better reflect a "green" appearance along Airport Road General Comments: I. Staff Comment: Additional comments or stipulations may be forthcoming once a complete application has been submitted for review. Response: Acknowledged. 2. Staff Comment: Please be advised that pursuant to the LDC, an application can be considered closed if there has been no activity on the application for a period of six (6) months. That six months period will be calculated from the date you receive this letter. 12 Response: Acknowledged 3. Staff Continent: Please ensure that all members of your review team that may testify before the CCPC and the BCC are registered as lobbyists with the county pursuant to the regulations regarding that issue. Response: Acknowledged 4, Staff Comment: When addressing review comments, please provide a cover letter outlining your response to each comment. Include a response to all comments. Please put revised dates on all exhibits and in the title block of the Master Plan. Response: Acknowledged Staff Comment: Please provide electronic copies of the documents and exhibits (Word or jpg, as appropriate). Response. Acknowledged 6. Staff Comment: A partial resubmittal cannot be accepted; please do not resubmit until you can respond to ALL review comments. Response: Acknowledged 7. Staff Comment: Please make arrangements for the neighborhood information meeting (NIM) pursuant to the requirements of LDC Section 10.03.05.F.3. This petition cannot go to public hearing until that requirement has been satisfied. Response: Acknowledged. If you should have any questions regarding this application submittal please call my office at (239) 434 -6060 ext. 2983. Sincerely, Tim Hancock, AICP Director of Planning 191 TPBDIICOCR pla0olup- enalOBCPIno Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 145 of 205 PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 REV :3 MERIDIAN VILLAGE MPUD DATE: 4/16/10 DUE: 5/14/10 dIrm Trattic Impact Statement Meridian Village MPUD Rezone Prepared for: Rock Creek Holdings, LLC 5435 Jaeger Road, Suite 3 Naples, FL 34109 Collier County, FL 4/13/2010 Prepared by: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA • 6660 Mangrove Way, Napies, FL 34109 Ph. 239.566.9551 Fx. 239.566.9553 www.trebilcock.biz Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 146 of 205 Meridian Village MPUD Rezone —April 2010 Statement of Certification I certify that this Traffic Analysis has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. � 15 Zz1Q Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, P.E. FL Registration No. 47116 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 6660 Mangrove Way Naples, FL 34109 Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796 2 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 147 of 205 Meridian Village MPUD Rezone —April 2010 Table of Contents Page Project Description 4 -5 Trip Generation 5-7 Trip Distribution and Assignment 7 Background Traffic 8 Existing and Future Roadway Network 9 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network -- Roadway Link Analysis and Intersection Analysis 9 -10 Turn Lane /Access Analysis 10 -11 Improvement Analysis 11 Mitigation of Impact 11 Appendix A: Project Site Location Map (1 Sheet) Appendix B: Project Master Site Plan (1 Sheet) Appendix C: Project Trip Distribution Maps by Percentage and AM /PM Peak Hour (2 Sheets) Appendix D: ITE Land Use Code Descriptions (7 Sheets) Appendix E: Trip Generation Calculations (7 Sheets) Appendix F: Methodology Meeting (3 Sheets) 3 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 148 of 205 Meridian Village MPUD Rezone —April 2010 Project Description 7 .__.- _____._ The Meridian Village (fka Rock Creek) Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Rezone project is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Airport - Pulling Road and Estey Avenue in Collier County and just south of the Naples Airport. The project is a proposed Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) totalizing approximately 11.68 acres + / -. The Meridian Village MPUD will be developed as a mixed use project which may include either multi - family residential, or a mix of assisted living facilities (ALF), continuing care retirement communities (CCRC) and independent living units for age 55 plus and senior housing with live theater, lodge /fraternal organization (club), library, church, or museum land used. The site is currently zoned RPUD (aka Meridian Village, CC Ord 06 -28), which allows 120 multi - family residential units. The project is located in Section 2, Township 505, Range 25E, Collier County, FL. Refer to Appendix A for a project site location map and Appendix B for a project master site plan. The Meridian Village MPUD Rezone TIS provides a highest and best use scenario with respect to the project's proposed trip generation. The TIS analysis is run based on a land use mix of Assisted Living Units (occupied beds) and other land uses. The existing zoning allows up to 120 multi - family units and is less intensive than what is being evaluated. The mixed use development program is illustrated in the following table. Refer to Appendix D for the more descriptive ITE Land Use Code Descriptions of the proposed land uses. 4 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 149 of 205 Meridian Village MPUD Rezone —April 2010 Table 1— Development Program Land Use - - — — ITE Land Use Code` Total Size Build -Out Out Living Facility 254 480 occupied beds 2015 Or Assisted Living Facility 254 230 occupied beds 2015 Live Theatre 441 3,000 seats 2015 Or Assisted Living Facility 254 230 occupied beds 2015 Lodge /Fraternal Organization 591 2,300 member 2015 Or Assisted Living Facility 254 230 occupied beds 2015 Library 590 9,000 sf 2015 Or Assisted Living Facility 254 230 occupied beds 2015 Church 560 1,150 seats 2015 Or Assisted Living Facility 254 230 occupied beds 2015 Museum NiA 29,500sf "- 2015 Table Note: *Refer to Appendix for applicable Land Use Code Descriptions The internal site circulation system proposes an internal connection between the proposed project land uses. Two external connections are proposed, one at Estey Avenue (all movements allowed) and one at Airport Road (right in; or right in /right out). The connections are depicted in Appendix B -- Project Master Concept Plan. The Airport Road connection is an existing right in /right out with a right turn lane. r i iN vend auvn The project's site trip generation is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 8`h Edition. The software program Trip Generation by Microtrans (Rev. 11/08) is used to create the raw unadjusted trip generation for the project. The ITE rates were used for the project land use trip generation (Assisted Living Facility, Live Theatre, Lodge /Fraternal Organization, and Church). The ITE equations were used for the Condominium /Townhouse and Library trip generation. There are no available ITE values for a museum, so a CA case study example is used to derive an applicable rate. The trip generations in Table 2A are the proposed trips for the project. No reductions for internal 5 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 150 of 205 Meridian Village MPUD Rezone —April 2010 capture or pass -by trips have been taken: More details of the trip generation calculations can be found in Appendix E. The trip generations in Table 2B_ _. illustrates the net new trips. These are the proposed land use trip scenarios versus those trips in the approved rezone (residential condominium). Table 2A—Summary of Site Trip Generation (Unadjusted) Scenarios—Average Weekday �l`fif'C Y, <.k D �t^Frt) Uf "'in 7i J��v't bat � r`r rt ♦� t`Jrz ♦ ��r � fd yRpy n�x7 t:'; Assisted 230 TIS Analysis Compilation (scenario volume I Enter I Exit I Enter I Exit Land Use Scenario Assisted 230 Occupied Beds �1 >ia•Sr "" &MYN L a °"{4, .�ry"i"�^,k � � Total Driveway Volume Land Use Scenario I • ®�® Assisted Liv_ing Assisted Living "v • • ♦ 1 i�' t 3 ♦fie �r. Total Driveway Volume Land Use Scenario 2 MM 'fT'r •• � 1 �'1• •'• i'• ■��} 8 a 2 4n� s.lfii'a,Y r 7 iti� Ci',i .yY � �il4 I iL 4 may' tL(MY ®. • • •'a•S r' <,.,e e. Y, �a.h', Land Use Scenario 3 Assisted Living 230 Occupied Beds Lodge Fraterna Organization Members ®fi Total 1 • ®yy� fi �� • k S'd'i...� Land Use Scenario ♦ Size ® ®® ♦ .• 2 'i •'• i' 1 Total DrivewayVolume Land Use Scenario Assisted 230 Occupied Beds �1 >ia•Sr "" &MYN L a °"{4, .�ry"i"�^,k � � Total Driveway Volume Land • • Assisted Living "v • • ♦ 1 i�' t 3 ♦fie �r. Total Driveway Volume Table Notes: 1. A zero indicates no data available. 2. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS 3. Museum ITE Trip Gen not available. Trip gen developed by Kaku Associates for CA site. 9 a Agenda Item No. 17 D July 27, 2010 Page 151 of 205 Meridian Village MPUD Rezone —April 2010 Table 28 -Net New Site Trip Generation — Average Weekday Trip Distribution and Assignment The traffic generated by the development was assigned to the adjacent roadways using the knowledge of the area and as coordinated with Collier County Transportation Planning Staff. The site - generated trip distribution is shown in Table 3 and is graphically depicted in Appendix C (by Percentage and by AM /PM Peak Hr, Peak Direction). Table 3— Project Traffic Distribution for Peak Hour, Peak Direction Roadway Link 24 Hour AM Pk Hour PM Pk Hour 2D15 Projected AM Peak Hr Project Traffic Volume Two - Way Eimer Exit Enter Volume Airport - Pulling North of Project Land Use Size Volume Enter, Exit Enter Exit TIS Analysis Compilation varies 1,341 58 24 54 83 Approved Rezone South of Project Condominiums 120 units 749 10 56 47 23 Net New Trips (Proposed minus Approved) 592 48 -26 7 Boulevard 60 Trip Distribution and Assignment The traffic generated by the development was assigned to the adjacent roadways using the knowledge of the area and as coordinated with Collier County Transportation Planning Staff. The site - generated trip distribution is shown in Table 3 and is graphically depicted in Appendix C (by Percentage and by AM /PM Peak Hr, Peak Direction). Table 3— Project Traffic Distribution for Peak Hour, Peak Direction Roadway Link cc AUI R Link Roadwa y Link Location Distribution of Project Traffic 2D15 Projected AM Peak Hr Project Traffic Volume 2015 Projected PM Peak Hr Project Traffic Volume ID# Eimer Exit Enter Exit Airport - Pulling North of Project Road 5 Site to Radio Road 50% 29 12 27 41 South of Project 5 Site to Davis 30% 17 7 16 25 Boulevard Estey Avenue n {a West of Project Site 20% 12 5 11 17 East of Project Site n/a to Airport- Pulling 30% 17 7 16 25 Road 7 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 152 of 205 Meridian Village MPUD Rezone —April 2010 Background Traffic Average background traffic growth rates were estimated for the segments of the roadway network in the study area using the project 2005 TIS growth rates. Table 4 illustrates the application of projected growth rates to generate the projected background (without project) peak hour peak direction traffic volume for the year 2015. Table 4— Background Traffic without Project (2009 and 2015) Table Note: Growth Factor = (1 +Annual Growth Rate)A6; 2015 Projected Volume = 2009 AUIR Volume *Growth Factor, or 2D09 AUIR +AUIR Trip Bank, whichever is greater. n /a —Estey Avenue is a public street, but riot a part of the CC CIE and traffic coverts are not monitored by CC Transportation. Iy 2015 Projected 2009 AUIR Peak Hr, Peak Hr, P Projected Peak Dir Roadway A C� P Peak Dir T Traffic G Growth B Background Link L Link T Roadway Link Location B Background A Annual g Factor T Traffic ID # V Traffic G Growth Volume Volume R Rate ( % /yr) V w /out (trips/hr) Project (trips /hr) Airport- N North of Project Site to Pulling 5 5 R Radio Road' 2 2,164 3 3.67 %I 1 1.2414 2 2;686 Road - - 5 S South of Project Site to 2 2,164 3 3.67% 1 1.2414 2 2,686 Davis Boulevard estey, W n/a I West of Project Site n/a n n /a, n n /a; n n/a Avenue n/a E East of Project Site to n n/a n n/a n n/a n n/a I.. I I I I Airport - Pulling Road I I Table Note: Growth Factor = (1 +Annual Growth Rate)A6; 2015 Projected Volume = 2009 AUIR Volume *Growth Factor, or 2D09 AUIR +AUIR Trip Bank, whichever is greater. n /a —Estey Avenue is a public street, but riot a part of the CC CIE and traffic coverts are not monitored by CC Transportation. Iy Agenda Item No, 17D July 27, 2010 Page 153 of 205 Meridian Village MPUD Rezone —April 2010 Existing and Future Roadway Network The existing roadway conditions are extracted from the 2009 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) and the 2015 roadway conditions are based on the current Collier County 5 Year Work Program. The roadways evaluated are anticipated to remain the same thru 2015. The existing and future roadway conditions are illustrated in Table 5. Table 5— Existing and Future Roadway Conditions Table Notes: 2U = 2 -lane undivided roadway; 4D, 6D =4 lane, 6 -lane divided roadway, respectively; LOS = Level of Service. n /a- -Estey Avenue is not a CIE roadway, so the capacity of Shadowlawn Dr is used (nearby similar roadway) to establish a capacity. Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network -- Roadway Link Analysis and InterseCtinn annlvcic The Collier County Transportation Planning Services developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for the roadway links impacted by the project were evaluated to determine the project impacts to the area roadway network in the future (2015). The Collier County Transportation Planning Services guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to have a significant and adverse impact if both the percentage volume capacity exceeds 2% of the capacity for the link adjacent to the project (Airport - Pulling Road); 3% for other links and if the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted L05 standard. Based on these criteria, this project does not create any significant and adverse impacts to the area 7 CC Exist Peak Roadway Link AUIR Roadway Link Location Exist Exist Min Dir, Peak Hr Future Link Roadway LOS Std Capacity 2015 ID p Volume Roadway Airport - Pulling North of Project Site to Road - S Radio Road 6D E 4,100 6D 5 South of Project Site to Davis Boulevard 6D E 4,100 6D Estey Avenue n/a West of Project Site 2U D 770 2U n/a East of Project Site to Airport Pulling Road 2U D 770 21_1 Table Notes: 2U = 2 -lane undivided roadway; 4D, 6D =4 lane, 6 -lane divided roadway, respectively; LOS = Level of Service. n /a- -Estey Avenue is not a CIE roadway, so the capacity of Shadowlawn Dr is used (nearby similar roadway) to establish a capacity. Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network -- Roadway Link Analysis and InterseCtinn annlvcic The Collier County Transportation Planning Services developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for the roadway links impacted by the project were evaluated to determine the project impacts to the area roadway network in the future (2015). The Collier County Transportation Planning Services guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to have a significant and adverse impact if both the percentage volume capacity exceeds 2% of the capacity for the link adjacent to the project (Airport - Pulling Road); 3% for other links and if the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted L05 standard. Based on these criteria, this project does not create any significant and adverse impacts to the area 7 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 154 of 205 Meridian Village MPUD Rezone —April 2010 roadway network. Table 6 illustrates the LOS impacts of the project on the roadway network closest to the project. Table 6— Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS) —With and Without the Project in the Year 2015 Table Notes: n /a- -Estey Avenue is not a CIE roadway, so the capacity of Shadowlawn Dr is used (nearby similar roadway) to establish a capacity and traffic counts are not monitored by CC Transportation. The intersection of Airport - Pulling Road and Estey Avenue was previously analyzed and determined to operate at an acceptable Level of Service. Empirically, the proposed project conditions would provide a similar conclusion. There is an existing PUD commitment to provide an additional eastbound left turn lane on Estey Avenue, which would be honored by the applicant. Turn Lane /Access Analysis There is an existing right in /right out access to the project off of Airport - Pulling Road, which would be proposed to remain. Airport - Pulling Road is an urban section and has a posted speed of 45 mph. Based on FDOT Index 301, the minimum turn lane length is 185 ft (which includes a 50 ft taper) plus required queue. The existing turn lane was constructed by Collier County in the early 1990's and was built in accordance with the Collier County criteria in place at that time (taper length of 180 ft and deceleration /queue lane length of 180 ft, for a 10 2015 2015 % Min LOS Min LOS Cc peak Dir, Peak Dir, Volume exceeded exceeded Roadway Link AUIR Roadway Link Peak Hr Peak Hr Capacity without with Link Location Capacity Volume Impact Project? Project? ID# Volume w /Project By Yes /No Yes /No pr A ulling 5 North of Project Site 4,100 2,727 a 1.0/8 ; ` No Road ?' to Radio Road South of Project Site 5 to Davis Boulevard 4,100 2,711 0.6% No No Estey Avenuei n/a = West of Project Site 770 n/a 2.Z% n/a n/a n/a East of Project Site to 770 n/a 3.2590 n/a n/a Airport - Pulling Road Table Notes: n /a- -Estey Avenue is not a CIE roadway, so the capacity of Shadowlawn Dr is used (nearby similar roadway) to establish a capacity and traffic counts are not monitored by CC Transportation. The intersection of Airport - Pulling Road and Estey Avenue was previously analyzed and determined to operate at an acceptable Level of Service. Empirically, the proposed project conditions would provide a similar conclusion. There is an existing PUD commitment to provide an additional eastbound left turn lane on Estey Avenue, which would be honored by the applicant. Turn Lane /Access Analysis There is an existing right in /right out access to the project off of Airport - Pulling Road, which would be proposed to remain. Airport - Pulling Road is an urban section and has a posted speed of 45 mph. Based on FDOT Index 301, the minimum turn lane length is 185 ft (which includes a 50 ft taper) plus required queue. The existing turn lane was constructed by Collier County in the early 1990's and was built in accordance with the Collier County criteria in place at that time (taper length of 180 ft and deceleration /queue lane length of 180 ft, for a 10 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 155 of 205 Meridian Village MPUD Rezone —April 2010 .total length of 360 ft). The turn lane should be adequate to serve the proposed - -- - project conditions and exceeds minimum requirements. The existing connection is more than 660 ft from the Estey Avenue intersection, which is in compliance with access management connection spacing criteria. There is no existing access to the project off of Estey Avenue. A detailed evaluation will be performed at the time of site development permitting and applicable length determinations /adjustments will be made to accommodate the queue requirements, as they are warranted. Improvement Analysis The project impacts to the Collier County roadway network are not significant and are not adverse. Based on the link analysis and trip distribution, the proposed project is not a significant and adverse traffic generator to this location. Based on this analysis, no additional site or offsite improvements are necessitated. Mitigation of Impact The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project. There is an existing PUD commitment to provide an additional eastbound left turn lane on Estey Avenue, which would be honored by the applicant. 11 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 156 of 205 Meridian Village MPUD Rezone —April 2010 Appendix A: Project Site Location Map ,(1 Sheet 12 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 157 of 205 Appendix A: Project Site Location Map 0 on PI Sheet 1 of 1 N1, .:a • Ltit 4 Ise, vo:: R:nm 5S, Crn,nri Rono B56 Rd u F 1 ?n1. my [V i. e�lv: ni: Iry q S <� 41Inl�6 Naples <4 Airport y r H Pd li kd IJ Rd •� Croton Rd N Rd nI Rd; ro ,' J9n s Ln ' Project Site:. Meridian Village - z MPUD noutlay Ln c�' � I Iln.d -• - n � m � - Tp nine AVF Tb,IRCE f'YE � e 4.. ®yDOVh Blvd Dvau Bird Bd ° Davy BIVd B4 Dnvl.9 BWd tc� @W.5 310 Gtade� 1 50 V 4 ' N p n �d!I *d ' rt .a , v+c ,e v I. as'_, i O ',.n-✓Cr c = r t f L. I b 0206e Google - h1 ap data ©2009 Google �! Sheet 1 of 1 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 158 of 205 Meridian Village MPUD Rezone —April 2010 Appendix B: Project Master Site Plan 1 Sheet) 14 w 0 w n ¢E_ J UfWnU <<I W. >S� G¢Z J oog 220 0 w y F- O g 5 Z 0 � `za Z _z Z O' . Z wa Q O eaw CL ¢O> aluao N ° � o�m ¢ O n F 8 o a as w w 0 0 00 iuLL = =�ZzZ r fY ca G D cn cn W co D 0 z J w CO 6 6 U U z V � Z_o m Wa Z�m ED Zw Lut Z N CO pbo CO ¢o OLL�o >¢w Q�O< Z N i u J Nn (7 � ZSn °Va =pw Yuo w�. w y< U„ e I' � as % J :s W W Q ¢ N W O � Q N n V b � � p O s° �j>W W I w :'- `wo 06 w W t- OJ >JNINOZ N ¢ w ¢ ¢ ¢ w¢ ¢w W OU Z ¢ Z LL W _ V a � 0 11 O N M C N 0 w Z z a � C O r w z r u N n 3JWtl31 N]3N]M1n11 � �y F D W Z O Z w N 6t WW J Q W Q V ¢ p 7 ¢ yWj a UQa yw a m N I- Q Q K J iU K O ¢ 6 U U z V � Z_o m Wa Z�m ED Zw Lut Z N CO pbo CO ¢o OLL�o >¢w Q�O< Z N i u J Nn (7 � ZSn °Va =pw Yuo w�. w y< U„ e I' � as % J :s W W Q ¢ N W O � N = � U z I � � 5 ° 7 z° �j>W W I w :'- `wo 06 L W t- OJ >JNINOZ O ¢G w¢ ¢w W OU Z ¢ Z LL W _ V a � 6 U U z V � Z_o m Wa Z�m ED Zw Lut Z N CO pbo CO ¢o OLL�o >¢w Q�O< Z N i u J Nn (7 � ZSn °Va =pw Yuo w�. w y< U„ VIOUD"W o3noadm assn or I i i WWOJ �j>W W I 03AOl Ds n ONb� iJdWj =35 0, 0 L t- OJ >JNINOZ _ — 6 U U z V � Z_o m Wa Z�m ED Zw Lut Z N CO pbo CO ¢o OLL�o >¢w Q�O< Z N i u J Nn (7 � ZSn °Va =pw Yuo w�. w y< U„ VIOUD"W o3noadm assn or 9-0 IDNIN 'Z 3JWtl31 N]3N]M1n11 alr-- I " � 3 I �m J I r, L J i I 6 U U z V � Z_o m Wa Z�m ED Zw Lut Z N CO pbo CO ¢o OLL�o >¢w Q�O< Z N i u J Nn (7 � ZSn °Va =pw Yuo w�. w y< U„ Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 160 of 205 Meridian Village MPUD Rezone —April 2O1O Appendix C: Project Trip Distribution Maps Percentage and AM /PM Peak Hour j2 Sheets 16 z an R Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Project Traffic Distributions (by percentages): Page 161 of 205 FQ =Anti hL 0 20% Op Davk, 81,-d E4 Do, Blvd 64 R. BW 8d Dsvis Blvd V1. 111Ctl All 30% 111.1.1, 61W 1, 1c,d - t, l'a &,d 4- rt Naples 1. P,,,t Rd ,•r..,. Goggle {:Map data ©2009 Goggle Municipal Aapoo N R J h Rd RIId R1 Project: Meridian L,c C, , D, Village MPUD e'a 9. Al. FQ =Anti hL Sheet 1 of 1 20% Davk, 81,-d E4 Do, Blvd 64 R. BW 8d Dsvis Blvd V1. 111Ctl All 30% 111.1.1, 61W 1, 1c,d - t, l'a &,d 1.01 1. P,,,t Rd ,•r..,. Goggle {:Map data ©2009 Goggle Sheet 1 of 1 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Rock Creek, aka Meridian Village MPUD Trip Distributions--AM/PM Pa�� 1 of 205 1 Hour C4 ZONING TTRVC 27 PM 29 AM 1 Project Site-- :6 Tracts A & B ZONING: ZONING ITRVC "i-, (Qr�C-4 112 AM; 41 'IPM 16 112 AM: 11 PM I "e end: _Erqj_edAM_Ef_APeak —vehiLqle Per Hour Volume (vpph Entering or Exiting Sheet 1 of 1 I 20NINC; RNAF-6 II ZONING: C-4 i ZONING: ZONING: 17 AK 16:PM1 C _4 Lj 16 112 AM: 11 PM I "e end: _Erqj_edAM_Ef_APeak —vehiLqle Per Hour Volume (vpph Entering or Exiting Sheet 1 of 1 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 163 of 205 Meridian Village MPUD Rezone —April 2O1O Appendix D: ITE Land Use Code Descriptions (7 Sheets) 19 Appendix D• ITE Land Use Descriptions Land Use: 230 Residential Condominium /Townhouse Description Agenda Item July Page 16 Residential condominiums/townhouses are defined as ownership units that have at least one other owned unit within the same building structure. Both condominiums and townhouses are included in this land use. The studies in this land use did not identify whether the condominiums/townhouses were low -rise or high -rise. Low -rise residential condominium /townhouse (Land Use 231), high -rise residential condominiumftownhouse (Land Use 232) and luxury condominium /townhouse (Land Use 233) are related land uses. Additional Data The number of vehicles and the number of residents had a high correlation with average weekday vehicle trip ends. The use of these variables was fimiled, however. because the number of vehicles and residents was often difficult to obtain or predict. The number of dwelling units was generally used as the independent variable of choice because it is usually readily available. easy to project and had a high correlation with average weekday vehicle trip ends. The peak hour of the generator typically coincided with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic The sites were surveyed from the mid -1970s to the 2000s throughout the United States and Canada. Source Numbers a. 92. 94, 95.97, 100. 105, 106, 114, 168, 186, 204, 237, 253, 293, 319, 320. 32t, 390. a12, at8. 561, 562, 583 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 366 Institute of Transportation Engineers 1 of 7 Appendix D: ITE Land Use Descriptions Land Use: 254 Assisted Living Description Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 165 of 205 Assisted living complexes are residential settings that provide either routine general protective oversight or assistance with activities necessary for independent living to mentally or physically limited persons They commonly have separale living quaver; for residents and services include 1 dining, housekeeping, social and physic.,al activilies, medication administration and lra Ispnrtalion. Alzheimer's and AL.S care are commonly offered try these facilities. (hough the living quarters for these patients may be located separately from the other residents Assisted care commonly bridges the ga(i between independent living and nursing homes. In some areas of life country. assisted living residences may be called personal rare, residential care, or domiciliary care. Staff may be available at an assisted care. facility 24 hours a day, but skilled medical care —which is hmrted in nature - -is not required Continuing care retirement community (Land Use 255) and nursing dome (Land Use 620) are related uses Additional Data The rooms in these facilities may be private or shared acrom rind at ions. consisting of either a single room or a small apartment -siyle unit with a kitchenette and living space. One study reported that according to national and local c ia. less than 5 percent of the residents owned cars. which were rarely driven. Employees. visitors and delivery trucks make most of the trips to these facilities. Truck traffic was captured for some studies in this and use and is presented in the table below. Although truck traffic was very low overall, the moll [rips occurred during the mid -day period on a weekday The peak hour of the generator typically did not coincide with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. primarily Because cit the shifts of the employees. For the data collecled in this land use_ shifts typically began at 7:00 a.m.. 3'.00 p.[n. and 11.00 p.rn. The a.m. peak hour of the generator typically occurred from 6:00 a.rn - 7.00 a_m_ while the p.m_ peak hour of the generator typically occurred from 00 p.m. -- 4:00 p.m. Time Period %Trucks Weekday Mof ninq 1 -- -(G_30 a_m_ -9.30 a.m.; I --__.. VJCekday Mid -Gav _ (11:uJ a.n'L -1.30 p. m.Z_..._.._. 1Ner:kd:ry Fvenin, _ - (2 �5 .m. -6.a> t n•� Saturday Mid-Day 111 On In _ :00 1, i u �._. _ Sn1rc +. v _E1171 �q ._) Sundav Min R� tr' iY L dP,nif13 Q f3 r)0 P rn @n4 L nl l Trip Gener'atGOrl. 7th Edition 477 Institute of Transportation Engineers 2of7 Agenda Item No, 17D July 27, 2010 Appendix D: ITE Land Use Descriptions Page 166 of 205 The sites were surveyed in the late 1980s, the late 19905 and 2000s in Connecticut. New Jersey. New York and Pennsylvania - -- Source Numbers 91, 244, 573, 581 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 473 Institute of Transportation Engineers 3 of 7 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Appendix D• ITE Land Use Descri rations Page 167 of 205 Land Use: 441 Live Theater Description Live theaters are situated in buildings or open air settings and include a stage, backstage area, dressing rooms, seats for the audience and a lobby area. Additional Data The site was surveyed in 1979 in suburban New York City. Source Number 193 4 of 7 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 759 Institute of Transportation Engineers Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Appendix D: ITE Land Use Descriptions Page 168 of 205 Land Use: 560 Church Description A church is a building in which public worship services are held. A church houses an assembly hall or sanctuary; it may also house meeting rooms, classrooms and occasionally dining, catering, or party facilities. Synagogue (Land Use 561) is a related use. Additional Data Worship services are typically held on Sundays. Some of the surveyed churches offered day care or extended care programs during the week. Peak hours of the generator — The weekday a.m. peak hour varied between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. The weekday p.m. peak hour varied between 7:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. The Saturday peak hour varied between 5:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. The Sunday peak hour varied between 9:00 a.m. and 1:00 P.M. The sites were surveyed from the late 1970s to the 2000s throughout the United States. Source Numbers 90, 120, 169, 170, 423, 428, 436, 554, 571, 583 5of7 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1002 Institute of Transportation Engineers Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Appendix D: [TE Land Use Descriptions Page 169 of 205 Land Use: 590 Library Description A library can be either a public or private facility that consists of shelved books, reading rooms or areas and sometimes meeting rooms. Additional Data The sites were surveyed from the late 1960s to the 1990s in California, Florida, New Jersey and Oregon. Source Plumbers 10, 12, 88, 113, 275, 407, 415, 444 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1070 Institute of Transportation Engineers 6 of 7 1'. Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Appendix D: ITE Land Use Descriptions Page 170 of 205 Land Use: 591 Lodge /Fraternal Organization Description A lodge or fraternal organization typically includes a clubhouse with dining and drinking facilities, recreational and entertainment areas and meeting rooms. Additional Data Peak hours of the generator — The weekday a.m. peak hour was between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. The weekday p.m. peak hour was between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. The Saturday peak hour was between 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. The Sunday peak hour was between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. This site was surveyed in 1977 at a lodge in California with 3,200 members, 20 employees and 246 parking spaces. On -site facilities included a clubhouse with three dining rooms and two bars, tennis and handball courts, bowling lanes, a billiard room, swimming pool, exercise room `1 and steam room. Source Number 113 Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1089 Institute of Transportation Engineers 7 of 7 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 171 of 205 Meridian Village MPUD Rezone —April 2010 Appendix E: Trip Generation Calculations 7 Sheets) 27 Appendix E: Trip Rock Creek (fka Meridian Village) Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 120 Dwelling Units of Residential September 13, 2009 Generation Calculations Condominium / Townhouse Average Standard Adjustment Driveway Rate Deviation Factor Volume Avg. Weekday 2 -Way Volume 6.28 0.00 1.00 754 7 -9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.08 0.00 1.00 10 7 -9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.41 0.00 1.00 50 7 -9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.50 0.00 1.00 60 4 -6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.39 0.00 1.00 47 4 -6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.19 0.00 1.00 23 4 -6 PM Peak Hour Total 0.58 0.00 1.00 70 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.09 0.00 1 -00 11 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.40 0.00 1.00 48 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 0.49 0.00 1.00 59 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.41 0.00 1.00 49 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.23 0.00 1.00 28 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 0.64 0.00 1.00 77 Saturday 2 -Way Volume 7.19 0.00 1.00 862 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.35 0.00 1.00 42 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.30 0.00 1.00 36 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.65 0.00 1.00 77 Sunday 2 -Way Volume 6.11 0.00 1.00 733 Sunday Peak Hour Enter 0.32 0.00 1.00 38 Sunday Peak Hour Exit 0.33 0.00 1.00 40 Sunday Peak Hour Total 0.65 0.00 1.00 78 Note: A zero indicates no data available. The above rates were calculated from these equations: 24 -Hr. 2 -Way Volume: 7 -9 AM Peak Hr. Total: 4 -6 PM Peak Hr- Total: AM Gen Pk Hr. Total: PM Gen Pk Hr. Total: SdL. C -W.y VUl UIIIC: Sat. Pk Hr. Total: Sun. 2 -Way Volume: Sun. Pk Hr. Total: LN(T) = .87LN(X) + 2.46, R ^2 = 0.8 LN(T) _ .8LN(X) + .26 P. ^2 = 0.76 , 0.17 Enter, 0.83 Exit LN(T) = .82LN(X) + .32 R ^2 = 0.8 , 0.67 Enter, 0.33 Exit LN(T) = .82LN(X) + .15 R ^2 = 0.8 0.19 Enter, 0.81 Exit T = .34(X) + 35.87 R ^2 = 0.82 , 0.64 Enter, 0.36 Exit 1 - 3.62IX) + 427.9", R-2 = V V: T = .29(X) + 42.63 R ^2 = 0.84 , 0.54 Enter, 0.46 Exit T = 3.13(X) + 357.26, R ^2 = 0.88 T = .23(X) + 50.01 R ^2 = 0.78 , 0.49 Enter, 0.51 Exit Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS 1 of 7 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 172 of 205 Appendix E: Trip Generation Calculations Rock Creek (fka Meridian Village) Summary of Trip Generation Calculaticn For 230 Occupied Beds of Assisted Living „ September 13, 2009 TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS 2 of 7 Agenda Item No, 17D July 27, 2010 Page 173 of 205 Average Rate Standard Deviation Adjustment Factor Driveway Volume Avg. Weekday 2 -Way Volume 2.74 1."5 1.00 630 7 -9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.12 0.00 1.00 28 7 -9 AM Peak Hour. Exit 0.05 0.00 1.00 i2 7 -9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.17 0.00 1.0039 4 -6 PM Peek Hour Enter 0.15 0.00 1.00 35 4 -6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.14 0.00 1.00 32 4 -6 PI1 Peak Hour Total 0.29 0.00 1.00 67 AM Pk. Hr, Generator, Enter 0.19 0.00 1.00 44 AM Pk Hr, Generator, Ex i.t 0.06 0.00 1.00 14 AM Pk Fir, Generator, Total 0.25 0.00 1.D0 58 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter 0.7.4 0.00 1.00 32 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit 0.24 0.00 1.00 55 PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total 0.38 0.67, 1.00 67 Saturday 2 -way Volume 2.20 1.57 1.00 5C6 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.18 0.00 1.00 41 Saturday Peak Hour. Exit 0.18 0.00 7..00 41 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.36 0.60 1.00 83 Sunday 2 -Way Volume 2.44 165 1.00 561 .Sunday Peak Hour Enter 0.19 0.00 1.00 44 Sunday Peak Hour Exit 0.23 0.00 1.00 53 Sunday Peak Hour Total 0.42 0.65 1.00 97 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS 2 of 7 Agenda Item No, 17D July 27, 2010 Page 173 of 205 Agenda Item No. 17D Appendix E• Trip Generation Calculations �vi1 27, 2010 _per -p Page 174 of 205 Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 480 Occupied Beds of Assisted Living April 13, 2010 - ---- Average Rate Standard Deviation Adjustment Factor Driveway Volume Avg. Weekday 2 -Way Volume 2.74 1.75 1.00 1315 7 -9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.12 0.00 1.00 58 7 -9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.05 0.00 1.00 24 7 -9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.17 0.00 1.00 82 4 -6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.15 0.00 1..00 72 4 -6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.14 0.00 1.00 67 4 -6 PM Peak Hour Total 0.29 0.00 1.D0 139 Saturday 2 -Way volume 2.20 1.57 1.00 1056 Saturday Peak Hour Enter O.1B 0.00 1.00 86 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.18 0.00 1.00 86 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.36 0.60 1.00 173 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2C08. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS 3 of 7 Appendix E: Trip Generation Calculations Rock Creek MPUD Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 3000 Seats of Live Theatre April 13, 2010 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27. 2010 Page 175 of 205 Average Standard Adjustment Driveway Rate Deviation Factor Volume Avg. weekday 2 -way volume 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 7 -9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 7 -9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 7 -9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 9 -6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.01 0.00 1.00 30 9 -6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.01 0.00 1.00 30 9 -6 PM Peak Hour Total 0.02 0.00 1.00 60 Saturday 2 -Way volume 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS 4 of 7 Appendix E: Trip Generation Calculations Rock Creek MPUD Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 2300 Members of Lodge / Fraternal Organization April 13, 2.010 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, Sth Edition, 2008. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRA.NS 5 of 7 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 176 of 205 Average Standard Adjustment Driveway Pate Deviation Factor Volume Avg. Weekday 2 -way Volume 0.29 0.00 1.00 667 7 -9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 7 -9 AM Peak. Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 7 -9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.01 0.00 1.00 23 4 -6 PM Peak Hour. Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 4 -6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 4 -6 PM Peak Hour Total 0.03 0.00 1.00 69 Saturday 2 -Way Volume 0.18 0.00 1.00 414 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.02 0.00 1.00 46 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, Sth Edition, 2008. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRA.NS 5 of 7 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 176 of 205 Appendix E• Trip Generation Calculations Rock Creek MPOD Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 9 Th.Sq.Ft. GFA of Library April 13, 2010 Note: A zero indicates no data available. The above rates were calculated from these equations: 24 -Hr. 2 -Way Volume: LN(T) = .69LN(X) + 5.05, R ^2 = 0.81 7 -9 AM Peak Hr. Total: T = 1.32(X) + -5.84 P. ^2 = 0.93 , 0.71 Enter, 0.29 Exit 4 -6 PM Peak Hr. Total: LN(T) = .91LN(X) + 2.22 R ^2 = 0.68 , 0.48 Enter, 0.52 Exit AM Gen Pk Hr. Total: LN(T) = .62LN(X) A- 2.69 R ^2 = 0.73 , 0.49 Enter, 0.51 Exit PM Gen Pk Hr. Total: LN(T) _ .71LN(X) - 2.9 R ^2 = 0.79 0 -52 Enter, 0.48 Exit Sat. 2 -way Volume: 0, R ^2 = 0 .Sat. Pk Hr. Total: 0 R ^2 = 0 0 Enter, 0 Exit Sun. 2 -Way Volume: 0, R ^2 = 0 Sun. Pk Hr. Total: 0 R^2 = n n Enter, Source: institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008. TP.TP GENERATION By MICROTRANS 6 of 7 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 177 of 205 Average Rate Standard Deviation Adjustment Factor Driveway Volume Avg. Weekday 2 -way Volume 78.95 0 -00 1.00 711 7 -9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.48 0.00 1.00 4 7 -9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.19 0.00 1.00 2 7 -9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.67 0.00 1.00 6 4 -6 PM Peak Hour Enter 3.63 D.00 1.00 33 4 -6 PM Peak Hour Exit 3.93 0.00 1.. 00 35 4 -6 PM Peak Hour Total 7.56 0.00 1.00 68 Saturday 2 -Way Volume 0 -00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1 -00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Note: A zero indicates no data available. The above rates were calculated from these equations: 24 -Hr. 2 -Way Volume: LN(T) = .69LN(X) + 5.05, R ^2 = 0.81 7 -9 AM Peak Hr. Total: T = 1.32(X) + -5.84 P. ^2 = 0.93 , 0.71 Enter, 0.29 Exit 4 -6 PM Peak Hr. Total: LN(T) = .91LN(X) + 2.22 R ^2 = 0.68 , 0.48 Enter, 0.52 Exit AM Gen Pk Hr. Total: LN(T) = .62LN(X) A- 2.69 R ^2 = 0.73 , 0.49 Enter, 0.51 Exit PM Gen Pk Hr. Total: LN(T) _ .71LN(X) - 2.9 R ^2 = 0.79 0 -52 Enter, 0.48 Exit Sat. 2 -way Volume: 0, R ^2 = 0 .Sat. Pk Hr. Total: 0 R ^2 = 0 0 Enter, 0 Exit Sun. 2 -Way Volume: 0, R ^2 = 0 Sun. Pk Hr. Total: 0 R^2 = n n Enter, Source: institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008. TP.TP GENERATION By MICROTRANS 6 of 7 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 177 of 205 Appendix E• Trip Generation Calculations Rock Creek MPUD Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 1150 Seats of Church April 13, 2010 TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS 7 of 7 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 178 of 205 Average Rate Standard.,. Deviation Adjustment. Factor Driveway Volume Avg. Weekday 2 -way Volume 0.61 0.82 1.00 702 7 -9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 1 -9 AM Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 7 -9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 4 -6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 4 -6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 4 -6 PM Peak Hour Total 0.00 0.00 1.00 0 Saturday 2 -Way Volume 0.90 0.00 1.00 1035 Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.26 0.00 1.00 299 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.34 0.00 1.00 391 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.60 0.79 1.00 690 Note: A zero indicates no data available. Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 8th Edition, 2008. TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS 7 of 7 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 178 of 205 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 179 of 205 Meridian Village MPUD Rezone —April 2010 Appendix F: Methodology Meeting 3 Sheets 35 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 180 of 205 APPENDIX F INITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply. Date: 09-14-2009—Revised 10 -06 -2009: 10 -15 -2009 via emails Time: 9:00 am Location: CC Transportation Services People Attending: Name, Organization, and Telephone Numbers 1) Michael Greene CC Transportation, 252 -8192 2) John Podczerwinsky, CC Transportation, 252 -8192 4) Andrew Rath Davidson Engineering, 434 -6060 5) Norman Trebilcock Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, 566 -9551 Study Preparer: Preparer's Name and Title: Norman Trebilcock Organization: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions Address & Telephone Number: TCS = 6660 Mangrove Way, Naples, FL 34109 Reviewer(s): Reviewer's Name & Title: John Podczerwinsky, Proiect Manager Organization & Telephone Number: Collier Countv Transportation Planning Department, 252 -8192 Applicant: Applicant's Name: Rock Creek Holdings LLC (Michael Metcalf): Agents = Davidson Engineering (Tim Hancock): Roetzel & Andress (Bruce Anderson). A AA..,,,.,.. 0--1, !' -oeU S.7- 1A;- -. T T ("• Sd15 TAPnPT P,aA Q,,4. I N_ a_nl_r_c_ PT. 141 OQ AUDI MJJ. V Telephone Number: Tim Hancock ='434 -6060 Page 1 of 3 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 181 of 205 APPENDIX F Proposed Development: Name: fka Meridian Village, aka Rock Creek Location: NW corner of Airport Road and Estev Avenue Land Use Type: Existing RPUD —CC Ord 06 -28 ITE Code #: 230 — Residential (Existing) and add 254— Assisted Living_ Facility and add 720 Medical - Dental Office Building Proposed number of development units: 120 mf residential (exist Approved) or allow 230 .ALF, or a mix of ALF with up to 20 000 sf medical office Other: Description: Goal is to allow a mix of N4ed Ofc and ALF use on the property as an alternative to the Multi - family residential Zoning Existing: RPUD Comprehensive plan recommendation: Requested: MPUD and allow MF ALF and Medical Office Findings of the Preliminary Study: Study Tvpe: Small Scale if no additional trips, Ofc addition will likely trigger Minor TIS with additional fee. Small Scale TIS ❑ Minor TIS X Major TIS ❑ Study Area: Boundaries: Same as 2005 TIS Additional intersections to be analyzed: None Horizon Year(s): 2015 Analysis Time Period(s): Future Off -Site Developments: Per Existing PUD 06 -28 Allow use of existing access on Airport Road. Source of Trip Generation Rates: ITE LUC Reductions in Trip Generation Rates: None: None proposed Pass -by trips: ITE criteria. as applicable Internal trips (PUD) ITE criteria. as applicable. Transit use: NA Other: NA Page 2 of 3 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 182 of 205 APPENDIX F Horizon Year Roadway Network Improvements: 2015 SLIbstmichird EB lcft two lane witiCiOMC41. 'A"B 11011 ILIM lanc maybe wariaii(cd? Methodoly2y & Assumptionc: Non-site traffic estimate;: CC AUIR 2_009 9 Site -irip ocneralion: IT]',. THr) (–icncraiion Critcrii 1, 1 ;'11) Cl WTI bL1(1(311 method: Consistent wi fli 2005 HS Traffic assignment method. Consistent with 2005 TIS 'Ingfilic growth rake: Special Features: (from preliminary mudy or prior expericnccl Accidents locations: NA SighT distance: NA Qucuin,p: NA .Access location & configuration: Per cxisuing appryyW_pUE? and cvahiiiie retaining existing access off w iLin only and right in/rig X11. _Lr L ji i L Traffic coTin-ol: NA Signal syacm Incation & progreszion iwcd. A On -cite ptirking needs Per CC I DC Data Sources: CC AUIR and CC TransporLation Traffic C'6LMt Data Sarc ir,api: -- Prior study reports: FIS for Meridian Village Rezone —PUDZ 2005-AR 8126 Dated .lily 2005 Access policy and jurisdiction: CC Access Managcmcin—Allow access comicction on Airport Road (CXiS6112. filM Inc). Rcvic\%, process CC TIS Guidelines Rcquijcmcnt.s. NA VA SIGMA FURLS Study prcqli)r�-r/ RU vin„ Uf s Applicant Paq,c 3 of 3 Q 2 W j w O f nanoaawl 3s0 ON antl7 o � L — 3 W -- y r "I", e ,,. . y s�� v �I , O �e a3noadwi esn on w w 7 D:9NIN LL� p o vi e ro � i o I �. o mw 44 J J LL LL 4j J K' o ¢ W w LL' R SSD Ki� d K K K Y R 2 K' U —- i r L- � w - ° >_ N \ ww0 �2 w om= ail Q m O N N n N - y 2 F U d' O O f01 ? o C5 r0 N c f0 2 a « z W O cn < a U ^ z z F � Z z= g � K y G3 L'111L1CN0 3B..l ONlloy N3111 Z¢ vi y O O> y U o Z, 2 s ¢ LLJ 5z i ~ � 0 V ui W I a Z w w � Q y z �,. QU Z'. aow w _2 ZZN� LL Z�izi W j �— ¢ N N W y�'i2d g=OW o�� w W p Z W� I IL Op �x'z 'zz g a p ¢ o � W.�a m�z�f Vr,�2 Q a e� UU N r o u y Agenda C �.J z i G z U a F 0of2 Za O LuW� a zw Zwa =we o °n °e O¢O O OLLmo �Y26 0¢ =of ..0 Q: Q J Nn Or �rx i o U Y -w Wei W u "a Y O m j w f nanoaawl 3s0 ON antl7 o � L — 3 c - D:`JNINJZ -- r "I", e ,,. . s�� v �I , ltlI0a3WW �e a3noadwi esn on D:9NIN 0 J K' o —- i r L- � w - ° >_ N \ zap s I 43 L J a .5 ^ U U. > Z \ 3 ^N3�tl 1S] I1SI1.3 NI ILiM N3dOl3A3C 3�M ll Nb'C N3N A9 F � Z g � K y G3 L'111L1CN0 3B..l ONlloy N3111 i W I L J � z U a F 0of2 Za O LuW� a zw Zwa =we o °n °e O¢O O OLLmo �Y26 0¢ =of ..0 Q: Q J Nn Or �rx i o U Y -w Wei W u "a Y O m From:•Donna M. Cultra [dmcultra @gmail.com] Agenda Item No. 17D Sent:•Monday, May 10, 2010 4:19 PM July 27, 2010 To:•DeselemHay Page 184 of 205 Subject:•Meridian Village MPUD Good Afternoon.... My name is Donna Cultra and I own a residence in Avion Woods at Coconut Creek Preserve. I am sending this email to voice my concern about the zoning for affordable housing in the Meridian Village MPUD. With the housing market being flooded with foreclosures, thus providing an overabundance of "affordable housing ", I do not see the wisdom of including said housing in the zoning at this point. The overall value of homes has decreased dramatically in the last few years and I would not like to see it go any further. I believe that such housing would contribute to that happening. I would think that a public park or assisted living and related projects to it would be much more beneficial and certainly a more appropriate use of this fine piece of property. Please consider removing the affordable housing from this project and feel free to contact me if need be. Thank you, Donna M. Cultra dcultra @cultra.com Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 185 of 205 ORDINANCE NO. 10- AN ORDINANCE 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 THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) ZONING DISTRICT KNOWN AS MERIDIAN VILLAGE RPUD TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS MERIDIAN VILLAGE MPUD TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A MAXIMUM OF 120 MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY FACILITY USES INCLUDING ADULT CARE FACILITIES, CHURCHES AND UP TO 480 BEDS OF ADULT HOUSING INCLUDING ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES, CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY FACILITIES OR INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS. TIIE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE JNTERSECTION OF AIRPORT - PULLING ROAD AND ESTEY AVENUE, IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 FAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 11.68 ACRES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE, NO. 06 -28; PROVIDING FOR TERMI.NATION OF STIPULATION NO. 5 1'0 RESOLUTION NO. 90 -116; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire of Roetzel and Andress, EPA and Tim Hancock, AICP of Davidson Engineering, Inc. representing Rock Creek Holdings, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the subject 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 subject real property located in Section 2, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from the RPUD Zoning District known as Meridian Village RPUD to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district Meridian Village MPUD / PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 Revised 7/01/10 1 of Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 186 of 205 for a project that will be known as the Meridian Village MPUD to allow for development of community facility uses including adult care facilities, churches and up to 480 beds for adult housing which may include assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement community facilities or independent living units or to allow for the site to be developed as a 120 -unit multi- family residential project with affordable housing in accordance with the Meridian Village MPUD attached hereto as Exhibits "A" through "G" and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is /are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Ordinance No. 06 -28, the Meridian Village RPUD is hereby repealed. SECTION THREE: Stipulation No. 5 of Resolution No. 90 -116, which provides "The real estate located on the multi - family project will not be rezoned to commercial or industrial or any other non - residential use ", is hereby terminated. SECTION FOUR: 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 ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK Deputy Clerk Meridian Village MPUD / PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 Revised 7/01 /10 2 of 3 day of 2010. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA By: FRED W. COYLE, Chairman Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 187 of 205 Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Heidi Ashton -Cicko Section Chief, Land Use /Transportation Attachments: Exhibit A — Permitted Uses Exhibit B — Development Standards Exhibit C — Master Concept Plan Exhibit D — Legal Description Exhibit E — Requested Deviations Exhibit F — Development Commitments Exhibit G — Part 77 Controlling Surfaces for Naples Airport CP \09- CPS - 00993 \74 Meridian Village MPUD / PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031 Revised 7/01/10 3 of 3 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 188 of 205 EXHIBIT A PERMITTED USES: TRACT A The Meridian Village MPUD is planned for up to 120 residential traits or limited community facility (CF) uses including but not limited to assisted living facilities (ALF), continuing care retirement communities (CCRC) and independent living units for age 55 plus and senior housing. Community Facility (CF) The maximum size for the ALF and CCRC for age 55 plus and similar facilities shall not exceed a floor to area ratio (FAR) of .60 and 480 beds. For each 4 ALF beds constructed, one residential dwelling unit shall be subtracted from the maximum of 120 permitted residential units identified in the Residential section of this document. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following primary uses: A. Principal Uses 1. Assisted Living Facilities (ALF) as defined in the LDC and pursuant to §429 F.S., Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC) and Independent Living Units (ILU) for age 55 plus pursuant to § 410.502 F.S. and ch. 58A -5 F.A.C; § 651 F.S. All ALF and CCRC uses shall be permitted at a combined maximum F.A.R. of 0.60. Nursing and Personal Care Facilities (8051, 8052) shall be consistent with operational characteristics stated on page 3 of this document. The maximum number of beds proposed is 480. 2. Adult Day Care Centers, (8322) limited to 150 adults requiring care. 3. Family Care Facilities, Group Care Facilities (Category I), as defined in the LDC and Nursing Homes, (8051, 8052) subject to LDC Section 5.05.04, excluding drug and alcohol treatment and rehabilitation facilities. 4. Churches & Places of Worship, (8661) not to exceed 1,150 seats. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following accessory uses to be utilized for the foregoing principal uses: B. Accessory Uses 1. Boat Ramps subject to Section 5.03.06 and the applicable review criteria set forth in Section 5.05.02, limited to provide access for small boats, kayaks and canoes only. No dockage shall be provided. i4 idiariVillage:%IPIID Revised: Ii1ly1, 010 Page 1 (it 17 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 189 of 205 2. Customary accessory uses including, but not limited to, maintenance buildings, private garages, carports, clubhouse, indoor and outdoor recreational facilities and swimming pools with or without screened enclosures, unlighted playfields, playgrounds and similar facilities. 3. Lending Library (Group 8231), incidental to ALF and CCRC uses 4. Personal Services (7231, 7241), Dining, Private Restaurant/Lounge and all customary services incidental to ALF and CCRC uses 5. Guardhouses and Gatehouses C. Operational Characteristics for AFL units including CCRC and Independent Living Units for Persons Over .Age 55: The developer, its successors or assigns, shall provide the following services and/or be subject to the following operational standards: 1. The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older. 2. There shall be on -site dining for the residents. 3. Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for the purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportation services shall be coordinated for the residents' individualized needs including but not limited to medical office visits. 4. There shall be an on -site manager /activities coordinator to assist residents with their individual needs. 5. A wellness center shall be provided on -site. Exercise and other fitness programs shall be provided for the residents. 6. Each unit shall be equipped to notify emergency service providers in the event of a medical or other emergency. 7. Each unit shall be designed so that a resident is able to age -in- place. For example, kitchens may be easily retrofitted to lower the sink to accommodate a wheelchair bound resident or bathrooms may be retrofitted to add grab bars. '4lr(i o, m ViILi; c MPUU Re,.- rscil. July1..70' U Pa -, c 2 o 17 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 190 of 205 - Residential (R) A residential development would be designed to accommodate a full range of residential multi family dwelling types, compatible recreational facilities, essential services and customary accessory uses. Should the site develop with residential units, no CF facilities will be constructed. A. Principal Uses The number of dwelling units proposed to be constructed is 120 units. The gross project density, therefore, will be a maximum of 10.27 units per acre. 1. Townhouse dwellings 2. Multi- family dwellings 3. Essential services 4. Water management facilities and related structures B. Temporary Uses 1. Model units 2. Project information and Sales centers 3. Construction administrative offices for the developer and authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses. 4. Sales and administrative offices for the developer, project management or managing development association, including necessary access ways, parking areas and related uses C. Accessory Uses and Structures 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted in this District, including neighborhood community recreational facilities and property management and maintenance structures intended to serve the residents and guests of the proposed development. 2. Garages and carports. 3. Administration facilities intended to serve the residents and guests of the proposed development. 4. Swimming Pools, Tennis courts and other recreational facilities and buildings. Mci-idiar, Village 11PUD Heci Zed: Julyl. 2010 Page 3 of 17 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 191 of 205 5. Guardhouses and Gatehouses D. Development Standards Unless set forth in this Document, or as noted in Exhibit B (Table II), the following development standards shall apply to principal structures: Setback from back of curb or edge of pavement of any road - twelve (12') feet except for guardhouses, gatehouses, signage, walls, access control structures and landscape features, which shall meet LDC requirements where applicable. 2. Sidewalks and bike paths may occur within County required buffers, however, the width of the required buffer shall be increased proportionately to the width of the paved surface of the sidewalk, bike path or cart path. M"iidiam Rr, i;sd. Jrly i. -010 P;, a of I PERMITTED USES: TRACT B Preservation (P) A. Permitted Uses Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 192 of 205 1. Boardwalks, nature trails, gazebos and boat ramps (limited to provide access for small boats, kayaks and canoes only. No dockage shall be provided) subject to Section 5.03.06 and the applicable review criteria set forth in Section 5.05.02 (elevated and at grade as long as any clearing required to facilitate these does not impact the minimum required vegetation). 2. Native preserves and wildlife sanctuaries. 3. Water management structures. 4. Any other conservation and related open space activity or use which is compatible in nature with the foregoing uses, and which the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) determines to be compatible in the Preserve Area. Where Preserve areas are shown on the Master Concept Plan and the LDC requires landscape buffers, the preserve vegetation may contribute in part or in whole to the landscape buffer when it is demonstrated that the preserve vegetation meets or exceeds the buffer requirements of the LDC. Landscape buffers must remain exotic free while demonstrating sufficiency to achieve minimum buffer standards. P4crin;an Vtlingc N1PUL Revised: Ju1y1.'010 R, S cif :7 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 193 of 205 EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: Table 1 below sets forth the development standards for Community Facilities within the proposed Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD). 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 SDP or Subdivision plat. TABLE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS 'ALF /CCRC /ILU and associated medical uses only excluding parking areas under buildings. Hetised; lul� I, 20 ;0 1'd;;is n of 17 CF MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 Square Feet MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 80 feet MINIMUM FLOOR AREA OF BUILDINGS 1,000 square feet MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO 0.60 PUD PERIMETER REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK FROM AIRPORT - PULLING ROAD 2j Feet MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK (FROM WEST BOUNDARY & SOUTH 50 Feet BOUNDARY EAST AND WEST OF STEEVES AVENUE ONLY) MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS Front: Principal Structure 25 feet Accessory Structure 10 feet Side: Principal Structure 25 feet Accesso Structure 10 feet Rear: Principal Structure 25 feet or'/ of the BH (whichever is greater) Accessory Structure 10 feet Internal Drives 15 feet from edge of drive aisle Minimum Distance Between Structures Y_ of the SBH (but no less than 15 feet) _ MAXIMUM HEIGHT Zoned: Principal Structure: - stories not to exceed 45 feet Accessory Structure: �_ 20 feet LA ctual Principal Structure: 57/75 Feet Accessory Structure: 27 feet PRESERVE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Principal Structures 25 feet Accessory Structures _ I 10 feet 'ALF /CCRC /ILU and associated medical uses only excluding parking areas under buildings. Hetised; lul� I, 20 ;0 1'd;;is n of 17 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 194 of 205 2Actual height for a permitted church steeple if developed shall be 75 feet. BH = Building Height (Zoned Height per the LDC) SBH = Sum of Building Heights Setback from a lake for all principal and accessory uses may be zero feet (0') provided architectural bank treatment is incorporated into the design. Architectural bank treatments shall include any structural materials used to retain earth such as concrete stone or wood placed to LDC requirements. iC113 ❑till Loge MPUD Revised: JuIy1, 2'010 Pa;;e 7 of 17 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 195 of 205 Table II below sets forth the development standards for Multi Family Residential land uses within the proposed Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD). 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 SDP or Subdivision plat. TABLE II RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS BH = Building Height (Zoned Height per the LDC) SBH = Sum of Building Heights V ,I d[,in 4 i!!I'L, h1F'UD i'_e%iscd. ju! 1,LOi0 f'zigN Y, of17 T- TOWNHOUSE MULTI- FAMILY DWELLINGS MINIMUM LOT AREA 3,000 S uare Feet N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 30 Feet N/A MINIMUM FLOOR AREA OF BUILDINGS 1.200 Square Feet 1,000 Square Feet PUD PERIMETER REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK (FROM AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD) J 25 Feet 25 Feet MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK (FROM WEST BOUNDARY & SOUTH 50 Feet 50 Feet BOUNDARY EAST AND WEST OF STEEVES AVENUE ONLY) MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS Front: Principal Structure 20 feet 20 feet Accessory Structure 20 feet 20 feet Side: Principal Structure 0 Feet or/ of the BH /z of the SBH Accessory Structure_ Rear: Principal Structure ] 0 feet 10 feet 10 feet ;! of the BH Accessory Structure 10 feet 10 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures Principal Structure /z of the SBH /z of the SBH Accessory Structure 10 feet _ 10_ feet MAXIMUM HEIGHT Zoned: Principal Structure — 3- stories not to 3- stories not to exceed 45 Feet exceed 45 Feet Accessory Structure 25 Feet 25 Feet Actual: Principal Structure 45 Feet 45 Feet _ Accessory Structure 25 Feet 25 Feet PRESERVE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS Principal Structures 25 Feet 25 Feet Accessory Structures 10 Feet 10 Feet BH = Building Height (Zoned Height per the LDC) SBH = Sum of Building Heights V ,I d[,in 4 i!!I'L, h1F'UD i'_e%iscd. ju! 1,LOi0 f'zigN Y, of17 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 196 of 205 Front yards shall be measured as follows: a. If the parcel is served by a public right -of -way, setback is measured from the adjacent right of way line. Sidewalks shall be located in the right -of -way. b. If the parcel is served by a private road, setback is measured from the back of curb (if curbed) or edge -of- pavement (if not curbed). Setback from a lake for all principal and accessory uses may be zero feet (0') provided architectural bank treatment is incorporated into the design. Architectural bank treatments shall include any structural materials used to retain earth such as concrete stone or wood placed to LDC requirements. Garages and carports shall be 10 feet from principal structures if detached. There will be a minimum of a 23 foot setback from the back of a sidewalk to front load garages. Vl OCIL11,111 Village MMD Rc�.is!'d liilyJ 2010 page 9 of t w n� �00 ¢fir W W J a< J 4 ZZ� 38p op3 ww E'f U N w I� V Z zZr ? K 2E Z �ay Z ZH a �aJ a.,oao 1 !i WO Y LL p N &m ¢ vo i C 0 3 E w Wdd EQaWQ N UUOa; i �T�oo 0 z >>j� o'sfs w m�afs Q N LU N O Z J w F- N Exhibit C Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 197 of 205 a' o se ae ae� I u Y� o �S\ 5b; Cd" 03nOtldWl0 ON N U m u' I Z �5" Z $I S'NIN 9 ¢ ¢ uz—i a? y ¢ K C K¢ a K K a ¢ a a a a ¢ �w � < ` 2 w N H N N H N N ¢ a a E F wo LuLll o r { o o a H Fw Z Z w ww k 0 s .\ ¢ W a f W N Y 0 W �w Z a^_� 2 o CLL W �a v U a¢ W O zg7 F O aZ p a W ¢ a d \ - .�M- apli��n E n a u U U U 5.4 \ 3vt3nv s3�3is ox�asira wiwaim = s a3aon3g3oaovnt�uviaiaaw \,c � z I j y < ¢ ¢ kGo U ¢ 0 H U w N p W o � S j a 0 I o o< Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 197 of 205 / =w / Wow / mn / 2og M ' / rolobawwoo e l z ZO a Z i O a! C- lA0Hdwl :RSn OW 5 U ° 0. O g y3 o / t -J :ONINOZ Z r - -� - I u Y� �N �S\ 5b; Cd" 03nOtldWl0 ON N U m u' I Z �5" Z $I S'NIN 9 ¢ ¢ uz—i a? pp z� U Z v a g WZ O L t; p F -- — (.N �w •" < ` 2 w r� Z W r a a E F wo LuLll r { o d H Fw Z Z Z ww s .\ g W �w Z a^_� 2, o CLL W �a v Ww a¢ zg7 / =w / Wow / mn / 2og M ' / rolobawwoo e l z ZO a Z i O a! C- lA0Hdwl :RSn OW 5 U ° 0. O g y3 o / t -J :ONINOZ Z r - -� - I �S\ 5b; Cd" 03nOtldWl0 ON U m u' I Z �5" X32 $I S'NIN 9 ¢ ¢ uz—i pp - - --- ;�� F -- — s .\ g 2, 7 � a d \ - .�M- apli��n "g€ U U U 5.4 \ 3vt3nv s3�3is ox�asira wiwaim = s a3aon3g3oaovnt�uviaiaaw \,c � z I j I g} ¢ ¢ kGo naaanaisuon as oa aanoavuani LL zjy z I �: z k Ei O p I w 3 o< <Z we W3 ¢n L,J I � Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 198 of 205 EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION: COMMENCING AT THE EAST 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTH 89° 38' 10" WEST 13.00 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF AIRPORT ROAD; THENCE SOUTH 00° 31' 26" EAST 1312.46 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF ESTEY AVENUE AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89° 37' 00" WEST 340.07 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF ESTEY AVENUE; THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT AS RECORDED IN O.R. BOOK 764, PAGE 757, THE FOLLOWING NINE (9) COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1) NORTH 01° 09' 40" WEST 129.40 FEET; 2) NORTH 880 50' 20" EAST 40.00 FEET; 3) NORTH 01 ° 9'40" WEST 50.76 FEET; 4) SOUTH 88° 50'20" WEST 135.00 FEET; 5) NORTH 01° 09'40" WEST 50.76 FEET; 6) NORTH 88° 50' 20" EAST 135.00 FEET; 7) NORTH 01° 09' 40" WEST 203.04 FEET; 8) SOUTH 88° 50'20" WEST 344.12 FEET; 9) NORTH 00° 43' 37" WEST 372.75 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE MEAN HIGH WATER ELEVATION 1.61 (NGVD29): THENCE GENERALLY MEANDERING NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID LINE, 940 FEET MORE OR LESS: THENCE SOUTH 420 06' 50" EAST 46.56 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OFWAY LINE OF AIRPORT PULLING ROAD; THENCE ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 000 31'26" EAST 1147.75 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD CONTAINING 11.68 ACRES MORE OR LESS 1%1ei i,lm.i Vdlaee NPUD R� vis"& July 1, 2.010 Pa"c :1 of 17 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 199 of 205 EXHIBIT E LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC: A deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01.0 which establishes the minimum right -of -way widths to be utilized, to establish that all internal roadways shall be subject to a 50 foot right - of -way configuration. 'Ser1d a . Viliagc MPUD Re•;iied:luly1,2010 P;vgc IZuft7 Agenda item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 200 of 205 EXHIBIT F DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS: AFFORDABLE- WORKFORCE -GAP HOUSING COMMITMENT AND RESTRICTIONS: Fifteen (15 %) percent of the multi - family residential dwelling units (excluding CF uses) ultimately developed within the project, shall be sold by the developer to individuals, or families that earn less than eighty (80 %) percent of the Collier County median fancily income. For the purposes of this MPUD, these specific units shall be described as "affordable- workforce housing units ". Five (5 %) percent of the dwelling units ultimately developed within the project, shall be sold by the developer to individuals or families that earn less than one - hundred fifty (150 %) percent of the Collier County median family income. For the purposes of this MPUD, these specific units shall be described as "affordable -gap housing units ". The median income of the area as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) shall be the then current median income for the Naples Metropolitan Statistical Area, established periodically by HUD and published in the Federal Register, as adjusted for family size, in accordance with any adjustments that are authorized by HUD or any successor agency. In the event that HUD ceases to publish an established median income as aforesaid, the developer and the County shall mutually agree to a reasonable and comparable method of computing adjustments in median income. The following limitations and performance standards shall be adhered to: 1. No affordable- workforce housing until in the development shall be sold by the developer to those whose household income has not been verified and certified to be less than eighty (80 %) percent of the median family income for Collier County. Such verification and certification shall be the responsibility of the developer and shall be submitted to the County Manager, or his designee for approval. 2. No affordable -gap housing unit in the development shall be sold by the developer to those whose household income has not been verified and certified to be less than one - hundred fifty (150 %) percent of the median family income for Collier County. Such verification and certification shall be the responsibility of the developer and shall be submitted to the County Manager, or his designee for approval. 3. No affordable - workforce housing unit or affordable -gap housing unit is to be sold, shall be sold, or otherwise conveyed to a buyer whose household income has not been verified and certified in accordance with this MPUD Document. It is the intent of this MPUD to keep affordable housing as such; therefore, any person who buys from the developer an affordable - workforce housing unit or an affordable -gap housing unit must agree, in a lien instrument to be recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, Florida, that if the affordable - workforce or affordable -gap housing unit is sold, (including the land and/or the unit) within 15 years after its original purchase price that he /she will pay to the County an amount equal to one -half of the sales price in excess of five percent increase per year. Such payment shall be maintained in a segregated fund, established by the County solely for affordable housing purposes and such money shall be used to encourage, provide for, or j!!u'idcra b'illd, � i.iPliD Rc�!rs!J. ;ulyt.20]0 Pa�r C' of 17 Agenda Item No, 17D July 27, 2010 Page 201 of 205 promote affordable housing in Collier County. The lien instrument may be subordinated to a qualifying first mortgage. 4. No affordable- workforce housing unit or affordable -gap housing unit in any building or structure in the development shall be occupied by the developer, any person related to or affiliated with the developer, or resident manager, 5. When the developer advertises, sells, or maintains the affordable - workforce housing unit or the affordable -gap housing unit, it must advertise, sell and maintain the same in a nondiscriminatory manner and make available any relevant information to any person who is interested in purchasing such affordabl e-work face housing unit or affordable -gap housing unit. The developer agrees to be responsible for payment of any real estate commission and fees for the initial sale from the developer to the buyer. 6. The developer shall submit a yearly report to the County indicating the status of the affordable - workforce and affordable -gap housing units. 7. This Affordable- Workforce -Gap Housing commitment will allow Collier County Growth Management Division permitting to be completed on an expedited basis as provided by the appropriate Collier County ordinances and resolutions. 8. The dwelling units to be offered for sale to persons meeting the affordable workforce and affordable gap housing guidelines set forth herein shall be offered for sale to such qualified persons and to Collier County or its designee beginning with the date of issuance of the building permit for each building containing said dwelling units, and continuing for six (6) months after the Certificate of Occupancy for each building containing said dwelling units is issued, after which time any unsold unit may be sold at market rates. Four (4) months after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for a building containing affordable or gap housing, the County Manager or his designee shall be notified in writing by the owner that units remain available for purchase by Collier County. ENVIRONMENTAL Preserve Area Calculation: 8.33 acres (existing vegetation) x 25% = 2.08 acres to be preserved. TRANSPORTATION: 1. Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy, and if warrants dictate, the developer shall construct an additional eastbound left turn lane on Estey Avenue at its intersection with Airport Road. The length of the turn lane is to be determined by Collier County Transportation Staff up to a maximum distance that can be accommodated along the developer's frontage. The length will further be determined given consideration to the project's access location and normal transportation engineering practices. 2. Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy, the developer shall construct a turnaround within the existing Steeves Avenue Right -of -Way as depicted on the MPUD Master Plan. 0.Sc- idSia'1:I.acc tiiYUD Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 202 of 205 3. The developer shall be allowed to use the existing curb cut on Airport Road during the construction of Meridian Village MPUD. Once construction of the development is completed, the developer shall convert the existing curb cut into a traffic controlled right in- right out access point. 4. The maximum trip generation allowed by the proposed uses (both primary and ancillary) may not exceed the summarized PM Peak Hour, two way trips as shown below: a. For a maximum of 120 multi- family residential units (LUC 230), 70 PM Peak Hour, two way trips. b. For a maximum of 480 units of group housing (LUC 254), 143 PM Peak Hour, two way trips. c. For a maximum of 150 Adult day care (LUC 565), 114 PM Peak Hour, two way trips. d. For a maximum 1,150 seat Church (LUC 560), approximately 70 PM Peak Hour two way trips (10% daily traffic). 5. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks, and interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer. Collier County shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. 6. Relative to permitted CF uses, for services and other periods and events of significant traffic generation as determined by Collier County Staff, the property owner shall provide traffic control by law enforcement or a law enforcement approved service provider as directed by Collier County staff, with staffing and locations(s) as directed by the Collier County Manager or his designee. PROXIMITY OF PROPERTY TO NAPLES AIRPORT: The developer shall provide the following to the Naples Airport Authority: 1. An executed Aviation Easement and Release (first five pages), once the MPUD has been approved by the Board of County Commissioners, 2. A statement within the Project's Condominium or Association Documents that states the following: "The Naples Municipal Airport is located less than one mile to the Northwest of the Condominium, in close proximity to the community. Purchaser's can expect all the usual and common noises and disturbances created by, and incident to, the operation of the Airport". Purchasers shall acknowledge they have read the Condominium or Association Documents by signing a letter, which the developer shall send to the Naples Airport Authority. The Condominium or Homeowner's Association shall not have the right to remove this clause at any time from their documents. 3. Future SDP applications shall be forwarded to the Naples Airport Authority for review. 4. No Structures shall be placed inside the Runway Protection Zone, as labeled on the MPUD Master Plan. M< v.;LzE,e M11111; R- ;viscd�Juh- 1.2010 11 ;;e7Sof i7 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2,010 Page 203 of 205 5. Building Heights will comply with the Part 77 Controlling Surfaces for Naples Airport as shown on Exhibit G. LANDSCAPING: The landscape buffer on the west property line and the south property line that extends east and west of Steeves Avenue shall contain trees with a minimum height of 12 feet spaced no more than 25 feet on center. Existing trees that can be saved within the buffer shall remain if practicable and be counted as buffer trees as allowed in the LDC. Hedges in the enhanced buffer shall be a minimum of ten gallon plants five feet in height, three feet in spread and spaced a maximum four feet on center at planting. %iFUD 1,010 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 204 of 205 EXHIBIT G PART 77 CONTROLLING SURFACES FOR NAPLES AIRPORT: IKrIJK I _ LCORPOR� PR PECT AV ESTIMATED BUILDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS DOCUMENT ARE BASED ON FAR PART 77 (7:1 TRANSITIONAL SUR- FACE) AND FAA TVOR SLOPE ANGLE RE. j! OUECIFIC TILDING SITE TI AND ` SPECIFIC PERFORM HEIGHT CALCULATIONS ®' MUST BE PERFORMED R THE DESIGN PHASE, CERTIFIED BY A P.E. IN ACCORDANCE WITH _ APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AVIATION REGULA. -- TIONS, AND MUST PE APPROVED BY THE NAA PRIOR TO DESIGN COMPLETION RADIO RD (C. R. 8 I F LO AINE AV, WESTVIEW DR- �— GAIL BLVD EARL CREEK )R RD IL;Q ESTEY AV !I STH 1f, all ZEL M- �1 �'OINSE !A A LH!BISC 5 ST ONNECTICUT AV Meridian Village MPUD Revised: July], 2010 AV a LOTUS j� .e Of GUAVA�DR� rev DAVIS BL CIR. EXTENSION C, - - - - - -- it i Page 17 of 17 Agenda Item No. 17D July 27, 2010 Page 205 of 205 20D • Sunday, July 11, 2010 • Naples Daily News NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that on TUESDAY, July 27, 2010, in the Boardroom, 3rd Floor, Administration Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 East Ta- miami Trail, Naples, Florida, the Board of County Commissioners will consider the enactment of a County Ordinance. The meeting will commence at 9:00 A.M, The title of the proposed Ordinance is as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004 -41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHEN- SIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUN- TY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS; BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPER- TY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD)ZONING DIS- TRICT KNOWN AS MERIDIAN VILLAGE RPUD TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DE- VELOPMENT (MPUD)ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS MERIDI- AN VILLAGE MPUD TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A MAXIMUM OF 120 MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR TO AL- LOW DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY FACILITY USES INCLUDING ADULT CARE FA- CILITIES, CHURCHES AND UP TO 480 BEDS OF ADULT HOUSING INCLUDING ASSIST- ED LIVING FACILITIES, CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY FACILITIES OR INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF AIRPORT- PULLING ROAD AND ESTEY AVENUE, IN SECTION 2, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 11.68 ACRES; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NO. 06 -28; PROVIDING FOR TERMINATION OF STIPULATION NO. 5 TO RESOLUTION NO. 90 -116; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Petition: PUDZ- A- PL2009 -2031, Rock Creek Holdings, LLC, represented by R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire of Roetzel and Andress, LPA and Tim Hancock, AICP of Davidson Engineering, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Residential Planned Unit Devel- opment (RPUD) zoning district for a project that is currently known as the Meridian Village RPUD, to the Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district for a project that will be known as the Meridian Village MPUD to allow for devel- opment of community facility uses including adult care centers, churches and up to 480 beds for assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement community facili- ties and /or independent living units or to allow for the site to be developed as a 110 unit multi - family residential project inducing 15% of the total dwelling units as affordable workforce housing units and S% of the total dwelling units as afford- able gap housing units. The 11.68 +/- acre subject property is located at the north- western corner of the intersection of Airport - Pulling Road and Estey Avenue in Sec- tion 2, Township 50 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 inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard. NOTE: 'All persons wishing to speak on any agenda item must register with the Count administrator prior to presentation of the agenda item to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 3 minutes on any item. The selection of an in- dividual to speak on behalf of an organization or group is encouraged. If recog- nized by the tahairman, 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 most submit said material a minimum of 3 weeks prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum of seven days prior Lo the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the Board will become a permanent part of the record. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board will need a record of the P pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim 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 Facilities Management Depart- ment, located at 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Building W, Naples, Florida 34112, (239)252 -8380; Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the County Commissioners' Office. - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA FRED COYLE, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By: Martha Vergara, Deputy Clerk (SEAL)